HONOURED SIR,
Since you are pleased to inquire
what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different
professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that
toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever
some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of
their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all,
of the orthodoxy of their faith- for everyone is orthodox to himself- these
things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving
for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone
have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of
charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those
that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian
himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our
Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."* The business of true
religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting
of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor
to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives,
according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under
the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make
war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the
name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity
and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart
from iniquity."*(2) "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,"
said our Lord to Peter.*(3) It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears
careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned
for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply
themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the
Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may
be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith
which works, not by force, but by love. Now, I appeal to the consciences of
those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of
religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or
no? And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when
I shall see those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends
and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts
of the Gospel; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members
of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment
are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express
their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of
torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle
of charity, as they pretend, and love to men's souls that they deprive them
of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment
them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives- I say,
if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation,
why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities,
which (according to the apostle)*(4) manifestly relish of heathenish corruption,
to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people? These,
and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the glory of God, to
the purity of the Church, and to the salvation of souls, than any conscientious
dissent from ecclesiastical decisions, or separation from public worship,
whilst accompanied with innocence of life. Why, then, does this burning zeal
for God, for the Church, and for the salvation of souls- burning I say, literally,
with fire and faggot- pass by those moral vices and wickednesses, without
any chastisement, which are acknowledged by all men to be diametrically opposite
to the profession of Christianity, and bend all its nerves either to the introducing
of ceremonies, or to the establishment of opinions, which for the most part
are about nice and intricate matters, that exceed the capacity of ordinary
understandings? Which of the parties contending about these things is in the
right, which of them is guilty of schism or heresy, whether those that domineer
or those that suffer, will then at last be manifest when the causes of their
separation comes to be judged of He, certainly, that follows Christ, embraces
His doctrine, and bears His yoke, though he forsake both father and mother,
separate from the public assemblies and ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever
or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic.
* Luke 22. 25.
*(2)II Tim. 2. 19.
*(3) Luke 22. 32.
*(4) Rom. I.
Now, though the divisions that
are amongst sects should be allowed to be never so obstructive of the salvation
of souls; yet, nevertheless, adultery, fornication, uncleanliness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, and such-like things, cannot be denied to be works of the flesh,
concerning which the apostle has expressly declared that "they who do them
shall not inherit the kingdom of God."* Whosoever, therefore, is sincerely
solicitous about the kingdom of God and thinks it his duty to endeavour the
enlargement of it amongst men, ought to apply himself with no less care and
industry to the rooting out of these immoralities than to the extirpation
of sects. But if anyone do otherwise, and whilst he is cruel and implacable
towards those that differ from him in opinion, he be indulgent to such iniquities
and immoralities as are unbecoming the name of a Christian, let such a one
talk never so much of the Church, he plainly demonstrates by his actions that
it is another kingdom he aims at and not the advancement of the kingdom of
God.
* Gal. 5.
That any man should think fit to
cause another man- whose salvation he heartily desires- to expire in torments,
and that even in an unconverted state, would, I confess, seem very strange
to me, and I think, to any other also. But nobody, surely, will ever believe
that such a carriage can proceed from charity, love, or goodwill. If anyone
maintain that men ought to be compelled by fire and sword to profess certain
doctrines, and conform to this or that exterior worship, without any regard
had unto their morals; if anyone endeavour to convert those that are erroneous
unto the faith, by forcing them to profess things that they do not believe
and allowing them to practise things that the Gospel does not permit, it cannot
be doubted indeed but such a one is desirous to have a numerous assembly joined
in the same profession with himself; but that he principally intends by those
means to compose a truly Christian Church is altogether incredible. It is
not, therefore, to be wondered at if those who do not really contend for the
advancement of the true religion, and of the Church of Christ, make use of
arms that do not belong to the Christian warfare. If, like the Captain of
our salvation, they sincerely desired the good of souls, they would tread
in the steps and follow the perfect example of that Prince of Peace, who sent
out His soldiers to the subduing of nations, and gathering them into His Church,
not armed with the sword, or other instruments of force, but prepared with
the Gospel of peace and with the exemplary holiness of their conversation.
This was His method. Though if infidels were to be converted by force, if
those that are either blind or obstinate were to be drawn off from their errors
by armed soldiers, we know very well that it was much more easy for Him to
do it with armies of heavenly legions than for any son of the Church, how
potent soever, with all his dragoons.
The toleration of those that differ
from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for
men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in
so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the
passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human
affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody
will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious
colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their
own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit
of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public
weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion,
may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word,
that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty
and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship
of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the
business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just
bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there
can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between
those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment
for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.
The commonwealth seems to me to
be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing
their own civil interests.
Civil interests I call life, liberty,
health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such
as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.
