Twiss did not long retain the office which his modesty and infirmities had made him reluctant to accept. He fell down one day in the pulpit, and "was carried to his lodgings, where he languished about a twelvemonth," and then expired, July the 20th, 1646.[416] His preference of a contemplative to an active life appeared in his exclamation after the attack which proved his death-stroke: "I shall have at length leisure to follow my studies to all eternity," and throughout he seems to have been as loyal as he was religious; for he often wished the fire of contention might be extinguished, even if it were in his own blood. A funeral in Westminster Abbey marked the public opinion of his worth; and there Dr. Robert Harris preached a sermon for him on Joshua i. 2, "Moses my servant is dead." The Assembly and the House of Commons followed his remains to the grave. Mr. Charles Herle, educated at Exeter College, Oxford, succeeded him in the office of Prolocutor.

There was an overwhelming majority of Presbyterians in the Jerusalem Chamber. Amongst the most eminent were Burgess and Calamy, Marshall and Ash. In the notes of the Assembly's proceedings taken by Lightfoot, these names repeatedly occur, together with the less familiar ones of Herle, Seaman, Cawdry, and others. The Scotch Commissioners, Henderson and Baillie—with whom were associated George Gillespie, a young man of rich promise, and Samuel Rutherford, whose "Letters" on religious subjects are well known—likewise took a prominent part in the debates. It is proper here also to remember that Presbyterianism, predominant in the Assembly, was at the time supreme in the Senate. All the staunch Prelatists, and many moderate Episcopalians, had left the Long Parliament in St. Stephen's Chapel to join Charles's mock Parliament at Christ Church, Oxford. Advocates who exposed ecclesiastical abuses with the view of simply reforming the old establishment had disappeared. Of those who remained it would be uncandid to deny that some were sincere converts to the new system; and it would be credulous to believe that there were not others who, seeing which way the stream flowed, struck in with the current. At any rate, a Presbyterian policy prevailed in 1644. Holles, Glynne, Maynard, Rudyard, Rouse, and Prynne, together with Waller, Stapleton, and Massey, were the most distinguished members of the party; yet, though possessing amongst them considerable ability and learning, they were none of them men of great intellectual power or of any political genius.

The Erastians, as they are called, must not be overlooked. John Selden, already noticed, led the van, and his learning and reputation made him a formidable opponent. To gain any advantage when breaking a lance with such a person was counted a high distinction in theological chivalry, and this honour has been duly emblazoned by Scotch heralds more than once in favour of young George Gillespie, whom we have just mentioned. The solid and industrious Bulstrode Whitelocke, and St. John, "the dark-lantern man," helped to form a small body of reserve on the same side, who, on special occasions, behaved themselves valorously in the Westminster field. The chief Divine who thoroughly advocated Erastianism was Thomas Coleman, Vicar of Blyton, in Lincolnshire, of some considerable note in his own day. But a far greater man—acting, however, only occasionally in connexion with the party—was the renowned Dr. Lightfoot, who in rabbinical lore may be regarded as equal, if not superior, to John Selden.[417]

But another class, entertaining different views, claim our attention: the five dissenting brethren—Nye, Goodwin, Bridge, Burroughs, and Simpson.[418]

Philip Nye, a man of ability in some respects, and of bustling habits, stands out as chief of the five. Zealous in his commendations of the Covenant, he with equal zeal opposed Presbyterianism: the very thing which, according to the fairest rules of interpretation, it must be held to symbolize. He has been charged with disingenuousness; but experience in the matter of subscription makes charitable people slow to urge the charge. Those who vindicate subscription in "non-natural senses" ought to be the last to fling a stone at Philip Nye; and those who take the opposite side can hardly praise him for consistency of conduct. How the Covenant could be adopted by any one professing Independency is a puzzle, and the puzzle in Nye's case is the greater, because, not content with quietly assenting to it as many others did, he appears to have been a chief instrument in bringing it over the border, and in enforcing it upon his companions.

