¹ Carroll, R. T., The common-sense philosophy of religion of Bishop Edward Stillingfleet, 1635–1699 (The Hague, 1975), pp. 50–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Burnet, G., History of my own time (hereinafter cited as HOT), (London, 1838), p. 541.Google Scholar

³ South, R., Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book (London, 1693), p. xviiGoogle Scholar; Hill, S., A vindication of the primitive fathers (London, 1695), title-pageGoogle Scholar; Every, George, The high church parly 1688–1718 (London, 1956), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

⁴ Bennett, G. V., The tory crisis in church and state 1688–1730 (Oxford, 1975), p. 48Google Scholar; Every, High church party, p. 83; Sykes, N., William Wake, archbishop of Canterbury 1657–1737 (2 vols., Cambridge, 1957), pp. 81–2Google Scholar; Goldie, M., ‘The origins of the convocation controversy’, in Cruickshanks, Eveline (ed.), Ideology and conspiracy: aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759 (Edinburgh, 1982), p. 17.Google Scholar

⁵ The best account of the debate over convocation is Goldie, ‘Origins of the convocation controversy’. Goldie's article is primarily concerned with tracing Atterbury's ecclesiological arguments back to the writings of Henry Dodwell and the nonjurors; nonetheless he is very much aware that what was behind the high church campaign for a convocation was their fear of a ‘systematic assault upon orthodox theology’, both by deists and by latitudinarian churchmen. The best general survey is Sykes, Wake, I, ch. 2. Other accounts include: Bennett, Tory crisis, ch. 3; Bennett, G. V., White Kennett 1660–1728, bishop of Peterborough (London, 1957), chs. 2–3Google Scholar; Cragg, G., Reason and authority in the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1964), ch. 7Google Scholar; Lathbury, T., History of the convocation of the church of England (2nd edn, London, 1853), pp. 342–62Google Scholar. Only Every treats the controversy from the theological perspective: Every, High church party, ch. 5.

⁶ Atterbury, F., A letter to a convocation man, concerning the rights, powers and privileges of that body (London, 1967), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

⁷ For more on Burnet and the trinitarian controversy see Greig, M., ‘The thought and polemic of Gilbert Burnet, ca 1673–1705’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1991), ch. 4.Google Scholar

⁸ High church attacks on Burnet included: Hill, Vindication; Holdsworth, T., Impur conatui (London, 1695)Google Scholar; Leslie, C., Tempora mutantur (London, 1694).Google Scholar

⁹ In fact, Burnet's critics argued that it was an epistemology which could be used to justify a whole range of anti-trinitarian heresies. Leslie insisted that the ‘Discourse’ had plainly shown Burnet to be a ‘rank Socinian’. Hill accused Burnet of being both a socinian and a sabellian. Whereas Holdsworth argued that Burnet's explanation of the ‘Blessed Three’ could be subscribed to by sabellians, arians, macedonians, socinians, or an ‘Anti-Trinitarian of any sort’. Leslie, , Tempora mutantur, p. 1Google Scholar; Hill, , Vindication, pp. 9–10Google Scholar; Holdsworth, , Impur conatui, p. 71.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Atterbury, Letter, p. 6. The other works of ‘great mischief’ which Atterbury mentions by name are: Sherlock, W., A vindication of the holy and ever blessed trinity (London, 1690)Google Scholar, along with ‘several bold Defences of it’; Locke, J., The reasonableness of Christianity (London, 1695)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Toland, J., Christianity not mysterious (London, 1696).Google Scholar

¹¹ Atterbury, Letter, p. 7.

¹² Ibid. pp. 8–16.

¹³ Ibid. p. 19. Both Every and Goldie have noted the influence of Dodwell and the nonjurors on Atterbury: Every, High church party, p. 84; Goldie, , ‘Origins of the convocation controversy’, p. 28Google Scholar. While acknowledging the contribution of the nonjurors to the origin of the convocation debate, William Frank has also pointed out that the nonjurors were not completely happy with Atterbury's Letter: Frank, W., ‘Charles Leslie and theological politics in post-revolutionary England’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, McMaster University, 1983), pp. 199–204.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. p. 21.

¹⁵ Ibid. p. 29.

¹⁶ Ibid. p. 38.

¹⁷ Ibid. p. 55. For the text of the Act see Williams, C. H. (ed.), English historical documents, 1485–1558 (London, 1967), pp. 741–2.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. pp. 46–7.

¹⁹ Ibid. pp. 35–6.

²⁰ Sykes, Wake, p. 70.

²¹ Wake, W., The authority of Christian princes over their ecclesiastical synods asserted, with particular reference to the convocations of the clergy of the realm and church of England (London, 1697), preface, p. iiGoogle Scholar; Sykes, Wake, p. 88.

