his publications. All this author seems to have reaped from a life devoted to literary enterprise, and philosophy, and patriotism, appears not to have exceeded 2001. This last statement must be an exaggeration. Further details as to Toland's literary gains, derived also from Lintott's Account-Book, are to be found in Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. v., p. 302. Toland died at Putney, where he had lodged for about four years previous, choosing that place on account of its convenient distance from London, on the 11th of March, 1722. Never,' says Mr. D'Israeli, has author died more in character than Toland: he may be said to have died with a busy pen in his hand. Having suffered from an unskilful physician, he avenged himself in his own way; for there was found on his table an "Essay on Physic without Physicians." The dying patriot-trader was also writing a preface for a political pamphlet on the danger of mercenary parliaments; and the philosopher was composing his own epitaph, one more proof of the ruling passion predominating in death; but why should a Pantheist be solicitous to perpetuate his genius and his fame?' Toland's posthumous works were published in 1726, in 2 vols. 8vo., with a Life by Des Maizeaux prefixed, and were republished in 1747. The contents of these two volumes are an additional proof of the versatility of his powers: they contain, together with many other essays, the Memorials to the Earl of Oxford which have been referred to, and several private letters; an account of Giordano Bruno; the Secret History of the South-Sea Scheme, in which Toland had been concerned; a Plan for a National Bank; and a proposal, in Latin, for a new complete edition of Cicero. An Historical Account of the Life and Writings of the late eminently famous Mr. John Toland, by one of his most intimate friends, in a letter to the Lord -,' was published in 1722; and is attributed to Curll. This is not so minute a biography as Des Maizeaux's, and is rather a sketch of his writings and opinions. There is appended to it a complete list of Toland's works, many of the smaller of which are not named in this article. Toland's works have never been collected, and the notoriety which attended him during his life having soon died away, they are now little known. But they are almost all of some worth, and his political writings may throw some little light on the history of the times. TOLEDO, a province of Spain, formerly part of New Castile, but now a separate province. It is divided into three large districts, Toledo, Ocaña, and Talavera, comprising 282 towns and hamlets. Its boundaries are, to the north the province of Madrid; to the east that of Cuenca; to the south La Mancha; to the west Estremadura; and to the north-east the province of Avila. It covers a surface of 734 square leagues (Spanish), and is watered by five rivers, the Tagus, the Tajuña, Rio Ansares, Guadarrama, and Alverche, besides other inconsiderable streams. A chain of lofty mountains, called Los Montes de Toledo,' intersects it from east to west. TOLEDO (Toletum), a large city of Spain, and the capital of the province of that name, is situated on a rocky eminence surrounded by the Tagus, except on the northern side, in 39° 52′ N. lat., 4° 11' W. long. It is a very antient city. Pyrrhus, one of the fabulous kings of Spain, is sometimes called the founder. Its origin is also attributed to some Jews who migrated to Spain during the period of the second temple in Jerusalem, and who called it Toledoth, i.e. genealogies; because they say the exiles there reviewed their family genealogies when they assembled to dig the wells and found the city. In support of the latter opinion many towns are pointed out in the province of Toledo which retain to this day the names given to them by their Hebrew settlers, such as Escalona, from Ascalon; Noves, from Nove; Maqueda, from Megiddo; Jepes, or Yepes, from Joppa, &c. Toledo was a city of some importance under the Romans, who made it a colony. In A.D. 577, Leovigild, king of the Goths, transferred the seat of his empire from Seville to Toledo. It was also greatly enlarged and embellished by Wamba, who surrounded it with walls. The city was taken by the Arabs under Tarik Ibn Zeyyád, in A.D. 712 (April), after the celebrated battle of Guadalete, which opened the gates of the Peninsula to the Moslems. Under the Arabs, Toledo was a city of the first rank, second to none but Cordova, the capital of the Mohammedan empire. Its motley population, composed of Arabs, Berbers, Jews, and Christians, which last were denominated Most'arabs, or Mozárabes [MuzARAB], were often in open revolt against the khalifs of Cordova. At the breaking up of the empire of the BeníUmeyyah, and when the governors rose in the provinces and declared themselves independent of the capital [MOORS], the whole of New Castile and a portion of the old was formed into a kingdom by a powerful chieftain named Ibn Yaysh. At his death he was succeeded by Ismail Ibn Dhí-n-nún, and this latter by Yahya Ibn Dhín-nún, surnamed Al-mámún, an