nl^ "^^ 
 
 EfV; 'i^y*.*,', ^ "^^wiit,, ^ '^^•#' ^^3B^ ■^ffei.'fe ^«.,** ^^ 
 
 ^tk \.^ it. ■'■■. \ ^M^ 
 
 
 *:'^*i. 
 
 VJBP> .. ^ 
 
 %.. 
 
 
 
 :■'%! 
 
 ^ M 
 
OF Trip. 
 
 University of California. 
 
 
 Class 
 
Zbc XHmrersiti? of Cbicaao 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER ' 
 
 THE CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 IN ENGLAND 
 
 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE 
 
 DIVINITY SCHOOL, IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 (department of church history) 
 
 BY 
 
 WALLACE ST. JOHN 
 
 V 
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 Zbc TIlnlversitB of Cbicago press 
 
 1900 
 
'THEY SHALL SIT EVERY MAN UNDER HIS VINE 
 AND UNDER HIS FIG TREE : AND NONE SHALL 
 MAKE THEM AFRAID: FOR THE MOUTH OF THE 
 LORD OF HOSTS HATH SPOKEN IT. FOR ALL 
 PEOPLE WILL WALK EVERY ONE IN THE NAME 
 OF HIS GOD, AND WE WILL WALK IN THE NAME 
 OF THE LORD OUR GOD FOR EVER AND EVER" 
 MICAH 4 : 4-5 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This work was undertaken in connection with a course of study in 
 the Department of Church History in the University of Chicago. My 
 first task was to examine the original sources to be found in the libra- 
 ries of Chicago. Though the number of these was not large, the 
 general result was of such a nature as to produce in me a great desire 
 to continue my researches. Early in the year 1899 I journeyed to 
 London, and there began work in the British Museum. In the great 
 library there search brought to light many important documents bear- 
 ing upon the subject. The Williams Library furnished a few additional 
 sources. 
 
 While the number of writings that have been made use of in the 
 preparation of this treatise is large, and every reasonable effort has 
 been put forth to obtain everything that has any important bearing 
 upon the discussion, I can make no claim of having exhausted the sub- 
 ject. I am confident, however, that if important documents should be 
 discovered to contradict the general trend of the history as here set 
 forth, they will be found to be exceptions. 
 
 By way of acknowledgment let me say that to Dean Eri B. Hulbert 
 is due credit for fostering the spirit of investigation which has made it 
 possible for me to do work of this nature. Further, he has encouraged 
 me in and advised about this work to such an extent as to lay me under 
 the greatest obligation to him. 
 
 To the officers of the Newberry Library of Chicago, in which I did 
 much work and was shown every possible courtesy, I wish to express 
 my highest appreciation. 
 
 In like manner the resources of the library of the British Museum 
 and the Williams Library were placed at my disposal. In them I was 
 afforded unexcelled opportunities, and by their officers was treated with 
 unvarying kindness. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 A MIGHTY and prolonged contest for religious liberty is one 
 of the marked characteristics of modern history. From it has 
 resulted the most important attainment of recent centuries. In 
 this treatise I purpose to study so much of this contest as 
 belongs to England. The minds of men have ever been in a 
 state of doubt and uncertainty concerning this phase of the 
 general Reformation movement. It would almost seem that in 
 some conspicuous instances historians have been led to their 
 conclusions concerning it by denominational pride, rather than 
 by evidence. There is much conflict of statement. 
 
 John M. Baxter, in his "Church History of England," has 
 stated that 
 
 Whatsoever merit Independency may claim for advocating the rights of 
 conscience, it is certain that the first clear and argumentative assertion of 
 those rights proceeded from the pen of a suffering churchman, sequestered 
 for no greater offense than that of loyalty, Jeremy Taylor (p. 607). 
 
 Henry Martin Dexter, the author of "Congregationalism as 
 Seen in its Literature," declares: 
 
 Robert Browne, I must think, is entitled to the proud preeminence of 
 having been the first writer clearly to state and defend m the English tongue 
 the true — and now accepted — doctrine of the relation of the magistrate to 
 the Church (p. loi). 
 
 Robert Browne, the founder of the sect known as " Brownists," 
 was also the father of Independency, using the word in its 
 narrower sense. Thus the leading historian of the Congrega- 
 tionalists claims for his denomination the glory of having begun 
 the contest for religious liberty. 
 
 David Masson, in his "Life and Times of Milton," makes a 
 still different statement : 
 
 Not to the Church of England, however, nor to English Puritanism at 
 large, does the honour of the first perception of the full principle of Liberty of 
 Conscience, and its assertion in English, belong. That honor has to be 
 assigned, I believe, to the Independents generally, and the Baptists in 
 particular. (Vol. Ill, p. 987.) 
 
6 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Philip Schaff, in his " Progress of Religious Freedom," has 
 made the more general assertion that "the Baptists and Quakers 
 alone (and Protestant denominations of later date) were con- 
 sistent advocates of universal toleration, and put it in their 
 creeds" (p. 55). 
 
 None of these statements lacks in positiveness, nor is there 
 one of these historians whose name does not give weight to his 
 assertion ; yet, combined, they tend to produce an uncertainty 
 in the public mind. 
 
 There are those who say : "The battle is won ; why give our 
 attention to it now?" Happy should we be could we know that 
 the battle is won for the entire future. Persecution, though 
 banished, may come back. The struggle of the early church for 
 place and power was rewarded during the reign of Constantine ; 
 but an enthroned church soon became an intolerant church. Cen- 
 turies later a spirit of inquiry arose in Germany and led quickly 
 to active dissent. The right to differ in religious thought from 
 the pope and councils was claimed by Luther ; but he soon con- 
 tended that none ought to differ from him ; and to this the 
 docile Melanchthon agreed. Calvin made the same claim of 
 right for himself, and enforced by voice and action the same 
 denial of liberty to others. Beza vehemently denied the right 
 of dissent, while John Knox poured forth a tempest of wrath 
 against those who disagreed with him in the faith. In England 
 scores, now Catholics, now Protestants, were tortured and put to 
 death for their religious beliefs. This violence has passed, and 
 we would fain assure ourselves that complete freedom of con- 
 science, at least among the Anglo-Saxon peoples, has been 
 attained and established as our permanent inheritance. 
 
 But that this contest is over is too much to assume. Liberty 
 of conscience cannot be complete while the state relates itself 
 peculiarly to any religious organization. A perfect tolera- 
 tion may be possible under such circumstances, since toleration 
 assumes the existence of the undesirable. Conscience, however, 
 will not have full liberty until the state ceases by active favor or 
 passive attitude to affect matters with which the conscience 
 should be exclusively concerned. The free acceptance of articles 
 
INTR OD UC TION 7 
 
 of faith and the untrammeled conduct of life, when that conduct 
 interferes with no other's rights, are yet to be admitted by the 
 British state and the English established church. Until it is 
 admitted that the sovereign has no ecclesiastical prerogative ; 
 that the people, of all religious views, are sovereign ; and that 
 civil office is exclusively civil, the atmosphere will not be 
 favorable to liberty of conscience. Different classes of common 
 people, one after another, have extorted from an unwilling ruling 
 class, piece by piece, its permission to exercise their rights. 
 The principles which have been the life of this contest for free- 
 dom have not yet become infused into the national body. Three 
 and one-half centuries have not been long enough to eradicate 
 the demand for conformity. More than this, the production of 
 sentiment ought not to cease when a mere majority has been led 
 into the truth. Victory in such a struggle as this ought to mean 
 more than gaining an ascendency. It ought to mean the domi- 
 nance of the victorious principle over the national and social life 
 in general. 
 
 To the citizens of the United States of America the historical 
 interest in this struggle is great, as it bears so directly upon the 
 attainment of our highly prized liberties. In general, the Anglo- 
 Saxon contest may be said to be one. It was the Englishman 
 striving for his liberties that formed the warp and woof of the 
 original American social fabric. The literature of the two 
 countries overlapped. The effect of any great movement in 
 either country extended to the utmosfr boundaries of the English 
 language. Here also it may be said that the principles giving' 
 rise to this contest have not yet been generally assimilated intq^ 
 the Christian consciousness. The view of John Robinson, o"f 
 Pilgrim fame, that new light should yet break forth from God's 
 Word, is not yet generally admitted, even in fhedry. And heresy 
 seems little less a bugbear to many men now than it did in 
 the times of the reformers, when manners were less polished. 
 
 It is certainly a matter of interest to trace this evolution in 
 Christian thought; to watch the shifting motives that animated 
 the contestants, the changing of position in persons and organi- 
 zations. It is of interest to inquire who in England first 
 
8 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 perceived and disclosed this principle of liberty of conscience, 
 how it happened that they discovered it, and especially how it was 
 that they were peculiar in their findings. In so doing we may 
 have our attention healthfully drawn to some sources of truth, 
 and some principles for its discovery, that we may at least apply 
 to the solution of other problems, if not to the further solution 
 of the same problem. 
 
 Again, a review of this contest will make possible a more 
 accurate estimate of the characters engaged in it. The relative 
 loftiness of their ideals, and the comparative purity of their 
 motives, as well as the strength or weakness of their purposes, 
 and the refinement or crudeness of their manners, will frequently 
 appear. It will help us to answer the questions : Are Christians 
 advancing or retrograding in ideals, in qualities, and in conduct ? 
 Was the Christian character which was developed by the rigors 
 of the Reformation period, or the subsequent periods of perse- 
 cution, superior to the product of our times of peace ? 
 
 At the beginning of this investigation it is well to bear in 
 mind that those engaged in securing their religious and political 
 rights were not entirely agreed in what they wanted. The vari- 
 ous regiments taking part in the onslaught did not form an 
 unbroken line; did not even advance unanimously to storm a 
 given point. The utmost confusion reigned among the defending 
 as well as the attacking combatants. And most of the con- 
 testing parties shifted their positions from time to time, and 
 changed the object of their struggles. The objects sought 
 ranged from the narrowest limited toleration possible to the 
 fullest right of private judgment. It may be further added that 
 there were those who sought to obtain indulgence in license 
 even, using the plea of conscientious scruple. Yet this class 
 made but little gain and never became formidable. 
 
 One class claimed the right to a peculiar toleration which it 
 was unready to concede to others. Being firmly convinced that 
 their doctrines alone were true, and at the same time that the 
 enthroned church was invincible to them, they besought special 
 consideration from the existing powers. Their theory had no 
 place in it for liberty, but the exigencies of the time put right 
 
INTR OD UC TION 9 
 
 under the necessity of seeking toleration of might. From this 
 narrowly limited conception of an exigency, theories of tolera- 
 tion ranged upward to the conception of full freedom of con- 
 science. 
 
 The charity of one party was bounded by respectable 
 Protestantism; another included all Protestants except Unitari- 
 ans. Again, all Christians were hought admissible. The 
 extremists found a place for even the Jew and the Turk. 
 
 Liberty of conscience is really not a degree of toleration at 
 all; it lies in a different realm. The idea of toleration springs 
 from the theory that the government, the magistrate, has inalien- 
 able prerogatives, and that the individual exists for the state. The 
 magistrate is the final authority in church and state, and may 
 impose his views upon all. Thus elevated, the government may 
 condescend to allow certain persons to differ from it in theory. 
 This lenient permission is toleration. The government continues 
 its claim of domination, and its right again to become intolerant. 
 It will exercise this when it chooses. Dr. O. W. Holmes is 
 credited with saying that the idea of toleration is an insult to 
 mankind. This is certainly as true as that the doctrine of the 
 magistrate's ecclesiastical prerogative is an insult to mankind. 
 The position of the tolerating authority was as despotic in 
 theory as any ever held by a tyrant. The condition of those 
 indulged was nothing better than petted serfdom. Toleration 
 implies an inherent inferiority in the subject.^ 
 
 The idea of liberty of conscience springs from the theory 
 that the final object of the state is man, rather than the reverse. 
 Man is responsible for his action, and, assuming this responsi- 
 bility, his action accrues to his own debit or credit. The state 
 exists as his servant, and has no right to conflict with his 
 interests in the least. Individual accountability to God in all 
 
 ' In the period of the political agitation of this matter, when the term " tolera- 
 tion " was used almost exclusively and frequently in the sense of liberty, George 
 Walker, in his Plea, written with the approval of the dissenting ministers of the 
 Midland district, said : " Now, toleration is but an invidious term, and springs out of 
 abuses, which do no credit to human nature or to religion. It is a mistaken idea that 
 toleration is a grace and favour ; it is a restoration to a right which ought never to 
 have been violated ; it is on the part of the state, the confession of a wrong which 
 ought never to have been practised." 
 
10 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 matters of conscience demands a freedom to act in accordance 
 with conscience. This theory dignifies manhood. It sets in 
 motion the faculties which alone can effect the highest develop- 
 ment of the human race.^ 
 
 Late philosophical treatises on this subject by churchmen, 
 as M. Creighton in his " Persecution and Tolerance," and 
 Phillips Brooks in his lecture on "Tolerance," do not take this 
 distinction into consideration. Under the term "tolerance" they 
 define " liberty of conscience," only conceiving it in its ideal 
 or perfected form. Their action in this regard is not justified by 
 the history of the movement. While not all the advocates of the 
 various degrees of permission or freedom discriminated closely 
 in the use of these terms, enough of them did so to place the 
 student under obligation to recognize this marked difference. 
 Brooks has well considered this perfected idea, and in analysis 
 has found it 
 
 composed of two elements, both of which are necessary to its true existence, 
 and on the harmony and proportionate blending of which the quality of tol- 
 erance which is the result depends. These elements are, first, positive con- 
 viction ; and second, sympathy with men whose convictions differ from their 
 own. 
 
 He further defines it as "the willing consent that other men 
 should hold and express opinions with which we disagree, until 
 they are convinced by reason that those opinions are untrue." 
 A very different view from this was held by Charles James Fox, 
 who said that " the only foundation for tolerance is a degree of 
 skepticism." A similar thought is expressed by a speaker whom 
 Bishop Brooks quotes in certain remarks concerning the 
 Puritans in America. He says : " They were intolerant as all 
 men the world over, in all time, have always been, and always 
 will be when they are in solemn earnest for truth or error." The 
 utter falsity of this view is claimed by Frederick Maurice in his 
 statement that "it is the natural feeling of all of us that charity 
 
 ^In 1667 Thomas Tomkins wrote a pamphlet on The Inconveniences of Tolera- 
 tion, in which he asserted that he is opposing a demand for limited toleration. 
 Though he uses contradictory language, he gives expression to this distinction. He 
 says : " Now Liberty of Conscience is either Absolute or Limited. If it is Limited it 
 is no longer Liberty of Conscience." (P. I. Newberry Lib.) 
 
IN TROD UC TION 1 1 
 
 is founded on the uncertainty of truth. I believe it is founded 
 on the certainty of truth." Pagan tolerance, which is frequently 
 lauded, does arise from such uncertainty or from lack of interest, 
 but Christian liberty can be sustained only by sincere conviction. 
 
 The possible causes or occasions which may operate to make 
 men charitable toward the existence of opinions differing from 
 their own are numerous, as are also their various possible combi- 
 nations. That each of the possible combinations has operated 
 upon someone at some time may readily be conceived. Brooks 
 names six elements, as follows: (i) indifference, (2) policy, (3) 
 helplessness, (4) human respect, (5) spiritual sympathy, (6) an 
 appreciation of the vastness of God's truth. This may help to 
 explain the attitude of many who tolerate ; but it is by no means 
 a complete outline of the arguments presented by the host of 
 those who have demanded religious freedom. In fact, no advo- 
 cate of religious freedom would plead guilty to the accusation 
 that his attitude toward it arose from indifference. The indif- 
 ferent man was the one who conceded rather than the one who 
 sought. The arguments set forth by those who sought may be 
 divided into religious and political. Some authors argued wholly 
 from a religious standpoint, while others saw the political side 
 exclusively. It is worthy of mention that classes of argu- 
 ments appear. Classes of thinkers arose in each dissenting 
 body that appealed for rights or privileges. Out of these 
 classes exceptions arose now and then, as is to be expected 
 where a movement is progressive. 
 
 Here in the realm of motive we shall find facts worthy of our 
 closest observation. The merit or demerit of the advocate must 
 depend not a little upon his motives. To recommend an action 
 on the ground that all opposition to it will be vain is not a very 
 creditable performance compared with the recommendation of 
 the same action because of human sympathy or Christian charity. 
 To urge that men should be allowed freedom because otherwise 
 they will cause trouble is not on a par with the insistence that 
 rights to this freedom inhere in men as created beings. The 
 adherents of organizations found to have been moved by lofty 
 motives to take the part they did in this great struggle cannot 
 
12 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 but rejoice now that the record of their denominations is so 
 good. 
 
 The direct occasion for the rise of these literary campaigns 
 was persecution in some form or other. When the contest 
 became largely political, party sympathy caused not a few who 
 were not themselves suffering to enter the lists for their oppressed 
 friends. Even the glorious Milton is stirred up to pour forth 
 his irresistible argument for "The Liberty of Unlicensed Print- 
 ing," because the state licenser refused him permission to print 
 his pamphlet on divorce. Let us not be cynical in our criticism 
 of those who for private ends have pressed their claims on a 
 dilatory and unworthy government. This self-interest was 
 legitimate. All that we can condemn is that narrow selfishness 
 which does not concede to others the same blessings sought for 
 ourselves. 
 
 The manner of seeking these ends may also teach us some- 
 thing about these discontented people. With light footstep and 
 quivering voice and faint hope many approached the crown. 
 They fawned for a prized favor. They admitted not only the 
 magistrate's power over them, but also his prerogatives. Happy 
 were they if he did not turn upon them in violence for their pre- 
 sumption in soliciting the longed-for boon. They besought an 
 opportunity to live and believe their doctrines unmolested. They 
 were not bold enough even to ask for public advantages, such 
 as buildings or the privilege of public worship. They did not 
 complain of persecution in general ; they only asked that they 
 might be exempt from it. On the other hand, some demanded 
 of the sovereign complete liberty of thought. They read the 
 royal law to the magistrate, pointing out to him that his narrow 
 persecuting course was condemned by Scripture, by reason, and 
 by respectable authorities. They bounded his sphere of author- 
 ity, limiting it to those cases where one individual or party 
 brought injury to another or to the state. They ruled him out 
 of the whole ecclesiastical sphere and especially out of the realm 
 of conscience. Thus bold even to rashness, they asserted the 
 rights of men. They did not fail to express their allegiance to 
 the throne and their willingness to sustain it in its civil functions. 
 
INTR OD UC TION 1 3 
 
 Yet they sometimes went so far as to make their appeals directly 
 to the people, in whom they recognized the final authority. In 
 this latter class a new element seemed to enter the national life. 
 Never before had the royal blood been made so to boil by the 
 speech of orderly and peaceable common people. Between 
 these two extremes various other attitudes are found. They 
 reveal much to us of the different dissenting movements and the 
 persons who promoted them. 
 
 Heresy, the root of all this bitterness, thrived in the midst 
 of the coercion practiced. The first inclinations to dissent from 
 the newly established Protestant dogmas were met by King 
 Henry VHI. with stringent legal enactments and their rigid 
 enforcement. Regal displeasure and Smithfield fires frowned 
 upon this, which was regarded as a most frightful form of wick- 
 edness. It was classed with idolatry and blasphemy, and was 
 regarded as blacker and more reprehensible than fornication, 
 theft, or even murder. It was stigmatized as soul-murder. It 
 was quite proper for King Henry to revolutionize the preexist- 
 ing conceptions, but the deviation of any from him was a gross 
 license, liable to overthrow the salvation of his majesty's loving 
 subjects. Yet heresy increased. It spread throughout the land. 
 
 Those who entered this contest as opponents of heresy 
 explained that it was condemned by Scripture, was destructive 
 of souls and disturbing to the peace. The magistrate was held 
 responsible for obtaining the salvation of his people in so far as 
 lay in his power. To join in the rites and ceremonies of the 
 established church was necessary to salvation. The government 
 could enforce this conformity. This made heresy a civil crime 
 as well as an ecclesiastical one. The supporters of the govern- 
 ment were accused of insincerity in their claim that heresy should 
 be stopped for the good of souls. They are reminded that their 
 zeal for others has not caused them to begin a crusade against 
 immorality. Outbreaking sins of injustice and lust were said to 
 be unheeded, while sober men were attacked for heresy. The 
 heretics were sometimes bold enough to mention that it was his 
 acceptance of the way called heresy that brought persecution 
 upon Paul. They pointed out that the early Christians had no 
 
14 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 civil powers with which to coerce the heretics. The most they 
 could do was to separate them from their company, that is, from 
 the individual society with which they had been associated. 
 Whatever judgment Peter might declare against Ananias, it must 
 be executed by divine power. The magistrate and the supporters 
 of his prerogative had recourse to the examples of the Old Tes- 
 tament, while the advocates of the full rights of private judg- 
 ment admitted only the New as obligatory upon the Christian. 
 The stress laid upon the examples of Moses and King Josiah as 
 persecutors caused the most violent opposition to schismatics. 
 Persecuting spirits hid behind these Old Testament characters 
 with a complacency almost satanic. In citing Scripture these 
 orthodox disputants usually obtained their standards and criteria 
 from Israelitish history. On the other hand, the advocates of 
 freedom held up King Jesus as ideal and standard. His example 
 and his teaching formed much of the evidence which they pre- 
 sented. Indeed, the contest as a whole is little else than a con- 
 flict between certain Hebrew and Christian conceptions. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST, OR PREVIOUS TO THE STUARTS. 
 
 The first premonition of the conquest for liberty of conscience 
 in England came just before the outbreak of the Reformation. 
 In the year 1516 Sir Thomas More, then thirty-four years of age, 
 published his vision of "Utopia." In his imagination he pic- 
 tured a nation that possessed a large toleration. King Utopus is 
 represented as taking but little interest in religious thought. 
 
 Therefore all this matter he left undiscussed and gave to everye man 
 libertie and choice to believe what he woulde. Savinge that he earnestlye 
 and straightlye charged them, that no man shoulde conceive so vile and base 
 an opinion of the dignitie of man's nature, as to think that the soules do die 
 and perishe with the bodye ; or that the worlde runneth at al aventures, 
 governed by no divine providence.' 
 
 A belief in future rewards and punishments was also demanded 
 by this liberal king, who would not persecute those who dis- 
 agreed with him in opinion, but who "earnestlye and straightlye 
 charged them" not to disagree with him in these particulars. 
 Thus we find a conception of toleration arising in a great mind 
 as a possibility ; and it may have been conceived as desirable. 
 In later life the same Sir Thomas More, then raised to a high 
 official position, was a bitter persecutor. This fact indicates that, 
 whatever he once thought, he came to regard toleration as 
 impracticable, if not entirely undesirable. Nor does this incident 
 seem worthy of a place in the historical account of this contest, 
 save as a premonition of the future attainment which should 
 result from the convulsion that was so near at hand. 
 
 Nothing is plainer than that the English established church 
 was hostile to freedom of thought, from its very inception. King 
 Henry VIII., once so zealous for the Roman hierarchy, armed 
 his new organization with full equipment to enforce the views 
 which he had substituted for papal dogmas. To the monarch 
 alone was the right of private judgment accorded. In the year 
 
 3 Utopia, Morris ed., p. 238. 
 
 IS 
 
1 6 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 1536 the "Articles about Relij^ion" were sent out by the Con- 
 vocation, and published by the king's authority. It reads : 
 
 Amongst other cures committed unto this our princely office, whereunto 
 it hath pleased God in his infinite mercy and goodness to call us, we have 
 always esteemed and thought (as we also yet esteem and think) this to be 
 most chief, most ponderous, and of most weight, that his holy word and com- 
 mandments may sincerely without lett or hindrance, be of our subjects truly 
 believed, and reverently kept and observed ; and that unity and concord in 
 opinions, namely in such things as doth concern our religion, may increase 
 and go forward, and all occasion of dissent and discord touching the same be 
 repressed, and utterly extinguished. For the which cause we being of late, 
 to our great regret, credibly -advertised of such diversity of opinions, as have 
 grown and sprongen in this our realm .... have not only in our own per- 
 son at many times taken great pain, study, labour and travail, but also have 
 caused our bishops and other the most learned men of our clergy in our 
 whole realm to be assembled in convocation for the full debatement and quiet 
 determination of the same : where after long and mature deliberation and 
 disputations had .... they have finally agreed upon the said matters ; and 
 we have caused the same to be published, willing, requiring and commanding 
 you to accept, repute, and take them accordingly.* 
 
 In harmony with these articles a rigorous persecution was 
 kept up throughout this reign. Under Edward VI. there was a 
 relaxation in the execution of the law, though no disposition to 
 repudiate the principle. Cranmer argued for persecution with 
 overwhelming force, but Edward, in the tenderness of his youth, 
 signed the martyr's death-warrant with tears.s The return to 
 Romanism under Bloody Mary produced the most distressing 
 persecution. So great were the cruelties that Protestantism 
 seemed well-nigh crushed out. As Elizabeth's claim to the throne 
 was dependent on the legitimacy of Protestantism in the king- 
 dom, it was brought into power again to sustain her cause. She 
 also backed the ecclesiastical courts with the civil sword, and 
 made it impossible to say that the victories of the church were 
 bloodless. 
 
 Within this period there developed gradually an opposition, 
 not only to uniformity as it then existed, but even to the idea 
 that any creed should be forced upon the people. Frequent 
 
 * Burnet, Hist, of Ref., Pocock ed., pp. 272, 273. 
 
 5 This is related concerning the condemnation of Joan of Kent. (Burnet, 
 Hist. Ref.,Vo\.U, p. 112.) 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST I J 
 
 references are made to the rise of this new thought. It was 
 decried as anarchy. Its advocates were considered as especially 
 dangerous. They were greatly maligned, and doubtless were 
 more or less misunderstood. Our reports, coming as they do 
 from their opponents, cannot be expected to be favorable to 
 them, or even to be impartially truthful. 
 
 Concerning the year 1540 we are told that 
 notwithstanding the care of the king [Henry VIII.] about religion, and the 
 security of some of his acts against some supposed errors ; yet divers greater 
 and real errors crept in about these days into the realm : but the king being 
 resolved to leave such as held them unto his laws, excluded them his general 
 pardon at the conclusion of the Parliament in July, this year. The errors 
 were these ; That infants ought not to be baptized ; and if they were baptized 
 the}' ought to he rebaptized when they come to lawful age. That it is not 
 lawful for a Christian man to bear office or rule in the commonwealth. That 
 no man's laws ought to be obeyed. That it is not lawful for a Christian man 
 to take any oath before a Judge, &c.* 
 
 From the statement of these "errors" it appears that theerrorists 
 were what were then called Anabaptists, and that they held that 
 religious laws were not to be made by men nor obeyed when 
 imposed on human authority. No reference is here made to 
 civil authority or the civil functions of the magistrate. It is 
 merely the assertion of the individual Christian's right to inter- 
 pret the Scriptures for himself. 
 
 Archbishop Sandys, who sustained the ecclesiastical func- 
 tions of the magistrate with great diligence, was at his prime at 
 the middle of the sixteenth century. His opposition to all dis- 
 sent was virulent. In one of his numerous sermons intended to 
 strengthen the king's ecclesiastical power he burst out exclaim- 
 ing : 
 
 Barbarous therefore, and wicked is the opinion of the anabaptists, which 
 condemn all superiority, authority, and government in the church.^ 
 
 The archbishop seriously charges this sect with holding the 
 equality and responsibility of the people in their relation to 
 divine law. Such views could not exist except with those who 
 concede the Christian's right of private judgment. 
 
 *JOHN Strype, EccL Memorials, Vol. I, pp. 552 f. 
 ' Sandys' Sermons, Parker Society. 
 
1 8 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 At about this time (1550) Roger Hutchinson preached two 
 sermons on "Oppression, Affliction and Patience."^ In the 
 second of these he shows that he has been impressed by the 
 Anabaptists' demand for liberty of thought in religious matters, 
 and their view of the significance of Christ's refusal to accept 
 civil office : 
 
 Aye [saith the master Anabaptist], when the people would have made 
 him (Christ) a king, he conveyed himself out of sight, and would not take on 
 him any such office. Christ, the Son of God, would not have refused these 
 offices and functions if with the profession of a Christian man it were agree- 
 able with the temporal sword to punish offenders, to sustain any public room 
 and to determine controversies and suits ; if it were lawful for private men 
 to prosecute such suits and to sue just and rightful titles. He noti est dotni- 
 natus, sed passus ; would be no magistrate, no judge, no governor, but suf- 
 fered and sustained trouble, injury, wrong and oppression patiently. 
 In Hutchinson's answer to this view he stated with clearness 
 their teaching concerning persecution : 
 
 Instead of the temporal sword which you say Christ's coming hath put 
 down, you teach that now excommunication is to be exercised upon offenders, 
 so that they who in the Old Testament were punished with death, are only 
 to be excommunicated. 
 
 Whatever else may be said of this arraignment of the Anabap- 
 tists, it is certain that the author found no place for coercion in 
 their system of thought. He represents them as laying stress 
 upon Christ's example in his refusal to unite his religious charac- 
 ter and purpose with civil office. It is noteworthy that he does 
 not charge them with denying the civil function of the magistrate. 
 
 " A Short Treatise of Politike power and of the true obedi- 
 ence which Subjects owe to Kings and other civil Governours " 
 was printed in 1556, and is ascribed to one John Poinet. He says : 
 
 Some there be that will have too little obedience, as the Anabaptists. For 
 they, because they heare of a christian liberty, would have all politike power 
 taken away; and so indeed no obedience For the Anabaptists mis- 
 take christian liberty, thinking that men may live without sin ... . and 
 that there fore God ordained civill power (his minister) to rule him and to 
 call him back whensoever he should pass the limits of his duty, and would 
 that an obedience should be given him.^ 
 
 * Works of Roger Hutchinson, Parker Society, p. 323. 
 
 9 Commonwealth Tracts, p. 22. Newberry Lib. 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 1 9 
 
 Here this sect is represented as being peculiar in their thought 
 in that they make too much of Christian liberty and too little of 
 obedience. They are said to make a distinction between the 
 obedience due the civil authority and that due directly to God. 
 The magistrate, as a minister of God, is to rule man, restraining 
 him " whensoever he should pass the limits of his duty." There 
 is no mention as to what realm it is from which " all politike 
 power " is to be taken, but since the civil ruler is admitted to be 
 a minister of God and to have a sphere, it is clear that it is 
 obedience in ecclesiastical matters that is refused to the king. 
 
 But that the incompleteness and vagueness of these state- 
 ments arise from the lack of knowledge in the authors quoted, 
 rather than in the minds of the Anabaptists, is made plain by 
 the fuller presentation of their views by John Knox, the Scottish 
 reformer. He has preserved for us an important document of 
 the Anabaptists in a treatise entitled " An Answer to a Great 
 Nomber of blasphemous Cavillations written by an Anabaptist' 
 ("Works," Vol. V) . He was candid enough to print these cavilla- 
 tions in his refutation of them. Considered an adept in hand- 
 ling this heresy, he doubtless was well acquainted with its 
 advocates. The Duke of Northumberland wrote to Cecil in 
 October, 1552, requesting that the king appoint Mr. Knox to the 
 bishopric of Rochester, since "he would be a whetstone to the 
 archbishop of Canterbury and a confounder of the Anabaptists 
 lately sprung up in Kent." That Knox is made use of by the 
 duke is seen by a letter written in December of the same year, 
 " with which he returns Master Knox .... because he loves not 
 to have to do with men neither grateful nor pleasable." '° From 
 this it may be readily inferred that Knox was acquainted with 
 the teachings of this class of thinkers some years previous to 
 the publication of his answer to the " Cavillations." It is 
 believed that this answer came out first in 1560, though it was 
 republished at several later dates. In it the cavillator, arguing 
 against the Calvinists, attacks their morals. He accuses the 
 Genevan reformers of " indured malice" for having set forth 
 books af^rming that it was lawful to persecute and put to death 
 
 '° Cal. State Papers, Domestic Series, 1552, pp. 46-8. 
 
20 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 such as dissent from them in controversies of religion. He 
 af^rms that 
 
 afore they came to authoritie they were of another judgment, and did both say 
 and write that no man ought to be persecuted for his conscience saik ; but 
 now they are not only become persecutors, but they also have given as far as 
 lieth in them the sword into the hands of bloodie tyrantes. Be these I pray 
 you the shepe whom Christ sent forth in the midst of wolves ? can the shepe 
 persecute the wolf ? doth Abel kill Cain ? doth David (thoh he might) kill 
 Saul ? Shortly, doeth he which is born of the Spirit kill him which was born 
 after the fleshe ? (Pp. 207 f.) 
 
 Knox, not regarding a work on predestination the proper 
 place to interject a discussion on this topic, replies : 
 
 Your Master Belius affirmeth that lawful it is not to the civil magistrat 
 to use the sworde against heretikes. To whom that godlie learned man, 
 Theodorus Beza, hath answered. In which if you or your Master thinke not 
 yourselves fully answered ; you may put pen to the paper when you list look- 
 ing to receave answer with convenient expedicion. (Pp. 228 f.) 
 Yet the temptation is too strong to be resisted, and the reformer 
 plunges into the argument : 
 
 Where ye aske. If these be the shepe which Christ sent furth in the mid- 
 des of wolves, and if the shepe can persecute the wolves ? And I demand for 
 answer, Whether Moses was a shepe or wolf, and whether that fearful 
 slaughter executed upon idolaters, without respect of persons, was not as 
 great a persecution as the burning of Servetus and Joan of Kent ? To me it 
 appeareth greater. For to them was granted no place of repentance : no 
 admonition was given unto them, but without further delay or question, was 
 the brother commanded to kill the brother ; yea the father not to spare the 
 
 Sonne When further ye ask. If Abel did kill Cayn, or David 
 
 Saul, or he which is born of the Spirit did kill him which is borne of the flesh? 
 I answer. If your question be of Abel, David and Isaak in their proper per- 
 sons, that none of them did kill any of these fore named. But if thereof ye 
 inferre more. Is it lawful for any of God's Elect to kill any man for his con- 
 science sake ? I answer that if under the name of conscience ye include 
 whatsoever seemeth good in your owne eyes, that then ye afiSrm a great 
 absurditie manifestly repugning" as well to Gods law as to the examples of 
 those whom God hath highly praised in his holie Scriptures. But because 
 continually ye claime to your conscience, to remove from you that vain cover- 
 ture, I ask, If the Murtherer, adulterer, or any other malefactor, should be 
 exempted from punishment of the law, although he alledge that, he oght to 
 be mocked that will claim the patrocinie " of conscience, when that he doth 
 
 " Repugnant. " Patronage, support. 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 21 
 
 offend against God's will revealed. And why will ye not grant as much in 
 this matter which now standeth in controversie ? Because (say you) external 
 crimes hath no affinitie with matters of religion ; for the conscience of every 
 man is not alike persuaded in the service and honoring of God, neither yet in 
 such controversies, as God's worde hath not plainly decided. But I ask. If 
 that be a just excuse why pernicious errors shall be obstinately defended, 
 either yet that God's established religion shall be contemptously despised. 
 . . . . We say, the man is not persecuted for his conscience that, declin- 
 ing from God, blaspheming his Majestie and contemning his religion, obsti- 
 nately defendeth erroneous and false doctrine. This man I say, lawfully 
 convicted if he suffer the death pronouced by a lawful Magistrate, is not per- 
 secuted (as in the name of Servetus ye furiously complein) but he suffereth 
 punishment according to God's commandement pronounced in Deuteronomie, 
 the XIII chapter. 
 
 In these " Cavillations," and the reformer's explanation of 
 them as presented in this refutation, is found the clearest claim 
 for liberty of conscience that appears in England at so early a 
 date. It is worthy of mention that these claims occur in no plea 
 for toleration. They come as expressions of opinion, called out 
 in the discussion of Calvinistic tenets. It is distinctly a reli- 
 gious argument. Persecution is said to be foreign to Christianity 
 because of the character of the Christian. An unusual distinc- 
 tion for that time is drawn between the civil and ecclesiastical 
 realms. " Externall crimes hath no affinitie with matters of 
 religion." Differences in religious thought are held to be 
 inevitable and legitimate. It is held that " God's worde " is to 
 be the authority for Christians, and that it is sufficient for thought 
 and conduct, so that where it does not specify in particulars men 
 have a right conscientiously to differ in opinion and practice. 
 
 Knox justifies such action as the execution of Servetus and 
 Joan of Kent on the ground that Moses was justified of God in 
 the slaughter of idolaters. He denies that to execute an obsti- 
 nate heretic in a legal manner is persecution. Entirely oblivious 
 of the New Testament conception of voluntary faith, he set up 
 the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy as the valid Christian 
 law for heresy. 
 
 In the year 1573 John Whitgift, who was afterward an arch- 
 bishop, wrote " An Answere to a certen Libell intituled, An 
 Admonition to the Parliament." Although the " Admonition," 
 
22 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 which he opposed, was written by Cartwright, Whitgift at least 
 pretended to see in it signs of the Anabaptist heresy (B. M. 697, 
 f. 11). This publication was addressed as an "Exhortation to 
 such as bee in authoritye and have the government of the churche 
 committed unto them whether they be civile or ecclesiastical 
 Magistrates." In heaping ignominy upon the followers of Cart- 
 wright he associates them with the Anabaptists and describes 
 the Anabaptists of Germany, concerning whom he claims to have 
 information, in order that he may show how dangerous the views 
 of this sect were. Of them he writes: 
 
 They taught that the civile magistrate hath no authority in Ecclesiasti- 
 cal! matters that he ought not to meddle in causes of religion 
 
 and fayth. That no man ought to be compelled to faithe, and to religion. 
 That Christians ought to punish faultes, not with imprisonment, not with the 
 sworde, or corporall punishment, but only with excommunication. They 
 complained much of persecution. (P. 15.) 
 
 While these doctrines are ascribed to the German Anabap- 
 tists, they are quoted by a most intelligent Englishman for the 
 purpose of characterizing the party in England. This makes it 
 safe to say that, so far as Whitgift then knew, this statement of 
 the relation of the magistrate to ecclesiastical affairs was a fair 
 statement of the English Anabaptists' position. 
 
 Ten years after the putting forth of this "Answere " (1583), 
 and when he was in the midst of his ofificial ecclesiastical labors, 
 he preached a sermon in St. Paul's, making another reference to 
 the heterodox teachings of these people. This mention is made 
 in the following language : 
 
 The second sort are the Anabaptists, who will have no government at al. 
 And they ground their heresy upon the fifth to the Galatians : " Stand fast in 
 the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free." And again, " You are 
 called unto liberty." .... This heresy of the Anabaptists is so evident 
 that it needs no confutation. '3 
 
 This might be regarded as a charge of anarchy, did we not 
 know that the distinction now made between civil and ecclesiasti- 
 cal government was seldom admitted then, and that Whitgift's 
 discussion was religious. In fact, under the Tudors denial of the 
 magistrate's ecclesiastical jurisdiction was as much anarchy as 
 the denial of his political power. 
 
 '3 Strype, Annals, Whitgift, Vol. Ill, p. 77. 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 23 
 
 Richard Hooker, in his "Ecclesiastical Polity," made his 
 arraignment with greater discrimination : 
 
 It is a loose and licentious opinion which the Anabaptists have embraced, 
 holding that a christian man's liberty is lost and the soul which Christ hath 
 redeemed unto himself injuriously drawn into servitude under the yoke of 
 human power if any law be now imposed besides the gospel of Christ, in 
 obedience whereunto the Spirit of God, not the constraint of men, is to lead 
 us according to that saying of the blessed Apostle, " Such as are led by the 
 Spirit of God are the sons of God," and not such as live in thraldom unto men. 
 Their judgment is therefore that the Church of Christ should admit no law- 
 makers but the evangelists, no courts but presbyteries, no punishments but 
 ecclesiastical censures."* 
 
 This " loose and licentious opinion " rules the political government 
 out of the religious sphere. All force in the church is regarded 
 as un-Christian. The gospels are held to be the only religious 
 lawbooks that are legitimate. The High Commissions and the 
 Star Chambers were to be simple presbyteries. No more severe 
 penalty should be executed than a church censure. 
 
 Of the preceding statements of the Anabaptists' teachings 
 all save one come from hostile sources, and that one, John Knox' 
 quotation of the " Cavillations," comes through a hostile source, 
 though doubtless without change. It is reasonable now to assert 
 that these representations are no more favorable to the advocates 
 than the truth obliged their opponents to make them. Indeed, 
 to these writers the doctrines they have thus set forth are entirely 
 undesirable, and each expression of them is accompanied with a 
 condemnation of the heresy or the heretics. They have exposed to 
 view what they regarded as the darkest side. 
 
 The truth concerning a defendant's action may be arrived at 
 best if an adversary is allowed to add his version of the case; 
 but to learn most accurately concerning one's doctrines the 
 plaintiff alone may be trusted to present the matter exactly. 
 When, however, the opponents have so carefully disposed of the 
 documents as in the case of the early Anabaptists, 's the historian 
 »4Keble ed., revised, Vol. Ill, Book VII, App. No. i. 
 
 '5 King Henry VIII. 's proclamation to bring in seditious books (Wilkin's Consilia, 
 III, p. 776) : " The King's most royal majestie being informed that sundry contentious 
 and sinistre opinions have by wrong teachings and naughty printed books increased 
 and grown within this his realm of England, . . . . and by such like books as have been 
 
24 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 labors under multiplied difficulties. He even resorts to the evi- 
 dent misrepresentations of the enemy to find the nearest approach 
 to a correct representation. 
 
