Chapter 10

The symbols of atoning graceAn office key, a pick-lock to a place,

must remain

A blot that will be still a blot, in spiteOf all that grave apologists may write;And though a bishop toil to cleanse the stain,He wipes and scours the silver cup in vain.

This Act, thus originated, which lingered in the Statute Book till the reign of George IV., which even thoroughly religious men could be so blinded by their prejudices as to defend, and which even such friends of toleration as Lord Mansfield could declare to be a 'bulwark of the Constitution,'[389]put occasional conformity into a very different position from that which it would naturally take. Henceforth no Dissenter could communicatein the parish churches of his country without incurring some risk of an imputation which is especially revolting to all feelings alike of honour and religion. He might have it cast in his teeth that he was either committing or countenancing the sacrilegious hypocrisy, the base and shuffling trick, of communicating only to qualify for office.

It is needless here to enter into the details of the excited and discreditable agitation by which the custom of occasional conformity was at length, for a time, defeated. The contest may be said to have begun in 1697, when Sir Humphrey Edwin, upon his election as Lord Mayor, after duly receiving the Sacrament according to the use of the Church of England, proceeded in state to the Congregational Chapel at Pinner's Hall.[390]Exactly the same thing recurred in 1701, in the case of Sir T. Abney.[391]The practice thus publicly illustrated was passionately opposed both by strict Dissenters and by strict Churchmen. De Foe, as a representative of the former, inveighed against it with great bitterness, as perfectly scandalous, and altogether unjustifiable.[392]The High Church party, on their side, reprobated it with no less severity. A bill to prevent the practice was at once prepared. In spite of the strength of the Tory and High Church reaction, the Whig party in the House of Lords, vigorously supported by the Liberal Bishops, just succeeded in throwing it out. A conference was held between the two houses, 'the most crowded that ever had been known—so much weight was laid on this matter on both sides,'[393]with a similar result. The Commons made other endeavours to carry the Act in a modified form, and with milder penalties; a somewhat unscrupulous minority made an attempt to tack it to a money bill, and so effect their purpose by a manoeuvre. The Sacheverell episode fanned the strange excitement that prevailed. A large body of the country gentry and country clergy imagined that the destinies of the Church hung in the balance. The populace caught the infection, without any clear understanding what they were clamouring for. The Court, until it began to be alarmed, used all its influence in support of the proposed bill. Everywhere, but especially in coffee-houses and taverns,[394]a loud cry was raised against the Whigs, and most of all against the Whig Bishops, for their steady opposition to it. At last, when all chance of carrying the measure seemed to be lost, it was suddenly made law through what appears to havebeen a most discreditable compromise between a section of the Whigs and the Earl of Nottingham. Great was the dismay of some, great the triumph of others. It was 'a disgraceful bargain,' said Calamy.[395]To many, Nottingham was eminently a 'patriot and a lover of the Church.'[396]Addison makes Sir Roger 'launch out into the praise of the late Act of Parliament for securing the Church of England. He told me with great satisfaction, that he believed it already began to take effect, for that a rigid Dissenter, who chanced to dine at his house on Christmas-day, had been observed to eat very plentifully of his plum-porridge.'[397]The Act which received the worthy knight's characteristic panegyric was repealed seven years afterwards.

Nothing could well be more alien—it may be rather said, more repugnant—to the general tenor of present thought and feeling than this controversy of a past generation. Its importance, as a question of the day, mainly hinged upon the Test Act; and there is no fear of history so repeating itself as to witness ever again the operation of a law consigned, however tardily, to such well-merited opprobrium. Unquestionably, when Dissenters received the Sacrament in the parish churches, the motive was in most cases a secular one. 'It is manifest,' says Hoadly, 'that there is hardly any occasional communicant who ever comes near the Church but precisely at that time when the whole parish knows he must come to qualify himself for some office.'[398]This was a great scandal to religion; but it was one the guilt of which, in many, if not in most cases, entirely devolved upon the authors and promoters of the test. As the writer just quoted has elsewhere remarked, a man might with perfect integrity do for the sake of an office what he had always held to be lawful, and what some men whom he much respected considered to be even a duty. It was a very scandalous thing for a person who lived in constant neglect of his religious duties to come merely to qualify. But plainly this was a sin which a Conformist was quite as likely to commit as a Nonconformist.[399]

The imposition of a test on all accounts so ill-advised and odious in principle was the more unfortunate, because, apart from it, occasional conformity, though it would never have attracted any considerable attention, might have been really important in its consequences. Considered in itself, without any reference to external and artificial motives, it had begun to take a strong hold upon the minds of many of the most exemplary and eminent Nonconformists. When the projects of comprehensionfailed, on which the moderates in Church and Dissent had set their heart, the Presbyterian leaders, and some of the Congregationalists, turned their thoughts to occasional conformity as to a kind of substitute for that closer union with the National Church which they had reluctantly given up. It was 'a healing custom,' as Baxter had once called it. There were many quiet, religious people, members of Nonconformist bodies, who, as an expression of charity and Christian fellowship, and because they did not like to feel themselves entirely severed from the unity of the National Church, made a point of sometimes receiving the Communion from their parish clergyman, and who 'utterly disliked the design of the Conformity Bill, that it put a brand upon those who least interest themselves in our unhappy disputes.'[400]This was particularly the custom with many of the Presbyterian clergy, headed by Calamy, and, before him, by three men of the highest distinction for their piety, learning, and social influence, of whose services the National Church had been unhappily deprived by the ejection of 1662—Baxter, Bates, and Howe. Some distinguished Churchmen entirely agreed with this. 'I think,' said Archbishop Tenison, 'the practice of occasional Conformity, as used by the Dissenters, is so far from deserving the title of a vile hypocrisy, that it is the duty of all moderate Dissenters, upon their own principles, to do it.'[401]However wrong they might be in their separation, he thought that everything that tended to promote unity ought to be not discountenanced, but encouraged. And Burnet, among others, argued in the same spirit, that just as it had commonly been considered right to communicate with the Protestant churches abroad, as he himself had been accustomed to do in Geneva and Holland, so the Dissenters here were wholly right in communicating with the National Church, even, though they wrongly considered it less perfect than their own.[402]He has elsewhere remarked upon the unseemly inconsistency of Prince George of Denmark, who voted in the House of Lords against occasional Conformity, but was himself in every sense of the word an occasional Conformist, keeping up a Lutheran service, but sometimes receiving the Sacrament according to the English rites.[403]

