"I think indeed there is no nation under heaven, in which so much has already been said upon [the] subject [of Toleration] as ours. But yet certainly there is no people that stand in more need of having something further both said and done amongst them, in this point, than we do.
Our government has not only been partial in matters of religion, but those also who have suffered under that partiality, and have therefore endeavoured by their writings to vindicate their own rights and liberties, have for the most part done it upon narrow principles, suited only to the interests of their own sects.
This narrowness of spirit on all sides has undoubtedly been the principal occasion of our miseries and confusions. But whatever have been the occasions, it is now high time to seek for a thorough cure. We have need of more generous remedies than what have yet been made use of in our distemper. It is neither declarations of indulgence, nor acts of comprehension*, such as have yet been practised or projected amongst us, that can do the work. The first will but palliate, the second increase our evil."
John Locke - A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)
Interestingly, "comprehension" here is used in the sense of 'comprehend or comprise' - "to include or embrace", rather than the more usual modern sense of "to understand".
Locke goes on to argue - albeit in a partisan way - for a nation-state in which multiple religious sects are tolerated, but in which there is a clear separation between civil powers and religious practice. He argues for broad rights on behalf of Protestants, while seeking to restrict them for athiests, Catholics and 'Mahometans'. It all casts an interesting side-light on the arguments advanced more recently by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}