Before these changes took full effect, the rational school of Anglican theology* produced the best-known testimony to their understanding

139 monstrate the supremacy of the crown over the church by referring to

1. Before these changes took full effect, the rational school of Anglican theology* produced the best-known testimony to their understanding

of the Bible in the work of William Chillingworth, The Religion of Prot-

estants A Safe Way to Salvation.2 Chillingworth (1602-1644)3 belongs with

John Hales(1584-1656)4 to the much discussed circle which from 1635-39

gathered around Lucius Cary, second Viscount Falkland (1603-1643),5

on his estate Great Tew, and to begin with discussed principally poetical

themes.6 Later these became increasingly theological and political; the

dominant tone in the religious sphere was a rational liberalism and in

politics a moderate royalism.7 In earlier accounts, above all those which

were devoted to the development of the idea of tolerance as a celebrated

achievement in the history of ideas,’ the round table of Great Tew

seemed to have been something like a basic group of progressives, who

optimistically held high the banner of religious freedom at a time of

deep intolerance and dogmatic regression. Historical reality looks rather

148 The Crisis over the Authority of the Bible in England

different. The observations collected here demonstrate clearly that Chil- lingworth and those of like mind are to be understood much more strongly in terms of the dominant tradition of their time and the An- glican party in which they are to be included: connecting links also exist, remarkably enough, with Archbishop Laud,’ who is almost always regarded as their chief opponent, and backwards above all to Hooker.va However, Orr has also shown that in his approach Chilling- worth goes beyond Hooker’s position in two important points: in the appeal to reason as a critical authority which is ultimately decisive for truth, and in the postulate of an autonomous ethics which does away with the principle of authority hitherto regarded as va1id.l’ However, these two points seem to be merely nuances, rather than a real new beginning, in the evaluation of the humanistic rational tradition, in which Chillingworth is influenced by people like Erasmus, Acontius and Zanchius.

Chillingworth is particularly important in this context because at the centre of his chief work The Religion of Protestants he puts the principle that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the complete rule for the faith and action of Protestants.” This statement is in and of itself quite inoffensive and still does not reveal anything of its author’s special concern. One could also understand it on Puritan lines, though as we can see from the example of Cheynell, they were vigorous opponents of Chilling- worth. However, Chillingworth means it rather differently. The direc- tion of his thought becomes clear when we take into account his earlier personal development before the composition of his main work. This has been done recently by Orr. It is certainly no coincidence that The Religion of Protestants is also a work of anti-Catholic apologetics.‘* In his youth Chillingworth had gone over to the Roman church because he saw realized there the ideal of the one all-embracing church. Following the example of Humanists like Erasmus, he thought that there was nevertheless room for intellectual freedom in the Catholic church, while on the other hand he recognized that the teaching authority of the church was an indispensible authority in dubious questions of faith.13 However, it would be wrong to assume that Chillingworth was a sceptic who had fallen into the arms of the Catholic church in a kind of sacri- ficium intellectus; rather, he went over in the conviction that there are certain true and reasonable doctrines, that these (to a limited degree) are necessary for salvation, and that they were taught by the Roman church within the framework of its infallibility.14 However, the same basic presuppositions also governed his speedy return to Anglicanism:

the claim to infallibility, asserted in a bigoted way, now appeared to him to be the decisive hindrance to the development of that rational and moral attitude of faith which he was later inclined to accept as sufficient for personal salvation even among Turks and heretics.15

The Age of the Puritans 149

In its polemical aim, The Religion of Protestants is directed against precisely this claim to infallibility. In the present context it is important to note that the burden of the charge is that the Roman church has taken upon itself the role of an authoritative interpreter of the Bible (since it would have been impossible to do away with Holy Scripture because of the large numbers of copies in circulation), has added at will new doctrines in the guise of traditions and closer definitions, and thus has laid the foundation for its tyranny over human conscience.‘6 Against the claim to infallibility he cites, first, the illegitimate use of force by which people are forced to acknowledge Roman claims,17 and secondly alsol* Rome’s ridiculous way of claiming metaphysical certainty for a truth based on historical tradition which in reality has only rational probability. As such this truth must all times be subject to testing by rational reason, just as an assent to such ‘moral’ truth can be expected only in terms of its rational credibility.” Already at this point we can see in which intellectual tradition Chillingworth is at home2’ and what future developments we can expect from him. From this perspective the Roman claim to infallibility immediately proves to be untenable: if it subjects itself to rational examination it has to abandon its own principle: if it sets out to be an axiom with a priori validity, it loses all rational credibility.*l

