66

66

of Protestants. A Jesuit called Edward Knott, though his true name was Matthias Wilson, had published in 1630 a little book called Charity mistaken, with the want whereof Catholics are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation." This was answered by Dr. Potter, provost of Queen's College, Oxford, in 1633, in a tract entitled, “Want of charity justly charged on all such Romanists as dare without truth or modesty affirm, that protestancy destroys salvation." The Jesuit in 1634 published an answer, called Mercy and truth, or charity maintained by Catholics : with the want whereof they are unjustly charged, for affirming that protestancy destroyeth salvation." Knott being informed of Chillingworth's intention to reply to this, resolved to prejudice the public both against the author and his book, in a pamphlet called " A direction to be observed by N.N. if he means to proceed in answering the book entitled Mercy and Truth, &c., printed in 1636, permissu superiorum :" in which he makes no scruple to represent Chillingworth as a Socinian, a charge which has been since brought against him with more effect. Chillingworth's answer to Knott was very nearly finished in the beginning of 1637, when Laud, who knew our author's freedom in delivering his thoughts, and was under some apprehension he might indulge it too much in his book, recommended the revisal of it to Dr. Prideaux, professor of divinity at Oxford, afterwards Bishop of Worcester; and desired it might be published with his approbation annexed to it. Dr. Baylie, vice-chancellor, and Dr. Fell, Lady Margaret's professor in divinity, also examined the book; and at the end of the year it was published, with their approbation, under this title; "The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation or, an answer to a book entitled Mercy and Truth, or Charity maintained by Catholics, which pretends to prove the contrary."

In this work he was successful in his attack upon

Romanism, but laid himself sadly open to triumphant retaliation, by his taking too wide ground. The Church of England can successfully maintain her ground against the Church of Rome: but when the dispute is between Romanism and Protestantism in general, it is, to say the least of it, a drawn battle. It was in this book that he propounded the ultra-protestant fallacy of the Bible and the Bible only being the religion of Protestants. What he meant by the religion of Protestants he expresses thus: "When I say the religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours: as on the one side I do not understand by your religion, the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the Sorbonne, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the council of Trent: so accordingly on the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon; nor the confession of Augusta, or Geneva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg; nor the articles of the Church of England, no, nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions; but that wherein they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions, that is, the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." "I am fully assured," he says in another place, that God does not, and therefore man ought not to require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scripture to be God's word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live acccording to it."

This work of Chillingworth's has been by some overpraised, and by others unduly depreciated. It should be borne in mind that in such passages as those quoted above, Chillingworth's object was not to point out the way in which truth is to be discovered, but what it is sufficient hold as the foundation when the heart is honest. His

argument is intended to establish this position, that taking Protestantism in general, it is as safe a way to salvation as Romanism; its general principle, of taking the Bible only for the guide, is as definite and as safe as that which rests on the infallibility of the Church of Rome. But when the question arises, as to what is the way to arrive at the truth,-how are we to understand the real sense of Scripture,-then he takes very different grounds, and in the preface, where this question was started, he says, "I profess sincerely, that I believe all those books of Scripture, which the Church of England accounts canonical, to be the infallible word of God; I believe all things evidently contained in them; all things evidently, or even probably, deducible from them: I acknowledge all that to be heresy, which by the act of parliament primo of Queen Elizabeth, is declared to be so, and only to be so: and though in such points which may be held diversly of divers men salva Fidei compage, I would not take any man's liberty from him, and humbly beseech all men, that they would not take mine from me! Yet thus much I can say (which I hope will satisfy any man of reason,) that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation, either by the Catholic Church of all ages, or by the consent of fathers, measured by Vincentius Lyrinensis' rule, or is held necessary either by the Catholic Church of this age, or by the consent of Protestants, or even by the Church of England, that, against the Socinians, and all others whatsoever, I do verily believe and embrace."

In the mean time, Chillingworth had refused preferment, which was offered him by Sir Thomas Coventry, keeper of the great seal, because his conscience would not allow him to subscribe the thirty-nine articles. Considering that, by subscribing the articles, he must not only declare willingly and ex animo, that every one of the articles is agreeable to the word of God; but also that the book of common prayer contained nothing contrary to the word of God; that it might lawfully be used; and

that he himself would use it: and conceiving at the same time, that, both in the articles, and in the book of common prayer, there were some things repugnant to the Scripture, or that were not lawful to be used, he fully resolved to lose for ever all hopes of preferment, rather than comply with the subscriptions required. One of his chief objections to the common prayer related to the Athanasian Creed: the damnatory clauses of which he looked upon as contrary to the word of God. Another objection concerned the fourth commandment; which, by the prayer subjoined to it, Lord, have mercy upon us, &c., appeared to him to be made a part of the Christian law, and consequently to bind Christians to the observation of the Jewish Sabbath; and this he found contrary both to the doctrine of the Gospel and to the sense of the Church of England, concerning that holy day of the Christians called Sunday. The true notion of that and other holy-days, and the reasons for appointing them for the service of God, are thus expressed in the act of parliament passed in the year 1552. That act sets forth, that, "as at all times men be not so mindful to laud and praise God, so ready to resort and hear God's holy word, and to come to the holy communion, and other laudable rites, which are to be observed in every Christian congregation, as their bounden duty doth require therefore to call men to remembrance of their duty, and to help their infirmity, it hath been wholesomely provided, that there should be some certain times and days appointed, wherein the Christians should cease from all other kinds of labours, and should apply themselves only and wholly unto the aforesaid holy works, properly pertaining unto true religion......and......as these works are both most commonly, and also may well be called God's service, so the times appointed specially for the same, are called holy-days, not for the matter or nature either of the time or day......(for so all days and times considered are......of like holiness) but for the nature and condition of those godly and holy works......whereunto such times and days are sanctified and hallowed; that is to say,

separated from all profane uses, and dedicated and appointed, not unto any saint or creature, but only unto God, and his true worship."

And lest any body should imagine that these holy-days have been determined by the Scripture, it is added: "Neither is it to be thought that there is any certain time or definite number of days prescribed in holy Scripture, but that the appointment both of the time, and also of the number of the days is left by the authority of God's word to the liberty of Christ's Church to be determined and assigned orderly in every country, by the direction of the rulers and ministers thereof, as they shall judge most expedient to the true setting forth of God's glory, and the edification of their people."

And that these judicious reflections do not relate to holy-days or saint-days only, but also to Sundays or Lord's days, is evident by what follows: "Be it therefore enacted......that all the days hereafter mentioned shall be kept, and commanded to be kept holy-days, and none other; that is to say, all Sundays in the year, the days of the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Epiphany, of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, of Saint Matthew the Apostle, of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin," &c. All the other holy-days now kept are here named. By which it appears that the Sunday is no otherwise ordered to be kept holy-day than these other holy-days.

And in order to settle still more clearly the notion people are to have of the Sunday and other holy-days, it is further provided and enacted: "that it shall be lawful to every husbandman, labourer, fisherman, and to all and every other person and persons, of what estate, degree or condition he or they be, upon the holy-days aforesaid, in harvest, or at any other time in the year when necessity shall require, to labour, ride, fish, or work any kind of work, at their free wills and pleasure."

Which perfectly agrees with the injunctions of King Edward VI., published in 1547 (five years before the