able and enterprising monarch, who became the patron of science, and added Valencia, Cordova, and other large cities to his hereditary dominions. His son Yahya, surnamed Al-kádir-billah, succeeded him in 1075, but in the year 1083 Alfonso VI. of Castile and Leon invaded his dominions, and, after reducing all the fortresses and towns round Toledo, took possession of that city on the 25th of May, A.D. 1085. Alfonso having assumed on the occasion the title of emperor of Toledo, the city was thenceforward Real é Imperial' (Royal and Imperial). During the civil wars between Peter the Cruel and his bastard brothers Don Fadrique and Don Enrique (1354-69), Toledo was often taken and retaken, and the population, which consisted chiefly of Jews, submitted to all kinds of ill-treatment from the conquerors. Toledo is the see of an archbishop, who is the primate of all Spain, and has the title of Canciller de Castilla. The bishoprics of Cordova, Cuenca, Siguenza, Jaen, Segovia, Cartagena, Osma, and Valladolid are its suffra gans. It was formerly the richest see in all Spain, but the revenue is now greatly diminished. Some of the greatest men that Spain has produced have been arch bishops of Toledo, as Rodrigo Simon de Rada, Ximenez de Cisneros, Gil de Albornoz, Mendoza, Tavera, Lorenzana, &c. The cathedral is the largest in Spain, and is by some considered the finest; for although, owing to its having been built at different periods, it does not present that uniformity of style which might have been desired, it is nevertheless exceedingly interesting in its details. It stands on the site of the old Moorish mosque, and the foundations were laid, in 1258, by Ferdinand III. of Castile, afterwards canonized by the church of Rome, and Rodrigo Ximenez, at that time archbishop of Toledo. It consists of five naves, and measures 404 feet in length and 204 in width, The naves are supported by eighty-four colossal pillars and the whole church is paved with white and blue marble. Some of the chapels are exceedingly beautiful. La Capilla Mayor (great chapel), which was enlarged by Cardinal Ximenez, contains the mausoleums of Alfonso VII., Don Sancho el Deseado, Don Sancho el Bravo, the Infante Don Pedro, son of king Alfonso VIII., and lastly that of Cardinal Don Pedro de Mendoza, which last is surrounded by a most beautiful plated iron railing. The chapel of Santiago, where the celebrated Don Alvaro de Luna and his wife Doña Juana Pimentel are buried; that of San Ildefonso, Nuestra Señora del Sagrario, and Reyes Nuevos which last contains the tombs of Enrique II., Juan I., Enrique III., and their wives-are all deserving of notice for their architecture, and the profusion of exquisite marble and carvings in wood with which they are decorated. Another chapel, called Capilla Muzarabe, because mass is still said daily according to the Muzarabic ritual, is a great curiosity of its kind. It was founded, in 1510, by Cardinal Ximenez. The cathedral of Toledo was formerly celebrated for its jewels and its silver and gold ornaments. There was once, among other relics, a figure of massive gold representing San Juan de las Viñas, and also a petticoat of Our Lady embroidered with pearls and rubies, said to be of inestimable value. Most of them however disappeared during the Peninsular war, and what remained has lately been disposed of by the government. Annexed to the cathedral is the archbishop's palace, which contains a very fine library, rich in old manuscripts. Besides the cathedral, Toledo has other splendid buildings, amorg which the following are the principal:-The convent and church of San Juan de los Reyes, built, in 1476, by Ferdinand and Isabella, in commemoration of the victory gained over the Portuguese at Toro in 1476. At a later period the manacles and fetters worn by the Christian captives of Granada, liberated at the taking of that city in 1492, were suspended to the outside walls of the building, where they are to be seen to this day. The church and the cloister, built in the richest Gothic, are particularly TOL admired. The foundling hospital of Santa Cruz, founded by Cardinal Mendoza in 1304; that of St. John the Baptist, called also el Hospital de afuera, because it stands outside the city walls, built and richly endowed by Cardinal Tavera; San Juan de la Penitencia, which is a foundation of Ximenez,―all will afford subject of study to the artist. La Iglesia del Transito, which was formerly a Jewish synagogue, built during the reign of Peter the Cruel, at the expense of his treasurer, Samuel Levi, is a curious specimen of Saracenic architecture. The same may be said of another church, called Santa Maria la Blanca, which was once a Moorish mosque.. 