"CHURCH IN DANGER";
THE VIEWS OF TWO EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY HIGH-CHURCHMEN
By
ÖZLEM ÇAYKENT
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE INSTITUTE FOR GRADUATE STUDIES IN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTSIN HISTORY
..
o
1
\~M. G~~+
,{Ç~t çı.:>
ırı_ç
Approved by the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
Prof. Dr. Ali Karaosmanoğlu
Director of Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, asa thesis for a degree of Masters in History.
c
f!JA
Ass. rof. C. D. A. Leighton Thesis Supervisor
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for a degree of Masters in History.
Asst. Prof. Paul Latimer Examining Commitlee Member
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, asa thesis for a degree of Masters in History.
ll
Dr. David Thomton Examining Commitlee Member
ABSTRACT
This thesis deals with two British Tory Highchurchmen, namely Charles Leslie and William Jones of Nayland. The fonner has produced his works during the Iate seventeenth-century and the early eighteenth-century; whereas the latter has written during the later eighteenth-century. Their main concem was the defence of Anglican doctrine which detennined the framework of their works being the dissenting ideas and church-state relationship. Although Leslie and Jones of Nayland shared the traditional orthodox Anglican views and believed in the existence of a threat directed towards the church, the emphasis intheir works differed. Whereas the King' s interference in religious issues was Leslie's main concem asa threat, Jones ofNayland dealt with dissenting ideas - particularly the rationalist one - that constituted a danger to both church and state. This difference should be seen as a result of the different political and intellectual atmosphere of the period they wrote in.
ÖZET
Bu tez iki İngiliz Tory Ortodoks-Anglikan din adam (High-churchmen) olan Charles Leslie ve William Jones of Nayland üzerine bir çalışmadır. Bunlardan birincisi eserlerini onyedinci yüzyılın sonu ve onsekizinci yüzyılın başında yazmıştır. Temel olarak amaçlan Anglikan doktirininin savunmasıdır. Bu aynı zamanda kurumsal kiliseye muhalif fikirterin ve kilise-devlet ilişkisinin eserlerinde onlara çerçeve olmasını belirler. Leslie ve Jones of Nayland geleneksel ortodoks-Anglikan doktirinini paylaşmaianna ve kiliseye yönelik bir tehlikenin varlığına inanmış olmalanna rağmen, eserlerindeki vurgu
farklılık göstermektedir. Leslie kral' ın kilisenin iç işlerine kanşmasını temel tehlike olarak görürken, Jones of Nayland özellikle rasyonalistler olmak üzere muhalif
düşüncelerin hem kilise hemde devlete oluşturduklan tehlikeyi ön plana
çıkanr.Vurguladıklan konulann değişik olmalannın nedeni yazdıklan dönemlerin politik ve fikirsel atmosferlerinin farklılığında yatmaktadır.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: Charles Leslie
ı
.
ı Religion and Dissent in the Late Seventeenth andEarly Eighteenth-Centuries
p.vn
p. ı
p. ı
ı .2. Leslie on Religion and Dissent p. ı O
ı .3 The Church and State in the Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Centuries
ı .4 Leslie on the Church-State Relationship
CHAPTER II: William Jones ofNayland
2. ı Religion and Dissent in the Eighteenth-Century
2.2 Jones ofNayland on Religion and Dissent 2.3 The Church and State in the Eighteenth-century 2.4 Jones ofNayland on the Church-State Relationship
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY i. Primary Sources ii. Secondary Sources
V p. ı7 p.29 p.44 p.44 p.55
p.63
p.67
p. 76
p. 79 p.8ıA perfect judge will
read
each work of W it With the same Spirit that its Author writ. (Pope, An Essay on Criticism)Introduction
Christian belief was an important aspect of British life in all centuries, at least until the second half of the twentieth century. People' s attitudes as well as their political and social relationships were, to a great extent, determined by it. For a great majority it symbolised a continuity of tradition and of individual and social experience with its rituals and its doctrines. Its material existence was represented by the church buildings themselves. It justifıed the social structure and was the legitimising force for power, particularly the power of State. This instrumental nature of religion was expressed by John Tillotson in his words "If God were not a necessary Being of Himself, He might almost seem to be made for the use and benefıt of men". 1
This abstract concept of Church and God was not reflected by institutional or doctrinal unity, in spite of the continued existence of an established Church of England. This problem was due to the different dimensions of Christian belief that had become visible after the Reformation. The newly emerging science and social and economic conditions contributed to changes in expressing religion, that is in rituals, and in differences in theology. The systems of doctrine, that fıt patterns to what was expressed through the rituals and the ethics that supported religion in its social environment, were subject to change. Thus there emerged a formal religion that was accepted by the State, that is as a part of the Establishment, and a subcultural religion that created i ts own rules, society and literature in its own image.
1
Quoted in Richard Brown, Church and State in Modern Britain 1700-1850, London, New York: Routledge, 1991, p. 92.
However in nature the church and the state differ essentially, so that the relationship between them has to be a dialectical one. The duty of the state was to defend and promote the natural goods of i ts citizens on earth, whereas the church is called upon to continue the redemptive work of its founder on earth and lead individuals by word and sacrament to their etemal salvation. 2 However this theoretical state was difficult to achieve, the two units were composed of the same members and thus their relationship had to be defıned very carefully. The New Testament gave a loose description of this relationship. The themes in it were mainly the affirmation of the civil authority because it comes from God, but on the other side the second one was the rejection of the state as a complete sovereign over the church. Now they were both enterprises of God on earth and were expected to co-operate peacefully by each retaining its nature, independence and sphere of competence. In fact this resulted in the problem of whether there should be a passive obedience to the ruler or was there a right to resist.
Most seventeenth-century English Protestants shared the view, which authors like Jewel, Hooker and Andrewes presented, that the Church of England was one of the best churches since it was reformed, resembling the primitive Church most closely and had an apostolic descent This uninterrupted history and "purity" gave it a superior position over other Protestant Churches and the Roman Church.3 The Book of Revelation of St. John was seen as the means of illuminating questions of the history of the Church of England, as well as governmental issues. There was opposition though, from those who were
2
See Paul Mikat, "Church and State" in Encyclopaedia ofTheology, the Concise Sacramentum Mundi, ed.
by Karl Rahner, New York: Crossrood, 1991. 3
John Morril, "The Stuarts" in The Oxford History of Britain, ed. by Kenneth O. Morgan, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 390.
arguing for a Presbyterian church and others, but the majority believed that solutions could be achieved within the existing English Church. In the early seventeenth-century there were some discussions how to make the Episcopal national Church more evangelical. These arguments led to questions like why God had allowed the Roman Church to deteriorate. 4
The answer to this in the Protestant mind, was that it was a part of God's divine plan. From Bale and Foxe to Brightman the apocalyptic vision of history was emphasised in fınding answers. The apocalyptic vision and its attendant beliefs like godly prince, godly rule and elect nation began to be seen frequently in the arguments and organised the church and state relation accordingly. Thus the no tion of the English as the "elect nation" and the king as the "godly prince" became popular. Resistance, where it was felt necessary, to the ecclesiastical policies of kings and their appointed Church teadership remained mostly as passive resistance, even to the unpopular Arminianism of Archbishop Laud.
