toleration anb 1ReIigiou0 Xibert^
(Beneral Concluaiona



Contents op Chapter VII

Toleration not from scepticism, ignorance, or indifference, Lecky,
Froude, Morley, Dr. Johnson, Charles James Fox — Lord Herbert and
Hobbes, St. Louis — Philips Brooks' definition of tolerance — Wrong
views rebutted — Appeal to history — Origin of toleration — Christian
Church founded on — Edict of Milan — Tertullian, Lactantius,
Athanasius — AVilliam of Occam, Marsiglio — Wyclif — Augsburg Con-
fession — Luther — Hallam points to More and Jeremy Taylor —
Masson on — Pioneers of liberty and toleration, how to be judged —
Note on "The duty of persecution" — Note on "The tolerance of indif-
ference " — Earliest apostles of toleration from among the persecuted
— Masson's testimony to Independents and Baptists — English Baptist
Church at Amsterdam — Dutch Anabaptists first advocates of tolera-
tion — William of Orange — Dutch Anabaptists in London — Robert
Browne first to advocate toleration in England — Toleration bound
up with Independency — Bishoj) Hooper — Robert Browne — Yet
Browne's doctrine not toleration in the fullest sense — Plea that
Papists might be tolerated — Principle of toleration very imperfectly
understood — Roger Williams gave it widest practical apiplication —
Henry Jacob, Leonard Busher — Both allow magistrate right of inter-
ference in religious matters — Williams a fanatic for liberty —
American Puritans, intolerance of — Less inexcusable, because living
in age of intolerance — Note on "Does Calvinism promote intoler-
ance?" — Bancroft quoted — [Buckle, Froude, Fairbairn — Note on
" Calvinism and Puritanism not identical."



CHAPTER VII

Toleration and Eeligious Libekty: General
Conclusions

I

The question of toleration and religious liberty is so
intimately bound up with the Puritan contention, and
has been so identified with the struggle which has been
fragmentarily recounted in the previous pages, that we
feel we owe no apology for endeavouring to ascertain, with
some degree of exactitude and detail, the position in which
the question stands at the point we have now reached,
and what has been the progress made in regard to it.^

' It need scarcely be pointed out that to discuss witli anything like
adequateness the principle of toleration and its historical develop-
ment, not a few pages, but a large and elaborate treatise, would be
required. 