28 The Alcazar, or royal palace, stands on an eminence, at the foot of which flows the Tagus. It was built by Alfonso X. on the site of the Moorish palace, and was almost entirely rebuilt by Charles V., who employed the best Spanish architects of his time. His son, Philip II., made also considerable additions to it, which were principally directed by his chief architect, Herrera, who designed the Escurial. At present it is in a very dilapidated state, and unless it is speedily repaired, it will soon be a heap of ruins. A lunatic asylum, called el Nuncio nuevo,' and the Universidad Literaria,' are the only two modern buildings of note. Both were erected about the end of the last century by an enlightened archbishop, named Lorenzana. At a short distance from the city, on the right bank of the Tagus, are shown the ruins of a Moorish building, which the people of the country call Los Palacios de Galiana :' it was formerly a country villa belonging to the Moorish Of the two bridges on the Tagus, It consists of rulers of Toledo. that of Alcantara was built by the Arabs. only one arch, which spans the whole stream. The streets of Toledo are very narrow and crooked, like those of most Moorish-built cities of the Peninsula. The houses, which are built in the Moorish style, have generally only one or two stories; and the apartments are arranged round a court, over which an awning is thrown. In this court, which is frequently ornamented with a fountain and flowers, the family usually sit in summer-time. The environs of the city are barren and unproductive, but the neighbouring mountains contain some green valleys, where the wealthy inhabitants have their country-houses, called cigarrales. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Toledo was celebrated for its manufactory of sword-blades, as well as for its silks: the fabrication of the former still continues under the patronage of the government; but of the latter, not one loom remains in operation. The population of Toledo, which in the sixteenth century exceeded 100,000 inhabitants, does not amount now to 12,000. There are several histories of Toledo, among which the most esteemed are, Descripcion de la imperial Ciudad de Toledo, y Historia de su Antiguedad y Grandeza,' Toledo, 1605, 4to., reprinted in 1617; Roxas, Historia de la imperial y nobilisima Ciudad de Toledo,' Mad., 1654-63, fol.; Alcozer, Historia de Toledo,' 1554, fol.; a Jesuit, named Roman de la Higuera, well known as the forger of the chronicles of Luitprand and Dextrus, wrote also a history of Toledo in several volumes, which is preserved in manuscript in the Royal Library at Madrid. (Miñano, Diccionario Geográfico, vol. viii., p. 444; and TOLEDO, DON PEDRO DE, a younger son of Frederic consequences of the preceding foreign and civil wars, and When Charles V., on his return from the Tunis expedi- Toledo greatly embellished Naples; he enlarged the city, extended the walls, cleared, widened, and paved the streets, and made new drains and sewers; he built the royal palace near Castel Nuovo, which is now called Palazzo Vecchio,' and constructed the handsome street which still bears his name. He adorned the city with fountains, enlarged the dockyard, fortified the castle of S. Elmo, built new hospitals and churches, and, in short, he quite altered the appearance of Naples. He also drained the neighbouring marshes by opening the wide canal called dei Lagni, which carries the superfluous waters into the sea. In 1537, the Turks having landed at Castro and other places of the province of Otranto, Toledo summoned the regular Spanish troops against the enemy, who, finding the barons with their militia, and marched with them and the country prepared for defence, took again to their ships and sailed away. Toledo fortified the maritime towns of Apulia, built towers of defence along the coast, restored Pozzuoli, which was nearly depopulated in consequence of the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and enlarged the Grotta,' which leads to it from Naples. For all these and other services to the Neapolitans, as well as for the just though severe tenor of his general administration, Don Pedro de Toledo had become very popular, until the year 1547, when his ill-judged attempt to establish the tribunal of the Inquisition after the fashion of his own country, Spain, rendered him universally obnoxious. The cause of this attempt was that the doctrines of the Reformation had found their way to Naples, and made many converts, even among priests and monks. Charles V., who was at that time struggling in Germany with the religious and political dissensions arising out of the Reformation, dreaded a similar explosion in his Italian dominions, and the viceroy Toledo wished to save his master the additional trouble. Pope Paul III. was anxious to assist them in repressing the spread of heresy to Italy: but the Neapolitans, a lively, communicative people, had conceived a | Latin translations of the tables, which he found in the Royal Library at Paris; and his report of their contents is what might have been expected. The theory and numerical quantities employed are in almost every instance those of Ptolemy, and there is only just enough of original observation to establish the fact that the Toledine observTOLENTINO. [MACERATA.] TOLERATION, TOLERANCE. The latter of these two words more commonly expresses a feeling or habit of mind, and the former an overt act, or