And if some religious meetings be private,who are they (I beseech you)that are to be blamed for it,those that desire,or those that forbid their being public!Again,you will say that religious communion does exceedingly unite men's minds and affections to one another and is therefore the more dangerous.But if this be so,why is not the magistrate afraid of his own Church;and why does he not forbid their assemblies as things dangerous to his Government?You will say because he himself is a part and even the head of them.As if he were not also a part of the commonwealth,and the head of the whole people!Let us therefore deal plainly.The magistrate is afraid of other Churches,but not of his own,because he is kind and favourable to the one,but severe and cruel to the other.These he treats like children,and indulges them even to wantonness.Those he uses as slaves and,how blamelessly soever they demean themselves,recompenses them no otherwise than by galleys,prisons,confiscations,and death.These he cherishes and defends;those he continually scourges and oppresses.Let him turn the tables.Or let those dissenters enjoy but the same privileges in civils as his other subjects,and he will quickly find that these religious meetings will be no longer dangerous.For if men enter into seditious conspiracies,it is not religion inspires them to it in their meetings,but their sufferings and oppressions that make them willing to ease themselves.Just and moderate governments are everywhere quiet,everywhere safe;but oppression raises ferments and makes men struggle to cast off an uneasy and tyrannical yoke.
I know that seditions are very frequently raised upon pretence of religion,but it is as true that for religion subjects are frequently ill treated and live miserably.Believe me,the stirs that are made proceed not from any peculiar temper of this or that Church or religious society,but from the common disposition of all mankind,who when they groan under any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks.Suppose this business of religion were let alone,and that there were some other distinction made between men and men upon account of their different complexions,shapes,and features,so that those who have black hair (for example)or grey eyes should not enjoy the same privileges as other citizens;that they should not be permitted either to buy or sell,or live by their callings;that parents should not have the government and education of their own children;that all should either be excluded from the benefit of the laws,or meet with partial judges;can it be doubted but these persons,thus distinguished from others by the colour of their hair and eyes,and united together by one common persecution,would be as dangerous to the magistrate as any others that had associated themselves merely upon the account of religion?Some enter into company for trade and profit,others for want of business have their clubs for claret.Neighbourhood joins some and religion others.But there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions,and that is oppression.You will say "What,will you have people to meet at divine service against the magistrate's will?"I answer:Why,I pray,against his will?Is it not both lawful and necessary that they should meet?Against his will,do you say?That is what I complain of;that is the very root of all the mischief.
Why are assemblies less sufferable in a church than in a theatre or market?Those that meet there are not either more vicious or more turbulent than those that meet elsewhere.The business in that is that they are ill used,and therefore they are not to be suffered.Take away the partiality that is used towards them in matters of common right;change the laws,take away the penalties unto which they are subjected,and all things will immediately become safe and peaceable;nay,those that are averse to the religion of the magistrate will think themselves so much the more bound to maintain the peace of the commonwealth as their condition is better in that place than elsewhere;and all the several separate congregations,like so many guardians of the public peace,will watch one another,that nothing may be innovated or changed in the form of the government,because they can hope for nothing better than what they already enjoy-that is,an equal condition with their fellow-subjects under a just and moderate government.Now if that Church which agrees in religion with the prince be esteemed the chief support of any civil government,and that for no other reason (as has already been shown)than because the prince is kind and the laws are favourable to it,how much greater will be the security of government where all good subjects,of whatsoever Church they be,without any distinction upon account of religion,enjoying the same favour of the prince and the same benefit of the laws,shall become the common support and guard of it,and where none will have any occasion to fear the severity of the laws but those that do injuries to their neighbours and offend against the civil peace?That we may draw towards a conclusion.The sum of all we drive at is that every man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others.Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner?Let it be permitted to do it in the Geneva form also.Is it permitted to speak Latin in the market-place?
Let those that have a mind to it be permitted to do it also in the Church.
