Presbyterianism in England and Scotland was equally intolerant. The leaders of Presbyterian- ism were disciples of Calvin, and they had his pro- found belief in the authority of the Word of God. They carefully formulated their creed ; they elaborated their conception of the nature of the Church ; they had very clear and definite notions in regard to the place and function of religion in the national life. They accepted the Calvinistic doctrine of a -theocratic State. They wanted something more than a Church that was independ- ent of the State. Their ideal was a Church which dominated the State, and they were prepared to use every possible means — Army and Parliament — to secure the establishment of their conception of Christianity. The Presbyterianism of the 17th cent, possessed that ' intense and realising faith,' issuing in coercion and persecution, as a legitimate, because alone effectual, means of establishing the true and exterminating the false.
* Upon Hvman Salure, serin, ii., in Worka, ed. J. H. Bernard, London, 1900, vol. i. p. 48.
10. Conclusion. — We have indicated the gradual abandonment of coercion on the part of the State because the view became general that (1) religious liberty, enjoyed to the fullest extent, does not lead to disloyalty to the State, and that (2) coercion is incompatible with religious faith. The gradual disappearance of intolerance from among religious bodies has been due to the prevalence of the view that absolute certainty is dillicult of attainment, and that no system or creed embodies the whole truth of Christianity. There have been cases of persecutiim for heresy within comparatively recent times, but the present trend is strongly and de- cisively towards tolerance.
It was in the 17th cent, that the cause of toler- ance was advocated in many lands and by many extremely able writers, but reference may be made to Milton, the master mind of England in this period, who to a greater degree than other thinkers of his age impressed the thought of England and helped by his writings to reconcile intense religious conviction. with tolerance and to create that tolerant spirit which prevails in the modern world. Truth, according to Milton, is many-sided. It is widely diffused among men. Every system contains a small part of it, mixed with error, but no system has it in its entirety. No religious body has a monopoly of the truth. It is interesting to compare this exposition of re- ligious liberty with the defence of tolerance advanced by 'Themistius, the famous orator of the time of the Emperor Valens : 'Toleration is a divine law which can never be violated, as God Himself has clearly demonstrated His desire for a diversity of religions. . . . God delights in the variety of the homage which is rendered to Him ; He likes the Syrians to use certain rites, the Greeks others, and the Egyptians others again. . . .' * It is to be feared that the tolerance of the 20th cent, has more affinity with that of Themistius than with that of Milton. The modern attitude suggests that every religion is as good as any other. The tolerance of the modern world springs from its feeble, anjemic faith, as the intolerance of the Reformers sprang from their 'intense and realising ' faith. The words of Fox are not without a considerable element of truth : 'The only founda- tion for toleration is a degree of scepticism, and without it there can be none.'t But there is another ' foundation for toleration,' and to that Milton has directed attention in his Areopaqitica.
' Liberty of conscience entire, or in the whole, is where a nian, according to the dictates of his own conscience, may have the free exercise of his religion, without impediment to his preferment or employ- ment in the State.' J Persecution is the denial of this ' free exercise of religion,' and in its widest sense it includes any and every impediment to the subject's preferment or employment in the State. Persecution is generally defined as the infliction of pain or death upon otihers unjustly for adhering to a religious creed or mode of worship either by way of penalty or in order to force them to renounce their principles. The insertion of the word ' unjustly ' presupposes a sphere of activity in connexion with the life of the individual over which tlie State has no right to exercise any juris- diction. The existence of such a sphere was hinted at in our Lord's words, ' Render unto Caesar the things which are Ciesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' There is within man an inviolable adytum which the secular authority may not enter. Micaiah-ben-Imlah was clearly aware of such a sphere when he preferred obedience to
* Ruffini, Beliqious Liberty, p. 29 f.
t Quoted in Leckv, nationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 11 n. ! J. Harrington, A Sj/stemo/ Politics, oh. vi., quoted ia liuffini, p. 175 f.
PERSECUTION
PERSECUTION
185
the will of Jalnveh to acqviiescence in the caprice of the king. The author of the Book of Daniel appealed to his contemporaries, and to all genera- tions, to take their stand on this holy ground. The apostles dealt with the same fact when they said that circumstances might arise when it was their duty ' to obey God rather than men.' In such cases conscience could not hesitate without being guilty of moral treachery. Persecution is the denial of this free exercise of religion ; but we have already seen that ancient States did not recognize the existence of a sphere in the life of the individual in which the State had no jurisdic- tion. In the ancient world conscience had no •riglits.' The whole life of the individual was subject to the control of the State. Under these circumstances persecution in the case of religious recalcitrance was simply another name for the punishment of political oH'enders. Ilefu.sal to worship the gods or to observe the official religion was a crime of the deepest dye, as the provocation of the gods imperilled the safety of the State. The Jewish Law was severe on blasphemy, for the wrath of Jahweli would mean disaster to the nation. It was a political crime of a very grave character. Tacitus might scornfully write,* ' deo- rum injurire dis curte' — it was the business of the gods to avenge any insults they might receive. But if the anger of the gods issued in national calamities, as the masses believed, it was the State's urgent business that there should be no religious shirkers or slackers within the Empire, to provoke the gods to anger, and thus bring down misfortune on the nation. Persecution or the application of force to ensure submission in religious matters was inevitable when the State claimed the right to control the whole life of its subjects, secular and religious. 'Persecution' is apjilicable to this attitude of the State if the indi- viduals who claim religious freedom admit in every otlier respect their responsibility to the State and acknowledge their obligation to submit to all tlie laws of the realm. But ancient States were reluc- tant to admit that this ' free exercise of religion ' was compatible with loyalty to the State, and there was no general recognition of the voluntary nature of religion. It is the increasing recognition of the fact that the religious attitude must be deliberate, spontaneous, uncoerced, that has accounted for the corresponding growth of the spirit of tolerance which ])revails in the modern world. Until com- paratively recent times it was currently accepted that coercion was a legitimate and effectual means of securing religious acquiescence. Coercion may bring about extern.al submi-ssion, but it cannot result in living acceptance of the truth which is being pressed. In the words of the author of the earliest English book which defends liberty of con- science, ' as king and bishop cannot command the wind, so they cannot command faith.' t