But to this charge of ignorance you will easily reply, by asking,
2. In the next place, whether it can consist with a known fact, namely, That the revival of letters had preceded the Reformation every-where, especially in England; and that the excellent persons who took the lead in that work, were all of them, competently, and, some of them, deeply, skilled in the learned languages?
Indeed, in the nature of the thing, it is scarce possible, that the Reformers should be so little versed, as the objection supposes, in the original scriptures. For, whether the new learning as it was called, had, or had not, been cultivated, before the Reformation began, we may be sure it would then be cultivated with the utmost assiduity; both, because it was a new learning, that is, because the charms of novelty would naturally engage many in the study of it; and, because no step could be taken in the Reformation, without some proficiency in that learning. Now, if you consider, of what the human mind is capable, when pushed on by two such active principles, as learned curiosity, and religious zeal, you will conclude with yourselves, even without recurring to positive testimony, that the Reformers must needs have made an acquaintance with the authentic text: such an acquaintance, as would let them into a clear apprehension, at least, of those doctrines, which are the elementary, as we may say, or necessary ingredients in the constitution of a truly Christian Church.
If you hesitate about coming to this conclusion, the reason, I suppose, is, that you consider the Reformers as just then emerging from the darkness of Popery, and therefore so far blinded by the prejudices of that church[108], or by their own[109] prejudices against it, as not to see distinctly, and at once, the true sense of Scripture, though they might be competently skilled in the learned languages. And, possibly, there is some truth, as well as plausibility, in this suggestion, as applied to the case of the foreign Protestant Churches, which were formed with too much haste, and in a time of too much heat, to be quite free from all such exceptions. But, then, you will call to mind,
3. Thirdly, that the Reformation was not carried on with us in a precipitate tumultuary manner, as it was, for the most part, on the Continent. On the other hand, it advanced, under the eye of the magistrate, by slow degrees; nay, it was, more than once, checked and kept back by him. Hence it came to pass, that there was time allowed for taking the full benefit of all discoveries, made abroad; for studying the chief points of controversy, with care; and for getting rid of such mistakes, as might arise from a hasty or passionate interpretation of holy Scripture. In short, you will reflect, that, between the first contentions in Germany; on the account of Religion, and the first establishment of it in the Church of England, under Elizabeth, there was the space of near half a century: a space, sufficient, you will think (especially, if the activity of those times be considered) to admit all the improvements of learning, that were necessary to those who had the charge of conducting the Reformation; and all the deliberate circumspection, with which it was fit that so great a work should be finally completed.
If it be said, “that the Reformers are convicted of ignorance in one important part of scriptural knowledge, that of Toleration, and that therefore, possibly, they have erred in others;” I reply, that this subject had never been understood, from the first establishment of Christianity down to the æra of the Reformation; and that the mistakes about it had, chiefly, arisen, not from a want of seeing what the Scriptures had revealed, but of knowing how to reconcile the New Testament to the Old. If we are, now, able to do this, it is well. In the mean time, let it be acknowledged, that no peculiar charge of ignorance can be brought against the Reformers for misapprehending a subject, not only difficult in itself, but perplexed with endless prejudices, and not yet, as appears, quite disentangled of them. After all, this doctrine of intolerance, though it unhappily affected the personal conduct of our Reformers, has no place in the Liturgy and Articles of our Church.
Still, perhaps, the main point, on which this question, concerning the comparative skill of the two periods, in matters of religion, turns, is yet untouched; which is, that the amazing progress, confessedly made, since the æra of the Reformation, in all true Philosophy, must have contributed very largely to the increase of religious knowledge; and that so much light of science, as we now enjoy, must have served to give us a clearer insight, than our benighted ancestors had, into the revealed doctrines of Christianity.
But to this so flattering, and, at first view, not improbable, assumption, it may be replied,
4. In the last place, That the doctrines in question, being purely Christian, that is, such as it pleased God to reveal to mankind concerning his eternal purpose in Christ Jesus,—that the doctrines, I say, having this original, and being of this nature, have, possibly, no communication with the discoveries of later times: that, of the divine councils, on such a subject, we could have known nothing, if the Revelation had been silent; and that all we do know, when it speaks clearest, is only what those councils are, not on what grounds of reason they stand; whether it be, that such knowledge is unattainable by our faculties, or that it was seen to be improper for our situation: that, to say the least, all the efforts of the ablest men to explain the peculiar fundamental doctrines of our religion, on the principles of our philosophy, have not hitherto been so successful, as to make it certain that these doctrines are indeed cognisable by human reason: that possibly, therefore, those doctrines are the objects of faith, simply, and not of knowledge; in other words, that they are no clearer to us at this day, than they were to those plainer men, who lived in the sixteenth century[110].
And now, if we recollect the substance of what has been said—That our Reformers had only to consult the Scriptures for a just idea of the Christian Religion—that they were likely enough to understand those Scriptures, being invited, or rather impelled, to the study of them, by the most active principles of human nature—that they could not but understand those Scriptures in all the more important points of doctrine, which they had so much time and occasion to consider, and which there wanted no more than a common skill in the language of Scripture to understand—and that, lastly, they could not have understood those points better, than they did, even with all our real or fancied skill in philosophy, because, in truth, philosophy is not applicable to those points, being matters of pure Revelation, and not susceptible of any additional clearness from the exertion of our best faculties, however improved:—If these things, I say, are put together, we shall conceive it possible for our Reformers to have acquired such a knowledge, at least, of their religion, as not to deserve that utter contempt, with which, on a comparison with ourselves, they are, sometimes, treated.