degree blameable before God or man for any opinions which were the result of conscientious research.  Much was written on the subject by theologians of the generation which succeeded next after Tillotson, as for instance by Hoadly, Sykes, Whitby, Law, Hare, and Balguy.  But in truth, if the premisses be granted—­if free inquiry is allowable and the inquiry be conducted with all honesty of heart and mind—­no candid person, whatever be his opinions, can give other than one answer.  Kettlewell, High Churchman and Nonjuror, readily acknowledged that ’where our ignorance of any of Christ’s laws is joined with an honest heart, and remains after our sincere industry to know the truth, we may take comfort to ourselves that it is involuntary and innocent.’[227] In this he agreed with his Low Church contemporary, Chillingworth, who said that ’To ask pardon of simple and involuntary errors is tacitly to imply that God is angry with us for them, and that were to impute to Him this strange tyranny of requiring brick where He gives no straw; of expecting to gather where He strewed not; of being offended with us for not doing what He knows we cannot do.’[228] Tillotson always speaks guardedly on the subject.  He was keenly alive to the evil practical consequences which may result from intellectual error,—­very confident that in all important particulars orthodox doctrine was the true and safe path, very anxious therefore not to say anything which might weaken the sense of responsibility in those who deviated from it.  But he never attempted to evade the logical conclusion which follows from an acknowledged right of private judgment.  In his practice as well as in his theory, he wholly admitted the blamelessness of error where there was ardent sincerity of purpose.  He wrote several times against the Unitarians, but gladly allowed that many of them were thoroughly good men, honest and candid in argument,[229] nor did he even scruple to admit to a cordial friendship one of their most distinguished leaders, Thomas Firmin, a man of great beneficence and philanthropy.

There was no reservation in Tillotson’s mind as to the general right of private judgment.  ’Any man that hath the spirit of a man must abhor to submit to this slavery not to be allowed to examine his religion, and to inquire freely into the grounds and reasons of it; and would break with any Church in the world upon this single point; and would tell them plainly, “If your religion be too good to be examined, I doubt it is too bad to be believed."’[230] He grounded the right on three principles.[231] The first was, that essentials are so plain that every man of ordinary capacities, after receiving competent instruction, is able to judge of them.  This, he added, was no new doctrine of the Reformation, but had been expressly owned by such ancient fathers as St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine.  The second was, that it was a Scriptural injunction.  St. Luke, in the Acts, St. Paul and St. John in their