will suffice to suggest many thoughts to the intelligent reader. A
primary vulgar error, to which very powerful minds have frequently
shown a strong tendency, is bigoted intolerance: intolerance in
politics, in religion, in ecclesiastical affairs, in morals, in
anything. You may safely say that nothing but most unreasonable
bigotry would lead a Tory to say that all Whigs are scoundrels,
or a Whig to Bay that all Tories are bloated tyrants or crawling
sycophants. I must confess that, in severe reason, it is impossible
entirely to justify the Churchman who holds that all Dissenters
are extremely bad; though (so does inveterate prepossession warp
the intellect) I have also to admit that it appears to me that for
a Dissenter to hold that there is little or no good in the Church
is a great deal worse. There is something fine, however, about
a heartily intolerant man: you like him, though you disapprove of
him. Even if I were inclined to Whiggery, I should admire the downright
dictum of Dr. Johnson, that the devil was the first Whig. Even if
I were a Nonconformist, I should like Sydney Smith the better for
the singular proof of his declining strength which he once adduced:
'I do believe,' he said, 'that if you were to put a knife into my
hand, I should not have vigour enough to stick it into a Dissenter!'
The secondary error in this respect is a latitudinarian liberality
which regards truth and falsehood as matters of indifference.
Genuine liberality of sentiment is a good thing, and difficult as
it is good: but much liberality, political and religious, arises
really from the fact, that the liberal man does not care a rush
about the matter in debate. It is very easy to be tolerant in a
case in which you have no feeling whatever either way. The Churchman
who does not mind a bit whether the Church stands or falls, has no
difficulty in tolerating the enemies and assailants of the Church.
It is different with a man who holds the existence of a national