It is the duty of the civil magistrate,
by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in
general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession
of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws
of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things,
his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of
the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise
he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself
to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less
of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force
and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that
violate any other man's rights.
Now that the whole jurisdiction
of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments, and that all civil
power, right and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of promoting
these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended
to the salvation of souls, these following considerations seem unto me abundantly
to demonstrate.
First, because the care of souls
is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It is
not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has
ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone
to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the
consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own
salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or
subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no
man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the
life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion
of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. Whatever profession
we make, to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied
in our own mind that the one is true and the other well pleasing unto God,
such profession and such practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed
great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner, instead of expiating
other sins by the exercise of religion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty
such a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto Him, we add unto the number
of our other sins those also of hypocrisy and contempt of His Divine Majesty.
In the second place, the care of
souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only
in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion
of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the
nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of
anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments,
nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the
inward judgement that they have framed of things.
It may indeed be alleged that
the magistrate may make use of arguments, and, thereby; draw the heterodox
into the way of truth, and procure their salvation. I grant it; but this is
common to him with other men. In teaching, instructing, and redressing the
erroneous by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good man to do.
Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either humanity or Christianity;
but it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with
arguments, another with penalties. This civil power alone has a right to do;
to the other, goodwill is authority enough. Every man has commission to admonish,
exhort, convince another of error, and, by reasoning, to draw him into truth;
but to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to
none but the magistrate. And, upon this ground, I affirm that the magistrate's
power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of
worship, by the force of his laws. For laws are of no force at all without
penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutely impertinent, because
they are not proper to convince the mind. Neither the profession of any articles
of faith, nor the conformity to any outward form of worship (as has been already
said), can be available to the salvation of souls, unless the truth of the
one and the acceptableness of the other unto God be thoroughly believed by
those that so profess and practise. But penalties are no way capable to produce
such belief. It is only light and evidence that can work a change in men's
opinions; which light can in no manner proceed from corporal sufferings, or
any other outward penalties.
In the third place, the care of
the salvation of men's souls cannot belong to the magistrate; because, though
the rigour of laws and the force of penalties were capable to convince and
change men's minds, yet would not that help at all to the salvation of their
souls. For there being but one truth, one way to heaven, what hope is there
that more men would be led into it if they had no rule but the religion of
the court and were put under the necessity to quit the light of their own
reason, and oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and blindly to resign
themselves up to the will of their governors and to the religion which either
ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chanced to establish in the countries
where they were born? In the variety and contradiction of opinions in religion,
wherein the princes of the world are as much divided as in their secular interests,
the narrow way would be much straitened; one country alone would be in the
right, and all the rest of the world put under an obligation of following
their princes in the ways that lead to destruction; and that which heightens
the absurdity, and very ill suits the notion of a Deity, men would owe their
eternal happiness or misery to the places of their nativity. These considerations,
to omit many others that might have been urged to the same purpose, seem unto
me sufficient to conclude that all the power of civil government relates only
to men's civil interests, is confined to the care of the things of this world,
and hath nothing to do with the world to come.
Let us now consider what a church
is. A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves
together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God in
such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation
of their souls.
I say it is a free and voluntary
society. Nobody is born a member of any church; otherwise the religion of
parents would descend unto children by the same right of inheritance as their
temporal estates, and everyone would hold his faith by the same tenure he
does his lands, than which nothing can be imagined more absurd. Thus, therefore,
that matter stands. No man by nature is bound unto any particular church or
sect, but everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes
he has found that profession and worship which is truly acceptable to God.
The hope of salvation, as it was the only cause of his entrance into that
communion, so it can be the only reason of his stay there. For if afterwards
he discover anything either erroneous in the doctrine or incongruous in the
worship of that society to which he has joined himself, why should it not
be as free for him to go out as it was to enter? No member of a religious
society can be tied with any other bonds but what proceed from the certain
expectation of eternal life. A church, then, is a society of members voluntarily
uniting to that end.
It follows now that we consider
what is the power of this church and unto what laws it is subject.
Forasmuch as no society, how free
soever, or upon whatsoever slight occasion instituted, whether of philosophers
for learning, of merchants for commerce, or of men of leisure for mutual conversation
and discourse, no church or company, I say, can in the least subsist and hold
together, but will presently dissolve and break in pieces, unless it be regulated
by some laws, and the members all consent to observe some order. Place and
time of meeting must be agreed on; rules for admitting and excluding members
must be established; distinction of officers, and putting things into a regular
course, and suchlike, cannot be omitted. But since the joining together of
several members into this church-society, as has already been demonstrated,
is absolutely free and spontaneous, it necessarily follows that the right
of making its laws can belong to none but the society itself; or, at least
(which is the same thing), to those whom the society by common consent has
authorised thereunto.
