verted subjects of his day, and not avoided by the author in his political writings (see Eiconoclastes, II. 405.) is a single expression employed which can expose him to the charge of substituting the language of the polemic for that of the divine, or of forgetting the calmness befitting the character of an inquirer after religious truth, to indulge in a second triumph over a political adversary.

Many doubts hitherto entertained respecting the real opinions of Milton on certain subjects are removed by the present treatise, to which, as originally intended for a posthumous work, no suspicion of insincerity can attach. Of all the charges indeed which private or political prejudice has created against the author, that of being a time-server,' according to the reproach of Warburton, seems to have been the least deserved. The honesty of his sentiments is sufficiently vindicated by the boldness with which he uniformly expressed them in times when freedom of speech was more than ordinarily dangerous, as well as by his consistent exposure of what he conceived to be erroneous, whether advocated by his own friends or by his opponents. Thus on discovering that 'new presbyter was but old priest writ large,' he resisted the encroachments of the presbyterians, as resolutely as he had before contributed to overthrow prelacy; and, if it were necessary, his political independence might be no less successfully vindicated by adducing the spirited language which he addressed to Cromwell in the zenith of his power. He has however been

charged with concealing his opinions on a subject of no less importance than Popery, and even of entertaining a secret inclination in its favour. This imputation, considering the multifariousness of Milton's writings, may perhaps have received same colour from the silence which he generally observes with regard to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, althongh incidental phrases, sufficiently indicative of the soundness of his Protestant principles, sometimes occur. See particularly his Treatise on true Religion,' in which he recommends the study of the Bible to all classes of men, as the best preservative against Popery. His reason for not entering upon the subject more at large is assigned in the preface to the present work, and it is simply this, that the cause of Protestantism appeared to be so firmly established as to stand in no need of his services. He professed to employ his pen, as we learn from his own testimony, only where, in his judgement, the good of his country or the interests of religion required it. Acting on this principle, he undertook successively to oppose episcopacy, to advocate the cause of liberty, of education, and of a free press. But perceiving, as he tells us, that the strong holds of the reformed religion were sufficiently fortified, as far as they were exposed to danger from the Papists, he directed his attention to more neglected subjects, and exerted his talents in the defence of civil or of religious liberty.† Encouraged perhaps by this comparative silence, and pre

* Defensio Secunda pro Populo Anglicano. Prose Works, V. 233. + Preface, p. 4.

f

*

A

suming on the supposed absence of additional written evidence to falsify his statement, Titus Oates did not scruple to accuse Milton of being a member of a Popish Club. The Popish lord is not forgotten, or unknown, who brought a petition to the late regicides and usurpers, signed by about five hundred principal Papists in England; wherein was promised, upon condition of a toleration of the Popish religion here by law, their joint resolution to abjure and exclude the family of the Stuarts for ever from their undoubted right to the Crown. Who more disheartened, the loyalty and patience of your best subjects than their confident scribblers, White and others? And MILTON was a known frequenter of a Popish club.' See the Address or Dedication to the King prefixed to true Narrative of the Horrid Plot, &c. of the Popish party against the life of his Sacred Majesty, &c. By Titus Oates, D. D. folio, Lond. 1679.' This charge was subsequently copied into A History of all the Popish Plots, &c. from the first year of Elizabeth to this present year 1684, by Thos. Long, Prebendary of Exeter,' who says, p. 93. Milton was by very many suspected to be a Papist; and if Dr. Oates may be believed, was a known frequenter of the Popish Club, though he were Cromwell's Secretary.' The evidence furnished by the present publication will show how improbable it is that Milton, who, even within the precincts of the Papal dominions, had been at so little pains to moderate his zeal for the reformed religion, as to be exposed to insult and personal danger in consequence of his known princi

ples, should have consented to sit at the same secret council-board with his alleged confederates. See particularly vol. I. p. 321, on the marriage of priests; p. 429, on purgatory; vol. II. p. 128, &c. on transubstantiation; p. 136, on the sacrifice of the mass; p. 138, &c. on the five Papistical sacraments; p. 146, on the authority of the Roman pontiffs; p. 177, on traditions; p. 195, on councils.

On the subject of Divorce, the line of argument pursued in this treatise coincides with the well-known opinions which Milton has elsewhere so zealously advocated. To his heterodoxy on this point must now be added, what hitherto has been unsuspected, his belief in the lawfulness of polygamy, to which he appears to have been led by the difficulty he found in reconciling the commonly received opinion with the practice of the patriarchs. It seems however no less easy to conceive that the Supreme Lawgiver might dispense with his own laws in the early ages of the world, for the sake of multiplying the population in a quicker ratio, than that marriages between brothers and sisters might be then permitted on account of the paucity of inhabitants on the face of the earth. Yet the existence of the latter practice in the primeval ages has never been alleged as a sufficient authority for the intermarriage of so near relations, now that the reason for the original permission has ceased to operate.

Doubts have always been entertained as to the real sentiments of Milton respecting the second person of

the Trinity. Newton indeed is assiduous in praising his theological views, although he once so far qualifies his assertion, as to content himself with pronouncing that Milton is generally truly orthodox.' Warton however has acknowledged the justice of Mr. Calton's remark on a memorable passage in Paradise Regained, (I. 161-167.) that not a word is there said of the Son of God, but what a Socinian, or at least an Arian, would allow. The truth is, that whoever takes the trouble of comparing with each other the passages referred to in the note below, will find real and important contradictions in the language of Milton on this subject.* That these contradictions should exist, will cease to appear extraordinary after a perusal of the chapter On the Son of God' in the ensuing pages. It is there asserted that the Son existed in the beginning, and was the first of the whole creation; by whose delegated power all things were made in heaven and earth; begotten, not by natural necessity, but by the decree of the Father, within the limits of time; endued with the divine nature and substance, but distinct from and inferior to the Father; one with the Father in love and unanimity of will, and receiving every thing, in his filial as well as in his mediatorial character, from the Father's gift. This summary will be sufficient to show that the opinions of Milton were in reality nearly Arian, ascribing to the Son as high a share of divinity as was compatible with the denial of his self

* Paradise Lost, III. 62-64. 138-140. 305-307. 350. 384-415. V. 603-605. 719, 720. VI. 676-884. X. 63-67. 85, 86. 225, 226.