There were of course many men of extreme views on either side to whom, if there had been no such thing as a Test Act, the practice of occasional conformity was a sign of laxity, wholly to be condemned. It was indifference, they said, lukewarmness, neutrality; it was involving the orthodox in the guilt of heresy;it was a self-proclaimed confession of the sin of needless schism. Sacheverell, in his famous sermon, raved against it as an admission of a Trojan horse, big with arms and ruin, into the holy city. It was the persistent effort of false brethren to carry the conventicle into the Church,[404]or the Church into the conventicle. 'What could not be gained by comprehension and toleration must be brought about by moderation and occasional conformity; that is, what they could not do by open violence, they will not fail by secret treachery to accomplish.'[405]Much in the same way, there were Dissenters who would as soon hear the mass as the Liturgy, who would as willingly bow themselves in the house of Rimmon as conform for an hour to the usages of the English Church; and who, 'if you ask them their exceptions at the Book, thank God they never looked at it.'[406]By a decree of the Baptist conference in 1689,[407]repeated in 1742,[408]persons who on any pretext received the Sacrament in a parish church were to be at once excommunicated.

But, had it not been for the provisions of the Test Act, extreme views on the subject would have received little attention, and the counsels of men like Baxter, Bates, and Calamy would have gained a far deeper, if not a wider, hold on the minds of all moderate Nonconformists. The practice in question did, in fact, point towards a comprehension of which the Liberal Churchmen of the time had as yet no idea, but one which might have been based on far sounder principles than any of the schemes which had hitherto been conceived. Under kindlier auspices it might have matured into a system of auxiliary societies affiliated into the National Church, through which persons, who approved in a general way of the doctrine and order of the Prayer Book and Articles, but to whom a different form of worship was more edifying or attractive, might be retained by a looser tie within the established communion. A comprehension of this kind suggests difficulties, but certainly they are not insurmountable. It is the only apparent mode by which High Anglicans, and those who would otherwise be Dissenters, can work together harmoniously, but without suggestion of compromise, as brother Churchmen. And in a great Church there should be abundant room for societies thus incorporated into it, and functions for them to fulfil, notless important than those which they have accomplished at the heavy cost of so much disunion, bitterness, and waste of power. If, at the opening of the eighteenth century, the test had been abolished, and occasional conformity, as practised by such men as Baxter and Bates, instead of being opposed, had been cordially welcomed, and its principles developed, the English Church might have turned to a noble purpose the popularity it enjoyed.

A chapter dealing in any way with Latitudinarianism in the last century would be incomplete if some mention were not made of discussions which, without reference to the removal of Nonconformist scruples, related nevertheless to the general question of the revision of Church formularies. Even if the Liturgy had been far less perfect than it is, and if abuses in the English Church and causes for complaint had been far more flagrant than they were, there would have been little inclination, under the rule of Walpole and his successors, to meddle with prescribed customs. Waterland, in one of his treatises against Clarke, compared perpetual reforming to living on physic. The comparison is apt. But it was rather the fault of his age to trust overmuch to the healing power of nature, and not to apply medicine even where it was really needed. There was very little ecclesiastical legislation in the eighteenth century, except such as was directed at first to the imposition, and afterwards to the tardy removal or abatement, of disabilities upon Roman Catholics and Dissenters. Statesmen dreaded nothing much more than 'a Church clamour.'[409]Their dread was in a great measure justified by the passions which had been excited in the times of the Sacheverell and Church in Danger cries, and by the unreasoning intolerance which broke furiously out afresh when the Bill for naturalising Jews was brought forward in 1753, and when relief to Roman Catholics was proposed in 1778. At the end of the century the panic excited by the French Revolution was an effectual bar against anything that partook in any degree of the nature of innovation. Throughout the whole of the period very little was done, except in improvement of the marriage laws, even to check practices which brought scandal upon the Church or did it evident injury; next to nothing was done with a serious and anxious purpose of promoting its efficiency and extending its popularity. The best considered plans of revision and reform would have found but small favour. It was not without much regret that the Low or Latitudinarian party gave up all hope of procuring any of those alterations in the Prayer Book for which they had laboured so earnestly in the reign of William III. Or rather,they did not entirely give up the hope, but gradually ceased to consider the subject as any longer a practical one. After them the advocacy of such schemes was chiefly left to men who suffered more or less under the imputation of heterodoxy. This, of course, still further discredited the idea of revision, and gave a strong handle to those who were opposed to it. It became easy to set down as Deists or Arians all who suggested alterations in the established order. The 'Free and Candid Disquisitions,'[410]published in 1749 by John Jones, Vicar of Alconbury, did something towards reviving interest in the question. It was mainly a compilation of opinions advanced by eminent divines, past and living, in favour of revising the Liturgy, and making certain omissions and emendations in it. Introductory essays were prefixed. The book was addressed to 'the Governing Bodies of Church and State,' more immediately to the two Houses of Convocation, and commended itself by the modest and generally judicious spirit in which it was written. Warburton wrote to Doddridge that he thought the 'Disquisitions' very edifying and exemplary. 'I wish,' he added, 'success to them as much as you can do.'[411]Some of the bishops would gladly have taken up some such design, and have done their best to further its success. But there was no prospect whatever of anything being done. It was evident that the prevailing disposition was to allow that there were improvements which might and ought to be made, but that all attempts to carry them out should be deferred to some more opportune season, when minds were more tranquil and the Church more united. The effect of the 'Disquisitions' was also seriously injured by the warm advocacy they received from Blackburne and others, who were anxious for far greater changes than any which were then proposed. Blackburne, in the violence of his Protestantism, insisted that in the Reformed Church of England there ought not to be 'one circumstance in her constitution borrowed from the Creeds, Ritual, and Ordinaries of the Popish system.'[412]A little of the same tendency may be discovered in the proposals put forward in the Disquisitions. In truth, in the eighteenth, as in the seventeenth century, there was always some just cause for fear that a work of revision, however desirable in itself, might be marred by some unworthy concessions to a timid and ignorant Protestantism.

