and this wish was in itself of a truly pious and patriotic nature, even though it could be proved that the means by which it was sought to be realized were not the most judicious that could have been imagined.

This course of reflection leads us to make some inquiry into the subject of religious toleration, of which so much. has been said and written, in the present as well as in former times. The term itself, toleration in matters of religion, is one which has rarely been defined with that care and exactness which its great importance demands; consequently, the whole subject is liable to every sort of sophistical perversion; and very many of the controversial writings. that have appeared concerning it start from different points, and run on either in parallel or in diverging lines, without the possibility of ever arriving at the same conclusion. Many thousands have been oppressed, persecuted, and put to death, for maintaining and promoting God's revealed truth; many thousands have suffered equal extremities for maintaining and promoting satanic falsehood; and many thousands have sustained all degrees of punishment for the perpetration of immorality and crime. But who will assert that the same principle appears in all these cases? Who will say, that because it is right to suppress and punish the commission of crime, therefore it is right to suppress and punish men for asserting religious truth? Or, that because it is wrong to suppress truth, therefore it is wrong to suppress crime, or discountenance error? But men try to escape from such reasoning, by asserting that truth cannot be ascertained with certainty; and that therefore it is best to give equal toleration to all opinions, lest a grievous mistake should be committed, and truth suppressed instead of error. This is the language of scepticism, and the principle which it promulgates is not toleration, but latitudinarian. laxity and licentiousness. Such language really implies

either that God did not intend to convey saving truth in a manner intelligible to the minds of men, or that He failed in His intention. But since few will be found reckless enough to maintain such opinions in their naked deformity, the advocates of sceptical laxity have recourse to every kind of evasion, in order to conceal alike the nature of the principle which they support and of that which they oppose. And, unhappily, these evasions are but too consonant to the character of the fallen mind of man, which is "enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." This is a truth which the sincere Christian feels and knows, but which philosophers and politicians reject, despise, and hate.

The essence of the inquiry is, "Has God revealed sacred saving truth to man, as the only sure guide and rule in all religious, moral, and social duties?" And if this be admitted, then arises the next question,-"Can this truth be so fully ascertained and known as to become a sufficient guide and rule in all such duties?" If this too should be admitted, we then arrive at the important practical inquiry, -"In what manner may the knowledge of this sacred saving truth be most successfully diffused throughout the world?" For if such truth has been revealed, and can be known, man's first duty must be to know it himself, and his next, to communicate it to others. But he may err in this second point of duty, and may actually impede, while he is intending to promote, its progress. Few will deny that it is the duty of every man, in his station, to encourage the extension of truth by every legitimate means within his power; but it does not at once appear so clear, whether it be also his duty to engage so actively in such a removal of opposing obstacles as would involve the direct suppression of error. And it is at this stage of the inquiry that the question of religious toleration arises in its proper

Y

form and character. For it never ought to be made a question, whether truth ought to be tolerated or not,—truth ought to be encouraged and diffused; but the question is, Ought error also, and with equal directness, to be suppressed? The best method of obtaining a right answer to this inquiry is, to consult the Word of God, and to investigate the nature of conscience. The Word of God, in almost innumerable instances, commands the direct encouragement of truth, and also the suppression of certain forms of error,-as of idolatry and blasphemy; but gives no authority to man to judge and punish errors of the mind, so far as these amount not to violations of known and equitable laws, and disturb not the peace of society. And with regard to the nature of conscience, it is manifest to every thinking man, that conscience cannot be compelled. It may be enlightened, it may be convinced, but its very nature is the free exercise of that self-judging faculty which is the essential principle of personal responsibility. Hence it is evident, that it is alike contrary to the Word of God and to the nature of conscience, for man to attempt to promote truth by the compulsive suppression of error, when that error does not obtrude itself on public view by open violation of God's commandments and the just laws of the land. But it by no means follows that toleration means, or ought to mean, equal favour shown to error as to truth. Truth ought to be expressly favoured and encouraged erring men ought to be treated with all tenderness and compassionate toleration; but error itself ought to be condemned, and all fair means employed for its extirpation. This could never lead to persecution; because it would constantly preserve the distinction between the abstract error and the man whose misfortune it is to be an erring man, and to whom it would show all tenderness, while it strove to rescue him from the evil

consequences of those erroneous notions by which he was blinded and misled.

There is great reason to believe that the Presbyterians and the Independents of the Westminster Assembly misapprehended each other's opinions on the subject of religious toleration. What the Presbyterians understood their opponents to mean by that term was what they called a "boundless toleration," implying equal encouragement to all shades and kinds of religious opinions, however wild, extravagant, and pernicious in their principles, and in their evident tendency. And when they somewhat vehemently condemned such laxity and licentiousness, the Independents seem to have thought that they intended or desired the forcible suppression of all opinions that differed from their own. Yet surely the Independents might have better understood both the principles and the practice of Presbyterian Churches. In Holland, a Presbyterian country, they had themselves enjoyed the most complete and undisturbed toleration in religious matters. They had often witnessed the interposition of the Scottish divines on their behalf in the debates of the Assembly; and if they experienced somewhat sharper treatment and more pointed opposition from the English Presbyterians, that might easily be explained by the difference of temper in men struggling to obtain the establishment of a system, and in men living under that system when established, and then acting according to its native spirit and character. They might have made allowance also for the feeling of excited alarm with which the Presbyterians regarded the portentous growth and multiplication of heretical sects, alike dangerous to religious truth, to moral purity, and to national peace; for it must be observed, that during Cromwell's administration, when the Independ ents were in the enjoyment of chief power, many of these sects (such as Levellers, the Fifth-Monarchy Men, the

Socinians, the Antinomians, the Quakers, etc.), were forcibly suppressed, without any opposition being offered by them to this suppression, as an intolerant interference with liberty of conscience. The only explanation, we apprehend, which can be given of this inconsistency of the Independents, is one not very creditable to their character for integrity of principle. During their struggle with the Presbyterians, they needed the support of numbers, being but few themselves, and therefore they advocated a "boundless toleration," of which they did not really approve, and which, when in power themselves, they did not grant.1

It has been often confidently asserted, that the Independents were the first who rightly understood and publicly advocated the great principle of religious toleration. That they did assert that principle is certain; but that they were the first who did so is not the truth. Luther declared, that "The Church ought not to force persons to believe, nor to animadvert capitally on those who follow a different religion:" "That to believe is something free, yea, divine, being the fruit of the Spirit; wherefore it cannot, and ought not, to be forced by any external violence." The language of Zuingle is not less explicit: "It is at once contrary to the gospel and to reason, to employ violent measures to extort a confession of faith contrary to conscience. Reason

1 Some, perhaps, by a toleration understand an universal, uncontrolled licence of living as you please in things concerning religion: that every one may be let alone, and not so much as discountenanced in doing, speaking, acting, how, what, where, or when he pleaseth, in all such things as concerneth the worship of God, articles of belief, or generally any thing commanded in religion; and in the meantime, the parties at variance, and litigant about differences, freely to revile, reject, and despise one another, according as their provoked genius shall dispose their minds thereunto. Now, truly, though every one of this mind pretends to cry for mercy to be extended unto poor afflicted Truth, yet I cannot but be persuaded that such a toleration would prove exceeding pernicious to all sorts of men."-Essay by Dr Owen, appended to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons, April 29, 1646; p. 66.