Jeremy Taylor on Diversity of Opinion among Christians.

From the Liberty of Prophesying.

THE infinite variety of opinions in matters of religion, as they have troubled Christendom with interests, factions, and partialities; so have they caused great divisions of the heart, and variety of thoughts and designs amongst pious and prudent men. For they all, seeing the inconveniences which the disunion of persuasions and opinions have produced directly or accidentally, have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefs, and have made attempts accordingly. But it hath happened to most of them as to a mistaken physician, who gives excellent physic but misapplies it, and so misses of his cure; so have these men, their attempts have therefore been ineffectual; for they put their help to a wrong part, or they have endeavoured to cure the symptoms, and have let the disease alone till it seemed incurable. Some have endeavoured to re-unite these factions by propounding such a guide, which they were all bound to follow; hoping that the unity of a guide would have persuaded unity of minds; but who this guide should be at last became such a question, that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched; so far was it from extinguishing any part of the flame.

Others thought of a rule, and this must be the means of union, or nothing could do it. But supposing all the world had been agreed of this rule, yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety, that this also became part of the disease, for which the cure was pretended. All men resolved upon this, that though they yet had not hit upon the right, yet some way must be thought

upon to reconcile differences in opinion; thinking so long as this variety should last, Christ's kingdom was not advanced, and the work of the Gospel went on but slowly. Few men in the mean time considered, that SO long as men had such variety of principles, such several constitutions, educations, tempers, and distempers, hopes, interests, and weaknesses, degrees of light, and degrees of understanding, it was impossible all should be of one mind. And what is impossible to be done, is not necessary it should be done; and therefore, although variety of opinions was impossible to be cured, and they who attempted it, did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earthquake, yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured, not by uniting their beliefs, that was to be despaired of, but by curing that which caused these mischiefs and accidental inconveniences of their disagreeings. For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feels were consequent to this diversity of persuasions, yet it was but accidentally and by chance; inasmuch as we see that in many things, and they of great concernment, men allow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing, and no hart neither. And certainly if diversity of opinions were of itself the cause of mischiefs, it would be so ever, that is, regularly and universally; but that we see it is not; for there are disputes in Christendom concerning matters of greater concernment than most of those opinions that distinguish sects, and make factions; and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters, such evils are not consequent to such differences, as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable questions.

But men are now adays, and indeed always have been, since the expiration of the first blessed ages of christi

anity, so in love with their own fancies and opinions, as to think faith and all Christendom is concerned in their support and maintenance, and whoever is not so fond and does not dandle them like themselves, it grows up to a quarrel, which because it is in materiâ theologiæ, or relates to theology, is made a quarrel in religion, and God is entitled to it; and then if you are once thought an enemy to God, it is our duty to persecute you even to death; we do God good service in it; when if we should examine the matter rightly, the question is either in materiâ non revelata, or minus evidenti, or non necessariâ, either it is not revealed, or not so clearly, but that wise and honest men may be of different minds, or else it is not of the foundation of faith, but a remote superstructure, or else of mere speculation, or perhaps when all comes to all, it is a false opinion, or a matter of human interest, that we have so zealously contended for; for to one of these heads most of the disputes of Christendom may be reduced; so that I believe the present factions, or the most are from the same cause which St. Paul observed in the Corinthian schism, When there are divisions among you, are ye not car nal?

It is not the differing opinions that is the cause of the present ruptures, but want of charity; it is not the variety of understandings, but the disunion of wills and affections; it is not the several principles, but the several ends that cause our miseries; our opinions commence, and are upheld according as our turns are served and our interests are preserved, and there is no cure for us, but piety and charity. A holy life will make our belief holy, if we consult not humanity and its imperfections in the choice of our religion, but search for truth without designs, save only of acquiring heaven, and then be

as careful to preserve charity, as we were to get a point of faith, I am much persuaded we should find out more truths by this means; or however, which is the main of all, we shall be secured though we miss them; and then we are well enough.

All the mischiefs proceed not from this, that all men are not of one mind, for that is neither necessary nor possible, but that every opinion is made an article of faith, every article is a ground of a quarrel, every quarrel makes a faction, every faction is zealous, and all zeal pretends for God, and whatsoever is for God cannot be too much; we by this time are come to that pass, we think we love not God except we hate our brother, and we have not the virtue of religion, unless we persecute all religions but our own; for lukewarmness is so odious to God and man, that we proceeding furiously upon these mistakes, by supposing we preserve the body, we destroy the soul of religion, or by being zealous for faith or which is all one, for that which we mistake for faith, we are cold in charity, and so lose the reward of both.

Sixth Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller.

On the Comparative Morals of Unitarians and Calvinists.

SIR,

It must fully appear, by this time, into what mistakes you have unhappily fallen respecting the topics and tendency of unitarian preaching, and with what show of justice you have made and reiterated the charge, that, "this mode of preaching is more acceptable to the taste of carnal, worldly men, than any other kind of preaching." It must fully appear, with what singular infelicity you attempted to discuss a subject, which you had so slightly investigated, and more especially when

it is realized, that the only possible tendency of your assertions was to the reproach and injury of the persons, whose religious opinions and character you have assumed the freedom thus to assail.

You next attempt a formal defence of your position, that we look in vain for the monuments of the reforming and purifying power of the unitarian system. You have at length come to the only point upon which the discussion was originally started; but even here, instead of redeeming other failures, your attempt has been if possible still more unsuccessful. Your defence, as far as it can be called a defence, is altogether hypothetical. You prove nothing, cite no instances, adduce no facts. Instead of coming to plain statements and unequivocal examples, which alone can have any bearing on the subject, you inquire whether sound conversions, or genuine revivals of religion are known among unitarians? What is this inquiry to the purpose? The question relates simply to the character of those, who have embraced this faith, and not to the means by which this character has been formed; to the existing "monuments” of its power, and not to the manner in which these monuments have been reared. Why ask about conver

sions, if you find the fruits of conversion? To say these do not exist is begging the question; it is the petitio principii of the dialectician; taking for granted the very thing, which you were called on to prove.

You have evaded this the most important part of the subject, and drawn the attention of your readers to the good effects, which you say have been produced in particular cases by your own sentiments. After a vivid picture of this sort, you abruptly ask the question, whether "unitarianism can show such effects?" And then answer it as abruptly, "if it can, they are unknown to