Revision of the Liturgy, although occasionally discussed, cannot be said to have been an eighteenth-century question. Subscription, on the other hand, as required by law to the Thirty-nine Articles, received a great deal of anxious attention. This was quite inevitable. Much had been said and written on the subject in the two previous centuries; but until law, or usage so well established and so well understood as to take the place of law, had interpreted with sufficient plainness the force and meaning of subscription, the subject was necessarily encompassed with much uneasiness and perplexity. Through a material alteration in the law of the English Church, the consciences of the clergy have at last been relieved of what could scarcely fail to be a stumbling-block. By an Act passed by Parliament in 1865, and confirmed by both Houses of Convocation, an important change was made in the wording of the declaration required. Before that time the subscriber had to 'acknowledge all and every the Articles ... to be agreeable to the word of God.'[413]He now has to assent to the Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and of the ordering of priests and deacons, and to believe the doctrine therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God. The omission of the 'all and every,' and the insertion of the word 'doctrine' in the singular, constituted a substantial improvement, as distinctly recognising that general adhesion and that liberty of criticism, which had long been practically admitted, and in fact authorised, by competent legal decisions, but which scarcely seemed warranted by the wording of the subscription.

Dr. Jortin, in a treatise which he published about the middle of the last century, summed up under four heads the different opinions which, in his time, were entertained upon the subject. 'Subscription,' he said, 'to the Articles, Liturgy, &c., in a rigid sense, is a consent to them all in general, and to every proposition contained in them; according to the intention of the compiler, when that can be known, and according to the obvious usual signification of the words. Subscription, in a second sense, is a consent to them in a meaning which is not always consistent with the intention of the compiler, nor with the more usual signification of the words; but is consistent with those passages of Scripture which the compiler had in view. Subscription, in a third sense, is an assent to them as to articles of peace and conformity, by which we so far submit to them as not to raise disturbances about them and set the people against them. Subscription, in a fourth sense, is an assent to them as far as theyare consistent with the Scriptures and themselves, but no further.[414]Jortin's classification might perhaps be improved and simplified; but it serves to indicate in how lax a sense subscription was accepted by some—the more so, as it was sometimes, in the case, for instance, of younger undergraduates, evidently intended for a mere declaration of churchmanship—and how oppressive it must have been to the minds and consciences of others. From the very first this ambiguity had existed. There can, indeed, be no doubt that the original composers of the Articles cherished the vain hope of 'avoiding of diversities of opinion,' and intended them all to be understood in one plain literal sense. Yet, in the prefatory declaration, His Majesty 'takes comfort that even in those curious points in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them,' even while he adds the strangely illogical inference that 'therefore' no man is to put his own sense or meaning upon any of them.

Those who insisted upon a stringent and literal interpretation of the Articles were able to use language which, whatever might be the error involved in it, could not fail to impress a grave sense of responsibility upon every truthful and honourable man who might be called upon, to give his assent to them. 'The prevarication,' said Waterland, 'of subscribing to forms which men believe not according to the true and proper sense of words, and the known intent of imposers and compilers, and the subtleties invented to defend or palliate such gross insincerity, will be little else than disguised atheism.'[415]Winston,[416]and other writers, such as Dr. Conybeare,[417]Dean Tucker,[418]and others, spoke scarcely less strongly. It is evident, too, that where subscription was necessary for admission to temporal endowments and Church preferment, the candidate was more than ever bound to examine closely into the sincerity of his act.

But the answer of those who claimed a greater latitude of interpretation was obvious. 'They,' said Paley, 'who contend that nothing less can justify subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles than the actual belief of each and every separate proposition contained in them must suppose the Legislature expected the consent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to one controverted position, but to many hundreds. It is difficult to conceive how this could be expected by any who observed the incurable diversity of human opinions upon all subjects short ofdemonstration.'[419]Subscription on such terms would not only produce total extinction of anything like independent thought,[420]it would become difficult to understand how any rational being could subscribe at all. Practically, those who took the more stringent view acted for the most part on much the same principles as those whom they accused of laxity. They each interpreted the Articles according to their own construction of them. Only the one insisted that the compilers of them were of their mind; the others simply argued that theirs was a lawful and allowable interpretation. Bishop Tomline expressed himself in much the same terms as Waterland had done; but was indignantly asked how, in his well-known treatise, he could possibly impose an altogether anti-Calvinistic sense upon the Articles without violation of their grammatical meaning, and without encouraging what the Calvinists of the day called 'the general present prevarication.'[421]A moderate Latitudinarianism in regard of subscription was after all more candid, as it certainly was more rational. Nor was there any lack of distinguished authority to support it. 'For the Church of England,' said Chillingworth, 'I am persuaded that the constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved, and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of it. This, in my opinion, is all intended by subscription.'[422]Bramhall,[423]Stillingfleet, Sanderson,[424]Patrick,[425]Fowler, Laud,[426]Tillotson, Chief Justice King, Baxter, and other eminent men of different schools of thought, were on this point more or less agreed with Chillingworth. Moreover, the very freedom of criticism which such great divines as Jeremy Taylor had exercised without thought of censure, and the earnest vindication, frequent among all Protestants, of the rights of the individual judgment, were standing proofs that subscription had not been generally considered the oppressive bondage which some were fain to make it.

