05b. Chapter 5 (Continued)

Reference has been repeatedly made to the state of the army, and of the almost innumerable varieties of sects which appeared in it, and throughout the kingdom; and it has been shown that this strange and formidable chaos of religious opinions can best be accounted for by attending to the fact, that almost the entire population had been allowed, or rather constrained, to remain in a state of deplorable ignorance, by the wretched policy of the Prelatists and of the despotic monarchs, who deemed it inexpedient to teach the people to think, lest they should turn their attention to public matters, and learn to think and act for themselves. The direct consequence of this was, that when the naturally strong mind of England was fairly roused, it put forth its strength, but, like the mighty Hebrew when fallen into the hands of his adversaries, put it forth in blindness. At the commencement of the war between the king and the Parliament, ministers were appointed to accompany the parliamentary army, to train the troops in sound religious knowledge, and guide them in the worship of God. But this was both an irksome and a dangerous task; sufficient numbers could not be obtained. When the Westminster Assembly met, some of the ablest were called to attend its deliberations; and after the self-denying ordinance, when the army was new-modeled, it was left almost entirely to the wildly erratic instructions of self-called and uneducated lay-preachers. It was not strange that enthusiastic notions should be promulgated, and should be widely received, when poured forth amidst such exciting scenes and circumstances by the wildly eloquent fervor of strong and earnest minds. And as little was it strange that the thoroughly learned and deep-thinking divines of the Assembly should perceive the dangerous consequences to religion, morality, and peace, which must inevitably follow from the unrestrained diffusion of all the lawless and extravagant fancies by which the fermenting public mind was agitated and borne along. They knew what had taken place in Germany, when the peasantry were roused to insurrectionary tumults by the licentious principles and harangues of the Anabaptists, and they dreaded the occurrence of similar events in England. For such reasons they were exceedingly anxious that a regular and authoritative system of Church government and discipline should be established, and put in operation with all convenient speed; and this wish was in itself of a truly pious and patriotic nature, even though it could be proved that the means by which it was sought to be realized were not the most judicious that could have been imagined. This course of reflection leads us to make some inquiry into the subject of religious toleration, of which so much has been said and written, in the present as well as in former times. The term itself, toleration in matters of religion, is one which has rarely been defined with that care and exactness which its great importance demands; consequently, the whole subject is liable to every sort of sophistical perversion; and very many of the controversial writings that have appeared concerning it start from different points, and run on either in parallel or in diverging lines, without the possibility of ever arriving at the same conclusion. Many thousands have been oppressed, persecuted, and put to death, for maintaining and promoting God’s revealed truth; many thousands have suffered equal extremities for maintaining and promoting satanic falsehood; and many thousands have sustained all degrees of punishment for the perpetration of immorality and crime. But who will assert that the same principle appears in all these cases? Who will say, that because it is right to suppress and punish the commission of crime, therefore it is right to suppress and punish men for asserting religious truth? Or, that because it is wrong to suppress truth, therefore it is wrong to suppress crime, or discountenance error? But men try to escape from such reasoning, by asserting that truth cannot be ascertained with certainty; and that therefore it is best to give equal toleration to all opinions, lest a grievous mistake should be committed, and truth suppressed instead of error. This is the language of skepticism, and the principle which it promulgates is not toleration, but latitudinarian laxity and licentiousness. Such language really implies, either that God did not intend to convey saving truth in a manner intelligible to the minds of men, or that he failed in his intention. But since few will be found reckless enough to maintain such opinions in their naked deformity, the advocates of skeptical laxity have recourse to every kind of evasion, in order to conceal alike the nature of the principle which they support and of that which they oppose. And, unhappily, these evasions are but too consonant to the character of the fallen mind of man, which is "enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." This is a truth which the sincere Christian feels and knows, but which philosophers and politicians reject, despise, and hate. The essence of the inquiry is, "Has God revealed sacred saving truth to man, as the only sure guide and rule in all religious, moral, and social duties?" And if this be admitted, then arises the next question, - "Can this truth be so fully ascertained and known as to become a sufficient guide and rule in all such duties?" If this too should be admitted, we then arrive at the important practical inquiry, - "In what manner may the knowledge of this sacred saving truth be most successfully diffused throughout the world?" For if such truth has been revealed, and can be known, man’s first duty must be to know it himself, and his next, to communicate it to others. But he may err in this second point of duty, and may actually impede, while he is intending to promote, its progress. Few will deny that it is the duty of every man, in his station, to encourage the extension of truth by every legitimate means within his power; but it does not at once appear so clear, whether it be also his duty to engage so actively in such a removal of opposing obstacles as would involve the direct suppression of error. And it is at this stage of the inquiry that the question of religious toleration arises in its proper form and character. For it never ought to be made a question, whether truth ought to be tolerated or not, - truth ought to be encouraged and diffused; but the question is, Ought error also, and with equal directness, to be suppressed? The best method of obtaining a right answer to this inquiry is, to consult the Word of God, and to investigate the nature of conscience. The Word of God, in almost innumerable instances, commands the direct encouragement of truth, and also the suppression of certain forms of error, - as of idolatry and blasphemy; but gives no authority to man to judge and punish errors of the mind, so far as these amount not to violations of known and equitable laws, and disturb not the peace of society. And with regard to the nature of conscience, it is manifest to every thinking man, that conscience cannot be compelled. It may be enlightened, it may be convinced, but its very nature is the free exercise of that self-judging faculty which is the essential principle of personal responsibility. Hence it is evident, that it is alike contrary to the Word of God and to the nature of conscience, for man to attempt to promote truth by the compulsive suppression of error, when that error does not obtrude itself on public view by open violation of God’s commandments and the just laws of the land. But it by no means follows that toleration means, or ought to mean, equal favor shown to error as to truth. Truth ought to be expressly favored and encouraged: erring men ought to be treated with all tenderness and compassionate toleration; but error itself ought to be condemned, and all fair means employed for its extirpation. This could never lead to persecution; because it would constantly preserve the distinction between the abstract error and the man whose misfortune it is to be an erring man, and to whom it would show all tenderness, while it strove to rescue him from the evil consequences of those erroneous notions by which he was blinded and misled.