More important than this polemical side of his system, however, is Chillingworth’s view of God and the conclusions he draws from it. This view of God - and here Chillingworth agrees with the ideas dominant in the circles of Great Tew” - has a profoundly moral colouring. God is good: that is not a metaphysical statement, but is intended to have a reference to mankind. God requires of weak mortals no more than they are capable of giving, and adapts his demands to their imperfec- tion.23 In the sphere of doctrine it follows from this that there can in principle be no truths which are universally binding; for if God takes human weakness into account, in accordance with his revealed gra- ciousness, he cannot condemn those who through error fail to reach his goal despite their earnest endeavours.24 Thus, ‘Whoever takes pain to strive’ is the final consequence; generally speaking, all that holds in

the

sphere of doctrine is the obligation to seek incessantly for the truth,25 and in the realm of action to fulfil the ethical commandments comprised in reason.26

If we now return to Chillingworth’s central principle, that the Bible

alone is the religion of Protestants, we can see how his remarks in this

connection fit into the general attitude indicated above. Chillingworth

- and here he was not unlike John Locke - was profoundly convinced

of the truth of the Christian religion.27 But he rejected the struggle for

dogmatic infallibility among Protestants as well as Catholics,28 and in-

deed was ready to restrict himself to the minimal requirement that

The

Crisis over the Authority of the Bible in England The Age of the Puritans 151

remarks mentioned above about the minimal demands on Christians and heathen - there are also intelIectua1 problems in religion, and these relate to the understanding of the Bible.

On the one hand Chillingworth can stress strongly the value of scrip- ture as a criterion for deciding about theological controversies. He can take from the lips of his Catholic opponents the formula ‘that Scripture is as perfect a rule of faith as a writing can be.‘38 But when soon after that he explains, in a closer definition, that scripture is such a perfect guideline for all who regard it as being of divine origin and as a criterion for faith,3v we can already see a qualification: this high esteem is at all events limited to the sphere of the church, which includes Catholics and Protestants. On the other hand, another authority is set up along- side scripture: ‘natural reason, the only principle, beside Scripture, which is common to all Christians.‘40

This additional authority also opens up in principle the possibility of a conflict between reason and the content of scripture. However, for Chillingworth this possibility does not arise directly. Above all, his distinction between fundamental doctrine and doctrine which is not fundamental, standing in the tradition of Erasmus,41 enables him to avoid this consequence. Granted, we can find more than one place in the Bible ‘which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of divers senses; and in such it is no marvel, and sure no sin, if several men go several ways.‘42 Such distinctions in interpretation are conceivable, ‘pro- vided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation’.43 In this context even a criticism of the canon is possible, which raises suspicions about the canonicity and authenticity of some of the books of the Bible.44 But it is different with the texts which ‘are so plain and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them’;45 here, as it were, it is a matter of theodicy, that they are clearly revealed by God.46 However, there is also considerable trust in reason to decide on the doctrines of scripture, ‘Reason being a public and certain thing, and exposed to all men’s trial and examination.‘47