Nevertheless, the position maintained by Waterland, by Whiston, by Blackburne, and by some of the more ardent Calvinists, was strong, and felt to be so. In appearance, if not inreality, there was clearly something equivocal, some appearance of casuistry and reserve, if not of insincerity, in subscribing to formularies, part of which were no longer accepted in the spirit in which they had been drawn up, and with the meaning they had been originally intended to bear. The Deistical and Arian controversies of the eighteenth century threw these considerations into more than usual prominence. Since the time of Laud, Arminian had been so generally substituted for Calvinistical tenets in the Church of England, that few persons would have challenged the right of subscribing the Articles with a very different construction from that which they wore when the influence of Bucer and Peter Martyr was predominant, or even when Hales and Ward, and their fellow Calvinists, attended in behalf of England at the Synod of Dort. On this point, at all events, it was quite unmistakable that the Articles (as Hoadly said)[427]were by public authority allowed a latitude of interpretation. But it was not quite easy to see where the bounds of this latitude were to be drawn, unless they were to be left to the individual conscience. And it was a latitude which had become open to abuse in a new and formidable way. Open or suspected Deists and Arians were known to have signed the Articles on the ground of general conformity to the English Church. No one knew how far revealed religion might be undermined, or attacked under a masked battery, by concealed and unsuspected enemies. The danger that Deists, in any proper sense of the word, might take English orders appears to have been quite overrated. No disbeliever in Revelation, unless guilty of an insincerity which precautions were powerless to guard against, could give his allegiance to the English liturgy. But Arian subscription had become a familiar name; and a strong feeling arose that a clearer understanding should be come to as to what acceptance of Church formularies implied. In another chapter of this work the subject has come under notice in its relation to those who held, or were supposed to hold, heretical opinions upon the doctrine of the Trinity. The remarks, therefore, here made need only be concerned with the uneasiness that was awakened in reference to subscription generally. The society which was instituted at the Feathers Tavern, to agitate for the abolition of subscription, in favour of a simple acknowledgment of belief in Scripture, and which petitioned Parliament to this effect in 1772, was a very mixed company. Undoubtedly there were many Deists, Socinians, and Arians in it. But it also numbered in its list many thoroughly orthodox clergymen, and would have numbered manymore, had it not been for the natural objection which they felt at being associated, in such a connection, with men whose views they greatly disapproved of. Archdeacon Blackburne himself, the great promoter of it, held no heretical opinions on the subject of the Trinity. There was a great deal in the doctrine, discipline, and ritual of the Church of England which he thought exceptionable, but his objections seem to have been entirely those which were commonly brought forward by ultra-Protestants. His vehement opposition to subscription rested on wholly general grounds. He could not, he said, accept the view that the Articles could be signed with a latitude of interpretation or as articles of peace. They were evidently meant to be received in one strictly literal sense. This, no Church had a right to impose upon any of its members; it was wholly wrong to attempt to settle religion once for all in an uncontrollable form.[428]The petition, however, had not the smallest chance of success. The Evangelicals—a body fast rising in numbers and activity—and the Methodists[429]were strongly opposed. So were all the High Churchmen; so also were a great number of the Latitudinarians. Dr. Balguy, for instance, after the example of Hoadly, while he strongly insisted that the laws of the Church and realm most fully warranted a broad construction of the meaning of the Articles, was entirely opposed to the abolition of subscription. It would, he feared, seriously affect the constitution of the National Church. The Bill was thrown out in three successive years by immense majorities. After the third defeat Dr. Jebb, Theophilus Lindsey, and some other clergymen seceded to the Unitarians. The language of the earlier Articles admits of no interpretation by which Unitarians, in any proper sense of the word, could with any honesty hold their place in the English Communion.

Thus the attempt to abolish subscription failed, and under circumstances which showed that the Church had escaped a serious danger. But the difficulty which had led many orthodox clergymen to join, not without risk of obloquy, in the petition remained untouched. It was, in fact, aggravated rather than not; for 'Arian subscription' had naturally induced a disposition, strongly expressed in some Parliamentary speeches, to reflect injuriously upon that reasonable and allowed latitude of construction without which the Reformed Church of England would in every generation have lost some of its best and ablest men. Some, therefore, were anxious that the articles and Liturgy should be revised; and a petition to this effect was presented in 1772 to theArchbishop of Canterbury. Among the other names attached to it appears that of Beilby Porteus, afterwards Bishop of London and a principal supporter of the Evangelical party. Some proposed that the 'orthodox Articles' only—by which they meant those that relate to the primary doctrines of the Christian creed—should be subscribed to;[430]some thought that it would be sufficient to require of the clergy only an unequivocal assent to the Book of Common Prayer. It seems strange that while abolition of subscription was proposed by some, revision of the Articles by others, no one, so far as it appears, proposed the more obvious alternative of modifying the wording of the terms in which subscription was made. But nothing of any kind was done. The bishops, upon consultation, thought it advisable to leave matters alone. They may have been right. But, throughout the greater part of the century, leaving alone was too much the wisdom of the leaders and rulers of the English Church.

