If ever two great men might seem, during their whole lives,
to have moved in direct opposition, though neither of them has
at any time introduced the name of the other, Milton and 365
Jeremy Taylor were they. The former commenced his career
by attacking the Church-Liturgy and all set forms of prayer.
The latter, but far more successfully, by defending both.
Milton's next work was against the Prelacy and the then
existing Church-Government—Taylor's in vindication and [370]
support of them. Milton became more and more a stern republican,
or rather an advocate for that religious and moral aristocracy
which, in his day, was called republicanism, and which, even more
than royalism itself, is the direct antipode of modern jacobinism.
Taylor, as more and more sceptical concerning the fitness of 375
men in general for power, became more and more attached to
the prerogatives of monarchy. From Calvinism, with a still
decreasing respect for Fathers, Councils, and for Church-antiquity
in general, Milton seems to have ended in an indifference,
if not a dislike, to all forms of ecclesiastic government, and to [380]
have retreated wholly into the inward and spiritual church-communion
of his own spirit with the Light that lighteth every
man that cometh into the world. Taylor, with a growing
reverence for authority, an increasing sense of the insufficiency of
the Scriptures without the aids of tradition and the consent of [385]
authorized interpreters, advanced as far in his approaches (not
indeed to Popery, but) to Roman-Catholicism, as a conscientious
minister of the English Church could well venture. Milton
would be and would utter the same to all on all occasions: he
would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the [390]
truth. Taylor would become all things to all men, if by any
means he might benefit any; hence he availed himself, in his
popular writings, of opinions and representations which stand
often in striking contrast with the doubts and convictions
expressed in his more philosophical works. He appears, indeed, [395]
not too severely to have blamed that management of truth
(istam falsitatem dispensativam) authorized and exemplified by
almost all the fathers: Integrum omnino doctoribus et coetus
Christiani antistitibus esse, ut dolos versent, falsa veris
intermisceant et imprimis religionis hostes fallant, dummodo 400
veritatis commodis et utilitati inserviant.
The same antithesis might be carried on with the elements
of their several intellectual powers. Milton, austere, condensed,
imaginative, supporting his truth by direct enunciation of lofty
moral sentiment and by distinct visual representations, and in 405
the same spirit overwhelming what he deemed falsehood by
moral denunciation and a succession of pictures appalling or
repulsive. In his prose, so many metaphors, so many allegorical
miniatures. Taylor, eminently discursive, accumulative,
and (to use one of his own words) agglomerative; still more [410]
rich in images than Milton himself, but images of fancy, and
presented to the common and passive eye, rather than to the
eye of the imagination. Whether supporting or assailing, he
makes his way either by argument or by appeals to the
affections, unsurpassed even by the schoolmen in subtlety, [415]
agility, and logic wit, and unrivalled by the most rhetorical of
the fathers in the copiousness and vividness of his expressions
and illustrations. Here words that convey feelings, and words
that flash images, and words of abstract notion, flow together,
and whirl and rush onward like a stream, at once rapid and full [420]
of eddies; and yet still interfused here and there we see a tongue
or islet of smooth water, with some picture in it of earth or sky,
landscape or living group of quiet beauty.
Differing then so widely and almost contrariantly, wherein
did these great men agree? wherein did they resemble each 425
other? In genius, in learning, in unfeigned piety, in blameless
purity of life, and in benevolent aspirations and purposes for
the moral and temporal improvement of their fellow-creatures!
Both of them wrote a Latin Accidence, to render education
more easy and less painful to children; both of them composed 430
hymns and psalms proportioned to the capacity of common
congregations; both, nearly at the same time, set the glorious
example of publicly recommending and supporting general
toleration, and the liberty both of the Pulpit and the press!
