Whether Browne has been numbered among the contemners of religion, by the fury of its friends, or the artifice of its enemies, it is no difficult task to replace him among the most zealous professors of christianity.  He may, perhaps, in the ardour of his imagination, have hazarded an expression, which a mind intent upon faults may interpret into heresy, if considered apart from the rest of his discourse; but a phrase is not to be opposed to volumes; there is scarcely a writer to be found, whose profession was not divinity, that has so frequently testified his belief of the sacred writings, has appealed to them with such unlimited submission, or mentioned them with such unvaried reverence.

It is, indeed, somewhat wonderful, that he should be placed without the pale of christianity, who declares, “that he assumes the honourable style of a christian,” not because it is “the religion of his country,” but because “having in his riper years and confirmed judgment seen” and examined all, he finds himself obliged, by the principles of grace, and the law of his own reason, to embrace “no other name but this;” who, to specify his persuasion yet more, tells us, that “he is of the reformed religion; of the same belief our Saviour taught, the apostles disseminated, the fathers authorized, and the martyrs confirmed;” who, though “paradoxical in philosophy, loves in divinity to keep the beaten road; and pleases himself that he has no taint of heresy, schism, or errour:”  to whom, “where the scripture is silent, the church is a text; where that speaks, ’tis but a comment;” and who uses not “the dictates of his own reason, but where there is a joint silence of both:  who blesses himself, that he lived not in the days of miracles, when faith had been thrust upon him; but enjoys that greater blessing, pronounced to all that believe and saw not.”  He cannot surely be charged with a defect of faith, who “believes that our Saviour was dead, and buried, and rose again, and desires to see him in his glory:”  and who affirms that “this is not much to believe;” that “we have reason to owe this faith unto history;” and that “they only had the advantage of a bold and noble faith, who lived before his coming; and, upon obscure prophecies, and mystical types, could raise a belief.”  Nor can contempt of the positive and ritual parts of religion be imputed to him, who doubts, whether a good man would refuse a poisoned eucharist; and “who would violate his own arm, rather than a church.”

The opinions of every man must be learned from himself:  concerning his practice, it is safest to trust the evidence of others.  Where these testimonies concur, no higher degree of historical certainty can be obtained; and they apparently concur to prove, that Browne was a zealous adherent to the faith of Christ; that he lived in obedience to his laws, and died in confidence of his mercy.

ASCHAM [89].