We cannot prolong our remarks on this subject. It is expounded and illustrated, with much ability, learning and eloquence, in the “Bloody Tenet.” Roger Williams is entitled to the honor of being the first writer, in modern times, who clearly maintained the absolute right of every man, to a “full liberty in religious concernments.” Bishop Heber, in his Life of Jeremy Taylor, says, of the “Liberty of Prophesying,” “It is the first attempt on record, to conciliate the minds of Christians to the reception of a doctrine, which, though now the rule of action professed by all Christian sects, was then, by every sect alike, regarded as a perilous and portentous novelty.”[375] Bishop Heber has here fallen into a mistake. The “Liberty of Prophesying” was published in 1647, three years after the “Bloody Tenet,” in which the principles of religious liberty are more clearly and consistently maintained, than in Taylor’s excellent work.[376] Bishop Heber admits (p. 222) that this essay “can by no means lay claim to the character which has been assigned to it, of a plea for universal toleration. The forbearance which he claims, _he claims for those Christians only, who unite in the confession of the Apostles’ creed_.” Bishop Taylor himself, at the end of the sixteenth section of the work referred to, says, that “opinions are to be dealt with,” if they tend to disturb the public peace, and lead to vice. “If either themselves or their doctrine do really and without color or feigned pretence, disturb the public peace, and just interests, they are not to be suffered.” But the magistrate must judge, in this case; and, of course, the door is left wide open, for persecution. Roger Williams, on the contrary, contended, that “a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries;” and he left no discretion to the magistrate to judge of opinions, any further than they should exhibit their effects in action. His principles, too, claimed for men entire _liberty of conscience_, and not merely a right to _toleration_. To tolerate implies the power to interfere, and to regulate the conscience. If there is power to _permit_, there is power to _forbid_. The great Mr. Locke advocated the principles of religious liberty with distinguished ability, in his Letters concerning Toleration, written about the year 1690; but he maintained, by implication, that Papists ought not to be tolerated, and expressly asserted that atheists must not receive toleration.[377]