"But this act, the effects of which give so little pleasure to this doughty champion of the church, "does honour," he tells us, to the wisdom as well as humanity of the age in which it was pas sed.' Inasmuch as justice, whether exemplified in individual or national character, must be allowed to include wisdom, the act of toleration may be entitled to the praise of wisdom; but, that it has any claim to be designated by the epithet humane, remaius yet to be proved.

"That the term toleration should ever be applied to religious opinions, or persons, is an instance of misnomer which deserves to be exposed and condemned. A right to tolerate, supposes a right to withhold toleration, a principle which no man with the new testament in his hand ought ever to admit. Jesus Christ has conferred no such right: common sense shews its absurdity, and every friend of civil and religious liberty despises the insolence of the claim. The very term, toleration is invidious; as it implies something wrong in the party tolerated, though not of sufficient magnitade to justify persecution, ever on the alert for new victims, and, like the insatiable grave, crying, give, give." Experience, and common sense, confirm the remark, that the man who deliberately denies the right of all christians to a participation of equal privileges, however plausibly he may disguise his feelings, is in his heart a persecutor. A very common mistake with regard to the subject of toleration, as it refers to religion, requires urgently to be exposed, that of considering toleration as an indulgence. Is it then an indulgence to deprive a man of a part of his property, and leave him in the quiet possession of the rest; for had he not previously a right to the whole? The necessity of toleration arises out of the existence of persecution: and all arguments which do not go the length of justifying that, are of no weight in support of the right to tolerate, which, indeed, is nothing less than restricted persecution; because, making the civil magistrate the judge of religious concerns, it involves the spirit of persecution, which requires only a favourable train of circumstances to develope its hideous form and character. But while intolerance is plainly condemned by the letter and spirit of the new testament, it is evident that it is also politically absurd. What

ever has a tendency to detach the affections of any part of the community from the parent government, must be impoli tic; whether the abridgment of civil privileges, on the ground of difference of sentiment on religious subjects, be not calculated to produce such an effect, may easily be determined without the spirit of prophecy.

"In the train of blessings which gra ced the glorious revolution, the act of Toleration may be considered as none of the least, though it is evident that the rights of conscience were but partially recognized by that noble deed." Neal in his History of the Puritans, speaking of this act has the following judicious remarks.-The act of Toleration, moved by Lord Nottingham in the house of Peers, and seconded by some bishops, though more out of fear than inclination, exempted from the penal statutes then in existence Protestant dissentients only, and not all of them, for the Socinians are expressly excepted; nor did it secure, any from the influence of the cor poration and test acts. It left the English catholics under severe disabilities; it left many penal statutes unrepealed. The same reign which gave us the blessing of the Toleration act, was marked by an act of another complexion; for the prince, to whom we owe the former, was prevailed on to pass another statute, adjudging heavy penalties, fines, and imprisonments, to those who should write or speak against the doctrine of the Trinity. There are claims of power over conscience not yet abolished; there are rights of conscience not yet fully recovered and secured. The very term Toleration, shews that religious freedom is not yet enjoyed in perfection; it indicates, that the liberty which we possess is a matter of sufferance, lenity, and indulgence, rather than the grant of jus tice and of right. It seemeth to admit and imply a power to restrain conscience and dictate to faith, but the exercise of which is generously waved. The time is, even now, at this distance from the revolution, yet to come, when the enjoyment of religious liberty shall no lon ger be considered as a favour; the time is yet to come, when christians, of va rious religious forms and creeds, shall be on the equal footing of brethren, and of children in the house of the same heavenly parent; the time is yet to come, when acts of toleration shall every where give place to Bills of RIGHT.'

In our remarks on "Zeal without Innovation," we have noticed those misrepresentations of the author, which more particularly relate to "protestant dissenters,and lay preach "ers" his misrepresentations of the principles of the good old puritans, although, from such a writer, they will occasion little surprise, are not less flagrant. The author of " Zeal without Bigotry," has, with a sacred regard to truth, and with that spirit which the cause demands, vindicated that valuable body of men from the aspersions so unjustly and illiberally cast on their memory. Our author having clearly proved that the high church party, who were thoroughly attached to the popish ceremonies, were the sole cause of the "schism "between the English exiles, who dividing into two parties, were "afterwards distinguished by the names of puritans and conformists," adds the following interesting observations.

