It will be observed that in both these cases freedom was incomplete; but it was much larger and more fundamental in Rhode Island, where it had been ultimately derived from the doctrine of Socinus. [2] When the colonies became independent of England the Federal Constitution which they set up was absolutely secular, but it was left to each member of the Union to adopt Separation or not (1789).  If separation has become the rule in the American States, it may be largely due to the fact that on any other system the governments would have found it difficult to impose mutual tolerance on the sects.  It must be added that in Maryland and a few southern States atheists still suffer from some political disabilities.

In England, the experiment of Separation would have been tried under the Commonwealth, if the Independents had had their way.  This policy was overruled by Cromwell.

[99] The new national Church included Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, but liberty of worship was granted to all Christian sects, except Roman Catholics and Anglicans.  If the parliament had had the power, this toleration would have been a mere name.  The Presbyterians regarded toleration as a work of the Devil, and would have persecuted the Independents if they could.  But under Cromwell’s autocratic rule even the Anglicans lived in peace, and toleration was extended to the Jews.  In these days, voices were raised from various quarters advocating toleration on general grounds. [3] The most illustrious advocate was Milton, the poet, who was in favour of the severance of Church from State.

In Milton’s Areopagitica:  a speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing (1644), the freedom of the Press is eloquently sustained by arguments which are valid for freedom of thought in general.  It is shown that the censorship will conduce “to the discouragement of all learning and the stop of truth, not only by disexercising and blunting our abilities in what we know already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might be yet further made, both in religious

[100] and civil wisdom.”  For knowledge is advanced through the utterance of new opinions, and truth is discovered by free discussion.  If the waters of truth “flow not in a perpetual progression they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.”  Books which are authorized by the licensers are apt to be, as Bacon said, “but the language of the times,” and do not contribute to progress.  The examples of the countries where the censorship is severe do not suggest that it is useful for morals:  “look into Italy and Spain, whether those places be one scruple the better, the honester, the wiser, the chaster, since all the inquisitional rigour that hath been executed upon books.”  Spain indeed could reply, “We are, what is more important, more orthodox.”  It is interesting to notice that Milton places freedom of thought above civil liberty:  “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all other liberties.”