'Sentences,' Aquinas's 'Summa Theologiæ,' | all his heart. He loved the middle way bewith Suarez's 'Comment;' Biel; and Estius tween tyranny and license; he thinks to the on the 'Sentences;' his emphatic prefer churches of the Roman Communion we can ence for the Jesuits Estius and Suarez helps say that ours is reformed; to the Reformed to explain some of the weak points of his churches we can say that ours is orderly and moral theology. In English divinity he re- decent. At the Reformation we did not excommends Hooker, Andrews, Laud, Lord pose our churches to that nakedness which Falkland Of Infallibility,' Bramhall, Over- the excellent men of our sister churches comall, Field, Sanderson, and Faringdon, besides plained to be among themselves.' It was several of Dr. Taylor's works, and some not yet characteristic of an Anglican divine treatises tracts for the times-the fame of to refuse the title of 'sister' to the Protestant which has long passed away. But this list, churches of the continent. He sincerely intended for a student in theology whom he loved the Book of Common Prayer, and wished to imbue with his own theologic opi- mourned when it was 'cut in pieces with a nions, very imperfectly represents Taylor's pen-knife and thrown into the fire,' though reading, though it sufficiently indicates his it was not consumed; he longed for it, as preferences; it is, as he himself says, but for a blessing once common, now removed the beginning of a theological library, fit for to a distance; when excellent things go. one who wished to be wise and learned in away, and then look back upon us, as our the Christian religion, as it is taught and blessed Saviour did upon St. Peter, we are professed in the Church of England.' He more moved than by the nearer embraces of himself studied the writings of foes as well a full and actual possession.' Of Scripture as friends; he did not contend, as some he speaks in terms at once reverent and reahave done, against Bellarmine and Calvin sonable, maintaining always its supreme auwithout reading their works; and he is thority, yet rejecting the opinion of those often more successful in attacking his ene- who think that 'errors or imperfections in mies than in supporting his friends. grammar were (in respect of the words) precisely immediate inspirations and dictates of the Holy Ghost.'*

4

And if his perseverance in study is remarkable, his industry in writing is no less so. In all the changes of his life, whether in his Welsh retirement or in the midst of the distractions of his Irish see, his pen seems to have been scarcely ever out of his hand. He wrote with extraordinary facility. In the twenty-five years between the publication of his 'Defence of Episcopacy' and his death, he published matter which, in his own days, filled several folio volumes, and even in the more compressed form of modern times furnishes a respectable shelf of octavos. If we could recover the whole of his correspondence, another volume would probably have to be added to the series. And these works were not of the kind which an ingenious person with a sufficient command of words may produce almost at will; they almost all involved careful research and reflection. His studies and writings ranged over the whole field of theology; there is hardly a doctrinal point on which he has not expressed an opinion, generally one which marks him as beyond his age in vigour and independence of thought. He is not always judicious, but he is rarely prejudiced; if he comes to a wrong conclusion it is not for want of admitting what might be urged on the other side.

He is eminently a Church of England man; the breadth, simplicity, and nobleness of our National Church were dear to one who loved moderation and largeness of spirit, and hated violence and tyranny with

With regard to the discipline of the Church he was a constant assertor of the superior claims of episcopal government. Not only in a set treatise, published in the very crash of the falling Church, but everywhere, if the subject suggests it, he defends episcopacy against the Presbyterian or Independent 'novelists' of his time. He had an instinctive repugnance to democracy, whether in Church or State; his feelings, in spite of his breadth and tolerance, were essentially dainty and aristocratic; he liked not to be 'pushed at by herds and flocks of people that follow anybody that whistles to them or drives them to pasture;'t he was clearly of Charles II.'s opinion that Presbyterianism was no religion for a gentleman; his tastes concurred with his principles in favour of the ancient form of ecclesiastical government; he could not but prefer the decent order, the traditive authority, and the long prestige of episcopacy to the often tumultuous self-government of Presbyterians or Independents; but he is not for permitting ecclesiastical powers to employ secular force. That which has been most assailed in