Some, perhaps, may object that
no such society can be said to be a true church unless it have in it a bishop
or presbyter, with ruling authority derived from the very apostles, and continued
down to the present times by an uninterrupted succession.
To these I answer: In the first
place, let them show me the edict by which Christ has imposed that law upon
His Church. And let not any man think me impertinent, if in a thing of this
consequence I require that the terms of that edict be very express and positive;
for the promise He has made us,* that "wheresoever two or three are gathered
together" in His name, He will be in the midst of them, seems to imply the
contrary. Whether such an assembly want anything necessary to a true church,
pray do you consider. Certain I am that nothing can be there wanting unto
the salvation of souls, which is sufficient to our purpose.
* Matt. 18. 20.
Next, pray observe how great have
always been the divisions amongst even those who lay so much stress upon the
Divine institution and continued succession of a certain order of rulers in
the Church. Now, their very dissension unavoidably puts us upon a necessity
of deliberating and, consequently, allows a liberty of choosing that which
upon consideration we prefer.
And, in the last place, I consent
that these men have a ruler in their church, established by such a long series
of succession as they judge necessary, provided I may have liberty at the
same time to join myself to that society in which I am persuaded those things
are to be found which are necessary to the salvation of my soul. In this manner
ecclesiastical liberty will be preserved on all sides, and no man will have
a legislator imposed upon him but whom himself has chosen.
But since men are so solicitous
about the true church, I would only ask them here, by the way, if it be not
more agreeable to the Church of Christ to make the conditions of her communion
consist in such things, and such things only, as the Holy Spirit has in the
Holy Scriptures declared, in express words, to be necessary to salvation;
I ask, I say, whether this be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ than
for men to impose their own inventions and interpretations upon others as
if they were of Divine authority, and to establish by ecclesiastical laws,
as absolutely necessary to the profession of Christianity, such things as
the Holy Scriptures do either not mention, or at least not expressly command?
Whosoever requires those things in order to ecclesiastical communion, which
Christ does not require in order to life eternal, he may, perhaps, indeed
constitute a society accommodated to his own opinion and his own advantage;
but how that can be called the Church of Christ which is established upon
laws that are not His, and which excludes such persons from its communion
as He will one day receive into the Kingdom of Heaven, I understand not. But
this being not a proper place to inquire into the marks of the true church,
I will only mind those that contend so earnestly for the decrees of their
own society, and that cry out continually, "The Church! the Church!" with
as much noise, and perhaps upon the same principle, as the Ephesian silversmiths
did for their Diana; this, I say, I desire to mind them of, that the Gospel
frequently declares that the true disciples of Christ must suffer persecution;
but that the Church of Christ should persecute others, and force others by
fire and sword to embrace her faith and doctrine, I could never yet find in
any of the books of the New Testament.
The end of a religious society
(as has already been said) is the public worship of God and, by means thereof,
the acquisition of eternal life. All discipline ought, therefore, to tend
to that end, and all ecclesiastical laws to be thereunto confined. Nothing
ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of
civil and worldly goods. No force is here to be made use of upon any occasion
whatsoever. For force belongs wholly to the civil magistrate, and the possession
of all outward goods is subject to his jurisdiction.
But, it may be asked, by what means
then shall ecclesiastical laws be established, if they must be thus destitute
of all compulsive power? I answer: They must be established by means suitable
to the nature of such things, whereof the external profession and observation-
if not proceeding from a thorough conviction and approbation of the mind-
is altogether useless and unprofitable. The arms by which the members of this
society are to be kept within their duty are exhortations, admonitions, and
advices. If by these means the offenders will not be reclaimed, and the erroneous
convinced, there remains nothing further to be done but that such stubborn
and obstinate persons, who give no ground to hope for their reformation, should
be cast out and separated from the society. This is the last and utmost force
of ecclesiastical authority. No other punishment can thereby be inflicted
than that, the relation ceasing between the body and the member which is cut
off. The person so condemned ceases to be a part of that church.
These things being thus determined,
let us inquire, in the next place: How far the duty of toleration extends,
and what is required from everyone by it?
And, first, I hold that no church
is bound, by the duty of toleration, to retain any such person in her bosom
as, after admonition, continues obstinately to offend against the laws of
the society. For, these being the condition of communion and the bond of the
society, if the breach of them were permitted without any animadversion the
society would immediately be thereby dissolved. But, nevertheless, in all
such cases care is to be taken that the sentence of excommunication, and the
execution thereof, carry with it no rough usage of word or action whereby
the ejected person may any wise be damnified in body or estate. For all force
(as has often been said) belongs only to the magistrate, nor ought any private
persons at any time to use force, unless it be in self-defence against unjust
violence. Excommunication neither does, nor can, deprive the excommunicated
person of any of those civil goods that he formerly possessed. All those things
belong to the civil government and are under the magistrate's protection.