The structure of the church held the English nation's unity and was the most important part of the people' s notion of nationhood. Anglicanism became a metaphor of a golden mean and was used in every context. 5
Joseph Glanwill declared:
"we are freed from the idolatries, superstitions and other corruption of the Roman Church on the one hand; and clear from the vanities and enthusiasms that have overspread some Protestant churches on the other han d. Our church hath rejected the painted bravery of the one and provided against the sordid slovenliness of the other."6
The real disintegration of Protestant 'unity' occurred during the period of the Civil War and Interregnum, giving way to the denominational fragmentation represented
4
Bemard Capp, "Godly Rule and English Millenarianism", Pastand Present, p. I 12.
5
John Walsh and Stephen Taylor, "Introduction: The Church and Anglicanism in the 'long' eighteenth-century" in The Church of England, p. 56.
by sects such as the Quakers or the Baptists. Mystical and mythological views of an English Church dissolved into discussions of liturgy and different understandings of scripture and Church. The Restcration and the Glorious Revolution brought little comfort into the unrest and fragmented opinions. The Toleration Act of 1689, although often found not very tolerant, was a recognition of the plurality of religion within the Trinitarian doctrine. Eventually the discourse shifted slightly towards the limits of the powers of the state and church and, with the help of the new science and philosophy towards rational ways of thinking on God and Nature.7
The Non-jurors were in this a primary impetus, though in opposition to the age' s concept of rationalism. However in the last decades of the seventeenth-century there was a backdraft towards passive obedience and willingness towards co-operation rather than resistance and uproar. The concems of the discussions were the state of nature, natural rights, the social contract, patdarehal authority, monarchy and how these were related in the divine scheme. The evidence for these were sought in English constitutional history or more often in the Scripture.8
With the rise ofNew Science the creeds of the Enlightenment began to show their traces in religious controversies. It should be emphasised that empiricism, rationalism and mechanical way of interpreting the universe, and related political thought like Locke's, were not predominant during the period when they were written. The term Enlightenment designated, for the nineteenth-century writers, an atmesphere of optimism and belief in
6
J. Cope, Joseph G/anwi/1, p. 13. Quoted in ibid., p. 58. 7 Morril, "The Stuart", pp. 393-394.
8
J. C. D. Clark, English Society 1688-1832, Ideo/ogy, Social Structure and Political Practice During the
Ancien Regime, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 49.
scientific and social progress. In a more restricted sense it meant that the extemal world could be understood by reason, a belief which would be much criticised in the later eighteenth-century. This doctrine of rationalism had more effect on Protestantism than on Roman Catholicism or Eastem Orthodoxy because of the different views on ecclesiastical institutions and still unsettled doctrinal disputes.9
Protestantism already emphasised a belief in individuals and their ability to communicate faith in God. Now, with the newstresson the ability of human reason to penetrate the mysteries ofthe world, a certain attitude towards religion began to emerge.10 Attempts were made, although by a small group, to make the beliefs of Christianity reasonable and open to critical examination, and some went so far as to argue that Christianity could be derived by reason alone without any revelation. To this pure rationalist analysis of religion, reactions occurred in the form of Pietism and, as it was known in England, Methodism and more generally amongst Evangelicals. 11
The themes that prevailed in eighteenth-century theological disputes were more or less determined by the disagreements between the Rationalist, evangelical and high-Anglican parties. The possibility of miracles, the problem of original sin and of evil on earth, the notion of revelation and the character and importance of Jesus Christ were among those issues which created much dispute. The problem of Regale seemed to be
lacking and instead emphasis was put on the efficiency of the govemment and the discussions on de }ur e or de facto kings. 12
9
Alister, Christian Theo/ogy, p. 79.
10
Ib id., pp. 80-8 ı.
ll lbid.
12 Clark, English Society, p. 49.
A traditional view of late seventeenth-century England is that it represents the beginning of a 'liberal' and political nation. However, it would be accurate to say that Anglican, aristocratic and monarchical society continued well throughout the eighteenth-century. Although it would be an extreme way of putting the continuity as Clark argues that, "instead of decline of traditional values, ideological defence of the state suggests that the ancien regime became steadily stronger."13
This period was the beginning of anerathat marked a transition between the old generation of the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries and the new of the nineteenth century. The writings that were on the agenda of the next century were mostly works of this period. And so it brought novelties to the political arena with the 1688 Revolution and religious life beginning with the Toleration Act. In addition to this, the changes in censorship encouraged written debates on all subjects.
The expansion of political debates came with the abolition of state censorship which had been a serious barrier to the publication of any kind of texts. This lapsing of the Licensing Act in 1695 allowed a large and rapidly growing forum for public debate and also a growing popular political audience. 14 In the seventeenth-century there had already been a tradition of religious debates but with these developments it can be observed that there was a steadily increase in these, too, besides the expanding genre of political satire. These polemical satires showed a retreat to classicism, an appeal to country values and incessant criticism of the supposedly artifıcial moneyed world of the eighteenth-century.15 Literature as paraHel to the normal media of the press (pamphlets
13 Ibi d., p. 7. 14
The establishment of the Grub Street that formed the heart of the periodical press evolves with these developments.
15
John Gay's Beggar 's Opera, Swift's Gulliver Travels and Pope's Dunciad are the most known examples today.
and petitions) were used to express extra-parliamentary opinions. 16 Within these developments there began a change in the constitutional structure that would be accomplished in the early nineteenth century.
This theoretical picture presents a mixed constitution of three balanced and independent parts, namely king, parliament and the judiciary. Nonnan Gash sees the reflections of this theory as :
The more the eighteenth-century is studied, in fact, the more apparent do certain features become: the absence of its branches; the practical recognition of limitations; the readiness to work together .17
As he points out, this picture shows that the Lords and Commons were preventing the king from acting tyrannical, whereas the King and the Commons restricted the possibility of the aristocrats forming an oligarchy. This theoretical balance found different expressions in the contemporary political wings, the Whigs and the Tories. Let us turn here our attention to the Tories.
