Read A Letter Concerning Toleration Online

36/John Locke 


the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely reli- 
gious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eter- 
nal 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 Chris- 
tian 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 govern- 
ment 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 belong- 
ing to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be com- 
pelled 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 ani- 
mosities being once removed, there would remain nothing in these as- 
semblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce distur- 
bance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us exam- 
ine particularly the heads of these accusations. 

You will say that assemblies and meetings endanger the public peace