 There is at hand another statement than that of the " Cavilla- 
 tions," and from a friendly source. The earliest advocates hailed 
 from the continent. Many were fleeing from persecutions in 
 France and the Netherlands. Queen Elizabeth received them, 
 very much to the displeasure of the pope. Bishop Jewel defended 
 the action of the queen, comparing the persecuted immigrants 
 very favorably with the Spaniards who had immigrated in Mary's 
 reign. "But," says Strype, "with these came over anabaptists 
 
 also and sectaries holding heretical and ill opinions And 
 
 indeed several opinions and doctrines sprung from some of these 
 foreigners, begin now, if not before, to be dispersed in the nation, 
 dangerous to the established and orthodox religion and the civil 
 government."'^ It is true that these were not the first arrivals 
 of this sort, since they are mentioned as early as in the reign of 
 Henry VHI. Among these immigrants were two who came from 
 Flanders, and were apprehended with others, and taken before 
 the magistrate and condemned to death. The large-hearted 
 martyriologist Fox pleaded with the queen for their lives, but 
 they were executed in 1575. They feared that their teachings 
 would be misunderstood, and hence, in addition to their other 
 communications, they wrote a confession of faith, while in the 
 Marshalsea prison. The tenth article is as follows : 
 
 printed within this his realme, .... as by sundr}' strange persons called Anabaptists 
 and Sacramentaries, which be lately come into this realme, .... the king's most 
 royal majestic declareth and notifyeth to all his loving subjects that his highness like 
 a godly and catholick prince abhorreth and detesteth the same sects and their 
 abominable errors and opinions ; and intendeth to proceed against such of them as be 
 already apprehended according to the merits of the laws of his realme." 
 Under Elizabeth the Star Chamber decreed 
 
 1. " That no person shall print or publish any book against the queen's injunctions, 
 ordinances, or letters patent, set forth or to be set forth, or against the meaning of them. 
 
 2. " That such offenders should forfeit all their books and copies, and suffer three 
 months' imprisonment, and never practise the art of printing any more. 
 
 3. " That all forfeited books should be brought to Stationers-hall, and half the 
 money forfeited to be reserved for the queen, the rest for the informer, and the books 
 to be destroyed or made waste-paper." (Neal, Vol. I, pp. 151 f.; refer Life of 
 Parker, p. 221.) 
 
 ''Strype, Annals, Vol. V, pp. 269 f. 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 25 
 
 We believe and confess that magistrates are set and ordained of God, 
 Wisd. vi. 4, Sirach xvii. 18, Romans xiii. i, to punish evil and protect the 
 good : which magistracy we from our hearts desire to obey, as it is written in 
 the first of Peter ii. 13, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the 
 Lord's sake. For he beareth not the sword in vain, Rom. xiii. 4. And Paul 
 teaches us that we should offer up for all prayers intercessions and giving of 
 thanks for all kings and magistrates ; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable 
 life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight 
 of God our Saviour, who desires that all men should be saved, i Tim ii. i, 
 2, 3, 4. He further teaches us to be subject to principalities and powers, to 
 
 obey magistrates, and to be ready to every good work. Peter iii. i 
 
 We likewise do no approve of those who resist the magistrates ; but confess 
 and declare with our whole heart that we must be obedient and subject unto 
 them, as we have here set down.'^ 
 
 This confession was subscribed to by Jan Pieters and Hendrik 
 Terwoort. Its aim probably was to correct the false opinion 
 prevalent concerning their teachings about magistracy. Here 
 the stress is laid on the acceptance of the civil functions of the 
 rulers, no mention being made of their denial of the magistrate's 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The absence of the latter may be 
 accounted for by the condition which is the probable cause of 
 the presence of the former. Strype shows that they were 
 regarded as enemies of the government. In rebuttal of this 
 charge, which was leading them so surely to the stake, they 
 strongly assert their subjection to the state in civil matters. In 
 their dire distress they wish to avoid counteracting this impres- 
 sion by a denial of the state's right to rule in religion. Omission 
 of the most objectionable part of their view was thus expected to 
 produce the best result. But they were not sufficiently recreant 
 to their trust to leave wholly unexpressed even this most objec- 
 tionable heresy. Terwoort wrote a letter in which he presented 
 a supplementary statement on the subject : 
 
 Observe well the command of God ; Thou shalt love the stranger as thy- 
 self. Should he who is in misery, and dwelling in a strange land, be driven 
 thence with his companions, to their great damage ? Of this Christ speaks, 
 Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them ; for 
 this is the law and the prophets. Oh ! that they would deal with us accord- 
 ing to natural reasonableness, and evangelic truth, of which our persecutors 
 so highly boast. For Christ and his disciples persecuted no one ; but on the 
 
 ^T Het Bloedig Toonel, pp. 704-6, trans, in Broadmead Records, Addenda, pp. 507 f. 
 
26 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 contrary Jesus hath thus taught, Love your enemies, bless them that curse 
 you, etc. This doctrine Christ left behind with his apostles, as they testify. 
 Thus Paul, Unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, 
 and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place ; and labor working 
 with our own hands ; being reviled we bless ; being persecuted we suffer it. 
 From all this it is clear that those who have the true gospel doctrine and 
 faith will persecute no one, but will themselves be persecuted.'® 
 
 In this we have a simple scriptural claim for freedom from 
 compulsion, arising out of their distressed condition. There is 
 an arraignment of the persecution as being anti-Christian, and 
 persecutors are boldly declared to be without the true gospel 
 doctrine and faith. The admission of the magistrate's authority 
 and the support due from the Christian subject are also enforced 
 by Scripture quotation. No theory of government is elaborated, 
 nor the least tendency to philosophical consideration observable. 
 
 Thus we identify England's earliest seekers after liberty of 
 conscience. The sources of our information are few and imper- 
 fect. They do not justify us in asserting that the Anabaptists 
 had their doctrines fully worked out in the times of the Tudors. 
 Their views seem to have been passing through processes of 
 formulation. On the other hand, many witnesses show that 
 the heresy was beyond its incipient stages. A full liberty of 
 religious thought was demanded. A purely scriptural argu- 
 ment was used. They inclined toward the use of the New Testa- 
 ment rather than the Old. '9 
 
 ^^ Het Bloedig Toonel, Deel II, pp. 694-712. 
 
 '9 Glimpses are afforded us of the position upon this subject of the early Anabap- 
 tists on the continent. I will call attention to two statements only. Hubmeyer, a 
 leader of the Anabaptists of Switzerland and Germany in the early Reformation 
 period, wrote a pamphlet "Concerning Heretics and those that burn them." In this 
 he says : " The tares must grow together with the wheat. But the greatest heretics 
 are the inquisitors themselves, for Christ did not come to butcher and to burn, but to 
 preserve and improve. We must therefore pray for improvement, and hope for it as 
 long as a man lives. A Turk or a heretic is not to be overcome by fire or sword, but 
 by patience and instruction. The burning of heretics is an apparent confession but 
 an actual denial of Christ." (W. W. Evarts, " Balthazer Hubmeyer," Am. Bapt. 
 Review, 1 88 1, No. lo.) 
 
 Guy De Bres, writing in 1565, said that the Anabaptists differed in their views on 
 the magistrate, some holding that he had no place in ecclesiastical affairs, while others 
 bounded his sphere. (La Racine, Source et foundement des Anabaptistes, B. M. 
 4135 aa.) 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 27 
 
 There was arising at this time another class of thinkers that 
 was frequently confounded with the Anabaptists. In fact, the 
 agreement of these two sects in their acceptance of the idea of 
 church independence and their early association argue their rise 
 from a common stock. We are interested to learn whether they 
 were in agreement on our subject or not. One of the leaders of 
 this second class of dissenters was Robert Browne. In the year 
 1582 he published a pamphlet which bears the title, "A Booke 
 which sheweth the life and manners of all true Christians &c. 
 Also there goeth a Treatise before of Reformation without tarry- 
 ing for anie, and of the wickedness of those Preachers, which 
 will not reform themselves and their charge, because they will 
 tarry till the Magistrate commaunde and compell them." (B. M., 
 c. 37, e. 57.) It is the "Treatise before of Reformation, etc.," 
 which is considered as expressing Browne's view of liberty of 
 conscience. The title of this " Treatise " is sufficiently clear as 
 to the nature of the subject handled, nor need one be confused 
 by a perusal of the pamphlet. Beyond this a study of other 
 pamphlets of this period shows conclusively the nature of the 
 controversy that was on. The ministers of the established 
 church were being pressed by the thinkers of Puritanical tend- 
 encies to begin a radical reform of the state church. The min- 
 isters admitted the need of reform, but pleaded their lack of 
 authority to take any steps until the queen had taken the initia- 
 tive. Browne writes this treatise opposing these " Wicked 
 preachers," " blinde guides," in their waiting idly until the 
 " Magistrate do force them." The necessity for this compulsion 
 of the magistrate Browne greatly deprecates. " We holde all 
 those Preachers and teachers accursed which will not do the 
 duties of pastors and teachers till the Magistrates do force them 
 thereto" (p. i). He does not deprecate the use of force by the 
 magistrate. In the very introduction he writes : 
 
 Agayne we say that her [Queen Elizabeth's] authoritie is civil, and that 
 power she hath as highest under God within her Dominions, and that over 
 all persons and causes. By that she may put to death all that deserve it by 
 Lawe either of the Church or commonwealth, and none may revyle Her, or 
 the magistrates under her, by force or wicked speeches when they execute the 
 lawes. Seeing we graunt and hold thus much, howe doe they charge us as 
 evil willers to the Queene ? 
 
28 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 This statement is plainly apologetic. Browne and his fol- 
 lowers had been charged with opposition to the government. 
 He sees no reason for this charge, since he admits all that the 
 queen asks. He concedes that she may execute the laws of the 
 church as well as of the commonwealth. There are no persons 
 or causes beyond the reach of her power. The heretic or non- 
 conformist, being condemned to death by the laws of the church, 
 may be delivered to the executioner by the state. Though 
 there be the most rigid law of conformity, the queen may exe- 
 cute it, and woe be to the man who reviles her or complains of 
 her severity. 
 
 To the same effect he writes on p. 12 : 
 
 We know that Moses might reforme, and the Judges and Kings which 
 followed him, and so may our Magistrates ; yea they may reforme the Church 
 and commaunde things expedient for the same. Yet they may do nothing 
 concerning the church, but onelie civilie, and as civile Magistrates i. e. they 
 have not that authoritie over the Church as to be Prophetes, or Priestes or 
 spiritual Kings, as they are magistrates over the same ; but onelie to rule the 
 commonwealth in all outwarde justice, to maintain the right, welfare and 
 honor thereof, with outwarde power, bodily punishment and civill forcing 
 of me. 
 
 The theory that the examples of religious compulsion accredited 
 to the Old Testament worthies justifies persecution in the Chris- 
 tian state was held by Browne. He even goes so far as to state 
 explicitly that, as Moses and the Judges and the Kings had a 
 right to foist a religious reform movement on the people, so 
 might the English rulers do the same. Yet Browne presses 
 one distinction. The magistrate must not be the religious 
 teacher or spiritual leader. In that sense he cannot be a Moses, 
 nor a Joshua, nor a Josiah. He was to be a "civile" officer in 
 the sense of being an executive officer. The church should fur- 
 nish its own spiritual guides, and they should have authority in 
 its instruction and legislation. The magistrate then stepped in 
 to execute the laws. He was "to maintain the right, welfare 
 and honor" of the church, "with outwarde power, bodily punish- 
 ment and civill forcing of me." The ordinary division of 
 governments as seen in the progress of this contest is into eccle- 
 siastical and civil. The ecclesiastical includes all affairs that 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 29 
 
 pertain to religious thought and conduct, whether of the church 
 or the individual. Its realm is coextensive with that of religion. 
 All else is civil. Browne has made a classification of his own. 
 He recognizes the spiritual and the civil. With him the civil 
 has invaded the ecclesiastical realm, that is, the execution of 
 ecclesiastical laws he regards a civil function. Another distinc- 
 tion Browne makes. It is between the propagation of the Chris- 
 tian religion and the maintenance of it. The government must 
 not propagate religion, but must maintain it when once accepted. 
 He teaches that the government of a Christian nation is to look 
 to the interests of the church, since that is its charge. The gos- 
 pel, however, must not be preached with the sword. Christianity 
 must gain its ascendency over a people before the government 
 is charged to look to its interests. 
 
 And therefore also because the church is in a commonwealth, it is of 
 their charge ; that is concerning the outward provision and outward justice, 
 they are to look to it ; but to compell religion, to plant churches by power 
 and to force submission to Ecclesiastical government by lawes and penalties, 
 belongeth not to them as is proved before, neither yet to the church. 
 From a comparison of this sentence with the preceding quota- 
 tions it appears that this is either a direct contradiction of the 
 view before expressed, or he here refers to the reception of 
 Christianity into a community. If the former be true, his entire 
 expression of opinion on this subject is worthless. That the 
 latter is more likely to be his thought is suggested by his use of 
 the phrase "to plant churches by power," and by the fact that 
 he has not even attempted to prove that compulsion had no 
 place in religion. On the other hand, he says distinctly: " Goe 
 to therefore, and the outwarde power and civile forcings let us 
 leave to the Magistrates."^" 
 
 ^"Concerning the objects of the magistrate's power, the distinctions of "outward" 
 and " inward " are somewhat obscure. The significance attached to them by the 
 Independents, and consequently the Brownists, is commented upon in an important 
 document of the Congregationalists known as the " Platform of Church Discipline, 
 agreed upon by the Elders and Messengers of the Churches assembled in the Synod 
 of Cambridge, in New England, 1649 " (Mather's Magnolia, II, 211 f.). In it the fol- 
 lowing occurs : " The objects of the power of the magistrate are not things meerly 
 inward, and so not subject to his cognizance and views : as unbelief, hardness of 
 heart, erroneous opinions not vented, but only such things as are acted by the outward 
 
30 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Browne's opposition is directed entirely against " those 
 Preachers that will not reform themselves nor their charges, 
 because they will tarie till the Magistrate commaunde and com- 
 pell them," not against magistrates for forcing the conscience. 
 It is rather against the preachers for not forcing the morals of 
 the people. " Goe to therefore, 3^e tolerating Preachers, this you 
 get by your tolerating, to have no name among the righteous 
 nor to be of the bodie of the church" (p. 17). He objects to 
 these ministers obtaining civil authority, but in no sense holds 
 that the magistrates should drop any one of their acquired func- 
 tions. He holds that the magistrate has not the spiritual func- 
 tion of the prophet or priest, but he also holds that the magistrate 
 has authority over the church, and over the lives of his subjects 
 to force upon them religious action. He mentions imprison- 
 ment for heretical teaching, and the use of force by the magis- 
 trate in cases of conscience, but does not take the space to 
 condemn either. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, a late and very profound historian, 
 Henry Martyn Dexter, ascribes to Robert Browne "the proud 
 pre-eminence of having been the first writer clearly to state and 
 defend in the English tongue the true — and now accepted — 
 doctrine of the relation of the magistrate to the church."" For 
 proof he refers to the pamphlet just considered. It is true that 
 Browne regarded the magistrate as under the spiritual guidance 
 of the prophet or preacher, and held that the gospel should be 
 accepted through proclamation, not through compulsion ; as also 
 that the church should reach its own decisions in its affairs. But 
 
 man : neither their power to be exercised in commanding such acts of the outward 
 man, and punishing the neglect thereof, as are but meer inventions and devices of 
 men (l Kings xx. 28, 42) but such acts as are commanded and forbidden in the word ; 
 yea such as the word doth clearly determine, tho' not always clearly to the judgment 
 of the magistrate or others, yet clearly in itself. In these he of right, ought to put 
 forth his authority, though oft-times actually he doth it not. Idolatry, blasphemy, 
 heresie (Deut. xiii ; i Kings xx. 28, 42), venting corrupt and pernicious opinions, that 
 destroy the foundation (Dan. iii. 29), open contempt of the word preached (Zech. xiii. 
 3) profanation of the Lord's Day, (Neh. xiii. 31) disturbing the peaceable administra- 
 tion and exercise of the worship and holy things of God (i Tim. ii. 2) and the like, 
 are to be restrained and punished by civil authority." 
 
 " Cong, as Seen in its Literature, p. loi. 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 3 I 
 
 he taught that the magistrate should enforce these decisions 
 upon the people. Browne has not only failed to "clearly state 
 and defend .... the true — and now accepted — doctrine of the 
 relation of the magistrate to the church;" he has not even left 
 enough unsaid to create the impression that it was possible for 
 him to have held such a doctrine. The claim that Browne dif- 
 fered from his followers in this particular does not seem plau- 
 sible, since no mention of such a difference occurs, and had it 
 existed it would have been an important matter. 
 
 Robert Harrison, Browne's most intimate associate during 
 the days of his unorthodox teachings," discussed the same sub- 
 ject that aroused the opposition of Browne, namely, "Whither 
 the Prince or the people ought first to beginne reformation in 
 the Church? " He says : 
 
 In the name of God let Caesar have whatsoever unto him belongeth, even 
 all civile power and Dominion ordayned of God. And woe unto him, saye 1, 
 whiche shall holde this and teach men so, that there is no use of the Magis- 
 trates sworde among Christians Therefore I am thus persuaded 
 
 that as the Kings of Juda did reforme by their civile power those things 
 which outwardly were sett up for abominations ; namely as they did break 
 down the altars, cut down the groves, burne the images with fire, slaye the 
 priestes of Baal, and such like thinges ; so also it appertaineth to the magis- 
 trates now to break down the idolitrous altars, plucke downe their buildinges, 
 burn their images with fire, and to slay those who have revolted from Chris- 
 tianity to idolatrie.^3 
 
 Such a virulent antagonism to religious freedom would appear 
 strange in the boon-companion and chief assistant of a great 
 advocate of liberty of conscience. The fact that Harrison and 
 Browne agreed upon the doctrine that the kings of Judah were 
 worthy exampl,es to the Christian magistrate in this particular 
 makes probable their agreement in the practical application of 
 this theory. 
 
 Charges were made against the Brownists relative to this 
 very heresy. Specimens of these charges, together with the 
 
 "Browne renounced his principles of separation in 1589, and became a rector of 
 a church in Northamptonshire. This did not cause the obliteration of the doctrines 
 he formerly taught, however. The Brownists continued their propagation. (Neal, 
 History of Puritans, Vol. I, p. 246.) 
 
 =3^ Little Treatise upon the firste verse of the 122 Psalm. (B. M. 3090, a. 15 
 (1583).) 
 
32 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 replies of the Brownists, will assist in the discovery of their 
 real position. In 1589 Robert Some, a controversialist of note, 
 published his "Godly Treatise wherein are examined & confuted 
 many execrable fancies, given out and holden partly by Henry 
 Barrow and John Greenwood ; partly by other of the Anabap- 
 tistical order" (B. M., bbb. 17). In this he presents "A Table 
 of Certaine grosse and Anabaptisticall fancies, given out and 
 holden by the Anabaptisticall recusants": 
 
 1. That Oueene Elizabeth ought to abolish the Universities of Cambridge 
 and Oxford. 
 
 2. That the Ministers of the Gospell must live ex mera eleemosuna, 
 that is, of mere alms. 
 
 3. The church need not to stay for the Prince in reforming of any abuse ; 
 but may reforme it, though the Prince say No. 
 
 4. That a christian Prince hath no authoritie to make godly Ecclesias- 
 tical lawes in his Dominions. 
 
 In replying to fancy No. 4, Some makes evident his lack of 
 clearness in regard to the opponents of the establishment. He 
 asserts that " the popish & Anabaptisticall sort doe allow unto 
 Christian princes, potestatem facti sed non juris, that is, they 
 wil not allow christian princes to make and publish godly eccle- 
 siasticall lawes : but they are content that christian princes shall 
 defend and put in execution such ecclesiasticall lawes as are 
 made by them." Granting that Some has been exact in his 
 statements of the views of Barrow and Greenwood on these 
 points, his use of the terms "popish" and "Anabaptisticall" 
 causes one to suspect that he puts all dissenters into one category, 
 and makes Barrow and Greenwood sample specimens of the whole. 
 
 More definitely, but not more accurately, George Gyffard, 
 minister at Maldon, attempted to prove that the Brownists were 
 Donatists. In so doing he charged them with teaching that 
 Princes are not to make Lawes for church matters. Princes are not to 
 reforme the church by their authoritie ; Princes are not to compel! their sub- 
 jects to the true worship of God by penalties ; If Princes pleasures are to be 
 attended where is the persecution we speak of: None of the godlie Kings of 
 Judea durst compell anie to the covenant. The people of Christ's kingdom 
 are spontanei, such as come of their own accord, etc.''' 
 
 »*^ Plaine Declaration that our Brownists be full Donatists. (B. M. 697, c. 
 27, p. 64.) 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 33 
 
 How just the charges of these ministers of the establishment 
 were may be learned from the further writings of the Brownists. 
 A pamphlet appeared in 1589 which purports to give the doc- 
 trine of M. Penri, and also the author, I. G., who is thought to 
 be John Greenwood. Its title is "M. Some laid open in his 
 coulers wherein the indifferent reader may easily see howe 
 wretchedly and loosely he hath handled the cause against M. 
 Penri" (B. M. 1848, a. 10, p. 17). Quoting from M. Some, the 
 writer, I. G., presents the following sentence in italics : ''A godly 
 Prince [saith he) may and ought to compell his subjects {if any refuse) 
 to the external service of God." Taking this as his subject, I. G. 
 comments upon it : 
 
 This being a matter so notably and so thoroughly handled alreadie by M. 
 Fulke and M. Wyborne against Howlet that almost there cannot anything 
 be added to that which they have sett downe. I muse that your D. would be 
 at cost to print us a new Almanacke of the last yeare ; I do not know any 
 that professe the holy religion of God in soundnesse and sinceritie that will 
 deny this. And therefore I dare say for M. Penri, that he wil willingly with 
 hart and hande subscribe to it, yea and I thinke he will if need be adde one 
 clause more to it for the farther strengthening and confirmation of the 
 prince's authoritie, vz. that the same Prince that hath power de jure to do 
 this, ought also to compel every preaching minister to be ordinarily resident 
 on his charge ; And if it were put in execution I thinke that M. Some and 
 some others should not be suffered to rove and range up and downe as they 
 doe, neglecting their charges and breathing after chaplainship, promotions 
 and I knowe not what. 
 
 This counter-charge against M. Some probably induced his 
 attack on Barrow and Greenwood in the "Godly Treatise." 
 Some's arraignment of M. Penri was probably the first of these 
 documents to come out. I. G. then answered Some, denying that 
 Penri was a heretic on the doctrine of the magistrate. This 
 occurred in the year 1 589. Before this year was past the " Godly 
 Treatise " appeared. In this Barrow and Greenwood are not rep- 
 resented as advocating the radical views on the doctrine of the 
 magistrate that were attributed to Penri. Browne's position rather 
 was ascribed to them, to the effect that the minister had authority 
 in beginning a reform movement without waiting for the magis- 
 trate to act ; and, further, that, while the prince might make no 
 ecclesiastical laws, he should execute those made by the church. 
 
34 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 In the year 1592 many of the Brownists were imprisoned. 
 Among this number were Barrow, Greenwood, and Francis 
 Johnson. From these imprisoned people two important docu- 
 ments come. One was addressed to the lord treasurer and the 
 other to her majesty's privy council. The latter makes special 
 mention of Greenwood and Johnson as being of the persons 
 from whom the communication came. After recounting their 
 sufferings in this, they say further : 
 
 It were long to relate to your honors all their [the persecutors'] secret 
 drifts and open practises, whereby they seek to draw us into danger and 
 hatred ; as by their subtle questions propounded, not having or knowing any 
 matter to lay to our charge ; by subordinate conference, now almost three 
 years since, sent into the prisons to well nigh sixty faithful christians, whom 
 they there against all law, and without all cause, detained ; by indicting us 
 upon the statutes made for disloyal, idolatrous, recusant papists though they 
 know that we sincerely hold all the grounds of religion, published by her 
 majesty in harmony of confession, and never refused any wholesome doctrine 
 or truth, shewed us in God's word, but only withstand such popish enormities 
 as they bring in and urge, contrary to the word of God ; by defaming and 
 divulging us as anabaptist, though they be not able to charge us with any one 
 of their errors to our faces ; as Donatists and schismatics, though we have 
 christian faith ; as seditious, covenant breakers, though they still by their 
 tyrrany drive us into these secret places and meetings ; as abridgers and 
 encroachers on the royal power of the queen — though we from our hearts 
 acknowledge her sovereign power, under God, over all persons, causes, and 
 actions, civil or ecclesiastical — though we gladly obey, and never willingly 
 break any of her godly laws ; though we never attempted either secretly or 
 openly of ourselves to suppres or innovate anything, how enormous soever, 
 by public authority established, patiently suffering whatsoever the arm of 
 injustice shall do unto us for the same; doing such things as Christ hath 
 commanded us for the same ; doing such things as Christ hath commanded 
 us in his holy worship, but always leaving the reformation of the state to those 
 whom God hath set to govern that state ; yet we are all accused as pernicious 
 to the state and public peace.'s 
 
 From these answers of the Brownists it is ascertained that 
 the charges of George Gyffard were unfounded. Also, that 
 Some's arraignment of Penri was uncalled for ; but that the lat- 
 ter's statements concerning Barrow and Greenwood were fairly 
 accurate. Some's attempt to associate the name Anabaptist 
 with them was resented, as Gyffard's charge of Donatism was 
 
 =5Strype's Atmah, Vol. IV, pp. 127-36. 
 
BEGINNJNGS OF THE CONTEST 35 
 
 repudiated. The supporters of the establishment were justified 
 in charging the Brownists with heretical views on the doctrine 
 of magistracy, though the Brownists did not at all concede the 
 right of private judgment. 
 
 A formal doctrinal confession of the Brownists, put forth in 
 the year 1596, is decisive enough to put this matter entirely at 
 rest. Its title runs thus : "A True Confession of the Faith, and 
 humble acknowledgement of the alegeance which we hir Majes- 
 tie's Subjects, falsely called Brownists, doo hould towards God 
 and yield to hir Majestic and all other that are over us in the 
 Lord" (B. M. 4103, c.) . The thirty-ninth article reads: 
 
 That it is the Office and duty of Princes and Magistrates, who by the ordi- 
 nance of God are supreme Governors under him over all persons and causes 
 within their Realmes and Dominions, to suppress and root out by their 
 authority all false ministeries, voluntarie Religions counterfeyt worship of God, 
 to abolish and destroy the IdoU Temples, Images, Altares, Vestments, and all 
 other monuments of Idolatrie and superstition and to take and convert to 
 their civile uses not only the benefit of all such idolitrous buyldings & monu- 
 ments, but also the Revenues, Demeanes, Lordships, Possessions, Gleabes, 
 and maintenance of anie false ministeries and unlawfuU Ecclesiastical! func- 
 tions whatsoever within their Dominions. And on the other hand to estab- 
 lish & mayntein by their lawes every part of God's word, his pure religion and 
 true ministerie to cherish and protect all such as are carefull to worship God 
 according to his word and to lead a godlye lyfe in all peace and loyaltie ; 
 yea to enforce al their Subjects whether ecclesiastical or civile to do their 
 duties to God and men, protecting & maynteyning the good, punishing and 
 restreyning the evil according as God hath commanded, whose Lieutenants 
 they are heer on earth. 
 
 Although it is not a matter of controversy, it is certainly of 
 interest to locate the position in this contest of the leaders of 
 the Genevan movement, which resulted in Presbyterianism. 
 John Knox has already expressed himself in his "Answer to a 
 Great Nomber of Cavillations" (pp. 19-21). He has placed him- 
 self in line with those who use Old Testament persecutions as 
 examples for Christian rulers. That Thomas Cartwright heartily 
 agreed with Knox upon this subject ma}- be seen by the exami- 
 nation of either of two pamphlets. His " Replye to an answere 
 of M. Doctor Whitgift Agaynste the admonition to Parliament" 
 (B. M. 108, b. 4) contains a lament that Whitgift should try to 
 
36 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 associate his own "brethren" with the hated Anabaptists, adding 
 specifically that "as for Magistrate and authoritie/we acknowl- 
 edge the lawfulnesse/necessitie/and singular commoditie of 
 it/we commende it in our ceremonies to others/." This denotes 
 his full acceptance of the magistrate's claims and his advocacy 
 of the established theory. The second pamphlet was put out in 
 1648, long after Cartwright's death, and at the time when this con- 
 test was at its height. Its purpose was to sustain the position the 
 Presbyterians then held, by the aid of Cartwright's authority. It 
 is entitled " Helpes for Discovery of the Truth in point of Tol- 
 eration, being the Judgment of that eminent Scholler Tho. 
 Cartwright" (B. M., E. 423(19)). This production consists of 
 quotations from Cartwright's writings which touch upon the sub- 
 ject. Two passages will suffice to express his thought: 
 
 Now seeing there is a sword in the magistrate's hand by the doctrine of 
 the Apostles ; and that also which the magistrate must draw ; I would gladly 
 know where that necessity of drawing this sword can be found, if it be not in 
 these crimes of Blasphemy &c. which I have set downe ? 
 Again : 
 
 And therefore as the short and easie way to dry up the channells and 
 Rivers is to stop up the head and fountaine of all, so the only remedy of 
 purging the commonwealth of these mischiefes, is to bend the force of sharp 
 and severe punishments especially against Idolaters, Blasphemers, Contem- 
 ners of true Religion, and of the Service of God (p. 7). 
 Cartwright ^^ was in substantial agreement with Calvin, Knox, 
 and Beza, whom he quoted. As a sect the Genevans in England 
 held rigidly to conformity as a theory, while they could not 
 harmonize with the establishment. 
 
 John Hooper, the noble martyr who suffered in Queen Mary's 
 time, is frequently mentioned as an early advocate of freedom of 
 conscience. And it is true that he made a distinction between 
 civil and spiritual obligations.^^ The tribute due to God he 
 would not have rendered to the king. Moreover, he complained 
 
 '^"But the reformers, as well Puritans as others, had different notions. They 
 were for one religion, one uniform mode of worship, one form of discipline or church- 
 government, for the whole nation, with which all must comply outwardly, whatever 
 were their inward sentiments ; it was therefore resolved to have an act of parliament 
 to establish a uniformity of public worship, without any indulgence to tender con- 
 sciences." (Neal, History of the Puritans, Vol. I, p. 95.) 
 
 »7 Found in his " Declaration of the X holie (Zo\Vimz.\\Am^vA%" {Hooper's Early 
 Writings, Parker Society). 
 
BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTEST 37 
 
 that the princes persecuted "the gospel and the gospel-like use 
 of the sacraments." This complaint was not strange, since he 
 was not in accord with the views of the church. But he did not 
 go so far as to advocate the right of private judgment. He had 
 no sympathy with dissent. Nothing seemed more desirable to 
 him than that a good king should forward religious affairs as he, 
 Hooper, saw fit. He says : 
 
 Among all other most noble and famous deeds of kings and princes, none 
 is more godly, commendable, nor profitable than to promote and set forth unto 
 their subjects the pure and sincere religion of the eternal God, King of all 
 
 kings and Lord of all lords But the more this noble fact is glorious, 
 
 godly and princely, the more difficile and hard it is ; for the enemy of God 
 and of all mankind, the devil, customably is wont to deceive the princes of 
 the world so that they utterly neglect the religion of the true God ; as a thing 
 foolish and of no estimation, either provoke them cruelly to persecute it.-® 
 Hooper took a prominent part in the administration of eccle- 
 siastical affairs during the reign of Edward VI. There were some 
 who thought it wise for the councilors to wait until the king's 
 maturity before taking active measures in religious reform. 
 Hooper spoke sternly : 
 
 Let those diabolical sounds and speakings of evil men nothing trouble 
 your highness nor your wise and godly councillors. " As long as the king is 
 in his tender age his council should do nothing in matters of religion." For 
 those men's foolishness, rather I should say malice is condemned by the word 
 of God, that teacheth how a king in his young age with his wise and godly 
 council should abolish idolatry and set forth the true and godly religion of 
 the living God. Thus declareth the notable and godly fact of Josias that fol- 
 lowed the religion of his father, not Ammon the idolater, but of David nor 
 declining to the right hand neither to the left hand. (Pp. 437 i.) 
 
 The most that could possibly be claimed for Hooper, as also 
 for many others of his time, is an unsettled state of mind relative 
 to this question, resulting from his attempt to reconcile the Old 
 Testament idea of magistracy with the desire to introduce 
 reforms into the worship speedily. His belief in the doctrine of 
 the king's authority over all persons and causes, both civil and 
 ecclesiastical, was unshaken, yet his own position as a dissenter 
 from the established worship made it impossible for him to 
 appreciate all the logical consequences of his hypotheses. 
 
 =^®"An Oversighte and deliberacion uppon the holy prophet ]ona.s" {Hooper's 
 Early Writings, Parker Society, p, 435). 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 EARLY STUART PERIOD. 
 
 At the accession of the Stuarts in the person of James I. the 
 Puritans were sanguine as to the future of their cause. The 
 king's former connection with the Scottish Calvinists, and his 
 early favorable replies to their addresses, gave occasion for high 
 hopes. Though these prospects caused them to rejoice, their 
 later experiences occasioned depression. James himself was 
 either flattered as being disposed to leniency or was really 
 thought to be disposed to it. He was commended by the non- 
 conformists for not being bloodthirsty ; while at the same time 
 his ecclesiastical advisers were accused of urging him to religious 
 despotism. As he came so early in his reign to hold his now 
 well-known maxim, "No bishop, no king," it seems probable 
 that he was never really sincere in his protestations of sympathy 
 for English dissenters. His son and successor, Charles I., was 
 educated with great care. James gave personal attention to his 
 training. This resulted in Charles I. being the most learned and 
 the most stubborn ruler of the Stuart line. His high pretensions 
 and bigoted zeal formed the barrier which occasioned the rise of 
 Cromwell and the consequent explosion of the theory of the 
 divine right of kings. It was within this period that England's 
 first great advocates of liberty of conscience came forward. 
 
 Coincident with the beginning of the Pilgrim movement at 
 Scrooby, John Smyth, frequently called the Se-baptist, was 
 actively propagating dissenting principles also in Lincolnshire. 
 He. too, went to Holland and made his home in Amsterdam. It 
 is not mv purpose even to outline the movement to which he 
 gave rise, but to mention that from his party there seem to have 
 arisen strong factors for the campaign against persecution. John 
 Smyth did not himself live to escape from this self-imposed exile. 
 He did not even effect an organization of any permanence in 
 Holland. His own views even were not well settled. Though 
 
EA ELY S TUA R T PERIOD 3 9 
 
 a dissenter, he was a university man of no small culture. The 
 new light which was rapidly dawning on his susceptible mind 
 led him from one advanced position to another with great celer- 
 ity. From conservative orthodoxy he plunged into Anabaptist 
 heresy. His name has been found signed to a confession of 
 faith, consisting of thirty-eight sections. The thirty-fifth sec- 
 tion concerns the doctrine of magistracy. In it he declares that 
 "this office of the worldly authority the Lord Jesus hath not 
 ordained in his spiritual kingdom, the church of the New Testa- 
 ment, nor adjoined to the offices of his church." 
 
 This expression of opinion makes it probable that from him 
 has descended a line of active propagators of this doctrine. Of 
 the associates of Smyth in this religious enterprise a remnant 
 returned to London and there established a congregation. We 
 possess but little information concerning them. John Robinson, 
 the pastor of the Scrooby congregation at Leyden, felt it his 
 duty to oppose some of their tenets, and so wrote an answer to 
 their confession of faith, published in 1614, quoting from its 
 pages. He reports them as holding 
 
 that Christ's disciples must love their enemies and not kill them ; pray for 
 them and not punish them, and Christ's disciples must with him, be perse- 
 cuted, afflicted, murdered and that by the authority of the magistrate. That 
 the magistrate is not to meddle with religion or matters of conscience nor to 
 compell men to this or that form of religion ; because Christ is the King and 
 Lawgiver of the church and conscience.*' 
 
 The original document containing the thought and a part of 
 the sentences as quoted by Pastor Robinson is in Dutch, and has 
 recently been translated into English by Dr. Miiller, of Amster- 
 dam, and printed in the Appendix to B. Evans' "Early English 
 Baptists" (Vol. I, pp. 257 f.). This statement of Robinson is 
 most explicit and satisfactory. Article LXXXVI of the con- 
 fession of faith asserts 
 
 that the magistrate, by virtue of his office, is not to meddle with religion or 
 matters of conscience, nor to compell men to this or that form of religion or 
 doctrine, but to leave the Christian religion to the free conscience of every 
 
 =9 Of Religious Comtnunion, Private dr' Publique, Also a Survey of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith pub. by the remaynders of Mr. Smithes Company, pp. 128 f. (B. M. 
 4323, b.) 
 
40 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 one, and to meddle only with political matters (Rom. xiii. 3, 4) namely, 
 injustice and wrong of one aganist another, so as murder, adultery, theft and 
 the like ; because Christ alone is the King and Lawgiver of the church and 
 the conscience. (Jas. iv. 12.) 3° 
 They further declare, in the next article, 
 
 that the magistrate, so far as he will follow Christ and be his disciple, ought 
 to deny himself take up his cross and follow him. He must love his 
 enemies and not kill them ; pray for them and not hate them ; feed them and 
 not let them die from hunger ; he must visit them in prison, but not throw 
 them there ; he must not banish them out of the country, nor divest nor rob 
 them of their goods, or appropriate them to himself. He must suffer with 
 Christ, be scolded, slandered, flogged, beaten, spit on, imprisoned, and put 
 to death with Christ, and that by the power of the magistrate, which it is 
 impossible to do, and to keep the sword of vengeance. 
 This clear outline of the magistrate's duties as a magistrate 
 and as a Christian was a conspicuous part of the heresy of this 
 insignificant band of English Anabaptist refugees in Holland. 
 
 Pastor Robinson charges the writing of this confession upon 
 Thomas Helwys,3' who became the leader of the congregation 
 3°Masson, in commenting on the declaration of faith put out in 1611 by these 
 English Anabaptists m Amsterdam, calls attention to the expression, "The magistrate 
 is not to meddle with religion," etc. He says: "It is believed that this is the first 
 expression of the absolute principle of Liberty of Conscience in the public articles of 
 any body of Christians. (David; Masson, Life of John Milton, Vol. Ill, p. loi.) 
 
 3' The doctrine of Thomas Helwisse is preserved to us in An Advertisement or 
 admonition unto the Congregations which men call the New Fryelers, in the lowe 
 Countries, written in Dutche and Publiched in Englis. This was printed in 1611. 
 (B. M. 702, c. 32.) He treated " Magestracie " as his fourth subject. Holding that 
 magistracy is ordained of God, and that the magistrate can be a Christian, he further 
 asserted : " Hence it cometh that the Pope saith, loe heere is Christ, and seekes to 
 force all to followe Christ with him. And the Bishopps they say loe heere is Christ 
 and they seeke to compell all to followe Christ with them. The Presbytarie they say, 
 loe heere is Christ, and they will constraine all to followe Christ with them, we passe 
 by the most ungodly & unwise Familists and scattered flock that say he is in the desert, 
 that is no where to be found in the profession of the gospell according to the ordi- 
 nances thereof until their extraordinary men (they dream of) come, which shall not be, 
 until there come a new Christ & a new gospell. And you to whom we especially 
 write you say loe heere is Christ and you would have all to followe Christ with you. 
 Now in these troublesome dayes which our saviour Christ hath foretold of, and, are now 
 come to passe, wherein if it were possible, the very elect should be deceaved let all 
 the godly stay themselves upon that blessed counsel of our saviour Christ who saith 
 unto all that will followe him, take yee heed, behold I have shewed you al things 
 before. Mark 13, 23 which is by his word, and therefore thither onely, must we go 
 and followe no men." (Pp. 51, 52.) 
 
EA RL Y S TUA R T PERIOD 4 1 
 
 and conducted it back to Entrland. This Helwys, or Helwisse, 
 was quite successful in establishing his people in London. From 
 this inception the views he sustained have never been eradicated 
 from that city. It is from this once wandering, but now 
 returned, company of sectaries that the first great plea for lib- 
 erty of conscience is thought to have come.^^ Thus much only 
 is known: Leonard Busher was an Anabaptist, a citizen of Lon- 
 don. The only information concerning his literary career is that 
 in i6 1 4 he published his " Religious Peace, Or a Plea for Liberty of 
 Conscience." It was presented to King James and the high court 
 of Parliament.33 Of this document there are thirty-four octavo 
 pages in the reprint of 1646. It has the character, not of a 
 plaint, but of an argument. The author sought for no personal 
 or party favor, but for human rights. He pleaded an authority 
 higher than that of man. The reasons adduced in this remark- 
 able argument may be concisely stated as follows : 
 
 1. " Christ has not commanded to persecute the people for difference and 
 judgment in matters of religion," but has "commanded his bishops and 
 ministers to persuade Prince and people to hear and believe the gospel by his 
 word and spirit, and to beseech Prince and people to be reconciled to God." 
 
 2. The tares should be allowed to grow together with the wheat. 
 
 3. If persecution is practiced, true ambassadors of Christ are liable to 
 suffer the severest penalties. 
 
 4. Christ came into the world to save men, not to destroy them. 
 
 5. Persecution is an offense to those who are not Christians, and will keep 
 Jews, Turks, and others from knowing the gospel. 
 
 6. One cannot try the spirits to see whether they are of God, "except 
 they heare and read other men's doctrines as well as the Bishops and their 
 ministers." 
 
 7. If freedom of conscience is not allowed, all that hold the apostolic faith 
 and all strangers in the land must depart or their Hves be in danger. This 
 would be a great national loss. 
 