66

"On the accession of Elizabeth, the English establishment was settled upon nearly its present form. To please the Queen, the liturgy was revised, and made more palatable to the catholics, especially with reference to the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Many protestant ministers, who officiated in the church, were dissatisfied with its regulations. Those, therefore, who wish ed to see religion purified from popish defilements, were called puritans, which, as Fuller observes, can hardly be a title of reproach to those who profess to follow the minister with a pure heart and humble voice.'

"Our author in his section on the alleged similarity between the evangelical clergy and the puritans, has with singular modesty advanced the following liberal assertion: The writer of these lines cannot pass over this part of our ecclesiastical history, with that trite remark, there were faults on both sides, while the blame of aggression so clearly settles itself on the heads of the puritans. Whether this statement be attributed to that total ignorance of his tory which would disgrace the higher forins at school; or that wilful perversion of facts, which betrays the latent

*

depravity of the heart, every reader will judge for himself. It is, however, a little curious, that this declared ene my of innovation, should find nothing in the repose and sanctuary of the tomb to deter him from innovating upon the dead, whose very epitaphs he is unworthy to write. But the charge of aggression, as applied to the puritans, is not a little amusing, especially when it is recollected, that it might be applied with equal grace to the reformation itself, which sion by the popish clergy. Had our au thor been a Jew, (he would have made an excellent high priest) and living in the time of Christ's ministry, he would no doubt have said, that the blame of aggression clearly settled itself on his head." The evangelical clergy, are also no doubt considered as aggressors against those downy doctors, who recumbent virtues preach.' Contemplating every object through a party medium, and hating the excellence he cannot reach, the reverend author vainly attempts to build a reputation upon the ruins of the posed of principles, feelings and actions, puritanical character; a character com of an order too luminous, fervent, and disinterested, to range within the ken of his limited comprehension. It is no wonder that such a writer should commit blunders the most gross, in attempt ing to account for the conduct of a set of men evidently beyond the sphere of his judgment. Instead, therefore, of making an approximation to their cha racter a proof of genuine excellence, he appears anxious to deprive the evange lical ministers of the church of England of the merit of the smallest point of resemblance to those illustrious confessors. The conductors of the Christian Observer, have, however, done themselves honour, by bearing a voluntary testimony to the excellence of a set of men, whose names are still." as ointment poured forth.' So far from considering a resemblance to the puritans as incompatible with the dignity of the clerical character, the writer of the critique on "Zeal without Innovation" thus expresses himself. Speaking of the evangelical clergy, their very resemblance to the puritans,' he observes, cially if by this term the more early pu→ ritans are meant, is in our judgment no small part of their praise. For what was puritanism in the earlier days of Charles the First? It was another name

no doubt was considered as an aggres

espe

for religious strictness. It was the appellation given by the licentious to every man of a sober, serious cast. So far was it from signifying real hypocrisy, that it denoted one who, professing the christian faith (as indeed the nation did) was determined also to walk in a manner worthy of it. Ought then a modern clergyman to be reproached for resem bling in any respect the ancient puritans? They were not the low, canting body of men which many now suppose them to have been. Who, that has read the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, written by his wife, and lately published, can refuse to give to this lady, and to her husband, credit for very considerable elevation of sentiment, or can refrain from extending his favourable opinion to many other puritans, to whose character the same respectable, and yet professedly puritanical lady has adverted? Even the Edinburgh Reviewers have made some acknowledgment of the dignified character of these early professors of a puritanical religion. These observations are followed by some equally interesting on thé nature of schism, the guilt of which "must lie upon the cause of separa "tion; for according to Hales, where "schism is necessary, there, not he "that separates, but he that is the

" So was

cause of separation is the schismatic," The vindication of the puritans is very properly closed by Mr. Hume's well known encomium, and which one might imagine would, from a principle not of justice only, but of gratitude, prevent every friend of the British constitution from treating their memory with disrespect, "absolute" says the historian "the authority of the crown, that "the precious spark of liberty had been kindled, and was preserved "by the puritans alone; and it was to this sect, that the English owE THE WHOLE FREEDOM OF THEIR "CONSTITUTION." Is this the circumstance, we may demand, which made their calumniator exclaim

The blame of aggression clearly

"settles itself on the heads of the "puritans !"

66

Our author after some appropriate remarks on heresy, concerning which he adopts the admirable definition of Bishop Taylor" Heresy is not an error of the understanding, but "of the will," concludes with the following remarks on high church professions of zeal, enforced by a quotation from a late excellent minister of the established church.