Thomas Goodwin surpassed Nye in learning and in other respects. His writings present him to us as an accomplished theologian, and a many-sided thinker, and shew that scarcely any forms of thought in metaphysical divinity escaped his notice.[419] The breadth and excursiveness of his reflective powers are the more remarkable when viewed in connexion with his rigid Calvinism. He joined Philip Nye in a preface to "Cotton's Keys," and in it expounded ecclesiastical opinions, in accordance with those of the New England churches.

William Bridge—once a Norwich clergyman, then a refugee in Holland—won a reputation for learning as well as piety. His library, well stocked with fathers, schoolmen, and critics, so attracted him, that he rose at four o'clock both winter and summer, that he might have time for reading these favourites. Being a man of broad sympathies, he accustomed himself to enquiries beyond the range of his profession, and boldly handled constitutional questions. Adopting the opinion, that "the people formed the first subject and receptacle of civil power;" an opinion which was the mainstay of the Parliament's policy, Bridge shrunk not from declaring, "In case a prince shall neglect his trust, so as not to preserve his subjects, but to expose them to violence, it is no usurpation in them to look to themselves, but an exercise of that power which was always their own."[420] He had suffered under Laud, and knew what it was to walk in paths of confessorship, so that his exhortations had no little power to comfort, when he said to his people in trouble: "Certainly, if God's charge be your charge, your charge shall be His charge, and being so, you have His bond that they shall never want their daily bread."

Jeremiah Burroughs seems to have possessed singular candour, modesty, and moderation, and probably was the gentlest of the five; perhaps he was not always quite consistent, id="FNanchor_421_421[421] being no lover of controversy, but a man who felt himself at home in devotional meditations. He died before the Westminster Assembly broke up,[422] and one of the last sermons which he preached was entitled "Irenicum, or an Attempt to heal Divisions among Christians."

Sydrach Simpson bore a character for learning, piety, and moderation though at one time he was silenced by the Assembly, for differing from them in matters of discipline.

The discussions in which the Independents engaged with their brethren, turned upon the office of Apostles, the distinction between pastors and teachers, the character of ruling elders, ordination, the election of ministers, and the like; but their main controversy hinged on a deeper question. The Presbyterians were anxious to meet the difficulties felt by the Independents, so far as the establishment of one uniform religion would allow; the former were prepared to permit in their large and carefully ramified scheme of ecclesiastical government some little liberty of action, provided that on the whole there was obedience to the established system. Freedom from synodical censure upon certain points was to be conceded to those who upon others submitted to Presbyterian authority. The Assembly would build a huge cathedral for the nation, with small side chapels here and there for the use of certain crotchety people, who might privately pass in and out if they would but always enter through the great door, and walk up the main aisle. This is not what men, calling themselves 'Independent,' have ever liked. The five dissenting brethren did not object to the cathedral being built for those who wished it—but for their own parts, they desired their own places of worship to be quite outside.

It will be instructive here to pause a moment, and to compare the ground taken by the Independents in this controversy with that occupied by other advocates of toleration of a different class at the same time. Chillingworth, in his famous work on the "Religion of Protestants," observes in a passage of singular eloquence, that the imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God, and the laying of them upon the conscience under penalty of death and damnation—involving the vain conceit that we can speak of the things of God better than in the words of God—is the only fountain of all the schisms of the Church, and that which makes these schisms immortal. He brands the practice as the common incendiary of Christendom, and that which tears into pieces, not merely the coat, but the members of Christ. "Take away," he says, in burning words, "these walls of separation, and all will quickly be one. Take away this persecuting, burning, cursing, damning of men, for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God; require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man Master but Him only; let those leave claiming infallibility that have no title to it, and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their actions; in a word, take away tyranny, which is the devil's instrument to support errors, and superstitions, and impieties, in the several parts of the world, which could not otherwise long withstand the power of truth—I say take away tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only; and as rivers, when they have a free passage, run all to the ocean, so it may well be hoped, by God's blessing, that universal liberty, thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendom to truth and unity."[423]

John Hales, in his little tract on "Schism," complains that it has been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of faith which God and Scriptures have expressly afforded us, but to attempt devising things, of which we have no light, either from reason or revelation; "neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church authority (which is none) or tradition (which for the most part is but feigned) they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon others a necessity of entertaining conclusions of that nature; and, to strengthen themselves, have broken out into divisions and factions, opposing man to man, synod to synod, till the peace of the Church vanished, without all possibility of recall."