is, in truth, a model of Christian controversy his tone towards his adversaries is gentle and affectionate, even while he lays bare, with an unsparing hand, enormities which might well move his indignation; his exposure of the novelties and inconsistencies of the Roman Church is complete and triumphant; he knew both their theories and their practices, their theories which they dared not put in practice, and their practices supported by no theory; yet, with all this, he speaks to Romanists as one who endeavours to persuade friends, and-to his honour be it said-he earnestly deprecates penal measures against them. It was said, during the troubles of the seventeenth century, that if there had been an Earl of Cork in each province of Ireland, there would have been no Irish Rebellion; who shall say how the history of unhappy Ireland might have been changed, if at the Restoration each province had been blessed with a Jeremy Taylor?

Taylor's theology is his doctrine on the great mystery of original sin and free-will, which appears most prominently in the Treatise on Repentance.' When that treatise first appeared it was attacked by Puritans and mourned over by Churchmen; in our own times it has furnished a theme for the severe remarks of his warmest admirers, S. T. Coleridge and Reginald Heber. It is not to be denied that he does extenuate the effect of Adam's fall, and exalt to the utmost the free-will and the natural powers of man; yet it is but fair in estimating his offence to remember his circumstances. A kind of Manichæism had crept into theology; the teaching of a large and powerful party tended to make man a mere puppet between opposing forces of good and evil, and this teaching assumed its harshest form in the mouths of some of the Puritan leaders of the seventeenth century; in the treatises of some of these divines man scarcely appears a moral being; he is simply swayed by forces which The Ductor Dubitantium,' or 'Doubters' he cannot control, propelled onward to a Guide,' was, no doubt, regarded by its author destiny which he cannot mitigate. Against as his great work, the one which was to perthis doctrine Taylor revolted with all his petuate his fame. And, in truth, few Engsoul; man was to him, before all things, a lish works rival it in learning and ingenuity; moral agent, a responsible being; his favour- yet, instead of being, as Taylor doubtless ite study lay in the region of man's will and hoped it would be, the treasure-house where man's conscience; hence he was eager to generations of Englishmen might find resoluassert that man's will was constrained by notion of painful doubts, it has become the irresistible force. We do not think that he goes further in the assertion of man's moral dignity than Basil or Chrysostom would have approved, but, hedged round as he was by the technical theology of his time, he was compelled to seek his end through by-paths, which sometimes led him into dangerous country.

With the sacrament of the Lord's Supper he deals in a more satisfactory manner; at once devout and learned, he was especially fitted to treat a matter so sacred, and so perplexed by the subtleties of a thousand years. Against the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation he is clear and convincing; his familiarity with scholastic logic served him well in his arguments, and his great learning in his discussion of historical facts; to use Coleridge's words,* he transubstantiated his vast imagination and fancy into subtlety not to be evaded, acuteness to which nothing remains unpierceable, and indefatigable agility of argumentation.'

The same skilful polemic which in the treatise on the sacrament he directed against Transubstantiation, he turned against the tenets of the Roman Church generally in his well-known 'Dissuasive from Popery,' certainly one of his most successful works. It

*Notes on English Divines,' i. 280.

amusement of a few retired students. And this by no fault of the author; even in his lifetime Hobbes appealed to the common intellect with greater force and directness; and before the race of the old cavaliers' had quite passed away, Locke's famous Essay gave a new direction to metaphysical and ethical enquiry. Our limits forbid us to offer even an outline of the discussions contained in Taylor's Opus Magnum; we can but mention briefly its leading characteristics. He published the book, he tells us in the preface, because his countrymen were almost wholly unprovided with casuistical treatises, and so were forced to go down to the forges of the Philistines to sharpen every man his share and his coulter, his axe, and his mattock,' and by answers from abroad their needs were very ill supplied. English literature, it is true, in Taylor's time was not absolutely destitute of casuistical works; but none of these older works are comparable in range with the 'Ductor Dubitantium,' nor do they discuss the grounds of morality with the same completeness. The 'Ductor is not, as is perhaps sometimes imagined, a mere collection of cases and resolutions for the use of those who 'direct' souls, such as had been common for many generations in the Roman Church; though it does discuss special cases, it is in the main a treatise on