In all the course of its long history, before and after the Reformation, the National Church of England has never, perhaps, occupied so peculiarly isolated a place in Christendom as at the extreme end of the last century and through the earlier years of the present one. At one or another period it may have been more jealous of foreign influence, more violently antagonistic to Roman Catholics, more intolerant of Dissent, more wedded to uniformity in doctrine and discipline. But at no one time had it stood, as a Church, so distinctly apart from all other Communions. If the events of the French Revolution had slightly mitigated the antipathy to Roman Catholicism, there was still not the very slightest approximation to it on the part of the highest Anglicans, if any such continued to exist. The Eastern Church, after attracting a faint curiosity through the overtures of the later Nonjurors, was as wholly unknown and unthought of as though it had been an insignificant sect in the furthest wilds of Muscovy. All communications with the foreign Protestant Churches had ceased. It had beheld, after the death of Wesley, almost the last links severed between itself and Methodism. It had become separated from Dissenters generally by a wider interval. Its attitude towards them was becoming less intolerant, but more chilled and exclusive. The Evangelicals combined to some extent with Nonconformists, and often met on the same platforms. But there was no longer anything like the friendly intercourse which had existed in the beginning and in the middle of last century between the bishops and clergy of the 'moderate' party in the Church on the one hand, and the principal Nonconformist ministers on the other.Comprehension—until the time of Dr. Arnold—was no longer discussed. Occasional conformity had in long past time received the blow which deprived it of importance. Again, the Church of England was still almost confined, except by its missions, within the limits of the four seas. Pananglicanism was a term yet to be invented. The Colonial empire was still in its infancy, and its Church in tutelage. There was a sister Church in the United States. But the wounds inflicted in the late war were scarcely staunched; and the time had not arrived to speak of cordiality, or of community of Church interests. It was from Scottish, not from English hands, that America received her first bishop.

Perhaps, in the order of that far-reaching Providence which is traced in the history of Churches as of States, it may, after all, have been well that, in the century under our review, the somewhat sluggish stream of life which circulated in the English Church had not sought out for itself any new channels. A more diffusive activity might be reserved to it for better times. In the eighteenth century there would always have been cause for fear that, in seeking to embrace more, it might lose some valuable part of what it already had, and which, once lost, it might not be easy to recover. There were many to whom 'moderation' would have been another word for compromise; and who, not so much in the interests of true unity as for the sake of tranquil days, would have made concessions which a later age would regret in vain. Moreover, the Churchmen of that period had a great work before them of consolidation, and of examination of fundamental principles. They did not do that part of their work amiss. Possibly they might have done it not so well, had their energies been less concentrated on the special task which employed their intellects—if they had been called upon to turn their attention to important changes in the ecclesiastical polity, or to new schemes of Church extension. Faults, blunders, shortcomings, are not to be excused by unforeseen good ultimately involved in them; yet it is, at all events, an allowable and pleasant thing to consider whether good may not have resulted in the end. Throughout the eighteenth century the principles of the Church of England were retained, if sometimes inactive, yet at least intact, ready for development and expansion, if ever the time should come. Already, at the end of the century, our National Church was teeming with the promise of a new or reinvigorated life. The time for greater union, in which this Church may have a great part to do, and for increased comprehensiveness, may, in our day, be ripening towards maturity. Even now there is little fear that in any changes and improvements which might be made, the English Church would relax its hold either on primitive andCatholic uses, or on that precious inheritance of liberty which was secured at the Reformation. There may be difficulties, too great to be overcome, in the way either of Church revision or Church comprehension; but if they should be achieved, their true principles would be better understood than ever they were in the days of Tillotson and Calamy, or of Secker and Doddridge.

C.J.A.

