It

that he held that all are finally to be brought out of eternal death into eternal life.' But we venture the opinion that this, with him, was an open question. Sometimes his language indicates that he inclined to Universalism; but generally his mental attitude on this matter was a negative one. 'I am sure,' he says, 'that restored order will be carried out by the full triumph of God's loving will. How that should take place while any rebellious will remains in the universe I cannot tell, though it is not for me to say that it is impossible.' The central principle of Broad Church theology-love-has evidently much to do with the views held on this question. The supposed inconsistency of eternal punishment with the love, and mercy, and goodness of the Divine Father is the burden of Canon Farrar's' Eternal Hope.' Here, as elsewhere, we may see reaction, no doubt caused by the gross, materialistic representations of future punishment that prevailed so largely a few years ago. In regard to Inspiration, Maurice is more than usually vague. is difficult to ascertain exactly how much authority he attributed to Scripture. The grand distinction between the Bible and other books, he affirms, is, that it reveals God to men. All questions of infallibility, inspiration, and so forth, are subordinate and secondary. Dr. Arnold had no accurate, precise, sharply-defined theory of inspiration, and probably considered the subject did not admit of one. The Bible was to him an oracle of God, a positive and supernatural revelation made to man, an immediate inspiration of the Spirit; but he did not attempt to define the exact limits of that inspiration. He carefully distinguished between the human and Divine elements of Scripture, making each subject to its own laws, and determined on its own principles. His aim was not to establish certain religious truths, but to study the Book itself, to end in short instead of beginning with doctrine. Doctrine, in the strict sense, as found in creeds, was not his object, but doctrine in its practical and religious side, as bearing on religious feeling and character; and this was all he believed could be found in the teaching of Scripture.

The honesty of Broad Churchmen in subscribing to the Articles of the Church of England is sometimes called in question. But it must be remembered that they accept the formularies of the Church, her prayers, her articles, her creeds, even the Athanasian Creed, and her sacraments, as containing their views. Into these old forms, however, they breathe a new spirit, and claim equally with the other parties to be the true exponents of Anglican theology and the legitimate representatives of Anglican founders. They recognise, moreover, that the Prayer Book was originally a compromise between differing parties, and contend that the comprehension which followed from this com

promise must necessarily allow of considerable freedom within the Church, as well as latitude in the subscription to her Articles, without involving any intellectual dishonesty.

In summing up our estimate of the Broad School, we repeat that it is a reaction against the narrowness and bigotry, the worldliness and insincerity, and the low standard of Christian life of the older parties. That the reaction has gone to an extreme, we admit; but, in spite of this, the party have done eminent service to the Church and the world. That they have been the means of elevating the religious tone and broadening and liberalising the theology of Evangelicalism is, we think, beyond question. But their work extends far beyond the Church of England. They have communicated a mighty intellectual and spiritual impulse to the Nonconformist churches of this country; while, by shrinking from no test to which Christianity could be put, by advocating and displaying an absolute freedom of thought, yet maintaining their faith in God and in Christ, by boldly facing the intellectual, moral, and social problems of the age, and, above all, by their broad sympathy and world-wide charity, they have saved multitudes from blank Atheism, strengthened in the faith numbers who were wavering, commended religion to the worldly-minded, and inculcated a genuine and lofty style of religious life. We cannot conclude without a parting tribute to the noble men who have figured in this movement. The influence of creeds and schools of thought upon the development of character would form an interesting subject of inquiry; and certainly, if the school under consideration had to be judged by this test, it would take a foremost place. For true nobility of character, loftiness of aim, purity of motive, scorn of meanness, hatred of wrong, passionate longing for the elevation of humanity and the truest Christian chivalry, Arnold, Robertson, Maurice, and Kingsley have few superiors in our own or any other age. All sections of the Church must ever honour the men who have so strikingly identified the name of Christian with the tenderest graces and the manliest virtues which adorn and enrich human nature with the truest faith in God and an ardent devotion to the well-being of men. We think the movement augurs for our common Christianity a brighter and a grander future, when the many warring sections of the Church shall meet on one common platform and work harmoniously together for the world's regeneration. As reformation succeeds reformation, and reaction follows reaction, the Church is ever getting nearer a wellrounded, symmetrical conception of truth, and, as a consequence, is ever growing in that charity which is at once the surest bond and the highest evidence of union. JOSEPH RITSON.

IV.-JOHN COTTON AND THE PURITANS OF

NEW ENGLAND.

THE observances which, in pageant and commemorative celebration, have marked the completion of a quarter of a millennial period since the first English settlement of Boston may warrant the revival of the name and influence of John Cotton even on these fresh pages and amid the stir of our present life. Not only because Cotton Mather was the grandson of the Teacher,' but on the grounds of universal esteem and repute during our first century, does the author of the 'Magnalia' exalt John Cotton to the foremost place of dignity and renown in the wilderness settlement. It has long been current in our histories that the New England Boston received its name in compliment to the vicar of St. Botolph's Church in the old Boston when he came hither as a persecuted exile to continue his ministry, leaving a stately shrine of Gothic grandeur and solemnity for a rude tabernacle of mud walls and thatched roof. His son-in-law, Increase Mather, President of the College, wrote, "If Boston be the chief seat of New England, it was Cotton that was the father and glory of Boston.' And his grandson, Cotton Mather, wrote, Boston oweth its name and being to him more than to any other person in the world.' But the records of the Colony Court show that the peninsula received its new name three years before the arrival of Cotton, and, as would appear, before his coming was resolved upon. It would seem rather that the name was adopted in regard to several of the most distinguished of the first company of the adventurers who came from old Boston and had been concerned in its municipal affairs, and who, from sympathy with Cotton's Puritanism at home, were in close relations with him and were instrumental in bringing about his removal hither.