 32" Now, this Helwisse, returning to England shortly after 161 1, drew round him as 
 we saw, the first congregation of General or Arminian Baptists in London ; and this 
 obscure Baptist congregation seems to have become the depositary for all England of 
 the absolute principle of Liberty of Conscience expressed in the Amsterdam Confession, 
 as distinct from the more stinted principle advocated by the general body of Inde- 
 pendents It was, in short, from their little dingy meeting-house, somewhere in 
 
 Old London, that there flashed out, first in England, the absolute doctrine of Religious 
 Liberty." (Masson, Life of John Milton, Vol. Ill, p. 102.) 
 
 33 B. M. E. 334, and Tracts on Lib. of Con., Hansard Knollys So. 
 
42 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 8. If persecutions continue, the " state will have many dissemblers in 
 authority and office, since most will conforme for feare of persecution." 
 
 9. Forcing the people to attend worship at the church is not bringing 
 them to faith and piety. 
 
 10. "Some men believe not at the first hour, but may at the eleventh, if 
 not persecuted to death before." 
 
 11. Truth unresisted will prevail. 
 
 12. Persecution is a mark of the beast. 
 
 13. Persecution for religion is forcing the conscience and tyrannizing over 
 the soul, as well as over the body, and causes men to make a shipwreck of 
 faith. 
 
 14. His majesty and Parliament object to having their consciences forced 
 by the bishop of Rome and his princes. 
 
 15. "Kings and magistrates are to rule temporall affairs by the swords of 
 their temporall kingdoms ; and Bishops and ministers are to rule spirituall 
 affaires by the Word and Spirit of God ; the sword of Christ's spiritual king- 
 dom, and not to meddle with another's authority, office and function." 
 
 16. "If the beleeving should persecute the unbeleeving to death, who 
 should remain alive ? then none but the beleeving should live in the world, 
 and the unbelieving should dye in their unbelief and so perish forever." 
 
 This document presents to us no imaginative Utopian dream 
 The author finds his hypotheses in the established Christian sys- 
 tem. The entire nation had committed itself to that system. 
 Men were engaged in interpreting it rather than questioning its 
 foundations. With universally admitted hypotheses, he thrust 
 forth his relentless logic. With Christianity admitted, he urged 
 the teachings and practice of Christ. He affirmed that the 
 Word should be proclaimed and people reconciled to God 
 through faith. Christ came to save, and would have every 
 obstacle to the spread of the gospel removed. The evil and 
 all unbelievers are to be allowed every opportunity for repent- 
 ance. Attendance upon church worship is no substitute for 
 faith and piety. Persecution endangers the soul by pressing it 
 into hypocrisy. In an equal contest truth will gain the victor3^ 
 
 Very concisely does he present his reason for advocating 
 this cause : 
 
 Therefore permission of conscience and liberty of the gospel in our land 
 of Great Britain, wil mightily further the advancement of the Apostolic faith, 
 and chiefly their bookes whereout sufficient matter will be drawn for the con- 
 vincing of every particular Religion which is against the Religion established 
 by Christ and his Apostles, who by all means lawfull, sought the conversion 
 
EA RL V S TUA R T PERIOD 4 3 
 
 and the salvation both of Jews and Gentiles. And they are unconstant and 
 faithless men, or at least very ignorant, that think error will overcome and 
 prevail against the truth. (P. 22.) 
 
 These thoughts seem trite to Protestant Christians at the 
 close of the nineteenth century, but they sounded strange at 
 the beginning of the seventeenth. Such frank interpretation of 
 Scripture Luther, indeed, had indulged in for a few months, but, 
 in England, nothing of this nature antedating it escaped the 
 flames of the government searchers. 
 
 At the beginning of this address we are given a glimpse of 
 the line of thought through which Busher was led to his uncom- 
 promising position on liberty of conscience. He there says : 
 
 In all humility therefore I give you to understand that no Prince or People 
 can possible attaine that one true Religion of the Gospel, which is acceptable 
 to God by Jesus Christ, meerely by birth, {a) for Christ saith, Except a man 
 be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Also the Apostle James 
 saith, {b) Of his own will begat he us by the word of God who liveth and 
 endureth forever. Therefore Christ commanded this word to be preached to 
 all nations, that thereby they may attain the new birth ; for then all Princes 
 and peoples, in all nations, should have the one true Religion of the Gospel, 
 the which you see and grant they all have not, yet many of them will defend 
 their Religion (wherein they were born) by fire and sword, as if it were their 
 natural and earthly inheritances ; or had with fire and sword been gotten, and 
 therefore will with fire and sword maintain and defend it. But your majesty 
 and Parliament may please to understand that the scriptures doe teach that 
 the one true religion is gotten by a new birth, even by the word and spirit of 
 God, and therewith also it is only maintained and defended. (P. i .) 
 
 But arguments arising from religious principles do not 
 exhaust Busher's "Plea." He considers also the national 
 effects. He advances the claim that all who hold the apostolic 
 faith, that is, the very best people, are forced out of the country 
 by these persecutions. More than that, foreigners in the land 
 must leave, since they are in danger. And, in point of fact, 
 England lost much of her best blood in the Pilgrim and Puritan 
 migrations to New England. Further, the state was warned that 
 it would suffer from dissemblers in office, which its own policy 
 was producing. The king and Parliament were appealed to on 
 the ground of consistency. Even they objected to the preten- 
 tious claims of the papacy. Then why should they make similar 
 demands upon the people ? 
 
44 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 This pamphlet is worthy a place among the most famous 
 writings of English literature. It is not contained in the realm 
 of polite literature, nor is it remarkable for beauty or elegance of 
 expression ; but who has considered a loftier theme, advocated 
 a more unpopular cause, and yet put forth a work calculated to 
 produce so beneficent an effect ? Our greatest literature is the 
 clearest expression of our highest thoughts. In this polemic we 
 have a pioneer in an unfrequented region of thought, presenting 
 boldly, though in the face of danger, and with clearness and 
 force, a most noble conception. No limited and time-serving 
 toleration is advocated. No impure or unworthy motive is 
 pleaded. No narrow and partial privilege is sought. We see a 
 man, with the dignity of manhood, laying claim to human rights. 
 We see a Christian, with faith in truth, as he has faith in God, 
 pleading the cause of free thought and free speech. We behold 
 a lofty soul, animated with brotherly love, seeking to remove the 
 obstacles to the highest attainments in virtue and blessedness.^-' 
 
 This work of Leonard Busher had not been long out of 
 
 press before another important treatise on the subject appeared. 
 
 'i Religious Peace" was calculated to cause much comment and 
 
 questioning. While no elaborate answer to this is recorded as 
 
 appearing immediately, it cannot be possible that it did not 
 
 arouse opposition instantly. Counter-arguments were doubtless 
 
 advanced, whether they appeared in print or not. Such attacks 
 
 as are likely to have been made were offset by the pamphlet, 
 
 "Objections answered by way of a Dialogue, wherein is Proved, 
 
 By the Law of God, 
 
 By the law of our Land, 
 
 And by his Majesties many testimonies 
 
 That no man ought to be persecuted for his religion, so he testifie 
 
 his allegiance by the Oath appointed by Law." ^5 No copy of 
 
 ^ " The Baptists were foremost in the advocacy of religious freedom, and probably 
 to one of them, Leonard Busher, citizen of London, belongs the honour of presenting 
 in this country the first distinct and broad plea for liberty of conscience. It is dated 
 1614, and is prefaced by an epistle to the Presbyterian reader ; and a very remarkable 
 epistle it is, deserving a renown which it has never acquired." (Stoughton, Vol. II, 
 p. 221.) 
 
 35 Crosby, Hist, of Eng. Bapt., Bodlian, Tanner (45). 
 
EARLY STUART PERIOD 4 5 
 
 the first edition of this work (1615) is known to be extant. As 
 published under another title in 1662, it contains eighty-six 
 octavo pages, and consists of a prefatory "Epistle" and the dia- 
 logue. The signature which follows this " Epistle" appears in 
 the following form : " By Christ's unworthy Witnesses His 
 Majesty's faithful Subjects Commonly (but most falsely) called 
 Anabaptists." The authorship of this is ascribed by several 
 historians to John Murton, a citizen of London and the writer of 
 several pamphlets. The authorship is believed to have been 
 discovered by the methods of the higher criticism. 3^ 
 
 That this document is intended to supplement the preceding 
 one is suggested, not only by the general character of it, but by 
 the particular arguments. Even in the introductory epistle, 
 which is a direct plea for liberty of conscience, thoughts we have 
 not met hitherto are presented, as the following, for example : 
 
 For if this be a truth, that kings of the earth have power from God to 
 compell by persecution all their subjects to believe as they believe, then 
 wicked is it to resist, and the persecutions of such are justly upon them, and 
 the magistrates that execute the same are clear from their blood and it is 
 upon their own heads. 
 
 The very clearness and frankness of this statement of the case 
 indicate the sincerity and courage of the writer. Then in a 
 reference to the bishops he presents the main religious argument 
 of the opponents : 
 
 And whereas they have no other colour or ground out of the scriptures, 
 than that they have canonized a law, vis " That whosoever shall affirm that 
 the king's majesty hath not the same power over the church that the godly 
 kings of Israel had under the law, let him be excommunicate ipso facto." 
 He does not even neglect the adiaphoristic argument, 37 but turns 
 it to account strongly in his demand for liberty of thought and 
 worship. 
 
 36 E. B. Underhill, Tracts on Lib. of Con. Int., and H. M. Dexter, Congrega- 
 tionalism, as seen in its Lit., Bibliography. 
 
 37 The adiaphoristic controversy arose in Germany in connection with the attempt 
 of the Catholics and Lutherans to arrive at some conciliatory agreement. The 
 Leipzig Interim, which was drawn up chiefly by Melanchthon, recognized certain 
 things as indifferent. The use of candles, altars, crucifixes, etc., were so declared. 
 In this instance the conclusion arrived at was that these things which might be used 
 without making any difference might be enforced upon the people. The conclusion 
 drawn by Busher was that of all the things that a man should be made to do the 
 indifferent should be last. 
 
46 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 And if it be a law for all christians that in indifferent things one must 
 not offend another, but the strong forbear rather than offend his weak brother, 
 otherwise he wounds the weak conscience and sins against Christ ; then how 
 much less hath any man power to be lord over the weak conscience, forcing 
 it to practise that it hath not faith in, bringing it thereby unto sin, and unto 
 condemnation. 
 
 The "Dialogue" is a long, but clearly wrought out argument 
 between three persons, called Antichristian, Christian, and Indif- 
 ferent. Antichristian is so stubborn in his opposition to liberty 
 that he gives up in disgust, while Indifferent is convinced by 
 Christian. That both the form and force of the argument may 
 be better seen, I will give the drift of the dialogue, retaining 
 the form, but condensing the thought and introducing only the 
 contestants. 
 
 Christian. — Without faith it is impossible to please God. 
 
 Antichristian. — It is the king's law that you must worship in the churches 
 of the establishment. 
 
 C.— In spiritual things you should urge only the law of the King of kings. 
 
 A. — The learned of the land have considered all these things, and set 
 them down. Are such simple men as you likely to see more than all these ? 
 
 C. — The learned may err. 
 
 A. — Yes, but they do not. 
 
 C. — The pope is learned, shall he be obeyed ? The power and authority 
 of the king are earthly. His highness is supreme head and governor over 
 all his subjects' bodies and goods within his dominions, but not over the soul, 
 as Christ assumed no civil rule. 
 
 A. — Ananias and Sapphira were smitten, Elymas stricken blind, etc. 
 
 C. — God's judgment was declared unto these, but the apostles did not 
 touch them. 
 
 A.— " Doth not Christ in the parable teach, that he compelled all to come 
 in?" 
 
 C. — Yes, but not with carnal weapons. All that a magistrate can do is 
 to compel me to bring my body, and unless there is a willing mind there 
 is no acceptance with God. 
 
 A. — " If all religions were suffered, treacheries and treasons would be 
 plotted." 
 
 C. — " If it be not cleared of that, let all men abhor it. ' Let the good and 
 bad grow together until the harvest.' .... All subjects should protest 
 their allegiance to his Majesty's person, crown and dignity, and let the dis- 
 obedient be disposed of at his Majesty's pleasure." 
 
 A. — " It were a lamentable thing if that bloody (catholic) religion should 
 be practised again in this Kingdom." 
 
EARLY STUART PERIOD 4 ^ 
 
 C. — "I acknowledge it a bloody religion, but yours is also a cruel bloody 
 religion." 
 
 A. — The good and bad must grow together in the church. 
 
 C. — Your interpretation of the parable is wrong. And if you believe it is 
 right, why do you excommunicate any out of your church ? The field is the 
 world. The good and bad must grow together in it, but not in the church. 
 " The whole New Testament throughout, in all the doctrines and practises of 
 Christ and his disciples, teaches no such thing as compelling men by perse- 
 cutions and afflictions to obey the gospel." 
 
 A. — "Were not blasphemers put to death in time of the law? " 
 
 C. — Yes; but would you have blasphemers put to death now? Paul 
 was once a blasphemer. All Jews and Papists are blasphemers. 
 
 A. — Hath not the king the same power that the kings of Israel had, who 
 compelled men to the observation of the law of God ? 
 
 C. — No ; Christ is the present king of Israel. 
 
 A. — If freedom of religion should be granted, there would be such 
 divisions as would breed sedition and innovation in the state. 
 
 C. — "Christ, the Prince of peace, came not to send peace on the earth, but 
 a sword. Behold the nations where freedom of religion is permitted, and 
 you may see there are not more flourishing and prosperous nations under the 
 heavens than they are." " Magistracy is God's blessed ordinance in its right 
 place ; but let us not be wiser than God to devise him a means for the 
 publishing of his gospel, which he that had power had not, nor hath com- 
 manded." 
 
 A. — The king's majesty requireth your allegiance to be testified by your 
 coming to church. 
 
 C. — It would be most abominable to God for me to come to church, not 
 of conscience, but in hypocrisy. Such a course would rather harden my 
 heart to work villainy. 
 
 Christian goes on to quote sentences from the king's addresses 
 which express sympathy with toleration. He finds the cause of 
 persecution in their heritage from Romanism. He believes that 
 the occasion for persecution would be removed by the acceptance 
 of believers' baptism. 
 
 This pamphlet, following so closely that of Busher, is also 
 worthy of renown. Its findings are entirely consonant with the 
 former, yet it enlarges upon the argument and meets objections 
 which adversaries were raising. Like the work of Busher, it is 
 dignified, descending to no slurs, indulging in no sarcasm, and 
 seeking to strain no point. It is also preeminently a religious 
 argument. It recognizes no impure nor unworth}' motive. 
 
48 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 The first edition of this "Dialogue" appeared in 1615, and a 
 second came out in 1620. The personal element in this is not 
 strong enough to warrant the supposition that prominent church- 
 men had yet begun their literary attacks upon these daring 
 adventurers. The contest was as yet confined to narrow limits. 
 Its significance had not begun to be appreciated by the supporters 
 of the government. This latter year (1620) another work was 
 published, by an unknown Anabaptist again, under the elaborate 
 title: "A Most Humble Supplication of Many of the King's 
 Majesty's Loyal Subjects, Ready to Testify all Civil Obedience 
 by the Oath of Allegiance, or otherwise, and that of conscience ; 
 Who are Persecuted (only for Differing in Religion) contrary to 
 Divine and Human Testimonies." This also was reprinted in 
 1662, and is preserved to us only in a copy made by Crosby and 
 published in 17 — in the second volume of his "History of the 
 English Baptists." Some think that sufficient similarity between 
 this and John Murton's "Description of what God hath predes- 
 tinated concerning Man" exists to justify the assumption that he 
 is also the author of this.s^ That both these treatises on liberty 
 could not have been from one author seems plain from the 
 diverse habits of mind which manifest themselves. The author 
 of the "Dialogue" seems disposed to tell the truth, while the 
 writer of the "Supplication" is concerned to make a weighty 
 argument. This third document may properly be considered 
 supplementary to the second, yet this argues nothing for author- 
 ship. It is noteworthy that all of these treatises differ from 
 each other so largely in character and evidence. 
 
 The "Supplication" is addressed to King James, Prince 
 Charles, the nobility, judges, and gentry in Parliament. In the 
 introduction the author arrays his authorities against persecution. 
 He says : 
 
 The vileness of persecuting the body of any man, only for the cause of 
 conscience, is against the word of God and the law of Christ. It is against 
 the profession of your majesty ; against the profession and practise of famous 
 princes ; the ancient and later approved writers witness against it ; so do the 
 puritans ; yea the establishers of it, the papists themselves, inveigh against 
 it ; so that God and all men do detest it, as is herein showed. 
 38 Tracts oti Lib. of Con., p. 187. 
 
EARLY STUART PERIOD 49 
 
 This is rather a hopeful view of the situation, as the facts 
 which call for such an argument manifest. He overstepped the 
 bounds of sober truth in his desire to make a strong argument 
 from testimony. The king's early promises to the English 
 dissenters might well be quoted to impress upon him his duty, 
 but, considering his later expressions and his continuous practice, 
 they would hardly serve as expressions of his opinion. Princes 
 of certain foreign nations are properly cited. Luther's momen- 
 tary advocacy of liberty should not be taken advantage of by 
 those who desire to bolster their cause by his authority, for he 
 completely repudiated these early statements. As to the Puritans, 
 the justice of his claims regarding them is considered else- 
 where. It should be noticed, however, that the author is 
 inveighing against persecution rather than recommending the 
 right of private judgment, and all classes, even the Papists, 
 objected to being themselves persecuted. 
 
 The author's line of argument is discovered in the subjects 
 given to the various chapters. From these are made apparent 
 the depth and breadth of the production. The premises are 
 seen to be set forth with great particularity. These subjects are 
 as follows : 
 
 I. The rule of faith is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost contained in the 
 sacred scriptures, and not any church, council, prince, or potentate, nor any 
 mortal man whatsoever. 
 
 II. The interpreter of this rule is the scriptures, and Spirit of God in 
 whomsoever. 
 
 III. That the Spirit of God, to understand and interpret the scriptures, is 
 given to all and every particular person that fear and obey God, of what 
 degree soever they be ; and not to the wicked. 
 
 IV. Those that fear and obey God, and so have the Spirit of God to search 
 out and know the mind of God in the scriptures, are commonly, and for the 
 most part, the simple, poor, despised &c. 
 
 V. The learned in human learning, do commonly and for the most part 
 err, and know not the truth, but persecute it and the professors of it; and 
 therefore are no further to be followed than we see them agree with truth. 
 
 VI. Persecution for the cause of conscience, is against the doctrine of 
 Jesus Christ, King of kings. 
 
 VII. Persecution for cause of conscience is against the profession and 
 practise of famous princes. 
 
50 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 VIII. Persecution for cause of conscience is condemned by antient and 
 later writers, yea, by puritans and papists. 
 
 IX. It is no prejudice to the commonwealth if freedom of religion were 
 suffered, but would make it flourish. 
 
 X. Kings are not deprived of any power given them of God, when they 
 maintain freedom for cause of conscience. 
 
 This production is remarkable for its resistless logic. Much 
 care was taken with the order. The argument is condensed and 
 an attempt made to state it with perspicuity. Falling in with 
 the dominant tendency of the time, many quotations were made, 
 especially from the church fathers. Notwithstanding its illustrious 
 predecessors, this work also is noteworthy, and evidently occupied 
 a large place in the great battle which was beginning to rage. 
 
 These three documents, coming out within six years, could 
 not but create a great stir in the circles of English thought. 
 The following decades make this evident. After this, no one 
 acquainted with the literature of that time need have asked con- 
 cerning the doctrine of this sect on the subject of magistracy. 
 Yet a curious instance of an enemy's missing the mark, though 
 not from ignorance of the views of these people, is seen in " A 
 Discovery of the Errors of the English Anabaptists, by Edmond 
 Jessop who sometime walked in the said errors with them." 
 (B. M. 4135, bb. 6, p. 94. Date 1623.) He treats as his " Eighth 
 point, that a king or magistrate cannot be a true christian except 
 he give over his kingly office or Magistracie." He answers it, 
 beginning thus : 
 
 This, although it be not fully the opinion of these our English Anabap- 
 tists, yet because it is a point so generally held among the other sects of 
 them, and for that these (with others) are not yet rightly informed as touching 
 the authoritie of kings & governours, what it is, how far it doth extend, nor 
 yet how far forth Christians are bound to obey and submit unto them ; we will 
 first disprove that error of the elder Anabaptists, then shew what the author- 
 itie of kings and governours is, how far it doth extend, how far forth every true 
 christian is bound by the word of God (as he is a subject or citizen) to obey 
 and submit unto them. 
 
 Jessop, in his desire to find a startling subject about which to 
 write, may be said at the best to have concerned himself to do a 
 thing which John Greenwood called " writing a new last year's 
 kalender." 
 
EA RL V S TUA R T PERIOD 5 I 
 
 Additional testimony as to the position of the Anabaptists in 
 this part of the contest, as well as a revelation of the stand taken 
 by the early Independents, exists in the writings of Pastor John 
 Robinson. He had printed, in 1614, an article treating " Ot 
 Religious Communion, Private & Public, With the Silencing of 
 the Clamours Raised by Mr. Thomas Helwisse Against Our 
 Retaining the Baptism Received in England and Administering 
 of Baptism unto Infants, as also A Survey of the Confession of 
 Faith Published in Certain Conclusions by the Remainders of 
 Mr. Smyth's Company." 39 The subject of sec. xii is "Magis- 
 tracy and Oaths." It reads thus : 
 
 In conclusion 83, where the office of the magistrate is called a " permis- 
 sive ordinance of God " it is both a contradiction, and evil speaking of them 
 in authority. Where it is called " an ordinance of God " it is confessed good 
 for " every creature of God is good" and all his ordinances are his creatures ; 
 and so many things are ascribed to the office of Magistrates in this and the 
 other Conclusions about it which prove it to be good and lawful in itself, but 
 where it is made permissive it is condemned as evil since only evil is per- 
 mitted or suffered of God. And where it is objected, Proposition 85, that 
 Christ's disciples must love their enemies, and not kill them, pray for them 
 and not punish them &c. I answer that the godly magistrate may do both. 
 Doth not God punish with temporal death those whom he loveth ? and why 
 may not God's deputies, the gods upon earth, be minded as God herein ? 
 Psa, Ixxxii. i. 6. When the godly kings and governors in Israel were com- 
 manded to execute judgment and justice upon the people for their transgres- 
 sions, were they commanded not to love them, and not to pray for them ? 
 When Mr. Smyth in his sickness, tells his children, as it is in the end of the 
 book "that if he live he must correct and beat them, as God did him," doth 
 he not answer the objection, and show that these two may well stand together, 
 as in the private father so in the public father, the magistrate ? Where again 
 it is said that " Christ's disciples must with him be persecuted, afflicted, mur- 
 dered " and "that by the authority of the magistrate ; " I do answer: that 
 those things are not simply necessary for all persons, but as God calls men 
 unto them. And second, both the scriptures and other stories do testify that 
 godly magistrates themselves have suffered these things for the Lord and his 
 truth, and for well doing ; sometimes the inferior magistrate by the superior 
 and sometimes the governors by the people under them. Instances we have 
 hereof in Moses, David, Gedaliah, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshac and Abednego 
 
 with Nicodemus, and others many more They add that the magistrate 
 
 is not to meddle with religion or matters of conscience, nor to compel men to 
 this, or that form of religion, because Christ is the king and Lawgiver of the 
 
 39 Works, Vol. Ill, chap, vi, p. 275. 
 
52 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 church and conscience." I answer that this indeed proves that he may alter, 
 devise or estabhsh nothing in religion otherwise than Christ hath appointed, 
 but proves not that he may not use his lawful power lawfully for the further- 
 ance of Christ's kingdom and laws. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the 
 church of Christ foretells that kings shall be her nursing fathers and queens 
 her nursing mothers : Is. xlix. 23. And where these men make this the 
 magistrates' only work, " that justice and civility may be preserved amongst 
 men," the apostle teacheth another end, which is, " that we may lead a 
 peaceable life under them in all godliness." 1 Tim. II. 2. It is true that they 
 have no power against the laws, doctrines and religion of Christ ; but for the 
 same, if their power be of God, they may use it lawfully, and against the 
 contrary. And so it was in special foretold by John, that the kings of the 
 earth should make the whore desolate and naked, and eat her flesh and burn 
 her with fire. Rev. xvii. 16. 
 
 After a deliverance of this kind Robinson might have joined 
 in with his predecessor, Robert Browne, in exclaiming: "Seeing 
 we graunt and hold thus much, howe doe they charge us as evil 
 willers to the Queene (magistrate)?" It is true that he does 
 limit him in his legislative capacit}', but he makes him the public 
 father and the earthl)' god. He attributes to him authority to 
 " make the whore desolate and naked, and eat her flesh and burn 
 her with fire," though he did not specify who should decide as 
 to the identity of that creature. 
 
 This pronounced and unequivocal expression of Pastor Robin- 
 son's opinion was published the same year that Leonard Rusher's 
 remarkable claims were set forth. But this was not Robinson's 
 latest treatment of the subject. Five years after (16 19) he dis- 
 cussed it again under the title " A Just and Necessary Apology. "*° 
 Chap, xi of this deals with the civil magistrate in the following 
 words : 
 
 We believe the very same touching the civil magistrate with the Belgic 
 Reformed churches,'*' and willingly subscribe to their Confession ; and the 
 
 4° Works, Vol. Ill, pp. 62 f. 
 
 *^ Belgic Confession, Article X.XyNl,''Oi Magistrates."— "We believe that our 
 gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and 
 magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and poHcies ; 
 to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restramed, and all things carried 
 on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested 
 the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of 
 them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto and watch for 
 the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus 
 
EARLY S TUA R 7 PERIOD 5 3 
 
 more because what is by many restrained to the christian magistrate they 
 
 extend indefinitely, and absolutely to the magistrate whomsoever The 
 
 Magistrate though a heathen, hath power as the minister of God for the good 
 of his subjects, Rom. xiii. 4. to command and procure in and by good and 
 lawful manner and means, whatsoever appertains either to the natural or 
 spiritual life so the same be not contrary to God's word ; . , . . Lastly, If any 
 civil and coactive power in things whether civil or ecclesiastical come to the 
 magistrate by his Christianity, then if it so fall out that he make defection 
 from the same whether by idolatry or heresy or profaneness it must follow 
 that thereupon his kingly power is diminished and abridged ; whereby how 
 wide a window or gate rather would be opened to seditious subjects under 
 pretext of (specially catholic) religion, to raise tumults in kingdoms no man 
 can be ignorant. 
 
 Thus do we find the great leader of Congregationalism 
 standing firmly for coercion of religious thought and action. 
 His attempt has been to find Scripture warrant for his doctrines, 
 though his attitude has been largely determined by fear of 
 national disorders. Though expecting new light to break out 
 from God's word in the future, Robinson provided no means in 
 his system of thought for this truth, when newly discovered, to 
 be accepted by men.'^^ Nor does Pastor Robinson stand alone 
 
 may prevent and remove all idolatry and false worship ; that the kingdom of anti- 
 christ may thus be destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must 
 therefore, countenance the preaching of the gospel everywhere, that God may be 
 honored and worshiped by every one, as he commands in his Word. 
 
 " Moreover, it is the bounden duty of every one, of what state, quality, or condi- 
 tion soever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates ; to pay tribute, to show 
 due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repug- 
 nant to the Word of God ; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule 
 and guide them in their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all 
 godliness and honesty. 
 
 " Wherefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists and other seditious people, 
 and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would 
 subvert justice, introduce a community of goods, and confound that decency and good 
 order which God hath established among men." (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 
 Vol. Ill, pp. 432 f .) 
 
 *^ Nothing is plainer than that in this investigation one cannot credit a writer's 
 mere profession that he believes in freedom of conscience. The phrase was very 
 ambiguous. Not a few made that profession who firmly believed that heretics should 
 be burned. We find a notable example of this in Pastor Robinson. He would have 
 the conscience free, he said, but he further stated that none should be permitted to 
 oppose conscience (Vol. II, Ashton ed., pp. 193 f.). In this he took it for granted 
 that when one's views did not agree with what he thought to be orthodox, that person 
 was opposing his own conscience. The question to be asked of each one is : Did he 
 
54 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY Oh CONSCIENCE 
 
 among the Congregationalists in sustaining the pretensions of 
 the rulers in this period. In 1616 appeared a work entitled "A 
 Confession and Protestation of the Faith of Certaine christians 
 in England, Published for the clearing of said christians from 
 the slander of Schism and Noveltie, and also of Separation & 
 undutifulness to the magistrate which their rash enemies doe 
 falsely cast upon them. Also a humble Petition to the K. 
 Majestic for Toleration therein." (B. M. 4103, a. 19.) This 
 work is commonly ascribed to H. Jacob, an Independent writer, 
 but whether rightly or not makes little difference, since the 
 internal evidence makes plain its origin from an Independent 
 source. (See Art. XXVIII.) The twenty-seventh article treats 
 " of the civil Magistrates duety, and charge to oversee and order 
 his churches in Spiritual Matters." It reads : 
 
 Wee believe that we, and all true visible churches ought to be overseene 
 and kept in good order and peace & ought to be governed (under Christ) both 
 supreamely and also subordinately by the Civill Magistrate : yea in all causes 
 of religion when need is, By which rightful! power of his he ought to cherish 
 and preferre the godly, and religious, and punish (as truth and right shall 
 require) the untractable and the unreasonable. Howbeit yet always but civ- 
 illy. And therefore we from our hart most humblie doe desire that our 
 gracious sovereigne King would (himselfe so far as he seeth good, and further 
 by some substituted civill Magistrate under him) in clemency take this spe- 
 cial oversight and government of us, by whose ordering and protection we 
 most humbly commit ourselves, acknowledging that because we want the use 
 of this divine ordinance, That therefore most greate, and infinite evills both 
 to us, and even to the whole kingdom doth ensue, and also because of the 
 spirituall Lords their government over us. And notwithstanding the spirituall 
 Lords''^ doe think it injury and wrong to themselves not small, if the king 
 
 believe in coercion or restriction in religious thought or practice when others' rights 
 were not invaded? Robinson believed in persecution, as may be further seen in the 
 following quotation : "Are you ignorant, Mr. B., that civil actions as they draw scan- 
 dalous sin with them, may be censured ecclesiastically, as may also religious actions 
 be punished civilly by the magistrate, which is the preserver of both tables, and so to 
 punish all breaches of both, especially such as draw with them the violation of the 
 positive laws of the kingdom, or disturbance of common peace ?" {Works, Ashton ed.. 
 Vol. II, p. 193)- Ilie two tables referred to are the ten commandments of the Mosaic 
 law. In preserving the first table tlie magistrate must force an acceptance of Jehovah 
 upon the people. 
 
 ^The spiritual lords referred to are the bishops, the claims of whom the Inde- 
 pendents have never admitted. 
 
EARLY S TUA R T PERIOD 5 5 
 
 should substitute civill magistrates to this business, yet (as it is said) that is 
 Gods owne ordinance, namely to commit either spirituall or civill government 
 (viz. Diocesan or provincial) to Ministers is evil; and as we believe a direct 
 transgression of the text of the Gospell above rehearsed in artical 4.10.24. 
 
 Here again it is indicated that the early Independents 
 accepted as much of the prevalent theory of magistracy as they 
 could make consistent with their congregational form of govern- 
 ment. The diocesan bishops and all spiritual lords were ruled 
 out by these notions of religious equality and democracy. Con- 
 ceding, then, that the church must be coerced into the perform- 
 ance of its function, they lighted upon the civil ruler to do this, 
 as Scripture allowed him a place in the social economy. This 
 shifting of the duties of rulers made the position of the Congre- 
 gationalists hard to be understood. 
 
 In the " Plea," which is in connection with this confession 
 and protestation, are a few expressions which throw even greater 
 light upon the position of the Independents in this their forma- 
 tive period. The question of their rights seems not yet to have 
 disturbed their minds. 
 
 The publike places with peace and protection under your Highness would 
 be in this vi^orld the greatest blessing and benefite which our heart desireth, 
 or which could come to us. But we dare not expect, neither do we ask so 
 great favour at your Majesties handes ; only that in private peaceably we 
 might serve God with cleare and quiet consciences according to the effect of 
 our fore remembered Cofession, we in all lowlinesse crave your Toleration. 
 
 From all this it appears that the Independent congregations 
 of that time desired the civil government to assume a guardian- 
 ship over their churches, taking them under its protection, 
 establishing a civil court "to cherish and preferre the godly and 
 religious, and punish the untractable and unreasonable." They 
 desired to avoid the domination of the bishops, but did not hope 
 for equality with the established church. Either they questioned 
 the rightness of the existence of sects or were led by policy to 
 refrain from declaring the whole of their doctrine. Their accept- 
 ance of the king's prerogative seems to be advanced as an argu- 
 ment for the king's winking at their existence. 
 
 From this time (161 6) on for over a score of years but little 
 from the Brownists on our subject has been preserved to us. 
 
56 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 During the early part of the reign of Charles I., up to his break 
 with Parliament, the state was in a great political ferment.^t The 
 contest between the Parliament and the king became all-absorb- 
 ing. Only just before this break did this phase of religious 
 discussion become prominent again. In 1641 "The Humble 
 Petition of the Brownists" was addressed to the Parliament. It 
 presents evidence of a great temporary change of thought among 
 at least some of the Independents. Their first expression for 
 liberty of conscience comes to light in this (B. M., E. 178 (10), 
 pp. 3 f.). Who the particular author or authors of this may 
 have been does not appear, nor was the opinion herein expressed 
 maintained. Yet it still deserves a full presentation. It is a 
 remarkable protestation of Christian charity to come to us from 
 the first half of the seventeenth century. It reads : 
 
 If therefore the Brownists upon scruple of their tender conscience, and 
 grounded upon the word will separate themselves, and not go to church with 
 Protestants, let them alone, give them free leave to exercise their Religion 
 where they please without disturbance, the place where doth not import, they 
 not daring to adde or diminish anything in the written word. 
 
 If the Puritans will not use the Service Booke, Corner Cap, Surplesse, or 
 Altar, nor bow at the name of Jesus, their pure hearts esteeming it Idolatrie, 
 let them alone, they are great readers of God's booke, and if they be in errour, 
 they will sooner finde it, having liberty of conscience, then being oppressed 
 with the Tyrrany of the High Commission Court or other kindes of persecu- 
 tions which disquiet their consciences and troubles their patience. 
 
 If the Socinians will not subscribe to the 39 Articles, nor credit more than 
 by natural force of their best witts they can reach unto, let them alone, they 
 professe that if any man can give them a better reason or confute them by 
 the word they are ready every hower to change their opinions, of such soft 
 and pliable natures they are. 
 
 If the Arminians will have Bishops, Altars, Lights, Organs, hold Free 
 Will, merit of good workes, and divers other points with Papists, though as 
 yet no sacrifice with them upon their Altars, let them alone, let them use 
 their ceremonies without sacrifice, let every spirit praise the Lord. Psal. 150. 
 
 If the Papists will have Altars, Priests, Sacrifice, and ceremonies, and the 
 Pope for their supreme head in all Spirituall affaires, seeing they affirm so 
 confidently, they have had these Sixteen hundred and odde years, let them 
 alone with their pretended prescription, and let every Religion take what 
 Spirituall head they please, for so they will, whether wee will or no, but the 
 
 ^■♦Not that this ferment then ceased, but the period here discussed ends at that 
 time. 
 
EARLY STUART PERIOD 57 
 
 matter imports not, so they obey the King as temporall head, and humbly 
 submit to the State and civill Lawes, and live quietly together. 
 
 Let the Adamites Preach in vaults & caves as naked as their nailes, and 
 starve themselves with cold, they think themselves as innocent as Adam and 
 Eve v/ere in their nakedness before the fall, let them therefore alone till 
 some innocent Eve bee so curious as to eate forbidden fruit, and they will all 
 make themselves aprons of figge leaves perceiving their nakednesse. 
 
 Let the Family of Love meete together in their sweet perfumed chambers, 
 giving each their kisse of peace ; great pity it were to hinder their mutual 
 charity ; let them alone. 
 
 Lastly, the same we desire for all professors of the Gospell. Let every 
 one abound in his owne sence. Rom. 14. 
 
 Even here there is a limit put upon the freedom sought. 
 The "professors of the Gospell" alone are included. At the 
 close of the petition the terms used are so general that one is 
 led to feel that entire liberty of conscience is desired. It is not 
 specifically stated so, yet I do not feel justified in denying that 
 such a conception was held. The passages can speak for them- 
 selves : 
 
 Let every one therefore follow his owne Religion so he be obedient to the 
 State and Temporal lawes certainely, that which will in time appeare, and 
 the professors of it will be ashamed, it will perish and wither as a flower, 
 vanish as smoke, and passe as a shadow (p. 7). 
 
 The matter therefore of so great importance and consequence, we pros- 
 trate ; leaving to your honours profound and deepe judgments, humbly request- 
 ing and imploring againe and againe, that for the quiet of the state, for the 
 comfort of the subject, and for the love of truth you cause and proclaime a 
 tolleration, that for Religion, none shall be persecuted, but every one shall 
 freely enjoy his conscience (p. 8). 
 
 This document, while quite short and abounding in illustra- 
 tion rather than more substantial argument, was an important 
 addition to the literature upon the subject. What the circum- 
 stances were by which it was inspired can only be conjectured. ^s 
 All that is certain is that in this particular case some Brownists 
 deviated from the general trend of their denominational thought. 
 
 ■•s Stoughton observes in his first volume {Religion in Eng., p. 356) that at this 
 time two classes of Independents are distinctly visible. He says that : " As some 
 Independents, mostly the obscure, went further than others in the doctrine of tolera- 
 tion ; so some Independents, principally of the same class, went further than others 
 in the doctrine of voluntaryism." That there was a difference between some who 
 at later time were called Brownists and the Independent party appears in a later 
 chapter. 
 
58 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 A reply to this was made without delay by Thomas Edwards, 
 minister of the gospel in London. This appeared the same year 
 (1641) under the title "Reasons against the Independent Gov- 
 ernment of Particular congregations ; . . . . together with an 
 Answer to such reasons as are commonly alledged for such a 
 Toleration." (B. M., E. 167.) 
 
 Under the heading " Reason VIII" he argues in the following 
 words : 
 
 These independent men where they have. power (as in new England) will 
 not give a toleration for any other Ecclesiastical Government of Churches 
 but in their owne way, they would not suffer of other opinions in doctrines 
 and government to live within the bounds of their patent, though at the 
 further bounds, but have banished them. They were sent to from England 
 by some godly Ministers their brethren otherwise approved by them, as 
 being against Ceremonies, who being in danger of leaving the land sent to 
 know if they might have liberty according to their consciences to goe in a 
 church way, something different from theirs, and not in this Independent 
 Popular Government ; to which question you may reade the Answer, they 
 could not grant any other forme of government but one, feeling there is but 
 one way of Church government layd downe in the Word, and that unchange- 
 able, and therefore they cannot yeeld to it. So others of them will not 
 tolerate ; or admit into fellowship the godliest christians, unlesse they will 
 enter into Covenant, professe their faith, submit to their Church ; so that 
 these men who now would faine have a toleration in this great Kingdome will 
 not allow any in a remote Plantation, nor in one of their small particular 
 congregations, for feare of disturbing the peace of their Church, and yet 
 would have a toleration in this Kingdome, never caring to disturb the peace, 
 and good of the three Kingdomes which would be hazarded by it, but thus 
 partiall men are (and you may observe it) tis ordinary for men when they are 
 not in place nor have no power in church or common-wealth, and hold also 
 Doctrines and principles contrary to what is held and established, then to 
 plead for tolerations, when as the same persons coming to be in place and to 
 have power, wil not tolerate others to set up any way different from theirs. 
 
 These charges of Edwards resulted in an incident at that 
 time quite out of the ordinary. A woman among the Congrega- 
 tionalists, Katherine Chidley by name, entered into this literary 
 squabble at this juncture. ("The Justification of the Independ- 
 ent Churches of Christ." B. M., T. (7). Date 1641.) She 
 appeared as an apologist for Independency, but wished it to be 
 understood that her people do not plead for any others (pp. 20 
 
EARLY STUART PERIOD 5 9 
 
 and 44). With astounding confidence she announced to Edwards 
 that having proved the 
 
 Independent Government to be Christs Government ; I will also prove in 
 my Answers to these your following Reasons, that the Independent Congre- 
 gations performe Christ's public worship, and therefore ought to be tolerated, 
 and maintained in the practise thereof. 
 
 But to stand for the Toleration of the maintenance of Heresie, and 
 Schisme, is not the Toleration that we pleade for (as farre as hath beene yet 
 made knowne) but rather your insinuation ; for I have declared unto you 
 already in the driving backe of the first scout of your army, That God hath 
 provided a way and meanes to purge every congregation of his from all such 
 persons that doe offend, whether it be in matters of F'aith or Order. 
 
 The author keeps up a running conversation with Edwards, 
 and so does not connect her ideas. On this account no theory 
 can be attributed to her, but sufficient expressions are given to 
 show her to have been in harmony with the position generally 
 held by the Independents rather than with the position taken in 
 the Brow^nist pamphlet which aroused this discussion. In regard 
 to compulsion in religion she stood on the same ground as 
 Edwards, as she specifically indicates : 
 
 And therefore you did well, when you admonished the Parliament in your 
 Epistle to cast out of the way all stumbling blockes, and to breake down all 
 images, and crucifixes ; and to throw down all altars, and remove the high 
 places ; and to break to pieces the brazen Serpents which have been abused 
 to Idolatry and Superstition-** (p. 22). 
 
