We shall offer no commentary on this passage. Principles like these carry with them their own condemnation. And yet such are the principles advanced in a tract, which has made so favourable an impression on Mr. Justice Keogh, that the oftener he reads it, the more he takes it to his heart, and which he fondly hopes may make a like impression on the minds of his audience.
When we are assured by Mr. Justice Keogh that Milton was “the fast friend of toleration”, we can scarcely believe that he is serious. Lest, however, our readers should be led astray, we shall briefly tell them what Milton really thought and said on the subject of religious toleration. Towards the close of his life, he wrote a very important treatise[5] in which he discusses the question, and explains his views with his usual clearness and force. He maintains in this treatise that all religious sects are to be tolerated, with one exception; and that exception is the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians, Arminians, in a word, all Protestants, whatever their religious opinions may be, should have liberty to preach, to discuss, to worship, unmolested: but Catholics must not be tolerated; they must not be permitted to defend their doctrines; they must not be permitted to worship either in public or in private.[6] This, he contends, is one of the best means to prevent the growth of Popery.[7] Here is the champion of intellectual liberty that Mr. [pg 457] Justice Keogh would hold up to the admiration of his audience! Here is “the fast friend of toleration”, “the staunchest friend of freedom and truth that ever lived”, the man who “has made the most successful war against tyranny and falsehood”! We must charitably suppose that the learned lecturer has formed his opinion of Milton without reading his works.
We are told by the biographers of Milton that his father, who was the son of a zealous Roman Catholic, abandoned the religion of his ancestors, and was on that account deprived of his inheritance. The act of apostasy is one that the Catholic Church can never contemplate without the deepest sorrow and abhorrence. According to the principles of our faith, he who separates himself from the one True Church transgresses the command of God and forfeits his claim to everlasting happiness. Yet, it would seem, Mr. Justice Keogh finds in this act nothing to deplore, but much to admire. Speaking of the poet, he says:—
“He was in early youth instructed by a father who had sacrificed for conscience' sake a fair inheritance, with all scriptural lore, of which he drank with a thirst which was never satisfied”.
If we understand these words aright, our author regards with complacency the conduct of one who renounced the true faith, to embrace a religion which, in the eyes of all Catholics, is false and heretical. To his mind the act of apostasy is a sacrifice for conscience' sake. This is liberality of sentiment indeed! But it is a liberality of sentiment which we cannot reconcile with the maxims of sacred Scripture. Not so did the great apostle speak of those who had “made shipwreck concerning the faith”. “Of whom”, he said, “is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme”—I. Tim., i. 19. 20. And again: “And their speech spreadeth like a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past already”—II. Tim., ii. 17, 18.
Our readers, perhaps, will not be unwilling to know what was the effect of this training on the religious principles of Milton. His rich and vigorous mind was, indeed, a fertile soil. The seed which was sown in the spring time of youth, did not fail to grow up into a luxuriant tree, and to bring forth fruit in due season, according to its kind. In the maturity of life he constructed a system of theology which he professed to derive from Scripture alone. It is recorded by his own pen in his treatise De Doctrina Christiana, which, having been lost for a hundred and fifty years, has come to light within the present century. The peculiar tenets which he sets forth in this remarkable book may be briefly told. He defends the lawfulness of polygamy and divorce; he [pg 458] maintains that matter exists from eternity; he denies the doctrine of the Trinity; the Son is inferior to the Father, and produced in time; the Holy Ghost is inferior to the Father and the Son. An able writer has described “the result of the whole work” as “a system of theology not merely in discordance with the Church of England, but with every sect by which we are divided; an incoherent and conflicting theory, which combines Arianism, Anabaptism, Latitudinarianism, Quakerism, and we know not what to add, on account of his opinions on polygamy, but Mahometanism”.[8] These results are the ripe fruit of that early instruction in “all Scriptural lore” which Milton received, and for which Mr. Justice Keogh would seek our sympathy and approval.
