HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
kinds; the one positive, the other 
negative: the latter did not deal in 
blood and torments, as the former, 
but acted perhaps more effectually, 
as its operation was perpetual and 
uninterrupted; whereas the other 
was so revolting and manifestly bar- 
barous, that the most violent and 
sanguinary, often from shame and 
compuhction, desisted at intervals, 
and yielded to the casual impulse 
of humanity. But England, of all 
countries, ought to set the example 
of the most unrestricted liberty of 
conscience. It was the seat of the 
best regulated freedom in all civil 
affairs; why therefore should the 
profession of any religious opinion, 
unconnected with state matters, and 
no way inimical to the loyalty and 
obedience due to government, be 
excepted from this system of free- 
dom? Good subjects were found 
in all religions; and it might be 
shrewdly suspected, that the en- 
couragers of interference when not 
actuated by bigotry, were prompted 
by worldly motives to persecute 
dissenters. The principal movers 
on these occasions were individuals 
of the ecclesiastical order. Ifthey 
acted under the impulse of supersti- 
tious notions, it was the duty of the 
civil power to restrain them: if lust 
of dominion and of wealth engaged 
them to maltreat those who avowed 
other doctrines than theirs, it then 
became all men of humanity and 
discretion to set their faces against 
such tyranny. But all these incon- 
veniencies and mischiefs would be 
fully obviated by throwing open the 
widest doors of toleration, and call- 
ing no man to account for his modes 
belief and worship, who did not 
arraign or disturb the settled reli- 
gion ofthe country. Whoever was 
ree from imputations of this sort, 
[169 
ought in justice to be entitled to 
every right and privilege enjoyed 
by all other members of the state, 
without exception, 
Such were the sentiments diffu- 
sively current at this time among 
the majority of the people. In proof 
of their rectitude, the example of 
Great Britain itself was quoted a- 
gainst the unreasonableness of mak- 
ing distinctions among men, on ac- 
count of their spiritual tenets. In 
England the established form of re- 
ligion was episcopacy; in Scotland, 
presbyterianism. Would any man 
have the audacity to condemn either 
of these forms? Were not the in- 
habitants of both countries equally 
attached to the constitution of the 
kingdom ; and yet what a wide dif- 
ference between the respective opi- 
nions of the English and Scotch in 
all the points relating to church-di- 
scipline, and in many of those con- 
cerning the doctrines inculcated as 
necessary to believe! 
This shewed the absurdity of a 
partial indulgence to any form of 
religion in preference to another, 
It shewed also what no Jess interest- 
ed mankind to be convinced of, 
the inutility (if one might notindeed 
style it the futility) of religious differ- 
ences and disputations; and, what 
was of more importance than all 
other considerations, it taught man 
the necessity of observing towards 
each other that fundamental article 
of true christianity, reciprocal for- 
bearance and charity. 
After settling the various con- 
cerns of religion, it now remained 
to come to the final conclusion of a 
business wherein all subjects indis- 
criminately were more deeply in- 
terested than in any other. 
This was the celebrated bill con- 
cerning libels; which, though lost 