The origins of Tory ideology went back to the sixteenth century. It can be seen as a reaction to the theory that political power belongs to the people and that there was a right to resist the ruler. The answer to this was to bring forward the divine right of the ruler which was actually an idea which no Christian had doubted since St Paul's
16 This does not mean that the public was involved in politics but rather had a consciousness of it, since even Burke who was seeking for out-door-support rejected the idea (in his words) 'that a member of Parliament should be a delegate rather than a representative of his constituents', and so did Charles James Fox explained: "I pay no regard whatever to the voice of the people; it is our duty to do what is proper, without considering what may be agreeable: their business is to chose us; it is ours to act constitutionally and to maintain the independence ofParliament."
17
N. Gash, "The English Constitution in the Age of American Revolution", in Pillars ofGovernment and
Other Essays on State and Society c. 1770- c. 1880, London, Boston, Md.: Edward Am old, I 986, p. 7.
thirteenth chapter of Romans.18
The sixteenth-century shape of this theory became "the Divine Right ofkings".
The roots of this debate should be seen in the struggles between the various religious sects. According to the pre-Tory idea the opposition who argued for the right to resist was threatening the national establishment and leading towards a religious civil war. In the later centuries the opposition theory evolved into the ideas of limitation of royal power and against a centralisation that could lead to absolute monarchy as had been seen to happen in the case of Louis XIV. Tories obviously were not arguing for an absolutist regime, but for an effective national government and a head of the nation to whom all men would owe loyalty. That is to say, passive obedience, with its later emphasis on loyalty to the king, did not mean that the king could do whatever he pleased. The laws of God and nature were there to restrict him.
Related to this theory of divine right, in Tory ideology, was the issue of royal legitimacy. On the basis of God's will the succession was to be nominated by birth. This was a continuation of the law of primogeniture, defining the ruler' s legitimacy by birth and heredity. So the main difference of the Tories from the Whigs in the seventeenth and eighteenth-centuries can be reduced in a simple form to these older theories. This of course created a prejudice against them on the part of the Hanoverian rolers until the time of George III. 19 However it is fair to say that differences occurred more in the theory rather than in the practice of the Whig and T ory parti es. As Owen put it,
18 George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, fourth edition, Orlando, Florida: Holt, Rinehart and
Winson, 1973, p. 365.
19
Because they believed in the Stuarts' right to the succession they tended to support James II's right to rule, for which they came to be labelled as Jacobites and opposers of the Hanoverian succession. lt is
"In essence then, the T ories of early Hanoverian England were those who had Tory ancestors and who continued to behave as Country members, opposed in general to the measures of the Co urt; in terms of policy they were indistinguishable from genuine Country Whigs."20
In the eighteenth-century the Tories were suspected of being Jacobites but not all of them were such. With the Hanoverian accession there emerged a split among them as the Hanoverian and the Stuart Tories but this did not mean that they were planning to dethrone the Georges. This was for a great part rumours created by the Whigs who wanted to hold the Jacobite threat alive and thus suppress the Tories.21 There were around fıfty Tories in the House of Commons and they created an influential body in the Country where they drafted back after the rise of the Whigs during the Hanoverian period. The
ı 714, 1723 and 1745 Rebellions did help the Whig aim very much. Atterbury, one who took the allegiance and held office but a suspected fervent Jacobite, was accused of "holding treasonable correspondence with the Pretender and of fomenting a conspiracy to invade the kingdom" and was exiled.22 However, it can be said that Jacobitism had lost the old element in the Church. Although their writings will be referred and published again and again the Non-Jurors had passed away towards the middle of the century and at least the small number of voluntary participants of the ı 745 Rebellion showed that it really died out.
disputable whether all Tories deserved to be put in this group, but after the Jacobite rebellion of 1715 they became, paradoxically, the opposition party whereasa group ofWhigs took their place as the Court party. 20 B. John Owen, The Eighteenth-century 1714-1815, New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company,
1976, p. 114.
21 Sir George Clark, The Later Stuarts 1660-1714, The Oxford History of England, Oxford: Ciarendon Press, 1934, 1985, pp. 243,244.
22
Charles J. Abbey and John H. Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth-century, vol. 1., London:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1878, p. 101.
After their ejection from the Court following the Jacobite rebellion, the Tories were left on the country back-benches, and in terms of their political identities, they come nearer to the amorphous body of non-court Whigs in the House of Comrnons. The principle with which the Tories had been associated, such as support for the royal prerogative against the attempted encroachments of Parliament, for the Anglican Church against Protestant non-conformity, for landed against the monied interest, of the Stuarts against the Hanoverian dynasty, and of naval and colonial warfare against military comrnitments in Europe - these principles were overtaken by the contemporary situations. The royal prerogative was rarely discussed.
The change in the attitudes of the Tories is very well explained by the justifıcation of their eleetaral alliance with the Prince of Wales on the ground that "he offers such terms on future for securing the liberty of the Subject, and for setting bounds to the Prerogative, as ever were proposed by anyone related to the Crown".23
Both princes, like George II and the III as Princes of Wales, courted the Opposition to prepare for their reign. The greater part of the opposition were Tories who were excluded from the king's support and his court. They were suspected of Jacobite tendencies although they claimed that they were not opposing "his Majesty" but the 'evil councillors' who had forced themselves upon the monarch24• At this point the role of Leicester House is conveniently explained by Romney Sedgwick:
23 lbid. 24 lbid.
At all times and in all countries, heirs to the throne have tended to quarrel with reigning monarch, but only in England between the Revolution of 1688 and the First Reform Act of 1832 have they been provided with a safe, agreeable means of expressing their
resentment and securing redress of their grievances by placing themselves at the head of the Opposition and embarrassing the Government." 25
The T ories cam e to centre-stage again with George III who had been their patron during his Leicester House years where he had been on the opposition to George II. However they soon disintegrated during the 1760's. Only during the movements for economic and parliamentary reforms did they gained another stimulus to reappear in politics.
Political conflict was not the clear-cut division between Whig and Tory, although these alone are very diffıcult terms to explain. As Namier says 'they explain little but themselves require much explaining'. During Queen Anne's period there was competition at Westminster between Whigs and Tories, but after 1715 the competition was between Whigs.