After what we have seen, we cannot be surprised that our learned lecturer should point the finger of scorn and ridicule at the Roman Inquisition. Speaking of Milton's travels in Italy, he says: “There it was his fortune to visit Gallileo, confined in the prison of the Inquisition for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican believers”. We do not propose here to defend the Inquisition: neither shall we attempt to disprove the charge, which Mr. Justice Keogh would fain convey, that the Catholic Church is the enemy of scientific truth. We shall wait for an adversary who deals in arguments and not in sneers. We cannot, however, forbear to notice a gross inaccuracy in the statement of fact. It is asserted that it was the fortune of Milton “to visit Gallileo confined in the prison of the Inquisition”. This assertion is simply false. Milton's visit must have occurred about the year 1638, and it is well known to all who are acquainted with the subject, that Gallileo was then living at home in his own house at Arcetri, quietly pursuing his astronomical studies. In point of law, indeed, he was still technically a prisoner of the Inquisition, but this is widely different from being confined in the prison of the Inquisition. It is only fair to observe that the words of Milton himself, from whom the lecturer has taken his statement, are, on this point, strictly correct. “There it was that I found and visited the famous Gallileo, grown old, a prisoner to the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought”.[9] Our lecturer, therefore, in borrowing the language of the poet, has not only contrived to introduce an error, but he has taken care that this error shall be on the side most unfavourable to the Catholic Church.
We shall not trouble the reader with our own views or arguments on the hackneyed controversy of Gallileo's persecution. We shall be content to contrast the opinion of Mr. Justice Keogh with that of a learned and able Protestant writer, who has devoted [pg 459] much study to the life and times of the great astronomer, and who is himself honourably distinguished in kindred fields of science. Sir David Brewster, with all his strong anti-Catholic prejudices, distinctly maintains that the trials of Gallileo, such as they were, are not to be ascribed to his opinions in matters of astronomy, but rather to his “personal imprudence” and to his “irreligious sentiments”.[10] The character of the persecution which he had to endure at the hands of the Catholic Church may be gathered from the testimony of the same eminent writer. In the year 1623, long after he had been tried before the tribunal of the Inquisition, having occasion to come to Rome, he met with a noble and generous reception from the Father of the faithful. “The kindness of his Holiness”, says Sir David Brewster, “was of the most marked description. He not only loaded Gallileo with presents, and promised him a pension for his son Vincenzo, but wrote a letter to Ferdinand II., who had just succeeded Cosmo as Grand Duke of Tuscany, recommending Gallileo to his particular patronage”.[11] And again he says:
“Thus honoured by the head of the Church, and befriended by its dignitaries, Gallileo must have felt himself secure against the indignities of its lesser functionaries.... But Gallileo was bound to the Romish hierarchy by even stronger ties. His son and himself were pensioners of the Church; and having accepted of its alms, they owed it at least a decent and respectful allegiance. The pension thus given by Urban was not a remuneration which sovereigns sometimes award to the services of their subjects. Gallileo was a foreigner at Rome. The sovereign of the Papal state owed him no obligation; and hence we must regard the pension of Gallileo as a donation from the Roman Pontiff to science itself, and as a declaration to the Christian world that religion was not jealous of philosophy, and that the Church of Rome was willing to respect and foster even the genius of its enemies”.[12]
There are many other blots in the address of Mr. Justice Keogh, which a severe critic would not pass by without censure. He would ask, perhaps, how comes it that the lecturer takes his Scriptural quotations from the Protestant and not from the Catholic Bible? Is it that the Protestant Bible is the only one with which he is familiar? Can it be that the Protestant Bible is the source from which he derives his views in philosophy and in theology? We fully recognize the literary merits of the English Authorized Version; but there can be no doubt that the religious prejudices of its authors have led them into many serious errors. At all events it is not usual for a Catholic to quote from its pages [pg 460] without some apology or some explanation. Again, why does he tell his audience that the names of Spenser, of Shakespeare, of Scott, are to be found on the Index Expurgatorius? Did he consult the Index himself and find these names upon it? It cannot be: they are not there. Was he induced to make the assertion on the authority of some trustworthy witness? We can scarcely believe it was so: no writer who cares for his reputation would commit himself to a statement so easily disproved. Was it, then, that he wished to cast unfounded aspersions on the Catholic Church, and to bring her institutions into discredit with all who cherish the names of those illustrious writers? Once more: Mr. Justice Keogh, forgetting, for the moment, his country as well as his religion, introduces to the favourable notice of his audience “our glorious deliverer, William III.”! What a startling phrase to hear from the lips of an Irishman and a Catholic! William III. possessed many eminent qualities: he was a brave soldier and an able statesmen. But in the annals of Ireland his name must be for ever associated with persecution and with perfidy.[13]