6

If it be worth the while now to rehearse the story of his life and career, it must be done in a tone and spirit consistent with his owr. elevation of character, his sincerity and sacrifice, his fidelity in walking by a light less full and clear, it may be, than that by which even the wisest and best of us find it difficult to make our way. The right way of telling the story of a faithful and earnest man is to come as near as possible to what would have been his own way of telling it. In the staple virtues of rectitude the advances of time work no change in standard or substance. Opinions, convictions, scruples, as well as

superstitions, fancies, and errors of judgment, are matters of light and shade in the age and place where our lot falls.

No attainment of wisdom or saintliness in his subject would induce an English biographer of an Englishman to suppress the statement, when it could be truthfully made, as it may be of John Cotton, that he came of an ancient and a good family. The tradition was, that his branch of the family had been defrauded of a fair inheritance. His father, Rowland Cotton, was a lawyer of Puritan views and habits; and the son, who was born in the town and county of Derby, Dec. 4, 1585, was trained and educated under that strict discipline of piety. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge-preferred by all Puritans to Oxford-in 1598, when about thirteen years of age, and became Master of Arts in 1606. He was then made Fellow, Dean, Catechist, and Head-Lecturer in Emanuel College, and by 1608 had attained high distinction for scholarship and character. Here, too, his religious. convictions in the school of a rigid Calvinism, and in the direction of non-conformity with the ceremonials of the church, became intensified, though, he says, he tried to resist the searching influence which was. working within him under the impression that if he became a godly man, it would spoil him for being a learned one-an old cavil being that religion made scholars turn dunces.' His institution as the vicar of St. Botolph's in Boston, when he was in his twenty-eighth year, was objected to and opposed by the irreligious party' on the ground of his suspected tendencies; but it was brought about by the casting vote of the Mayor, who made the serious blunder of giving it by accident against the candidate whom he preferred. Cotton lived eighteen years. childless with his first wife. His second wife was the mother of several children, represented now by many descendants here, among whom are Octavius B. Frothingham and Phillips Brooks, William Everett, and the children of Charles Francis Adams.

6

There are conflicting accounts of the character and extent of the non-conformity with the discipline of the then established Church of England to which Cotton allowed himself to yield in his ministry. A kindly but still candid reader of his course in reference to this matter will be disposed to recognise then and there, as he will have need to do in some critical occasions in Cotton's experience in New England, what, perhaps, ought not to be called precisely an infirmity, but rather a lack of firmness and decision of character. He was gentle, yielding, and, to a degree, inconstant. He lacked sometimes 'the courage of his convictions.' He was very sensitive to scruples,' but too ready to mistrust them when a strong or ingenious pleader re

6

minded him that they were only scruples. This inconstancy, or lack of firm fibre in him, appears almost disappointingly in his temporising letter to the Lord Keeper, Bishop Williams, who was disposed to befriend Cotton when brought under suspicion of non-conformity. Perhaps, however, in this instance, the gentleness of the prelate touched the tender sentiment of the vicar. But this quality in Cotton was, on some occasions, an enfeebling one. He produced effects upon others which led them to a more decided stand than he himself was at all times ready to abide by. It is certain that, under his preaching and discipline, earnest, unwearied, and rigid, his English parish became largely Puritanical. His people became zealous for reform, for purity, for devout observances, for incessant preaching and lectures; and the repute which his ministrations acquired drew in from a wide neighbourhood in other parishes sympathising persons who wished to partake of his holy ministry.' Very many of the early and the more valued of the first comers to this colony came that they might share his instructions. Rumours went out that non-conformity in some of its illegal and odious characteristics was asserting itself in St. Betolph's. It was charged that some communicants went there from other parishes because the vicar connived at their partaking of the Sacrament without kneeling, and at sundry other irregularities. A 'corrupt' man, who had been rebuked for immoralities, went to London and informed against these practices. The silver cross was mysteriously cut away from the royal insignia which adorned the maces borne before the Mayor of the town. This indignity-an anticipation of the act by which our own Governor Endicott afterwards cut out the cross from the King's colours as an 'idolatrous emblem' -was made the subject of a searching judicial inquiry. It did not appear that Cotton prompted or connived at' this offence. He was, however, complained against at the arbitrary Court of High Commission for not kneeling at the Sacrament and for other breaches of ceremonial, and proceedings were instituted to bring him before the dreaded tribunal. He was temporarily silenced. Midway in his ministry a severe indisposition led him to make his home for a year with the friendly Earl of Lincoln, the father of the gracious Lady Arbella, the wife of our Isaac Johnson. Here again we see a trace of the relations between the old and the new Boston. Cotton engaged the friendship of the Earl of Dorset to make interest for him with Archbishop Laud, the primate. But that stern foe of the Puritans was inexorable. The answer received by Cotton was, that if he had been guilty of drunkenness, or uncleanness, or any such lesser fault, he

6