Taking this background into consideration this dissertation will be concemed with the views of two Tory High-Churchmen, namely Charles Leslie and Jones of Nayland, and their call of "the church in danger". Charles Leslie wrote at the start of the eighteenth-century and Jones of Nayland at its close. The call of "church in danger" seemed to be an apparent retleetion of the changing demands and attitudes towards the Established Church in the eighteenth-century. They were the most important consideration for High-Churchmen before the Great Reform which will start the secularisation period in the nineteenth century. Leslie and Jones of Nayland are appropriate choices for study since they reflect in their thoughts both the contemporary orthodox po int of view and were regarded as the guardians of the Anglican doctrine of the
25
Romney Sedgwick, Letters From George III to Lord Bute, 1756-66, p. xii. Quoted in ibid., p. 110.
day. Thus it is expected that their works will show the evolution of the High-Church ideology strikingly and how the perception on "the church in danger" changed from the beginning of the century to the last decade.
The two chapters consist of four parts each. These parts contain backgrounds on religion, state and church relationship that facilitates to understand the thoughts of the two authors. The overall problem of the diversity of politics in this period that made it nearly beyond ability to reconstruct it, lead to the decision of not dealing much with the details of politics and practice. Discussion is largely theoretical and detail is inserted only when necessary. After these introductory parts the views of Leslie and Jones ofNayland are given relying on their various works. For Leslie it seemed more appropriate to relate him to seventeenth-century developments. Here his dealings against primarily the rationalists and king' s interference to sp iritual issues are discussed. The second chapter attemptd to trace the developments from Leslie onwards down to the period of William Jones which was difficult since the great gap between them. It is thus handled in very general terms.
In terms of sources the books The Theo/ogical Works of Leslie and The
Theological, Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works of William Jones have been used.
The selection of these works was made due to their fame during and after the times of Leslie and Jones of Nayland. The circulation of the cited works here of Leslie and Jones of Nayland were great during the first publication and if not during their life the tracts were re-printed posthumously again and again as Leslie's Short and Easy Method on
Deists. Because of the problem of available primary sources, quotations from secondary
sources on other contemporary writers were called to aid. It was a great help that Leslie xvm
gathered his views on the Church and State relationship in a compact way in his book On Regale and Pontificate. For his thought on religion and dissent some of his other works on defence of the revealed religion, Christian Revelation and Christian F aith in his arguments against the Deists, Socinians and other non-conformists have been used and are listed in the bibliography. The thoughts of Jones of Nayland were selected from several of his tracts, pamphlets and sermons which reveal his thought on the increasing threat against the Established Church. The arguments concentrated mostly on the rationalist beliefs and the consequences of non-belief which especially with the French Revolution gave its fruits asa decadent society.
Chapter 1: Charles Leslie
1.1 Religion and Dissent in the Late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Centuries
One of the greatest concems at the close of the century and early eighteenth-century was a political, social and religious corruption. It was commonly agreed by orthodox religious persons that the nation was becoming more vicious than before and that heterodoxy was increasing. According to them "drunkenness, prostituting, luxury, cursing, swearing, and all kinds of sin were much more manifest in society after 1660 than they had been in some by gone golden age."26 There was hope that the Church Settlement of the 1660's would bring a radical revision and bring a truly comprehensive national church and a possibility for some dissenters of reconciliation. 27 But the church proved to be unable to recognise any liberty of worship and the prayer book of 1662 was to remain the liturgical basis of the Anglican Church until the twentieth-century. The reason of the alierration of the society, especially the urban one, from the church and related sins were seen in the rising rationalist, atheist and deistic thoughts that threatened both the practical life and doctrines of the Established Church. So the disputes were greatly based on politics and the constitution as well as theoretical and philosophical problems.
Tuming the other si de of the co in, according to many contemporaries, corruption existed also within the church. The church organisation seemed to tum more and more away from the primitive church and Reformation doctrines. Absenteeism and pluralism
26 John Redwood,
Reason, Ridicule and Religion The Age of Enlightenment in England 1660-1750.
London: Thames and Hudson, l 976, p. I 74.
27 Paul Langford, "The Eighteenth-century (1688- I 789) in
The Oxford History, p. 404.
were reoccurring problems of the Church.28
Besides, the involvement of the Church, that is its bishops, in politics became a chief point of criticism. This was regarded partly as a feature of State's control over the church, known as Erastianism. They were seen as corrupt ministers that longed for political fame rather than strive for piety and learning. So they assumed a political and party character, and were raised to the bench because of political allegiance motives.29 Instead they should have served their time for their bishoprics which they hardly visited.
Nevertheless it seems that the threats caused by non-conformity, deism and irreligion were greater concems. The existence of heterodoxy in the university of Cambridge increased the tensions and carried the discussions to an intellectual level. Cambridge became a centre ofTrinitarian heterodoxy. It produced advanced liberals such as William Whiston 'who believedin everything but the Trinity' according to Macoulay, Samual Clarke, author of the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712) and some
crypto-Arians as Hoadly and Rundle who became controversial bishops.30 The evil that began to obtain a puissance on the society troubled also the govemments that annexed laws against it. The laws were aimed against blasphemy, irreligion and all the practices that emerged out of these. In 1660 the threat was seen in the non-attendance of the people to the church. Charles II issued a royal proclamation that serninari es of morality should be given at churches and proclamations were to be read regularly against vicious people. Stress
28 Richard Brown, Church and State in Modern Britain 1700-1850. London and New York: Routledge,
ı99ı, pp. 426-427.
29 Nonnan Sykes, Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ı 934, p. 41 ı.
30 Walsh and Taylor, "Introduction", p. 47.
was put into Lord's Day observance that aimed to strengthen the bond between the society and the church.31 In the following decades legislative pressures continued. William II fought 'for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness'. Queen Anne was one of the most concemed ones about the rising of corruption. She opened a campaign "for the encouragement of piety and virtue" with the Proclamation of 25 February 1702. The regulations were not only aimed to reform social morals but also for the clergy. During George I's reign archbishops and bishops were ordered to control "ordinations, enforce residence, control pluralism and catechise widely."32
The manifestation of the corruption was seen in plenty of works, both in high and low society. Coffee-houses debates, theatres and all kinds of published works were an apparent evidence for the growing corruption according to the contemporaries. Fashions of showing wit, expressing thoughts on satirical way and scepticism implicated the do mination of evil in the minds of the people that were to be fight by greater observances of religious doctrines. The theatre with the increasing tendeney towards the genres of comedy-farce, which became a fashionable court entertainment, instead of the earlier noble tragedies became a target of the defenders of the faith.33 These kinds of plays were perceived as dangerous since they gave bad idea of marriage full of rows and turmoil of cuckoldry and deceits, moreover the plays lead individuals to atheism.34
31 "An Act for the better observance of the Lord' s day", 29. Charles II c?. Quoted in John Redwood,
Reason, Ridicule and Religion, The Age of Enlightenment in England 1660-1750, London: Thames and
Hudson, 1976, p. 176. 32 Ibid.