There is great reason to believe that the Presbyterians and the Independents of the Westminster Assembly misapprehended each other’s opinions on the subject of religious toleration. What the Presbyterians understood their opponents to mean by that term was what they called a "boundless toleration," implying equal encouragement to all shades and kinds of religious opinions, however wild, extravagant, and pernicious in their principles, and in their evident tendency. And when they somewhat vehemently condemned such laxity and licentiousness, the Independents seem to have thought that they intended or desired the forcible suppression of all opinions that differed from their own. Yet surely the Independents might have better understood both the principles and the practice of Presbyterian Churches. In Holland, a Presbyterian country, they had themselves enjoyed the most complete and undisturbed toleration in religious matters. They had often witnessed the interposition of the Scottish divines on their behalf in the debates of the Assembly; and if they experienced somewhat sharper treatment and more pointed opposition from the English Presbyterians, that might easily be explained by the difference of temper in men struggling to obtain the establishment of a system, and in men living in that system when established, and then acting according to its native spirit and character. They might have made allowance also for the feeling of excited alarm with which the Presbyterians regarded the portentous growth and multiplication of heretical sects, alike dangerous to religious truth, to moral purity, and to national peace; for it must be observed, that during Cromwell’s administration, when the Independents were in the enjoyment of chief power, many of these sects (such as Levelers, the Fifth-Monarchy Men, the Socinians, the Antinomians, the Quakers, etc.) were forcibly suppressed, without any opposition being offered by them to this suppression, as an intolerant interference with liberty of conscience. The only explanation, we apprehend, which can be given of this inconsistency of the Independents, is one not very creditable to their character for integrity of principle.

During their struggle with the Presbyterians, they needed the support of numbers, being but few themselves, and therefore they advocated a "boundless toleration," - of which they did not really approve, and which, when in power themselves, they did not grant. ⁹