The whole force of excommunication consists only in this: that, the resolution
of the society in that respect being declared, the union that was between
the body and some member comes thereby to be dissolved; and, that relation
ceasing, the participation of some certain things which the society communicated
to its members, and unto which no man has any civil right, comes also to cease.
For there is no civil injury done unto the excommunicated person by the church
minister's refusing him that bread and wine, in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, which was not bought with his but other men's money.
Secondly, no private person has
any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments
because he is of another church or religion. All the rights and franchises
that belong to him as a man, or as a denizen, are inviolably to be preserved
to him. These are not the business of religion. No violence nor injury is
to be offered him, whether he be Christian or Pagan. Nay, we must not content
ourselves with the narrow measures of bare justice; charity, bounty, and liberality
must be added to it. This the Gospel enjoins, this reason directs, and this
that natural fellowship we are born into requires of us. If any man err from
the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefore
art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he
will be miserable in that which is to come.
What I say concerning the mutual
toleration of private persons differing from one another in religion, I understand
also of particular churches which stand, as it were, in the same relation
to each other as private persons among themselves: nor has any one of them
any manner of jurisdiction over any other; no, not even when the civil magistrate
(as it sometimes happens) comes to be of this or the other communion. For
the civil government can give no new right to the church, nor the church to
the civil government. So that, whether the magistrate join himself to any
church, or separate from it, the church remains always as it was before- a
free and voluntary society. It neither requires the power of the sword by
the magistrate's coming to it, nor does it lose the right of instruction and
excommunication by his going from it. This is the fundamental and immutable
right of a spontaneous society- that it has power to remove any of its members
who transgress the rules of its institution; but it cannot, by the accession
of any new members, acquire any right of jurisdiction over those that are
not joined with it. And therefore peace, equity, and friendship are always
mutually to be observed by particular churches, in the same manner as by private
persons, without any pretence of superiority or jurisdiction over one another.
That the thing may be made clearer
by an example, let us suppose two churches- the one of Arminians, the other
of Calvinists- residing in the city of Constantinople. Will anyone say that
either of these churches has right to deprive the members of the other of
their estates and liberty (as we see practised elsewhere) because of their
differing from it in some doctrines and ceremonies, whilst the Turks, in the
meanwhile, silently stand by and laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians
thus rage against Christians? But if one of these churches hath this power
of treating the other ill, I ask which of them it is to whom that power belongs,
and by what right? It will be answered, undoubtedly, that it is the orthodox
church which has the right of authority over the erroneous or heretical. This
is, in great and specious words, to say just nothing at all. For every church
is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical. For whatsoever any
church believes, it believes to be true and the contrary unto those things
it pronounce; to be error. So that the controversy between these churches
about the truth of their doctrines and the purity of their worship is on both
sides equal; nor is there any judge, either at Constantinople or elsewhere
upon earth, by whose sentence it can be determined. The decision of that question
belongs only to the Supreme judge of all men, to whom also alone belongs the
punishment of the erroneous. In the meanwhile, let those men consider how
heinously they sin, who, adding injustice, if not to their error, yet certainly
to their pride, do rashly and arrogantly take upon them to misuse the servants
of another master, who are not at all accountable to them.
Nay, further: if it could be manifest
which of these two dissenting churches were in the right, there would not
accrue thereby unto the orthodox any right of destroying the other. For churches
have neither any jurisdiction in worldly matters, nor are fire and sword any
proper instruments wherewith to convince men's minds of error, and inform
them of the truth. Let us suppose, nevertheless, that the civil magistrate
inclined to favour one of them and to put his sword into their hands that
(by his consent) they might chastise the dissenters as they pleased. Will
any man say that any right can be derived unto a Christian church over its
brethren from a Turkish emperor? An infidel, who has himself no authority
to punish Christians for the articles of their faith, cannot confer such an
authority upon any society of Christians, nor give unto them a right which
he has not himself. This would be the case at Constantinople; and the reason
of the thing is the same in any Christian kingdom. The civil power is the
same in every place. Nor can that power, in the hands of a Christian prince,
confer any greater authority upon the Church than in the hands of a heathen;
which is to say, just none at all.
Nevertheless, it is worthy to be
observed and lamented that the most violent of these defenders of the truth,
the opposers of errors, the exclaimers against schism do hardly ever let loose
this their zeal for God, with which they are so warmed and inflamed, unless
where they have the civil magistrate on their side. But so soon as ever court
favour has given them the better end of the staff, and they begin to feel
themselves the stronger, then presently peace and charity are to be laid aside.
Otherwise they are religiously to be observed. Where they have not the power
to carry on persecution and to become masters, there they desire to live upon
fair terms and preach up toleration. When they are not strengthened with the
civil power, then they can bear most patiently and unmovedly the contagion
of idolatry, superstition, and heresy in their neighbourhood; of which on
other occasions the interest of religion makes them to be extremely apprehensive.