33 For attacks of the theatre see Redwood's chapter Church in Danger, pp. 174-198.
34 In 1704 a paınphlet called Some considerations about the danger of go ing to plays" argued:
"They (men) are now taught how they might be without a Creator; and how, now they are, they may live best without any dependence on his Providence. They are call'd to doubt of the existence of god .... His
The worry increased by the appearances of works by many dissenters and non-conformists. These were not a new phenomenon, but such opinions were never expressed so openly, which even became spread in the upper ranks of the society, before 1660. What was new was the open connection between writing, satire, attitudes, manners and morals. 35
The attacks that came towards the Anglican Church were against pretended mirades and revelation, against special powers in the priesthood, and the popishness of the Anglican Church. 36
Comparisons were made between the Anglican and Greek, Roman priests and papists. The authority of the authority of tradition, that was the structure of bishops and priests of the Anglican Church were attacked. 'The Chaplain of the sect of free-thinkers' as Bowman was called by archbishop W ake argued in his sermons
In which is prov'd that all Tradition Is the destruction of Religion; 'tis likewise shown by dint of reason Episcopacy is high treason3 7
It was a fact that with the rising Enlightenment philosophy some rationalistic approaches appeared and there emerged some divergence from the orthodox religion, even though not supported by a great number.38 The form ofreligious understanding that went hand in hand with the rationalistic approach of the enlightenment was "rational religion" and "natural religion" as opposed to mystical and miraele religions. It was again
wise Providence at every tum is charged with neglect.... They make every bold with the Grace of God, and crave inspiration to serve the ends of lust and revenge." Quoted in Redwood, Reason, Ridicule and Religion, p. ı 87.
35 Ibid., p. ı 76.
36 Ibid., p. ı77.
37 Mr Bowman 's Serman versifY 'd, Wakefieıd, ı 731. Quoted in ibi d.
an attempt to create a religion that could transcend the sects and find a religious truth within Christian and nature's laws. The rational religion like the natural one was understandable to the human intellect and, beyond history, was already existing in the nature ofhuman beings.39
The Deists pushed this theory to extremes, believing only in the rational religion and rejecting histoncal revelation totally. In the sixteenth century people were called deist who had a belief in God, contrasted with 'atheists'. In addition the church evolved the term theist. Deist came to be used to deseribe those who believed that there was a god who had created the world but who did not interfere any more in it or in its laws, whereas theists believed that God is stili involved in the universe and could be seen in every part of the world. He was part of it and ruled it.
The distinction between the histoncal religion, that was revealed, and rational religion was an important point of difference among the apologists. Locke, and with him another German Enlightenment thinker, Wollf, argued for an intermediate rational religion. According to them God revealed the truths of Christianity but these were intelligible to human understanding. For this revelation was necessary. It was above human reason, but understandable to it.
John Toland (1670-1722) and Anthony Collins, Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) were thinkers who went further on the rationalist road. Locke argued that Christianity was
38
J. C. D. Clark points out that there was a decrease by half in the Dissenter number between the Revolution to the second decade of the Eighteenth-century.
39
Everything that was historical was chaotic, polluted, artificial and not rational opposed to nature and natural things that were symbolising purity, order and acceptable since it was rational.
reasonable and Toland added to this that there was no nonsense in Christianity.40 He
opened a debate on supematuralism. Toland argued in his famous pamphlet "Christianity
not Mysterious" that if Christianity could be cleaned of its 'mysterium' it would become
a pure rational religion. 41 Also in his other theological works he showed atendeney to
rationalism. In most of his writings he tried to show the wickedness of priests and that the phenomena that were told to be miraculous were not so, but were only things that have
not been discovered yet. 42 Furthermore, he declared that nothing was contrary to and
above reason and thus was the Gospel. He explained that science will take over the role of the priests, and that science' s and heroes-saints are the great tutors of the history of culture. The religion of Toland was one of 'freethinkers' and like Locke he argued that the state should not interfere with an individual' s religious beliefs.
One of the authors that showed the most characteristic of the controversy of
natural religion and anti-Trinitarianism was Charles Blount in 1693.43 He was a vigorous
supporter of the Revolution and provoked and crude manifestation of rationalism during
this time. His Oracle of Reason gave the fundamentals of the ordinary deist argument.
Mirades of the Old Testament were approached with great scepticism and so the allegorical interpretations of the Gospel. This evoked great wrath of the theologians, and especially High-Churchmen, who sa w in it a great insult to Christianity. Among these
was Charles Leslie who answered these with his Short and Easy Methods and seemed to
40
Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth-century, vol. 1, London: Smith, Elder and
Co., 1902, p. 105.
41 Macit Gökberk, Felsefe Tarihi, Istanbul: Remzi Kitapevi, 1990, pp. 363-364. 42 Stephen, History of English Thought, p. 103.
43 lbid., p. 194.
be very successful in refuting them. It was recorded that he was able to convert several of his antagonists. 44
Anthony Collins contributed to the debates with his A Discourse of Freethinking, Occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Called Freethinkers in 1712 arguing for the
right of freethinking in all matters, religious and civil. A revolutionary work for its time was, however, Discourse on the Grounds and Reason of the Christian Religion, (1724),
where he regarded Christianity just as an allegorical form of the Old Testament.45 Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish Messiah, and this can only be known out of the old Testament, in fact, the Old Testament is the only canon of Christians; for the New Testament is not a law book for the ruling of the Church the Apostles rest their proof of Christianity only on the Old Testament.46
Shaftesbury was one of the Deist controversialists who was anti-clericalism. Priesthood imposed nothing but follies and mankind. According to him God' s revelation of himself in Nature was certain and suffıcient for all practical purposes, while any other was uncertain, obscure and unnecessary. 47His style was ridicule that was commonly used by the Deists, since this was the best test for the truth. Pope's letter to Warburton shows how he was perceived stili as a great threat after nearly forty years. He wrote that to his knowledge "the Charecteristicks had done more harm to Revealed Religion in England
than all the works of infıdelity put together".48 He was once a student of Locke and was very much influenced by ancient philosophy and especially Plato. For Shaftesbury the
44
Charles Leslie, The Publishers Preface, The Socinian Controversy, p. 198. 45
Charles J. Abbey and John Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth-century, vol. 1, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1878, p. 199.
