TOLERATION. 



'Jicce is no common umpire to check the evils of opprcfTion 

 oil the one hand, and refti-ain the no lefs formidable evils of 

 immoderate refentment on the other. 



If we confider what are the rights wliich men give up to 

 government, when they enter into civil focieties, they will be 

 Found to be, not thofe which may moft properly be ftyled 

 the primary rights of human nature ; not the right which 

 every man has to live undifturbed, to enjoy the advantages 

 whicli ho juflly poflefles, and to be left to his freedom in all 

 things not injurious to liis fellow-creatures ; but tlie confe- 

 quential, tliough equally real and certain right which, where 

 men arc not fubjeft to government, every perfoii has to take 

 the affcrtion of all liis rights into his own hands, and coitcA 

 the infringers of them by the inflidling of fueh pains, or the 

 ufe of fuch other methods of deterring the authors of the 

 wrong, as reafon fliall warrant for his future fectirity : and, 

 fpeaking precifely, even thefe rights are not abfolutely ex- 

 tinguilhed and utterly loll, but fufpended by fuch limita- 

 tions as the order and well-being of fociety require, and fo 

 long as the fuccours of government (liall be effeftual. The 

 primary rights of liberty, fafety, and protection from op- 

 prefliou, ftill fubfift. in their full vigour. To fuppofc them 

 abandoned, renounced, and annihilated, or that gov.-rnment 

 can have any right to deilroy them, is afcribing to it a right 

 to defeat the end for which it is eftablilhed, and betray the 

 trull repofed in it. It is, indeed, totally inverting the prin- 

 ciple upon which the power of rulers Hands, and by which 

 the afta of it ought to be guided. 



Man was not made for government, but government for 

 man ; and the great objeft, to which all the operations of it 

 (hould be diredled, is to guard, as much as poflible, the 

 equal, impai'tial eaie and freedom of all the fubjedls of it. 

 To this f urpofe judge Blackilone obferves, that the prin- 

 cipal aim of fociety is to proteiSl individuals in the enjoy- 

 ment of i.hofe abfolute rights, which were veiled in them by 

 the immutable law of nature, but which could not be pre- 

 ferved in peace without that mutual afliftance and inter- 

 courfe, which are gained by the inilitution of friendly and 

 civil communities : fo that the primary end of human laws 

 is to maintain and regulate thefe abfolute rights of individuals. 

 See Government and Civil Liberty. 



Now of all the rights inherent in human nature, that of 

 tliinking for ouffelves, and following the conviftion of our 

 own judgments in relation to the object of our faith, wor- 

 (hip, and rehgious obedience, is the moil facred, incontef- 

 tible, and in every view of it, intitled to the moll careful 

 proteftion. The prefervation of thefe is one of the chief, 

 perhaps the firil end for which civil focieties are inftituted, 

 and the rulers of them invelled with power : and therefore, 

 in all governments, the rights of confcience fliould have a 

 principal place afligned them in the care of thofe, to whom 

 the protedlion of their fellow-creatures is committed. It 

 the fecuring of equal, impartial liberty, in all thofe in- 

 flances of it in which it is not injurious to others, be fo much 

 the objeCl of every equitable, wife, and well-conllituted 

 fyftem of laws, that all needlefs encroachments upon it are 

 deviations from the fpirit which ought to be diffufed 

 through all laws, and impair the benelit which they ought 

 to confirm, can it be fuppofed that the rights of confcience 

 ought not to be guarded from violation ? Rights of this 

 kind are the lall which men can ever be imagined to give up 

 to be modelled at the pleafure of others ; nor (as it is argu- 

 ed) is there any one principle connedled with their fubmidion 

 to governors in other refpedls, that can require or jultiiy Inch 

 a furrender. Does it follow that, becaufe the magiilrate is 

 entrulled with authority to decide difputes between us and 

 our fellow-eitizens concerning property, he is to determine 



points which lie only between God and our own confcionces ? 

 Becaufe it is allowed to be his office to guard the peace of 

 his fubjefts, and to inflift punifhments for this purpofe on 

 thofe who unjuiUy dillurb it ; is it to be taken for granted, 

 that he is to diftate to them what rule of faith they fhaU 

 adopt, and in what manner they arc to worfliip the Deity ; 

 when it is allowed on all hands, that of thefe things the will 

 of God is the only rule, and that no worfliip can be accept- 

 able to him, but what is accompanied with the fincerc con- 

 viAion of him who offers it i Befides, it is argued, that fuch 

 is the nature of this right, and it fo Hands upon a foundation 

 peculiar to itfelf, and is dillinguiftied from every other right, 

 that it cannot be given up. Property may be refigned, 

 transferred, or fubmitted to the regulation of others ; a man 

 may relinquifli his eafe, and fuhjeft himfclf to inconveniences, 

 and be not only innocent but laudable ; nay, he may facrifice 

 life itfelf, and merit the highell applaufe ; but his confcience 

 he cannot rcfign. 



To " prove all things, and hold fail that which is good," is 

 not only a privilege but a duty ; an obhgation laid upon him 

 by the very nature of religion and virtue, and from which he 

 cannot difcharge himfelf without departing from the prin- 

 ciples of both. It mufl always remain entire to him ; nor, 

 while the principles of the moll reafonable liberty are allowed 

 to fubfift in their due extent, can any attempt be confiftently 

 made to take it from him. 



From thefe principles it has been inferred, that toleration, 

 fo far from being a matter of mere grace or favour, which 

 government has a right to withhold, grant, abridge, or re- 

 fume at pleafure, is the acknowledgment and confirmation 

 of a right : not one of thofe adventitious rights, which are 

 fubfequent to the ellablifliment of civil focieties, and arife 

 out of the peculiar forms and conftitution of it ; but of thofe 

 higher rights which belong to men as fuch, and which ought 

 to be preferved under all ftates and governments whatever, 

 as effedually, univerfally, and impartially as any other 

 right. With regard to the extent of toleration, it is urged, 

 that if liberty of confcience be a right effential to human 

 nature, all penalties in cafes merely of a rehgious nature 

 muft be an infringement of a right, and a degree of oppref- 

 fion, though inflicted by a law. Farther, the inquiry con- 

 cerning the perfons entitled to toleration does not depend 

 on the fuppofed truth or error of the fentiments which men 

 may adopt, but upon the common right, which all men 

 have, to be led in thefe points by the light of their own 

 minds, and to enjoy all the fecuritics and benefits of fociety, 

 while they fulfil the obligations of it. All who can give 

 good fecurity to the government under which they Hve, and 

 to the community to which they belong, for the perform- 

 ance of the duties of good fubjefts and good citizens, have 

 an undoubted claim to it, and cannot with any juft reafon 

 be deprived of it. It is not error, but injury to the ftate, 

 or the individuals who are under the care of it, which juf- 

 tifies the animadverfion of the magiftrate ; and all to whom 

 this cannot be julUy imputed, are the objetts of his pro- 

 tection. 



Archdeacon Paloy diftiiiguilhcs two kinds of toleration : 

 liie one partial, which is the allowing to diflenters the un- 

 moleiled profeffion and exercife of their religion, but with 

 an exclufion from offices of trull and emolument in the ilate ; 

 and the other complete, which is the admiffion of them, with- 

 out diilinftion, to all the civil privileges and capacities of 

 other citizens. The jullice and expediency of toleration in 

 general is founded by this ingenious writer primarily in its 

 fonducivenefs to truth, and in the fuperior value of truth 

 to that of any other quality which a religion can poflefs.' 

 Belides this prineipal argument for toleration, there are 

 5 other 