FOOTNOTES:[301]Alison'sLife of Marlborough, i. 199. Seward'sAnecdotes, ii. 271. Jortin'sTracts, ii. 43. E. Savage'sPoems, 'The Character,' &c.[302]Spectator, No. 116.[303]Nelson'sLife of Bull, 329-30.[304]Mosheim'sChurch History, Maclaine's edition, vol. v. 'Letter of Beauvoir to Wake,' December 11, 1717, Ap. 2, No. 2, p. 147.[305]Id. Dupin to Wake, February 11. 1718. 'Unum addam, cum bonâ veniâ tuâ, me vehementer optare, ut unionis inter ecclesias Anglicanam et Gallicam via aliqua inveniri possit,' &c.[306]Wake to Dupin, October 1, 1718. Id. 134, 152, 156.[307]Wake to Dupin, October 1, 1718, Ap. 3, No. 8, p. 158.[308]De Maistre:Considérations sur la France, chap. ii. p. 30.[309]April, 1719.Mosheim, v. 169. Ap. 3, No. 19.[310]Ap. 8, 1719. Id. 171-3, Ap. 3, No. 20.[311]Maclaine's edition ofMosheim, v. 143.[312]Quarterly Review, 89, 475.[313]Id.[314]Berkeley's Life and Works, ed. A.C. Fraser, iv. 243.[315]Life and Works, iv. 321.[316]Boswell'sJohnson, ii. 154, 104.[317]Sermon, January 30, 1793.[318]Burnet'sLife and Works, 420.[319]State and Fate of the Protestant Religion, 1682, 3.[320]Endeavour for Peace, &c. 1680, 15.[321]Froude'sHistory of England, ii. 405.[322]Hallam'sConstitutional History, i. 172, note.[323]Burnet'sHistory of His Own Times, 51.[324]Hallam'sConstitutional History, i. 171.[325]Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. ii. 186, App. 2.[326]Hallam'sConstitutional History, i. 102.[327]Perry, G.G.,History of the Church of England, i. 453.[328]De Foe'sTrue-born Englishman(Ed. Chalmers' series), vol. xx. 19.[329]Hallam'sConstitutional History, iii. 55.[330]Life of Bishop Ken, by a Layman, 319-27.[331]Life of Rainbow, 1688. Quoted in id. 326.[332]Fleetwood'sWorks, 483.[333]Birch's 'Life of Tillotson.'—Works, i. xciv.[334]Birch's 'Life of Tillotson.'—Works, i. cxxxv.[335]J.J. Blunt'sEarly Fathers, 20.[336]Ralph Thoresby,Diary, ii. 22.[337]The full history of this correspondence is given in theLife of Archbishop Sharp, ed. Newcomb, i. 410-49.[338]Works, 368.[339]Life and Times, ii. 368, 482.[340]Life of Ken, by a Layman, 330.[341]Mahon'sHistory of England, chap. xxxi.[342]Endeavour for Peace, &c.1680, 20.[343]Irenicum.Hunt, ii. 136.Endeavour &c., 22-7.[344]Burnet'sOwn Times, 528. Birch'sLife of Tillotson, cix.Life of Ken, by a Layman, 501. Hunt,Religious Thought, ii. 70.[345]Macaulay'sHistory of England, chap. xiv.[346]Skeats, 147.[347]Id. 166.[348]Hallam'sConstitutional History of England, ii. 317. Hunt,Religious Thought in England, i. 213.[349]Hunt,Religions Thought in England, ii. 22.[350]Skeats'History of the Free Churches, 147.[351]Calamy'sBaxter, 655 (quoted by Skeats), 149. Thoresby'sDiary, 399.[352]Skeats, 158-65.[353]Id. 186.[354]Wall'sDissuasive from Schism, 477.[355]Tombs against Marshall, p. 31, quoted by Wall.[356]Nelson'sLife of Bull, 240, 260.[357]Birch'sTillotson, ccvii. Leslie'sWorks, ii. 533-600, &c.[358]Leslie, ii. 659.[359]Chillingworth'sWorks, vol. i. Preface, § 9.[360]The Principles of the Reformation concerning Church Communion, 1704.[361]An Apology for the Parliament, &c., 1697, part i.[362]Leslie'sWorks, ii. 656.[363]Dr. Arnold,Principles of Church Reform, 285.[364]Birch'sLife of Tillotson, ccxxvii.[365]Burnet'sFour Discourses to the Clergy of Sarum, 1694, Pref. v.[366]Skeats, 185.[367]R. South'sSermons, vol. iv. 174-95.[368]Sermon of November 5, 1709. Hunt, 3, 12.[369]Works, vol. 8, 264.[370]South'sSermons, iv. 227.[371]Burnet'sOwn Times, 751. Hoadly'sWorks, i. 24[372]A Brief Defence of the Church, 1706.[373]Id.[374]Id.[375]Mosheim'sEcclesiastical History(Maclaine's Trans.), 5, 95.[376]Hunt, 3, 247.[377]Doddridge'sWorks, iv. 503-4.[378]Doddridge'sCorrespondence, v. 167. Perry'sChurch History, 3, 377.[379]Lord Mahon'sHistory, chap. 31.[380]'Answer to Bailey,' 1750,—Works, vol. ix. 83.[381]Corner'sHistory of Protestant Theology, ii. 204-6. Rose'sProtestantism in Germany, 46-9. A.S. Farrer'sHistory of Religious Thought, note 17, p. 600. M.J. Matter'sHistoire de Christianisme, 4, 346.[382]Matter'sHistoire de Christianisme, 4, 368.[383]T. Rowan'sLife and Letters of Schleiermacher, i. 30.[384]'Remarks on the Defence to Aspasio,' &c., 1766,—Works, 10, 351.[385]Idem.[386]Wesley's 'Answer to Lavington,'—Works, vol. ix. 3.[387]Seward's 'Journal,' 45, quoted by Lavington.Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, 11.[388]Seward's 'Journal,' 62. Lavington,Id.[389]Seward'sAnecdotes, vol. ii. (ed. 1798), 437.[390]Calamy'sLife and Times, i. 404. Perry'sHistory of the Church of England, 3, 145.[391]Calamy, i. 465. Skeats'History of the Free Churches, 187.[392]Calamy, i. 465.[393]Burnet'sHistory of his Own Times, 721.[394]Hoadly, 'Letter to a Clergyman,' &c.—Works, i. 19.[395]Calamy, ii. 243.[396]Guardian, No. 41.[397]Spectator, No. 269.[398]Hoadly, 'Reasonableness of Conformity.'—Works, i. 284.[399]'Letter to a Clergyman,' &c.—Works, i. 30.[400]Matthew Henry, in Thoresby'sCorrespondence, i. 438.[401]Speech in the House of Lords, 1704.[402]Burnet'sLife and Times, 741.[403]Ibid. 721.[404]At this date, as White Kennet's biographer remarks, 'the name of Presbyterian was liberally bestowed on one of the archbishops, on several of the most exemplary bishops, as well as on great numbers among the interior clergy.'—Life of Kennet, 102.[405]Sermon before the Lord Mayor, &c. November 5, 1709.[406]The Church of England free from the Imputation of Popery, 1683.[407]Skeats'History of the Free Churches, 160.[408]Id. 346.[409]Horace Walpole'sMemoirs, &c. 366.[410]They are carefully summarised in a series of papers in theGentleman's Magazinefor 1750, vols. xix and xx. It is clear from the correspondence on the subject how much interest they aroused.—See also Nichols'Lit. An., vol. 3.[411]Hunt'sReligious Thought in England, iii. 300.[412]Blackburne'sHistorical View, &c., Introduction, xx.[413]Canon 36, § 3.[414]'Strictures on the Articles, Subscriptions, &c.,' Jortin'sTracts, ii. 417.[415]Quoted inThe Church of England Vindicated, &c., 1801, p. 2.[416]Whiston'sLife of Clarke, &c., 11, 40;Memoirs, 157, &c.[417]Hunt'sReligious Thought in England, 3, 305.[418]Id. 312.[419]Paley'sMoral and Political Philosophy, chap. xxii.[420]Mr. Buxton, Parl. Speech, June 21, 1865.[421]Church of England Vindicated, &c., 52, 161.[422]Works, vol. i. 35.[423]Quoted in Jortin'sTracts, ii. 423, and Hunt'sReligious Thought in England, ii. 25.[424]Quoted in Malone's note to Boswell'sJohnson, ii. 104.[425]Review of Maizeaux' 'Life of Chillingworth,'Guardian, November 30, 1864.[426]'Sense of the Articles,' &c.Works, vol. xv., 528-33. 'Moral Prognostication,' &c. id. xv., 440.[427]Answer to Rep. of Con. chap. i. § 20.—Works, ii. 534.[428]Blackburne'sHistorical View, Introd. xxxix.[429]H. Walpole,Memoirs of the Reign of George III.(Doran), i. 7, 8.[430]Consideration of the Present State of Religion, &c. 1801, 11.

