1     Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992) From Introduction by Lila Freedman.

This study by the late Martin Griffin, written between 1958 and 1962, was conceived as a definition of the seventeenth-century English Latitudinarians, from their origins in the thought of the Great Tew circle to the diffusion of their beliefs in the eighteenth-century Church of England.

Projected both as an historical survey and as an essay in definition and analysis, the study was done at a time when very little attention had as yet been given to the individuals comprising the group here called Latitudinarian. The essay single out the group of divines – John Tillotson (1630-94), Edward Stillingfleet (1635-99), Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715), Simon Patrick (1626-1707), Thomas Tenison (1636-1715), William Lloyd (1627-1717), Joseph Glanvill (1636-90), and John Wilkins (1614-72) – and from their writings isolates the characteristics of their thought that distinguish them from their contemporaries. These Griffin lists as: “(1) orthodoxy in the historical sense of acceptance of the contents of the traditional Christian creeds; (2) conformity to the Church of England as by law established, with its episcopal government, its Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer; (3) an advocacy of ‘reason’ in religion; (4) theological minimalism;

(5) an Arminian scheme of justification; (6) an emphasis on practical morality above credal speculation and precision; (7) a distinctive sermon style; (8) certain connections with seventeenth-century science and the Royal Society.” Next, Griffin distinguishes the Latitudinarians from the Cambridge Platonists, with whom they had many personal connections, and locates them instead within the tradition of Falkland’s circle at Great Tew, tracing their conception of “moral certainty,” on which they based the assurance of the truth of Christianity, to the influence of William Chillingworth. With their speculative theology they attempted to meet specifically the challenges of Hobbism, Deism, and Roman Catholic apologetics, and in both their speculative and moral theology they aimed to combat “practical atheism,” emphasizing in their sermons that they chief design of Christianity was “to make men good.” They also rejected the Calvinist notion of predestination, which they thought led to antinomianism, and though they were charitable to those who differed from them in opinions, they opposed the principle of Nonconformity. “Their solution to the problem of tender consciences was comprehension, not toleration in the modern sense of the word; in the attempts of 1668, 1675, and 1689 to achieve some scheme of comprehension, the Latitudinarians therefore played prominent roles.”

2     WGW, vol. 30, 8-18-1789.

3     Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 5.

4     “The moderation of the Latitudinarians in matters of Church government suggested to Dryden that they might be crypto-Presbyterians.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 7.

5     “A dictionary published in 1699 defined “Latitudinarian” in these uncategorical terms: “a Churchman at large, one that is no slave to rubrick, canons, liturgy, or oath of canonical obedience, and in fine looks toward Lambeth, and rows to Geneva.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 7.

6     “The Papists,” Burnet wrote, “set themselves against them to decry them as atheists, deists, or at best Socinians.” Socinianism was, in fact, a favorite charge from all sides. Sometimes it referred literally to alleged Trinitarian herterodoxy, but more often, the Latiudinarians were “suspect of Socinianism, for [they] magnify reason, and are often telling how rational a thing Christian religion is.” This charge, that the Latitudinarians made “Reason, Reason, Reason, their only holy Trinity,” was a cherished weapon of their enemies’ arsenal. Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 7.

7     Further, their doctrine of justification turned “the grace of God into a wanton notion of morality.” Their rejection of the doctrine of predestination gained for them the epithets of “Arminians.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 8.

8     “Their doctrine of grace and their scheme of salvation were Pelagian.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 9.

9     “…the Nonjurors bitterly complained that the Latitudinarians were conscienceless Erastians who for the sake of preferment had betrayed the divinely-constituted spiritual and sacredotal privileges of the Church of England. From all sides, for whatever reason, the quality of their Christianity was impugned by their enemies as being heretical or at best heterodox.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 9.

10   Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 9.

11   “In the middle of the nineteenth century, ‘Latitudinarian’ fell out of style, its technical and religious meanings being expressed in common usage by the phrase “Broad Churchman.” Since then, the pejorative connotations which the word had almost always carried with it have virtually disappeared.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 10.

12   “In ecclesiology and liturgy, ‘Low Church’ and ‘Latitudinarian’ for our period were equivalent terms. . . .Though all Latitudinarians were Low Churchmen, not all Low Churchmen were full-fledged Latitudinarians.” Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth-Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 44.

13   Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 15.

14   Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 40.

15   Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth- Century Church of England, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1992), p. 40.

16   Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth-Century Church of England Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992). p. 40-41.

17   WGW, vol. 3, 4-25-1773.

18   Ibid., vol. 29, 2-11-1788.

19   Ibid., vol. 34, 12-24-1795.

20   Ibid., vol. 35, 3-30-1796.

21   Worthy Partner, p. 152.

22   WGW, vol. 3, 6-20-1773.

23   WGW, vol. 3, 4-25-1773.

24   Ibid., vol. 2, 9-24-1767.

25   Ibid., vol. 17, 12-15-1779.

26   Ibid., vol. 26, 3-22-1783.

27   Ibid., vol. 27, 12-13-1783.

28   See the chapter, “George Washington And Communion.”

29   WGW, vol. 24, 6-28-1782.

30   Ibid., vol. 30, 10-9-1789.

31   Ibid., vol. 30, 10-23-1789,

32   Ibid., vol. 3, 9-14-1775.

33   Ibid., vol. 30, 5-26-1789.

34   Ibid., vol. 35, 3-30-1796.

35   Ibid., vol. 30, 6-20-1788.

36   Ibid., vol. 29, 2-11-1788.

37   Ibid., vol. 29, 8-15-1787.

38   Ibid., vol. 31, 8-14-1790.

39   Ibid., vol. 4, March 1776.

40   Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.

41   Ibid., vol. 30, 10-3-1789.

42   Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.

43   Ibid., vol. 37, 5-13-1776.

44   Ibid., vol. 12, 8-20-1778.

45   Ibid., vol. 30, 9-28-1789.

46   Ibid., vol. 35, 9-19-1796.

APPENDIX 10