6

6

Like many of the greatest works of genius, like Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity' and Milton's Areopagitica,' the Liberty of Prophesying' was an 'occasional' work; it was called forth by the necessities of the time. It first made its appearance in 1647, one of the most critical periods of the great struggle. That it had any political end in view we do not believe; but there can be no doubt that Taylor's conviction of the evil of intolerance was quickened by the sight of the miseries inflicted on the country by a war of religion. Only a man whose soul, like a star, dwelt apart' from the passion and turmoil of the time could have conceived the thought of

soldiers to have disbanded themselves presently,' at the voice of charity and reason; if he had been a politician, we should perhaps have smiled at his simplicity; in a Christian preacher we honour the faith in the power of love and truth, which led him to cast his little cruse of oil on the troubled waters, even in their wildest rage.

moral philosophy, grounded on the belief | heart on the divisions of Christendom. In that man has an intuitive perception of right ages to come, Taylor's fame will, perhaps, and wrong; Taylor teaches, as Abelard had rest even more on his 'Liberty of Prophesydone long before, that the ground of morality ing' than on his incomparable sermons. is the will of God revealed to us through Conscience, as well as through Holy Scripture; 'God is in our hearts by His laws; he rules us by His substitute, our conscience.' Conscience therefore is, says Taylor characteristically, the household guardian, the spirit or angel of the place.' On this foundation he builds his ethical edifice. He discusses the various kinds of conscience, distinguishing, perhaps with more subtlety than profit, the right, the confident, the probable, the doubtful, and the scrupulous conscience; thence he proceeds to treat of the obligations of conscience in relation to the natural law, to the ceremonial law, and to the law of Christ; thence to human positive law, whe-persuading the rough and hard-handed ther of states or of the Church, or of the several families of which states are composed; his last book he devotes to the consideration of the nature and causes of good and evil, and of the efficient and final causes of human actions. It is in that part which relates to the probable or thinking conscience' that he introduces a magnificent sketch of the probabilities on which faith in Christianity is founded; a sketch which contains some of his most splendid passages. The work is not free from grave faults; his casuistic reading tended to make him sometimes oversubtle and unreal in his distinctions, he does not always keep a firm grasp of his principles, and his illustrations are sometimes-to say the least-injudicious; yet we cannot help admiring the exhaustive learning, the ample illustration, and the eloquence maintained with unflagging vigour to the close. Taylor, as we have already said, was jostled from the course by a crowd of lighter-footed and less-burthened competitors; but if he cannot compete with Butler in calmness and justness of intellect, nor with Paley in clearness of style and arrangement, his work remains unrivalled among English ethical works for breadth of learning and stately harmony of diction.

The work of Taylor's, which is, on the whole, most original and characteristic, is undoubtedly the Liberty of Prophesying,' his great plea for freedom in the formation and expression of opinion. In other works Taylor did but adoru forms of literature which were common before his time; but in his plea for toleration he is epoch-making; few had risen to that height of contemplation at which the fainter lines vanished from the surface of the ecclesiastical world, none had expressed with so much vigour and eloquence the thoughts of a large and charitable

The argument of the Liberty of Prophesying' has two ends in view; on the one hand it deals with the great question of terms of communion, and the social and ecclesiastical considerations involved in it; on the other, it discusses the duty of a civil government with respect to the forms of Christianity which exist within its jurisdiction. With regard to the first of these he holds that no dogmas ought to be made necessary conditions for admission to the membership of a church, but such as can be propounded infallibly. What then are these dogmas? The greater part of the theological propositions about which Christendom is divided he sets aside, as being either not revealed, or not perfectly clear, or not necessary; the various authorities to which men have attributed infallibility he sweeps aside in succession; neither ecclesiastical tradition, nor Councils, nor Popes, nor Fathers of the Church, nor the Church itself in its diffusive capacity,' can in his judgment claim immunity from error in interpreting Scripture or propounding dogmatic sentences. How then are we to find guidance for our steps? He answers, following the line of thought which Hooker had indicated half-a-century earlier, 'in the due exercise of Reason.' The supreme authority of Scripture is assumed throughout the discussion; this being assumed, reasonproceeding from the best grounds is. the best judge.' Not that he is unaware that human reason often judges wrongly; but he