 She held that toleration should be claimed only on the ground 
 of worthiness. Nor has she been careful to give the impression 
 that she expected anyone other than herself to form the court 
 before whom the claims of worth should come. She asserted her 
 belief that the Anabaptists and Jews were worthy of toleration, 
 but declined to plead their cause (p. 44). In stating her posi- 
 tion to Edwards she said further : 
 
 In your ninth reason you affirme that toleration may be demanded, upon 
 the same grounds for Brownists, Anabaptists, and Familists, and others, who 
 professe it their conscience. To which I answer : That seeing you plead for 
 them, I may well hold my peace. But I think the Familists will not aske 
 
 "* Masson says concerning her view: "Clearly, whosoever in 1641 of the Parlia- 
 ment and the people of England heard a stinted doctrine of Toleration, they heard 
 the full doctrine from Mrs. Chidley." {Life and Times of Milton, Vol. Ill, p. no.) 
 
60 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 liberty for toleration if they be as 1 doe.conceive of the Sect of the Libertines 
 mention in the Acts. (P. 36.) 
 
 From the "rigid Puritans" (Presbyterians) of this period 
 has come to us as strong a statement of the acceptance of the 
 king's prerogative as is recorded in history. In 1607 they put 
 out a petition for toleration. In their protestation of orthodoxy 
 they said : 
 
 We hold and maintain the king's supremacy in all causes, and over all 
 persons, civil and ecclesiastical, as it was granted to queen Elizabeth, and 
 explained in the book of injunctions ; nor have any of us been unwilling to 
 subscribe and swear to it. We believe it to be the king's natural right with- 
 out a statute law, and that the churches within his dominions would sin 
 damnably if they did not yield it to him. Nay, we believe that the king can- 
 not alienate it from his crown, or transfer it to any spiritual potentates or 
 rulers ; and that it is not tied to his faith or Christianity, but to his very crown ; 
 so that if he were an infidel the supremacy is his due."*' 
 Beyond this not even the established-church people could well 
 go. There were those who held very loosely to Christianity, if 
 at all, who expressed themselves with some latitude on this as 
 on other topics. All churchmen subscribed to the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, so that if they had favored liberty of conscience, or 
 even toleration, the position would have been a contradiction, 
 not an advocacy. 
 
 •»7Neal, Vol. I, p. 436. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH, 
 
 This period'*^ (1643-60) includes the time which elapsed 
 from the flight of King Charles I. from London until the Restora- 
 tion, or the crowning of Charles II. The execution of Charles I. 
 did not occur until in January, 1649, and during much of the 
 preceding interval he held sway over a large part of England, 
 having his seat of government at Oxford. Parliament, however, 
 under control of the Presbyterians, made laws and executed them 
 where her army had possession. The fall of the Parliament was 
 succeeded by the rise of the Protectorate of Cromwell in the 
 year 1653. This change of government had such a marked effect 
 upon the contest for liberty of conscience that I shall subdivide 
 and treat the epochs of the Parliament and the Protectorate 
 separately. 
 
 I. Parliament. — From 1643 ""til 1^53 the Parliament exer- 
 cised executive as well as legislative functions. The government 
 was essentially by the people. Presbyterian views were in the 
 ascendency, and the Presbyterian became the established church 
 of England, as it long had been the established church of Scot- 
 land. At this time, when Parliament was the magistrate, the 
 fiercest struggle was taking place for religious freedom. 
 
 A glimpse of the conditions then existing is furnished by a 
 pamphlet which came out in 1643, the author of which remains 
 unidentified. Its subject is significant. It is: "Liberty of 
 Conscience, the Sole means to obtaine Peace and Truth. Not 
 onely reconciling His Majestic with His Subjects, but all chris- 
 tian States and Princes to one another, with the freest passage 
 for the Gospel. Very seasonable and necessary in these dis- 
 tracted times, when most men are weary of War, and cannot 
 
 t^This division into periods I have made to suit the nature of my subject. ' I 
 have had reference to the sequence of events in London. While London literature 
 was by no means all that this time afforded, it was there at the seat of the popular 
 government that this cause was largely advocated. The opposition of court writers at 
 Oxford had but little effect upon the course of events at the metropolis. 
 
 61 
 
62 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 findc the way to Peace." (B. M. lOO, d. 69.) The purpose of 
 the author was to solve the question : How can peace be 
 obtained and future wars prevented ? He inveighs against the 
 Parliament for forcing religion upon the people and taking away 
 the incentive to search the Scriptures as they are commanded. 
 He asks whether the people shall be obliged to change their 
 religion as frequently as the majority of Parliament changes. 
 The unsettled state of religious affairs thus presented a problem 
 which suggested the inadequacy of the prevailing doctrine of 
 magistracy. 
 
 Two years later a humorous treatment of the subject appeared 
 under the title: "The Arraignment of Mr. Persecution, By rev- 
 erend Younge Martin Mar-Priest, son to old Martin the Metra- 
 politane." (B. M. 108, b. 52.) A quotation from the first page 
 will explain itself and outline the writer's attitude: 
 
 A certaine dreadful! and severe Gentleman, b}' name Gods-vengeance, 
 of the Towne of Impartiality, in the County of Just-judgment, having a long 
 time through the daily persuasions of his Kinsman, Mr. Long-suffrance (an 
 honest peaceable Gentleman, unwilling his enemy should perish) forborne to 
 proceed against the great Enemie and Incendary of mankind Mr. Persecu- 
 tion, according to his iniquity, at length taketh occasion at his kinsman's 
 abused patience, forthwith procures a warrant from the Lord chiefe Justice, 
 Peace-with-all-men for the constable, Mr. Reward of Tyranny to attack him ; 
 who takes with him two approved men of the Parish, old Mr. Woe-full- 
 experience, and honest Mr. Sound-Judgment ; and making strict search after 
 him from Religion to Religion, found him at length amongst the papists, under 
 the name of Mr. Spanish Inquisition ; but the subtill Fox no sooner perceived 
 their Authority, but shrunke out of his Roman Papall Robe, and presently 
 turned Protestant,'" clad with Episcopall habit, under the name of Mr. High 
 Commission, but Constable Reward of Tyranny, with old Woe-full-experi- 
 ence, and honest Sound-judgment, being acquainted with his tricks, made 
 after him, whereat he cast off his Lawne-sleeves, Hoode, Typit, &c. and 
 forthwith, least all trades should faile, became a zealous Covenanter, in the 
 godly shape of a Presbyter, changing his name into Classical! Presbytery (a 
 new cheat to cozen the world) and then scholler-like, as it had been for a good 
 fat Benefice, in the twinkling of an eye jumpt out of Scotland into England, 
 and turned a reverand Synodean, disguised with a sylogisticall pair of 
 Breeches. 
 
 ■•s The term " Protestant " is used in tracts of this time to mean Episcopalian or 
 established religion, when the context does not make plain another meaning. 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 63 
 
 The sequel is that Mr. Persecution is finally arrested and put 
 on trial. Gods-vengeance, Christian, Martyrs, and Liberty of 
 Conscience appear to testify against him, and he is condemned. 
 The writer was remarkably skilful and effective in creating a 
 feeling against persecution, and there was sore need of just such 
 attractive antagonism. 
 
 The part taken by the Baptists s" in this portion of the 
 struggle was a prominent one. Such a large number expressed 
 themselves during these years that only the most important 
 pamphlets, together with the evidences which indicate a general 
 sentiment, can be noticed. This was an epoch of popular dis- 
 cussion. The political ferment so disturbed the rulers that 
 silence could not be enforced upon the common people. 
 
 "The Compassionate Samaritane," the author of which Robert 
 Baillie calls an Anabaptist, was recognized as an important docu- 
 ment. s' It was directed to the Commons of England. The 
 second edition, corrected and much enlarged, appeared in 1644. 
 (B. M., E. 1202 (l).) The strong opposition it aroused among 
 the advocates of persecution manifests their opinion as to its 
 force. The author states the occasion of his putting forth this 
 treatise : 
 
 Having heretofore met with an Apologeticall narration of Thomas 
 Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sydrach Sympson, Jeremy Burroughs, William Bridge ; 
 I did with gladness of heart undertake the reading thereof, expecting therein 
 to find such generall reasons for justification of themselves, to the world, as 
 would have justified all the Separation, and so have removed by one dis- 
 course those prejudices and misapprehensions which even good men have of 
 that harmlesse and well-meaning sort of people ; But finding contrary to that 
 expectation that their Apologie therein for themselves, and their Toleration 
 was grounded rather upon a Remonstrance of the nearnesse between them 
 and the Presbyterian, being one in doctrine with them, and very little differ- 
 ing from them in Discipline, how they have been tolerated by other Presbyter 
 Churches, and indulged with greater priviledges, then the .Separatist, how 
 they differed from the Separatist, and had cautiously avoided roks and 
 shelves against which the Separatist had split themselves, confirming by 
 these words the peoples disesteem of Separatists, suggesting by that phrase 
 
 5° It was during this period that the Baptist denomination was organized, as such; 
 therefore I shall make use of the term " Baptist" from this time on. 
 
 S' Baillie, Disuasive from the Errors of the Time, p. 76. Newberry Lib. 
 
64 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 of theirs, as if there were amongst the Separatists some dangerous by paths 
 or opinions; which they warily shuned, though no mention be made what 
 they are, which is the worst sort of calumny. (Pp. i f.) 
 
 The plea of these Independents for a special toleration so 
 aroused the author that in "The Compassionate Samaritane " he 
 put forth that expression of principles which he had hoped to 
 find in the combined effort of the Congregationalist leaders. 
 The work is critical and discriminating, and yet breathes a sym- 
 pathy and brotherly kindness rarely found in the writings of this 
 period. The author would leave out none from the enjoyment 
 of religious freedom. And, too, he recognized it a right to be 
 demanded rather than a privilege to be besought. He has not 
 admitted himself to be an Anabaptist, but made laudatory state- 
 ments which lead to that inference. 
 
 The king I confesse, has reason to cry out upon the Anabaptists, because 
 he knows them to be enemies not of Government ; but of oppression in 
 Government, and all those who intend to oppress in any manner, ought, if 
 they be true to themselves to doe so too ; for the Anabaptists are oppressions 
 enemies, whoever be the oppressours. 
 
 And whereas they say, they find in bookes, that the Anabaptists are enemies 
 to all Government, it were well if they would consider who wrote those 
 Bookes; it may be they were written either by mistake or for the same end 
 that they repeate them. We can show you books too, that say the Parliament 
 are Brownists & Anabaptists ; And past all question, if the King should 
 thrive in this unnaturall warre this Pari, should in their court Histories, not 
 only be called anabaptists, but branded also to all posterity with that opinion 
 falsely and maliciously fathered upon the Anabaptists, that they were enemies 
 to government, and went about to bring all things into confusion. Little 
 credite is to be given therefore to Bookes in matter of obloquie and scandall ; 
 but the men and their judgments in the time they live, are to be considered. 
 .... I will adde one thing more to the Brownists and Anabaptists glory; 
 that in the times of the Bishops domineering, when many of the Presbyterians 
 complyed, some to the very top of Wrens Conformity, and preached for 
 those things they now pretend chiefly to reforme and the Independents fled 
 to places where they might live at ease, and enjoy their hundred pounds a 
 yeare, without danger ; the Brownist and Anabaptist endured the heate and 
 brunt of persecution, and notwithstanding the severall wayes of vexing them, 
 continued doing their duties, counting it the glory of a christian to endure 
 tribulation for the name of Christ ; And the times altering the Presbyterian 
 soon come about and the Independent comes over, to be leaders in the Refor- 
 mation, when forgetting the constancie and integrity of those who bore the 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 65 
 
 heat and burden of the day they hold the same heavy hand over them, that 
 their fathers the Bishops did. 
 
 These five men, Goodwin, Nye, Sympson, Burroughs, and 
 Bridge, were in exile on the continent until Charles evacuated 
 London and the city was left in the hands of the separatists. 
 Hastening back to their native land, they became leading spirits 
 in the Independent movement. It is not strange that in these 
 circumstances the Brownists, mentioned by this author, though 
 essentially Independents, should not, at first, join heartily with 
 such leaders. It is evident that the distinction here noticed did 
 not long continue to exist. These men formed the nucleus 
 around which the whole party soon gathered. Here is recog- 
 nized, however, a temporary association of the Brownists in 
 sturdy resistance to conformity. Notwithstanding the tenor of 
 the passages cited, the work as a whole, like that of Leonard 
 Busher, is remarkably unpartisan. No epithets are applied. It 
 is a calm, straightforward, kindly expression of opinion. 
 
 During the next year (1644) the most comprehensive docu- 
 ment put forth by the early Baptists appeared. Its title is "The 
 Storming of AntiChrist in his two last and Strongest Garrisons, ^^ 
 by C. Blackwood 53 (B. M., E. 22. (15)). These two strongest 
 garrisons are "Compulsion of Conscience" and "Infants Bap- 
 tisme." Twenty-nine reasons are given against compulsion of 
 conscience. The statement of them is short, but compact. In 
 it the arguments are arrayed, as in a solid phalanx, for liberty. 
 Sixteen objections are answered in the same methodical way. 
 Though the treatment be so large, religious motives alone seem 
 to have been thought worthy of consideration. No motives of 
 policy, not even those arising from national interests, are given 
 
 5=^ Crosby says "The two last and Strongest Garrisons of Antichrist" was 
 written by Captain Dean. He admits that he knew but little about Dean, save that, 
 having been a churchman, he became a Baptist, and instead of entering the ministry 
 he joined the army. Whether or not there were two treatments of this subject does 
 not appear. That Christopher Blackwood wrote about it is certain." (Crosby, Vol. 
 I, pp. 350 f.) 
 
 S3 According to Crosby, Christopher Blackwood was a minister of the establish- 
 ment in Kent when he came in contact with Francis Cornwell, M.A., who had been a 
 minister of the establishment, but had accepted the doctrines of the Baptists. By 
 him Blackwood was led to accept Baptist views also. 
 
66 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 place. The burden of the author's soul finds expression in the 
 direct address of the conclusion : 
 
 Reader ; I shall desire thee seriously to ponder what hath been laid down ; 
 it makes my heart bleed to see all Christendome the cockpit of the world, to 
 the great scandall of Christ and Christianity among Mahumitans and Infidels, 
 
 Very little new thought or expression is seen in Blackwood's 
 treatment, yet he added largely to the force of the contestants 
 by summarizing and stating the gist of previous discussions. 
 
 "The Necessity of Toleration in Matters of Religion," by the 
 Baptist, Samuel Richardson, 54 was printed in 1647. (B. M., E. 
 402 (18).) Here we have the already familiar ideas set forth in 
 fresh forms. He states his proposition and reasons succinctly, 
 as follows : 
 
 Religion ought to be free. 
 
 1. Because it is God's way to have Religion free. 
 
 2. It is God's Prerogative to force Religion by working Faith in mens 
 hearts. 
 
 3. Because, the end why God hath a Church is that he might have a peo- 
 ple separated from others in the world, to glorify him in a holy conversation 
 to the convincing of those that are out of the church. 
 
 4. Because if there should be an established Law for all persons to sub- 
 mit unto, it would tend to the wounding of the souls and undoing the bodies 
 of very many. 
 
 5. Because it is the best for the public peace to give every one content. 
 
 Richardson put his thought into questions, which he pro- 
 pounded effectively. Seventy of these he directed to " the Synod, 
 and all honest hearted and conscientious people, whether corporal 
 punishments ought to be inflicted upon such as hold errors in 
 religion." A few specimens of these will serve to show their 
 pertinence and force : 
 
 I. Whether corporal punishments can open blind eyes, and give light to 
 dark understandings ? 
 
 6. If a father or magistrate have not power to force a virgin to marry one 
 she cannot love, whether they have power to force one where they cannot 
 believe, against the light and checks of their own consciences ? 
 
 15. Whether Christ hath said, He will have an unwilling people compelled 
 to serve him ? 
 
 54 Richardson is known only as an author. He put out twelve or more works on 
 religious topics. 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 67 
 
 ig. Whether he that is not conformable to Christ may not at the same 
 time be a good subject to the state, and as profitable to it ? 
 
 22. Whether there be not the same reason that they [the magistrates] 
 should be appointed by us, what they shall believe and practise in religion, 
 as for them to do so to us ; seeing we can give as good grounds for what we 
 believe and practise, as they can do for what they would have, if not better ? 
 
 29. Whether it be not in vain for us to have bibles m English, if, contrary 
 to our understanding of them, we must believe as the church believes, whether 
 it be right or wrong ? 
 
 58. Whether there be any man that judgeth his own judgment erroneous ? 
 
 By his interrogations Richardson gently charged the West- 
 minster Assembly with holding that they had arrived at the truth 
 by special revelation. So, they being infallible, all England 
 ought to receive their instruction. That consistently with this 
 they practiced intolerance. 
 
 Two other names of Baptists were conspicuous among the 
 advocates of this cause in the parliamentary epoch. They 
 were both educated and prominent men. Francis Cornwell, M.A., 
 wrote a tract on "Two Queries worthy of consideration." These 
 queries were : 
 
 1 . Whether that ministry that preacheth freely the gospel faith, that the 
 Lord Jesus is the Christ, as the Apostle Peter did, be not truly orthodox ? 
 
 2. Whether it be agreeable to the Word of God contained in the sacred 
 scriptures, to silence or inhibit any ministers of Jesus Christ, for preaching 
 this gospel faith freely.55 
 
 William Dell was located in London. He was held in so 
 high esteem as to be invited to preach before Parliament, and he 
 was bold enough to present this cause in so public a place. The 
 sermon was afterward printed. In 1646 he discussed the subject 
 in a pamphlet entitled "Uniformity Examined " (B. M., E. 322 
 
 (12)). 
 
 In the midst of this heated controversy (1644) — for oppo- 
 nents were as active as advocates — an important work, produced 
 in New England, was published and circulated in England. It 
 was "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution," written by Roger 
 Williams. Its form is that of a dialogue. Its reasons differ but 
 little from those of documents previously printed, yet it caught 
 the public eye more fully than most of its predecessors had done. 
 
 55 Crosby, Vol. I, pp. 344 f. 
 
68 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 It produced a great deal of direct opposition. While John Cot- 
 ton, of Boston, was laboring assiduously to overcome its influence, 
 many in England considered it worth their while to refute its doc- 
 trines. 
 
 It was in the early part of this rule of Parliament that what 
 is known as the " First Confession of Faith of the English Baptist 
 Denomination" was formed. Heretofore churches and individuals 
 alone had expressed themselves. From this and the later con- 
 fessions it is possible to determine what the attitude of this 
 united people was. From these we gain no hint of the diligence 
 of their advocacy of their principles ; but knowing that there 
 were many who were assailing these doctrines, it is to be inferred 
 that a quiet acceptance of them would be impossible. This 
 first confession treats the subject sparingly. The thirty-first 
 article reads thus : 
 
 All believers in the time of this life are in a continual warfare and com- 
 bat against sin, self, the world, and the devil ; and are liable to all manner 
 of afflictions, tribulations and persecutions, being predestinated and appointed 
 thereunto, and whatsoever the saints possess or enjoy of God spiritually is by 
 faith and outward and temporal things are lawfully enjoyed by a civil right 
 by them that have no faith.s'^ 
 
 While not elaborated, this assertion is sweeping. Even the 
 heretic is conceded the right to enjoy "outward and temporal 
 things .... by a civil right." 
 
 The year following, 1644, came out another "Confession of 
 those Churches which are commonly but falsely called Ana- 
 baptist." In this they were not even as outspoken as they were 
 in the former document. The forty-ninth article treats the 
 subject: 
 
 The supreme Magistracie of this Kingdome we beleeve to be the King 
 and Parliament freely chosen by the Kingdome and that in all those civill 
 Lawes made by them, with our persons, liberties, and estates, with all that is 
 called ours, although we should suffer never so much from them in not 
 actively submitting to some Ecclesiastical Lawes, which might be conceived 
 by them to be their duties to establish, which we for the present could not 
 see, nor our conscience could submit unto ; yet are we bound to yield our 
 persons to their pleasures. (B. M., E. 12 (24).) 
 
 sfi Crosby, Vol. I, App., p. 26. 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 69 
 
 From this one is likely to get an impression of their sub- 
 serviency. Though admitting their separatism, their protesta- 
 tions of loyalty are so strong that they have no stress to lay 
 upon the right of separatism. 
 
 This slackness they attempt to atone for two years later 
 (1646). At that time came out the "Confession of the Seven 
 London Churches." Having acknowledged the magistrates' 
 supreme authority in civil affairs, they proceed in Article 
 XLVIII to express their convictions as to ecclesiastical author- 
 rity in the following sentences : 
 
 And concerning the worship of God, there is but one Lawgiver which is 
 able to save and to destroy. James iv;i2 which is Jesus Christ, who hath 
 given laws and rules sufficient in his word for his worship; and for any to 
 make more, were to charge Christ with want of wisdom or faithfulness, or 
 both in not making laws enough, or not good enough for his house ; surely it 
 is our wisdom, duty and privilege to observe Christ's laws only. Psa. ii, 6, 9, 
 10, 12, So it is the magistrate's duty to tender the liberty of men's con- 
 sciences, most dear unto them, and without which all other liberties will not 
 be worth the naming, much less enjoying, and to protect all under them from 
 all wrong, injury, oppression and molestation ; so it is our duty not to be 
 wanting in nothing which is for their honor and comfort. And whatsoever is 
 for the well-being of the commonwealth wherein we live, it is our duty to do; 
 and we believe it to be our express duty especially in matters of religion to 
 be fully persuaded in our minds of the lawfulness of what we do, as knowing 
 whatsoever is not faith is sin ; and as we cannot do anything contrary to our 
 understandings and consciences, so neither can we forbear the doing of that 
 which our understandings and consciences bind us to do; and if the magistrate 
 should require us to do otherwise, we are to yield our persons in a passive way 
 to their power, as the saints of old have done, James v, 4. And thrice happy 
 shall he be that shall lose his life for witnessing (though but for the least tittle) 
 of the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, i Pet v. Gal. v. (B. M., E. 319 (13).) 
 
 Thus did their views on this subject gradually find expression 
 in the early denominational statements of doctrine. Whether 
 the first scant claims were occasioned by a lack of unanimity on 
 the part of the delegates may never be known. At any rate, we 
 must not lose sight of the fact that the question was a live one 
 during those years, and could hardly have been overlooked by 
 authors of any such confessions. 
 
 But the most vigorous representation of the Baptists' belief 
 in this particular comes from their antagonist, Robert Baillie. 
 
70 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 He treated the subject in his " Diswasive from the Errors of the 
 Time" (Newberry Lib., pp. 56 f.). While Baillie's hostility 
 makes his statement more or less unreliable, he has left a most 
 interesting treatment of the situation. He says : 
 
 All this Independent Doctrine is brought from the Anabaptists' schools, 
 it is one of the articles of their faith offered to the present Parliament, that 
 no laws ought to be made by any man upon earth about any things which 
 concern the worship of God ; That whosoever makes any rules for the service 
 of God does charge Christ with want of Wisdom or faithfulnesse, or both, in 
 not making anew for his own house ; That the great law for matters of Religion 
 is this. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own minde of the truth of 
 what he believes without any controll from any upon earth; That it is the 
 Magistrates duty to protect every man in his just liberty of conscience, with- 
 out which all other liberties are unworthy the naming. 
 
 Now to put us out of all doubt what kinde of consciences they desire to 
 be protected by the Magastrate in their liberty, they are content to come 
 down to specifications. At the beginning they had not the courage to require 
 a generall liberty for all erroneous consciences, as divers of the Inde- 
 pendents to this day professe their aversenesse from an unlimited toleration of 
 all errours; So M. Blackwood who first came out to storm the Antichristian 
 baptizers of children does stick a little at Papists, and more at blasphemers 
 and atheists ; and their great Patrons in their debates for liberty except 
 errours against the light of nature, albeit none which never so evidently 
 crosse the holy Scriptures ; but M. Williams an Anabaptist long before 
 Blackwood makes it a bloudy Tenet ; and others of them proclaim it an 
 unjust persecution to deny a full liberty not only to Turks, Jews and most 
 heretics, but to idolatrous Papists and any others that may be named. They 
 will not only have these free from any considerable punishments, but also 
 from the least discountenance or resentment pf their wickednesse ; and lest 
 the grossest blasphemies might have been conceived capable of any civil 
 censure ; behold they name Atheism itself, and exempt it expressly from the 
 hazard of all pain and shame. 
 
 This liberty they extend not only to errours lockt up in the breast, but 
 also when they are openly by word and writ professed, yea solemnly preached ; 
 for they tell us that the necessary and just liberty of conscience is violate, 
 and a persecution is brought in, if a Jesuit or a Turk or a Jew, or a blasphe- 
 mous Atheist be hindered to go to the most solemne places where the greatest 
 multitudes of weak and easily seduced spirits do converse, and there to pro- 
 claim whatever in conscience they think convenient for the propagation of 
 that errour which they conceive to be truth. 
 
 For all this the same men do fully and freely grant unto us, that errour is 
 a greater wickednesse than any man can easily conceive, That a false 
 Teacher by seducing of one soul, doth more real hurt than if he should 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMOAUVEALTH /I 
 
 murther a King, blow up a Parliament, destroy the lives of a whole nation, 
 yea of the whole world. Yet do they -^{jl&ad^ for so great a liberty to all 
 errours as possibly can be, for they spoyl the Magistrate of all power in any- 
 thing which concerns Religion, that he may not with a look of his eye 
 discourage, much lesse with his hand restrain the most horrible blasphemer, 
 the most ravenous wolf, to destroy the souls of all his subjects. 
 
 So from all sources we learn that this newly formed Baptist 
 denomination followed closely in the footsteps of their pro- 
 genitors, the Anabaptists. During this epoch of controversy, 
 when many conditions and events led to the supposition that the 
 demolition of the state was at hand, this doctrine, so decried as 
 ruinous to the government, was sustained and advanced. A 
 larger literary treatment is found here than in any previous time 
 of the same length, but we have arrived at a period when these 
 enemies of infant baptism were not so nearly alone in the ranks 
 of this invading army. Other forces joined actively in the 
 contest. 
 
 The attitude of the Independents was rapidly changing now. 
 The conditions of the time led them to give the subject greater 
 consideration. Their party was rapidly increasing in numbers 
 and importance. They were fully convinced that they had a 
 right to exist. They had been given representation in the 
 Westminster Assembly, and their representatives were accorded 
 a high meed of praise. Goodwin, Nye, Simpson, Burroughs, and 
 Bridge, who have been mentioned above as having been in exile 
 on the continent, were the moving spirits of Independency. The 
 " Apologetical Narration" was their united effort. This served 
 as an introduction to their work after their return from the con- 
 tinent. (B. M., E. 80 (7).) It was published in 1643. I" it 
 they claim that their mode of church government is as effective 
 as that of the Presbyterians, since in the cases of both the 
 magistrate is necessarily called in "to assist and back the 
 sentence of other churches" (p. 19). As mentioned by Baillie, 
 they admitted to the magistrate more right to interfere in religious 
 affairs than the Presbyterians (pp. 19 f.). This pamphlet was 
 merely an apologetical document to pave the way for their toler- 
 ation. During 1645 the denomination put forth several impor- 
 tant treatises on toleration. 
 
72 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 " Groanes for Liberty," a pamphlet of thirty-five pages, came 
 from the pen of John Saltmarsh. (B. M., E. 327 (29).) While 
 petitioning from the Presbyterian Parliament, the author charged 
 the Presbyterians "with being unwilling to accord to others what 
 they had pled for but four years before." He held that Inde- 
 pendents, Anabaptists, and Seekers did not differ enough from 
 Presbyterians to warrant persecution. He drew up "A Modell 
 or Short Draught of the Whole difference betwixt the Divines of 
 the Presbytery, and them of the other way respectively, to the 
 Magistrate or State, drawn from the Books and Practises of both 
 parties in a Petitionary way" (p. 24). The respective petitions 
 appear thus : 
 
 They of the Presbytery to the Magistrate or State. 
 
 We humbly Petition ye, that Hereticks and Schismaticks (we believing 
 all that differ from us to be so) may have your power inflicted upon them, 
 whither to fines, imprisonment, or banishment, and upon this condition ye 
 shall have what ye can doe, or preach, etc. 
 
 The Independents to the Magistrate or State. 
 
 Wee humbly Petition, that ye will not hazard nor endanger your civill 
 power of the State to help our opinions against our Brethren, for we are not 
 Infallible nor Apostolicall, we see but in part, and that ye will not punish any 
 of our Brethren Presbyterial or others, for what they believe or differ from us 
 in things of outward order in the Gospel, and that we may have leave to pray 
 for ye, to pay tribute to ye, to fight for ye, and to worship the Lord among 
 ourselves peaceably as we believe, and to punish us when we disturbe ye 
 by Tumults, or trouble 3'our peace in our way of worshiping. 
 
 By these comparative petitions the writer asserted that the 
 Independents had come to differ from their Puritan neighbors. 
 The Independents had gotten far enough along to concede to 
 the dominant Presbyterians their right to be unmolested in their 
 way of worship. They do not go beyond this to include other 
 sects under their mantle of charity. These " Groanes for Liberty" 
 were quickly answered by a certain " Ley." Before the year was 
 over Saltmarsh retorted to this in a work entitled "The Smoke in 
 the Temple." This second pamphlet was simply an enlargement 
 of the first. Toleration was asked on the grounds of similarity 
 between Presbyterian and Independent dogmas in general. In 
 it is no assertion of rights, and no desire for a recognition of 
 religious freedom is made known. 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 73 
 
 From somewhat the same standpoint wrote Jeremiah 
 Burroughes in his "Irenicum"of the same year, a volume of 302 
 pages. (B. M., E. 306 (9).) He also sought to show the 
 adaptability of the Congregational government to the successful 
 management of religious affairs. He further attempted to set 
 forth the principles that cause divisions to arise, and to show how 
 the evils may best be avoided. The effort was an elaborate one. 
 It exhibits great research and careful thought. The author held 
 that the principle " that nothing which is conceived to be evill 
 is to be suffered .... is a harsh and sowre principle" (chap, 
 viii). He says that 
 
 the power that God hath given a magistrate, is but for a naturall help at 
 the most and therefore it can goe no farther then to help us in a naturall 
 way, to do what we are able to doe by a natural power ; when it hath gone so 
 farre, there it must rest (p. 71). 
 
 His seventh chapter treats the subject: "Those who are for 
 a congregational way doe not hold absolute liberty for all 
 religions." This thought is expressed repeatedly. 
 
 A man may bring himselfe under both Civill and Ecclesiastical sword, 
 not onely for sinnes destructive and injurious to our brother, but for sinnes 
 against God, if they be also against the light of nature, as blasphemy and 
 gross idolatry (p. 35). 
 
 Though such as are not Christians cannot by violence be compelled to 
 professe Christian Religion, yet notwithstanding any plea of their conscience, 
 they may be restrained and that by violence if other means will not do it. 
 from an open blaspheming Christ, and the Scriptures, or doing any acts of 
 any open dishonor to them (p. 36). 
 
 Suppose a man be not wanton, but serious, and neglects no meanes to 
 informe his conscience, and yet he cannot yeeld. What shall be done to such 
 a man ? He may be denied some privileges and benefits that are granted to 
 others. I instance in that opinion of some Anabaptists, who deny the lawful- 
 nesse of Warre : . . . . seeing by this error of theirs they are made lesse use- 
 full in the state then others, they should not think it much though they be 
 denyed many priviledges and accommodations that are granted to others, who 
 venture their lives for the preservation of the State. 
 
 Here Burroughes has set forth several ideas, novel in his day, 
 but destined to general acceptance. It was no new conception 
 that the state had a fund of privileges and benefits to be bestowed 
 upon favorites, but the withholding of them for religious reasons 
 was new. In persecution, shedding of blood, imprisonment, and 
 
74 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 fines are about to give away to political disabilities. Burroughes 
 may be called the advance agent of the persecuting government 
 of the later Stuart period. 
 
 Philip Nye, another of the quintet of Independent leaders, 
 carefully constructed a work at this time, which is preserved to 
 us in a reprint of 1683. His subject was : "The Lawfulness of 
 the Oath of Supremacy, and the power of the King in Ecclesi- 
 astical Affairs" (B. M. 105, b. 47). While Nye performed a 
 valuable service in advocating toleration, he came far short of 
 grasping the highest conceptions. Readmitted that "God only 
 and the Civil Magistrate, further our happiness by making us 
 miserable" (p. 26). And again that "for protection Church- 
 Power neither judgeth nor restraineth them that are without ; it 
 is no fence nor Security against the World. The only Hedg 
 about this Vineyard, under God, is the Sword of the civil 
 Magistrate" (p. 28). He did not regard that the magistrate's 
 sword had no place in religious matters, since "the Judgments of 
 God, Sword of the Magistrate, and the like external administra- 
 tions are helpful to the best of men, who are liable while a Body 
 of Sin, to as foul external acts of sin as the worst of Men" 
 (p. 29). 
 
 There is no Power or Authority either in Church or Magistrate that doth 
 directly or immediately compel or enforce the soul. Paines, Penalties, 
 Restraints, bodily Punishments ; or what comes nearer, is more spiritual, as 
 admonition. Suspension, Excommunication, or the like. When persons in 
 any of these ways is judged and censured, by the Church or Magistrate or 
 both, it hath its fruit and effect in respect of Morals only in a more remote 
 and circular way, as by working upon the judgment and affections (p. 32). 
 
 The Independents regarded themselves at this time as hold- 
 ing a middle view on this question as well as on others. The 
 controversial contest was raging fiercely, and many were occu- 
 pying extreme positions on the subject. The Independents as 
 a body were advancing slowly and cautiousl}-. Robert Baillie 
 mentioned this in his " Uiswasive from the Errours of the Time" 
 (p. 54). He said : 
 
 The Authors of the Apologetick Narration [cf. p. 71] do boast of giving 
 to the magistrate more than any other Protestants by their principles can do, 
 yet now it seems they have changed their note and are returning to M. 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 75 
 
 Browne first profession of liberty from the Magistrate's sword in all matters 
 of conscience, for they tell us that no magistrate may punish for what the 
 church may not censure, and they assume that the church may not censure 
 for any error which is not fundamentall, and wherein the erroneous person is 
 not obstinate and self condemned: Such at least must be all Brownists, all 
 Antipaedobaptists, most Antinomians and Arminians, many Papists who 
 embrace not all the errours of the Church of Rome, and in these which they 
 do maintain have never had the means of self-conviction ; against none of all 
 these, or any the like may Parliament make any Law, but to all such they are 
 obliged if they transgresse the limits of power, which God and right reason 
 have set unto them, to proclaim a full liberty without the least restraint. This 
 will conclude the power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion in a pretty 
 narrow compasse, yet it leaves him some power to punish for fundamentall 
 errours and grosse blasphemies. Therefore the Independents, at least some 
 of their prime teachers, without any public reproof from their fellows (so 
 farre as we know) are gone a step further, to cut off all idle and curious 
 debates concerning fundamentals; the disputes about praeter, super and 
 contra fundamentalia are exceedingly subtill and intricate, yea inextricable, 
 they are more wise than to involve themselves and others therein, so once for 
 all they jump over that ditch and avow, that for magistrates to controll any 
 man in his grossest errours. for them to make or execute any Law to restrain 
 any man's conscience and practise according to conscience is but to fight 
 against God and to commit the monstrous practise of the old Gyants against 
 the heavens which they call a Theomachy. 
 
 Thomas Edwards, the so-called religious "scavenger gen- 
 eral" of England, furnishes us with particulars which substan- 
 tiate much that Baillie stated. In 1646 he published his " Gan- 
 grena ; or a Catalogue And Discovery of many of the Errours, 
 Heresies &c vented and acted in England in these four last 
 years" (B. M., E. 323 (2)). An extract taken from p. 105 will 
 best show us his understanding of the situation : 
 
 Two well-affected citizens related to me December 18, That speaking with 
 an Independent Minister in this City, of Paul Best's damnable Doctrines 
 against the Trinity and of his Blasphemies, for which he was imprisoned : He 
 Answered, this imprisonment would do no good at all ; It was Replied, What 
 if this Best or any Arrian would gather a Church and vent his Opinions, shall 
 the Magistrate suffer them ? What must be done in this case ? The Minister 
 answered, cause him to sweat with Arguments ; but there was no Authorita- 
 tive power under the Gospel to remedy it. These citizens objected that in 
 the 13 of Deuteronomy, Whether such a man should not be punished as well 
 as the false Prophet ? The Answer was, Christ in the Gospel had moderated 
 thinjjs ; Adultery was death under the old Law, and yet Christ let the woman 
 
76 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 go away taken in Adultery ; and so it was in this case. One of these Citizens 
 told me also, he spake of these things to another Independent Minister, who 
 made an Answer to the purpose. That the Magistrate might not punish 
 such; adding The Magistrate had nothing to do in matters of Religion, but 
 in civil things only. Another well-affected Citizen, and a Common Council 
 man of good worth related to me and others that an Independent Minister 
 within a few miles of London, one Mr. L. had said to him. That men ought 
 not to be troubled for their consciences, but Papists should be suffered ; and 
 for his part, if he knew Papists who were at their Devotions of beads. Images, 
 &c. he would not have them hindered or disturbed. 
 
 In summary, it is safe to say that this was a transitional 
 epoch with the Independents. That there was a change, and 
 that recent, is plain from Edwards' citation of these particular 
 instances and from his astonishment that even these few should 
 be straying so far from the orthodox position. This transition 
 makes it entirely impossible even approximately to locate or 
 describe the denominational situation. 
 
 It is in this period that two of the best-known English 
 authors appear as advocates in the cause of liberty. They are 
 John Milton and Jeremy Taylor. Besides them, a prominent 
 London minister and writer occupies no insignificant position. 
 Jeremy Taylor, at one time bishop of Downs, was a devoted son 
 of the Episcopalian church. John Goodwin," while twice the 
 minister of Coleman Street Church, London, was dishonored by 
 the Episcopalian establishment for his heretical doctrines, and 
 may not be classed with any organization. Milton, likewise, 
 cannot properly be classified. 
 
 " Areopagitica ; a Speech of Mr. John Milton For the Lib- 
 erty of Unlicensed Printing," was produced in the year 1644. 
 (B. M,, E. 18 (9).) Though the subject is narrowed down to 
 the expression of thought in print, principles are discussed that 
 are applicable in the whole range of conscience. The author 
 began by presenting arguments from the less pure motives and 
 proceeded to the higher. He stated the order and content of 
 his tract in the following words : 
 
 S'Stoughton says that Goodwin advocated Independent principles in a parish 
 church, and classes him with the Independents. By the same kind of reasoning Milton 
 is made a Baptist by some. (Vol. I, pp. 338 f.) 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH TJ 
 
 I shall now attend with such a homily, as shall lay before ye, first the 
 inventors of it [the licensing of printing] to bee those whom ye will be loath 
 to own ; next what is to be thought in generall of reading, whatever sort the 
 Books be ; and that this Order avails nothing to the suppression of scandal- 
 ous, seditious, and libellous Books which were mainly intended to be sup- 
 press Last that it will be primely to the discouragement of all learning, and 
 the stop of Truth, not only by disexercising and blunting our abilities in what 
 we know already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might yet 
 be further made both in religious and civil Wisdome. (Pp. 3 f.) 
 
 Keeping in mind that it was Milton's difficulty in getting his 
 work on divorce printed that occasioned this treatise, it must 
 also be remembered that upon this subject he expressed some of 
 his noblest thoughts. The leading theory of persecution had 
 rested on the hypothesis that to remove the temptation to evil 
 was to obtain righteousness. Says Milton : 
 
 They are not skilful considerers of human things, who imagin to remove 
 sin by removing the matter of sin ; for, besides that it is a huge heap 
 increasing under the very act of diminishing, though some part of it may 
 for a time be withdrawn from persons, it cannot from all, in such a uni- 
 versal thing as books are ; and when that is done yet the sin remains entire 
 (pp. 17 f.). 
 
 With careful discrimination he reminded the Presbyterian 
 Parliament that persecution was an effective advertising agency. 
 He spoke of the Presbyterians thus : 
 
 Although their own late arguments and defences against the Prelats 
 might remember them that this obtruding violence meets for the most part 
 with an event utterly opposite to the end which it drives at ; instead of sup- 
 pressing sects and schisms, it raises them and invests them with a reputation; 
 The punishing of wits enhances their authority saith the Vicount St. Albans, 
 and a forbidden writing is thought to be a certain spark of truth that flies up 
 in the faces of them who seek to tread it out. This order therefore may 
 prove a nursing mother to sects, but I will easily shew how it will be a step- 
 dame to Truth ; and first by disinabling us to the maintenance of what is 
 known already. (P. 26.) 
 
 The subject of heresy was so much debated that his opinion 
 of it is called forth : 
 
 A man [he asserts] may be a heretick in the truth ; and if he beleeve 
 things only because his Pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines with- 
 out having other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds 
 becomes his heresie (p. 26). 
 