The object of both these great reasoners was, without violating conscience, to secure union. They aimed at comprehension, but it was comprehension such as all Puritans condemned. Chillingworth would have had "the public service of God conducted so that all who believe the Scriptures and live accordingly, might without scruple, or honesty, or protestation against any part, join in it;" and Hales went so far as to say: He did not see that men of different opinions in religion might not hold communion in sacred things, and both go to one church. "Why may I not go," he asks, "if occasion require, to an Arian Church, so there be no Arianism expressed in their liturgy? And were liturgies, and public forms of service so framed as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree, schisms on opinion were utterly vanished." It is needless to say that this is a species of latitudinarianism which most religious men would consider to be inconsistent with a definite doctrinal belief.

The most remarkable treatise on the subject of toleration belonging to that age is Jeremy Taylor's "Liberty of Prophesying." In point of eloquence no other work of the kind can be compared with it; and though defective it is still worthy, for the sake of its reasoning as well as its rhetoric, to be a text book for the student of religious liberty. The author dwells, in his own matchless way, on the difficulties of Scripture, the uncertainty of tradition, the insufficiency of councils, the fallibility of popes and fathers, the incompetency of the Church, in its "diffusive character," to be judge of controversies, and the impertinence of any pretence to such a possession of the spirit as preserves from error. Reason is pronounced the best interpreter, and, though some causes of error in the exercise of reason are culpable, many are innocent.[424]

To base toleration on the uncertainty of truth is a very insecure method of proceeding. The alliance of scepticism damages the cause of freedom. Colour is given to the charge, that religious liberty springs from religious indifference. It has cost two centuries of experience and discipline to indoctrinate society with the lesson, that the decision of religious questions without any imposition of human authority is a right of conscience; and that the more earnest we are in the love of truth, the more careful we should be not to sully its sanctity by the unrighteous enforcement of its principles. Taylor fought manfully for freedom, but he did not see the highest vantage ground within his reach. Moreover, in his Essay, comprehension within the Church often seems confounded with religious liberty in the State. No clear distinction is maintained between principles which regulate the one, and principles which vindicate the other. Yet the reader of the treatise may pick out and sort them, for there they are. Taylor teaches the doctrine—that the duty of faith is completed in believing the Articles of the Apostles' Creed; that to multiply tests of orthodoxy and to require assent to points of doubtful disputation "is to build a tower on the top of a bulrush;" and "that the further the effect of such proceedings doth extend, the worse they are." With an amiable self-delusion, characteristic of his pure and child-like nature, he dreamed of a church, combining all varieties of belief consistent with faith in the fundamental verities of the gospel. Though protesting against persecution, he contended for discipline, but confined excommunication simply to an act of spiritual severance. It is difficult to catch exactly what he means by "communicating with dissenting churches"—yet the tone of his remarks, and his reference to the Greek Church, prevent us from supposing that he used the appellation in the way it is commonly employed at present. The division of kingdoms seems to have been with him the only justification of a division of churches; and probably his theory of a national church would not be very different from Dr. Arnold's. He, at the same time, claims toleration for all opinions, not expressed in overt acts injurious to the State; and though he hampers his principle with certain qualifications, which threaten the civil rights of some persons hostile to Christianity, yet his views, if consistently carried out in his own gentle and charitable spirit, would leave little to be complained of by any one. On the whole, Jeremy Taylor was fuller and more satisfactory in his views of comprehension and liberty than was either Chillingworth or Hales.