a realization in greater or less degree of the feeling in the institutions of a political society. This distinction is not always strictly observed, but will be found generally a correct one. The word tolerance suggests a consideration of the feeling, in its moral aspect of a virtue; while the word toleration opens out for discussion the political questions of the toleration of opinions on government, morals, and religion, by the governing power in a state, and more especially of religious toleration. great horror of that gloomy and arbitrary court and its secret On the 12th of August Toledo signified to the deputies of the city the will of the emperor that the Inquisition should not be established in Naples; that the past should be forgotten, except as to some of the principal leaders of the insurrection, who were obliged to emigrate; and that the city should pay one hundred thousand crowns as a fine. And thus this serious affair was hushed up, but the Neapolitans gained their point, and the tribunal of the Inquisition was never established at Naples, though persons accused of heresy were tried by the common ecclesiastical court, and several of them were put to death by the concurrence of the lay power. The prince Sanseverino, who haddispleased Charles V., thought it prudent to emigrate to France, and was outlawed. [TASSO, BERNARDO.] In July, 1552, a large Turkish fleet, under Dragut Raïs and Sinan Pasha, anchored near Procida, at the entrance of the Bay of Naples, when the emigrant prince Sanseverino of Salerno was to have joined them with a French squadron; but the viceroy, it is said, by means of a large bribe, induced the Turkish commanders to leave the coast before the arrival of the French. Towards the end of the same year the viceroy, although old and infirm, was desired by Charles V. to march to Siena in Tuscany, which republic had thrown off the protection of the emperor and admitted a French garrison. Don Pedro having sent most of the troops by land, embarked with the rest for Leghorn. On arriving there he fell seriously ill, and was removed to Florence. The duke Cosmo de' Medici had married his daughter Eleonora. He expired at Florence, in February, 1553, after having administered the kingdom of Naples for more than twenty years. He is by far the most distinguished in the long list of the Spanish governors of Naples, and one of the few who are still remembered with feelings of respect by the Neapolitans. (Giannone, Storia Civile del Regno di Napoli; Botta, Storia d'Italia.) TOLEDO, TABLES OF. The Moors brought astronomy into Spain at the beginning of the eleventh century, and about the year 1080 tables were calculated for the meridian of Toledo, by Arzachel. Of these tables there was no specific account till the time of Delambre, and no printed publication of them has ever been made. It was usual to state that they were intended as an improvement on the tables of Albategnius, that their character never was very high, and that the Alphonsine Tables [ALONSINE TABLES] were intended as an improvement upon them. Delambre (Hist. Astron. Moyenne, p. 175) examined two manuscript The virtue of tolerance in an individual, and the duty of toleration by the governing power in a state, depend, to a great extent, on the same principles. The general reasons for the one and for the other are the same, and so are the general reasons for the limits to both; but the fields within which toleration is to be exercised by a private individual and by the governing power in a state, and within which the respective exceptions arise, are different; and while the rule of private tolerance is simple and comprehensive, and of uniform application, the extent of statetoleration and the modes of its exercise must necessarily vary with the varying circumstances of political societies. The duty of one individual towards another is to be tolerant of every action honestly meant and every sincere opinion. Actions which proceed from bad motives, and opinions which are not put forth in truthfulness and for truth's sake, every individual is called upon to reprobate, without reference to the tendency of the action or of the opinion itself, but for the motive, which is inimical to general happiness. [MORALS.] Motives then, which are moral habits or dispositions, are the grounds of tolerance or intolerance between individuals. The governing power in a state, on the other hand, has to consider actions and opinions in themselves, and without reference to the motives in which they may originate. This is indeed the fundamental distinction between the provinces of morals and legislation; that of the first embracing motives or dispositions, and that of the second, overt acts. The private individual then is required to be tolerant of all actions and opinions, save those that proceed from vicious motives. The governing power in a state is required to tolerate all actions and opinions, save those that have a tendency detrimental to the general happiness, which it is the business of that governing power to watch over and to promote to