78 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 In his treatment of this subject Milton has drawn his argu- 
 ments from reason, attempting to prove that the printing of 
 books ought to be allowed without receiving the sanction of a 
 public licenser. In the time of the Protectorate, fifteen years 
 later, he put out " A Treatise of the Civil Power in Ecclesiasti- 
 cal causes showing that it is not lawfull for an}- power on earth 
 to compell in matters of Religion" (B. M. 1019, b. 18). In 
 preference to making separate statements of Milton's part in this 
 contest, I will treat this later document out of its order in time. 
 It comes in properly at the close of the Protectorate epoch and 
 is "Directed to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England 
 about to assemble." The restoration of the Stuarts followed soon. 
 This argument is far more general and comprehensive than 
 the former. Scripture has a large place in it. The author seeks 
 to inculcate a desire for freedom of thought in the future gov- 
 ernment. His first proposition is that " no man or body of men 
 in these times can be the infallible judges or determiners in mat- 
 ters of religion to any other men's consciences but their own " 
 (p. 6). His line of thought did not differ so much from that of 
 some who preceded him, but in his answers to objections he is 
 peculiar. His discussions of blasphemy and heresy are full of 
 meaning : 
 
 But some are ready to cry out, what shall be done to blasphemie. Them 
 I would first exhort not thus to terrify and pose the people with a Greek 
 word ; but to teach them better what it is ; being a most usual and common 
 word in that language to signifie any slander, any malitious or evil speaking, 
 whether against God or man or anything of good belonging ; blasphemie or 
 evil speaking against God malitiously, is far from conscience in religion. 
 .... Another Greek apparition stands in our way, heresie and heretic ; 
 in like manner also rail'd at to the people as in a tongue unknown. They 
 should first interpret to them, that heresie, by what it signifies in that language 
 is no word of evil note ; meaning only the choice or following of any opinion 
 good or bad in religion or any other learning ; and thus not only in heathen 
 authors, but in the New Testament itself without censure or blame. Acts 
 15:5 & 26:5. I Cor. II : 18, 19. (Pp. i6f.) 
 On this subject he wrote further that 
 
 he then who to his best apprehension follows the scripture though against 
 any point of doctrine by the whole church received, is not the heretic ; but 
 he who follows the church against his conscience and persuasion grounded on 
 the scripture (p. 2). 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 79 
 
 Later Milton specifies particularly those whom he regards as 
 heretics, and thus, in his estimation, not to be tolerated : 
 
 To protestants therefore whose common rule and touchstone is the scrip- 
 ture nothing can with more conscience, more equitie, nothing more protes- 
 tantly be permitted than a free and lawful debate at all times by writing, 
 conference or disputation of what opinion soever disputable by scripture ; 
 concluding that no man in religion is properly a heretic at this day, but he 
 who maintains traditions or opinions not probable by scripture, who for aught 
 I know is the papist only ; he is the only heretic, who counts all heretics but 
 himself (pp. 22 f.). 
 
 Milton must ever be considered a powerful advocate of 
 liberty. It could hardly be otherwise when his genius was 
 applied to this end. As a political thinker he saw in liberty a 
 means of furthering the interests of the state. As a religionist 
 he rejected the Old Testament theory of persecution, but was 
 unable to find a place for a Papist in a Protestant nation. He 
 conceived discussion to be good, but it should be limited by the 
 bounds of Protestantism. 
 
 The part which Jeremy Taylor took in this struggle was also 
 conspicuous. The Presbyterian regime left no place for him in 
 his bishopric, so he was in exile. He wrote as a sufferer. After 
 the Restoration he returned to persecute as a conqueror. s^ 
 Admitting that his " Liberty of Prophesying" was of incalculable 
 value in forwarding the noble cause, it is not difficult to see why 
 so logical an advocate of freedom should be intolerant in certain 
 respects. His doctrine and practice were not entirely inconsist- 
 ent, for he said : " Let the prince and the secular power have a 
 care the commonwealth be safe. For whether such or such a 
 sect of christians be to be permitted is a question rather political 
 than religious." (P. 225.) This idea he made important by 
 reiteration. In the "Epistle Dedicatory" he outlined his course 
 of thought, saying: 
 
 And first I answer that whatsoever is against the foundation of faith, or 
 contrary to good life and the laws of obedience, or destructive to human 
 society, and the public and just interests of bodies politic, is out of the limits 
 of my question, and does not pretend to compliance or toleration. 
 
 58 At the Restoration, when episcopacy was again enthroned, Jeremy Taylor was 
 reinstated in office, and from that time officiated as bishop of Downs. He was thus 
 a party to and a participant in the infamous persecutions of the later Stuart period. 
 
80 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Secondly, the intendment of my discourse is that permissions should be 
 in questions speculative, indeterminable, curious, and unnecessary ; and that 
 men would not make more necessities than God made, which indeed are not 
 many. 
 
 Having denied in such manner that he holds to anything 
 more extreme than a limited toleration, he then affirms his 
 belief: 
 
 Only let not men be hasty in calling every disliked opinion by the name 
 of heresy ; and when they have resolved that they will call it so, let them use 
 the erring person like a brother, not beat him like a dog, or convince him 
 with a gibbet, or vex him out of his understanding and persuations. 
 
 Bishop Taylor's reason for granting the partial toleration 
 which he recommended is found in the impossibility of deter- 
 mining the exact truth. He did not accord freedom of thought 
 as the right of men, but as the proper concession in considera- 
 tion of the imperfections of revelation and the human under- 
 standing. He devoted eight sections to setting this forth. It 
 is a question, however, whether this elaborate and thoughtful 
 discourse, unideal as it is, did not produce more favorable con- 
 sideration of the subject than many expressions of higher concep- 
 tions. Whether this is true or not, so great a scholar cannot be 
 justified in not recognizing an important Christian principle 
 which had been set forth and explicated many times. 
 
 John Goodwin, in the " Hagiomastix, or Scourge of the Saints," 
 withstands the attack of the Presb3^terian Thomas Edwards. 
 (B. M., E. 374 (i).) He had previously published certain 
 "Queries" upon the subject, which he admits contained "noth- 
 ing insinuating nothing prejudiciall in the least either to the 
 lawfull authority of the Civill Magistrate, or to any orderly, due 
 or effectuall course for suppressing of errours and Heresies." 
 In this rebuttal of Edwards he advanced a strong argument 
 against persecution. It is primarily a polemic against Presb}^- 
 terianism. The opposition of Edwards was bitter, and Goodwin 
 responded with strong feeling. 
 
 Again in 1653 he presented to the public his "Thirty Queries 
 — Whether the Civil Magistrate stands bound by way of Duty to 
 interpose his Power or Authority in Matters of Religion, or 
 Worship of God" (B. M., E. 698 (4)). In these last queries, 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 8 1 
 
 while no positive expression of opinion is made, one can but 
 infer that the author favored full liberty in religious affairs. His 
 questions are so asked as to offer a forcible argument for free- 
 dom. The general effect of his work at least was to promote 
 liberty of conscience. He asserted, however, that for his part 
 *'hee shall thinke it equall and meet hee that shall doe presump- 
 tuously, and not hearken unto what is by infallible Revelation 
 from God should be put to death" (p. 130). This has been 
 quoted by Thomas Edwards with evident pleasure. 59 Samuel 
 Rutherford, another opponent, interpreted him differently, 
 saying "Mr. John Goodwine, who contendeth for a catholike 
 tolleration of all, of any religion whatsoever, whether they erre 
 in fundamentals or non-fundamentals."*^ 
 
 Some further notice is due to the leaders of the opposition. 
 They came from the Presbyterian hosts. Thomas Edwards was 
 easily first among them. He created the sensations of the time. 
 His delineations of the existing heresies must have been start- 
 ling to the conservatives. These effects he obtained by his 
 particular descriptions. Beyond this, he was strong in logic and 
 research. The "Gangena" and "The Casting Down of the last 
 and strongest hold of Satan" are the works in which he treated 
 the subject. 
 
 Adam Stuart considered the philosophy of tolerance in his 
 "Second Part of the Duply to M. S. alias Two Brethren." His 
 particular purpose was to support the Presbyterian attitude of 
 intolerance toward Independency. His book is lengthy, and, if 
 it was as difficult to write as it is to read, was a laborious attempt 
 to sustain the government. 
 
 Robert Baillie performed a work similar to that of Edwards. 
 He thought that a statement of the doctrines of the Independ- 
 ents, Anabaptists, and others would be sufficient to condemn 
 separatism entire. His principal work was the " Diswasive from 
 the Errours of the Time." 
 
 The most learned and extensive treatise was of Scottish 
 origin. Samuel Rutherford was professor of divinity in the Uni- 
 versity of St. Andrews. From his pen came " A Free Disputation 
 
 59 Casting Down of the last and strongest hold of Satan, p. 1 15. 
 ^ Free Disputation, etc., p. 64. 
 
82 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 against pretended Liberty of Conscience." Energy and acumen 
 were lavished by these opponents in their attempt to silence the 
 increasing sound of the advocates' voices. Besides those men- 
 tioned many others were engaged in the struggle. Titles of the 
 works of some of them may be found in the bibliography. 
 
 2. Protectorate. — A new element entered into the contest at 
 this point. Heretofore the truth has been advanced by instruc- 
 tion and plea. It was argued in conversation, urged by the 
 orator, and advocated by the printed page. Now it is to be 
 exemplified. Cromwell did not himself hold the highest con- 
 ceptions on the subject, but he put in practice the views he did 
 hold. By him the leading sects were all tolerated. The nation 
 was ready for no such freedom, but the people were forced to 
 concede each others' rights. The English government was as 
 little representative as at any period in its history. Yet this 
 short specimen of limited toleration (for such it was) led many 
 men to see its desirability. The nation went back heartil}- to 
 the domination of overbearing kings, but never quite forgot the 
 days of Cromwellian freedom. 
 
 Full liberty of conscience was not accorded by the Protector, 
 nor even conceded by him as a principle. In a speech before 
 Parliament in 1654 he presented the following paragraph: 
 
 And indeed the character, wherewith this spirit and principle is described 
 in that place, is so legible and visible that he that runs may read it to be 
 amongst us : for by such the grace of God is turned into wantonnesse ; and 
 Christ and the Spirit of God made the cloak of all villainy and spurious 
 apprehensions, and although these things will not be owned publicly as to 
 practise (they being so abominable and odious) yet how this principle extends 
 itself and whence it had its Rise makes me think of a second sort of men ; 
 who it's true, as I said will not practise nor own these things ; yet can tell the 
 magistrate, that he hath nothing to do with men thus holding, for these are 
 matters of Conscience and Opinion ; they are matters of Religion ; for what 
 hath the Magistrate to do with these things ? he is to look to the outward man, 
 but not to meddle with the inward. And truly it so happens that though 
 these things do break out visibly to all, yet the principle wherewith these 
 things are carried on so forbids the Magistrate to meddle with them as it hath 
 hitherto kept the offenders from punishment. Such considerations and Pre- 
 tensions of Liberty ; Liberty of conscience and Liberty of Subjects, two as 
 glorious things to be contended for as any. God hath given us; yet both these 
 abused for the patronizing of villainies, insomuch as that it hath been an 
 
PERIOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH 83 
 
 ordinary thing to say and in Dispute to affirm, That it was not in the Magis- 
 trates power; he had nothing to do with it ; no not so much as the printing a 
 Bible to the nation for the use of the people, lest it be imposed upon the con- 
 sciences of men ; for they must receive the same Traditionally and implicitly 
 from the power of the Magistrate if thus received. The afore mentioned 
 abominations did thus swell to this height amongst us. 
 
 This deliverance might cause one to suppose that Cromwell 
 was denouncing the practice of licentiousness under the protec- 
 tion of the rights of conscience, did he not announce to us, as the 
 extreme of these villainies, the opposition to putting forth a 
 national Bible for the use of the people. But probably the most 
 exact statement of his view occurs in a state paper of the year 
 1653, the thirt3'-sixth and thirty-seventh articles of which con- 
 tain the following assertions : 
 
 That none be compelled to conform to the public religion, by penalties 
 or otherwise ; but that endeavours be used to win them by sound doctrine 
 and the example of a good conversation. 
 
 That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ though differing in judg- 
 ment from the doctrine or discipline publicly held forth shall not be restrained 
 from, but shall be protected in the profession of their faith and exercise of 
 their religion, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, 
 and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their part ; provided 
 this liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy, or to such, under a profes- 
 sion of Christ as hold forth and practise licentiousness. 
 
 These limitations in doctrine prepare us to hear of persecu- 
 tions for conscience sake under the Protectorate. Such a com- 
 plaint comes to us in a pamphlet of 1655, entitled "A True State 
 of the Case of Liberty of Conscience in the Commonwealth of 
 England" (B. M., E. 848 (12)). This is an apology for the 
 life and teachings of Mr. John Biddle, Unitarian, who was 
 imprisoned without trial, and kept for several years in the Poul- 
 try-Compter and Newgate prisons. 
 
 "The Enmite between the Two Seeds" (B. M., E. 848 (19)) 
 came out the same year. It is a biographical apology of John 
 Whithead, a Northampton Quaker. He with others had been 
 arrested in 1654 and imprisoned for preaching. So even Crom- 
 well, though in advance of many, did not obtain liberty 
 of conscience for his subjects, nor did he accept it as a 
 doctrine. 
 
84 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 The Quakers come into notice here as advocates of liberty. 
 Their first deliverance came from the pen of George Fox, in 
 1653. His language was not very dignified, and his reasoning 
 was painfully inconsequential. He began a movement, however, 
 the effect of which was not insignificant. His work has for its 
 subject "A Warning to the Rulers of England Not to usurp 
 Dominion over the conscience nor to give forth Lawes contrary 
 to that in the conscience" (B. M., E. 727 (9)). A few short 
 quotations will show the animus of the tract and the manner of 
 the writer : 
 
 But you that go to make Lawes in your wils against the Righteous and 
 them that act according to that in the conscience, which is according to the 
 law of God, which is perfect and forever, the Law of God will hew you down, 
 which is forever as it has done many generacions before you. 
 
 Oh, never profess Christ and guard your church and ministry, as you call 
 it, with a popish Antichristian Law. Let this never be mencioned in Ages to 
 come as it is mentioned in this Age, how many have suffred by her Law, and 
 suffers now, and yet you cry up the Gospel, and cry against such as act 
 according to that in the conscience. 
 
 They that fear the Lord have mutual Peace among themselves, you need 
 not make a Law for them. 
 
 Fox was impressed rather with the particular claims of the 
 Quakers than with the Scripture demands for unlimited freedom. 
 The agony of his people aroused his wrath. He was not calm 
 enough to argue. The peculiar sanctity of this followers could 
 not allow him to plead in humility. He could scarcely utter 
 anything but threats. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 LATER STUART PERIOD. 
 
 The Protectorate, never altogether acceptable to the people, 
 became more and more unpopular. This revulsion of feeling 
 became well-nigh universal. To turn away from the Cromwell 
 family was to turn back to the Stuart line. The early Stuarts, 
 James I. and Charles I., had exasperated the nation by attempt- 
 ing to force their claims of absurd prerogatives. Now the later 
 Stuarts, Charles II. and James II., are to be seen incurring dis- 
 pleasure and disgust by their arbitrary and incompetent domi- 
 nation. The tyranny of this house was first interrupted by a 
 rebellion and civil war ; it is next to be terminated by a nearly 
 unamimous, and therefore a bloodless, revolution. 
 
 When Charles II. was invited into the kingdom, and before 
 leaving the continent, he was approached by the English dissent- 
 ing bodies. Through their representatives they sought to secure, 
 each for itself, religious rights or privileges in harmony with its 
 ideas of toleration. The Presb3^terians were most forward in 
 making their arrangements with Charles. They had become dis- 
 pleased with Cromwell because of his tolerant disposition. It 
 was within their hopes to obtain a national church after the Pres- 
 byterian form. They proposed that the Prayer Book should be 
 revised and used. In all this Charles craftily encouraged them. 
 
 The Baptists met the newly selected king with propositions. 
 These propositions were drawn up and signed by ten prominent 
 men, among whom was John Sturgion. In accordance with their 
 doctrine, as previously seen, they sought to obtain full liberty of 
 conscience. Their third proposition reads : 
 
 Forasmuch as it cannot be denied but that our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, by his death and resurrection has purchased the liberties of his own 
 people, and is thereby become their sole Lord and King, to whom, and to 
 whom only, they owe obedience in things spiritual ; we do therefore humbly 
 beseech your majesty, that you would engage your royal word never to erect 
 or suffer to be erected, any such tyrranical, popish, and Antichristian hier- 
 archy (episcopal, presbyterian, or by what name soever it may be called,) as 
 
 85 
 
86 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 shall assume a power or impose a yoke upon the consciences of others ; but 
 that every one of your majesty's subjects may hereafter be left at liberty to 
 worship God in such a way, form, and manner, as shall appear to them to be 
 agreeable to the mind and will of Christ, revealed in his word, according 
 to that proportion or measure of faith and knowledge which they have 
 received.*' 
 
 In response to these and other approaches, the new govern- 
 ment, when it was established (1661), called together the Savoy 
 Conference. The Independents and Baptists took no part in 
 this, for it was soon seen to be an attempt to form a new national 
 creed. The prelates of the old establishment, having come into 
 power again, offered to make certain concessions. T^e Puritans 
 present accepted none of them. The matter was then taken up 
 politically, and in the next year the " Act of Uniformity" was 
 passed. This law provided that every clergyman and school- 
 teacher refusing to express his assent to everything demanded 
 in the Book of Common Prayer, on or before August 24, 1662, 
 was to be precluded from holding a benefice, and every occupant 
 of a benefice must have been ordained by a bishop, and all must 
 renounce the " Solemn League and Covenant." ^^ This resulted 
 in the ejectment of two thousand ministers from their cures on 
 St. Bartholomew's day (August 24), which was just before the 
 annual collection of tithes. Many of these ejected ministers 
 were Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, appointed by 
 Cromwell. 
 
 During this same year the Corporation Act was also passed 
 and received the royal assent. It provided that all who held 
 offices in municipal corporations must renounce the covenant 
 and take an oath of non-resistance to the crown declaring it 
 unlawful to bear arms against the king, and that no one should 
 hold municipal office who had not received sacrament according 
 to the rites of the Church of England.^3 The object of this law 
 was to keep dissenters, not only out of the offices of the corpora- 
 tions, but also out of the House of Commons, since many of its 
 members were elected by the corporations. 
 
 *• Edward, Earl of Clarendon, Hist, of Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, 
 Book XV, Vol. VI, p. 8, of Oxford ed. 
 
 ^ Gee and Hardy's Documents, pp. 600-619. *3 Statutes of the Realm, V, p. 321. 
 
LATER STUART PERIOD 87 
 
 The Conventicle Act and the Five Mile Act followed hard 
 after these enactments. The former was passed in 1664, to con- 
 tinue in force three years. It defined a conventicle as five persons 
 in a gathering, over and above the residents of the place. All 
 conventicles for worship, save those of the established church, 
 were forbidden. Severe fines were exacted of all who were con- 
 victed of participating in such unlawful meetings. In 1670 this 
 law, slightly modified, was reenacted. The Five Mile Act, 
 passed in 1665, provided that expelled ministers, until they had 
 subscribed to the Act of Uniformity and taken oath that resistance 
 to the king was unlawful, should not settle within five miles of 
 any corporate town or get their living by teaching in any public 
 or private school, or be within such distance of a corporation or 
 borough except only to pass along the road.''-' 
 
 In 1673 the Test Act was passed, by which no person was 
 allowed to hold office under the crown unless he had taken 
 sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England and 
 made a declaration against transubstantiation. This act was not 
 directed so much against the dissenters in general as against the 
 Duke of York, who was heir to the throne and was a Roman 
 Catholic. 
 
 The partial enforcement of these laws caused great distress 
 among the dissenters. Imprisonments, fines, and confiscations 
 were very frequent. Many who were wealthy became poor from 
 confiscations. Many whose health had been vigorous died from 
 imprisonment. The government did not revive the act for the 
 burning of heretics; but, short of that, it neglected nothing that 
 would make the lot of the dissenters miserable. The sentiment 
 of the majority of the people would not longer endure the death 
 penalty for religious nonconformity, but did not revolt at 
 imprisonment in unwholesome jails which slowly effected the 
 same result in many cases. Since the days of Queen Mary, 
 England had not seen such persecution. Nor did this arise so 
 much from the cruelty of the king as from the determination of 
 the ministry to keep down dissent and thus avoid another such 
 a revolution as arose in the days of Charles I. 
 
 ^^ Statutes of the Realm, V, p. 575. 
 
88 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 The accession of James II., whose desire was to reinstate 
 Roman Catholicism, effected a marked change in the treatment 
 of the dissenters. In 1687 the king put out his Declaration of 
 Indulgence, by which he suspended all laws for conformity and 
 also all tests, suggesting that Parliament would doubtless uphold 
 him when he saw fit for it to meet.^^ 
 
 Such were the conditions under which the contest for liberty 
 of conscience was carried on during this later Stuart period. 
 Just previous to it the ruling element of the people had been 
 favorable to a general toleration of the sects, for dissent was 
 then in power. A general revulsion of feeling against the 
 Cromwell party let into power the party of the old establish- 
 ment, whose hostility toward dissenters was sharpened by its 
 sufferings and its desire to stifle such dangerous foes. 
 
 In these trying circumstances the Baptists continued to prose- 
 cute the cause of full liberty of conscience. In March of the year 
 1660 a declaration of faith was put forth, "Subscribed by certain 
 Elders, Deacons, and Brethren met in London, in behalf of them- 
 selves, and many others unto whom they belong, in London, and 
 in several Counties of this Nation, who are of the same faith with 
 us." This document consisted of twenty-five articles, was signed 
 by forty-one persons, and is stated to have been " Owned and 
 approved by more than twenty thousand." Article XXIV stands 
 as follows : (We believe) 
 
 That it is the will and mind of God (in these Gospel times) that all men 
 should have free liberty of their own consciences in matters of Religion or 
 worship, without the least oppression, or persecution, as simply upon that 
 account ; and that for any in authority otherwise to act, we confidently 
 believe is expressly contrary to the mind of Christ, who requires that whatso- 
 ever men would that others should do to them, they should even so do unto 
 others. Matt. 7. 12. And that the Tares and the Wheat should grow together 
 in the field, (which is the world) until the harvest (which is the end of the 
 world) Mat. 13. 29, 30, 38, 39. 
 
 In the next article (XXV) they admit, in explicit language, 
 the civil function of the magistrate, but refuse to obey when he 
 •'imposes things about matters of religion " which conflict with 
 their consciences. They do not claim that their views are widely 
 adopted, but say : 
 
 *s Gee and Hardy's Doaunents, pp. 641-4. 
 
LATER STUART PERIOD 89 
 
 These things O ye sons and daughters of men we verily believe to be the 
 Lord's will and mind, and therefore cannot but speak, and if herein we differ 
 from many, yea from multitudes, from the learned, and the wise and prudent 
 of this world we (with Peter and John) do herein make our solemn and seri- 
 ous appeal namely, whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto 
 men (of a contrary persuasion) more than unto God. (B. M., E. 1017 (14).) 
 By this time a considerable number had arisen to sustain 
 these unpopular doctrines. The effect of an organization num- 
 bering twenty thousand, the purpose of which was mostly 
 propagation of opinion, will seldom be overestimated. Admit- 
 ting themselves that they were unlearned, no one would admit 
 that they were not zealous. 
 
 A short pamphlet was published this same year (1660) 
 which attracted no little attention. Some persons in Kent were 
 arrested because of their Baptist views and incarcerated in the 
 " Gaol of Maidstone." Their sufferings brought out, not only a 
 complaint, but another statement of opinion. They proposed to 
 prove that " no power is given to the magistrates as such to 
 impose anything in the worship and service of God on the con- 
 science." Some of the points they attempt to make in it are: 
 (i) If magistrates have authority, all magistrates, even Papists 
 and Turks, have such authority. (2) If they have any such 
 power, it must have been given by Christ, who has all power on 
 earth and in heaven, but the whole stream of New Testament 
 Scripture runs in another channel. (3) The apostles, who gave 
 the commands concerning obeying the magistrates, disobeyed 
 their rulers in religious matters. All the Scriptures of the New 
 Testament were written when the idolatrous Romans ruled. 
 (4) If magistrates have such power in spiritual matters, then 
 Christians must be actually obedient, and that for conscience 
 sake, and otherwise they would resist the ordinance of God. 
 This would remove all responsibility from men not magistrates.^^ 
 
 A far more comprehensive argument^^ appeared in 1661. It 
 was signed Thomas Monch, Joseph Wright, George Hammon, 
 William Jeffery, Francis Stanley, William Reynolds, and Francis 
 Smith. Its title is "Sions Groans for her Distressed." The design 
 is set forth in a prefatory address to the " Courteous Reader." 
 
 *«Crosby, Vol. II, pp. 22-6. ^T Ibid., pp. 98-144. 
 
90 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 It is for the " general good, in setting at libert}- that which God 
 made free, even the conscience." Mention is made of the con- 
 troversy that " is now on foot as to uniformity in worship." The 
 Baptists before them, like all others, had quite regularly appealed 
 to the magistrates for redress from their grievances ; but here 
 they begin to appeal to humanity in general. In the introduc- 
 tion they say : 
 
 Lest therefore, those unchristian principles of persecution for conscience 
 should take root in this nation, we have here following written some argu- 
 ments which we humbly offer to all men, to prove how contrary to the Gospel 
 of our Lord Jesus, and to good reason, it is for any magistrate, by outward 
 force, to impose anything in the worship of God, on the consciences of those 
 whom they govern. 
 
 The subject discussed b}^ the authors was put in the form of 
 a dilemma: "If any magistrate under heaven, in the days of the 
 Gospel, hath power by outward force to impose anything in the 
 worship of God, on the conscience ; it is given as a magistrate 
 only, or as a christian so considered." Both horns of this 
 dilemma are denied and their denial vigorously sustained, each 
 being opposed by five arguments. No new treatment of the sub- 
 ject is found here. Its effect, however, is made plain by the 
 lengthy rebuttal published by the prominent author, Henry Sav- 
 age. This came out in 1663, under the heading, "The Dew of 
 Hernion, Which fell on the Hill of Sion, or an Answer to a Book 
 entituled Sions groans for her distressed &c." (Newberry Lib.). 
 Savage spent eight elaborate sections in attempting to refute 
 what he regarded " the Anabaptists " to oppose in the established 
 church doctrines that is not mentioned in the work that called 
 forth his opposition. He inferred that the Miinster Anabap- 
 tists were on a par with the Maidstone prisoners, and that they 
 were responsible, at least in part, for the Venner insurrection.^^ 
 
 **Venner was a fanatical wine-cooper who, during the rule of Cromwell, was 
 engaged in plotting against the government, and therefore was seized with 
 everal of his confederates. After the Restoration, he, with about fifty associates, 
 took violent possession of St. Paul's in the name of King Jesus, as they said. The 
 first troop sent to dislodge them was unsuccessful. On the approach of the lord 
 mavor's forces they drew off into the woods near Highgate. Later, being nearly 
 famished, they made a desperate charge into the city and were with difficulty over- 
 come by the city regiments. The Quakers, Anabaptists, and Independents disowned 
 any sympathy with this fifth monarchy outbreak. (Letter of SiR John Finch in 
 J. Stoughton, Rel. in Eng., Vol. Ill, pp. 140 f.) 
 
LA TER S TUA R T PERIOD 9 1 
 
 In a sentence he expressed the essential difference in hypothesis 
 between Baptists and Pedobaptists : "And albeit these men will 
 (what never any, but persons sprung from Anabaptists did) reject 
 all examples and testimonies out of the Old Testament, unless it 
 serve their turn." This charge, while made to sound unpleasant 
 by the harshness of phraseology induced by rank hostility, still 
 expresses the truth. These pamphlets, like many that came out 
 before them, made clear that the Baptists supported their views 
 concerning Christian duty by arguments from the New Testament, 
 and not from the Old, if in their judgment the teaching of the 
 Old conflicted with that of the New. That it was possible for 
 the Jewish revelation and the Christian revelation to give con- 
 tradictory impressions they conceded. 
 
 During this year John Sturgion, one of the Baptists who 
 represented the denomination in approaching Charles before he 
 had entered the kingdom, put out "A Plea for ToUeration of 
 Opinions and Perswasions in Matters of Religion Differing from 
 the Church of England" (B. M., E. 1086 (3); also Tracts.) 
 Though given a high place by some, this effort is scarcely worthy 
 of mention here. The king's promise of toleration, which was 
 made at Breda, is recalled to his attention. Baptists are exoner- 
 ated from complicity in the Venner insurrection. A few of the 
 ordinary reasons were barely mentioned. As weak as this tract 
 is, it was reprinted in 1686, evidently appealing to someone as 
 a valuable contribution to the literature on the subject. 
 
 Various confessions of faith were put forth by these people 
 during the later years of Stuart rule. This doctrine is expressed 
 in various forms in them. The confession of 1677, which was 
 reiterated by the assembly of 1689, says: 
 
 God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doc- 
 trines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word 
 or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such com- 
 mands out of conscience and the requiring of an implicit faith, and absolute 
 blind obedience is to destroy liberty and reason also.^^ 
 
 In 1678 an anonymous publication came out styled "An 
 Orthodox Creed or a Protestant Confession of faith &c. &c. 
 Being an Essay to Unite & Confirm all true Protestants in the 
 
 «9 Crosby, Vol. Ill, p. 258, and App., p. 93. 
 
92 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 fundamental Articles of the Christian religion against the Errours 
 and Heresies of Rome." The times are a commentary on the 
 purpose of this production. James II. was on the throne. As 
 an avowed Roman Catholic, he was arbitrarily granting tolera- 
 tion to both Catholics and dissenters. Dissenters were being 
 cajoled to make favors to Catholics appear consistent. This 
 aroused Protestants in general to oppose the reentrance of 
 Romanism into England. Article XXVIII, upon the subject of 
 baptism, makes it plain that the document was of Baptist origin. 
 So it appears that this was given out by the Baptists as a model 
 confession, by the acceptance of which all Protestants could 
 unite in an intelligent Christian faith which would effectually 
 resist Romanism, without denying it the right to exist. Its 
 statement concerning consience is found in Article XLVI : 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ who is king of kings and lord of all by purchase, 
 and is judge of quick and dead is only Lord of Conscience; having a peculiar 
 right so to be. He having died for that end, to take away the guilt, and to 
 destroy the filth of sin that keeps the conscience of all men in thraldom and 
 bondage till they are set free by his special grace. And therefore he would 
 not have the consciences of men in bondage to or imposed upon by any usur- 
 pation, tyranny, or command whatsoever, contrary to his revealed will in his 
 word, which is the only rule he hath left for the consciences of all men to be 
 ruled, and regulated and guided by, through the assistance of his spirit. And 
 therefore the obedience to any command, or decree that is not revealed in or 
 consonant to his word in the holy oracles of scripture is a betraying of the 
 true liberty of conscience. And the requiring of an implicit faith, and an 
 absolute blind obedience destroys liberty of conscience, and reason also, it 
 being repugnant to both, and that no pretended good end whatsoever by any 
 man can make that action, obedience or practise, lawful and good that is not 
 grounded in, or upon the authority of holy scripture or right reason agree- 
 able thereto.7° 
 
 It is likely that this last statement of the doctrine was 
 softened in order to make more probable its acceptance bv 
 Pedobaptist thinkers. Such considerations, however, are not 
 present to account for the increasing tameness of the arguments 
 advanced. The Baptists did not fall away from the high ideal 
 which they had held so long, but circumstances combined to 
 decrease their ardor in its propagation. Prominent among these 
 was the license accorded them by James. They did not approve 
 
 7° Crosby, Vol. Ill, second App., No. i. 
 
LA 7ER S TUA R T PERIOD 9 3 
 
 of the king's motives nor of the mere toleration accorded them, 
 yet the fact that they took advantage of it diminished the force 
 of whatever arguments they might make. 
 
 This is the period when the noted Baptist, John Bunyan, 
 was most conspicuous. We are concerned to know his attitude 
 on this question, the solution of which so much affected him 
 personally. Though he did not enter the lists as a champion 
 of liberty of conscience, he expressed himself upon the sub- 
 ject. 7' In a "Relation of the Imprisonment of Mr. John 
 Bunyan," by himself, he speaks as follows concerning his trial 
 in court : 
 
 I said, shew me the place in the epistles where the Common-Prayer-Book 
 is written, or one text of Scripture that commands me to read it and I will 
 use it. But yet notwithstanding, said I, they that have a mind to use it, they 
 have their liberty, that is, I would not keep them from it ; but for our part we 
 can pray to God without it. 
 
 Bunyan has also appended a note to this " Relation " in which 
 he declares that " it is not the spirit of a christian to persecute 
 any for their religion, but to pity them ; and if they will to 
 instruct them." Bunyan's disposition to evangelize rather than 
 to indoctrinate explains his silent acceptance of the right of pri- 
 vate judgment. 
 
 The position taken by the Independents in this part of the 
 contest may be found succinctly stated in "A Declaration of the 
 Faith and Order, Owned and practised in the Congregational 
 Churches in England." ^^ The twenty-fourth chapter treats the 
 function of the civil magistrate. Their stand for toleration is 
 taken in the following sentence : 
 
 Although the Magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect 
 the professors and profession of the Gospel, and to manage and order civil 
 administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, 
 and to that end to take care that men of corrupt mindes and conversations do 
 not licentiously publish and divulge Blasphemies and Errors, in their own 
 nature subverting the faith, and inevitably destroying the souls of them that 
 receive them ; yet in such differences about the doctrine of the Gospel, or 
 ways of the worship of God, as may befal men exercising a good conscience, 
 manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing 
 
 7' Bunyan's Works. 
 
 '^'Savoy, 1658. Printed London, 1659. (Dr. W.'s lib.) 
 
94 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 others in their ways of worship that differ from them ; there is no warrant for 
 the Magistrate under the Gospel to abridge them of their liberty. 
 
 This toleration, then, was broad enough to include Christians 
 (not Jews or Turks) who quietly held what they (the Congrega- 
 tionalists) regarded as the foundation of the faith, provided they 
 did not propagate ideas considered by the Congregationalists as 
 blasphemies and errors in their own nature. They could toler- 
 ate such differences about the doctrine of the gospel, or ways of 
 the worship of God, as were held by those whom they credited 
 with exercising a good conscience. 
 
 The most notable commentator upon this view was the cele- 
 brated Dr. John Owen, of whom it is said that "with massive 
 and sinewy brain and exhaustive learning" he "so built up the 
 principles of Congregationalism that if all the works on that sub- 
 ject which have since been written were destroyed, the Congre- 
 gational churches of England could stand behind his treatises as 
 behind an impregnable rampart." He is also characterized as 
 "the greatest champion of Independent principles that ever 
 adorned the denomination."" This man was also regarded as a 
 great champion of toleration. ^^ His greatness and the force of 
 his advocacy of his theory on this subject must be admitted. Owen 
 was a conspicuous figure in the public life of the Commonwealth 
 period, but his first important treatment of toleration came from 
 
 73SKEATS AND MlALL, j^wA of Free Churches in Eng., pp. 6l and 71. 
 
 74 In the Goold edition of Owen's Works is an undiscriminating tribute to Owen 
 for his advocacy of toleration. " It is enough to say of Owen and his party, that in 
 their attachment to these principles they were greatly in advance of their contempo- 
 raries ; and that the singular praise was theirs, of having been equally zealous for tol- 
 eration when their party had risen to power, as when they were a weak and persecuted 
 sect. And when we consider the auspicious juncture at which Owen gave forth his 
 sentiments on this momentous subject, his influence over that great religious party of 
 which he was long the chief ornament and ruling spirit, as well as the deference 
 shown to him by the political leaders and patriots of the age, it is not too much to say,, 
 that when the names of Jeremy Taylor and Milton, and Vane and Locke are men- 
 tioned, that of John Owen must not be forgotten, as one of the most signal of those 
 who helped to fan and quicken, if not to kindle, in England that flame which, ' by 
 God's help shall never go out;' who casting abroad their thoughts on the public mind 
 when it was in a state of fusion and impressibility, became its preceptors on the rights 
 of conscience, and have contributed to make the principles of religious freedom in 
 England familiar, omnipresent, and beneficent as the light or the air." (Andrew 
 Thompson, Life of Owen, p. xli.) 
 
LA l^ER STUA R T PERIOD 9 5 
 
 the press in the year 1667. Two, and possibly three, pamphlets 
 came from his hand that year. His "Peace Offering in an 
 Apology and Humble Plea for Indulgence and Liberty of Con- 
 science " is distinctly a denominational tract." The purity of 
 the doctrines of the Congregationalists is the ground on which 
 he rests his claim for their indulgence. He urges that differ- 
 ences have always existed in the thought of Christians, and that 
 therefore in their lesser differences they should be endured. 
 The dissenters, he says, are the industrial backbone of the king- 
 dom, and their injury is the injury of the kingdom. As a 
 denominational apology this tract is all that could be desired ; 
 but to regard it as treating liberty of conscience is absurd. The 
 gist of the inferences and arguments it contains may be summed 
 up in a sentence : We have no legal right to exist as a denomina- 
 tion, but we are harmless, therefore do not disturb us.^^ 
 
 A much higher conception is found in "Indulgence and Tol- 
 eration Considered."" In it Owen contends that the forcing of 
 conscience by censures and punishments cannot be sustained by 
 appeal to examples or precepts of either the Old or New Testa- 
 ment ; that it is not expedient to force conscience ; and that 
 liberty of conscience is practicable for national affairs. 
 
 The third work, which probably appeared the same year ( 1667) , 
 has for its title " The Grounds and Reasons On which Protestant 
 Dissenters Desire Their Liberty." ^s fhe grounds and reasons 
 set forth are : 
 
 1. We are Protestants. 
 
 2. We are ready to make the renunciation of popish principles required 
 by law. 
 
 3. " We own and acknowledge the power of the king or supreme magistrate 
 in this nation as it is declared in the 37th article of religion." 
 
 "B. M. 4139 d. ; also Owen's Works, Goold ed., Vol. XIII, pp. 541-73- 
 7* " And what are We, that Public Disturbances should be feared from Us ? Nee 
 pondera rerum nee momenta sumus ; By what way or means, were we never so desir- 
 ous, could we contribute anything thereunto ? What designs are we capable of ? 
 What interest have we to pursue, What Assistance to expect or look after? What 
 title to pretend ? What hopes of success ? What Reward of any hazard to be under- 
 gone ? We have no Form of Government, Civil or Ecclesiastical, to impose on the 
 nation." (Owen, Peace Offering, p. 8. B. M. 4139 d.) 
 
 77 Works, Vol. XIII, pp. 518-40. 78 B. M. 105, f. 20 (18), and Works. 
 
96 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Two reasons are here given as a plea for liberty. One is that 
 they will not concede liberty to the Roman Catholics, and the 
 other is that they hold the national doctrine on the subject of 
 the magistrate. This unqualified acceptance of the thirty-seventh 
 article of religion makes quite plain the views of the Independ- 
 ents in general and Owen in particular. This article, established 
 in I 571, is well worth our consideration. It reads : 
 
 The Queene's Majestic hath the cheefe power in this Realme of Englande, 
 and other her dominions, unto whom the cheefe government of all estates of 
 this Realme, whether they be Ecclesiastical or civile, in all causes doth 
 appartein, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any forraigne jurisdiction. 
 
 Where we attribute to the Queenes Majestie the cheefe government, by 
 which titles we understande the mindes of some slaunderous folkes to be 
 offended : we give not to our princes the ministering of God's word, or the 
 sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth 
 our Queene, doth most plainlye testifye : But that only prerogative which we 
 see to have ben geven alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God 
 himselfe, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to 
 their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporall, and restrain 
 with the civill sworde the stubborne and evylldoers. 
 
 The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realme of England. The 
 lawes of the Realme may punish Christian men with death for heynous and 
 greevous offences. 
 
 It is lawfull for christian men, at the commaundment of the Magistrate, 
 to weare weapons, and serve in the warres.^' 
 
 This article, given here entire, early became the Church of 
 England's warrant for persecution. In ecclesiastical affairs, as 
 well as civil, the sword is assigned its part to play. To approve 
 of this article was to sanction England's main statute of oppres- 
 sion. 
 
 Two years later, in 1669, Dr. Owen put forth another tract 
 upon this subject. ^° In size it is quite pretentious, making a 
 volume of 409 pages. That the author's thought had suffered no 
 material change in the intervening time may be indicated by one 
 quotation : 
 
 To take care of the church and religion, that it receive no detriment, by 
 all the ways and means appointed by God and useful thereunto, is the duty 
 of magistrates ; but it is also, antecedently to their actings unto this purpose, 
 
 79 Hardwick, Hist, of the Articles, App. VII, p. 313. 
 
 ^ Truth and Innocence Vindicated. B. M. 4 1 03, b. 
 
LATER STUART PERIOD 97 
 
 to discern aright which is the church whereunto this promise is made ; without 
 which they cannot duly discharge their trust nor fulfil the promise itself 
 (p. 402). 
 
 In other words, Owen maintains that there is one true church, 
 that it should be cared for by the state, that the king must 
 decide which this church is, and that unless he makes the right 
 selection he cannot discharge his duty. Such a mixture of pre- 
 rogative and responsibility certainly would have made the magis- 
 trate's position a delicate one. 
 
 These are the documents upon which must rest the claim 
 that John Owen was one of the great advocates of tolerance and 
 liberty of conscience. As an exponent of his denomination he 
 was truly illustrious, but his conceptions on this topic were far 
 from ideal. 
 
