germ of more recent theories. Their appearance was a great scandal to the Presbyterians. Edwards, the modern Epiphanius, has enumerated with all the bitterness of his Greek prototype and with perhaps as little discrimination, no fewer than a hundred and eighty flagrant heresies then prevalent in England1. This state of things, so destructive of the traditional order and fixedness on which the mind of a lawyer loves to rest, drew from Selden the significant remark; that "the two

1 In his Gangræna, 3rd edit. 1646. The sectaries, he tells us, however different in their opinions, all agree in Independency, and in forsaking the communion of the Reformed Churches (p. 7). Among the places where Independent principles had taken root, he mentions especially-New England, the Bermudas, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam. (Letters and Narrations, p. 61.)-Of the heresies enumerated by him, the following, as signs of the unsettled state of public opinion, are worth notice (pp. 15-31). (1.) Scripture, not the Word of God; no Word but Christ. (4.) As the patriarchs walked with God by the teaching of God, so should we : half the glory of God is not revealed as yet; we must wait what he will record in our hearts, and in that measure worship him in spirit and truth from the teachings of the Spirit. (5.) All Scripture an allegory, in which its spiritual meaning is contained. (6.) Penmen of Scripture moved by their own spirit. (9.) Right reason the rule of Faith and measure of Scripture. (13.) Free toleration of all consciences, Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, antichristian: "yea, if it be men's consciences, the magistrates may not punish for blasphemies, nor for denying the Scriptures, nor for denying there is a God." Edward adds in the margin-"Last part hath been spoken by some eminent sectaries." (24.) In the unity of God, no trinity of persons; doctrine of the trinity a Popish tradition, and a doctrine of Rome. (28.) Christ's human nature defiled with original sin as well as ours; Christ not of a holier nature than we: "in this appears God's love to us, that he will take one of us in the same condition, to convince us of what he is to us, and hath made us to be in him; the beholding of Christ to be holy in the flesh is a dishonour to God, in that we should conceive holiness out of God, and again a discomfort to the saints, that he should be of a more holy nature than they, as being no ground for them to come near with boldness to God." (40.) Christ came to declare the love of God, not to procure it for us or satisfy God. (45.) Men may be saved without Christ, if they serve God according to the knowledge God has given them. (167.) There shall be a general restoration, wherein all men shall be reconciled to God and saved; only saints shall then be in a higher condition than those who do not believe.

Edwards gives an account of some pantheistic doctrines, which he says were on the increase. (Letters and Narrations, p. 112.) He mentions, that at a meeting of sectaries of different persuasions in London, it was professed by some to be the sin of this kingdom, "that the Jews were not allowed the open profession and exercise of their religion," and that only the Presbyterians dissented and opposed it (p. 12). Edwards, as I have already stated, had a particular spite against John Goodwin, the Arminian Independent. He calls his congregation an unclean conventicle; "Socinian, Arminian, Popish, Anabaptistical, Libertine tenets being held by himself and many of his people." (Gangræna, Part II. p. 13.) Upon the whole we obtain from Edwards's confused medley, a tolerably clear insight into some remarkable tendencies of religious opinion, which had sprung up under the Commonwealth.

words, scrutamini Scripturas, had been the undoing of the world." But this fermentation of spirits was necessary to the evolution of the great principles, which were distinctly recognized before the close of the century, and gradually incorporated with public opinion in the course of the next.

Of these principles, the most important was Free Inquiry, Private Judgment, or Rationalism; the right of every man to bring the doctrines and institutions of religion to the test of his individual reason, and to adopt or reject them, as he finds them in accordance with it. I do not assert, that the fullest acknowledgment of this principle is all that is needed, to the vital experience of religious influences or even to the right apprehension of religious truths. It will appear, I think, that its undue and exclusive predominance was among the causes of the spiritual weakness of the eighteenth century. But it is certainly an indispensable adjunct to the process of religious discipline: in its absence, superstition or fanaticism is inevitable. This principle had established itself in minds of the greatest eminence, the master spirits of the age, at the time of the Revolution; though prejudice and bigotry were still too powerful to allow its public recognition in the Toleration Act. From that time, it gradually increased in strength; and having been adopted by the most distinguished men both in and out of the Establishment, it allayed the old Puritan controversy, and produced a long interval of religious peace. Not that the spirit of Puritanism was wholly extinct; but it worked in a latent and quiet way. With the new rationalistic tendencies it did not very readily combine. And yet even where it retained some portion of its ancient fervour, it was indirectly affected by them; and its future manifestations were so shaped and directed by the intellectual character of the eighteenth century, that what remains to be said of its subsequent history, may not unsuitably be included in the chapter on Free Inquiry.

1 Table Talk.

SECTION II.

EVOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, IN THE COURSE OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

The elements of this Rationalism which acquired force and consistency after the Revolution, had been in course of preparation during the whole of the preceding century. One or other of them was furnished by every great movement of the time; to say nothing of the minuter contributions of inferior sects and single minds. It will be interesting to trace the various, and apparently opposite, agencies that concurred in the joint result. A singular contrast may be noticed between the progress of free theological opinion on one hand, and the course of civil liberty and ecclesiastical independence on the other. The most strenuous opposers of human authority in matters of faith, those who contended most earnestly for the right of unfettered search into the Scriptures, and who receded farthest from the popular orthodoxy-were supporters of the Monarchy and the Church; while the sign of adherence to the Parliament, was a strong profession of Calvinism. We may find a reason for this distinction in the general principles of human nature. The quiet contemplation of truth in its abstract relations, apart from the passions of the multitude and the practical interests of life, is favourable to comprehensiveness of view and an impartial judgment: but at the same time it renders the mind more aware of limitations and exceptions, of the mischiefs of dogmatism, the risks of sudden change, and the necessity for undisturbed leisure and repose to promote knowledge and disseminate just principles. It inspires, therefore, naturally a cautious and conservative temper. Characters of a very different mould are required for the rough work of social revolution. Intense, exclusive conviction, fastened on a single object, and discerning truth and right in nothing else is the frame of mind, however unbecoming a philosopher, which fits men for vigorous and decided action and leads to immediate practical results. It was fortunate for our country, that during the momentous contest which has exercised such a lasting influence on its destiny, both these tendencies, the practical and the speculative, had full scope to unfold themselves.

First, there was the great principle of Independency, claim

ing exemption for Christian societies from the control and interference of the State. It is obvious, however, that the fullest assertion of this principle is compatible with the establishment of a very harsh discipline and complete spiritual despotism within the limits of each separate society. The churches framed under it, may become living centres of the bitterest intolerance and darkest theology; bitter and dark in the same degree that they are responsible to no external jurisdiction, and secluded from extensive communion with other Christians. It secures outward freedom, the rights of the society; but it does not thereby provide necessarily for inward light and progress, or break the fetters of the individual mind. Independency has contributed its element towards the general result of religious liberty; but it has not done everything.

Presbyterianism, as represented by Baxter, did not seek absolute emancipation from the State, but rather invited and cherished the connection, as a means of more easily constituting and keeping together a pure national church. It would have tolerated a wide diversity of opinion and usage, and by its good discipline and the concession of a large Christian liberty, have provided for its own internal growth and development. But though its aims were generous and its spirit catholic, its conceptions were wanting in precision; the line was vaguely drawn between those who should be admitted into communion and those who should be simply tolerated; and still more was its definition of Toleration itself defective. Presbyterianism did much for truth; but it did not work out the whole truth.

Another tendency displayed itself among the Latitudinarians. These acute and learned men clearly discerned the inconsistencies of the vulgar Protestantism, while their conservative spirit and royalist bias held them back from any participation in revolutionary movements. They would have preserved the outward form and discipline of the Church, and upheld its union with the State; but they would also have released the minds of scholars and divines from the ignominy of a disingenuous subscription, and confined the public service to an enforcement of the fundamental truths and practical duties of Christianity and a simple, Scriptural form of devotion.

Setting out from views, and pursuing a course, quite opposite to those of the Latitudinarians, Milton, the younger Vane,

and some of the Independents arrived at the same conviction of the rights of the individual conscience and the futility of the disputes of sects. But these men would have dissolved from the first all connection of the Church with the State. They would have allowed each separate society of Christians to work out its way independently to the truth. They sought a unity growing up spontaneously from within, not one that should be imposed artificially from without. Their sympathies were not with monarchy, but with republicanism. They would have had, not a Church embracing all, but a State interfering in the exercise of their religion with none. These tendencies, so distinct, yet leading alike to a common result, indicate the opposition and conflict of the parties with which they respectively originated. One felt the necessity of a well-disciplined learning and intellect to control and direct; the other trusted to the free movements of the harmonizing spirit of God. One dreaded the overthrow of the ancient checks and securities of law; the other entertained a generous trust in the impulses of emancipated and ennobled humanity. Schism and fanaticism might have been prevented by one scheme; more earnestness and zeal would doubtless have been developed by the other.

In the close connection of religious differences with political parties during the century and a half which followed the Reformation, men were visibly classed, whatever might be their private sentiments, either with the Puritans or with the Church Perhaps the more sceptical an individual's cast of mind, the more he would feel disposed to yield an outward respect to doctrines and usages already established. But the age which produced a Bacon, a Raleigh, and a Selden, must have been one of free speculation: and the antipuritanical character of Elizabeth's court would naturally carry this tendency to a licentious excess. As early as 1572 we find the grave and decorous Burleigh complaining of the Queen's own household, as 66 a coverture for no small number of Epicures and Atheists, because the Court is not comprehended within a parish, but seemeth to be a lawless place1." At the social meetings of wits and scholars in the metropolis, the high questions of Theology and the Church formed a frequent topic of discourse. Selden's Table Talk gives us a good idea of the way in which such matters were discussed. In Sir John Strype's Parker, p. 207.

1