FOOTNOTES:

[301]Alison'sLife of Marlborough, i. 199. Seward'sAnecdotes, ii. 271. Jortin'sTracts, ii. 43. E. Savage'sPoems, 'The Character,' &c.

[302]Spectator, No. 116.

[303]Nelson'sLife of Bull, 329-30.

[304]Mosheim'sChurch History, Maclaine's edition, vol. v. 'Letter of Beauvoir to Wake,' December 11, 1717, Ap. 2, No. 2, p. 147.

[305]Id. Dupin to Wake, February 11. 1718. 'Unum addam, cum bonâ veniâ tuâ, me vehementer optare, ut unionis inter ecclesias Anglicanam et Gallicam via aliqua inveniri possit,' &c.

[306]Wake to Dupin, October 1, 1718. Id. 134, 152, 156.

[307]Wake to Dupin, October 1, 1718, Ap. 3, No. 8, p. 158.

[308]De Maistre:Considérations sur la France, chap. ii. p. 30.

[309]April, 1719.Mosheim, v. 169. Ap. 3, No. 19.

[310]Ap. 8, 1719. Id. 171-3, Ap. 3, No. 20.

[311]Maclaine's edition ofMosheim, v. 143.

[312]Quarterly Review, 89, 475.

[313]Id.

[314]Berkeley's Life and Works, ed. A.C. Fraser, iv. 243.

[315]Life and Works, iv. 321.

[316]Boswell'sJohnson, ii. 154, 104.

[317]Sermon, January 30, 1793.

[318]Burnet'sLife and Works, 420.

[319]State and Fate of the Protestant Religion, 1682, 3.

[320]Endeavour for Peace, &c. 1680, 15.

[321]Froude'sHistory of England, ii. 405.

[322]Hallam'sConstitutional History, i. 172, note.

[323]Burnet'sHistory of His Own Times, 51.

[324]Hallam'sConstitutional History, i. 171.

[325]Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. ii. 186, App. 2.

[326]Hallam'sConstitutional History, i. 102.

[327]Perry, G.G.,History of the Church of England, i. 453.

[328]De Foe'sTrue-born Englishman(Ed. Chalmers' series), vol. xx. 19.

[329]Hallam'sConstitutional History, iii. 55.

[330]Life of Bishop Ken, by a Layman, 319-27.

[331]Life of Rainbow, 1688. Quoted in id. 326.

[332]Fleetwood'sWorks, 483.

[333]Birch's 'Life of Tillotson.'—Works, i. xciv.

[334]Birch's 'Life of Tillotson.'—Works, i. cxxxv.

[335]J.J. Blunt'sEarly Fathers, 20.

[336]Ralph Thoresby,Diary, ii. 22.

[337]The full history of this correspondence is given in theLife of Archbishop Sharp, ed. Newcomb, i. 410-49.

[338]Works, 368.

[339]Life and Times, ii. 368, 482.

[340]Life of Ken, by a Layman, 330.

[341]Mahon'sHistory of England, chap. xxxi.

[342]Endeavour for Peace, &c.1680, 20.

[343]Irenicum.Hunt, ii. 136.Endeavour &c., 22-7.

[344]Burnet'sOwn Times, 528. Birch'sLife of Tillotson, cix.Life of Ken, by a Layman, 501. Hunt,Religious Thought, ii. 70.

[345]Macaulay'sHistory of England, chap. xiv.

[346]Skeats, 147.

[347]Id. 166.

[348]Hallam'sConstitutional History of England, ii. 317. Hunt,Religious Thought in England, i. 213.

[349]Hunt,Religions Thought in England, ii. 22.

[350]Skeats'History of the Free Churches, 147.

[351]Calamy'sBaxter, 655 (quoted by Skeats), 149. Thoresby'sDiary, 399.

[352]Skeats, 158-65.