 In this period the Quakers enter prominently into public 
 view for the first time. George Fox has already been seen to 
 break forth in a denunciation of persecution and the persecuting 
 party. This was only the beginning of a fusillade which was to 
 continue for more than a score of years. On the accession of 
 Charles II. Fox greeted him with a pamphlet "Concerning 
 Religion and the Spirit of Persecution." In it Fox instructed the 
 king how to act in religious matters. No argument is attempted, 
 but a succinct statement of duty is presented. Among other 
 recommendations is one for unlimited toleration.^' Six Quakers, 
 Fox being the first among them, appealed to the king and Par- 
 liament in 1661. As taxpayers they desired to have "as much 
 liberty as Stage-Players and Montebanks, and Ballad-Singers, 
 who meet together in hundreds to the Dishonor of God." (B. M. 
 4152, c. 21, p. 7.) Only a few of the most ordinary arguments 
 against persecution are mentioned. After this several tracts 
 appeared. In them Fox displayed great perseverance and 
 determination. He seldom rose above the distress and needs of 
 his particular flock, though he held to the theory of liberty of 
 conscience. He was not a logician. He lacked force, order, 
 and fulness. In these writings he displays less than ordinary 
 
 «"'A Noble Salutation And a Faithful Greeting Unto Thee Charles Stuart," etc. 
 B. M.,— 4. 
 
98 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 acumen. His position in this contest was that of an adherent 
 who possessed a power of leadership by which he so trained his 
 followers that they became better advocates than he. 
 
 One of these followers was Edw. Borroughs. In his "Just 
 and Righteous Plea" he attempted to show that persecution was 
 an enemy to the king's person and authority. His ten reasons 
 for this are : 
 
 1. It eats out the affections of many good and sober people. 
 
 2. It is contrary to the trust God hath reposed in him. 
 
 3. Its partiality may cause heart burnings, envyings, strifes and murmur- 
 ings among his subjects. 
 
 4. It provokes God to be offended with him. 
 
 5. It provokes the Lord not only to anger but to judgment. 
 
 6. It makes righteous men sad and weakens their affections. 
 
 7. It makes the King dishonorable in the sight of all. 
 
 8. Persecution is of the Devil. 
 
 Q. It follows the example of Pharaoh, Ahab, Herod, Nero, etc. 
 10. Its end will be the King's misery and destruction.^^ 
 While such argument is nowadays generally held to be puerile, 
 there was a large class to whom this appealed on its publication. 
 That it was exclusively religious in character would cause it to 
 be regarded favorably by many. 
 
 As early as 1662 William Smith published a short treatise, 
 giving most of his space to an apology for the Quakers, but 
 expressing himself as favoring liberty to all. His most telling 
 point is that, since all admit the doctrine of the gospel, all must 
 admit toleration, since the gospel cannot effect its purpose with- 
 out toleration. (B. M. 224, a. 42(5)-) 
 
 By far the most able advocate among the Quakers signed his 
 name P. (W.), and without doubt was William Penn. His 
 pamphlet was written while he was a prisoner in Newgate. The 
 subject is "The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience Once 
 more Briefly Debated & Defended by the Authority of Reason, 
 Scripture and Antiquity" (B. M., T. 407 (5)). He says: 
 
 The present cause of this Address is to solicite a Conversion of that 
 power to our Relief which hitherto hath been employed to our depression ; 
 that after this large experience of our Innocency, and long since expired 
 Apprenticeship of cruel Sufferings, you will be pleased to cancel all our 
 
 8»B. M. 4151, aa. 57. 
 
LATER STUART PERIOD 99 
 
 bonds and give us a Possession of those Freedoms to which we are entituled 
 by English Birthright. 
 
 A bare outline of the discussion will reveal many of its excel- 
 lences : 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 God's prerogative is invaded by imposition, restraint, and persecution. 
 
 1. They robb God of his Right of Creation. 
 
 2. They suppose infallibility in man, contrary to Protestant principles. 
 
 3. Man attributes all to himself, and takes God's share and his own too. 
 
 4. It defeats the work of his grace. 
 
 5. They assume the Judgment Seat. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 They overturn the Christian Religion, 
 
 1. In the Nature of it, which is meekness. 
 
 2. In the Practise of it, which is suffering. 
 
 3. In the Promotion of it, since all further discoveries are prohibited. 
 
 4. In the Rewards of it, which are eternal. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 They oppose the plainest testimonies of Divine Writ that can be, which 
 condemn all force upon conscience. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 They are enemies to the privilege of nature; 
 
 1. As rendering some more and others less than men. 
 
 2. As subverting the universal Good that is God's gift to men. 
 
 3. As destroying all natural affection. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 They carry a contradiction to government ; 
 
 1. In the Nature of it, which is Justice. 
 
 2. In the Execution of it, which is Prudence. 
 
 3. In the End of it, which is Felicity. 
 
 In the sixth and last chapter examples of toleration are 
 given and testimonies of authorities cited. The tract was drawn 
 out by the oppression occasioned by the Conventicle Act, and 
 its application is limited to the Quakers, but its arguments are 
 general. A real liberty of conscience was the author's ideal. 
 The work shows insight and ability. The propositions were 
 freshly put, the arguments concise, and the proofs ample. This 
 
100 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 is by far the greatest product which our subject has extracted 
 from Quaker talent.^3 
 
 The most interesting feature of this part of the contest was 
 the opposition of the established-church party. Here is the 
 beginning of their transitional period. There were many still to 
 sustain persecution with great warmth. Unanimity, however, 
 was past. The persecutions undergone by the churchmen during 
 the Commonwealth period tended to overthrow their hypothesis 
 that might and right were necessarily in cooperation in England. 
 Jeremy Taylor's advanced position doubtless affected them 
 somewhat. But the circumstances which aroused his mind prob- 
 ably came in course of time to work on many others as on him. 
 
 An anonymous document of some significance was printed 
 at Oxford in 1670. It was directed against dissenters, and con- 
 sisted of quotations from them in opposition to liberty. Its 
 lengthy title suggests its motive and outlines its thought. It is : 
 "Toleration Disproved and Condemned By the Authority and 
 convincing Reasons of I. That Wise and Learned King James 
 and his Privy-Councill. Anno Reg. 2d. II. The Honourable 
 Commons Assembled in this present Parliament in their votes 
 &c. 1662. III. The Presbyterian Ministers in the city of Lon- 
 don met at Sion-CoUedge December 18, 1645- IV. Twenty 
 eminent Divines (most (if not all) of them Members of the late 
 Assembly) in their Sermons before the two Houses of Parlia- 
 ment on Solemn Occasions, Faithfully Collected by a very Mod- 
 erate Hand, and humbly Presented to the Serious Consideration 
 
 83 " Confession of the Society of Friends, Commonly Called Quakers (A. D. 1675). 
 The Fourteenth Proposition Concerning the Power of the Civil Magistrate, m matters 
 purely religious and pertaming to the conscience. 
 
 Since God hath assumed to himself the power and dominion of the conscience, 
 who alone can rightly instruct and govern it, therefore it is not lawful for anywhat-so- 
 ever, by virtue of any authority or principality they bear in the government of this 
 world, to force the consciences of others; and therefore all killing, famishing, fining 
 imprisoning and other such things, which men are afflicted with, for the alone exercise 
 of their conscience or difference in worship or opinion proceedeth from the spirit of 
 Cain, the murderer and is contrary to the truth ; provided always that no man under 
 pretense of conscience, prejudice his neighbor in his life or estate, or do any thing 
 destructive to, or inconsistent with human society; in which case the law is for the 
 transgressor, and justice to be administered upon all without respect of persons." 
 (SCHAFF. Vol. Ill, pp. 797 f-) 
 
LA TER STUA R T PERIOD 1 1 
 
 of all Dissenting Parties." (B. M. 4106 c.) The testimony 
 of the wise and learned James was not of value to anyone in 
 this conflict, since it could be cited in favor of both sides, but 
 the quotations from the ministers were pertinent. The Presby- 
 terians were hopeful at first that theirs would become the estab- 
 lished church. ^t Upon being disappointed in this, they sought 
 again to be tolerated The point of this pamphlet was that 
 those who did not believe in toleration ought not to seek it for 
 themselves. The names of the ministers whose testimonies are 
 recited are of interest, since they quite definitely locate in this 
 contest some conspicuous characters. They are : Dr. Cornelius 
 Burgesse, Mr. John Ward, Mr. William Good, Mr. Thomas 
 Thorowgood, Mr. Humphrey Hardwick, Mr. Arthur Salway, Mr. 
 William Reyner, Mr. Thomas Case, Mr. John Lightfoot, Mr. 
 Thomas Watson, Mr. George Hughes, Mr. Edmund Calamy, 
 Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Horton, Mr. Lazarus Seaman, 
 Mr. Matthew Newcomen, Mr. Richard Vines, Mr. Simeon 
 Ash, Mr. James Cranford, Mr. Thomas Edwards. By presenting 
 the bare quotations of these preachers the editor supposed that 
 he had an irresistible argument as against their later pleas for 
 privileges. The compilation exists as a perpetual memorial of 
 the opposition of early Presbyterians to the right of private 
 judgment. To us it is a notable instance of extreme weakness 
 in arguments from testimony. 
 
 A pretentious tract (350 pages) also came out that year in 
 favor of conformity. It was " Toleration Discussed in two Dia- 
 loges, I. Betwixt a Conformist and a Non-conformist; Laying 
 open the impiety and danger of a General Liberty, H. Betwixt 
 a Presbyterian and an Independent; Concluding, upon an Impar- 
 tial Examination of their Respective Practises and Opinions in 
 
 ^■^The London Presbyterian ministers who went as a deputation to the king 
 before his entrance into the country are said to have adopted an intolerant policy 
 They labored with Charles to get a promise from him that he would not make use of 
 the Common Prayer, even in his private chapel. At any rate, they would have it 
 altered by his chaplains. The king replied that, since they wanted liberty, they should 
 accord the same to him. They objected to allowing the surplice to be worn, but he 
 said that while giving so much liberty to others he must be left untrammeled. {Cf. 
 Stoughton, III, pp. 68 f.) 
 
102 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Favour of the Independent" (B. M. 874, d. 24). The writer rep- 
 resented the nonconformists as advocating a limited toleration, 
 which, he said, "would give abundant satisfaction" (p. 16). 
 The conformist in the dialogue insisted that no toleration should 
 be admitted, except with the allowance of the chief magistrate 
 (sec. iii). The victory in this debate is ascribed to the con- 
 formist. In the second part the Presbyterian is condemned rather 
 than the Independent, but neither is given much praise. 
 
 Henry Savage (noticed above) was probably the most effect- 
 ive advocate of intolerance at that time. His " Dew of Hermon," 
 which was directed against the "Anabaptists," is a clear and 
 pointed document. It refutes the proposition that, if magistrates 
 as such have authority over the conscience, all magistrates, in 
 all nations, have the same power. Savage claims that it was not 
 so, for all have delivered into their hands either the book of 
 nature or the book of the law of the Old Testament to guide 
 in ruling. The Turk, in obeying the Alcoran, does not obey the 
 book of nature. The king of Spain, having the Old and New 
 Testaments, with their law, set up idolatry contrary to their con- 
 tents. They are, nevertheless, to be obeyed passively. He 
 asserts that Paul acknowledged the right of Felix and Festus to 
 judge him concerning an article of faith, the resurrection of the 
 dead. He admits that human "laws cannot properly be said to 
 bind the conscience by the sole authority of the Law-givers," but 
 he maintains that "they do it partly by the equity of the Laws, 
 every man being obliged to promote that which conduceth to the 
 public good." Savage held, with the Independents, that the 
 magistrate was not to propagate the gospel. He was, rather, to 
 be the "defender of the faith." 
 
 The position of the church was sustained by a popular and 
 learned work of Dr. John Nalson, "The True Liberty and 
 Dominion of Conscience Vindicated from the Usurpations and 
 Abuses of Opinion and Persuasion" (B. M. 1113, h- i- Second 
 edition, 1678) . He concerns himself to make hair-splitting dis- 
 tinctions between persuasions, opinions, and conscience. Though 
 a laboriously critical work from the standpoint of language, it 
 deals in wholesale commendation and condemnation. The church 
 
LA TER S TUA R T PERIOD I O 3 
 
 is wholly right and the dissenters wholly wrong. This lavish 
 expenditure of ability indicates the waning power of the cause 
 sustained. In the palmy days of Episcopal intolerance under 
 Queen Elizabeth there was no call for such strenuous exertions 
 to confuse the minds of the people. 
 
 An incident occurred in 1682 which brings to our notice the 
 change taking place in public sentiment. Dr. Nath. Bisbie 
 preached a sermon on "Prosecution no Persecution." As it 
 aroused no little interest, it was printed. In the " Epistle Dedi- 
 catory " Dr. Bisbie explains the conditions as he understands 
 them. He says : 
 
 When this Sermon was first preached it was vulgarly said, that it was boldly 
 done ; but (if I mistake not) it is much more bold and daring to cause it to 
 be made publick. Speed as it may I am sufficiently pleased that in this 
 juncture of Affairs (When Allegiance is made a crime, and Conformity little 
 better than Infidelity) I have Patrons able and ready to assert the interest of 
 them both. (Dr. W.'s Lib.) 
 
 This hostility to conformity was largely effected by the oppres- 
 sion under Charles II. Five years later, when James II. offered 
 to indulge all dissent, a great agitation was raised against it, on 
 the ground that the king's motive was thus to introduce Roman 
 Catholicism. Liberty coming to be a political issue, its advocacy 
 is soon found in another sphere. 
 
 A division in the ranks of the church is the mark of advance- 
 ment for this period. In 1668 a tract was published in London 
 on the subject "Liberty of Conscience the Magistrate's Interest" 
 (B. M. 4103, e.). It was signed "By a Protestant." While 
 there is no positive proof that the author was a churchman, the 
 signature is nearly such proof. The term "Protestant" was the 
 churchman's usual designation for himself. It might be made 
 use of by a dissenter, but it would be only when he sought to 
 identify his interests with the churchman as against the Roman 
 Catholic. Such could hardly have been the case at this date. 
 Dissenter-s also were quite free to sign their names during this 
 period. Churchmen, unless protected by their patrons, did not 
 yet feel free to attack their church system. In the character 
 of the argument we find something new. It is an interesting 
 
104 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 addition to the literature on the subject. As a councilor, rather 
 than a partisan, he wrote : 
 
 'Tis no way prudent for a Prince when his subjects consist of many dif- 
 fering Judgments, to resolve to have them all of one mind (a thing impracti- 
 cable) or else to be their declared Enemy and Persecutor (p. 3). 
 
 Take it for Truth which is commonly affirmed, That all such for whom 
 Liberty is at any time desired, are men full of Faction and Full of Error ; for 
 the first 'tis certain, Persecution will not only continue, but foment such Fac- 
 tion and give it plausible pretense to justifie itself upon, whereas a Liberty 
 granted in matters of conscience, will wholly win such men to a due and 
 hearty Obedience, as finding themselves in a posture they cannot expect to 
 mend, or else will lay them open to such apparent justice for punishment, 
 and bring them under such a general contempt, as shall leave them stripped 
 of all pretensions, and render them wholly inconsiderable (p. 4). 
 
 'Tis most prudent in a state to give Liberty, where there is least power to 
 demand it, those may be gained by it, that may prove dangerous in forcing 
 it (p. 6). 
 
 This [persecution] has Three ill effects alwayes attending it. First, It 
 disobliges the best sort of men in every party, whom the state should most 
 cherish and engage ; whatever is said to the contrary, those that are the 
 truest subjects to the Great King will be found the best to his vicegerents 
 here ; . . . . Secondly, All standers-by, the generality of a nation looking on, 
 must needs be dissatisfied, to see a plain honest man, upright and punctual 
 in all his dealings among men, punished merely for his conscience to God ; 
 .... Thirdly, though it be a secret, yet 'tis a very sure and certain way of 
 bringing National Judgments upon a People. (P. 7.) 
 
 Our "Protestant" also urged that the number of dissenters in 
 England was too great to make persecution advisable. He also 
 asserted that without liberty of conscience the country would 
 never have a flourishing trade. He maintained that the giving 
 of liberty would be the safest way of preventing a return to 
 popery. The argument is all from policy. Dissatisfaction is not 
 felt, because the honest, upright, and punctual man is punished 
 for his conscience to God, but, since the people looking on were 
 dissatisfied, the nation was troubled. The standpoint of the 
 writer is national, rather than individual. The nation must pros- 
 per at whatever expense to the individual. 
 
 As the prudent "Protestant" exemplified his policy by con- 
 cealing his identity, so a little later Samuel Bolde, vicar of 
 Shapwicke, in Dorsetshire, showed how fitting was his name by 
 
LA TER STUART PERIOD 1 5 
 
 printing a "Sermon against Persecution" (B. M. 4106, b.). He 
 publisiied it for the "Consideration of Violent and Headstrong 
 Men, as well as to put a stop to false reports." In his "To the 
 Reader" he paid a high tribute to the dissenters of his acquain- 
 tance. He asserted that many narrow churchmen were unreason- 
 able in their demands for conformity. The proposition of his 
 discourse is that "Wicked, Unregenerate Men, always have bin, 
 and still are for persecuting Holy, Righteous, Spiritual Men" 
 (p. 4). He branded persecutors as superstitious, proud, covet- 
 ous, and profligate (p. 8). Bolde used strong language. His 
 sharpness caused him trouble. Before the year was passed he 
 entered his " Plea for Moderation towards Dissenters ; Occa- 
 sioned by the Grand Juries Presenting the Sermon Against Per- 
 secution, at the last Assizes holden at Sherburn in Dorsetshire" 
 (B. M. 698, i. (3)). In this half confirmation and half retrac- 
 tion of his vigorous sermon he supported his position by argu- 
 ments from authority. Here he used more moderate language. 
 But in neither of these publications did he outline his ideal of 
 toleration. He was a destructive critic rather than a constructive 
 advocate. 
 
 A series of pamphlets written at about this time were styled 
 "The Conformists Plea for the Nonconformist." ^5 in these 
 a limited toleration is advocated on the ground that it is a good 
 policy. The increasing fear of the rise of Papists into power 
 probably had no small amount to do in producing this gracious 
 demeanor of the conformists. The dissenters were seen to hold 
 the balance of power. Their friendship was cultivated assidu- 
 ously by the adherents of James on one side and by the estab- 
 lishment on the other. 
 
 James II.'s arbitrary "Declaration of Indulgence" (1687) niade 
 toleration a political issue. The government party hastened to 
 gain all to acquiescence in the king's action. This sudden change 
 from persecution to toleration caused the courtiers considerable 
 embarrassment. The situation gave occasion to a humorous 
 tract called " Heraclitus Ridens Redivivus, or a Dialogue between 
 Harry and Roger concerning the Times." ^^ It is a dialogue 
 
 *s Tracts on Succession, 1 680-82. Newberry Lib. 
 
 ^^ Eng. Hist. Tracts, 1686-9. Newberry Lib. 
 
I06 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 between two courtiers and a dissenter. The courtiers laughingly 
 speak to each other of their change of front. They mention 
 the fine distinctions to which they resort to clear themselves 
 from the charge of inconsistency. The dissenter, from whom 
 they conceal their amusement, disapproves of this toleration on 
 the ground that it would merely introduce a worse intolerance 
 with the Catholics. 
 
 A specimen argument proceeding from the royal party is 
 found in a tract which contains some " Advice to Freeholders 
 and other electors of Members to serve in Parliament, in Rela- 
 tion to the Penal Laws and Tests." ^^ The line of thought is 
 characteristic and suggestive : 
 
 It having pleased the King to emit a gracious Declaration for Liberty of 
 Conscience, I present some of the motives inclining me to exert myself for 
 the election of such members, as may concur with his Majesty in giving 
 sanction to this Indulgence. 
 They are 
 
 1. To set conscience free from Church-Tyranny. 
 
 2. The King having taken it up it is safe. 
 
 3. I am pleased with the King ; This pleases the King, therefore I would 
 please the King in this. 
 
 Further the adviser says : 
 
 I am well satisfied of the truth and stability of the following positions : 
 I, Liberty of Conscience is consonant to the Gospel. 2. To grant this liberty, 
 is the true interest of both Prince and People 
 
 (i) For it contributes to the glory of the King. 
 
 (2) For it contributes to the Peace of the People. 
 
 (3) For it contributes to the Union between King and People, 
 
 (4) The unreasonableness of constraining conscience. 
 
 (5) The mischiefs of compulsion in spoiling trade, depopulating the 
 country and discourageing strangers. Lastly, The ill success which force in 
 religious matters has always been attended with. It has made hypocrites, 
 but never sincere converts. 
 
 In answer to objectors this writer says: 
 
 They who oppose Liberty of Conscience say that (i) Their opposition 
 arises from a dread of popery. Concerning this. His Majesty's declaration 
 is the best security. Let the church consider that the King only takes from 
 her the power of doing mischief. (2) They for whom Liberty of Conscience 
 is desired are factious. Yes, but persecution foments faction. 
 ^1 Eng. Hist. Tracts, 1 686-9. Newberry Lib. 
 
LA TER STUART PERIOD I O ^ 
 
 In application of all this he particularizes as follows: 
 
 The Gentlemen of the established Church may please to remember that 
 their Church when brought under, pleaded for liberty and thankfully accepted 
 it from the late usurpers. Shall the Fanatics with alacrity come to the 
 King's interest and will the Church of England appear sullen, soure and 
 averse thereto ? 
 
 It thus appears that this subject was kept in the public mind 
 throughout the later Stuart period. Oppression under Charles 
 II. and fear of popery under James II. gave an intense interest 
 to all discussions of it. A great increase in the number of advo- 
 cates is apparent {cf. Appendix) . The character of the argumicnts 
 differs much from that of previous periods. The practical has 
 become more prominent. We shall next see the application of 
 ihe principle to constitutional government. 
 
 NOTES. 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV. 
 
 An epitome of several other pamphlets from this standpoint may be 
 helpful in showing the state of thought among the Episcopalians. For this 
 purpose I will give abbreviated statements concerning a few : 
 
 "An Illumination to Open the Eyes of Papists (socalled) and all other 
 sects," etc., was written by George Bishope (1661. B. M. 415 1, b, 22). An 
 abstract theological discussion, thoughtful and able. Asks that toleration be 
 practiced. Expresses no limitation. Religious motives. Quotation: "The 
 thing I mind in this small Treatise, is to Convince the World of a Great Mis- 
 take in Matters of Religion relating unto Conscience, and the Liberty thereof 
 in the worship of God; Which whilst some would have; viz.: Liberty for 
 themselves; and yet Deny; viz.: the same Liberty to Others which them- 
 selves would have; they are not for but against Liberty of Conscience" 
 (p. 3). I have not located Bishope denominationally. 
 
 "The Inconveniences of Toleration " is subscribed to by Thomas Tomkins 
 (London, 1667. Newberry Lib.). He wrote in opposition to an appeal to the 
 king for toleration. Quotation : " Liberty of Conscience is a thing which 
 hath often made a very Great Noise in the World ; and is at the first view a 
 thing highly plausible ; but although it looks hugely pretty to the Notion ; yet 
 it was always found strangely Wild and Unmanageable when it ever came to 
 be handled by Experience ; and we shall constantly find that those who cryed 
 it up for the most reasonable thing in the world when themselves stood in 
 need of it, as soon as ever they came in Power would never endure to hear of 
 it any longer" (p. i). 
 
I08 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 "A Discourse of Toleration." Anonymous (B. M. 4105, a.), 1668. Opposed 
 toleration strongly. Said that dissensions in religion were contrary to the 
 interest of the gospel, were derived from lusts and corruptions, and at best 
 were the infirmities of men. Quotation : " Must Kings sit still, and be the 
 idle spectators of injuries daily acted against the Religion they profess, be 
 quiet in their own dishonor and their peoples misery ?" 
 
 "A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie." Anonymous. London, 1670(6. M. 
 852, f. 5), 326 pages. Quotation : "And thus have I at length finished what 
 I designed and undertook, i. e., I have proved the absolute necessity of gov- 
 erning Mens Consciences and Perswasions in Matters of Religion, and the 
 unavoidable dangers of Tolerating, or keeping up Religious Differences ; 
 have shown, that there is not the least possibility of setling a Nation, but by 
 uniformity in Religious worship ; that religion may and must be governed by 
 the same Rules, as all other Affairs and Transactions of Humane Life ; and 
 that nothing can do it but severe Laws, nor they neither, unless severely 
 executed." 
 
 "Liberty of Conscience In its Order to Universal Peace." Anonymous. 
 London, 1681 (B. M. 116, c. 25), 146 pages. Could not tolerate Romanists. 
 Desired comprehension of Protestants. Philosophical. Asserted that natu- 
 ral religion is the only standard for penal laws in religion. Quotation from 
 preface : " Lastly I am Assured this very Natural Religion espoused by 
 Christianity, well considered and observed, would disarm the world of those 
 Instruments of Cruelty in the Cause of Religion, so extreamly abhored by it ; 
 whether used by angry supreme Powers, or unjustly taken up by Seditious, 
 Ambitious or Fanatick Subjects." 
 
 In the British Museum there is a collection of forty-three tracts that come 
 from the years 1687-8 ("British Museum Tracts," T. 763). The subject of 
 these is the suspension of the penal laws and tests by the "Indulgence" of 
 James II. A few of these may profitably be mentioned : 
 
 " Three Letters Tending to demonstrate how the Security of this Nation 
 against al Future Persecution for Religion, Lys in the Abolishment of the 
 Present Penal Laws and Tests, and in the Establishment of A New Law for 
 Universal Liberty of Conscience." Anonymous, 1688. These letters were 
 written to show that a law made by Parliament for religious liberty would pro- 
 tect the people from the Roman Catholics if they should come into power 
 and seek to persecute. Did not speak of the king as a Romanist. (No. 2.) 
 
 "An Answer to a Letter to a Dissenter upon Occasion of His Majesties 
 Late Gracious Declaration of Indulgence." Sir Roger L'Estrange, Knight. 
 London, 1687. The author opposed the "Indulgence," objecting to the royal 
 prerogative. He feared the Papists. (No. 7.) 
 
 Another answer to this" Letter to a Dissenter" was written by one T. G. He 
 treated the questions: " I. Whether Protestant dissenters ought to refuse the 
 proposed Legal Toleration, Including Catholick Dissenters. II. Whether 
 Protestant Dissenters ought to accept the said Toleration, until the next 
 
LA TER S TUA R T PERIOD 1 09 
 
 Succession, upon the suggested hopes of Excluding Catholics." T. G. held 
 firmly that toleration was due them, but the serious question was in regard to 
 accepting a toleration which was offered for the purpose of removing penal- 
 ties from Romanists. (No. 9.) 
 
 " A Letter from a Gentleman in the City to a Gentleman in the Country 
 about the Odiousness of Persecution." Anon., 1687. Quotation: "The 
 News of a Persecution meerly for a matter of Religion, at this time a day, 
 when the whole Nation appears professedly to dislike it ; and the giving coun- 
 tenance to Informers (who are the Pest of every Nation, and the common 
 Enemies of Property) to the Prejudice of Peaceable and Trading People, 
 makes your Friends, who have had notice of your late Troubles suspect that 
 there is something in your case more than ordinary" (p. 3). In a postscript 
 he adds : " 1 have here ommitted some of those great Arguments, both which 
 others have used, and which may yet be advanced from the Nature of the 
 Subject, partly because there are so many Discourses extant, and partly 
 because English mankind begins to be satisfied in the Matter." (No. 11.) 
 
 "A Letter from a Gentleman in the Country to his Friends in London." 
 Anon., 1687. Quotation: " Gentlemen, I wonder mightily at the news you 
 send me that so many of the Town are averse to the Repeal of the Penal 
 Statutes ; surely you mean the clergy of the present Church, and those that 
 are zealous for their Dignity and Power ; For what part of the kingdom has 
 felt the smart of them more, and at all times, and on all occasions repre- 
 sented their mischief to the Trade, Peace and Plenty and wealth of the King- 
 dom so freely as the Town has always done ? But you unfold the Riddle to 
 me, when you tell, 'tis for fear of Popery, tho I own to you, I cannot compre- 
 hend it, any more than you do Transubstantiation." (No. 12, p. 3.) 
 
 " The Good Old Test Revived and Recommended." Anon. London, 
 1687. The writer says that the Christian test is love. Quotation: "Let 
 every one serve God to the best of his Knowledge ; And though we cannot 
 joyn in Worship, yet let no hatred divide us. Let Christians dread nothing, 
 but from Infidels or Turks." (No. 18, p. 2.) 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 FINAL PERIOD, OR PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION. 
 
 The flight of James II. and the accession of William and 
 Mary had great significance in this contest for freedom. James 
 arbitrarily offered an indulgence to dissenters, that thereby he 
 might be able to withstand the established church. William was 
 bred in an atmosphere of liberal sentiment. He was hostile to 
 Roman Catholicism, but looked with favor upon Protestants, 
 whether conformists or nonconformists. As the accession of 
 Cromwell to the head of the British government introduced a 
 powerful factor for liberty, so the accession of William was the 
 interjection of foreign liberality to dominate in the seat of the 
 Stuarts. 
 
 Two points must here be noted : the increased importance 
 of Parliament, or the thorough establishment of a constitutional 
 government ; and the king's strong inclination toward religious 
 freedom. These two conditions, together with the widespread 
 interest in the subject, made this contest a conspicuous feature in 
 the political life of the time. There were still classes of people 
 marked out for peculiar suffering under the law. The majority 
 of the dissenters were much eased from their afflictions. It 
 must not be inferred that the agitation of this question ceased in 
 religious circles. All that can be said with assurance is that the 
 prominence of the political struggle absorbed the public interest. 
 It may even be taken for granted that, as today, so then, the 
 public sentiment concerning political questions was frequently 
 formed by discussion in religious circles. It was no longer of 
 strictly ecclesiastical concern. 
 
 Before the crowning of William and Mary, Parliament caused 
 them to sign the Bill of Rights as a condition of their being 
 crowned. It provided that Papists should be debarred from the 
 throne. Having complied with this requirement, and having 
 entered upon their reign, William proposed without delay that 
 the Test and Corporation Acts should be abolished and all 
 
 no 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL A GITA TION I I I 
 
 Protestants be admitted to public service. This was without avail, 
 but "An Act for exempting their Majesties' Protestant subjects 
 Dissenting from the Church of England, from the Penalties of 
 Certain Laws." popularly known as the "Toleration Act,"^^ 
 passed both houses by May, 1689. Though this bill was so 
 important, its passage was effected wath but little discussion. It 
 is frequently called the " Magna Charta of Religious Liberty." It 
 practically repealed the Act of Uniformity of 1662. It gave free 
 exercise of religion to all Protestants except Unitarians. By it 
 Quakers were relieved from taking oaths, provided they substi- 
 tute a stipulated declaration. The measure, however, was not 
 ideal. It was politic rather. By it the sentiment of the people 
 was crystallized into the form of a statute. ^9 Connected with 
 
 88 "This Bill gave the King great content. He in his own opinion always 
 thought that Conscience was God's Province and that it ought not to be imposed upon : 
 And his experience in Holland made him look on Toleration, as one of the wisest 
 measures of the Government : He was much troubled to see so much ill humour spread- 
 ing among the Clergy, and by their means over a great part of the Nation. He was 
 so true to his Principle herein, that he restrained the heat of some, who were proposing 
 severe acts against the Papists. He made them apprehend the advantage which that 
 would give the French, to alienate all the Papists of Europe from us ; who from thence 
 might hope to set on foot a new Catholick League, and make the War a quarrel of 
 Religion : which might have very bad effects. Nor could he pretend to protect the 
 Protestants in Germany, and in Hungary, unless he cover the Papists in England, 
 from all Severities on the account of their Religion. This was so carefully infused 
 into many, and so well understood by them, that the Papists have enjoy'd the real 
 effects of the Toleration, tho' they were not comprehended within the Statute that 
 enacted it." (Burnet, Our Own Times, Vol. HI, pp. 15 f.) 
 
 89 Commenting on the Toleration Act, Macaulay has said: "If a bill had been 
 drawn up granting entire freedom of conscience to all Protestants, it may be confi- 
 dently affirmed that Nottingham would never have introduced such a bill ; that all the 
 bishops, Burnet included, would have voted against it; that it would have been 
 denounced Sunday after Sunday, from ten thousand pulpits, as an insult to God and to 
 all Christian men, and as a license to the worst heretics and blasphemers ; that it 
 would have been burned by the mob in half of the market places in England ; that it 
 would never have become the law of the land, and that it would have made the very 
 name of toleration odious during many years to the great majority of the people. 
 
 " It is true that the Toleration Act recognised persecution as the rule, and 
 granted liberty of conscience only as the exception. But it is equally true that the 
 rule remained in force only against a few hundreds of Protestant dissenters, and that 
 the benefit of the exceptions extended to hundreds of thousands. 
 
 " It is true that it was in theory absurd to make Howe sign thirty-four or thirty-five 
 of the Anglican Articles before he could preach, and to let Penn preach without sign- 
 ing one of those Articles." (History of Eng., Vol. Ill, p. 83.) 
 
112 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 this legislation there was also a serious attempt to effect the long- 
 desired comprehension.^" The House of Commons went so far as 
 to appoint a commission to suggest alterations to the Prayer 
 Book, and the commission completed its task, but when pre- 
 sented for action the proposed measure was unsatisfactory and 
 suffered rejection. 
 
 The relief thus granted to the dissenters greatly aggravated 
 the ministers of the established church. They sought to revive 
 the spirit of persecution. But Bishop Burnet tells us that 
 wise and good men did much applaud the quieting the Nation by Toleration. 
 It seemed to be suitable, both to the Spirit of the Christian Religion, and 
 to the Interest of the Nation. It was thought very unreasonable that, while 
 we were complaining of the cruelty of the Church of Rome, we should fall into 
 such practises among ourselves ; chiefly while we were engaging in a war, in 
 the progress of which we would need the united strength of the whole 
 Nation. {^Our Otvn Tvnes, Vol. Ill, p. 15.) 
 
 The size and importance of the dissenting bodies made this 
 attack of the clergy vain. Their power to make the government 
 subserve their interests was gone. 
 
 In this early part of William's reign important treatises on 
 the subject of toleration were issuing from the press. The first of 
 John Locke's^' famous "Letters on Toleration" was written this 
 
 50 Among the less scrupulous of the churchmen as well as dissenters the desire 
 long existed to absorb dissent back into the national organization. Uniformity in 
 religion was thought to be of the utmost importance. The churchmen interested in it 
 thought that it would quell dissent, while the dissenters interested hoped by it to gain 
 the backing of the state. The Independents and Baptists were generally opposed to 
 this scheme for comprehension. Its success would have tended to lower the reli- 
 gious ideals of the nation. 
 
 "John Locke was a representative deist. And while this school of thinkers was 
 not unanimously in favor of liberty of thought, the general tendency was strongly in 
 that direction. Thomas Hobbes, whose deism is questioned, placed all authority in 
 the state. Though he felt very uncomfortable when the state did not agree with him, 
 he still remained subservient in theory. The Earl of Shaftesbury also, at the expense 
 of a complete contradiction in his theory, upheld the state's authority. As a class the 
 deists were freethinkers. They were the subjects of no little ill-feeling and real per- 
 secution. Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees, Toland's Christianity not Myste- 
 rious, Tvndal's Rights of the Christian Church, and BoLlNGBROKE's Posthumous 
 Works, were all presented by the grand jury of Middlesex. When Collins published 
 his Discourse on Freethinking there was a commotion. Collins went to Holland, and 
 some have asserted that he did it to escape persecution. Cf. Lecky's England in the 
 Eighteenth Century, Vol. I, p. 361. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION II3 
 
 year in Latin, and soon translated into Dutch, French, and Eng- 
 lish. These letters are rightly celebrated, yet not because of the 
 high ideal set forth, since they advocate a limited toleration. 
 Their merit is that they present a forcible and full philosophical 
 argument. Locke's weakness lies not so much in his premises 
 as in his conclusions. Without a knowledge of the practical 
 affairs of the government during those days, it would be incon- 
 ceivable how one could lay down general premises and arrive at 
 particular conclusions.^^ Yet had he advanced the inherent 
 rights of man, he surely would have been forced to conclude 
 that he had a right, so far as human government is concerned, 
 even to reject Christianity. In regard to the relation between 
 the magistrate and the subject, Locke denied the prerogatives of 
 the king, but did not afifirm the dignity and prerogatives of 
 the citizen. Nor should this class of arguments be regarded as 
 peculiarly telling in its time, for but few minds were fitted to 
 appreciate his heavy style, or to follow him in his close distinc- 
 tions. It has been the province of later times to give him due 
 praise, as Milton also. 
 
 An abstract of the first letter, though it presents little that is 
 new, is worthy of a place in this account. He says: "I esteem 
 toleration to be the chief characteristical mark of the true church." 
 However much some people boast of the antiquity of places and 
 names, or of the pomp of their outward worship ; others, of 
 the reformation of their discipline ; all, of the orthodoxy of their 
 faith, for everyone is orthodox to himself; these things and 
 
 9^ An interpretation of Locke which comes to us from the city of Dublin is inter- 
 esting. The tract is entitled Lockes Opinions upon Toleration, By Pro Arts et Focis, 
 1824. (B. M. 8145, A.) " My Lord Having heard it said that the Roman Catholics lay 
 claim to the most unbounded participation in all the privileges of the State, relying 
 principally, upon Mr. Lockes letters upon toleration, I think it but proper to go fairly, 
 and step through his principles and arguments, that all candid and rational men may 
 see, without deception and without assumption what were the broad and open concep- 
 tions of that great and liberal man upon this most interesting subject" (p. 2). "It 
 is quite plain that, although Locke is perfectly consistent with himself and with the 
 truth, that he does not allow of that unlimited toleration which is at this moment 
 allowed to the subject of a foreign Potentate. Subjects they are, because, either 
 directly, or in a way as effectual, they acknoledge a foreign jurisdiction and authority 
 to tally irreconcileable with the spirit of our constitutions which will not brook the 
 intrusion of any strange, unrecognized power." (Pp. 7 f.) 
 
114 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 all others of this nature are much rather marks of men's striving 
 for power and empire over one another than of the church of 
 Christ. The Christian must first make war upon his own lusts 
 and vices. Then, if the gospels and apostles may be credited, no 
 man can be a Christian without charity and without the faith that 
 works, not by faith, but by love. That divisions among sects 
 are obstructive to salvation I grant, yet not so obstructive as 
 immorality. Until men apply themselves to the rooting out of 
 immorality for the purpose of saving souls I will not admit that 
 their cause for persecution is the good of men. Toleration is 
 agreeable to the gospel of Christ and is not subversive to the 
 interests of the commonwealth. The civil interests are life, 
 liberty, health, and indolence of body, and the possession of out- 
 ward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like. 
 The whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these 
 civil matters. The care of souls is not committed to the civil 
 magistrate, any more than to other men. His power consists 
 only in outward force, while true and saving religion consists in 
 the inward persuasion of the mind without which nothing can be 
 acceptable to God. The magistrate may use arguments to pro- 
 cure the salvation of the heterodox, but that does not belong to 
 his magistracy. It belongs to his humanity or Christianity. 
 Moreover, the care of the salvation of men's souls cannot belong 
 to the magistrate, for if the enforcement of laws could change 
 men's minds, yet it could not help at all in the salvation of souls. 
 But let us consider the nature of a church. It is a free and 
 voluntary society. Nobody is born a member of any church, 
 otherwise the religion of parents would descend unto children by 
 the same right of inheritance as their temporal estates, which is 
 absurd. Churches must have some laws and rules, but, since 
 they are free societies, they should make their own laws. Some 
 believe that the true church must have a bishop, who is in 
 apostolic succession. To these I answer : Let them show me the 
 edict by which Christ has imposed this law upon his church. 
 Those who have been in this succession have always had dissen- 
 sions among them. But I do not object to the existence of 
 a church, with however long a series of a succession, if I be 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL A GITA TION I I 5 
 
 permitted to join that society in which are those things that I 
 deem necessar}' to the salvation of my soul. Of those who are 
 anxious about the true church let me ask : Would it not be 
 more agreeable to the church of Christ to make the conditions 
 of her communion consist of such things as are necessary to 
 salvation ? 
 
 In regard to idolatrous churches, law will not extinguish 
 idolatry. It does not follow that because idolatry is a sin the 
 magistrate may punish it any more than covetousness, unchari- 
 tableness, idleness, etc. The law of Moses is not obligator}^ upon 
 Christians. 
 
 Thus far concerning outward worship. Let us now consider 
 articles of faith. Some articles of religion are practical, some 
 speculative. It is absurd to impose speculative opinions by the 
 law of the land. A sweet religion, indeed, that obliges men to 
 dissemble and to tell lies to both God and man, for the salvation 
 of their souls ! Speculative opinions have no relation to civil 
 rights and ought not to be forbidden. The Roman Catholics' 
 belief in transubstantiation and the Jews' disbelief in the New 
 Testament do not injure their neighbors. As to practical opinions, 
 a good life, in which consists not the least part of religion and 
 true piety, concerns also the civil government. Moral actions 
 belong, therefore, to the jurisdiction of both the outward and 
 inward court ; I mean both of the magistrate and conscience. 
 As to one's salvation, exhortations and arguments alone avail. 
 The magistrate is authorized to provide for the security of each 
 man's private possessions ; for the peace, riches, and public 
 commodities of the whole people, and as much as possible for 
 the increase of their mward strength against foreign invasion. 
 The chief care of everyone ought to be of his own soul first, 
 and in the next place of the public peace. Yet no opinions con- 
 trary to human society or to those moral rules which are neces- 
 sary to the preservation of civil society are to be tolerated by 
 the magistrate. Again, that church can have no right to be 
 tolerated by the magistrate which is so constituted that all who 
 enter it do thereby, ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the pro- 
 tection and service of another prince. Lastly, those are not at 
 
Il6 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. The sum of all 
 we drive at is that every man enjoy the same rights that are 
 granted to others. Let no man's life, or body, or house, or estate 
 suffer any manner of prejudice on account of worship. 
 
