G.
There is an account in Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson[729] of a curious discussion carried on by Johnson, Goldsmith, Dr. Mayo and Boswell as to the morality of punishing men for spreading religious opinions dangerous to the State. Boswell having introduced the subject of toleration is answered by:—
Johnson—“Every society has a right to preserve public peace and order, and therefore has a good right to prohibit the propagation of opinions which have a dangerous tendency. To say the magistrate has this right, is using an inadequate word: it is the society for which the magistrate is agent. He may be morally or theologically wrong in restraining the propagation of opinions which he thinks dangerous, but he is politically right.” Mayo—“I am of opinion, Sir, that every man is entitled to liberty of conscience in religion; and that the magistrate cannot restrain that right.” Johnson —“Sir, I agree with you. Every man has a right to liberty of conscience, and with that the magistrate cannot interfere. People confound liberty of thinking with liberty of talking, nay, with liberty of preaching. Every man has a physical right to think as he pleases; for it cannot be discovered how he thinks. He has not a moral right, for he ought to inform himself and think justly. But, Sir, no member of a society has a right to teach any doctrine contrary to what the society holds to be true. The magistrate, I say, may be wrong in what he thinks: but while he thinks himself right, he may and ought to enforce what he thinks....” Goldsmith—”... Our first reformers, who were burnt for not believing bread and wine to be Christ——” Johnson (interrupting him)—“Sir, they were not burnt for not believing bread and wine to be Christ, but for insulting those who did believe it. And, Sir, when the first reformers began, they did not intend to be martyred: as many of them ran away as could....” Mayo—“But, Sir, is it not very hard that I should not be allowed to teach my children what I really believe to be the truth?” Johnson—“Why, Sir, you might contrive to teach your children extra scandalum; but, Sir, the magistrate, if he knows it has a right to restrain you. Suppose you teach your children to be thieves?” Mayo—“This is making a joke of the subject.” Johnson—“Nay, Sir, take it thus:—that you teach them the community of goods; for which there are as many plausible arguments as for most erroneous doctrines. You teach them that all things at first were in common, and that no man had a right to anything, but as he laid his hands upon it; and that this still is, or ought to be the rule amongst mankind. Here, Sir, you sap a great principle in society—property, and don’t you think the magistrate would have a right to prevent you? or suppose you should teach your children the notion of the Adamites, and they should run naked into the streets, would not the magistrate have a right to flog ’em into their doublets?” Mayo—“I think the magistrate has no right to interfere till there is some overt act.” Boswell—“So, Sir, though he sees an enemy to the state charging a blunderbuss, he is not to interfere till it is fired off!” Mayo—“He must be sure of its direction against the state.” Johnson—“The magistrate is to judge of that. He has no right to restrain your thinking, because the evil centres in yourself. If a man were sitting at this table, chopping off his fingers, the magistrate, as guardian of the community, has no authority to restrain him, however he might do it from kindness as a parent—though, indeed, upon more consideration, I think he may; as it is probable that he who is chopping off his own fingers, may soon proceed to chop off those of other people. If I think it right to steal Mr. Dilly’s plate I am a bad man; but he can say nothing to me. If I make an open declaration that I think so, he will keep me out of his house. If I put forth my hand, I shall be sent to Newgate. This is the gradation of thinking, preaching and acting: if a man thinks erroneously he may keep his thoughts to himself, and nobody will trouble him; if he preaches erroneous doctrine, society may expel him; if he acts in consequence of it, the law takes place and he is hanged.” Mayo—“But, Sir, ought not Christians to have liberty of conscience?” Johnson—“I have already told you so, Sir. You are coming back to where you were.” Boswell—“Dr. Mayo is always taking a return postchaise, and going the stage over again. He has it at half-price.” Johnson—“Dr. Mayo, like other champions for unlimited toleration has got a set of words. Sir, it is no matter, politically, whether the magistrate be right or wrong. Suppose a club were to be formed to drink confusion to King George the Third, and a happy restoration to Charles the Third, this would be very bad with respect to the state; but every member of that club must either conform to its rules, or be turned out of it. Old Baxter, I remember, maintains, that the magistrates should ‘tolerate all things that are tolerable’. This is no good definition of toleration upon any principle; but it shows that he thought some things were not tolerable.” Toplady—“Sir, you have untwisted this difficult subject with great dexterity.”
Cobbett’s History of the Reformation, which raised a storm of abuse at the time of its publication, may not in these days be ignored by any writer on the subject. Its statements, nearly all based on Lingard, who is admittedly a fair and large-minded authority, have been found to contain far less exaggeration than was formerly supposed. Cobbett lived and died a Protestant, but his convictions did not bias him concerning the seditious practices of Foxe’s Martyrs. He says:[730]—
“The real truth about these ‘Martyrs’ is that they were generally a set of most wicked wretches, who sought to destroy the Queen and her government, and under the pretence of conscience and superior piety, to obtain the means of again preying upon the people. No mild means could reclaim them; those means had been tried: the Queen had to employ vigorous means, or to suffer her people to continue to be torn by the religious factions, created not by her, but by her two immediate predecessors, who had been aided and abetted by many of those who now were punished, and who were worthy of ten thousand deaths each, if ten thousand deaths could have been endured. They were, without a single exception, apostates, perjurers or plunderers; and the greater part of them had also been guilty of flagrant high treason against Mary herself, who had spared their lives, but whose lenity they had requited by every effort within their power to overset her authority and government. To make particular mention of all the ruffians that perished upon this occasion would be a task as irksome as it would be useless; but there were amongst them three of Cranmer’s bishops and himself! For now, justice at last overtook this most mischievous of all villains, who had justly to go to the same stake that he had unjustly caused so many others to be tied to; the three others were Hooper, Latimer and Ridley, each of whom was indeed inferior in villainy to Cranmer, but to few other men that have ever existed!”
H.
A COPY OF QUEEN MARY’S WILL FROM THE ORIGINAL, FORMERLY IN THE HANDS OF MR. HALE OF ALDERLEY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE (Harl. MS. 6949, f. 29).
✠