of their principles. A Brownist petition prepared in the year 1640 prays, "that every man may have freedom of conscience," not excepting Papists; and in a pamphlet published in 1644 it is asked, "whether if security be taken for civil subjection, Papists might not be tolerated? Otherwise," it is added, "if England's government were the government of the whole world, not only they, but a world of idolaters of all sorts, yea the whole world, must be driven out of the world." But the five brethren did not advocate the cause of liberty to that wide extent; and afterwards, during the civil wars and the Protectorate, many Independent Divines, including the leaders of the party, carefully limited their conception of religious freedom. 2

But there was one Independent clergyman-John Goodwin-not a member of the Westminster Assembly -who with pre-eminent perspicuity and force expounded the doctrine of toleration. Justice has not been often done to this very able man, owing, perhaps, to the prejudice against him on account of his Arminianism, and to his bold defence of Charles's execution. Calvinists and Royalists were likely to look at him with jaundiced eyes; and it cannot be denied that when assailed, as he often was, Goodwin could give a Roland for an Oliver; and that in a way such as severely galled the victims of his criticism.3 He remained until 1645 vicar of St.

1 The petition is largely quoted by Waddington in his Surrey Congregational History, p. 32, and the pamphlet, entitled Queries of Highest Consideration, is quoted in Hanbury, ii. 246.

2 For proofs and illustrations of this we refer to our second volume. In the meanwhile we may observe that in An Attestation, published by

66

the Cheshire ministers in 1648, allusion is made to some of the Independents as averse in a great measure to such a toleration as might truly be termed intolerable and abominable "-meaning by that universal toleration.-Nonconformity in Cheshire. Introduction, xxvi. 3 Life of Goodwin, by Jackson, 93.

Stephen's, Coleman Street, and at the commencement of the sittings of the Westminster Assembly, though suspected by some of holding Calvinism very loosely, he had not yet entirely abandoned that system. Open and earnest in his advocacy of Independent principles, defending them both from the pulpit and from the press, he also, whilst remaining vicar and discharging his parochial duties, gathered in his parish an Independent church; not, however, preaching separately to that community, but in his more private relationship as an Independent pastor, praying and holding religious conversation with them in his own house-whilst the doors were thrown open for any one to attend the meetings who pleased.

Goodwin heartily approved of the "Narration," though he had no part in the composition of that performance, and when it came under the attack of Presbyterians, he broke a lance on its behalf with the assailants, in a very chivalrous fashion. We do not remember any other statement of the doctrine of toleration in the writings of the Independents of that day so unequivocal as his, expressed in the following words:1

"The grand pillar of this coercive power in magistrates is this angry argument: 'What, What, would you have all religions, sects, and schisms tolerated in Christian churches ? Should Jews, Turks, and Papists be suffered in their religions, what confusion must this needs breed both in church and state!' I answer: If, by a toleration, the argument means either an approbation or such a connivance which takes no knowledge of, or no ways opposeth such religions, sects, or

1 A Reply of Two of the Brethren to A. S., 1644. Quoted by Jackson, p. 116. Goodwin states "that the

part which treats of religious liberty was the production of his own pen.”—Jackson, 57.

schisms as are unwarrantable, they are not to be tolerated; but orthodox and able ministers ought in a grave, sober, and inoffensive manner, soundly from the Scriptures to evince the folly, vanity, and falsehood of all such ways. Others, also, that have an anointing of light and knowledge from God, are bound to contribute occasionally the best of their endeavours towards the same end. In case the minister be negligent, or forgetful of his duty, the magistrate may and ought to admonish him that he fulfil his ministry. If a person, one or more, being members of a particular church, be infected with any heretical or dangerous opinion, and after two or three admonitions, with means of conviction used to regain him, shall continue obstinate, he ought to be cast out from amongst them by that church. If it be a whole church that is so corrupted, the neighbour churches, in case it hath any, ought to admonish it, and to endeavour the reclaiming of it. If it be refractory, after competent admonition and means used for the reducing of it, they may and ought to renounce communion with it, and so set a mark or brand of heresy upon the forehead of it.

If, by a toleration, the argument means a non-suppression of such religions, sects, and schisms by fining, imprisoning, disfranchising, banishment, death, or the like, my answer is-That they ought to be tolerated; only upon this supposition, that the professors of them be otherwise peaceable in the state, and every way subject to the laws and lawful power of the magistrate."1

1 Baillie, writing to Mr. Spang, May 17th, 1644, (Letters, ii. 184,) says: "The Independents here, finding they have not the magistrate so obsequious as in New England, turn their pens, as you will see in M.S.,” (which he had

before identified as Goodwin's, of Coleman Street,) "to take from the magistrate all power of taking any coercive order with the vilest heretics. Not only they praise your magistrate who for policy gives some secret tolerance to diverse

There is a good deal of controversy as to who was first in the field of toleration. The honour most likely belongs to Leonard Busher. He will be noticed hereafter in connection with the early Baptists. But the controversy is of little importance in relation to the general interests of mankind, compared with the fact that John Locke, at a later period, was the apostle to teach the doctrine effectively to the English nation. He discovers who proves, and the merit of discovery is due to him who first establishes a principle; but he, who adopting what was established before, is more successful in his advocacy of it than his predecessors were, will and ought to be regarded as a superior benefactor of his race, though he may have attributed to him more of the merit of originality than he deserves. Locke brought the doctrine of toleration out of the domain of theology, and placed it on the basis of political righteousness; he established it by common sense reasoning adapted to the English understanding; besides, he did this in the exercise of a peculiar and independent genius; and, what is a more important consideration, his contemporaries were prepared for his instructions by preceding struggles and by possessing already an instalment of legal toleration. Locke is to be distinguished from Busher, Goodwin, and Owen, and from Chillingworth, Hales, and Taylor. He comes more in a line

religions, wherein, as I conceive, your Divines preach against them as great sinners; but avows that by God's command the magistrate is discharged to put the least discourtesy on any man-Jew, Turk, Papist, Socinian, or whatever, for his religion." "The five will not say this, but M.S. is of as great authority here as any of them." Yet, though this sentiment is by Baillie confined to Goodwin, and

expressly said not to be shared by the five, it has by some been put into the lips of Nye.

As I have already observed, Harrington also did this. One of his political aphorisms on the subject is admirable, "When civil liberty, is entire it includes liberty of conscience. When liberty of conscience is entire, it includes civil liberty."

with the first than with the second three names; but he did what they had none of them the power to do he made the doctrine popular. A parallel may be drawn in this respect between the history of the principle of government non-interference with a man and his conscience, and the principle of government non-interference with commercial interests and the natural laws of demand and supply. Long after the discovery and illustration of the latter principle, a great statesman made plain to the common understanding of his fellow-countrymen what had been before apprehended by only a few philosophers. John Locke occupies a position in the history of toleration like that of Richard Cobden in the history of free trade.

After all, the Independents must be reckoned the chief and most influential of the early apostles of toleration, and to their rise and progress we shall direct attention in the following chapter.