²² Bennett, , Kennett, p. 33.Google Scholar

²³ Presumably the offer was made on the recommendation of the ecclesiastical commission, which was overwhelmingly dominated by the whig latitudinarian bishops. The commission was established by William on 6 Apr. 1695 following the death of Mary. The original members of the commission were Tenison, John Sharp, Stillingfleet, William Lloyd, Simon Patrick and Burnet. Sharp, a moderate tory, was the odd man out. Foxcroft, H. C. (ed.), A supplement to Burnet's history of my own time (Oxford, 1902), p. 406.Google Scholar

²⁴ Sykes, Wake, pp. 70–3.

²⁵ Ibid. pp. 96–7.

²⁶ Hill, S., Municipium ecclesiasticum (London, 1697)Google Scholar; Every, High church party, p. 86.

²⁷ Jones, C. and Holmes, G. (eds), The London diaries of William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, 1702–1718 (Oxford, 1985), p. 458Google Scholar; Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 52.Google Scholar

²⁸ Jones, and Holmes, , London diaries, p. 458.Google Scholar

²⁹ Atterbury, F., The rights, powers, and priviledges of an English convocation (1st ednLondon, 1700), preface.Google Scholar

³⁰ Burnet acknowledged receipt of Wake's letter on 25 May; Christ Church College, Oxford (C.C.C.) MSS Arch. W. Epist. 17, fo. 141, Burnet to Wake, 25 May 1700. Wake wrote to Bishop Nicolson of Carlisle on 22 May; Sykes, Wake, p. 105.

³¹ Atterbury, Rights (1st edn), preface.

³² Largely as a result of the success of the first volume of his History of the reformation, Burnet was awarded a doctorate in divinity by the University of Oxford in October 1680 (apparently at the instigation of Archbishop Sancroft). In December of the same year Burnet received a vote of thanks from both houses of parliament. By 1683 both volumes (1679 and 1681) had gone through two editions. By 1694 there had been one Latin and four different French translations published. Clarke, T. E. S. and Foxcroft, H. C., A life of Gilbert Bumet bishop of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 157, 169Google Scholar, and appendix II, pp. 527–8.

³³ C.C.C. MSS Arch. W. Epist. 17, fo. 141, Burnet to Wake, 25 May 1700.

³⁴ Ibid. fo. 142, Burnet to Wake, 20 June 1700.

³⁵ Burnet, G., Reflections on a book entituled, the rights powers, and privileges of an English convocation (London, 1700), pp. 30–1Google Scholar. For Wake's intentions, see Sykes, Wake, p. 105.

³⁶ Burnet, , Reflections, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

³⁷ Atterbury, Rights, 1st edn, preface.

³⁸ Burnet, , Reflections, pp. 4, 6–7.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. pp. 7–12.

⁴⁰ Ibid. pp. 11–15.

⁴¹ Ibid. pp. 18–19. Burnet's declaration that the ‘legislature’ had jurisdiction in both temporal and spiritual matters is at odds with earlier and later statements on the subject. In spite of the fact that ‘legislature’ is an ambiguous term, as recently as 1687 Burnet had argued quite clearly that authority in temporal and spiritual affairs resided in the king's hands. In temporal affairs the king in parliament was supreme, but in matters of religion the king had sole authority. In 1699 Burnet would once again argue that ‘the Princes of Christendom have an Authority over their Subjects in matters Ecclesiastical’. What is consistent is Burnet's erastianism. Burnet, G., An exposition of the thirty-nine articles of the church of England (London, 1699), p. 385Google Scholar. For more on Burnet's erastianism see Greig, ‘Thought and polemic of Burnet’, ch. 2.

⁴² Burnet, , Reflections, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar

⁴³ C.C.C. MSS Arch. W. Epist. 17, fo. 142; Burnet to Wake, 20 June 1700.

⁴⁴ Atterbury, F., The rights, powers, and priviledges of an English convocation (2nd edn, London, 1701), preface, p. xviiGoogle Scholar. The carl of Rochester, the tory leader, commented that he ‘was very much pleased with the book, and particularly with the way of handling the Bishop of Sarum’. Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Slatter, D. (ed.), The diary of Thomas Naish (Devizes, 1965), p. 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Carpenter, E., The protestant bishop (London, 1956), pp. 188–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 57.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Every, High church party, pp. 94–103; Bennett, , Tory crisis, pp. 57–60Google Scholar; Lathbury, , History of convocation, pp. 346–59.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 58.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Burnet, G., ‘Autobiography’, in Foxcroft, H. C. (ed.), A supplement to Burnet's history of my own time (Oxford, 1902), p. 507Google Scholar; Avis, P., Anglicanism and the Christian church (Minneapolis, 1989), p. 114.Google Scholar