They do not forwardly attack those errors which are in fashion at court or
are countenanced by the government. Here they can be content to spare their
arguments; which yet (with their leave) is the only right method of propagating
truth, which has no such way of prevailing as when strong arguments and good
reason are joined with the softness of civility and good usage.
Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither
single persons nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title
to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of
religion. Those that are of another opinion would do well to consider with
themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war, how powerful a provocation
to endless hatreds, rapines, and slaughters they thereby furnish unto mankind.
No peace and security, no, not so much as common friendship, can ever be established
or preserved amongst men so long as this opinion prevails, that dominion is
founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms.
In the third place, let us see
what the duty of toleration requires from those who are distinguished from
the rest of mankind (from the laity, as they please to call us) by some ecclesiastical
character and office; whether they be bishops, priests, presbyters, ministers,
or however else dignified or distinguished. It is not my business to inquire
here into the original of the power or dignity of the clergy. This only I
say, that, whencesoever their authority be sprung, since it is ecclesiastical,
it ought to be confined within the bounds of the Church, nor can it in any
manner be extended to civil affairs, because the Church itself is a thing
absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on
both sides are fixed and immovable. He jumbles heaven and earth together,
the things most remote and opposite, who mixes these two societies, which
are in their original, end, business, and in everything perfectly distinct
and infinitely different from each other. No man, therefore, with whatsoever
ecclesiastical office he be dignified, can deprive another man that is not
of his church and faith either of liberty or of any part of his worldly goods
upon the account of that difference between them in religion. For whatsoever
is not lawful to the whole Church cannot by any ecclesiastical right become
lawful to any of its members.
But this is not all. It is not
enough that ecclesiastical men abstain from violence and rapine and all manner
of persecution. He that pretends to be a successor of the apostles, and takes
upon him the office of teaching, is obliged also to admonish his hearers of
the duties of peace and goodwill towards all men, as well towards the erroneous
as the orthodox; towards those that differ from them in faith and worship
as well as towards those that agree with them therein. And he ought industriously
to exhort all men, whether private persons or magistrates (if any such there
be in his church), to charity, meekness, and toleration, and diligently endeavour
to ally and temper all that heat and unreasonable averseness of mind which
either any man's fiery zeal for his own sect or the craft of others has kindled
against dissenters. I will not undertake to represent how happy and how great
would be the fruit, both in Church and State, if the pulpits everywhere sounded
with this doctrine of peace and toleration, lest I should seem to reflect
too severely upon those men whose dignity I desire not to detract from, nor
would have it diminished either by others or themselves. But this I say, that
thus it ought to be. And if anyone that professes himself to be a minister
of the Word of God, a preacher of the gospel of peace, teach otherwise, he
either understands not or neglects the business of his calling and shall one
day give account thereof unto the Prince of Peace. If Christians are to be
admonished that they abstain from all manner of revenge, even after repeated
provocations and multiplied injuries, how much more ought they who suffer
nothing, who have had no harm done them, forbear violence and abstain from
all manner of ill-usage towards those from whom they have received none! This
caution and temper they ought certainly to use towards those. who mind only
their own business and are solicitous for nothing but that (whatever men think
of them) they may worship God in that manner which they are persuaded is acceptable
to Him and in which they have the strongest hopes of eternal salvation. In
private domestic affairs, in the management of estates, in the conservation
of bodily health, every man may consider what suits his own convenience and
follow what course he likes best. No man complains of the ill-management of
his neighbour's affairs. No man is angry with another for an error committed
in sowing his land or in marrying his daughter. Nobody corrects a spendthrift
for consuming his substance in taverns. Let any man pull down, or build, or
make whatsoever expenses he pleases, nobody murmurs, nobody controls him;
he has his liberty. But if any man do not frequent the church, if he do not
there conform his behaviour exactly to the accustomed ceremonies, or if he
brings not his children to be initiated in the sacred mysteries of this or
the other congregation, this immediately causes an uproar. The neighbourhood
is filled with noise and clamour. Everyone is ready to be the avenger of so
great a crime, and the zealots hardly have the patience to refrain from violence
and rapine so long till the cause be heard and the poor man be, according
to form, condemned to the loss of liberty, goods, or life. Oh, that our ecclesiastical
orators of every sect would apply themselves with all the strength of arguments
that they are able to the confounding of men's errors! But let them spare
their persons. Let them not supply their want of reasons with the instruments
of force, which belong to another jurisdiction and do ill become a Churchman's
hands. Let them not call in the magistrate's authority to the aid of their
eloquence or learning, lest perhaps, whilst they pretend only love for the
truth, this their intemperate zeal, breathing nothing but fire and sword,
betray their ambition and show that what they desire is temporal dominion.