thinks that its errors, if not wilful, are venial, | doctrines contrarient to them is to be conand he sees that, right or wrong, a man who demued as a traitor, or a 'destroyer of human judges at all must needs use his own judg- society.' And similarly with regard to the ment, just as a man who sees at all must needs Anabaptists. He will not allow that their use his own eyes, however imperfect. It objection to infant-baptism is any good reamay be wisest to choose a guide once for all, son for persecuting them, or for excluding and follow him always; still, this choice is them from Christian communion; for there the act of the individual reason; and Taylor is, he holds (rather to the scandal of some himself is not well assured whether intrust of his contemporaries), no command of ing himself wholly with another, be not a Scripture, nor even any canon of the Church laying up his talent in a napkin ;'* he fears within the first four centuries, to oblige lest he sin in not using the talent which is children to the susception of it;' but with death to hide.' The conclusion arrived at regard to their opinion on government, he is, that no proposition can be laid down as lays it down in the strongest manner that the necessary to Christian communion beyond safety and well-being of the State is, and those contained in the Apostles' Creed, which ought to be, the paramount consideration 'the Apostles, or the holy men their contem- with the civil ruler, and that, therefore, he poraries and disciples, composed to be a rule cannot tolerate the preaching of such docof faith to all Christians.'t trines as that it is not lawful for princes to put malefactors to death, nor to take up defensive arms, nor to minister an oath, nor to contend in judgment;' such principles as these destroy the bands of civil societies, and leave it arbitrary to every vain or vicious. person whether man shall be safe, or laws be established, or a murderer hanged, or princes rule;' nay, we must put any sense whatever upon passages of Scripture which seem to support such doctrines, rather than have it supposed that Christianity should destroy that which is the only instrument of justice, the restraint of vice and the support of bodies politic."

With regard to the civil government, Taylor's view appears to be of this kind; that it is no more oppressive for a sovereign prince to require from his subjects the knowledge of that which is open to the common sense' of mankind in theology, than in morals or politics; a man may as well be presumed to know the leading facts of the Christian revelation, as to know that theft is contrary to law, and that the magistrate is to be obeyed. Hence, his whole discussion relates to those who receive the articles of the Apostles' Creed, the reception of which he had already maintained to be of universal obligation; all who receive these articles are to be tolerated, unless their tenets are such as to be dangerous to the civil government or to public morality. This leads him to discuss the special cases of the Roman Catholics and the Anabaptists. With regard to the former, he will not allow that the mere falsehood of their speculative doctrines is a sufficient reason for persecuting them; the body politic is no judge of dogma; Gallio was right-Taylor was almost alone in that age in thinking so when he said, 'if it be a question of words and names, and of your laws, I will be no judge of such matters;' but he condemns them for holding principles both leading to ill life and subversive of civil government; and as our duties in respect of morality and obedience to the law of the land are plain and obvious, he who preaches

In a word Taylor lays it down in the clearest manner, that the civil government is not concerned with opinions, however false or absurd, unless they prejudice the government as such; in that case, they must be suppressed as offences against government, not as speculative opinions. But in all this he contemplates a state composed of none but such as agree in accepting the articles of the Apostles' Creed; and this, it may be said, is not complete toleration. True, it is not; but in Taylor's time the acceptance of this theory would in fact have produced almost complete toleration, for in spite of individual aberrations, there was then no sect which would not have accepted the simple statement of the objects of Christian faith contained in the Apostles' Creed; their disputes lay in another region altogether; and if he advocated a scheme which might have put an end to division and persecution then, he is not to be blamed if he did not provide for a state of things which did not exist until long afterwards. His

*Sec. 19. It is of course evident, from what is here stated, that the Anabaptists' of the se venteenth century had nothing in common with the respectable Baptists' of our day, except their objection to pædo-baptism.