It has been often confidently asserted, that the Independents were the first who rightly understood and publicly advocated the great principle of religious toleration. That they did assert that principle is certain; but that they were the first who did so is not the truth. Luther declared, that "The Church ought not to force persons to believe, nor to animadvert capitally on those who follow a different religion:" "That to believe is something free, yea, divine, being the fruit of the Spirit; wherefore it cannot, and ought not, to be forced by any external violence." The language of Zuingle is not less explicit: "It is at once contrary to the Gospel and to reason, to employ violent measures to extort a confession of faith contrary to conscience. Reason and persuasion are the arms that a Christian ought to employ." Even Calvin and Knox, terrible as their very names appear to some, and associated with the very essence of intolerance, repeatedly expressed sentiments precisely similar, strenuously maintaining the liberty of the conscience, and condemning persecution. And in Scotland, where the Presbyterian Church was early established, and repeatedly enjoyed much power, often as that Church suffered persecution in every form and degree, it never, in its day of power, persecuted its enemies in return. This some will think a strange assertion, accustomed as they have been to hear so much about Presbyterian intolerance; yet it is not more strange than true. And did our space permit, we could furnish ample proof that the true principles of religious toleration were both held and practiced in Scotland by the Presbyterian Church, both before Independency had come into existence, and during the very time of the struggle between the two parties in England. And even in the Westminster Assembly, at the time when the subject of toleration was under discussion, the true principles of religious liberty were avowedly held and publicly taught by the Presbyterian divines, the very men who are so vehemently accused of intolerance, - at least as distinctly and earnestly as they were by the Independents. Such sentiments as the following were frequently expressed by them in their public sermons: - "Fierce and furious prosecution, even of a good cause, is rather prejudice than promotion. We must tenaciously adhere to all divine truths ourselves, and, with our wisest moderation, plant and propagate them in others. Opposites, indeed, must be opposed, gainsaid, reclaimed; but all must be done in a way, and by the means, appointed from heaven. It is one thing to show moderation to pious, peaceable, and tender consciences; it is another thing to proclaim beforehand toleration to impious, fiery, and unpeaceable opinions." In the last sentence of this quotation a distinction is drawn which touches the essential point of the controversy between the Presbyterians and the Independents. The Presbyterians wished Church government to be established in the first instance, and then a toleration to be granted to tender consciences. the Independents, on the other hand, strove to obtain a legislative toleration first, and then it would have been a matter of little moment which, or whether any, form of Church government should be established. The Presbyterians not only apprehended that this would amount to the establishment of the Independent system, instead of their own, and consequently, to the frustration of the very object for which the Assembly had met, and for which they had sworn the Covenant, namely, the promotion of uniformity in religious matters throughout Protestant Christendom, Independency being prevalent in no European country; but also, they regarded it with strong alarm, as sanctioning all the pernicious heresies with which England abounded, and establishing the principle of universal licentiousness. On the other hand, the Independents knew well, that unless the spirit of a Presbyterian Church should be different in England from what it was in every other country, its establishment would not prevent toleration, to the utmost extent that God’s Word warrants, and an enlightened conscience can require. Such, indeed, was the conviction of Dr. Owen, who, though not a member of the Westminster Assembly, was thoroughly acquainted with many of the leading Presbyterians, knew their sentiments, and understood their system. "Had the Presbyterian government," says he, "been settled at the king’s restoration, by the encouragement and protection of the practice of it, without a rigorous imposition of every thing supposed by any to belong thereunto, or a mixture of human institutions, if there had been any appearance of a schism or separation between the parties, I do judge they would have been both to blame; for they allowed distinct communion upon distinct apprehensions of things belonging to Church order or worship, - all ‘keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ’ If it shall be asked, Then why did they not formerly agree in the Assembly? I answer, 1. I was none of them, and cannot tell.

2. They did agree, in my judgment, well enough, if they could have thought so; and further I am not concerned in the difference." ¹⁰ The real cause, most probably, why they did not agree, was what has been already suggested, - that the intriguing spirit of Nye involved the Assembly Independents in the political schemes of Cromwell. But though that ambitious man made use of them to promote his designs, by retarding the settlement of any thing till his power was matured; and though he continued to bestow upon them the chief share of his favor after he had seized upon the scepter of imperial sway; he neither granted, nor did they sue for, universal toleration. This is placed beyond doubt by the circumstances connected with some ecclesiastical arrangements proposed in his Parliament in the year 1654. The leading Independent ministers laid before the Committee of Triers, at that time formed, a series of requests, in the form of a representation, one article of which was as follows: - "That this honorable Committee be desired to propose to the Parliament, that such who do not receive those principles of religion, without acknowledgment whereof the Scriptures do clearly and plainly affirm that salvation is not to be obtained, as those formerly complained of by the ministers, may not be suffered to preach or promulgate any thing in opposition unto such principles." In consequence of this, a discussion arose respecting the extent to which religious toleration was to be carried, when "it was voted, that all should be tolerated or indulged who professed the fundamentals of Christianity;" and a committee was appointed to nominate certain divines to draw up a catalogue of the fundamentals, to be presented to the House. These divines, chiefly Owen, Nye, and Goodwin, accordingly drew up sixteen articles, and presented them to the Committee of Parliament, by whom they were ordered to be printed. A strict interpretation and application of these sixteen fundamental principles of religion would exclude from toleration all Deists, Papists, Socinians, Arians, Antinomians, and Quakers, and even Arminians, by no very strained construction. ¹¹ From this it is evident, that whether the Presbyterians really did understand and act upon the true principles of religious liberty or not, it cannot with truth be said that the views of the Independents were in any respect more liberal and enlarged. For this we blame them not, but merely state the fact. Perhaps the exact truth is, that their opinions on the subject were nearly identical, all the difference between them being that of position and circumstance; and it may fairly be admitted, that the subject had not at that period received all the attention it deserved, and the elucidation of which it was capable. It was, however, brought so strongly before the notice of the public mind, and attention was so forcibly directed to it by the ejection of the two thousand ministers on St. Bartholomew’s day, and by subsequent events during that and the succeeding reign, that it became one of the essential elements which produced the Revolution of 1688, and was secured by the Toleration Act of the following year. The Toleration Act itself may therefore be fairly regarded as one of the results of the Westminster Assembly, though few have been hitherto disposed to trace it to that truly illustrious source.