For it will be very difficult to persuade men of sense that he who with dry
eyes and satisfaction of mind can deliver his brother to the executioner to
be burnt alive, does sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that brother
from the flames of hell in the world to come.
In the last place, let us now consider
what is the magistrate's duty in the business of toleration, which certainly
is very considerable.
We have already proved that the
care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I
mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling
by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing,
and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every
man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if
he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of
his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government
of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express
law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as
is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud
and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry
of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful
whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.
Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects
to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies.
Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians,
and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What,
shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican,
suppose, or in a Geneva shop? Or, to make these subjects rich, shall they
all be obliged by law to become merchants or musicians? Or, shall everyone
turn victualler, or smith, because there are some that maintain their families
plentifully and grow rich in those professions? But, it may be said, there
are a thousand ways to wealth, but one only way to heaven. It is well said,
indeed, especially by those that plead for compelling men into this or the
other way. For if there were several ways that led thither, there would not
be so much as a pretence left for compulsion. But now, if I be marching on
with my utmost vigour in that way which, according to the sacred geography,
leads straight to Jerusalem, why am I beaten and ill-used by others because,
perhaps, I wear not buskins; because my hair is not of the right cut; because,
perhaps, I have not been dipped in the right fashion; because I eat flesh
upon the road, or some other food which agrees with my stomach; because I
avoid certain by-ways, which seem unto me to lead into briars or precipices;
because, amongst the several paths that are in the same road, I choose that
to walk in which seems to be the straightest and cleanest; because I avoid
to keep company with some travellers that are less grave and others that are
more sour than they ought to be; or, in fine, because I follow a guide that
either is, or is not, clothed in white, or crowned with a mitre? Certainly,
if we consider right, we shall find that, for the most part, they are such
frivolous things as these that (without any prejudice to religion or the salvation
of souls, if not accompanied with superstition or hypocrisy) might either
be observed or omitted. I say they are such-like things as these which breed
implacable enmities amongst Christian brethren, who are all agreed in the
substantial and truly fundamental part of religion.
But let us grant unto these zealots,
who condemn all things that are not of their mode, that from these circumstances
are different ends. What shall we conclude from thence? There is only one
of these which is the true way to eternal happiness: but in this great variety
of ways that men follow, it is still doubted which is the right one. Now,
neither the care of the commonwealth, nor the right enacting of laws, does
discover this way that leads to heaven more certainly to the magistrate than
every private man's search and study discovers it unto himself. I have a weak
body, sunk under a languishing disease, for which (I suppose) there is one
only remedy, but that unknown. Does it therefore belong unto the magistrate
to prescribe me a remedy, because there is but one, and because it is unknown?
Because there is but one way for me to escape death, will it therefore be
safe for me to do whatsoever the magistrate ordains? Those things that every
man ought sincerely to inquire into himself, and by meditation, study, search,
and his own endeavours, attain the knowledge of, cannot be looked upon as
the peculiar possession of any sort of men. Princes, indeed, are born superior
unto other men in power, but in nature equal. Neither the right nor the art
of ruling does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other
things, and least of all of true religion. For if it were so, how could it
come to pass that the lords of the earth should differ so vastly as they do
in religious matters? But let us grant that it is probable the way to eternal
life may be better known by a prince than by his subjects, or at least that
in this incertitude of things the safest and most commodious way for private
persons is to follow his dictates. You will say: "What then?" If he should
bid you follow merchandise for your livelihood, would you decline that course
for fear it should not succeed? I answer: I would turn merchant upon the prince's
command, because, in case I should have ill-success in trade, he is abundantly
able to make up my loss some other way. If it be true, as he pretends, that
he desires I should thrive and grow rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful
voyages have broken me. But this is not the case in the things that regard
the life to come; if there I take a wrong course, if in that respect I am
once undone, it is not in the magistrate's power to repair my loss, to ease
my suffering, nor to restore me in any measure, much less entirely, to a good
estate. What security can be given for the Kingdom of Heaven?
Perhaps some will say that they
do not suppose this infallible judgement, that all men are bound to follow
in the affairs of religion, to be in the civil magistrate, but in the Church.
