tain ground, which he lays down, whatsoever God teacheth us is most true. And as with this he begins, so to this he returns at the close of his argument. In Book I., chap. ii., section 7, he says: "To recollect what hath been said: First, seeing God is more to be believed than men; secondly, seeing we have better arguments to persuade the people that these Scriptures daily read in our churches are God's own words, than the priests and Jesuits have, that the tidings which they bring from beyond sea are the Pope's or Church's decrees, or sentence; we may and ought to teach them to rely immediately upon God's word read or preached unto them, as the surest and most infallible rule of faith, the most lively, effectual, and most forcible means of their salvation." Throughout his book his teaching is the same. In Book I., chap. xxxii. 3, he speaks of "the Divine Spirit by which it (Scripture) was written." And, in Book II., chap. xi. 6, says: "The Spirit of truth which did first dictate, is every where present, always assistant to such as seriously and sincerely seek the truth contained in the Divine oracles." Much more might be cited from Jackson's effort "to prove the Eternal Truth of Scripture;" but the extracts given prove abundantly that he was a firm believer in the Divine authority and inspiration of Scripture, and diametrically opposed to the theory which Mr. Stephen vainly endeavours to establish. 27. Mr. Stephen's next authority is Jeremy Taylor. But to understand the passage cited respect must be had to the purpose which the bishop had in view in writing and publishing his discourse. That wonderful man had shared in the general persecution that befell the Church of England; and in his exile in Wales was led by his personal experience to consider the iniquity of religious persecution, and the reasonableness and Christian necessity of toleration and liberty of conscience. He put his thoughts into words and published them, in the hope of obtaining liberty of worship for himself and his Episcopalian brethren, as he tells Lord Hatton in the dedication to a later edition. "Yet when a persecution did arise against the Church of England, and that I intended to make a defence for my brethren and myself, by pleading for a liberty to our consciences to persevere in that profession, which was ever granted by all the laws of God"," &c. He hoped that if the general principle of toleration should be acknowledged, a general toleration would be granted, and thus include 2 Vol. vii. pp. xiii, xiv. and benefit Episcopalians. As his words stand in Mr. Stephen they would seem to be a protest against all articles and formularies, which is very far from the mind of Jeremy Taylor. He was not speaking of the Church of England, nor of widening the doors for admission to her ministry, but of the commonwealths, of the duty of princes towards the various denominations of Christians within their dominions. (He did not wish to deprive any, least of all his own Church, of the liberty of fixing its own terms of admission, but by the assertion of general principles of charity to move the powers that then were to grant a toleration, that would prove beneficial to the persecuted and oppressed Church of England.) This is evident not only from the epistle dedicatory, but from the practical conclusion which he himself draws from his own principles: "Upon these grounds it remains, that we reduce the doctrine to practical conclusions, and consider, among the different sects and opinions which trouble this part of Christendom, and come unto our concernment, which sects of Christians are to be tolerated and how far; and which are to be restrained and punished in their several proportions." He would not tolerate all sects, as his 3 Vol. viii. 145. enemies insinuated, to whom he replied, "First, I answer, that whatsoever is against the foundation of the faith, or contrary to good life and the laws of obedience, or destructive to human society and the public and just interests of bodies politic, is out of the limits of my toleration; so that I allow no indifference, nor any countenance to those religions whose principles destroy government, nor to those religions (if there be any such) that teach ill life; nor do I think that any thing will now excuse from belief of a fundamental article, except stupidity or sottishness and natural inability." As fundamental articles he reckons all those of the Apostles' Creed. He would not, therefore, tolerate any one who denied any one of these articles. Such he counted heretics, as he says, p. 469, "Faith being a doctrine of piety as well as truth, that which was either destructive of fundamental verity or of Christian sanctity was against faith, and if it made a sect was heresy; if not, it ended in personal impiety." And again, p. 496, "That is heresy only which is against faith. Now, because faith is not only a precept of doctrines, but of manners and holy life, whatsoever is either opposite to an article of creed or teaches ill life, that is heresy." Such persons Jeremy Taylor thinks ought to be not only confuted, but punished and restrained, as he sets forth in the 15th section, vol. viii. p. 138: "But although heretical persons are not to be destroyed, yet heresy, being a work of the flesh, and all heretics criminal persons, whose acts and doctrines have influence upon communities of men, whether ecclesiastical or civil, the governors of the republic or Church, respectively, are to do their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges, for whose indemnity they are answerable. And therefore, according to the effect or malice of the doctrine or the person, so the cognizance of them belongs to several judicatures. If it be false doctrine in any capacity, or doth mischief in any sense, or teaches ill life in any instance, or encourages evil in any particular, deî éπiσтoμíčew, 'these men must be silenced,' they must be convinced by sound doctrine, and put to silence by spiritual evidence, and restrained by authority ecclesiastical, that is, by spiritual censures, according as it seems necessary to him who is most concerned in the regiment of the Church. For all this we have precept and precedent apostolical, and much reason." This charitable divine, therefore, did not mean that what was contrary to faith should be tolerated in the commonwealth, much less in the Church. Still less did he mean to distinguish between |
