Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is
when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect,
some peculiar prerogative covered over with a specious show of
deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil right of the
community. For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches,
expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their
promise; that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from
them in religion; or that the dominion of all things belongs only to
themselves. For these things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would
soon draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate and awaken all
the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the spreading
of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those that say the
same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that
faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is
that the privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they
declare all that are not of their communion to be heretics, or at
least may declare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the
meaning of their asserting that kings excommunicated forfeit their
crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate unto
themselves the power of deposing kings, because they challenge the
power of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their hierarchy.
That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertion by which
those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all
things. For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe,
or at least as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and
faithful. These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the
faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto
themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in
civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge
any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in
their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be
tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and
teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion.
For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they
may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and
possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow
subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the
magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to
effect it?

  Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the
magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those
who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the
protection and service of another prince. For by this means the
magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in
his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were,
for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and
fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any
remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the
other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same
person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church
to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order
thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It
is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in
his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian
magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to
yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is
entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned
oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan
living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their
government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church
who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

  Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a
God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human
society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God,
though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by
their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence
of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As
for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all
error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or
civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no
reason why they should not be tolerated.

  It remains that I say something concerning those assemblies which,
being vulgarly called and perhaps having sometimes been conventicles
and nurseries of factions and seditions, are thought to afford against
this doctrine of toleration. But this has not happened by anything
peculiar unto the genius of such assemblies, but by the unhappy
circumstances of an oppressed or ill-settled liberty. These
accusations would soon cease if the law of toleration were once so
settled that all Churches were obliged to lay down toleration as the
foundation of their own liberty, and teach that liberty of
conscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging to
dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled
in matters of religion either by law or force. The establishment of
this one thing would take away all ground of complaints and tumults
upon account of conscience; and these causes of discontents and
animosities being once removed, there would remain nothing in these
assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce
disturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us
examine particularly the heads of these accusations.

  You will say that assemblies and meetings endanger the public
peace and threaten the commonwealth. I answer: If this be so, why
are there daily such numerous meetings in markets and Courts of
Judicature? Why are crowds upon the Exchange and a concourse of people
in cities suffered? You will reply: "Those are civil assemblies, but
these we object against are ecclesiastical." I answer: It is a