What the Church has determined, that the civil magistrate orders to be observed;
and he provides by his authority that nobody shall either act or believe in
the business of religion otherwise than the Church teaches. So that the judgement
of those things is in the Church; the magistrate himself yields obedience
thereunto and requires the like obedience from others. I answer: Who sees
not how frequently the name of the Church, which was venerable in time of
the apostles, has been made use of to throw dust in the people's eyes in the
following ages? But, however, in the present case it helps us not. The one
only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate
than to private persons, and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide,
who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is
less concerned for my salvation than I myself am. Amongst so many kings of
the Jews, how many of them were there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following,
had not fallen into idolatry and thereby into destruction? Yet, nevertheless,
you bid me be of good courage and tell me that all is now safe and secure,
because the magistrate does not now enjoin the observance of his own decrees
in matters of religion, but only the decrees of the Church. Of what Church,
I beseech you? of that, certainly, which likes him best. As if he that compels
me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the other Church, did not interpose
his own judgement in the matter. What difference is there whether he lead
me himself, or deliver me over to be led by others? I depend both ways upon
his will, and it is he that determines both ways of my eternal state. Would
an Israelite that had worshipped Baal upon the command of his king have been
in any better condition because somebody had told him that the king ordered
nothing in religion upon his own head, nor commanded anything to be done by
his subjects in divine worship but what was approved by the counsel of priests,
and declared to be of divine right by the doctors of their Church? If the
religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving, because the head
of that sect, the prelates and priests, and those of that tribe, do all of
them, with all their might, extol and praise it, what religion can ever be
accounted erroneous, false, and destructive? I am doubtful concerning the
doctrine of the Socinians, I am suspicious of the way of worship practised
by the Papists, or Lutherans; will it be ever a jot safer for me to join either
unto the one or the other of those Churches, upon the magistrate's command,
because he commands nothing in religion but by the authority and counsel of
the doctors of that Church?
But, to speak the truth, we must
acknowledge that the Church (if a convention of clergymen, making canons,
must be called by that name) is for the most part more apt to be influenced
by the Court than the Court by the Church. How the Church was under the vicissitude
of orthodox and Arian emperors is very well known. Or if those things be too
remote, our modern English history affords us fresh examples in the reigns
of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the
clergy changed their decrees, their articles of faith, their form of worship,
everything according to the inclination of those kings and queens. Yet were
those kings and queens of such different minds in point of religion, and enjoined
thereupon such different things, that no man in his wits (I had almost said
none but an atheist) will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper
of God could, with a safe conscience, obey their several decrees. To conclude,
it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes laws to another man's
religion pretend to do it by his own judgement, or by the ecclesiastical authority
and advice of others. The decisions of churchmen, whose differences and disputes
are sufficiently known, cannot be any sounder or safer than his; nor can all
their suffrages joined together add a new strength to the civil power. Though
this also must be taken notice of- that princes seldom have any regard to
the suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and
way of worship.
But, after all, the principal consideration,
and which absolutely determines this controversy, is this: Although the magistrate's
opinion in religion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical,
yet, if I be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be
no safety for me in following it. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against
the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed.
I may grow rich by an art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some
disease by remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a religion
that I distrust and by a worship that I abhor. It is in vain for an unbeliever
to take up the outward show of another man's profession. Faith only and inward
sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God. The most likely
and most approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient, if his stomach
reject it as soon as taken; and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sick
man's throat, which his particular constitution will be sure to turn into
poison. In a word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet this at least
is certain, that no religion which I believe not to be true can be either
true or profitable unto me. In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects
to come into their Church communion, under pretence of saving their souls.
If they believe, they will come of their own accord, if they believe not,
their coming will nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the
pretence of good-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's
souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore,
when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences.
Having thus at length freed men
from all dominion over one another in matters of religion, let us now consider
what they are to do. All men know and acknowledge that God ought to be publicly
worshipped; why otherwise do they compel one another unto the public assemblies?
Men, therefore, constituted in this liberty are to enter into some religious
society, that they meet together, not only for mutual edification, but to
own to the world that they worship God and offer unto His Divine Majesty such
service as they themselves are not ashamed of and such as they think not unworthy
of Him, nor unacceptable to Him; and, finally, that by the purity of doctrine,
holiness of life, and decent form of worship, they may draw others unto the
love of the true religion, and perform such other things in religion as cannot
be done by each private man apart.
These religious societies I call
Churches; and these, I say, the magistrate ought to tolerate, for the business
of these assemblies of the people is nothing but what is lawful for every
man in particular to take care of- I mean the salvation of their souls; nor
in this case is there any difference between the National Church and other
separated congregations. But as in every Church there are two things especially
to be considered- the outward form and rites of worship, and the doctrines
and articles of things must be handled each distinctly that so the whole matter
of toleration may the more clearly be understood.
Concerning outward worship, I say,
in the first place, that the magistrate has no power to enforce by law, either
in his own Church, or much less in another, the use of any rites or ceremonies
whatsoever in the worship of God. And this, not only because these Churches
are free societies, but because whatsoever is practised in the worship of
God is only so far justifiable as it is believed by those that practise it
to be acceptable unto Him. Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith
is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such
things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in
effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all
religion is to please Him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that
end, appears to be absurd beyond expression.