"Disgusted with these odious displays of a bigoted zeal, turn we to those hal cyon days, when the spirit of Christ, copiously diffused upon his disciples, shall gladden our distracted Jerusalem; when distinct (not opposed) societies of meek professors of the common faith, shall walk in humble love, supporting each other with cheerful readiness, like different battalions of the same invinci ble army, And if ever we perceived any contention among them, it would be only about the lowest place and the most dangerous post. Instead of striwho should stand truest to the standard ving for mastery, they would strive only of the cross, and best answer the neglected motto of the primitive christians Non magna loquimur sed vivimus. Our religion does not consist in high words, but in good works.'*

"Were it possible for any thing short of a miracle to convert this modern Saul, it might be proper to remind him, that the most ardent zeal, far from being incompatible with enlarged catholicism, includes its exercise; and that a spirit emancipated from the shackles of party would do him more honour, though fewer bigots should admire, and fewer fools applaud."

This pamphlet is enriched with many quotations from some celebrated tracts on the subject of civil and religious liberty, and more particularly from Mr. Robinson's Plan of Lectures on Nonconformity, and Mr Hall's Apology for the Freedom of the Press, and for General Liberty.

*The Works of the Rev. John Fletcher, Vol. ii. p. 339.

Downing-Street, Sept. 2.

A Dispatch of which the following is a copy, was, on the 30th. ult. received at the office of Lord Viscount Castlereagh, one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, from Lieut-Gen. Lord Viscount Wellington.

Deleytossa, Aug. 8.

MY LORD, I apprized your lordship on the 1st. inst. of the advance of a French corps towards the Puerto de Banos, and of the probable embarrassments to the operations of the army, which its arrival at Plasencia would occasion; and these embarrassments having since existed to a degree so considerable, as to oblige us to fall back, and to take up a defensive position on the Tagus, I am induced to trouble you more at length with an account of what has passed upon this subject. When I entered Spain, I had a communication with Gen. Cuesta, through Sir Robert Wilson and Colonel Roche, respecting the occupation of the Puerto de Banos and the Puerto de Parales, the former of which, it was at last settled should be held by a corps to be formed under the Marquis de la Rey na, to consist of two battalions from General Cuesta's army, and two from Bejar; and that the Puerto de Parales was to be taken care of by the Duque del Parque, by detachments from the garrison of Ciudad Rodrigo, I doubted of the capacity of the garrison of Cindad Rodrigo to make the detachment to the latter, but so little of the effectual occupation of the former, that in writing to Marshal Beresford on the 17th, of July, I desired him to look to the Puerto de Perales, but that I considered Banos as secure, as appears by the extract of my letter which I'inclose. On the 30th. intelligence was received at Talavera that twelve thousand rations had been ordered at Fuente Duenos for the 28th. and twenty-four thousand at Los Santos for the same day, for a French corps, which, was believed was on its march towards the Puerto de Banos, Gen, Cuesta expressed some anxiety respecting this post, and sent me a message, to propose that Sir R. Wilson should be sent there with his corps. Sir Robert was on that day at Talavera, but his corps was in the mountains towards Escalona; and as he

had already made himself very useful in that quarter, and had been near Madrid, with which city he had had a communi cation, which I was desirous of keeping up, I proposed that a Spanish corps should be sent to Banos without loss of time, I could not prevail with General Cuesta, although he certainly admitted the necessity of a reinforcement when he proposed that Sir Robert should be sent to Banos; and he was equally sensible with myself of the benefit to be derived to the cause, from sending Sir Robert back to Escalona. At this time we had no further intelligence of the enemy's advance, than that the rations were or dered; and I had hopes that the enemy might be deterred froin advancing by the intelligence of our success on the 28th. and that the troops in the Puerto might make some defence; and that under these circumstances it was not desirable to divert Sir R. Wilson from Escalona, On the 30th. however, I renewed my application to General Cuesta, to send there a Spanish division of sufficient strength, in a letter to General O'Do noghue, of which I inclose a copy, but without effect; and he did not detach Gen. Bassecourt till the morning of the 2d. after we had heard that the enemy had entered Bejar, and it was obvious that the troops in the Puerto would make no defence. On the 2d. we received ac counts that the enemy had entered Pla→ sencia in two columns, The Marquis de la Reyna, whose two battalions consisted of only 600 men, with only 20 rounds of ammunition each man, retired from the Puerto and from Plasencia, without firing a shot, and went to the bridge of Almaraz, which he declared that he in tended to remove; the battalions of Be jar dispersed without making any resis tance, The General called upon me on that day, and proposed that half of the army should march to the rear to oppose the enemy, while the other half should maintain the post at Talavera. My answer was, that if by half the army, he meant half of each army, I could only answer that I was ready either to go or to stay with the whole British army, but that I could not separate it. He then desired me to chuse whether I would go or stay, and I preferred to go, from