⁵² In his ‘Autobiography’ Burnet recalls that he sat on the work for seven years, but this does not fit with his observation, in the same work, that he began writing it after the publication of his Four discourses. On the contrary, in his preface to the Exposition he states that ‘I kept it five years by me after I had finished it’, and this must be taken as the more accurate account. Clarke and Foxcroft mistakenly follow the ‘Autobiography’ on this (Burnet, ‘Autobiography’, p. 507). Burnet, HOT, p. 658; Clarke, and Foxcroft, , Burnet (Cambridge, 1907), p. 364.Google Scholar

⁵³ Burnet, , ‘Autobiography’, p. 507.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Burnet, , HOT, p. 659.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Burnet, , Exposition, preface, pp. ix–x.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Clarke and Foxcroft, Burnet, p. 363; Burnet to Leibnitz, 17 Feb. 1699. Although Leibnitz had visited England it seems unlikely that he and Burnet had met. Nevertheless, the two did share some friends in common, and they began to correspond in 1696.

⁵⁷ Burnet, , Exposition, preface, pp. vi–vii.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Burnet, , HOT, p. 658.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Burnet, , ‘Autobiography’, p. 507Google Scholar. The five bishops were: Thomas Tenison (Canterbury), John Sharp (York), Edward Stillingfleet (Worcester), Simon Patrick (Ely), John Hall (Bristol) and John Williams (Chichester).

⁶⁰ Clark, and Foxcroft, , Burnet, pp. 367–8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Burnet, , ‘Autobiography’, p. 507.Google Scholar

⁶² Every, High church party, p. 96.

⁶³ Burnet, , HOT, pp. 690–1.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 58.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Burnet, , HOT, p. 658Google Scholar. Avis has also noted this: Avis, , Anglicanism, pp. 113–14.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ This explains Atterbury's remark in his Letter to a convocation man that a convocation was necessary ‘not only for the sake of the Faith and Doctrine of our English Church, but even to preserve the belief in any Revelation’. Atterbury, Letter, p. 7.

⁶⁷ A narrative of the lower house of convocation relating to prorogations and adjournments (London, 1702), p. 58.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Narrative, pp. 67–71; Kennett, W., History of the convocation of the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury (London, 1702), pp. 203–24.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Every, High church party, pp. 100–2; Complaint of the lower house of convocation against Burnet's exposition of the 39 articles, British Library (B.L.), Add. MS 4238, fos. 54–9.

⁷⁰ Complaint, fo. 54 a.

⁷¹ The notion of a specifically anglican tradition was also held by churchmen such as Peter Heylyn. More, P. E. and Cross, F. L. (eds.), Anglicanism: the thought and practice of the church of England, illustrated from the religious literature of the seventeenth century (London, 1957), pp. 185–6.Google Scholar

⁷² Burnet, , Exposition, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid. p. 40. Burnet takes his text for this passage from the Douai Bible of 1609: ‘And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.’ For his earlier discussion of the text see Burnet, G., Some letters containing an account of what seemed most remarkable in Switzerland, Italy, etc. (Rotterdam, 1686/1687), pp. 53–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Complaint, fo. 54 b. Article VI in part reads: ‘we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church’.

⁷⁵ Burnet, , Exposition, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Complaint, fo. 55a.

⁷⁷ Ibid.

⁷⁸ Ibid.

⁷⁹ Ibid. fos. 55 a–b.

⁸⁰ Ibid. fo. 55 b.

⁸¹ Ibid. fos. 55b–56a.

⁸² Ibid. fo. 56a.

⁸³ Ibid.

⁸⁴ Ibid. fo. 56 b.

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ Ibid.; Burnet, , Exposition, p. 306Google Scholar. The underlining appears in the text of the Complaint.

⁸⁷ Complaint, fos. 56b–57a.

⁸⁸ Ibid. fo. 57a; Burnet, Exposition, pp. 317–18.

⁸⁹ Complaint, fo. 57a.

⁹⁰ Ibid.

⁹¹ There is a mistake in the text here. It is in his discussion of the first article, not the third, that Burnet brings up the question of the disputed text of 1 John 5:7.

⁹² Ibid. fo. 57b.

⁹³ Ibid. fo. 58a.

⁹⁴ Burnet, , Exposition, preface, p. ix.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Complaint, fo. 58a.

⁹⁶ Burnet, , Exposition, p. 192.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Complaint, fo. 58a–b.

⁹⁸ Burnet, , Exposition, p. 194.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Complaint, fo. 58b; Burnet, , Exposition, pp. 5–6, 259, 384.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Stillingfleet was a good example for the committee to use, given the fact that he had been dead for two years and was no longer in a position to comment on Burnet's work. The book to which the committee refers is probably Stillingfleet, E., A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the trinity (London, 1697), ch. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Complaint, fo. 59a.

¹⁰² Every, High church party, p. 102.