e ethical
natures. Now, conceiving we have the truth, we must, in reason and in
conscience, be in so far intolerant to those who antagonize the truth.
The theist is intolerant toward the atheist; truth is intolerant toward
falsehood; good is intolerant toward evil; God intolerant toward sin.
Righteousness is always intolerant; and any one advocating unlimited
intellectual tolerance is breaking down the primary distinctions
between falsehood and truth. Some things are true and their opposites
false. Jesus put the case in an immortal phrase: "Ye can not serve God
and Mammon." The query, then, is, Where does this intolerance of truth
pass into bigotry? For I think it easy to see that this passage is but
a step, nor is the dividing line so easy to discover as we might wish.
Ask this question, to illustrate our dilemma, "What is the difference
between legitimate competition and monopoly?" An answer rises to the
lip instanter, but is no sooner given than perceived to be invalid. A
like closeness of relation exists between the virtue of intolerance and
the vice of intolerance, a synonym of which is bigotry. Virtue is
intolerant of vice, and there are great verities in the kingdom of God
to be held if life must pay the price of their retention. This is the
explanation of martyrs, whose office is to witness to truth by cross
and sword and fagot. The Reformation stands for the right of free
judgment in things appertaining to religion, thought, and politics.
Luther was liberator of Europe, and through Europe of the world, in the
three departments where life lives its thrilling story. A tolerant
intolerance holds with strong hand to truth, but demands for others
what it demands for itself; namely, the right to interpret and follow
truth so far as such procedure does not interfere with the rights of
another. Tolerance of this sort does not destroy, nor yet surrender,
conviction. Bigotry demands the enforcement of its opinions upon all,
and is a reign of compulsion. Applying this argument to Philip, a
noteworthy bigot, we see how it was his right to be a Roman Catholic
and to be a zealous propagandist, since kingship does not hinder a king
from being a man, with a man's religious rights and duties. Philip's
fault lay in his not allowing to others the right of religious freedom
himself possessed. He stands, to this hour, a perfect specimen of
intolerance.

Under sovereignty such as this was William the Silent citizen.