46 Quoted in ibid., p. 198. 47 Ibid., p. 186.
48 Quoted in ibid., p. 186.
world was more an aesthetic-moral one, the universe and everything in it like a piece of art in harmony. The cause of creation was 'enthusiasm', which was the affection to 'right', 'good' and 'beauty' and the giving of the soul to something superior. Thus religion was nothing else than these, putting oneself within the boundaries of this beautiful reality, giving the individual the feeling of enthusiasm. As an extension of this, one could find God in every being, as one sees the artist in every piece of his work. This aesthetic religion was one of the most extreme cases and could actually assimiiate the ancient pagan religions easier than Christianity.
Socinianism became another target for the High-Churchmen in the anti-Trinitarian controversies. Founded by Laelius Socinus and his nephew Faustus it was a form of Unitarianism, as it was called later, and the earliest evidence of Socinians went back to 1598 in England.49 They rejected on rational grounds the Trinity, the divinity of Christ,
atonement and redemption. They saw themselves as true Christians since Trinitarianism was a departure from the strict monotheism. Jesus was according to them human and not a divinity who had a share of God's power only at the Resurrection and Ascension. The Cambridge Platonists, Unitarians and Latitudinarians were influenced by this views in the eighteenth-century and earlier.
Another sect that gave emphasis to individual salvation and silent worship, that is little regard for paid and trained ministry, was the Quakers. It was shortly the faith, practice and the Church policy of the Religious Society of Friends that was originated in the 1650's. For the early fathers of Quakers George Fox (1624-1691), Isaac Pennington
(1616-1679), William Penn (1644-1718) and Robert Barkley (1648-1690) can be counted. Surely they had greater influence in the American colonies. Simplicity in life and truth and peace retain a vital motivating force in their daily life. The central doctrine was the 'inward light'. This could exist in every individual without any regard of one's religion.
There may be members of this Catholic Church both a many heathens, Jews and Turks, men and women of integrity and simplicity of heart, who though blinded in some thing, of their understanding, and burdened with superstition, yet, being upright in their hearts before the lord, ... are by the seeret touches of the holy light in their souls enlivened and quickened, therefore secretly united to God, and thereby become true members of this Catholic Church.50
This purely inward phenomenon carried together the rejection of any outwards signs such as the ecclesiastical order like the episcopacy and ordination. The access to true religion came through this light which also put the scripture to a secondary importance. Although there are many similarities with the evangelicalism the emphasis that was put to the infallible text of the evangelicals separated them.
Anti-Catholicism was stili an ingredient in most of the Anglicans. After James II the government and the monarch were strained to take measures. They demanded acts against conspiracies and insurrections of the Roman Catholics. These included to forbid possession ofarms, exclude them from London and Westminster, in 1695 an act came out
49 D. P. Walker, The Decline of Hel/, Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 73.
50 R. Barcley, Apo/ogy for the Quakers, quoted in Overton, The English Church, p. 59 I.
that restricted their access to the professions and in ı 700 another that restricted their right to own land and imposed severe penalties for saying mass.51
1.2 Charles Leslie on Religion and Dissent
Charles Leslie (1650-ı 722) was one of the non-jurors52 and a controversialist. 53 He was educated in Enniskillen School and Trinity College, Dublin, then studied law but took holy orders in ı680. Through the support of the Earl of Ciarendon he became the chancellor of Connor. His name became known through the Ciarendon Codes and his answers to the challenges of Patrick Tyrre, the recently invested Roman Catholic hishop of Clogher, and some other Roman Catholic clergy at Monaghan.
His early writings were mostly defences of Anglican doctrines against the now more favoured dissenting groups as most of the High-Churchmen were doing. During the Iate nineties he made some acquaintances with Quaker leaders like Penn and his friends. However they could not impress him. In his words "[he] could see nothing in their mystical doctrine of the 'light within' but 'blasphemous pride' and 'idolatry'. According to him for being a true Christian belief in the sacraments and other doctrines of the Church was the key.
According to Leslie arguing against the Deists was an easy work, which the title A
Short and Easy Method with the Deists also revealed.54 He "fancied that a single blast
51 G. Clark, Later Stuarts, p. 153.
52 The non-jurors will be discussed below.
53 For Charles Leslie's life, see Dictionary of National Biography (1885-1900).
54
Although he put his thoughts against the Deists it would not be wrong to argue that he was doing this defence against all Dissent.
would be enough to disperse the little cloud no bigger than a men' s hand". 55 The contemporaries with him did not expect that this revolutionary thought could expect in the coming decades.
In order to refute the Deists scepticism Leslie proposed to lay down a simple test. 'The Truth of the doctrine of Christ will be sufficiently evidence, if the Matters of fact, which are recorded of him in the Gospels like miracles, be true' and so by such a test the events written in it will proof itself real. 56 Accordingly there were four rules 'destined to
try the truth of alleged matters of fact'. The rules were these:
1. That the matter of fact be such, as that Men's outward senses, their eyes and ears , may be judges of it. 2. That it be done publickly in the face of the world. 3. That not only publick monuments be kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be perform ed. 4. That such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted, and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was done.57
He said further, that the first two made it impossible to make any deception at the time in which it was written, whereas the last two made it impossible at any later periods. These at the close established the truth of the Christian Religion distinguished from the impostures ofthe Mohammed and old Pagan World.58 To the arguments of the Deists that the possibility of Judaism being the true religion and the core of Christianity he answered that the Jews could not be of the true religion although 'truth of Christian Religion stands upon the same foundations as that of Moses', since they put upon themselves 'the blood
55
Stephen, History of English Thought, p. 195. 56
Charles Leslie, Short Method on Deists, p. 10. 57 lbid., p. ll.
58
"The matters of fact of Mohemet, or what is fabled of the Deists, do all want some of the aforesaid four rules, whereby the certainty of matters of fact demonstrated. First for Mohamet, he pretended to no Miracles, as he tells us in his Alcoran, C.6. and these which are commonly told of him pass among the
of Christ' and rejected him although there were many references for the coming of the
Messiah.59
Leslie's denouncing ofinfıdels and deists with the anti-Trinitarian tensions began
with his answer to Tillotson, Rector of Exeter. Tillotson had published his sermons in
1694 openly revealing his sympathies with natural religion and Socinian tendencies. 60 He
linked Tillotson with Blount in his fırst essay on the Socinian, The Charge of Socinianism
against Dr. Tillotson Considered (1695)61, and continued his arguments in The Socinian
Controversy Discuss 'd, in 6 Part (1708).