Dr. Ralph Cudworth and Dr. Henry More, though they did not propound any theory of toleration, advocated principles and breathed a spirit in their teaching such as could not fail to promote the interests of religious liberty. There is a beautiful sermon by the former of these Divines preached before the House of Commons, in 1647, in which the following characteristic passage occurs:—"The golden beams of truth and the silken cords of love, twisted together, will draw men on with a sweet violence, whether they will or no. Let us take heed we do not sometimes call that zeal for God and His Gospel, which is nothing else but our own temptations and stormy passions. True zeal is a sweet, heavenly, and gentle flame, which makes us active for God, but always within the sphere of love. It never calls for fire from heaven to consume those that differ a little from us in their apprehensions. It is like that kind of lightning (which the philosophers speak of) which melts the sword within, but singeth not the scabbard. It strives to save the soul, but hurteth not the body."[425]

More, who went beyond Cudworth in decided attachment to Episcopacy; sharing in the spirit of his great contemporary, strongly condemned rancour and persecution. "He thought," observes his biographer, "that all persons making conscience of their ways, and that were themselves peaceable and for granting a liberty unto others, ought not to be severely used or persecuted, but borne with as befits weak members till God shall give them greater light."[426]

The groundwork of toleration selected by the Independents differed from that of the Episcopalians. The Independents had ideas of Christian faith, Christian worship, and Christian discipline far more definite and fixed than those of Chillingworth or Hales, or even Taylor; and could not join in any acts or associations inconsistent with their deeply-formed and devout opinions. Arianism, for example, might be deemed simply an intellectual error by men like Hales; but no Athanasian could be stronger in his maintenance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the importance attached to it, than were these dissenting brethren. They were as remote as possible from anything like latitudinarian theology. Christian dogmas, so called, were held by them with an intense tenacity. Toleration is sometimes reckoned a daughter of indifference, but most certainly in their case toleration can be ascribed to no such parentage. Moreover, the very general kind of devotion in the house of God which would have satisfied Chillingworth, would have starved the spiritual cravings of Jeremiah Burroughs and his companions.

Nor did the brethren wish for only one church, as did those eminent Episcopalians. They could not, for it was their primary principle that "churches" or "congregations"—with them identical terms—ought to be many. In the existence of one holy Catholic Church, embracing all true Christians, they firmly believed; but they held in perfect consistency with this, that there must be numerous and distinct organized communities, not only in the world, but in the same realm, to be united only by common Christian sympathies. On this point they would be at issue with Jeremy Taylor, as well as with Chillingworth and Hales. They would object to his notion of national churches, as well as to his standard of Christian faith. Their ideas of communion were much more strict, though the extent of their toleration in some respects was more comprehensive. With Taylor's Catholic predilections they would have no sympathy, nor could they agree with him in all he said about Anabaptists. When they came to the same conclusion with the eloquent Churchman, it was by a different course of reasoning.

The fundamental principles of Independency, consistently carried out, could not but lead to the advocacy of a perfect freedom of profession and worship. If churches be select communities composed of Christian believers, standing apart from political powers, and independent of each other in their organization, then it clearly follows that no ecclesiastical authority can touch those who are outside the pale of all particular churches that no temporal penalties can be inflicted on those who are within any such pale and that full liberty of action must be allowed to religionists of every class, and to those also who have no religion at all. Accordingly, Mr. Hallam, an unprejudiced enquirer into this subject, has declared that "the congregationalist scheme leads to toleration, as the national church scheme is adverse to it, for manifold reasons which the reader will discover."[427] A few Independents at an early period discerned the legitimate consequences of their principles. A Brownist petition prepared in the year 1640 prays, "that every man may have freedom of conscience," not excepting Papists; and in a pamphlet published in 1644 it is asked, "whether if security be taken for civil subjection, Papists might not be tolerated? Otherwise," it is added, "if England's government were the government of the whole world, not only they, but a world of idolaters of all sorts, yea the whole world, must be driven out of the world."[428] But the five brethren did not advocate the cause of liberty to that wide extent; and afterwards, during the civil wars and the Protectorate, many Independent Divines, including the leaders of the party, carefully limited their conception of religious freedom.[429]

But there was one Independent clergyman—John Goodwin—not a member of the Westminster Assembly—who with pre-eminent perspicuity and force expounded the doctrine of toleration. Justice has not been often done to this very able man, owing, perhaps, to the prejudice against him on account of his Arminianism, and to his bold defence of Charles's execution. Calvinists and Royalists were likely to look at him with jaundiced eyes; and it cannot be denied that when assailed, as he often was, Goodwin could give a Roland for an Oliver; and that in a way such as severely galled the victims of his criticism.[430] He remained until 1645 vicar of St. Stephen's, Coleman Street, and at the commencement of the sittings of the Westminster Assembly, though suspected by some of holding Calvinism very loosely, he had not yet entirely abandoned that system. Open and earnest in his advocacy of Independent principles, defending them both from the pulpit and from the press, he also, whilst remaining vicar and discharging his parochial duties, gathered in his parish an Independent church; not, however, preaching separately to that community, but in his more private relationship as an Independent pastor, praying and holding religious conversation with them in his own house—whilst the doors were thrown open for any one to attend the meetings who pleased.