There was one great, and even sublime idea, brought somewhat indefinitely before the Westminster Assembly, which has not yet been realized, - the idea of a Protestant union throughout Christendom, not merely for the purpose of counterbalancing Popery, but in order to purify, strengthen, and unite all true Christian Churches, so that with combined energy and zeal they might go forth, in glad compliance with the Redeemer’s commands, teaching all nations, and preaching the everlasting gospel to every creature under heaven. This truly magnificent, and also truly Christian idea, seems to have originated in the mind of that distinguished man, Alexander Henderson. It was suggested by him to the Scottish commissioners, and by them partially brought before the English Parliament, requesting them to direct the Assembly to write letters to the Protestant Churches in France, Holland, Switzerland, and other Reformed Churches. Henderson had too much wisdom to state the subject fully to the Parliament, lest they should be startled by a thought vast beyond their conception. They gave to the Assembly the desired direction, and the letters were prepared and sent. A hasty perusal of these letters might not suggest the idea of a great Protestant union, the greater part of them being occupied with a statement of the causes which had led to the calling of the Assembly, and in vindication of themselves against the accusations wherewith they might be assailed. But towards the conclusion the idea is dimly traced; and along with these letters were sent copies of the Solemn League and Covenant, - a document which might itself form the basis of such a Protestant union. The deep thinking divines of the Netherlands apprehended the idea, and in their answer, not only expressed their approbation of the Covenant, but also desired to join in it with the British kingdoms. Nor did they content themselves with the mere expression of approval and willingness to join. A letter was soon afterwards sent to the Assembly from the Hague, written by Duraeus (the celebrated John Dury), offering to come to the Assembly, and containing a copy of a vow which he had prepared and tendered to the distinguished Oxenstiern, chancellor of Sweden, wherein he bound himself "to prosecute a reconciliation between Protestants in point of religion."¹² That this was the real object contemplated in this remarkable correspondence is indicated with sufficient plainness by Baillie: "We are thinking of a new work over sea, if this Church were settled. The times of Antichrist’s fall are approaching. The very outward providence of God seems to be disposing France, Spain, Italy, and Germany, for the receiving of the gospel. When the curtains of the Lord’s tabernacle are thus far, and much farther enlarged, by the means which yet appear not, how shall our mouth be filled with laughter, our tongue with praise, and our heart with rejoicing!" ¹³ There are several other hints of a similar character to be found in Baillie’s Letters; and on one occasion Henderson procured a passport to go to Holland, most probably for the purpose of prosecuting this grand idea. But the intrigues of politicians, the delays caused by the conduct of the Independents, and the narrow-minded Erastianism of the English Parliament, all conspired to prevent the Assembly from entering farther into that truly glorious Christian enterprise. Days of trouble and darkness came; persecution wore out the great men of that remarkable period; pure and vital Christianity was stricken to the earth and trampled under foot; and when the time of deliverance came at the Revolution, it found the Churches too much exhausted to resume the mighty tasks begun, but not accomplished, in the previous generation. Peace and repose were chiefly sought; listless inactivity and spiritual deadness ensued; and all the noble purposes and great ideas of a former age were basely forgotten or sinfully despised. But although the Westminster Assembly and its labors seemed to have been thus consigned to oblivion, or mentioned by prelatic or infidel historians merely as a topic on which they might freely pour forth their spite or their mockery, its influence in the deep undercurrent of the national mind was unseen, but was not unfelt. Even in England, where every effort was made to destroy alike its principles and their fruit, it succeeded in communicating a secret impulse of irresistible energy to the nation’s heart. This was first proved by the noble testimony borne on St. Bartholomew’s day, in defense of religious liberty. And the feeling thus called into action showed its might when afterwards the Popish tyrant, James VII, was hurled from his throne by the indignant voice of a free Protestant people. Let it be frankly granted that the English bishops bore a considerable part in that memorable Revolution; but let it also be remembered, that in their youth they had imbibed the principles of religious and civil liberty under the instruction of Presbyterian and Independent professors and masters in the universities; and let it also be remembered that the Toleration Act was the production of the same well-trained generation: and when these things are borne in mind, it will not be said that the nation derived no advantage from the labors of the Westminster Assembly. In Scotland its results were more directly and signally beneficial, being fully accepted by the Church, and ratified by the State. Not even twenty-eight years of ruthless persecution could extinguish the bright light of sacred truth which it had contributed to shed over our own northern hills, or trample out of existence the strong spirit of liberty which it inspired and hallowed. What can ever expel from the mind and heart of a Christian people that single sentence of the Confession of Faith: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship." The people who can feel and understand that sacred truth can never be enslaved. And although, after the Union, the perfidy of traitorous statesmen introduced the unconstitutional element of patronage into the external arrangements of the Church of Scotland, contrary to the express stipulations of the Act of Security, by which the Scottish nation had so anxiously sought to protect their National Church; yet it required the lapse of generations to produce a race sufficiently degenerated to allow the pernicious element to do its work. Even when a majority of the Scottish ministers had become unfaithful, the Confession of Faith and the Catechism continued to infuse their strong and living principles of Christian truth into the hearts and minds of the people, maintaining a spirit and an energy that nothing could subdue. The effect of this was seen in the Secession; and not less manifestly in the deep and steady devotedness with which the ministrations of evangelical truth were attended in the Established Church itself. A recent and still more signal manifestation of the power of these principles was displayed in the memorable Disruption of 1843, when, in vindication of their truth, and to secure the liberty of maintaining them, four hundred and seventy-four ministers gave up all connection with the State, and all the advantages thence arising, rather than surrender spiritual freedom in obedience to Christ alone. Such was the state of the Churches in both kingdoms throughout the listless length of a dreary century, - the still and heavy torpor of lethargic sluggishness above, the silent but strong current of a deep life-stream beneath.

