position of

Catholi

cism.

within limits other than a reasonable principle.' The English Divines, to go no further than our own country, who have fought the battle of religious toleration, were neither Sceptics nor, as the word is generally understood, Rationalists. In the Church of Rome Scepticism has indeed at all times shown a direct and dangerous opposition towards Perilous Christianity itself: because the very truth of Roman Christianity is there staked upon the positive institutions of the Church; and now, as it would appear, upon the infallibility of its visible head. But it has not been so within the domain of Protestantism; in England, America, or even in Germany. Here Protestantism, as admitting toleration of religious opinion, shows itself the hope of Christian doctrine, Aid afford- and the ground of its ultimate permanence. "There principle is no such thing," it has been truly enough said, tantism. as a theological antiseptic." But Protestantism, by blending with and consecrating the prevailing Rationalistic spirit,' affords a standing remedy for traditional and authoritative corruptions of belief.

ed by the

of Protes

1 See this argued by Hooker, E. P., V. viii., who does not exclude "invincible arguments found out by the light of reason."

2

Hales, Chillingworth, Jeremy Taylor: not to speak among laymen of Milton and Locke.

3 Thus, very early in the age of the Reformation, the attempt was made by the Italian Humanists to unite the extremes of sceptical unbelief and passive obedience to the authority of the Church. See Dorner, Hist. Prot. Th., Vol. II. ; Lecky, H. R., I. 406, and Mr. Buckle's remarks on the causes of the French Revolution, II. 249.

Mr. Lecky, Hist. Rat., II. 92, justly observes, "When a country, which is nominally Roman Catholic, is very tolerant, it may be inferred, with almost absolute certainty, that the social and intellectual influence

truth its

§ 7. Love of truth may be pronounced to Love of have been the rudimentary virtue of Reformed rudimen Christianity. This virtue, in the intensity of tary virtue. its spiritual conviction, lay at the root of the movement; and is still the proper attribute of Protestantism as a system. It is true that fanaticism may sometimes have done it injustice in this respect; and, through intolerance in theory and practice,' have raised the doubt as to its preference of an authorized creed to the results of genuine inquiry. Yet it has rarely, if ever, subordinated moral distinctions to positive expediency; the means to the end; or sanctioned pious frauds." In its love of truth it has ever sympathized with Obscured the instincts of physical discovery, and the employ- dice. ment of a scientific method. The marked diffusion

of the Church is comparatively small. But England and America conclusively prove that a nation may be very tolerant, and at the same time profoundly Protestant. . . . It is this fact which is the most propitious omen of the future of Protestantism."

1 Hallam's verdict (Const. Hist., I. 94) is, "the difference as to tolerance in religion between Catholics and Protestants was only in degree, and in degree there was much less difference than we are apt to believe;" and see Mr. Lecky's severe strictures, H. Rat., II. 54-61, and Buckle, II. 51. Yet Hallam (u. s., p. 119) seems to admit that the principle of toleration was early and persistently avowed by Protestants. Certainly, it must be allowed to have lain as a germ in the system, however late in bearing fruit, both in our own and other countries. The principles of Romanism are unfortunately committed to persecution.

2 On the degree to which the medieval interpolations and forgeries had "blotted out the very sense and love of truth from the minds of men," see Mr. Lecky's just remarks, H. Rat., I. 434-6; H. E. M., II. 225.

3 In England, we may fairly instance Bacon, Boyle, and Newton. Among the founders of the Royal Society were Wilkins, Spratt, Glanvil, and other Churchmen,

by preju

of a truthful spirit, which has been the characteristic of the era of Protestantism, has been variously ascribed to the revival of ancient independent systems of philosophy, to the influence of modern secular thinkers, and to the general results of Physical advancing civilization.' It may with equal reason, indebted and with perhaps more probability, be attributed to the reaction of religious inquiry upon philosophical speculation and active life. But in either case its possession by a religious system, as part of its inherent and fundamental principles, is both an element of real progress, and a guarantee of permanence to the Faith which it upholds.

discovery

to Protes

tantism.

