does not bear the Sword in vain.
Two Differences between a Robber or Murderer, and a Heretick who poisons Souls.
Comparison between those who declaim against Hereticks, and those who shou’d make War upon a Prince, for having writ to their King in a Stile very respectful according to his own Notions, but affronting according to theirs.
A Medly of Sects, a less Evil than the Butchery of Hereticks.
Medly in the Church of Rome.
Toleration of Sects consistent with the Publick Quiet under wise Princes.
Chapter VII. The seventh Objection: Compulsion in the literal Sense cannot be rejected without admitting a general Toleration. The Answer to this, and the Consequence allow’d to be true but not absurd. The Restrictions of your Men of Half-Toleration examin’d.
Proofs that Toleration ought to be general.
1. In regard to Jews.
2. In regard to Mahometans. The Advantage which wou’d accrue to the Gospel, by the Exchange of Missionarys betwixt the Turks and Christians.
3. In regard to Pagans.
4. In regard to Socinians.
Remarks upon what is call’d Blasphemy.
If those Hereticks call’d Blasphemers are punishable, there’s scarce any Sect which wou’d not be punishable by other Sects.
Confutation of those who say, that such Heresys as destroy Fundamentals ought not to be tolerated.
And of those who distinguish between Sects beginning, and Sects establish’d.
<xiv> Chapter VIII. Eighth Objection: Compulsion in the literal Sense is maliciously misrepresented, by supposing it authorizes Violences committed against the Truth. The Answer to this; by which it is prov’d, that the literal Sense does in reality authorize the stirring up Persecutions against the Cause of Truth, and that an erroneous Conscience has the same Rights as an enlighten’d Conscience.
’Tis sometimes a less Disadvantage to dispute with Men of great Understandings than with those of small.
Whatever is acted against Conscience is a Sin, and the greatest in its kind.
Comparison between an ill Action done out of Conscience, and a good one against it.
There is no Charity in Alms-giving against Conscience.
That there is Charity in refusing Alms out of Conscience.
What makes Reviling a Sin.
An erroneous Conscience challenges the same Prerogatives for an Error, as an Orthodox one for Truth.
If Jesus Christ had commanded Persecution, ’twou’d be a Sin to tolerate the true Religion, when one is persuaded ’tis false.
Illustration of this Doctrine by considering the Condition of a Heretick, who knowing this Command shou’d forbear Persecution.
If the Right of persecuting may be common to Truth and Heresy, all other Rights are common to ’em.
Answer to those who say, that the only Obligation on a Heretick is to turn himself.
Chapter IX. An Answer to some Objections against what has bin advanc’d in the foregoing Chapter concerning the Rights of an erroneous Conscience. Some Examples which prove this Right.
Reflection on the Instances alledg’d by the Author of the Critique Generale on the History of Calvinism.
<xv> The Morality of Actions determin’d by objective, not physical Qualitys.
Comparison between a Jew pillaging the Temple of Jerusalem, and a Heathen that of Apollo.
Examination, 1. of the Distinction of Fact and Right.
2. Whether it follows from our Principles, that a Man, persuaded of the Sense of Constraint, is oblig’d to persecute.
3. Whether a Magistrate might not punish those who out of Conscience commit Robbery.
4. Whether ’twou’d be impossible to suppress the Blasphemys of an Atheist.
5. Whether one wou’d be oblig’d to suffer Men to preach up Immorality.
6. Whether a Man, who shou’d commit Murder out of Conscience, wou’d act better than if he declin’d it.
Chapter X. A Continuation of the Answer to the Difficultys against the Rights of an erroneous Conscience. An Examination of what they say, that if Hereticks retaliate on those who persecute ’em, they are guilty of Injustice. Arguments to prove, that a false Conscience may sometimes excuse those who follow it, tho not in all Cases.
Some Expressions clear’d concerning the Rights of an erroneous Conscience.
Reasons to prove, that allowing the Doctrine of Persecutors wou’d justify Hereticks in persecuting the Truth.
First Reason: These words, Constrain ’em, &c.
