A History of Freedom of Thought by J. B. (John Bagnell) Bury
page 72 of 190 (37%)
page 72 of 190 (37%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
|
the business of civil government is quite distinct from that of
religion, that the State is a society constituted only for preserving and promoting the civil interests of its members civil interests meaning life, liberty, health, and the possession of property. The care of souls is not committed to magistrates more than to other men. For the magistrate can only use outward force; but true religion means the inward persuasion of the mind, and the mind is so made that force cannot compel it to believe. So too it is absurd for a State to make laws to enforce a religion, for laws are useless without penalties, and penalties are impertinent because they cannot convince. Moreover, even if penalties could change [102] mens beliefs, this would not conduce to the salvation of souls. Would more men be saved if all blindly resigned themselves to the will of their rulers and accepted the religion of their country? For as the princes of the world are divided in religion, one country alone would be in the right, and all the rest of the world would have to follow their princes to destruction; and that which heightens the absurdity, and very ill suits the notion of a deity, men would owe their eternal happiness or their eternal misery to the places of their nativity. This is a principle on which Locke repeatedly insists. If a State is justified in imposing a creed, it follows that in all the lands, except the one or few in which the true faith prevails, it is the duty of the subjects to embrace a false religion. If Protestantism is promoted in England, Popery by the same rule will be promoted in France. What is true and good in England will be true and good at Rome too, in China, or Geneva. Toleration is the principle which gives to the true faith the best chance of prevailing. |
|