Chillingworth seldom indicates which doctrines he sees as funda- mental statements,

tianity’;48 ‘those particular doctrines which integrate Chris- nevertheIess at one point it emerges that he is thinking of the basic statements of the Apostles’ Creede4’ If we look more closely at the formulations in this section, we can see influences from the Stoic-scho- lastic picture of God,50 and above all a moralistic perspective.51 Orr has also stressed the same colouring in a phrase which occurs at another point: ‘the fundamental doctrines of faith, such, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every essential doctrine of Christianity has...‘52

doctrine

and observes: ‘Chillingworth cannot conceive a really important which has no bearing on conduct.‘53 It is evidently a corollary of this main interest in ethics that at another point Chillingworth can Christians should believe in Christ. ” We can see that in the last resort

he was not concerned with faith but that his real criteria lay in the moral sphere from his comment in passing that even the faith of Turks and heretics could well justify a person in the eyes of God provided only that he showed complete obedience towards the requirements of their faith.M Therefore Chillingworth did not regard even the Bible as necessary for salvation; in his eyes it contains all that is required for human salvation, but it is also possible to be saved without regarding the Bible as God’s word: ‘I believe, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the evangelists, or the Epistles by the apostles.‘31.

The Bible is merely a vehicle which conveys to us the content of our faith.32 Along the lines of the distinction mentioned above, the

content

of the Bible is only a ‘moral’ certainty, but Chillingworth is quite pre- pared to trust the reliability of the authors of the Holy Scriptures as he is to trust the faithfulness of the tradition.33 However, his deepest reason is again derived from his picture of God: ‘This is no other than the watchful eye of Divine Providence; the goodness whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be always extant a conspicious and plain way to eternal happiness. Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness, than to suffer Scripture to be undiscernibly corrupted in any matter of moment, and yet to exact of men the belief of those verities which, without their fault... were defaced out of them.‘34

Now what is the ‘content’ of scripture or the gospel? Here Chilling- worth seems first and foremost to share with all Humanists from the time of Erasmus their apparent concern for the central

content

of scrip- ture: ‘God is not defective in things necessary; neither will he leave himself without witness, nor the world without means of knowing his will and doing it. ‘.35 Thus in the foreground is the view of scripture as the lawbook from which the will of God can be read most clearly.

However, at the same time Chillingworth stresses - and this is his real concern - that God has given man complete freedom of choice to adopt this means or not. On the other hand he has a high opinion of every- one’s capacity to make an independent decision on questions of religion:

‘Now in matters of religion, when the question is, whether every man

be a judge and chooser of himself, we suppose men honest, and such

as understand the difference between a moment and eternity... And

then we suppose that all the necessary points of religion are plain and

easy, and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent judge

for himself..

. r36

Here is a decisive difference from secular law, which

always needs a living interpreter.37 At this point we can see clearly that

for Chillingworth - and here there is a degree of difference from his

152

The Crisis over the Authority of the Bible in England

be so indifferent to dogmatic doctrines that he exclaims: ‘This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality... is and has been the only fountain of all the schisms of the church..

.’

He continues: ‘Take away these walls of separation, and all will quickly be one... Require of Christians only to believe Christ, and call no man master but him only... ‘54 If we read these remarks with Erasmus in mind, we can see that the same ethics of discipleship lies at the heart of the whole ap- proach. The preference for the New Testament over the Old, and within the New Testament for the Gospels of Luke and Matthew with their moral tone, matches this well.55 In addition, there is a clear rationalism, coupled with the confidence that everyone could understand the argu- ments, if only they were clothed in a simple form. Chillingworth shares many of these views with his predecessor Hooker. Orr has noticed a difference between them:56 whereas Hooker regards the testimony of the Fathers and the church to the inerrancy of the biblical text as adequate, Chillingworth leaves the final examination of the testimony and teaching of the Bible to the reason of the individual Christian.57 This was the line to be found at Great Tew: thus John Hales can also admonish his audience in his sermon ‘Of Private Judgement in Reli- gion

.‘a5*

‘That faculty of reason which is in every one of you, even in the meanest that hears me this day, next to the help of God, is your course of integrity and sanctity; you may no more refuse or neglect the use of it, and rest yourselves upon the use of other men’s reason, than neglect your own..

. ‘59

This mixture of rationalism and moralism would necess- arily have an effect on the enormous significance of the Bible for Prot- estants in the direction of a more critical attitude towards scripture.

2. The first half of the time of great transition represented by the