Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

actors and doctors of the middle ages, nor indeed the illustrious leaders of the Reformation themselves by the principles which prevail in the nineteenth century. The doctrine of toleration had not then received its full discussion. If the men of those times persecuted, they did it on principle. If Calvin practiced intolerance, and

*

* Calvin's persecution of Servetus, among others, is already, no doubt, familar to the reader. Calvin had written to Viret and Farel, to say that, "if that heretic came to Geneva, he would take care that he should be capitally punished,"-a threat, which he afterwards fulfilled to the very letter. For Servetus was condemned to be burnt alive on the 27th October, A.D., 1553. Nor was this persecution any new thing. It had long been the custom of Geneva to punish heresy. In 1536, several persons were deprived of liberty because they refused to embrace the received doctrine. In 1547, Jacques Gruet was beheaded. In 1551, Bolzec was first imprisoned and then exiled, while about the same time Castalio met with a similar fate. And in 1558, Gentilis only escaped capital punishment by an open and public, although feigned, recantation.

[ocr errors]

And as to the persecution of Servetus, which perhaps of all these and similar cases has excited most general attention, it may help to show the spirit of the age when we add that the conduct of Calvin and the Genevese was approved by some of the chief of the Reformers. Both Viret and Farel expressed their approval. Farel explicitly affirmed that "Servetus deserved a capital punishment.' Theodore Beza even wrote in its defence. For in the year 1554, in answer to Faustus Socinus and especially to Sebastian Castalio, who had been induced by the fate of Servetus to write a work entitled De Hæreticis, non puniendis, Beza published his famous book-" De Hæreticis à Magistratu gladio puniendis." Bucer in like manner wrote that-"Servetus deserved something worse than death:"-while the excellent and gentle Philip Melancthon in a letter to Calvin, says,—“In my opinion your magistrates have acted justly, in putting to death a blasphemer, convicted by due process of law."

Observe too on this subject of toleration the following opinions

Baxter preached it, we may wonder less at the legislation of a Henry VIII., an Elizabeth, or a Charles II. In fact, when the last-named monarch, under the influence of the Duchess of Portsmouth issued a proclamation, suspending, by his own dispensing power, all penal enactments against dissent, it had no effect but to evoke the opposition of the nation. For the House of Commons at

the very next session not

only voted the exclusion of

from Puritan writers at the time of the Commonwealth: Edwards in his Gangræna:-" As original sin is the fundamental sin, having in it the seeds and spawn of all sin; so a toleration hath in it all errors and evils. This is the Abaddon, Apollyon, the destroyer, of all religion, therefore the devil follows it, night and day, and all the devils in hell and their instruments are at work to promote a toleration." Baillie in his Dissuasive:-"A monstrous imagination-liberty of conscience and toleration is so prodigious an impiety, that this religious parliament cannot but abhor the very naming of it.' Rutherford, in his Free Disputation:-" Toleration makes the Scripture a nose of wax." Good, in his Sermon, 1644:-" The toleration of every religion will destroy all religion. Let such toleration find allowance in the Turk's paradise; it shall never I trust be planted in the paradise of God." He further calls it,

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a bloody tenet to the souls of men." Cave, in his Sermon, 1647: 'Liberty of conscience may in good time improve itself into liberty of estates, and liberty of houses, and liberty of wives, and, in a word, liberty of perdition of souls and bodies. Ashe in his Sermon, 1645:-"I beseech you, take heed of tolerating all religions. Such liberty would usher in libertinism and hasten our desolation." Calamy in his Sermon, 1644:-"The city of London is become an Amsterdam-separation from our churches is countenanced. Toleration is cried up. It overgroweth all Churchgovernment, bringeth in confusions, and openeth a wide door unto all irreligion and atheism; for at the same door that all false religions come in, the true religion will quickly get out." And finally, Baxter, himself an advocate of persecution, says,—“I abhor unlimited toleration, or any toleration at all."

Roman Catholics from all places of public trust, but in passing the "Bill of Supplies" appended the famous "Test Act," by which its provisions acquired the force of law.* The nation was not prepared for toleration. Indeed, even Locke himself, in the very treatise which he penned upon this subject, taught that "those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God."

Intolerance, therefore, was not as M. Simon seems to think, consequent upon any particular system, as that of the constitution of the Church with the state; but was the distinctive and characteristic spirit of the age to which the acts in question exclusively pertain.

By the Test Act 25 Car. II, c, 2, says Blackstone, it was provided that all persons having any office, civil or military (with the exception of some few of an inferior kind,) or receiving pay from the crown, or holding a place of trust under it, should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation, and also receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England. Commentary on the Laws of England, (Stephen's Edition,) vol iii, p. 105.

CHAPTER IX.

THE LAWS AND LIMITS OF TOLERATION.

At this point in our argument, it is desirable that we should enter upon a question, the discussion of which is essential to a correct appreciation of the subject of these pages the question, that is, of the laws and limits of toleration, in their relation to the principle of church and state.

Law, it must be remembered, however we may define it, is the political antithetic of toleration. It is in the nature of a law to restrict freedom of action -or as Jeremy Bentham has, with less of his usual accuracy expressed it." All law is an infraction of liberty," and again,-" all law is contrary to liberty," +

* "Toute loi est une infraction de la liberté."

+"Toute loi est contraire à la liberté."

"Restrictions on liberty are," says the same author, inevitable. It is impossible to create rights (droits,) without imposing obligations; to protect person, life, reputation, property, subsistence, even freedom itself, except at the price of liberty."* Such therefore, being the fact, it is evident that law represents, in virtue of its very nature, and as of necessity, the principle of intolerance. All law is in essence proscriptive. It imposes limits upon the active powers. It erects given acts, some of which may be harmless in themselves, into delinquencies, délits, or penal offences. And in any case, it imposes restraints, such as cannot be said to exist in a state of nature, that is such a state as may be supposed to have prevailed anterior to the existence of the laws.

Toleration, according to this view then is as to its subject-matter, two-fold, or in other words, civil and religious. There are many civil acts, innocuous in themselves, which, nevertheless, state legislation has rendered penal, in view of the public good; and many others, to which it has attached prejudices and disabilities. These, then, are so many instances of civil intolerance. A man may not convey his property as he pleases; he must have due regard to legal forms. A man may not pay his debts as he pleases; he must in like manner respect the enactments of the legislature, or else suffer mulcts and losses. In brief,

no member of the state is civilly free. not tolerated.

Given actions are

His power to do is circumscribed and

* Traités de Législation Civile et Pénal, Vol i. 164.

« ÖncekiDevam »