 Three other letters followed this masterly presentation of the 
 cause of limited toleration, drawn out by the opposition of Jonas 
 Proast, of Oxford. The debate was one of the greatest English 
 controversies. Proast was a vigorous antagonist, but could in 
 no way cope with Locke. The part taken by Locke in this con- 
 test, while honorable and important, was not ideal nor indis- 
 pensable. That which he advocated was already nearly gained 
 in his native land, and crystallized into statute. His province 
 was to assist in confirming the views of those who were favorable 
 to toleration, though their thoughts might be confused and their 
 expression incoherent. 
 
 John Howe also published anonymously an appeal for dissent. 
 His production was entitled "The case of the Protestant Dissenters 
 represented and argued." He based the right of dissent on the 
 natural claims of conscience, on the human origin of those forms 
 and ceremonies which divided dissenters from the church, on the 
 unnatural cruelty of the laws by which the supremacy of the 
 church had been enforced, and on the known patriotism of 
 dissenters. Howe af^rmed that the generality of dissenters 
 differed from the Church of England in no substantials of 
 doctrine of worship, or even of government, provided that the 
 government was so managed as to attain its acknowledged end. 
 He also argued against the reasonableness of excluding dis- 
 senters from any participation in civil affairs. He held that 
 there could be no union or peace in the Christian world until 
 arbitrary inclosures were removed and Christians were content 
 with those their common Lord had set.93 
 
 But the combined influence of the king's favorable attitude 
 and the agitation of great writers could not prevent legis- 
 lation for intolerance. In 1697 there was an act passed against 
 Unitarian publications. It provided that any person found 
 writing, printing, publishing, or circulating any works against the 
 "Skeats and Miai.l, p. 104. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION \\^ 
 
 doctrine of the Trinity, or preaching against it, was to lose nearly 
 all the privileges of citizenship. He could neither sue nor be 
 sued, bequeath nor receive property. He was to be imprisoned 
 three years without bail and could never after hold public office.94 
 
 By means of the law for occasional conformity such dis- 
 senters as would avail themselves of its privileges could share 
 in the functions of government. The Presbyterians as a rule 
 availed themselves of the opportunities it afforded. King 
 William not only favored this, but would have gone farther. His 
 successor, Queen Anne, was at first strongly opposed to every- 
 thing that seemed to favor dissent, and so a movement was soon 
 on foot to do away with occasional conformity. This contest 
 raged through the years 1702, 1703, and 1704. The Whigs were 
 dependent to a great extent on the votes of the dissenting mem- 
 bers of corporations. Most of the bishops had been appointed 
 bv William and were favorable to liberal legislation. These 
 conditions secured a temporary victory for occasional con- 
 formity. 
 
 Concerning the first opposition to this practice Bishop Burnet 
 wrote : 
 
 A motion was made in the House of Commons, for bringing in the Bill 
 against occasional conformity ; Great opposition was made to it, but it was 
 carried by a great majority, that such a bill should be brought in. So a new 
 draught was formed : In it the preamble that was in the former bill, was left 
 out. The number besides the family, that made a conventicle, was enlarged 
 from five to twelve : and the fine set on those that went to conventicles after 
 they had received the sacrament, besides the loss of their employment, was 
 brought down to fifty pounds ; So it was a breach made upon the toleration, 
 which ought not to be done, since they had not deserved it by any ill behaviour 
 of theirs, by which it could be pretended that they had forfeited any of the 
 benefits, designed by that act : .... The bishops were almost equally divided: 
 There were two more against it than for it : Among these, I had the largest 
 censure on me, because I spoke much against the bill ;....! ventured to 
 say, that a man might lawfully communicate with a church, that he thought 
 
 s-'The demand that all government officials partake of the sacrament in the estab- 
 lished church led to this practice of occasional conformity. It consisted in nonconform- 
 ists going to established churches as frequently as the law required, but not more 
 frequently. The law demanded that not even an exciseman could qualify without 
 observing this church rite. The act made them churchmen in theory. By this demand 
 the government secured for its officials either conformists or conscienceless dissenters. 
 
I l8 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 had a worship and a doctrine uncorrupted, and yet communicate more fre- 
 quently with a church that he thought more perfect ; .... So tho' the Dis- 
 senters were in a mistake, as to their opinion which was the more perfect 
 church, yet allowing them a toleration of that error this practise might be 
 justified.95 
 
 . The failure of this bill and several of its successors indicates 
 the strong feeling which existed in favor of allowing the more 
 moderate dissenters an opportunity to hold office. Seven years 
 later, however, the law was again assailed, and this time with 
 success. In 1714, three 3'ears after this success, and when it was 
 seen that dissent was not paralyzed by it, the Schism Bill was 
 introduced. It provided that no person should keep any public 
 or private school, or teach, who did not conform and had obtained 
 a license from the bishop to teach. The penalty was imprison- 
 ment without bail. The bill was passed and was signed by 
 Queen Anne on June 25. It was to go into effect on Sunday, 
 August I. On that day the queen died, and the Schism Act 
 became a dead letter. This was the last law passed in England 
 for the limitation of religious liberty. 
 
 In 1718, during the reign of George I., there was an attempt 
 to repeal parts of the Occasional Conformity, Schism, Test, and 
 Corporation Acts. The king favored the passage of the entire 
 bill, but believing that to press the repeal of the Test and Cor- 
 poration Acts would be prejudicial to his newly established rule, 
 they were finally withdrawn and the remainder of the bill passed. 
 The dissenters were convinced that their hopes lay in the success 
 of the Hanoverian house, which had just been introduced by the 
 accession of George I., and had assumed a favorable attitude 
 toward dissent; so they waived their rights for a time to sustain 
 the throne. The question of the repeal of the test laws was 
 before the nation for a century, and was a contest of great sig- 
 nificance. It was destined to engage the attention of Pitt and 
 Fox, the former as the representative of the government and 
 the latter as the eloquent advocate of liberty. Probably as good 
 an outline of the differing views on this problem as can be found 
 is presented in the dissenter's "Plea," written by George Walker 
 and published at the request of the Committee of the Protestant 
 95 Burnet, Our Own Times, Vol. IV, pp. 30 f. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION I 1 9 
 
 Dissenters of the Midland District. (B. M. 4135,00.; pp. 2 f.) 
 Walker said that 
 
 the principles on which the reasoning of the Protestant Dissenters has 
 been conducted and their claims asserted may be reducible to these : I. That 
 political society is for the good of all, that protection and accessibility to all 
 the advantages and privileges of a citizen, are the rights of a citizen, and that 
 responsibility for civil allegiance is the only condition of this right. . II. That 
 religion is not within the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate ; that it is the 
 inalienable property of every mdividual for which he is answerable to God 
 alone ; and that no difference of religious faith and worship ought to exclude 
 a citizen from one of those rights or privileges which he claims on the grounds 
 of the preceding principle. On these two the whole reasoning of the Protestant 
 Dissenter turns ; .... The principles of our antagonists which are to be 
 collected from their publications and the debates in Parliament appear to be 
 reducible to these heads : I. That toleration is due to all who can answer to 
 the claim of civil allegiance. II. That the magistrate has a right to chuse a 
 national religion, and that special immunities, honours, and rewards at the 
 discretion of the civil magistrate may, and ought to be, conferred on the mem- 
 bers of his favoured religion. III. That the Church of England is this 
 national and favored religion ; that there is a contract or alliance between 
 this church and the state ; that the Test Laws are necessary to the preserva- 
 tion of the church ; and that the church is necessary to the preservation of 
 the civil constitution of this kingdom. IV. That the Dissenters are hostile 
 to the church ; that they must wish its subversion, and that the more 
 conscientious is the Dissenter, the more must he be disposed and the more 
 must he operate to this end. V. That civil trust and power are dangerous 
 instruments in the hands of a Dissenter, and that therefore they are justly 
 denied to him. VI. That the door of conformity being open to him, it is by 
 the act of his own will that he enters not this door, and that he has 1^0 right 
 therefore to complain of the disabilities and penalties which are the con- 
 sequences of his refusal. VII. That the Sacramental Test is a discrimina- 
 tion of religious character ; that it is a wise provision of the state ; and that 
 it is no perversion or profanation of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. 
 VIII. That civil ofhces are favours, not rights; that they are of the nature of 
 an estate in the discretionary use of the magistrate ; that he may dispose of 
 them to whom he pleases ; and this not individually, which is not contested ; 
 but that by a general law he may exclude any description of subjects from 
 the admission to them. To these are added other principles, we hope only as 
 the effusions of uninformed and passionate minds, which surrender into the 
 hands and the discretion of the magistrate, all the rights and even the prop- 
 erty of the subject, which go to the abandonment of the whole foundation 
 and structure of legal liberty. 
 
120 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 These attitudes of the different parties toward the dissenter's 
 liberties were inspired by political motives. The Jacobites^^ 
 opposed the government and its Protestant alliances. Since the 
 dissenters stood by the government, the Jacobite influence was 
 opposed to them. Burnet states that 
 
 it was manifest that there were two different parties among the Clergy ; one 
 that was firm and faithful to the present government, and served it with zeal : 
 These did not envy the Dissenters the ease that the Toleration gave them ; 
 they wished for a favorable upportunity of making such alterations in some 
 few rites and ceremonies as might bring into the Church (Established) those 
 who were not at too great a distance from it : and I do freely own that I was 
 of that number. Others took the oathes indeed, and concurred in every act 
 of compliance with the Government, but they were not only cold in serving 
 it, but were always blaming the Administration, and aggravating misfortunes ; 
 They expressed a great esteem for Jacobites, and in all Elections gave their 
 votes for those who leaned that way : At the same time they showed great 
 resentments against the Dissenters, and were enemies to the Toleration, and 
 seemed resolved never to consent to any alteration in their favor. The bulk 
 of the Clergy ran this way, so that the moderate party were far outnumbered.*' 
 
 The division of the clergy on this subject was not in propor- 
 tion to that of the nation at large. A strong feeling existed 
 against the Papists. The hatred remaining against the old 
 Stuarts was very nearly the measure of opposition to the Roman 
 Catholics. This was shown when the establishment of the Peace 
 of Ryswick caused many priests to take up their residence in 
 England. Those who had left England on account of the revolu- 
 tion, which ushered in William and a decided Protestantism, now 
 returned, with many additions to their numbers. 
 
 Upon this [says Burnet] some proposed a Bill, that obliged all persons edu- 
 cated in that religion, or suspected to be of it, who should succeed to any 
 estate before they were of the age of eighteen, to take Oathes of Allegiance 
 and supremacy, and the Test, as soon as they came to that age ; and till they 
 did it, the estate was to devolve to the next of kin that was a protestant ; but 
 
 9* The Jacobites were the adherents of the old Stuart family. The deposition of 
 James II. was not quite unanimously acceptable when it occurred. Whatever 
 unpleasantnesses arose during the succeeding reigns could not but increase the num- 
 ber of the disaffected. Tames II. and his son, who was once rebelliously proclaimed 
 James III., were Roman Catholics. The continuance of this party, and the persistence 
 with which it propagated views distasteful to the English people, suggest the fact that 
 foreign nations interested themselves in the movement. 
 
 97 Burnet, Our Oicn Times, Vol. Ill, pp. 296 f. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGII'ATION 121 
 
 was to return back to them upon their taking the Oathes. All popish priests 
 were banished by this Bill.'^ 
 
 Both houses of Parliament passed this bill, and it was enacted as 
 law. So we see that the major part of the clergy who favored 
 the Jacobites and opposed the government was so out of 
 harmony with the public at large that what they favored the 
 Parliament put under the ban. 
 
 The frequent conspiracies of the Jacobites brought the Papists 
 into trouble with the government. Because of one of these con- 
 spiracies Atterbury, the bishop of Rochester, was deposed and 
 banished. Walpole made it the occasion for raising the sum of 
 one hundred thousand pounds upon the property of the popish 
 recusants. At the same time all Papists were required to depart 
 from the cities of London and Westminster, and from within ten 
 miles of them, and to keep strictly within their own dwellings. 
 This arose from the Jacobite disturbances at the death of Queen 
 Anne. When George I. was established on the throne there was 
 a lull. A score of years later there were further difficulties, and 
 the popular feeling rose again. Even Blackstone interpreted 
 the law in the sense that where a person is reconciled to the see 
 of Rome, or procures others to be reconciled, the offense amounts 
 to high treason.99 Nor may this opposition be attributed to a 
 spirit of intolerance. There were sufficient political reasons for 
 interference. The mistake of the government was in treating 
 the disaffected as Papists rather than as traitors directly. It 
 was as late as 1829 that the civil emancipation of the Catholics 
 occurred. Then oppressive laws, those especially which barred 
 their entrance into the houses of Parliament and the functions 
 of the magistracy, were definitely abolished. 
 
 "An Historical Treatise concerning Jews and Judaism in 
 England" was published in the 3-ear 1720. (B. M., T. 1750 
 (7).) This asserts that 
 
 the principle Grounds for their banishments, (in the reign of Ed. I.) after they 
 had resided in this Kingdom for 220 years, was for their Blasphemies, and 
 stealing and crucifying christian children, for defacing or clipping the coin, 
 for their impiety and Immorals, for their Infidelity, Usuries, and Forgeries of 
 
 9^ Our Own Times, Vol. Ill, pp. 316 f. 
 
 99 Abbey, Eng. Ch. and Bishops, Vol. I, p. 216. 
 
122 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Charters, for falsifying Money, for imposing upon and cheating English 
 Merchants, and for attempting to pervert christians to Judaism. ... As for 
 the great Liberty which the Jews now take in this Realm, it is evident that by 
 our antient Laws and Decrees that they have no pretense or the least colour 
 of Law or right to claim such privileges here ; and that the impious and 
 immoral freedom which the Jews take amongst us is depending upon the 
 force and power of their money. 
 
 This writer makes it clear that an agitation looking toward the 
 removal of their disabilities had been begun. He sa3's : "There 
 are but two arguments used for the Re-admission of the Jews ; 
 one whereof is, the Hope of their Conversion ; and the second 
 is, that the Jews bring in money and promote Trade." The 
 writer's object seems to have been to overcome the leniency 
 toward the Jews which arose partly from the widespread belief 
 that the time for their conversion was at hand. 
 
 In the years 1753-4 the nation was greatly stirred by the 
 attempt to diminish the restrictions against the Jews. • A bill 
 fathered by the Pelhams provided that Parliament have permis- 
 sion to pass special acts to naturalize those Jews who applied for 
 citizenship. This was passed, but it produced a popular out- 
 burst and great commotion, so that it was repealed in 1754- 
 The bishops and almost all of the better educated of the clergy 
 defended the cause of tolerance ; but the spirit which prevailed 
 among the populace was so violent that there was fear lest it 
 might })ossibly result in a massacre. '°° Not until the latter half 
 of the nineteenth century (1855) were the Jews granted liberty 
 of religious worship. It was still three years later (1858) that 
 an "Act to Provide for the Relief for her Majesty's Subjects pro- 
 fessing the Jewish Religion " empowered either house of Parlia- 
 ment to modify the form of oath so as to enable a Jew to sit and 
 vote. This same act precluded them from holding certain 
 ofifices.^°^ 
 
 A momentary glimpse of the struggle is to be got from "A 
 Collection of Testimonies in favor of Religious Liberty, in case 
 of the Dissenters, Catholics, and Jews," put forth in 1790, over 
 the signature of "A Christian Politician." (Dr. VV.'s lib.) 
 
 ■°° Abbey, Eng. Ch. and Bishops, Vol. I, p. 214; Lecky, Vol. I, p. 285 ; Jeivish 
 Year Book, 1 896-7, pp. 129 f. 
 "^' Year Book, 1896-7. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION I 23 
 
 In this age [the writer says] it is still necessary to prove that the wrath of 
 man worketh not the righteousness of God. Streams of blood, desert coun- 
 tries, unanswered arguments, slowly teach men who are in possession of power, 
 that Providence takes better methods for the Propagation of the true religion, 
 than can be expected from the interference of its creatures In plead- 
 ing for the Catholics I shall offend many Dissenters ; and in pleading for the 
 Jews I shall offend many Dissenters and Catholics. (Preface.) 
 
 This collection contains articles and testimonies from Bishop 
 Hoadley, Archdeacon Paley, John Locke, Sir William Temple, 
 Dr. Franklin, the Earl of Mansfield, Addison, and man}- others. 
 From this it appears that the advocacy of a true liberty of con- 
 science had become quite common. It is also seen that many 
 dissenters were as yet unwilling to concede it. 
 
 During the first half of the century the Presbyterian, Con- 
 gregational, and Baptist denominations united to obtain relief 
 from the laws which still oppressed them. Previous to the 
 Hanoverian rule the Presbyterians '°^ had been satisfied with the 
 advantages to be derived from occasional conformity. In 1732 
 the organization of the "Dissenting Deputies" was effected. 
 All churches of these denominations within ten miles of London 
 were requested to appoint two deputies. The first general 
 assembly of these deputies occurred the same year. This 
 alliance continued to exist and to exert a powerful influence on 
 the government for many decades. Through it the dissenters 
 made their power felt. 
 
 Throughout the eighteeenth and nineteenth centuries the 
 various positions taken by the old English organizations cannot 
 be discovered or set forth with sufficient accuracy to justify an 
 exhaustive examination of the literature of the period. The 
 continual change in the conceptions of political liberty forced 
 corresponding changes in ideas of religious liberty. The merest 
 mention of the footprints of this evolution alone will be profit- 
 able. 
 
 102 'i jf fj^g Presbyterians had been possessed of anything like the courage and 
 persistency of the Quakers, they could no doubt at this time (1723) have pro- 
 cured with ease the repeal of the Test and Corporation laws. While, however, they 
 enjoyed the liberty of occasional conformity and could thus qualify for office — join- 
 ing the Church, that is to say, for half an hour every year, and protesting against it 
 during the remainder of their 12 months of office — they appeared to think that they 
 had secured all that was needful and honorable." (Skeats and Miall, p. 254.) 
 
124 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 One exception to this general statement, however, must be 
 made. The Baptists did not change their views. Their leading 
 thinkers continued to present the same doctrine with even 
 greater discrimination. Robert Robinson declared that 
 Liberty to be a christian implies liberty not to be a christian, as liberty to 
 examine a proposition implies liberty to reject the arguments brought to sup- 
 port it, if they appear inconclusive, as well as liberty to admit them if they 
 appear demonstrative. To pretend to examine Christianity, before we have 
 established our right to do so, is to pretend to cultivate an estate before we 
 have made out our title to it.'°3 
 Again he said : 
 
 Christianity comes, pretends to come from the God of nature ; I look for 
 analogy, and I find it ; but I find it in the holy scriptures, the first teachers, 
 and the primitive churches. In all these I am considered a rational creature, 
 objects are proposed, evidence is offered ; if I admit it, I am not entitled 
 thereby to any temporal emoluments ; if I refuse it, I am not subjected to 
 any temporal punishments : the whole is an affair of conscience, and lies 
 between each individual and his God. I choose to be a christian on this very 
 account. This freedom, which I call a perfection of my nature ; this self- 
 determination, the dignity of my species, the essence of my natural virtue, 
 this I do not forfeit by becoming a christian ; this I retain, explained, con- 
 firmed, directed, assisted by the legal grant of the Son of God. Thus the pre- 
 rogatives of Christ, the laws of his religion, and the natural rights of 
 mankind being analogous, evidence arises of the divinity of the religion of 
 Jesus. 
 
 I believe, it would be very easy to prove, that the Christianity of the 
 church of Rome, and that of every other establishment, because they are 
 establishments, are totally destitute of this analogy (p. 25). 
 
 In his "Letter on Uniformity" (p. 82) Robinson condemned 
 in sharp language the attempt to force a national religion: 
 
 The idea of uniformity is neither the idea of a philosopher, nor of a 
 christian. The fabricature of this law [of uniformity] therefore by men who 
 had a just right to both these titles implies a moment's absence. 
 
 Sound policy requires a legislature to preserve its dignity; but the dig- 
 nity of a legislature is never more prostituted than when impracticable edicts 
 are issued. The dignity of legislation depends more on enforcing than on 
 inventing a law : the latter may be done by a pedant in his study, but the first 
 must have power, property, magistracy, penalty, in a word, authority to sup- 
 port it ; and this energy is its dignity. Where a tax is levied which the 
 people cannot pay ; where a kind of obedience is required which the people 
 cannot yield ; the legislators are forced to dispense with the obedience 
 
 '°3 " Reflections on Chr. Lib.," p. 87, in Works, Vol. I. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION I 25 
 
 required. And what follows ? The people despise a folly which could not 
 foresee, a narrowness of capacity which could not comprehend, a timidity 
 which dare not, or a weakness which cannot inforce its decrees. 
 
 In this is a pointed commentary on the civil difficulties of 
 the English government from the Reformation on. Discussing 
 magistracy this author said : 
 
 Let magistracy originate where it will, let it proceed from nature, from 
 God immediately, from the people, or from power, it is immaterial : from 
 none of these sources can there flow a right over the consciences of the sub- 
 jects.'"^ 
 
 Further, on the subject of the right of private judgment Rob- 
 inson commented as follows : 
 
 Whence church governors pretend to derive this right [to deny private 
 judgment] does not signify. It can neither be derived from the nature of 
 Christianity, the doctrine or practise of Christ or his apostles, the condition of 
 man in a state of nature, his condition as a member of society subject to 
 magistracy, nor indeed in England from anything but the act of supremacy, 
 an act which transferred a power over men's consciences from the pope to 
 the king, '"s 
 
 Thus thoughtfully and distinctly did Robinson express his 
 position, as well as that of the Baptists in general in the latter 
 half of the eighteenth century. Andrew Fuller'"^ and Robert 
 
 '"•t Works, Vol. II, p. 59. '°5 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 41- 
 
 '°6 Andrew Fuller, whose life was largely confined to the last half of the eight- 
 eenth century, indicates to us that within his time the discussion about religious 
 liberty took a turn which is frequently seen in these later times. He says : "The 
 right of private judgment in matters of religion appears to be the right which 
 
 EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS TO THINK AND TO AVOW HIS THOUGHTS ON THOSE SUB- 
 JECTS, WITHOUT BEING LIABLE TO ANY CIVIL INCONVENIENCE ON THAT ACCOUNT. 
 
 .... There can scarcely be any doubt remaining with respect to the power of the 
 civil magistrate to interfere with the religious sentiments and private judgment of the 
 subject : this is now very generally and justly exploded. But of late the subject has 
 taken another turn, and men have pleaded not only an exemption from civil penalties 
 on account of tlieir religious principles, in which the very essence of persecution exists, 
 but also that they are not subject to the control of a religious society with which they 
 stand connected for any tenets which they may think proper to avow. The right of 
 private judgment now frequently assumed is a right in every individual who may 
 become a member of a Christian church to think and avow his thoughts, be they what 
 they may, 7inthottt being subject to exclusion or admonition, or the ill opinion of his 
 
 brethren on that account But this appears to be highly extravagant, and is 
 
 what no man can claim as a right. The following considerations are submitted to the 
 reader. First: The supposed right of the individual is contrary to the principles on 
 
126 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Hall also entered into the production of sentiments on this sub- 
 ject, as witness Fuller's "Inquiry into the Right of Private 
 Judgment in Matters of Religion," and Hall's "Apology for the 
 Freedom of the Press," and his " Christianity Consistent with a 
 Love of Freedom " (found in their "Works"). 
 
 Through a period of comparative quiescence, rather than of 
 ecclesiastical debate, the Congregationalists advanced till they 
 also became advocates of a real liberty of conscience. " The Con- 
 fession of Faith of the Independent," by Rev. Job Orton, D.D., 
 was published as early as 1 7 1 7. He expressed his thought as fol- 
 lows : "I apprehend that no man or body of men whatever has 
 any power to impose any articles of faith or modes of worship 
 upon others, or control the liberty of private judgment." '°7 A 
 little over a century after this (1833) the Congregational Union 
 of England and Wales expressed itself in a Declaration of Faith. 
 In this the power of the Christian church is said to be purely 
 spiritual, "and should in no way be corrupted by union with 
 temporal or civil power." '°^ The time at last arrived when 
 the position so long controverted was theoretically admitted 
 and incorporated in the authoritative statements of Independ- 
 ency. 
 
 The Presbyterian denomination, strongly attached to its 
 Westminster Standard, and because of its great difficulties aris- 
 ing out of the Unitarian heresy, was still slower in incorporating 
 the modern conception in its expression of doctrine. The 
 Westminster Confession is decidedly intolerant. In 1784 the 
 Newcastle presbytery adopted a "Formula" which stated their 
 position in the following words : 
 
 And as these and all other doctrines which we believe and profess are 
 clearly comprehended, and shortly and distinctly summed up in the West- 
 
 xvhich Christian churches 'cvere 01-iginally fomided. .... Secondly: Not only is this 
 supposed right of private judgment inconsistent with apostolic practise, but it is also 
 
 contrary to reason and the Jitness of things Farther: If a christian society has 
 
 no right to withdraw from an individual whose principles they consider as false and 
 injurious, neither has an individual any right to withdraw from a society in a similar 
 case : and then there is an end to all religious liberty at once." {Works, Vol. V, pp. 
 215 f.) 
 
 '°TCong. Quar., July, i860. '"^schaff, Creeds of Chr., Vol. Ill, p. 743. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION I 27 
 
 minster Confession of Faith,"' we heartily acknowledge it to be the Confes- 
 sion of our Faith."° 
 
 This confession is still accepted as a general statement of 
 Presbyterian doctrine in England. The present (1899) ^oxm of 
 subscription,"^ however, makes exception to the clause in that 
 document which stands for intolerance. Evidence is not at hand 
 to show that this exception was made previous to the revival of 
 English Presbyterianism in 1876. 
 
 The clergy continued to be divided on the subject of tol- 
 eration. A bill was brought forward in 1721 to increase the 
 stringency against antitrinitarian writings. It was supported by 
 the archbishop of Canterbury and some other prelates. It 
 failed to pass."^ Swift, the renowned dean of St. Patrick's, 
 issued a pamphlet in 1732, in which he maintained that an estab- 
 lishment of religion is essential to a nation's welfare. He said 
 that if an act should be passed to establish Presbyterianism, 
 Independency, or any other form of ecclesiastical government, 
 without question all subjects ought to submit. He thought that 
 the public should sustain no other teachers and admit to office 
 
 109 -Westminster Confession of Faith, chap, xxiii, sec. iii : "The civil magistrate 
 may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and Sacraments or the 
 power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; yet he hath authority, and it is his 
 duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of 
 God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all cor- 
 ruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordi- 
 nances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting 
 whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that 
 whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." (Schaff, Creeds 
 tj/C^r.,Vol. Ill, p. 653.) 
 
 ^'^° Report of Proceedings of the Second Gen. Conn, of the Pres. Alliance, p. 1038. 
 
 "' The existing method of subscription consists in returning a satisfactory answer 
 to the following questions appointed to be put: "To Ministers and Elders: Do you 
 sincerely receive and adopt the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith as 
 in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture ; and do you consent to the said 
 Confession as the Standard by which your teaching (for Elders read 'the public 
 teaching') in this Church shall be judged ; it being understood in reference to the 
 teachings of the Confession of Faith regarding the duty of Civil Rulers, that — while 
 holding the subjection of such rulers, in their own province, to the authority of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ — you are not required to accept anything in that document which 
 favours or may be regarded as favouring intolerance or persecution?" {Report of 
 Proceedings of Second Gen. Coun. of Pres. Alliance, p. 1037.) 
 
 '"Lecky, Eng. in XVIII Cent., Vol. I, p. 361. 
 
128 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 no other persons than those who were members of the estab- 
 lished church, whatever that church may be. "3 
 
 On the other side, we find that when Earl Stanhope intro- 
 duced a bill into the House of Lords for the repeal of the Test 
 Acts (171 7) he was strongly supported by several bishops. 
 Bishop Hoadly spoke eloquently in behalf of the principles of 
 Christian liberty, maintaining that all religious tests were an 
 abridgment of the natural rights of man, an injury to the state, 
 and a scandal to religion. The bishops of Gloucester and Lincoln 
 also spoke in behalf of the measure. Bishop Kennet, of Peter- 
 borough, was especially effective in his utterances. He declared 
 that the arbitrary measures of persecution adopted in the past 
 had brought contempt on the clergy and disaster to the state.'"* 
 
 A treatment of "Liberty, Civil and Religious,"- came out in 
 London in 181 5 (B. M. 521, h. 29). Though anonymous, it is 
 evident that the writer was a churchman. He did not attempt to 
 advocate liberty, but simply to indicate some of its boundaries. 
 In general he congratulated England on her forward position 
 relative to freedom. After referring to the particular position of 
 the establishment, he said: "Let not those then be heard, who 
 affirm that the Church of England is inimical to liberty." The 
 increasing friendliness of the churchmen to liberty during this 
 period did not arise from their religious conceptions. It was 
 due to external conditions. Throughout this time of change of 
 sentiment, which has amounted to a revolution of thought, the 
 Thirt3^-nine Articles have remained stationary. 
 
 The state of the contest in the latter part of the eighteenth 
 century was commented upon by the eminent Unitarian, Dr. 
 Joseph Priestley. In him we find the foremost advocate of 
 liberty among the Unitarians. He says : 
 
 The subject of free inquiry, I am well aware, is a very trite one, especially 
 as one of the usual topics of the fifth of November, on which it is customary 
 to call the attention of Protestants to the use of reason in matters of religion, 
 in order to indicate the principles of the Reformation ; and also further to 
 assert our liberty of dissenting from the established religion of this country. 
 This has been done so often that it may seem a wornout and useless topic."S 
 
 "3 Cf. Stoughton, Vol. XI, p. 5. "* Cf. Traill, Social Eng., Vol. V, p. 232. 
 
 "5 The Importance and Extent of Free htquiry in Matters of Religion, A Sermon. 
 (B. M. 447.3, c. 8 (10).) 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL AGITATION I 29 
 
 He further asserts that 
 The times in which we live are unfavorable to free incjuir)' in matters of 
 religion. We are not, indeed, persecuted for our religious principles, and few 
 persons have much scruple in openly declaring what they think ; but the 
 influence of habit, of fashion and of connections, in these peaceable times, 
 is such, that few persons, very few indeed, have the courage to act agreeably 
 to their principles, so as to rank themselves, and to appear, in that class of 
 men to which they belong. (Pp. 37 f.) 
 
 That Dr. Priestley did not consider political disabilities under 
 the head of persecution is evinced by a "Letter to William Pitt, 
 on the subject of Toleration and Church Establishments" (B. 
 M. 687, g.(4)). This letter was called forth by a speech of 
 Pitt in opposition to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. 
 In it he argued that dissenters would not be dangerous men in 
 office, as Pitt supposed. The great ruler received some apt and 
 discriminating advice from the discerning preacher: 
 
 As an individual, give as much attention to religion as you please, but as 
 the ostensible prime minister of this country, you have nothing to do with any 
 life beside the present and the happiness of the inhabitants of this island 
 in it (p. 5). 
 
 I have even no doubt but that as Christianity was promulgated and pre- 
 vailed in the world without any aid from civil power, it will, when it shall 
 have recovered its pristine vigour, entirely disengage itself from such an 
 unnatural alliance as it is at present fettered with, that our posterity will even 
 look back with astonishment at the infatuation of their ancestors, in imagin- 
 ing that things so wholly different from each other as Christianity and civil 
 power had any natural connection (p. 13). 
 
 Dr. Priestley also asserted his objection to the demand that the 
 university students subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He 
 further opposed ecclesiastical marriages and the paying of tithes. 
 It is interesting to note in connection with Priestley's admis- 
 sion that persecution was past, that in 1791 the Birmingham 
 riots occurred. They arose from the hostility of the populace 
 to the Unitarians. These writings had aroused Edmund Burke 
 to reply in defense of the establishment. The resulting furor 
 brought much persecution to these people, but it came from mob 
 violence rather than from legal force. The law passed during 
 the reign of William III., proscribing the public maintenance of 
 Socinian opinions, had not been enforced nor repealed. In 1792 
 
130 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Fox took up the cause of the Unitarians and proposed the repeal 
 of this law. He claimed the same toleration for them as was 
 accorded the orthodox nonconformists. The movement was 
 unsuccessful. Only in 1813 were the statute-books purged of 
 this blot. 
 
 Several attempts were made to do away with subscription to 
 the Thirty-Nine iVrticles by nonconformist ministers and school- 
 masters. When the bill for this was reintroduced in 1773, 
 Edmund Burke assisted in its advocacy. When he was told that 
 the dissenters could expect nothing but connivance, he replied 
 with indignation: "What, sir, is liberty by connivance but a 
 temporary relaxation of slavery?""^ This matter was pressed 
 again in 1779 by Sir Henry Hoghton, and this time was suc- 
 cessful in part. The conditions were still imposed to the 
 extent that all ministers and schoolmasters must be Christians 
 and Protestants. "7 
 
 The nation's intolerant attitude toward atheism was most per- 
 sistently continued. There was a very general antipathy to it. 
 Atheists were few in number, and hence few advocates arose to 
 give special attention to their rights. In 1 880 their political rights 
 began to be demanded by many who were aroused by the Brad- 
 laugh incident. Elected to Parliament for Northampton, Charles 
 Bradlaugh, an atheistic and radical journalist, pleaded that he 
 had the right to affirm instead of being sworn by the parliamen-- 
 tary oath. This was denied, as also was his right to be sworn 
 at all. He presented himself repeatedly, and carried the matter 
 to the courts, but was not successful until 1885, when he was 
 reelected by his constituency. On taking his seat he was instru- 
 mental in securing the adoption of an af^rmation-bill. 
 
 The most noteworthy advocacy of this cause in recent times 
 was that of John Stuart Mill. In his " Essay on Liberty " is to be 
 seen the trend of modern thought. Neither religious nor politi- 
 cal arguments predominate in it. The well-being of society is 
 most prominent. He limits his argument to that which arises 
 from general utility, regarding utility as the ultimate appeal in all 
 
 "6 Cf. May, Constitutional Hist., Vol. Ill, p. 93. 
 
 "7STOUGHTON, Vol. VI, p. 1 56. 
 
PERIOD OF POLITICAL A GITA TION I 3 I 
 
 ethical questions. General utility, he contends, authorizes the 
 subjection of individual spontaneity to external control only in 
 respect to those actions of each which concern the interests of 
 other people (p. 25). He holds that this freedom is yet 
 unattained (1858). The constraint he does not attribute so 
 much to governmental pressure as to public opinion. 
 
 He urges that all thought should be submitted to discussion, 
 because "the beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no 
 safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole 
 world to prove them unfounded" (pp. 42 f.). Leaving the lists 
 open he regards as the only way of gaining infallibility. The 
 failure of good men in the past to attain infallibility must decrease 
 our assurance as to our own beliefs. Nor is there a certainty 
 that truth will prevail. "It is," he says, "a piece of idle senti- 
 mentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power 
 denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake" 
 (p. 55). All that we know is that it will be rediscovered in time. 
 And "it is not the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most 
 by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end in the 
 orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm is done to those who 
 are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, 
 and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy" (p. 62). A true 
 opinion, held simply as a prejudice and without proof, he brands 
 as but one superstition more which accidentally clings to the words 
 that enunciate a truth. More, "he who knows only his side of 
 the case knows little of that" (p. 68). Still further: 
 
 All ethical doctrines and religious creeds are full of meaning and vitality 
 to those who originate them, and to the direct disciples of the originators. 
 Their meaning continues to be felt in undiminished strength, and is perhaps 
 brought out into even fuller conscientiousness, so long as the struggle lasts to 
 give the doctrine or creed ascendency over other creeds (p. 73). 
 
 Mill holds popular opinions to be unreliable, for, while they may 
 contain truth, they are but seldom, if ever, the whole truth. He 
 mentions that in politics "it is almost a common-place, that a 
 party of order or stability, and a party of reform or progress, 
 are both necessary elements of a healthy state of a political life." 
 In his chapter on "Individuality" as one of the elements of 
 well-being he advances the following considerations : 
 
132 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes 
 more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to 
 
 others Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever 
 
 name it may be called There is always need of persons, not only to 
 
 discover new truths but also to commence new practises, and set the example 
 of more enlightened conduct Genius can only breathe in an atmos- 
 phere of freedom. 
 
 As to the limits of society's authority over the individual he 
 says : 
 
 To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the indi- 
 vidual that is interested; to society the part that chiefly interests society. . . . 
 Encroachment on their rights ; infliction on them of any loss or damage not 
 justified by his own rights; falsehoods or duplicity in dealing with them; 
 unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them ; even selfish abstinence 
 from defending them against injury — these are fit objects of moral reproba- 
 tion, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment. 
 
 In respect to that which lies beyond the realm of social concern 
 he asserted finally that "the strongest of all arguments against 
 the interference of the public with purely personal conduct, is 
 that when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly 
 and in the wrong place." 
 
 As a literary work this essay is remarkable. It is profound 
 and discriminating, and withal exceedingly clear. It is truly a 
 masterpiece. In seeking a line of argument that would appeal 
 to the largest number, the author took no cognizance of the more 
 restricted hypotheses which had been placed as foundations of 
 the former theories. Broader than existing Christianity, he has 
 made his premises as universal as the needs of men. Hence he 
 has sought the fullest right of private judgment. No meaner 
 motive than the welfare of men inspired him. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 Hitherto our task has been to set forth the facts which have 
 been most important in this English contest for the right of pri- 
 vate judgment. The polemical literature of the subject has fur- 
 nished the most trustworthy information. The contest was by no 
 means wholly a literary one. For definite facts, however, we 
 are driven to the treatises, together with public addresses which 
 have gotten into print. We may assume with somewhat of con- 
 fidence that the preachers of a denomination advocated from 
 the pulpit what the denomination expressed in its confessions. 
 Further, we may safely hold that the vigor of a denomination's 
 advocacy was commensurate with the strength of its confes- 
 sional statements, and the frequency and boldness of personal 
 literary efforts of its members. Yet it is not for the historian 
 to assume. The indisputable evidence alone can rightly guide 
 us in our deductions and generalizations. It becomes our task 
 here to reconsider the courses of thought already traced and 
 briefly summarize them, locating as accurately as possible the 
 different factors. Our examination will be in respect to ideals, 
 motives, and comparative effectiveness. It is obvious that we 
 must be satisfied with the merest approximation. Doubtless 
 many elements entered the contest of which we have no sug- 
 gestion, at least no complete apprehension. Our standard for 
 judgment must necessarily be the highest and clearest thought 
 of the present day. An attempt has been made to outline this 
 in the "Introduction." 
 
 From the very Reformation period the English Anabaptists 
 rejected every human authority over the conscience. They 
 were indeed the radicals of the Reformation. By the authori- 
 ties they were held to be anarchists. And according to English 
 laws they were such. The claims of the national ecclesiastical 
 laws they denied entirely. To the courts of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury this was as anarchistic as to repudiate civil law. In fact, 
 
 133 
 
134 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 the terms "civil" and "ecclesiastical" were not yet generally 
 used with discrimination. By churchmen this refusal to admit 
 the magistrate's ecclesiastical function was regarded worse than 
 a refusal to recognize his civil function. Murder was a crime 
 against the body; heresy was a crime against the soul. Ana- 
 baptists were not only among the heretics of the day, and there- 
 fore propagators of a heresy, but they held that difference of 
 opinion was right and should be allowed. What others called 
 blasphemous they called Christian. They firmly opposed, not 
 only what was then termed orthodoxy, but also every unpro- 
 gressive orthodoxy. They admitted the capacity of the human 
 mind to expand, and the possibility of obtaining clearer per- 
 ceptions of divine truth. This was destined to herald the 
 revolution of political and ecclesiastical thought among Anglo- 
 Saxons, and even the abolishment of its very axioms. Differing 
 fundamentally from the prevailing ideas, the foreign concep- 
 tion conquered, not because it was alien, but because it was 
 Christian. 
 
 This assertion of individualism was too strongly emphasized 
 at first. It led to a neglect of the social and governmental. 
 For a time there was an unwillingness to take oaths or accept 
 a governmental position. The magistrate was never denied his 
 civil function, but an incompatibility was thought to exist 
 between magistracy and Christianity. By the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century this had passed away, and all proper author- 
 ity was accorded to the national government. Passive submis- 
 sion was ever conceded by these people, in every particular, but 
 by protest they displayed their antagonism to a religious des- 
 potism. Though no enormities are accredited to the English 
 Anabaptists, in this early, formative, and somewhat obscure 
 period, they were misunderstood. The^ sins of certain conti- 
 nental heretics, who were popularly classed as their fellows, were 
 expatiated upon so as to reflect upon them. The violent opposi- 
 tion to them by churchmen is easily accounted for by the con- 
 tradiction which their principles presented to ecclesiasticism. 
 This led to the unsavory association mentioned. The temporary 
 over-emphasis of individualism, while an occasion for ill-feeling 
 
CONCL USION I 3 5 
 
 on the part of the government, was never more undesirable than 
 the similar over-emphasis of the Quakers at a much later date. 
 
