to the pitch of making them think according to authority, so that
the necessary consequences would be that men would daily be thinking
one thing and saying another, to the corruption of good faith,
that mainstay of government, and to the fostering of hateful
flattery and perfidy, whence spring stratagems, and the corruption
of every good art.

(20:45) It is far from possible to impose uniformity of speech,
for the more rulers strive to curtail freedom of speech, the more
obstinately are they resisted; not indeed by the avaricious, the
flatterers, and other numskulls, who think supreme salvation
consists in filling their stomachs and gloating over their
money-bags, but by those whom good education, sound morality,
and virtue have rendered more free.  (46) Men, as generally
constituted, are most prone to resent the branding as criminal
of opinions which they believe to be true, and the proscription
as wicked of that which inspires them with piety towards God
and man; hence they are ready to forswear the laws and conspire
against the authorities, thinking it not shameful but honourable
to stir up seditions and perpetuate any sort of crime with this
end in view.  (20:47) Such being the constitution of human nature,
we see that laws directed against opinions affect the generous
minded rather than the wicked, and are adapted less for coercing
criminals than for irritating the upright; so that they cannot
be maintained without great peril to the state.

(20:48) Moreover, such laws are almost always useless, for those
who hold that the opinions proscribed are sound, cannot possibly
obey the law; whereas those who already reject them as false,
accept the law as a kind of privilege, and make such boast of it,
that authority is powerless to repeal it, even if such a course
be subsequently desired.

(20:49) To these considerations may be added what we said in
Chapter XVIII. in treating of the history of the Hebrews.
(50) And, lastly, how many schisms have arisen in the Church
from the attempt of the authorities to decide by law the
intricacies of theological controversy!  (51) If men were not
allured by the hope of getting the law and the authorities on
their side, of triumphing over their adversaries in the sight
of an applauding multitude, and of acquiring honourable
distinctions, they would not strive so maliciously, nor would
such fury sway their minds.  (20:52) This is taught not only by
reason but by daily examples, for laws of this kind prescribing
what every man shall believe and forbidding anyone to speak or
write to the contrary, have often been passed, as sops or
concessions to the anger of those who cannot tolerate men of
enlightenment, and who, by such harsh and crooked enactments,
can easily turn the devotion of the masses into fury and direct
it against whom they will.

(20:53) How much better would it be to restrain popular anger
and fury, instead of passing useless laws, which can only be
broken by those who love virtue and the liberal arts, thus
paring down the state till it is too small to harbour men 
of talent.  (54) What greater misfortune for a state can be
conceived then that honourable men should be sent like criminals
into exile, because they hold diverse opinions which they cannot
disguise?  (20:55) What, I say, can be more hurtful than that men
who have committed no crime or wickedness should, simply because
they are enlightened, be treated as enemies and put to death, and
that the scaffold, the terror of evil-doers, should become the
arena where the highest examples of tolerance and virtue are
displayed to the people with all the marks of ignominy that
authority can devise?

(20:56) He that knows himself to be upright does not fear the
death of a criminal, and shrinks from no punishment; his mind
is not wrung with remorse for any disgraceful deed: he holds
that death in a good cause is no punishment, but an honour,
and that death for freedom is glory.

(20:57) What purpose then is served by the death of such men,
what example in proclaimed? the cause for which they die is
unknown to the idle and the foolish, hateful to the turbulent,
loved by the upright.  (57a) The only lesson we can draw from
such scenes is to flatter the persecutor, or else to imitate
the victim.

(20:58) If formal assent is not to be esteemed above conviction,
and if governments are to retain a firm hold of authority and not
be compelled to yield to agitators, it is imperative that freedom
of judgment should be granted, so that men may live together in
harmony, however diverse, or even openly contradictory their
opinions may be.  (20:59) We cannot doubt that such is the best
system of government and open to the fewest objections, since it
is the one most in harmony with human nature.  (60) In a democracy
(the most natural form of government, as we have shown in
Chapter XVI.) everyone submits to the control of authority over
his actions, but not over his judgment and reason; that is,
seeing that all cannot think alike, the voice of the majority
has the force of law, subject to repeal if circumstances bring
about a change of opinion.  (61) In proportion as the power of
free judgment is withheld we depart from the natural condition
of mankind, and consequently the government becomes more tyrannical.

[20:4] (62) In order to prove that from such freedom no
inconvenience arises, which cannot easily be checked by the
exercise of the sovereign power, and that men's actions can
easily be kept in bounds, though their opinions be at open