the utmost. In both cases, tolerance as a general rule, and the respective exceptions, are dictated by that which is the fundamental principle alike of morals and of politics, and which is now understood by every one, whether he approve or object to the name, under the name of the greatest-happiness-principle. It is assumed that the faculties of thought, of feeling, and of action, with which man has been endowed by God, have been given to be exercised, and with a design that their exercise should conduce to the happiness of individuals and of mankind. exercise of these faculties by an individual which has a contrary tendency, the moral affections of his fellow-men revolt at; and men deal out to one another disapprobation of injurious feelings and motives, and support with their opinion the governing power, to which they yield political obedience, in the repression of injurious acts and injurious publications of opinion. Thus do the feelings of men operate to turn back the gifts of Providence, which are used in a manner contrary to his purpose, to their original design. But apart from moral disapprobation of injurious motives and dispositions, and from the repression of injurious acts and injurious publications of opinion, by the governing power in a state, the great end of human happiness requires the fullest freedom of thought and action. An individual should be tolerant of all honest differences of opinion for the sake of truth, which is best promoted by discussion, and the promotion of which promotes human happiness; and for the sake of peace and of the maintenance of kindly and friendly feelings, which not only conduce directly to Any happiness, but indirectly also to the improvement of the moral character, both of him who practises tolerance, and of him towards whom it is practised. Peace, friendship, and the proper development of the moral dispositions, enjoin also the tolerance among individuals of honestly meant actions. And as to the conduct of the governing power in a state, the cause of truth and the principle that the exercise of the faculties which God has given must, as a general rule, conduce to good, require that every action and expression of opinion should be tolerated, save those which clearly contravene the happiness of the members of the particular political society. The scope of tolerance among individuals, as applied to opinions, has been well defined by Mr. Bailey, in the following passage from his admirable Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions:- True liberality consists in not imputing to others any moral turpitude because their opinions differ from our own. It does not consist in ostensibly yielding to the opinions of others, in refraining from a rigorous examination of their soundness, or from detecting and exposing the fallacies which they involve, but in regarding those who hold them as free from consequent culpability, and abstaining from casting upon them that moral odium with which men have been ready in all ages to overwhelm such as deviated in the least from the miserable compound of truth and error which they hugged to their own bosoms.' The importance of cultivating the virtue of tolerance in the education of individuals cannot be overrated. In a political society in which the bulk of the community possess power, or in which they influence indirectly a government that is not in itself democratic, and that requires the control of a wise public opinion, the degree to which the duty of toleration is acted up to by a state will greatly depend on the degree to which tolerant feelings prevail among its individual members. It is the duty of the governing power in a state to tolerate all actions and opinions save those which have a tendency contrary to the happiness of its members. The practical question then to be solved is, What are the cases of exception? what are the actions and opinions which it is the duty of the governing power in a state to repress? The proper solution of this question will be necessary for any particular state, that its duty of toleration may be properly fulfilled. In the case of each particular state, there will be particular circumstances entering into this question. But it is obvious that we must here content ourselves with a general answer to the question. It is the first duty of every government to protect, to the utmost of its power, the persons and the property of all and each of its subjects, and to repress all injuries to these. It follows that it should prevent the diffusion of opinions calculated to suggest or encourage such injuries. It may often be a question, as with all other opinions which it is desirable to repress, whether active steps for the purpose may not rather have the effect of extending than of contracting the circulation of the obnoxious opinions; but this is a matter of prudence, which does not affect the question of the desirableness of repressing such opinions, and of the duty of the state to pursue what may be the best method of repression. those who are under it, and that it will be the duty