----- Footnotes -----

⁹"Some, perhaps, by atolerationunderstand anuniversal,uncontrolled licenseof living as you please in things concerning religion: that every one may belet alone, and not so much as discountenanced in doing, speaking, acting, how, what, where, or when he pleaseth, in all such things as concerneth the worship of God, articles of belief, or generally any thing commanded in religion; and in the meantime, the parties at variance, and litigant about differences, freely to revile, reject, and despise one another, according as their provoked genius shall dispose their minds thereunto. Now, truly, though every one of this mind pretends to cry for mercy to be extended unto poor afflictedTruth, yet I cannot but be persuaded that such atolerationwould prove exceeding pernicious to all sorts of men." -Essay by Dr.Owen, appended to a Sermon preached before the House of Commons, April 29, 1646; p. 66.

¹⁰Answer to Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation. Works, vol. 15 p. 433, Johnstone & Hunter’s edition.

¹¹"The Principles of Faith presented by Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, and other Ministers, to the Committee of Parliament for Religion, etc."

1. That the Holy Scripture is that rule of knowing God, and living unto him, which whoso does not believe cannot be saved.

2. That there is a God, who is the Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world, - which is to be received by faith; and every other way of the knowledge of him is insufficient.

3. That this God, who is the Creator, is eternally distinct from all creatures, in his being and blessedness. " 4. That this God is one, in three persons or subsistences.

5. That Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, without the knowledge of whom there is no salvation.

6. That this Jesus Christ is the true God.

7. That this Jesus Christ is also true man.

8. That this Jesus Christ is God and man in one person.

9. That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who, by paying a ransom, and bearing our sins, has made satisfaction for them.

10. That this same Jesus Christ is he that was crucified at Jerusalem, and rose again, and ascended into heaven.

11. That this same Jesus Christ, being the only God and man in one person, remains for ever a distinct person from all saints and angels, notwithstanding their union and communion with him.

12. That all men by nature are dead in trespasses and sins; and no man can be saved unless he be born again, repent, and believe.

13. That we are justified and saved by grace, and faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works.

14. That to continue in any known sin, upon what pretense or principle soever, is damnable.

15. That God is to be worshipped according to his own will; and whosoever shall forsake and despise all the duties of his worship cannot be saved.

16. That the dead shall rise; and that there is a day of judgment, wherein all shall appear, some to go into everlasting life, and some into everlasting condemnation." - Neal, vol. ii. pp. 621, 622.

¹²Lightfoot, p. 86.

¹³Baillie, vol. 2 p. 192