In the writings of neither shall we find a single sentence, like [435]
those meek deliverances to God's mercy, with which Laud
accompanied his votes for the mutilations and loathsome
dungeoning of Leighton and others!—nowhere such a pious prayer
as we find in Bishop Hall's memoranda of his own life, concerning
the subtle and witty atheist that so grievously perplexed [440]
and gravelled him at Sir Robert Drury's till he prayed to the
Lord to remove him, and behold! his prayers were heard: for
shortly afterward this Philistine-combatant went to London,
and there perished of the plague in great misery! In short,
nowhere shall we find the least approach, in the lives and 445
writings of John Milton or Jeremy Taylor, to that guarded
gentleness, to that sighing reluctance, with which the holy
brethren of the Inquisition deliver over a condemned heretic
to the civil magistrate, recommending him to mercy, and
hoping that the magistrate will treat the erring brother with [450]
all possible mildness!—the magistrate who too well knows what
would be his own fate if he dared offend them by acting on their
recommendation.
The opportunity of diverting the reader from myself to
characters more worthy of his attention, has led me far beyond my 455
first intention; but it is not unimportant to expose the false
zeal which has occasioned these attacks on our elder patriots.
It has been too much the fashion first to personify the Church
of England, and then to speak of different individuals, who in
different ages have been rulers in that church, as if in some [460]
strange way they constituted its personal identity. Why should
a clergyman of the present day feel interested in the defence
of Laud or Sheldon? Surely it is sufficient for the warmest
partisan of our establishment that he can assert with
truth,—when our Church persecuted, it was on mistaken principles [465]
held in common by all Christendom; and at all events, far less
culpable was this intolerance in the Bishops, who were
maintaining the existing laws, than the persecuting spirit afterwards
shewn by their successful opponents, who had no such excuse,
and who should have been taught mercy by their own sufferings, 470
and wisdom by the utter failure of the experiment in their own
case. We can say that our Church, apostolical in its faith,
primitive in its ceremonies, unequalled in its liturgical forms; that
our Church, which has kindled and displayed more bright and
burning lights of genius and learning than all other protestant 475
churches since the reformation, was (with the single exception
of the times of Laud and Sheldon) least intolerant, when all
Christians unhappily deemed a species of intolerance their
religious duty; that Bishops of our church were among the first
that contended against this error; and finally, that since the [480]
reformation, when tolerance became a fashion, the Church of
England in a tolerating age, has shewn herself eminently
tolerant, and far more so, both in spirit and in fact, than
many of her most bitter opponents, who profess to deem
toleration itself an insult on the rights of mankind! As to [485]
myself, who not only know the Church-Establishment to be
tolerant, but who see in it the greatest, if not the sole safe
bulwark of toleration. I feel no necessity of defending or
palliating oppressions under the two Charleses, in order to
exclaim with a full and fervent heart, Esto perpetua! [490]
FOOTNOTES:
[1097:1] First published in Sibylline Leaves in 1817: included in 1828, 1829, and 1834. The 'Apologetic Preface' must have been put together in 1815, with a view to publication in the volume afterwards named Sibylline Leaves, but the incident on which it turns most probably took place in the spring of 1803, when both Scott and Coleridge were in London. Davy writing to Poole, May 1, 1803, says that he generally met Coleridge during his stay in town, 'in the midst of large companies, where he was the image of power and activity,' and Davy, as we know, was one of Sotheby's guests. In a letter to Mrs. Fletcher dated Dec. 18, 1830 (?), Scott tells the story in his own words, but throws no light on date or period. The implied date (1809) in Morritt's report of Dr. Howley's conversation (Lockhart's Life of Scott, 1837, ii. 245) is out of the question, as Coleridge did not leave the Lake Country between Sept. 1808 and October 1810. Coleridge set great store by 'his own stately account of this lion-show' (ibid.). In a note in a MS. copy of Sibylline Leaves presented to his son Derwent he writes:—'With the exception of this slovenly sentence (ll. 109-19) I hold this preface to be my happiest effort in prose composition.'
[1097:2] William Sotheby (1756-1838), translator of Wieland's Oberon and the Georgics of Virgil. Coleridge met him for the first time at Keswick in July, 1802.
[1097:3] 'The compliment I can witness to be as just as it is handsomely recorded,' Sir W. Scott to Mrs. Fletcher, Fragmentary Remains of Sir H. Davy, 1858, p. 113.