of the governing power to prevent acts tending to its own overthrow, or opinions likely to excite such acts. In different forms of government, the degrees to which for this purpose freedom of action and of opinion will be abridged will be different. The maintenance of a despot's power will require more extensive and more stringent restriction than the maintenance of a government in which a large portion of the community have a part. The degree to which restriction is required by a form of government will be an important point in the consideration of its goodness as a form of government; but there can be no question as to the duty of the governing power to impose the amount of restriction necessary for its own safety. Disobedience to an established government, let it be never so bad, is an evil; for the mischiefs inflicted by a bad government are less than the mischiefs of anarchy. (Austin's Province of Jurisprudence Determined, p. 54.) But it will be a question, and in the cases of all governments open in any degree to popular influence, a question likely to excite much and keen discussion, what is the requisite amount of restriction. And here there will be no difficulty as to overt acts against a government, such as rising in arms to alter it, &c. But as regards spoken and written opinions affecting the government, it must always be a nice problem to hit the precise point at which the safety of the government and the interests of free discussion are both sufficiently consulted. It will be the natural aim of those who possess the governing power, mingling their own personal feelings with public duties, to overstretch the proper limits of free discussion; and, on the other hand, the mass of the community, looking at the question from an opposite point of view, will be disposed to attach less importance than may be proper to the security of the government. In all governments in which it can be a question whether there shall be more or less restriction, there will probably be much discussion and dispute, and perhaps conflict, before the question is properly adjusted. In the case of a despotism there is of course no toleration of political opinion. But in constitutional governments, see the difference between the degree of toleration of political discussion established among ourselves, and in France or in the German states, even the freest of them-for instance, Baden and Würtemberg. And see the struggles which the people of England have undergone to achieve the degree of freedom as to political meetings and the press, which is now enjoyed in this country. There remains to be considered the question of the tole ration of religious opinions in a state, to which question the use of the word toleration is often specially appropriated. This question presents two aspects, according as there exists or does not exist an established religion or church-establishment in a political society. We are here concerned only with the existence or non-existence of an established religion as facts, and finding political societies either with or without one, have to adapt the question of religious toleration to the two cases. The question of the desirableness of an established religion has been already considered, so far as is compatible with the object of this work, in the article CHURCH. It is the duty of the governing power in a state also, watching over and availing itself of every means to forward the moral welfare of its members, to repress immoralities, whether of action or of published opinion. The same question will occur, as in the former case, as to whether prosecution in many cases will not thwart rather than forward its object; but to abstain from prosecuting on the ground of prudence is not to tolerate, and there will be no dispute as to the propriety of excepting from toleration in a state, open acts of lewdness and indecency, the exhi-blishment: Under the idea of religious toleration I include bition of indecent prints, immoral books, &c. We come now to cases which present more difficulty, and in which there is more scope for the modifying influence of differences in form of government and in other circumstances of political societies, viz. the cases of opinions on government and on religion. The degree to which differences of opinion on these subjects are to be tolerated is, in all states, a question of very great importance, and into which, in almost every different state, some peculiar elements enter. It may be stated generally however, that the maintenance of an existing government, or its protection against overthrow or rebellion, is required for the happiness of Where no particular system of religion has been adopted by the governing power in a state, and distinguished from all others, no question arises save that of the duty of repressing, in whatever may be the most efficacious mode, the publication of opinions hostile to the foundation of religions. This exception to the general toleration of all opinions on religion, which is implied in the absence of an established religion, is thus expressed