Leslie's proposal differed from other attempts of proving only by the beauty of the Scriptures. Other controversialists of his time were emphasising the perfect style and events as a proof that it was the work of God. Throughout the century theologians tried to make use of reason, in explaining God' s plan and that the world was a gift to men, for discover and investigate all divinely appointed truth. The examination of evidence was closely connected to the Deists but could be found in all the other controversialists as
well.62 Leslie's approach thus was also rationalist in method and he explained this that he
had to
Do with deists who were scoffers, and trembled these fewels, under
their feet; and therefore that some other topic must be found out for
them to persuade them by the plain principles of reason, to which only they appealed, and ofwhich indeed only they were capable.63
Mohametans themselves but as legendary fables; and as such, are rejected by the wife and learned among them; as the legends oftheir Saints are in the Church ofRome." lbid., p. 18.
59 lbid., p. 37, 57. 60
Redwood, Reason, Ridicule and Religion, p. I 63. 61 lbid.
62 See Overton, The English Church, p. 36.
63 Charles Leslie, Vindication of the Short Method on Deists, 17 I O, p. 277.
Of course, he believed in the authenticity and contemporaniety of the records which was criticised by Deists. Relying on this test the accounts must be either true or forged because there could not be any divergence afterwards, and for Leslie the eye-witnesses were suffıciently evidence.
Could Moses have persuaded 600000 men that he had been through the see in the manner related in Exodus if it had not been true? If he could, it would have been a greater miraele than the other.64
And to the argument of the Deist, that there had been made mischief by the priests he answered that "if the priests were indeed capable of passing off such cheats upon the laity, and of making them believe that they had always been in the 'cunningest and wisest of mankind'. 65
He continued his attacks arguing for the universality of Christianity. According to Deists there was one common reason on which every man agreed, in a rational-natural there should be than one God to which all human beings would agree on and this one God was revealing Himself in the nature. This was applying to all human reasons and could be observed and agreed by all of them. The revealed religions put forward many different ones and accordingly put forward many different laws that are against reasoning. Leslie answered this with showing the universality of Christianity.
The Laws was given to the Jews as a distinct and separate People from all other Nations upon the Earth; and was a municipal Law particularly for that Nation only of the Jews: But Christianity was to extend to all the Nations, and to the civil Rights to all Nations, who had each the ir own municipal Laws. 66
64 Charles Leslie, Truth ofChristianity Demonstrated, p. 295.
65 Charles Leslie, Short Method with the Jews, p. 44. Stephen, History of English Thought, p. 199.
66 Leslie, The Truth ofChristianity Demonstrated, p. 139.
Now nothing could be sufficiently argued against Christianity and the fact that it is revealed. The "common reason" which the rationalist put forward could not replace the truth and 'use of Revelation', but was a creature that misguided human being.
This common reason is a beast, and we must look for reason not from the common sentiments of Mankind, but only among the Beaux, the Deists.67
As the arguments of the Deists towards the Revealed Religion were irrelevant and not true so were the anti-Trinitarian views of the Socinians and Quakers. Especially the Socinians reduced the Holy Spirit and Christ to Creatures or noting more than the power and wisdom of God that they call God's word and the other his Spirit. These arguments and their initiators could not be Christians, as most of them declared. S ince 'Christians are so called from the God whom they worship and therefore who think Christ not to be God ... cannot, in any propriety of speech be called Christian'. 68
All these problems of infidelity arose, according to Leslie, because of the evil scepticism and reason which 'darkens the hearts, and like shutters keep out the light of Heaven'. One needed to sweep all the shadows of the evil reason, which was corrupted when man had fallen, in order to achieve the purity and holiness of spirit. 69 Otherwise the
effects of reason and private judgement were destructive. These lead the people to separate from the Christian belief and strive with each other.
The Effects of Private Judgement are these, multiplicity of sects and opinion, perpetual wrangling, without any empire or judge of controversy; whence come inveterate prejudice against each other, animosities ... and all the war of Religion ... and is always the chief
67
Leslie, Short Method with the Deists, p. 26.
68
See for anti-Trinitarianism in Leslie, The Socinian Controversy Discuss 'd in Six Dialogues.
69
Leslie, The Truth ofChristianity Demonstrated, pp. 168-174. 14
pretence in the civil wars of Nations within themselves, and most commonly in the wars ofKingdom against Kingdoms.70
The episcopate and episcopacy ordained clergy as a spiritual power was an essential part in Leslie' s defence of the rights of the Church. In this he first made his steps in showing the role and origin of the bishops, who were the backbone of the divine structure. Here he distinguishes between the actual and present state of the office, which was to ascribe to the bishops who were both joining in religious as well as in political life in the House ofLords. To the arguments that priesthood was invented and had its rootsin the pagan tradition of high-priests he answered by giving evidence from the scripture that they were divinely appointed by God and not by temporal authorities. The present offices of the priest were resembling the true priestly office as a continuation of the apostolic succession. 71
In an apostolic histoncal approach he went back to Christ who was the High-Priest and explained how he left his office to his apostles and they to the coming bishops successively. So the priests were representing the person of Christ and they inherited his duties of mediator and intercession with God from him. They were guides of the society like a shepherd to his flock. There was a special relationship between them and the society.
Bishop represent the person of Christ to us. There is a spiritual Relation, or Marriage, instituted by Christ, betwixt the Bishop and his Flock or Subjects; ... that this Relation , this Marriage of the Bishop to his Flock, so deeply founded by Christ himself; whom Christ does impover, as his Ambassador, to marry the Church in his
70
Leslie, Of Private Judgement and Authority in Matters of Faith, p. I 75.
71
stead, and in his name, promising to ratify and consummate it in his own Person, for e ver in Heaven ... 72
Thus the bishops were ordained with all power conceming religious aspects and they made up the structure of the Church "independent of all the powers upon the Earth". Those, like the Deists and Quakers, who refused to adınit this were serving the Devil.
With the Deists, in this cause, are joint the Quakers, and other of our Dissenters, who throw off the succession of our Priesthood, together with the Sacraments and publick Festivals ... Therefore we may see the artifıce and malice of the Devil, in all these attempts. 73
Anti-Trinitarians were another point of problem with Leslie dealt with. For any orthodox this was a principle source of Christianity and_ rejecting it was the greatest error. Arians and the Socinians were among the primary targets of this controversy. Leslie detected asa special enemy Archbishop Tillotson and traditionally the Socinians.74
ParaHel to the anti-trinity arguments there went on the discussions against the anti-clerics. Leslie observed that 'radicals think Episcopacy an indifferent thing, and only a state point of amongst us'. 75
This was true, Deists like Toland and Tindal argued that the church had no authority but from the state. 76 However this was wrong since they disregarded the Apostolic succession. These cries of the men against the Church came, according to him, from the Deists, Socinians and 'all o ur libertines who make use of their artillery; and wage war with the Church and all instituted religion upon their very principles, of not being tied to any church or communion, but to charge at mere will and
72
Leslie, Regale, p. 604.