[353]Id. 186.

[354]Wall'sDissuasive from Schism, 477.

[355]Tombs against Marshall, p. 31, quoted by Wall.

[356]Nelson'sLife of Bull, 240, 260.

[357]Birch'sTillotson, ccvii. Leslie'sWorks, ii. 533-600, &c.

[358]Leslie, ii. 659.

[359]Chillingworth'sWorks, vol. i. Preface, § 9.

[360]The Principles of the Reformation concerning Church Communion, 1704.

[361]An Apology for the Parliament, &c., 1697, part i.

[362]Leslie'sWorks, ii. 656.

[363]Dr. Arnold,Principles of Church Reform, 285.

[364]Birch'sLife of Tillotson, ccxxvii.

[365]Burnet'sFour Discourses to the Clergy of Sarum, 1694, Pref. v.

[366]Skeats, 185.

[367]R. South'sSermons, vol. iv. 174-95.

[368]Sermon of November 5, 1709. Hunt, 3, 12.

[369]Works, vol. 8, 264.

[370]South'sSermons, iv. 227.

[371]Burnet'sOwn Times, 751. Hoadly'sWorks, i. 24

[372]A Brief Defence of the Church, 1706.

[373]Id.

[374]Id.

[375]Mosheim'sEcclesiastical History(Maclaine's Trans.), 5, 95.

[376]Hunt, 3, 247.

[377]Doddridge'sWorks, iv. 503-4.

[378]Doddridge'sCorrespondence, v. 167. Perry'sChurch History, 3, 377.

[379]Lord Mahon'sHistory, chap. 31.

[380]'Answer to Bailey,' 1750,—Works, vol. ix. 83.

[381]Corner'sHistory of Protestant Theology, ii. 204-6. Rose'sProtestantism in Germany, 46-9. A.S. Farrer'sHistory of Religious Thought, note 17, p. 600. M.J. Matter'sHistoire de Christianisme, 4, 346.

[382]Matter'sHistoire de Christianisme, 4, 368.

[383]T. Rowan'sLife and Letters of Schleiermacher, i. 30.

[384]'Remarks on the Defence to Aspasio,' &c., 1766,—Works, 10, 351.

[385]Idem.

[386]Wesley's 'Answer to Lavington,'—Works, vol. ix. 3.

[387]Seward's 'Journal,' 45, quoted by Lavington.Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, 11.

[388]Seward's 'Journal,' 62. Lavington,Id.

[389]Seward'sAnecdotes, vol. ii. (ed. 1798), 437.

[390]Calamy'sLife and Times, i. 404. Perry'sHistory of the Church of England, 3, 145.

[391]Calamy, i. 465. Skeats'History of the Free Churches, 187.

[392]Calamy, i. 465.

[393]Burnet'sHistory of his Own Times, 721.

[394]Hoadly, 'Letter to a Clergyman,' &c.—Works, i. 19.

[395]Calamy, ii. 243.

[396]Guardian, No. 41.

[397]Spectator, No. 269.

[398]Hoadly, 'Reasonableness of Conformity.'—Works, i. 284.

[399]'Letter to a Clergyman,' &c.—Works, i. 30.

[400]Matthew Henry, in Thoresby'sCorrespondence, i. 438.

[401]Speech in the House of Lords, 1704.

[402]Burnet'sLife and Times, 741.

[403]Ibid. 721.

[404]At this date, as White Kennet's biographer remarks, 'the name of Presbyterian was liberally bestowed on one of the archbishops, on several of the most exemplary bishops, as well as on great numbers among the interior clergy.'—Life of Kennet, 102.

[405]Sermon before the Lord Mayor, &c. November 5, 1709.

[406]The Church of England free from the Imputation of Popery, 1683.

[407]Skeats'History of the Free Churches, 160.

[408]Id. 346.

[409]Horace Walpole'sMemoirs, &c. 366.

[410]They are carefully summarised in a series of papers in theGentleman's Magazinefor 1750, vols. xix and xx. It is clear from the correspondence on the subject how much interest they aroused.—See also Nichols'Lit. An., vol. 3.

[411]Hunt'sReligious Thought in England, iii. 300.

[412]Blackburne'sHistorical View, &c., Introduction, xx.

[413]Canon 36, § 3.

[414]'Strictures on the Articles, Subscriptions, &c.,' Jortin'sTracts, ii. 417.

[415]Quoted inThe Church of England Vindicated, &c., 1801, p. 2.

[416]Whiston'sLife of Clarke, &c., 11, 40;Memoirs, 157, &c.

[417]Hunt'sReligious Thought in England, 3, 305.

[418]Id. 312.

[419]Paley'sMoral and Political Philosophy, chap. xxii.

[420]Mr. Buxton, Parl. Speech, June 21, 1865.

[421]Church of England Vindicated, &c., 52, 161.

[422]Works, vol. i. 35.

[423]Quoted in Jortin'sTracts, ii. 423, and Hunt'sReligious Thought in England, ii. 25.

[424]Quoted in Malone's note to Boswell'sJohnson, ii. 104.

[425]Review of Maizeaux' 'Life of Chillingworth,'Guardian, November 30, 1864.

[426]'Sense of the Articles,' &c.Works, vol. xv., 528-33. 'Moral Prognostication,' &c. id. xv., 440.

[427]Answer to Rep. of Con. chap. i. § 20.—Works, ii. 534.

[428]Blackburne'sHistorical View, Introd. xxxix.

[429]H. Walpole,Memoirs of the Reign of George III.(Doran), i. 7, 8.

[430]Consideration of the Present State of Religion, &c. 1801, 11.

Back to Index Next