thinking that the British troops were like ly to do the business effectually, and without contest; and from being of opinion that it was more important to us than to the Spanish army, to open the communication through Plasencia, al though very important to them. With this decision General Cuesta appeared perfectly satisfied. The movements of the enemy in our front since the 1st. had induced me to be of opinion, that despairing of forcing us at Talavera, they intended to force a passage by Escalona, and thus to open a communication with the French corps coming from Plasencia. This suspicion was confirmed on the night of the 2d. by letters received from Sir Robert Wilson, of which I inclose copies; and before I quitted Talavera on the 3d. I waited upon Gen. O'Donoghue and conversed with him upon the whole of our situation, and pointed out to him the possibility that in the case of the enemy coming through Escalona, Gen. Cuesta might find himself obliged to quit Talavera, before I should be able to return to him; and I urged him to collect all the carts that could be got, in order to remove our hospital. At his desire I put the purport of this conversation in writing, and sent him a letter to be laid before Gen. Cuesta, of which I inclose a copy. The British army marched on the 3d. to Oropesa, Gen. Bassecourt's Spanish corps being at Centinello, where I desired that it might halt the next day, in order that I might be nearer it. About five o'clock in the evening, I heard that the French had arrived from Plasencia at Navalmoral, whereby they were be tween us and the bridge of Almaraz. About an hour afterwards I received from Gen. O'Donoghue the letter and its inclosures, of which I inclose copies, announcing to me the intention of General Cuesta to march from Talavera in the evening, and to leave there my hospital, excepting such men as could be moved by the means he already had, on the ground of his apprehension that I was not strong enough for the corps coming from Plasencia, and that the enemy was moving upon his flank, and had returned to Santa Olalla in his front.

I acknowledge that these reasons did not appear to me sufficient for giving up so important a post as Talavera, for exposing the combined armies to an attack in front and rear at the same time, and for abandoning my hospital; and I wrote the letter of which I inclose a copy,

This unfortunately reached the General after he had marched, and he arrived at Oropesa shortly after daylight, on the morning of the fourth. The question what was to be done, was then to be considered. The enemy stated to be 30,000 strong, but, at all events, consisting of the corps of Soult and Ney, either united, or not very distant from each other, and supposed by Marshal Jourdon and Joseph Bonaparte, to be sufficiently strong to attack the British army, stated to be 25,000 strong, were on one side, in possession of the high road to the passage of the Tagus at Almaraz, the bridge at which place we knew had been removed, although the boats still necessarily remained in the river. On the other side, we had reason to expect the advance of Victor's corps to Talavera, as soon as Gen. Cuesta's march should be known, and after leav ing 12,000 men to watch Vanegas, and allowing from 10, to 11,000 killed and wounded in the late action, this corps would have amounted to 25,000. We could extricate ourselves from this difficult situation only by great celerity of movement, to which the troops were unequal, as they had not had their allow ance of provisions for several days, and by success in two battles. If unsuccess ful in either, we should have been with out a retreat; and if Soult and Ney, avoiding an action, had retired before us, and had awaited the arrival of Victor, we should have been exposed to a general action with 50,000 men, equally without a retreat. We had reason to expect, that as the Marquis de la Reyna could not remove the boats from the river Almaraz, Soult would have de stroyed them. Our only retreat was, therefore, by the bridge of Arco Bispo; and if we had moved on, the enemy, by breaking that bridge while the army should be engaged with Soult and Ney, would have deprived us of that only re source. We could not take a position at Oropesa, as we thereby left open the road to, the bridge of Arco Bispo from Talavera by Calera; and, after consi dering the whole subject maturely, I was of opinion, that it was adviseable to retire to the bridge of Arco Bispo, and to take up a defensive position upon the Tagus. I was induced to adopt this last opinion, because the French have now at least 50,000 men disposable to op pose to the combined armies, and a corps of 12,000 men to watch Vanegas a