and argued by Dr. Paley, an enlightened advocate of religious toleration by a church estathe toleration of all books of serious argumentation: but I deem it no infringement of religious liberty to restrain the circulation of ridicule, invective, and mockery upon religious subjects; because this species of writing applies solely to the passions, weakens the judgment, and contaminates the imagination of its readers; has no tendency whatever to assist either the investigation or the impression of truth: on the contrary, whilst it stays not to distinguish between the authority of different religions, it destroys alike the influence of all.' (Moral and Political Philosophy, p. 472, ed. 1830, 6 vols. 8vo.) The repression of profaneness and blasphemy rests upon the same grounds as that of indecency and immorality. But where a church establishment exists, there has at the state is a needless violation of natural liberty, and is once been made a distinction between one set of religious an instance in which constraint is always grievous. Perseopinions and all others, and power and preeminence have cution produces no sincere conviction, nor any real change been given to the holders of the favoured religion over of opinion: on the contrary, it vitiates the public morals, those of all other religious denominations. They who by driving men to prevarication; and commonly ends in are thus powerful and preeminent will, in human nature, a general though secret infidelity, by imposing, under be prone to use their advantages to the prejudice of those the name of revealed religion, systems of doctrine which who dissent from their own religious views; and the men cannot believe, and dare not examine; finally, it dishistory of all states accordingly presents a series of strug-guises the character and wounds the reputation of Chrisgles between the dominant religion and other sects; the tianity itself, by making it the author of oppression, cruelty, first striving to suppress by violent punishments, or by and bloodshed. exclusion from civil privileges, all whose religious tenets are not those of the establishment, and the latter fighting for the rights of conscience and the cause of free discussion of truth. Here there is an inequality to begin with, which is submitted to. The holders of a particular religion are taken under the protection of the governing power in the state, and by it used for the general education of the nation, and for the performance of public ceremonies of religion; the state endows its ministers, and confers upon them social honours, such as it is in the power of a government to confer. But together with this inequality there may and there ought to be toleration of all other religions, so as to allow of the public profes-examine, however, the sects of Christianity which actually sion of them, and to admit the holders of them to all offices and privileges, save those which are connected with the established church. This toleration is compatible with an efficient establishment for religion, and is required, for he sake of truth and of the rights of individual conscience, by a public policy grounded on the general happiness. Let then a church establishment exist as a means by which the governing power in a state may most effectually educate its people, and maintain and promote their civilization; and at the same time let all who dissent from the established religion pursue in peace the worship which they severally approve of, and let all members of the state, of whatever religious denomination, participate equally in civil rights, except so far as such participation may tend to destroy the church establishment. Concerning the admission of dissenters from the established religion to offices and employments in the public service (which is necessary to render toleration complete), doubts have been entertained with some appearance of reason. It is possible that such religious opinions may be holden as are utterly incompatible with the necessary functions of civil government; and which opinions consequently disqualify those who maintain them from exercising any share in its administration. . . . . This is possible; therefore it cannot be laid down as a universal truth, that religion is not in its nature a cause which will justify exclusion from public employments. When we prevail in the world, we must confess that, with the single exception of refusing to bear arms, we find no tenet in any of them which incapacitates men for the service of the state. It has indeed been asserted that discordancy of religions, even supposing each religion to be free from any errors that affect the safety or the conduct of government, is enough to render men unfit to act together in public stations. But upon what argument, or upon what experience, is this assertion founded? I perceive no reason why men of different religious persuasions may not sit. together upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same ranks, as well as men of various or opposite opinions upon any controverted topic of natural philosophy, history, or