Hutchinsonianism, a set of ideas developed by John Hutchinson, did not necessarily command considerable respect among intellectuals in the eighteenth century. Hutchinson held that science was divine in origin and was rooted in the Old Testament. He denied the Newtonian principle of gravity and argued that God was necessary for the application of physical laws. He also developed a highly symbolic interpretation of religious ideas. George Horne (1730–92) was an exception in taking Hutchinsonianism seriously. Horne’s ideas aimed at uniting Christian orthodoxy against a common enemy, particularly those who undermined Trinitarian Christianity. This article examines Horne’s ideas as a Hutchinsonianism and explores his debt to Hutchinson. Horne also can be regarded as the most important representative of the Oxford Hutchinsonians of his generation, in the sense that his orthodoxy and adherence to Hutchinson’s ideas were aimed at finding a common ground between the two.
Looking for Typological Treasure with William Jones of Nayland and E. B. Pusey
This article compares the typological exegesis promoted by E. B. Pusey (1800–82) and his colleagues John Henry Newman and John Keble with that of their eighteenth-century Hutchinsonian predecessor William Jones of Nayland (1726–1800). Building on Peter Nockles’s argument that Jones’s emphasis on the figurative character of biblical language foreshadows the Tractarian application of the sacramental principle to exegesis, this article shows how this common approach differs from the more cautious one displayed by the High Church luminaries William Van Mildert and Herbert Marsh. At the same time, both Pusey’s criticism of the mainstream apologetics of his day and his more explicit application of the doctrine of the Incarnation to exegesis resulted in bolder interpretations and a greater emphasis on the necessity of figurative readings (of both the Bible and the natural world) than Jones generally proposed. A shared appreciation of the principle of reserve may explain both these differences and the Tractarian emphasis on a patristic, rather than a Hutchinsonian, inspiration for their approach.
heterodox polemical divines (Conyers
Middleton and William Whiston, for example) distrusted Newton’s chronological calculations.27 The orthodox viewed Newton’s religious writings even
more sceptically. The anti-Hutchinsonian Arthur Bedford’s Animadversions
(1728), for instance, acknowledged that Newton had been a mathematical
genius, one whose astronomical work had improved chronologers’ calculations. But Newton’s conclusions on the ancient chronology differed ‘from
all the rest of the learned World, in an Art, which many of them had made
their professed Studies’.’28
Thomas and others regarding the ‘decline of magic’ and ‘secularisation’ of
healing in the eighteenth century.6 Outwardly a typical enlightened humanitarian in a modern profession, Dyer’s own beliefs and medical activities, and
those of the circle he moved in, with their extensive interests in electrical
and chemical medicine, were shown to arise from their Pietist and anti-materialist philosophies, which attracted them to spiritual accounts of nature
and its powers, as embodied in such movements as Hutchinsonianism, Behmenism and, later, Swedenborgianism