Religious liberty im

involved

formation,

§ 8. The doctrine of religious liberty, although mediately it did not immediately bear fruit, is in principle in the Re- fairly and incontestably due to the Reformation; which did not, however, take its rise in any notions of political freedom. Experience shows, it is true, that, under all systems, persecution for opinion is dear to human nature. But it has never been proved to be a consequence of Christian doctrine. Until the establishment of the Church under Constantine, the testimony of the Fathers is wholly in favour of toleration of belief. It is in practice though not that the difficulties emerge of working out the

at once

secured.

1 Lecky, H. R., I. 440; H. E. M., I. 143.

2 "Political liberty," says Hallam, Lit. E., I. 352, "in the sense we use the word, cannot be reckoned the aim of those who introduced the Reformation." See also the section (II. 33) on the Political Philosophy of the sixteenth century. Compare Mr. Mill on Liberty, Introd,

difficulties

application of the principle of freedom without disturbance, yet without injustice. The removal of religious disabilities, and the relations of theological beliefs to political government, have, since the Reformation, become of necessity the questions of the age; and once more, after an interval of temporary cessation, loom large on the horizon of public opinion in Europe. But their solution no Practical longer involves the rise or fall of Christianity, its still exsuccess or decline. The usefulness of Establish- perienced, ments' and of National Churches in preserving a just liberty of belief against sectarian or unsectarian tyranny; as also in combating so formidable an opponent as" the close phalanx of Rome;" may be too readily forgotten. On the other hand, but no there is good reason to augur, from the intrinsi- dangerous cally spiritual character of our Religion, that it istence of would, under the most voluntary system, be found the most readily to flourish.3 But in any case the true interests of Christianity are independent of

2

1 On this side may be claimed so liberal a thinker as Shaftesbury, who quotes Harrington to the effect that "it is necessary people should have a public leading in religion." "Why," he adds, " should there not be public walks, as well as private gardens?"-Characteristics, I. 17.

2 "It is still very doubtful whether the close phalanx of Rome can be opposed, in ages of strong religious zeal, by anything except established or at least confederate Churches."-Hallam, Hist. Lit., I 372.

3 See Sir G. C. Lewis's observations (Essay on Authority, p. 301): Mr. Buckle (Hist. Civ., II. 53) considers that "a religion, not protected by the Government, usually displays greater energy and greater vitality than one which is so protected." He further gives a rationale of the fact.

longer

to the ex

Chris

tianity,

true in

terests.

of religious

ments.

the secularization of politics. They are bound up nor to its with the maintenance of the Scriptures, its sole authoritative records, and with the earliest principles of their interpretation, historically ascertained; and these, it must be admitted, are on the side of religious equality, and a reasonable employQuestion ment of private judgment.' It may, however, be establish remarked, that a belief in the progressive power of the Religion, and of its capacity and value in civilization, seems a necessary part of a theory of religious establishments; for, as representing a system of abstract truth only, few would care greatly to support them. Were the Faith of Jesus Christ confined in its teaching to any one form of political government, absolute or popular; this might, in some quarters, and with some show of fairness, be deemed an evidence of its transient and

1 On the equality and diversity of particular Churches, it may be remarked that the Primitive Liturgies and even Creeds bear evidence of the independence of their several forms, while united by a community of doctrine; see Bingham, E. A., Bk. II. c. vi. Some good remarks on the relation of private judgment to a common standard of authority existing in the Church will be found in Bp. Browne, Expos, of Arts, p. 480; in Gladstone, Church and State, c. v.; and Palmer, Treatise on the Church, II. vi.

2 The grave question as to the duty of the State to propagate truth is, at the present time, practically superseded by a belief that it is not for the interest of the truth to seek the assistance of the State. Without taking up the high ground of Mr. Gladstone (Church and State, c. iii. viii.), it is enough to observe that even Macaulay (Essays, p. 487) would maintain the duty of religious instruction on the part of the Government as a secondary obligation from its utility as a moral instrument. If, then, its value as a spiritual agency be taken into account, the obligation is surely enhanced; as well as the danger of making no provision against false outlets for the enthusiasm undoubtedly natural to mankind.