Goodwin heartily approved of the "Narration," though he had no part in the composition of that performance, and when it came under the attack of Presbyterians, he broke a lance on its behalf with the assailants, in a very chivalrous fashion. We do not remember any other statement of the doctrine of toleration in the writings of the Independents of that day so unequivocal as his, expressed in the following words:[431]

"The grand pillar of this coercive power in magistrates is this angry argument: 'What, would you have all religions, sects, and schisms tolerated in Christian churches? Should Jews, Turks, and Papists be suffered in their religions, what confusion must this needs breed both in church and state!' I answer: If, by a toleration, the argument means either an approbation or such a connivance which takes no knowledge of, or no ways opposeth such religions, sects, or schisms as are unwarrantable, they are not to be tolerated; but orthodox and able ministers ought in a grave, sober, and inoffensive manner, soundly from the Scriptures to evince the folly, vanity, and falsehood of all such ways. Others, also, that have an anointing of light and knowledge from God, are bound to contribute occasionally the best of their endeavours towards the same end. In case the minister be negligent, or forgetful of his duty, the magistrate may and ought to admonish him that he fulfil his ministry. If a person, one or more, being members of a particular church, be infected with any heretical or dangerous opinion, and after two or three admonitions, with means of conviction used to regain him, shall continue obstinate, he ought to be cast out from amongst them by that church. If it be a whole church that is so corrupted, the neighbour churches, in case it hath any, ought to admonish it, and to endeavour the reclaiming of it. If it be refractory, after competent admonition and means used for the reducing of it, they may and ought to renounce communion with it, and so set a mark or brand of heresy upon the forehead of it.

If, by a toleration, the argument means a non-suppression of such religions, sects, and schisms by fining, imprisoning, disfranchising, banishment, death, or the like, my answer is—That they ought to be tolerated; only upon this supposition, that the professors of them be otherwise peaceable in the state, and every way subject to the laws and lawful power of the magistrate."[432]

There is a good deal of controversy as to who was first in the field of toleration. The honour most likely belongs to Leonard Busher. He will be noticed hereafter in connection with the early Baptists. But the controversy is of little importance in relation to the general interests of mankind, compared with the fact that John Locke, at a later period, was the apostle to teach the doctrine effectively to the English nation. He discovers who proves, and the merit of discovery is due to him who first establishes a principle; but he, who adopting what was established before, is more successful in his advocacy of it than his predecessors were, will and ought to be regarded as a superior benefactor of his race, though he may have attributed to him more of the merit of originality than he deserves. Locke brought the doctrine of toleration out of the domain of theology, and placed it on the basis of political righteousness;[433] he established it by common sense reasoning adapted to the English understanding; besides, he did this in the exercise of a peculiar and independent genius; and, what is a more important consideration, his contemporaries were prepared for his instructions by preceding struggles and by possessing already an instalment of legal toleration. Locke is to be distinguished from Busher, Goodwin, and Owen, and from Chillingworth, Hales, and Taylor. He comes more in a line with the first than with the second three names; but he did what they had none of them the power to do—he made the doctrine popular. A parallel may be drawn in this respect between the history of the principle of government non-interference with a man and his conscience, and the principle of government non-interference with commercial interests and the natural laws of demand and supply. Long after the discovery and illustration of the latter principle, a great statesman made plain to the common understanding of his fellow-countrymen what had been before apprehended by only a few philosophers. John Locke occupies a position in the history of toleration like that of Richard Cobden in the history of free trade.

After all, the Independents must be reckoned the chief and most influential of the early apostles of toleration, and to their rise and progress we shall direct attention in the following chapter.