73 Leslie, Short Method with the Deists, p. 27. 74
Leslie, The Socinian Controversy Discuss 'd, London, I 708. 75 Quoted
in J. C. D. Clark, English Society, p. 297.
76
See John Toland, The primitive Constitution of the Christian Church, with An Account of the Principle Controversies about Church-Government, which at Preseni Divide the Christian World (1704) and
pleasure' .77 As a rule every society needed a govemor, otherwise there would emerge anarchy. However this govemor could not be appointed by the people since this would give them the right to 'dispute his administration, and depose him from his power. Here it became essential that this govemor must be of a divine authority. 'Thus none but Christ can appoint govemors over the Church, and it is plain that he appointed his Apostles as such, and they, othersunder them, to rule and to govem' .78
In short the Deists, Quakers and other Dissenters who refused the succession of priests, sacraments and other major doctrines of Christianity as Trinity, were caring 'the artifıce and malice of the Devil'. Leslie was aware that if they prevailed in their attempts Christianity would die with them. So they were a great threat actually, but since their numbers were not much and the followers of this Dissent converted back 'both in the city and country', as the Quakers case, he saw that the threat was decreasing.79
Thus he turned his attention to the problem of church and state relationship, however, with an eye on the dissent.
1.3 Church and State Relationship in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries
The relation of the state, i.e. the sovereign, and the church, i.e. pope, has been an important discussion theme since the middle ages. The Scripture was not very clear in the
Matthew Tindal, The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted (1706). Quoted in J. C. D. Clark, English Society, p. 297.
77 Ibid.
78 Leslie, The Second Part of the Wo/fStript of his Shepherds Clothing ... Where in the Designs of the Atheist,
Deists, Whigs, Commonwealths-men, &c. and All Sart of Seetarisis against the Church, are Plainly Laid Open and Expos 'd (1707), quoted in J. C. D. Clark, English Society, p. 298.
question of how this relation should be organİsed and thus members of the controversies made use of some of it as according to their need. The reformatİ on changed the nature of this relation slightly, instead of the pope as the head of the church monarchs assumed their power over the church. In England the monarchs took their rule as the head till Queen Elizabeth when defıned the rule more defınite in putting it rightly that the rulers can only be temporal heads to the church and not head of it like, high-priests. Nevertheless the supremacy of the monarch over the, as a high-priest in a sense, meant for Englishmen the independence of the pope and their nationality.80 This is that projected the idea of independent national will.
With James I and his developments in the thought of divine right the co-operation of the church and the king was emphasised once more. The Interregnum was without doubt a break in this continuity between the state and the Anglican Church. The Restaration of Charles II led to the re-establishment of Anglicanism, and its enforcement at every level through laws such as the Test Act, 1673. Then the suspicions of Charles II's Catholicism and then catholicising attempts of James II the prerogative in church matters began to arise suspicion.81 The situation changed again with William and Mary. They exercised a considerable personal influence and support in the administration of the Church. There were two approaches of the Churchmen towards this influence. One wing of it argued that this influence had to be tolerated since the state was a means of support and protection for it. The majority supported the ancient union of church and state.
79
Leslie, Present State ofQuakerism in England Wherein is Show'd. .. , p. 642.
80
J. H. Overton and Frederic Re !ton, The English Church, From the Accessian of George I. to The End of The Eighteenth-century (1714-1800), London: Macınillan and Co., 1906, p. 20.
Whereas the other wing, in it mostly the non-jurors, argued for a free church, independent in religious issues and appointments. So at the turn of the century the question was not whether there is a connection between these two units but what their duty towards each other was and where the limits of interference towards each other should end. 82
The Declaration ofindulgences during James II reign was ın a sense the effort of the state to gain more support and thus independent power from the non-conformists. lt aimed to give more liberty of worship in the public, but it was found illegal. 83 This kind of attempts di d alienate the Church of England from the state and nobody wanted this. The maintenance of the Church of England was essential.
In the political sense the period among 1688-17 ı 4 can be seen as the establishment of the English constitutional structure and to some extend the restriction of the royal powers by the parliament. 84 The fırst step was the Bill of Rights, 1689, which
ended the royal right of suspending the operation of laws and i ts 'dispensing powers'. In 1689, the right of maintaining a standing army in peacetime was abolished, creating a dependency on Muting Acts of the annual parliamentary sessions. A restriction on parliament followed in 1694, namely the Triennial Act that hindered the parliaments from being continued indefınitely by the calling of general elections every three year, but will be substituted by the Septennial Act during the Whig government of the coming decade. Finally following this, the Act of Settlement was passed in 170 ı that limited the monarch' s power to dismiss judges, and so making the judicial power more independent.
81 Ibid., p.22. 82 Ibid., p. 20.
83 G. Clark, Later Stuarts, p. 124.
With the non-juror schism that was initiated with the Glorious Revolution of 1689 the de bates on royal supremacy over the church gained speed during the last decade of the seventeenth-century well into the early years of the next one. With the political restrictions the demand of church's independence arose. However before going on the discussions in the Iate seventeenth and early eighteenth-century the theory of Divine Right and its evolution should be investigated in more detail. Royal absolutism, or in its traditional name "Divine Right of Kings", was an essential theory during the seventeenth-century. The king appointed councillors, judges, bishops, lord-lieutenants and local commissioners. Thus the administration was under his control and so was the government in theory. W ith this the doctrine argued that the power of kings derived from God and the orthodox teaching of the early Stuarts and to some extend also later, clergy was based on
this.85 The fırst of the Stuartsin England, James I, was aman of extreme views on the
dignity of the kingiy office. However his coalition with the Anglican Church gained him the acceptance of most of his subjects. They were contempt that they found a National
Church on which they had the loyal support. The bishops saw it very profıtable since " an
alliance with the throne was seen to be the only safeguard against both "new presbyter"
and "old priest".86 Immediately after his coronation James I began to make use of the old
theory of the Divine Right of Kings which seemed to be favourable for the church since
84
Brown, Church and State, p. 33.
85 J. P. Sommerville, Politics and Ideology in England, 1603- 1640, London: New York: Longman, 1986,
pp. 9-12.
86 L. M. Hawkins, Allegiance in Church and State, The Problem of the Non-jurors in the English
Revolution, London: George Routlege and Sons, LTD., 1928, p. 2.
