my _Authority in the Modern State_, pp.

70 f.] Nor must we belittle the criticism, in its clearest form the work of Fitz James Stephen,[8] that has been levelled at Locke's theory of toleration.

For the larger part of the modern world, his argument is acceptable enough; and its ingenious compromises have made it especially representative of the English temper.

Yet much of it hardly meets the argument that some of his opponents, as Proast for example, had made.
His conception of the visible church as no part of the essence of religion could win no assent from even a moderate Anglican; and, once the visible church is admitted, Locke's facile distinction between Church and State falls to the ground.

Nor can it be doubted that he underestimated the power of coercion to produce assent; the policy of Louis XIV to the Huguenots may have been brutal, but its efficacy must be unquestionable.