 They sought an opportunity to hold and propagate their 
 peculiar views, but they denied the same opportunity to none. 
 They even urged that all Protestants be free in the exercise of 
 their faith. Further still, the hated Papists were also included 
 in this list. And to the utter astonishment of the community 
 at large, they boldly declared that Jews and Turks and infidels 
 had the same rights. The political ruler was stripped of his 
 authority over the conscience. This high ideal, once accepted 
 by the English Anabaptists, was retained. The Baptists, their 
 lineal descendants, turned not to the right hand nor the left, but 
 followed in the footsteps of their progenitors. Though but few 
 of them were learned or gifted, they made a very respectable 
 showing in the production of favorable sentiment. Never a 
 numerous people, they were for many decades prominent and 
 isolated in their advocacy of this tenet. Their isolation was 
 then relieved by the rise of partial sympathizers and helpers. 
 For at least two and one-half centuries these people were under 
 the ban of the religious public of England. They were regarded 
 as heretics, blasphemers, and visionaries. Their views were felt 
 to be destructive to national government and ecclesiastical order. 
 Their conduct gained them a reputation for inoffensiveness and 
 sobriety. In time they became ranked with the safer noncon- 
 formists. Their greatest offense was that they were leaders of 
 thought in the realm of the governmental. They dared to differ 
 from others in that they applied Christian teaching to civil life. 
 The greatness of the crime for which they were condemned was 
 in proportion to their distance in advance of their contempo- 
 raries. 
 
 The ideal or ideals of the Independents cannot be expressed 
 so easily or so accurately. From a position that was as intol- 
 erant as their scheme of church democracy would allow, they 
 advanced step by step, until they, too, embraced the heathen in 
 their charity. This change of doctrine in the case of the Inde- 
 pendents, as of Episcopalians and Presbyterians, was not by 
 evolution, but by attrition. It did not proceed from their 
 
136 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 fundamental views or hypotheses, and in that way come at last 
 into outward expression. Their doctrine of coercion was worn off 
 by the friction of civil experiences. To make their later posi- 
 tion consistent requires a change in their underlying principle. 
 The decidedly non-Christian premise which sustained a super- 
 structure of coercion is out of harmony with the Christian view 
 of full liberty. The Brownists and their successors, the Congre- 
 gationalists, shifted the responsibility for decision in particular 
 doctrines from the magistrate to the independent church, for 
 they rejected bishops and prelates, holding that the congrega- 
 tions of Christians should find the truth and set it forth. The 
 ruler was then responsible for making selection of this as the 
 true church. Having made this right selection, the state was to 
 enforce the laws of the church. It was to support the church 
 from its treasury, to protect it from its opponents, and to 
 advance its interests by punishing blasphemy and heresy with 
 the sword. Rejecting the prevailing notion that the magistrate 
 was entirely responsible for the salvation of his subjects, they 
 divided the responsibility between the religious body and the 
 civil ruler. The ruler was the arm of the church. He was 
 thought of by them as a civil attachment to the ecclesiastical 
 organization. He was denied the spiritual functions of teacher 
 and priest, or mediator. Instead of being a bishop of the 
 bishops, he was to be instructed by the church. Since his eccle- 
 siastical duties consisted merely in executive acts, they were 
 called civil duties. This conception arose with Robert Browne 
 and prevailed among the Independents for a century. From 
 this it follows that the Independents were tolerationists. 
 According to them individuals had no rights. All rights were 
 inherent in the church and the king. The church monopolized 
 the thinking and laid the boundaries beyond which no one 
 could go without being punished. Here was but another shift 
 of authority. From the pope it had come to the king. Now 
 the Independents would transfer a part of the identical preroga- 
 tives from the king to their less centralized ecclesiastical organi- 
 zation. No less authoritv over the mind was assumed. The 
 boundaries thev extended from time to time. Being heretics 
 
CONCLUSION 137 
 
 also, in the eyes of the world, their antipathy toward heresy 
 in the abstract was greater than toward their fellow-heretics. 
 They tended to make a distinction between dangerous and harm- 
 less differences of opinion. Somewhat early they became broad 
 enough to concede a place to the Presbyterians and the Baptists. 
 With these they must make common cause to stem the tide of 
 conformity. At last, when the views of the nation were enlarged, 
 they admitted that persecution had no place in the Christian sys- 
 tem. They were, in fact, the leading tolerationists, and the}- 
 were ever in the van of the hosts that sought a liberty to which 
 they claimed no title based on universal principles of right. 
 
 Whatever merit this view had lay in the fact that many 
 Christian men are included in the council which decides what 
 the religious belief of the nation ought to be. The king still 
 had a decision to make, but only in respect to what system 
 should be enforced. The Congregational church was to work 
 out the system. That Christian men should be the interpreters 
 of Christian law is self-evident ; though it is not clear that their 
 interpretations should be forced upon unbelievers. The state- 
 ment that the combined results of the investigation of thousands 
 will be more accurate than the decisions of an individual needs 
 no discussion. Its demerit was in the assumptions that com- 
 paratively few Christian men should do the religious thinking 
 for all England ; that Protestantism after their t3'pe, or that even 
 Christianity in any form, must monopolize Englishmen ; that 
 the church was accountable for the salvation of the nation ; and 
 that coercion was a means of grace. 
 
 The Quakers came late upon the scene of action, yet not so 
 late as to be unnoticed in their advocacy of complete religious 
 freedom. They maintained a long and vigorous fight. In their 
 thought there were no limitations. No one had a right to tol- 
 erate. With the Baptists, they held that the government existed 
 for the people. Like the early Anabaptists, they had religious 
 notions which conflicted with practical political life. They 
 refused to take oaths and to enter the army, and paid tithes 
 only on being forced by legal process. The lack of clearness 
 and fulness in most of the statements of their doctrine tends to 
 
138 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 show that they adopted rather than worked out their position. 
 They were not the pioneers in this territory of thought. Then 
 also they came into being when regal despotism was writhing 
 under the chastisement of an exasperated public. Charles II. 
 was being taught that not all power in the nation could be 
 depended on to support his doctrine of the divine right of kings. 
 The conditions rendered it easy and natural for them to adopt 
 the most radical view of the times. 
 
 The Episcopalian establishment was Roman Catholicism 
 reformed, but only to the first degree. That reformation made 
 the magistrate the head of the church. To avoid the pope's 
 interference with civil matters, King Henry VIII. assumed the 
 functions claimed by the pope. To secure the salvation of his 
 subjects was then reckoned a duty of the ruler. This high and 
 important end should be gained by printing Bibles, instructing 
 the people in the orthodox doctrines and ceremonies ; and, 
 finally, by coercion. 
 
 The Episcopalians did not hold that forcing the body saved 
 the soul. Some contended that it stirred up the unthinking to 
 examine the foundations of their faith. Some regarded perse- 
 cution as a healthy reminder of the ill effects of incorrect think- 
 ing. Great stress was laid on the necessity for uniformity in 
 religion. The purpose to be gained by this was political, not 
 religious. The nation's peace was supposed to be at stake. 
 Religious wars were rife on the continent. They argued that if 
 they could avoid disagreement of thought they would avoid civil 
 strife. The salvation of the state was regarded as the chief end 
 of Christianity. The interests of the many should not be sacri- 
 ficed to the unreasonable desires of the few. To differ from the 
 policy of the state was unreasonable and dangerous. Therefore 
 the schismatic should be dealt with by the magistrate to preserve 
 the state. In this view the lives of men were depreciated, their 
 personal interests disregarded, and the Christian doctrine of 
 religious liberty set aside. From this position a large part of 
 the church advanced in its thought. The movement, however, 
 was not uniform, nor was it at all general until the subject came 
 to be considered politically. Even then the majority of the 
 
CONCLUSION 139 
 
 clergy continued their opposition. The advance that was made 
 was consistent with the stand already taken. The foundations 
 of their theory remained undisturbed. Its application was not 
 carried so far. 
 
 The Presbyterians, from their early Puritan stage, accepted 
 the prerogatives of the magistrate. They did not protest against 
 the doctrines of the establishment, nor did they come under the 
 head of sectaries. They sought reforms in morals, ceremonies, 
 and church order. While deposing bishops, they did not desire 
 to disturb the magistrate. The state was expected to convene 
 synods and to control their action. Holding tenaciously to the 
 belief that they were right, and that wrong was not to be toler- 
 ated, they were consistent persecutors when in power, and oppo- 
 nents of liberty always. They differed but little from the 
 establishment. At one time they went so far as to seek reen- 
 trance into that organization. Their concern was to preserve 
 order in the religious world. To this end the rights of men 
 were sacrificed and the kingdom of God belittled. Though these 
 views were doubtless modified previous to the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, the authoritative doctrinal statements give no evidence of 
 such change until very recent years. 
 
 In accounting for the existence of these varying ideals we 
 are forced into a consideration of the theological principles of 
 the classes represented. Far the most important stage in this 
 controversy was the religious stage. Though the practical and 
 the political were ever considered. Scripture interpretations sup- 
 plied the impetus which put the contestants into the struggle. 
 Nor did the subject shift into the political arena until the arbiter 
 of philosophic thought, John Locke, had accepted the theologi- 
 cal hypothesis of the radical Baptists. 
 
 The acceptance or rejection of the Old Testament as a rule 
 of faith and practice for Christians made the primary division in 
 respect to this subject. The peculiar position of the Baptists 
 was the logical outcome of finding their testimony in the New 
 Testament and their example in Christ. Neither Moses nor 
 David nor Josiah impressed them as being examples to Christian 
 magistrates. They recognized Christ as inaugurating a new era. 
 
MO CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 and as inculcating new principles. They held that Christ had 
 become their spiritual King. The Old Testament was not 
 rejected by them as history, but as Christian law. Moses might 
 persecute, they thought, but Christ did not. The Jewish order 
 might stone the blasphemer; not so the Christian church. The 
 Episcopalian and Presbyterian argued the king's religious preroga- 
 tives from Hebrew history. He not only might, but he must, 
 secure his people from idolatry, as Josiah did. His chief care was 
 to be the souls of men. They gathered, also, that since Israelitish 
 kings made their nation righteous by coercion, and righteousness 
 procured salvation, English kings could procure the salvation 
 of Englishmen in the same manner. This resulted in the gov- 
 ernment becoming an instrument for the production of Christians 
 and the peopling of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Further, the theory that the church was identical with the 
 nation is an Old Testament conception. The Baptists urged the 
 "Parable of the Tares," holding that the "field" is the world. 
 The Episcopalians and the Puritans identified the "field" with 
 the church. From the hypothesis of a national church the idea 
 of uniformity readily springs. A church must not be divided in 
 thought or practice. Quite contrary to this is the New Testa- 
 ment idea that a church is a congregation of persons related 
 spiritually to Christ. With the nation as the church, persecution 
 was merely discipline. And chastisement was a divine means of 
 promoting salvation. 
 
 The rejection of infant baptism by Baptists was one with 
 their rejection of the national church. Since salvation was to 
 be obtained by individual faith, it did not come through birth 
 and ceremony. The infant did not become regenerate by the 
 priestly performance, nor did it become so by later instruction, 
 and therefore it was not a member of Christ's church. They 
 held that instruction was the only means in the possession of 
 men by which they could be instrumental in effecting the salva- 
 tion of others. To them the effect of persecution was to take 
 away by death the possibility of repentance, or at least to harden 
 the heart against the Christian religion. 
 
CONCLUSION 141 
 
 Thus these two opposing views arose logically from just as 
 different theological premises. The stand of the Independents 
 resulted from a middle position. They held, with the conserva- 
 tives, that the examples of the Old Testament rulers were to be 
 followed by the Christian magistrate of England, at least to a 
 certain extent. He was to look to the religious interests of the 
 state. He was not, however, to be the means through which 
 revelation should reach the people. In the gospel dispensation 
 the church was charged with that duty. The church was a con- 
 gregational body. No diocesan or ruling bishops were conceded. 
 This mongrel conception of toleration arose from an attempt to 
 reconcile the Old Testament idea of a religious magistracy with 
 the gospel conception of a church. The Independents did not 
 go so far as to repudiate the state church ; they simply subjected 
 the state to the church. Detecting the un-Christian elements in 
 the Episcopalian hierarchy, they shrank from it, but for the peace 
 and order of the commonwealth they feared to do away with all 
 human authority. Having done away with bishops, the magis- 
 trate was the only logical candidate for this power. The sub- 
 ordination of the interests of the individual to the state, in their 
 estimate, outweighed many other considerations. 
 
 In an examination of the motives which animated the differ- 
 ent classes of contestants in this struggle it is seen that a multi- 
 tude of combinations exist. All classes made large use of the 
 lower motives. The only comparison which will yield results can 
 be made in answering the question : What classes arose to the 
 highest point in their employment of motives ? The time came 
 when political interests predominated generally. In this period 
 we shall not be so successful in making comparisons. The Ana- 
 baptists and Baptists, to whom is due the origin of the move- 
 ment, laid stress upon the example of Christ. He restrained 
 the exasperated disciples who would have the unbelieving 
 Samaritans destroyed. They held up the teaching of Jesus. The 
 Parable of the Tares was often recited. Christ, too, was the 
 " Shepherd " and "Savior ; " how could he kill or injure ? New 
 Testament history and apostolic instructions were cited freely. 
 They contended that the gospel was to usher in a reign of faith 
 
142 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 and liberty rather than of fear and coercion. Again, they 
 regarded truth, if unrestrained, able to gain its own victory. 
 God did not need the statutes or armies of men to force truth 
 upon the world. Then they grasped the idea of individualism. 
 The responsibility of the individual to God endowed him with 
 inherent rights. Christ had respected these rights. The state 
 ought to do so, for such recognition would not be incompatible 
 with the true functions of the state. They held that persecution 
 would make evangelization impossible. Even the heretic, if not 
 destroyed by coercion, would be driven out of the reach of 
 gospel preaching. Compulsion, they thought, was not directed 
 against suitable objects to indicate sincerity. If it had been 
 aimed against immorality, it would have found more favor with 
 them. In their estimation, to seek conformity was to encourage 
 hypocrisy. They rejected the saving power of the sacraments, 
 believing that salvation was for the obedient believer. Further, 
 to " try the spirits," in order to see whether they were of God, 
 necessitated the existence of differing "spirits," which unifor- 
 mity made impossible. They argued that they could neither 
 know nor do the will of God without freedom of conscience. 
 In their desire to leave no stone unturned, they cited testimony 
 in favor of such freedom, claimed the fulfilment of the royal 
 promises, and oftentimes laid great stress upon the severity of 
 their own sufferings. 
 
 In the case of the Independents the motives never ranged so 
 high. Their pleas for toleration were usually on the ground of 
 policy. It would be advantageous to the nation to "give the 
 people content." There would be greater devotion to a lenient 
 nation. The dissenters could not be expected to be attached 
 to a government which despoiled their goods and sought their 
 lives. They laid their stress upon the denial of the govern- 
 mental advantages of a rigid conformity. They believed in a 
 conformity, but they would hold the reins more loosely. Chris- 
 tians whose doctrines and practices were reasonably near their 
 standard should be undisturbed. Any distress to such was sure 
 to weaken the nation's support. It was a Christian state, and 
 should have the sympathy and backing of Christians. 
 
CONCL USION 1 4 3 
 
 An argument from particular fitness, that is, likeness to the 
 predominant church in all essentials, was pressed with persistence. 
 They asserted that it was to no purpose to deny them and some 
 of their fellow-dissenters toleration, for they did not differ 
 enough to justify such harsh treatment. The minor points which 
 distinguished them were not worthy of the government's notice. 
 They also were Protestants. Their interests were allied with 
 those of the English church. As to their own people in par- 
 ticular, they argued that their loose government and small 
 numbers made them necessarily harmless. A democratic organi- 
 zation like theirs could not endanger the public welfare. Unlike 
 popery, their success would not mean the unsettling of the civil 
 power. They had ever in mind the stability of the government. 
 It must not be overlooked that many of them were willing to 
 sacrifice what they regarded their own interests for the good of 
 the nation. They recommended charity to the rulers, but not 
 for its own sake or because it was a Christian virtue, but because 
 it would produce the best national results. They appealed to 
 the magistrates and used arguments calculated to have weight 
 with them as officials. Such motives were the logical accom- 
 paniments of their low ideals. 
 
 In pleading for liberty the Quakers laid much of their stress 
 on the peculiar sanctity of their people, hence their more than 
 ordinary right to follow their own choice. Inasmuch as they 
 asked for a general freedom, they sought it on New Testament 
 grounds. The very highest motives appear. The principles of 
 Christianity, the rights of men, and the nature of government are 
 advanced as reasons for religious liberty. Their writers were 
 few in number and differed from each other greatly as advocates. 
 The pretentious claim of sanctity arose in the early and crude 
 stage of Quakerism. The higher motives are the expressions of 
 the later and more refined period. 
 
 We should take account also of the motives of the advocates 
 of intolerance. They are charged with utter selfishness and 
 unscrupulousness. Such wholesale treatment is unjustifiable. 
 If we admit that men might be led to a real acceptance of their 
 theories, we must admit that persecution might result from 
 
144 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 conviction of duty. We applaud the desire which many of them 
 expressed to save their neighbors from themselves. It was just 
 this that the champions of compulsion claimed to do. The 
 salvation of the people was the end they hoped to gain by their 
 severity. Conceding the Old Testament idea that coercion may 
 be conducive to righteousness, we have a logical, and it may be a 
 sincere, persecutor. A strong assurance of the righteousness of 
 our own theories, plus an overweening conception of their impor- 
 tance and the fatality of bad thinking, are all that is necessary to 
 make a Bloody Mary out of an absolute queen. Logic has 
 played no insignificant part in Christendom's doctrines of intol- 
 erance. 
 
 Uniformity was advocated on the ground that it alone would 
 support Christianity and the state. And surely these were laud- 
 able aims. That real fear for the safety of these institutions 
 did exist it is easy to believe. The distorted conception of 
 Christianity which must prevail when it becomes allied with the 
 management of civil affairs readily accounts for such fears. But 
 even to men of such ideas Christianity was the hope of the 
 world. It must be preserved. To pity men tormented with 
 such fears and driven to such extremities is surely proper, but 
 wholesale denunciation is not becoming in any. 
 
 That many of the supporters of intolerance were insincere is 
 evident. The church was their tool. Greed of gain, longing 
 for power, and hope of continuing their immoral living called 
 forth many attempts to stamp out purer doctrines. Their theory 
 was un-Christian at the very best, their practice was diabolical. 
 
 The question of relative effectiveness has no bearing upon 
 the merits of this case. There is no evidence that high ideals 
 were held in abeyance because the pressing of low motives would 
 reach the end sooner. It is the constitution of man that pre- 
 vents the attainment of high ideals at a single bound. It was 
 human, indeed, in the sixteenth century to brand the holding of 
 the radical doctrine of liberty of conscience as fanaticism. The 
 idea was held to be preposterous. And such it was to the 
 un-Christian mind. The Great Teacher, however, enunciated it, 
 as well as other lofty conceptions, in the first century. And, 
 
CONCLUSION 145 
 
 strange as it may seem, his disciples grasped the thought, and it 
 was wrought into their characters. 
 
 The preconception of the English mind made the reception 
 of this truth difficult. It did not harmonize with the established 
 views of statecraft. It was antagonistic to the prevailing notion 
 of the church. These were the conditions, whatever they ought 
 to have been. Our inquiry is : In such circumstances, what 
 action would produce the desired sentiment most readily ? The 
 idealist is repugnant, He is regarded as a visionary. But, on 
 the other hand, the change advocated by the mere tolerationist 
 is an advance from the position of the past, and is conceded to 
 be less impracticable. 
 
 Such a leader is not so far ahead of the host as to lose his 
 influence over it. Mill was not entirely correct in saying that 
 *' the great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty 
 it possesses, have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an 
 indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is 
 accountable to others for his religious belief." "^ 
 
 The tolerationists were very assiduous in propagating their 
 ideas. They advanced from point to point and carried man}^ 
 with them. They, above all, were feared by the intolerant. 
 Many thought that the idealists could be vanquished with epi- 
 thets, but the more moderate demand of the tolerationist called 
 forth strenuous efforts of opposition. And, in giving this class 
 its due meed of praise, it must be recalled that it was ever in 
 advance of the times. While it was made up of conservatives, 
 they were still leaders. Their ideals were low, but from that 
 very fact they did not give such offense to those with still lower 
 standards. It is natural for men to wish for sympath}^ in their 
 teachers, even if the sympathy results from their common fail- 
 ings. The hypotheses of the tolerationist and the coercionist 
 were in general identical. In the production of sentiment noth- 
 ing is so indispensable as unanimity in the underlying principles. 
 It is true that the tolerationists were illogical, and their argu- 
 ments alone would never have led to liberty, but they were 
 useful in weaning the public from intolerance. Among their 
 
 "9 Oti Liberty., p. 20. ' 
 
146 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 number were many men of ability. They were men of affairs. 
 Their influence in forwarding this movement is very evident. 
 To them is due much more of commendation than an analysis of 
 their ideals and motives at this present time would lead one to 
 suppose. 
 
 The great contest is not yet entirely ended. But what a 
 glorious accomplishment ! Centuries have been devoted to it. 
 Many of the renowned of earth have had a part in it. Yet by 
 far the most honorable part was taken by men who in their day 
 were accounted as the offscouring of the earth and are yet 
 unknown to fame. Christianity has been its inspiration ; the 
 good of humanity its aim. The end now attained justifies the 
 expenditure made. Christian ideals are coming into favor. 
 The shackles of the human mind are well-nigh thrown off. The 
 prospects of England are more glorious than her history. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Sir Thomas More, Utopia. 
 
 John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, Vol. I, pp. 552 f. 
 
 John Strype, Annals. Life of John Whitgift, Vol. Ill, p. 77. 
 
 John Knox, Works, Vol. V, pp. 217 f. 
 
 1552. Calender of State Papers. Domestic Series, 157. 
 
 1556. A Short Treatise of Politike power and of the true obedience which 
 Subjects owe to Kings and other civill Goveners. " Commonwealth 
 Tracts," 1639-41. (Newberry Library.) 
 
 WiLKiNS, Consilia, Vol. Ill, p. 776. 
 
 1573. An Answere to a Certeji Libell intituled. An admonition to the Parlia- 
 ment. By John Whitgifte. (B. M. 697, F 11. London.) 
 
 Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Vol. Ill ; Keble edition, revised, B. 
 VIII, App. No. I. 
 
 Edwin Sandys, Sermons; Parker Society edition. (B. M., Ac. 2077 (7).) 
 
 Roger Hutchinson, Works; Parker Society edition. (B, M., Ac. 2077 
 (9).) Secoftd Sermon on oppression. Affliction and Patience, pp. 323 f. 
 
 Het Bloedig Toonel, Deel 11, pp. 694-712 ; Hansard Knollys Society. Broad- 
 mead Records, Hist. Int., p. Ixvii. 
 
 1573. Thomas Cartwright, ^ Replye to (an) answere ma{de of) Doctor 
 {Whitgift), etc. (B. M. 108, b. 4.) Also vf rote. Be Ipes for Discovery, etc., 
 which was reprinted in 1648. 
 
 1550 (?)• John Hooper, Early Writings ; Parker Society. 
 
 1582. Robert Browne, A Booke which sheweth the life and Manners of 
 all true Christians and also there goeth a Treatise before of Reforjnation 
 without tarrying for anie, etc. (B. M., C. 37, e. 57. Middleburg.) 
 
 1583. Richard Harrison, A Little Treatise upon the first verse of the 122. 
 Psahn. (B. M. 3090, a. 15.) 
 
 1588. I. G. M., Some laid open in his coulers wherein the indifferent reader 
 may easily see howe wretchedly and loosely he hath handeled the cause 
 against M. Penri. (B. M. 848, a. 10.) 
 
 1589. R. Some, A Godly Treatise, Wherein are examined and Confuted 
 many execrable fancies out and holden, partly by Henry Barrow and 
 Joh7i Greenwood, partly by other of the Anabaptistical order. (B. M., 
 bbb. 17.) 
 
 1590. George Gyffard, ^ Plain Declaration that our Brow?iists be full 
 Donatists. (B. M, 697, c. 27. London.) 
 
 1596. A Trtte confession of the Faith and Humble Acknowledgement of the 
 alegeance which we his Majesties subjects, falsely called Brownists doo 
 hould towards God, atid yield to his Majestie and all other that are over 
 us in the Lord. (B. M. 4103, c.) 
 
 147 
 
148 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 1593. J. Strype, A7inals,No\. IV, No. XCIV, pp. 197 f. 
 
 1607. " A petition for liberty of Conscience by the ' rigid Puritans,' " Neal's 
 History of the Puritans, Vol. I, pp. 436 f. 
 
 1607. Netherlands, A Confession of Faith of certayne English people. 
 (B. M. 3506, a. 31.) 
 
 1609. An humble Supplication for Toleration . ... by late silenced and 
 deprived Ministers. (Dr. Williams' library.) 
 
 161 1. Thomas Helwoys, ^« advertisement, or admottition unto the Con- 
 gregations, which men call the New Fryelers. (B. M. 702, c, 32.) 
 
 1 61 4. John Robinson, Of Religious communion Private and Public. (B. M. 
 4323. b.) 
 
 161 4. Leonard Busher, Religious Peace, or a plea for liberty of Con- 
 science, etc. (B. M., E. 334 (7)-) 
 
 1616. Henry Jacob, A Confession attd protestation of the faith of certaine 
 Christians. (B. M, 4103, a. 19.) 
 
 1623. Edmond Jessop, a Discovery of the errors of the Ettglish Anabaptists. 
 (B. M. 4135, bb. 6. London.) 
 
 1624. Sir John Hayward, Of Supremacie in Affaires of Religion. (B. M., 
 T. 774 (3). London.) 
 
 1641. J. Taylor, Religious Enemies. (B. M. 4135, a. London.) 
 
 1 64 1. Katherine Chidley, The fustification of the Independent Churches 
 
 of Christ. (B. AL, E. 174 (7)-) 
 164 1. The Humble Petition of the Brownists. (B. M., E. 178 (10).) 
 1641. }. Canne, Syons Prerogative Royal. (B. M. 697, a. 53. Amsterdam.) 
 
 164 1. Thomas Edwards, Reasons against the independent govern7nent oj 
 particular Congregations. (B. M., E. 167 (18). London.) 
 
 1642. Tom Nash, his Cost. (B. M. no (5). York and London.) 
 
 1642. W. Castle, The fesuits undertnining of Parliaments and Protestants. 
 (B. M., E. 124(7).) 
 
 1643. A Short History of the Attabaptists. (B. M. 4661, b. York.) 
 
 1643. T. Goodwin, P. Nye, W. Bridge, S. Simpson, and J. Buronghss, 
 An Apologeticall Narration. (B. M. 100(14)-) 
 
 1643. Liberty of Conscience, etc. (B. M. 100, d. (69).) 
 
 1644. Against Universall Libertie of Conscience. (B. M. 4105, a. London.) 
 1644. Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution. 
 
 1644. The Compassionate Samaritane Unbinding the Conscience. (B. M., E. 
 
 1202(11).) 
 1644. C. Blackwood, Stommig of Antichrist in his strotigest Garrisons. 
 
 (B. M., E. 22 (15).) 
 1644. Reformed Presbytry opposing Tyrannical Presbytry, etc. (B. M., E. 
 
 1181(5).) 
 1644. A. Steuart, The Second Part of the Duply M. S. alias two brethren 
 
 (B. M., E. 20(7).) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 49 
 
 1644. Griffith Williams, Bishop of Ossory, The Rights of Kings both 
 in Church and State. "Commonwealth Tracts," 1642-4. (Newberry 
 Library.) 
 
 1644. John Milton, Areopagitica. (B. M., E. 18 (9).) 
 
 1645. Young Martin Mar Prelate, The Arraignment of Mr . Persecu- 
 tion. (B. M. io8,b. (52).) 
 
 1645. The Ancient Bounds, or Liberty of Conscience, etc. (B. M., E. 287 (3).) 
 
 1645. G. Gillespie, IVholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty. 
 (B. M.,E. 24(5).) 
 
 1646. Wm' Dell, Utiiformity Examined. (B. M., E. 322 (12). London.) 
 1646. John Goodwin, Hagio Mastrix. (B. M., E. 374 (i). London.) 
 1646. A Short Defettsative about Church Governmejtt, Toleration ana 
 
 Petitions about these things. (B. M., E. 334 (p. 46).) 
 1646, A Letter of Advice unto the Ministers Assembled at Westminister. 
 
 (B.M.,E. 334(13).) 
 1646. J. Saltmarsh, The Smoke in the Tetnple. (B. M., E. 316 (14).) 
 1646. Thos. Edwards, Gangraena. (B. M., E. 323 (2). London.) 
 1646. John Goodwin, Hagio Mastix or Scourge of the Saints displayed, 
 
 etc. (B. M., E. 374 (i).) 
 1646. J. Burroughs, Irenicum, To the lovers of Peace and Truth. (B. 
 
 M., E. 306 (9).) 
 1646. J. Saltmarsh, Groans for Liberty, etc. (B. M., E. 327 (20).) 
 
 1646. J. M(ayne), D.D., The Difference about Church Government ended. 
 (B. M., E. 339 (8).) 
 
 1647. Thos. Edwards, The casting down of the last and Strongest hold 
 of Satan. (B. M„ E. 394 (6j.) 
 
 1647. Daniel Featley, D.D., The Dippers dipt, or The Anabaptists Dueled 
 and Plunged over Head and ears at a disputation in Sotithwark, 
 (University of Chicago Library.) 
 
 1647. Robert Baillie, Minister at Glasgow, Disswasive from the 
 Errors of the Time, Pt. 2, " Anabaptism the fountaine of Independency, 
 Brownisim, Autinomy, FamiHsme." (Newberry Library.) 
 
 1647. Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying ; Heber edition. Vols. VII 
 and VIII. 
 
 1647. Samuel Richardson, The Necessity of Toleration in Matters of 
 Religion. (B. M., E. 407 (18). London.) 
 
 1647. Christopher Cartwright, The Magistrates Authority in Matters 
 of Religion. (B. M., E. 401 (32). London.) 
 
 1648. Helps for the Discovery of the Truth in point of Toleration. (B. M., 
 E. 423 (19). London.) Reprint from T. Cartwright. 
 
 1649. Philopatrius Philalethes, The Depths of Satan Discovered. 
 Tracts, V, 1649. (Newberry Library.) 
 
 1649. Thomas Whitfield, Minister, A discourse of Liberty of Con- 
 science. (Dr. Williams' library.) 
 
I 50 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 1649. City-Ministers unmasked, or the Hypocrisie &^ Iniquity of Fifty 
 nine of the most eminent of the clergy in and about the City of London. 
 "Commonwealth Tracts," 1641-9. (Newberry Library.) 
 
 1649. S. Rutherford, A Free Disputatiofi against pretended Liberty of 
 Conscience. (B. M., E. 567 (2).) 
 
 1650. A Pack of Puritans. (4103 e.) 
 
 1650. L. MOLINAENS, The Power of the Christian Magistrate in Sacred 
 Things. (B. M. 1366 (4).) 
 
 165 1 . C. Walker (?), The High Court of fustic c of Cromwells New Slaugh- 
 ter House in England. (B. M. 1951 (9).) 
 
 1653. John Goodwin, Thirty Queries jjtodestly Propounded in order to a 
 discovery of the truth. (B. M. 689 (4). London.) 
 
 1653. Geo. Fox, Warning to the Rulers of Etigland not to usurp dotninion 
 over the Conscience. (B. M., E. 727 (9).) 
 
 1654. Oliver Cromwell, His Highness the Lord Protectors Speech to 
 the Parliament, Sept. 4, 16^4. " Commonwealth Tracts," 1654-5. (New- 
 berry Library.) 
 
 1655. England, Scotland and Ireland Conunon wealth. A true state of the 
 case of liberty of Conscience in Commonwealth of England. (B. M., E. 
 848 (12). London.) 
 
 1659. John Milton, A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes. 
 (B. M. 1019, b. (18).) 
 
 1659. A Declaration of the Faith and Order, Owned a7id practised in the 
 Congregational Churches in England. Savoy, 1658. (Dr. Williams' 
 library.) 
 
 1 660. A Brief Cottfession or Declaration set forth by many of us who are 
 {falsely) called Anabaptists. (B. M., E. 1017 (14).) 
 
 1660. G. Lawson, Politeia Sacra et Civilis. (B. M., E. 1024 (2).) 
 
 1 66 1. John Sturgion, A plea for tolleration of opinions and persuasions 
 in matters of religion, etc. (B. M., E. 1086 (3).) 
 
 1661 . G. Bishop, An Illumination to Open the Eyes of the Papists and of all 
 other Sects. (B. M. 415 i, b.) 
 
 1 66 1. Geo. Fox, For the King and both Houses of Parliament sitting at 
 Westminister, etc. (B. M,, 4152, c. (21). London.) 
 
 1662. W. Prynne, a Moderate, Seasonable apology, etc. (B. M. 287, g. 27 
 
 1663. Henry Savage, The Dew of Hertnon. Which fell upon the Hill of 
 Sion. (Newberry Library.) 
 
 1665. A Tolleration sent down frotn Heaven to Preach, etc. (B. M. 224, 
 
 a. 42 (46).) 
 1667. J. O. A Peace- Offering^ in aji apology and hmnble plea for htdul- 
 
 gence and Libertie of Conscience, etc. (B. IVL 4139. d.) Also Owen's 
 Works. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY I 5 I 
 
 1667. Thomas Tomkins, Inconveniences of Toleration. (Newberry Library.) 
 
 1668. (J.Corbet?), A Second Discourse of the Religion of England, etc. 
 (B. M. 875, e. 58 (2).) 
 
 1668. (C. WoLSELEY ?), Liberty of Conscience the Magistrates Interest. (B. 
 
 M, 4103, e.) 
 1668. (R. Perrinchief ?), A Discourse on Toleration. (B. M. 4105, a.) 
 
 1668. (R. Perrinchief ?), Indulgence not fustified. (B. M. 701, c. 42 (i).) 
 
 1669. John Owen, Truth and Innocence vindicated in a survey of a dis- 
 course (by S. Palmer) concerniftg Ecclesiastical Polity. (B. M. 4103, b.) 
 Owen also wrote pamphlets on Liberty of Conscience, hidulgence and 
 Toleration, and Two Questions, etc. Owen's Works. 
 
 i66g. S. Parker, A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie. (B. M. 852, f. (5).) 
 
 1670. Sir Robert L'Estrange, Toleration discussed in two dialogues. 
 (B. M. 874, d. 24. London.) 
 
 1 670 (?). John Owen, D.D., An Account of the grounds and reasons on which 
 Protestant Dissenters derive their liberty. (B. M. 105, f. 20 (18).) 
 
 1670. Toleration Disproved and Cojtdemned By the Authority and con- 
 vincing reason, etc. (B. M. 4106, c. Oxford.) 
 
 1670. P. (W.), The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience once more briefly 
 Debated and Defended. (B. M., T. 407 (5).) 
 
 1675. Geo. Fox, Christian liberty co77unended and persecution condemned. 
 (B. M. 4152, c. (23).) 
 
 1 676. Geo. Fox, To all Magistrates and people in Christendom and else- 
 where, (B. M. 4151, c. (46). London.) 
 
 1678. J. Nalsom, The True Liberty and Donmiion of Conscience, vindicated, 
 etc. (B. M. 1113, h. I (i). London.) 
 
 1 68 1. Liberty of Conscience itt its Order to Universal Peace. (B, M. 116, c. 
 25.) 
 
 1682. S. BoLDE, A Plea for Moderation vs. Dissenters. (B. M. 698, 1. 1. (3).) 
 1682. S. BoLDE, Sermon against Persecution. (B, M. 4106, b.) 
 
 1682. The Coftforfnists Second Plea for Nott- Conformists. (B. M. 4136, aaa 
 
 4 (2).) 
 1682. Nath. Bisbie, D.D., Prosecution vs. Persecution. (Dr. Williams' 
 
 library.) 
 
 1682. Geo. Fox, Concernittg persecution in all ages ujitil this day. (B. M. 
 41 5 1, c. (51). London.) 
 
 1683. Geo. Fox, To all rulers and magistrates to be tender and take heed, 
 etc. (B. M. 415 I, aa. 57 (12).) 
 
 1683. Philip Nye, The Lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy, etc. (B. M. 
 105, b. (47). London.) 
 
 1685. Toleration and Liberty of Conscience considered and proved impracti- 
 cable. (B. M. 698, h. 18 (10). London.) 
 
 1687. Indulgence to Tender Conscience shewn to be most reasonable and 
 Christian. (B. M., T. 763 (16). London.) 
 
152 CONTEST FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 1687. Advice to Freeholders. " Eng. Hist. Tracts." (Newberry Library.) 
 
 1687-8. British Museum Tracts {T. 76 t,). This collection contains forty- 
 three pamphlets on this subject. 
 
 1689. Thomas Long, Exeter, The case of persecution, charged on the Church 
 of England. (B. M., T. 750 (8). London.) 
 
 1689. John Locke, "First Letter on Toleration," Works. 
 
 1689. Liberty of Conscience explicated and vindicated. B. M., T. 1675 (2)- 
 London.) 
 
 1689. By a Learned Country-Gentleman, Liberty of Conscience Asserted 
 and Vindicated. (B. M., T. 1675 (31).) 
 
 1689. Thomas Long, B.D., The Letter for Toleration {by J. L.) decipher d, 
 etc. (B. M. 4136, aaa. 33.) 
 
 1690. Jonas Proast, The Argument of the Letter com. Toleration considered, 
 etc. (B. M., 116 c. (64).) 
 
 1705. An Historical Account of Comprehension and Toleration. (Dr. 
 
 Williams' library.) 
 1719-20. Edward Hyde, Lord Clarendon, History of the Rebellion and 
 
 Civil Wars in Ireland. (B. M. 809, K. (18).) 
 
 1719. Equal Liberty of Conscience asserted. (B, M. 698, i. 10(1). London.) 
 
 1720. England, fews in — An historical treatise concerning fews and fuda- 
 ism in Engla7id. (B. M., T. 1750 (7).) 
 
 1721. Liberty without Licentiousness. (B. M. 4474- b. 51. London.) 
 
 1 734. Ancient and Modern Liberty stated and compar''d. (B. M., T. 1 667 (2). 
 
 London.) 
 1738. Thomas Ckosby, History of the Baptists. 
 1766. Freedom of Speech and Writing upon public affairs considered. (B. M. 
 
 522, k. II. London.) 
 1785. Jos. Priestley, The Importattce and extent of Free Inquiry in 
 
 Matters of Religion. (B, M, 4473, c. 8 (10). Birmingham.) 
 1787. Jos. Priestley, A Letter to the Right Honourable IV. Pitt on the 
 
 subjects of Toleration, etc. (B. M. 687, g, 35 (4). London.) 
 1790 (?). Geo. Walker, The Dissenters Plea. (B. M. 4135, cc. Birming- 
 ham.) 
 1790, A Collection of Testimonies in favor of Religious Liberty, in case of 
 
 Dissenters, Catholics, and fews. By a Christian Politician. (Dr. 
 
 Williams' library.) 
 1809, Chr, Wyvill, Intolerance the Disgrace of Christians, not the fault 
 
 of their religion. (Dr. Williams' library.) 
 1815, Liberty Civil I attd Religious. By a Friend of Both, (B. M. 521, 
 
 h, 29, London.) 
 1824. Locke s opinio fis 7ipon Toleratioft exa^nined, in a letter addressed to 
 
 Lord Liverpool. (B. M. 8145, a. Dublin.) 
 1830. Joseph IvysifEY, History of the English Baptists. 
 1841, Edwin Sandys, ^.fr;-^^?/^, Parker Society. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY I 5 3 
 
 1846. E. B, Underhill, editor, Tracts on Liberty of Cottscience and Perse- 
 cution. Hansard Knolly's Society, 
 
 1849. John M. Baxter, The Church History of England, 
 
 Bishop Burnet, Our Own Times, 
 
 Benjamin Evans, D,D., Early English Baptists. 
 
 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. 
 
 Andrew Fuller, Works. 
 
 Robert Robinson, Works. 
 
 Robert Hall, Works. 
 
 John Bunyan, Works. 
 
 Report of Proceedings of the Second General Council of the Presbyterian 
 Alliance, (Library of McCormick Seminary.) 
 
 David Masson, The Life of fohn Milton, Vol. HI. pp. 98 f. 
 
 Chas. Hardwick, History of the Articles. 
 
 Philip Schaff, Creeds of ChristeJtdom, " Belgic Confession," in Vol. HI. 
 
 John Robinson, Works, Ashton edition. Vol, H, 
 
 BoGUE AND Bennett, History of Dissenters. 
 
 Abbey, English Church and Bishops, Vol. I. 
 
 Hanbury, Hitorical Memorials, Vol. HI. 
 
 Skeats and Miall, History of the Free Churches of England. 
 
 The fewish Year Book, 1 896-7. 
 
 J. Stoughton, Religion in England. 
 
 H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as Seen in its Literature. 
 
 Phillips Brooks, Tolerance. 
 
 Bishop M. Creighton, Persecution and Tolerance, 
 
UNIVERSITY OB CAIKORNIA LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the las. date statnped below. 
 
 u A i«. 7 S cents on first day overdue 
 Fine schedule. 25 cen« ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ 
 
 One dollar on seventh day overdue. 
 
 .^•^^ 
 
 ^^ri>y it 1955 1^ 
 
 tSNov'GOEl 
 }N STACKS 
 
 MAY 111979; 
 
 
 NOV loiaeOficca ^y^ ^^ 
 
 
 #^ 
 
 
 .100m-l2,'46(A2012sl6)4120 
 
VC 32265 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 

 '%. 
 
 ^ .t 
 
 '^ 
 
 •>fe<^l 
 
 f'i^- 
 
 
 W, 
 
 --%%^^'' " 
 
 
 
 
 ^y. ^ 
 
 '%' 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^^., t 
 
 
 
 ■J 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 .^*W 
 
 '%t^ 
 
 ^r