ethics.' (pp. 470-3.) The history of the literature of toleration generally, and in our own country in particular, and the history of religious toleration itself in the several European states, and particularly in England, are subjects all of them interesting, but any one of which it would be impossible to treat within the limits of this article. The leading points of the history of religious toleration in our own country are indicated in the article DISSENTERS. Such is the clear, cogent, and temperate statement of There is no part of Dr. Paley's well-known treatise on the question of religious toleration by an eminent member Moral and Political Philosophy' of greater merit than the of the Church of England. The question has been treated chapter Of Religious Establishments and of Toleration.' at greater length, from different points of view, and with Having contended for the existence of a church establish- differences of opinion in detail, but always with eminent ment, and having in the course of his argument for this advantage to the cause of toleration, whose progress in purpose laid down the two propositions, that any form of England has been materially aided by them, by ChillingChristianity is better than no religion at all, and that, of dif-worth in his Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvaferent systems of faith, that is the best which is the truest, tion,' by Jeremy Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying,' he proceeds: Toleration is of two kinds; the allowing and by Locke in his Treatises on Toleration." to dissenters the unmolested profession and exercise of their religion, but with an exclusion from offices of trust and emolument in the state, which is a partial toleration; and the admitting them, without distinction, to all the civil privileges and capacities of other citizens, which is a complete toleration. The expediency of toleration, and consequently the right of any citizen to demand it, as far as relates to liberty of conscience, and the claim of being protected in the free and safe profession of his religion, is deducible from the second of those propositions which we have delivered as the grounds of our conclusions upon the subject. That proposition asserts truth, and truth in the abstract, to be the supreme perfection of every religion. The advancement, consequently, and discovery of truth, is that end to which all regulations concerning religion ought properly to be adapted. Now, every species of intolerance which enjoins suppression and silence, and every species of persecution which enforces such injunctions, is adverse to the progress of truth; forasmuch as it causes that to be fixed by one set of men at one time, which is much better, and with much more probability of success, left to the independent and progressive inquiry of separate individuals. Truth results from discussion and from controversy. In religion, as in other subjects, truth, if left to itself, will almost always obtain the ascendency. If different religions be professed in the same country, and the minds of men remain unfettered and unawed by intimidations of law, that religion which is founded on maxims of religion and credibility will gradually gain over the other to it..... The justice and expediency of toleration are found primarily in its conduciveness to truth, and in the superior value of truth to that of any other quality wnich a religion can possess: this is the principal argument, but there are some auxiliary considerations too important to be omitted. The confining of the subject to the religion of TOLETA'NUS, RODERICUS, or RODRIGO DE TOLEDO, an eminent ecclesiastic and historian, was born at Rada, in Navarre, about A.D. 1170. His name was Rodrigo Simonis, commonly Ximenez; but he is better known as Rodericus Toletanus. On his return from Paris, where his parents sent him to complete his education, he attached himself to Sancho V., king of Navarre, by whom he was employed to negotiate a peace with Alfonso VIII. of Castile. The manner in which he discharged this mission procured him the favour of Alfonso, by whom, in 1192, he was appointed bishop of Siguenza, and on the death of Don Martin, archbishop of Toledo, he was raised to the vacant see. He showed great zeal in the frequent wars with the Moors, and at the battle of Las Navas, where the Almohades, under Mohammed An-násir, were defeated by Alfonso, his pennon was the first that entered the dense ranks of the enemy. Indeed such were his courage and martial disposition, that even when the king was at peace with the Moors, he would, at the head of his own vassals, make frequent inroads into the Mohammedan territory. He enjoyed so much favour with the kings of his time, especially with San Fernando, that nothing was undertaken without consulting him. His zeal for learning was no less ardent than his hatred of the infidel. He persuaded Alfonso to found the university of Palencia, and thereby avoid the necessity of sending youths to be educated in foreign countries. At the fourth Lateran council he is |