Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the RevolutionStoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
Howe took part in the bewildering dispute, and has been supposed by
some to have advocated Sherlock’s side. But it seems to me that what I
have been saying accords with his views, and that he counted such an
opinion as that expressed by Sherlock only as a theory for obviating
objection to a fact, whilst another theory might be held in perfect
consistency with a sincere faith in the truth to which both theories
apply. In his _Calm and Sober Inquiry Concerning the Possibility
of a Trinity in the Godhead_, the utmost he asserts is, that such
a mode of triune existence as Sherlock attributes to the Divine
Being is _possible_, and to his mind the most reasonable; but
he did not think another hypothesis of a different kind altogether
indefensible. He adopted what is called the _personal_ theory;
but he did not deem a _modal_ theory, like South’s, either absurd
or heterodox.[263] Evidently he considered that different hypotheses
are at hand not fully to elucidate the mode of the Divine existence,
but to obviate objections, by showing that a threefold distinction in
that existence can be imagined, so as not to involve any contradiction
whatever.[264]
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
Amidst this war of words, in which reason and tradition had a share,
secular authority interfered. On the 3rd of January, 1694, the Lords
spiritual and temporal ordered their Majesties’ Attorney-General to
prosecute the author and printer of an infamous and scandalous libel,
entitled, _A Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the
Trinity_.[265] This was a State condemnation of Unitarianism, and
the same year a tract printed by the Unitarian Society was seized by
authority, and the writer apprehended. On the 25th of November, 1695,
the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses at Oxford decreed it to be
false, impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, and especially the Church of England, to say that there are
three infinite, distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, or that
the three Persons are three distinct, infinite minds or spirits. This
was a condemnation by the University of the doctrines enunciated by
Sherlock and supported by Bingham. The latter, in consequence of the
storm raised by his sermon, resigned his fellowship, and withdrew from
the University; but others, who thought with him, asserted, that what
the Heads of Oxford had condemned as heretical, really expressed the
Catholic faith; that the decree virtually accused of error the Nicene
Creed and the Church of England, and exposed both to the scorn and
triumph of the Socinians. Sherlock declared “that he would undertake,
any day in the year, to procure a meeting of twice as many wise and
learned men to censure their decree.”[266] Out of this state of things
also arose the new Royal injunctions I have noticed. They prohibited
every preacher from delivering any other doctrine concerning the
Blessed Trinity than what is contained in the Holy Scriptures, and
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account