Christian worship. She has departed from the Primitive Church, and deviated from Catholic Tradition, and therefore it is dangerous for any one to be in her communion."[1] The reader will perceive, that whatever opinions the Nonjurors may have held, they were not Romanists.[2]
Some of the opinions, respecting which the Nonjurors divided into two communions, had been put forth by Hickes and others, without causing any division, at an earlier period. But as long as Hickes survived, no attempt was made to make any of these opinions terms of communion. There is another important work, to which I must direct the reader's attention, the first edition of which was published before the discussions, which issued in the separation of Collier and his adherents, from Spinkes and those, who concurred with him on this particular question. This work was published in 1713.[3] The preface
- ↑ Ibid. p. 142.
- ↑ It is known that Johnson was accustomed to mention his deceased wife in his Prayers. Sir John Hawkins deems it necessary to defend him from the suspicion of Popery, as if he had believed in Purgatory. He informs us that Johnson adopted the views of Brett on this subject, in consequence of the controversy which was then carried on. Johnson had also associated, in his early years, with some of the Nonjurors, and had imbibed certain of their views. Hawkins, 448—451.
- ↑ Some Primitive Doctrines revived: or the Intermediate or Middle State of departed Souls (as to happiness or misery) before the Day of Judgment, plainly proved from the Holy Scriptures, and concurrent testimony of the Fathers of the Church. To which is prefixed, the Judgment of the Reverend Dr. George Hickes concerning this Book and the Subject thereof. London, 8vo. 1713.
I subjoin the titles of two works from the opposite section, or those who rejected the New Communion Office.
Reflections upon Modern Fanaticism. In Two Letters to Dr. Brett, and the Author of a late Pamphlet ironically intitled Mr.