But perhaps it may be concluded
from hence that I deny unto the magistrate all manner of power about indifferent
things, which, if it be not granted, the whole subject-matter of law-making
is taken away. No, I readily grant that indifferent things, and perhaps none
but such, are subjected to the legislative power. But it does not therefore
follow that the magistrate may ordain whatsoever he pleases concerning anything
that is indifferent. The public good is the rule and measure of all law-making.
If a thing be not useful to the commonwealth, though it be never so indifferent,
it may not presently be established by law.
And further, things never so indifferent
in their own nature, when they are brought into the Church and worship of
God, are removed out of the reach of the magistrate's jurisdiction, because
in that use they have no connection at all with civil affairs. The only business
of the Church is the salvation of souls, and it no way concerns the commonwealth,
or any member of it, that this or the other ceremony be there made use of.
Neither the use nor the omission of any ceremonies in those religious assemblies
does either advantage or prejudice the life, liberty, or estate of any man.
For example, let it be granted that the washing of an infant with water is
in itself an indifferent thing, let it be granted also that the magistrate
understand such washing to be profitable to the curing or preventing of any
disease the children are subject unto, and esteem the matter weighty enough
to be taken care of by a law. In that case he may order it to be done. But
will any one therefore say that a magistrate has the same right to ordain
by law that all children shall be baptised by priests in the sacred font in
order to the purification of their souls? The extreme difference of these
two cases is visible to every one at first sight. Or let us apply the last
case to the child of a Jew, and the thing speaks itself. For what hinders
but a Christian magistrate may have subjects that are Jews? Now, if we acknowledge
that such an injury may not be done unto a Jew as to compel him, against his
own opinion, to practise in his religion a thing that is in its nature indifferent,
how can we maintain that anything of this kind may be done to a Christian?
Again, things in their own nature
indifferent cannot, by any human authority, be made any part of the worship
of God- for this very reason: because they are indifferent. For, since indifferent
things are not capable, by any virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity,
no human power or authority can confer on them so much dignity and excellency
as to enable them to do it. In the common affairs of life that use of indifferent
things which God has not forbidden is free and lawful, and therefore in those
things human authority has place. But it is not so in matters of religion.
Things indifferent are not otherwise lawful in the worship of God than as
they are instituted by God Himself and as He, by some positive command, has
ordained them to be made a part of that worship which He will vouchsafe to
accept at the hands of poor sinful men. Nor, when an incensed Deity shall
ask us, "Who has required these, or such-like things at your hands?" will
it be enough to answer Him that the magistrate commanded them. If civil jurisdiction
extend thus far, what might not lawfully be introduced into religion? What
hodgepodge of ceremonies, what superstitious inventions, built upon the magistrate's
authority, might not (against conscience) be imposed upon the worshippers
of God? For the greatest part of these ceremonies and superstitions consists
in the religious use of such things as are in their own nature indifferent;
nor are they sinful upon any other account than because God is not the author
of them. The sprinkling of water and the use of bread and wine are both in
their own nature and in the ordinary occasions of life altogether indifferent.
Will any man, therefore, say that these things could have been introduced
into religion and made a part of divine worship if not by divine institution?
If any human authority or civil power could have done this, why might it not
also enjoin the eating of fish and drinking of ale in the holy banquet as
a part of divine worship? Why not the sprinkling of the blood of beasts in
churches, and expiations by water or fire, and abundance more of this kind?
But these things, how indifferent soever they be in common uses, when they
come to be annexed unto divine worship, without divine authority, they are
as abominable to God as the sacrifice of a dog. And why is a dog so abominable?
What difference is there between a dog and a goat, in respect of the divine
nature, equally and infinitely distant from all affinity with matter, unless
it be that God required the use of one in His worship and not of the other?
We see, therefore, that indifferent things, how much soever they be under
the power of the civil magistrate, yet cannot, upon that pretence, be introduced
into religion and imposed upon religious assemblies, because, in the worship
of God, they wholly cease to be indifferent. He that worships God does it
with design to please Him and procure His favour. But that cannot be done
by him who, upon the command of another, offers unto God that which he knows
will be displeasing to Him, because not commanded by Himself. This is not
to please God, or appease his wrath, but willingly and knowingly to provoke
Him by a manifest contempt, which is a thing absolutely repugnant to the nature
and end of worship.
But it will be here asked: "If
nothing belonging to divine worship be left to human discretion, how is it
then that Churches themselves have the power of ordering anything about the
time and place of worship and the like?" To this I answer that in religious
worship we must distinguish between what is part of the worship itself and
what is but a circumstance. That is a part of the worship which is believed
to be appointed by God and to be well-pleasing to Him, and therefore that
is necessary. Circumstances are such things which, though in general they
cannot be separated from worship, yet the particular instances or modifications
of them are not determined, and therefore they are indifferent. Of this sort
are the time and place of worship, habit and posture of him that worships.
These are circumstances, and perfectly indifferent, where God has not given
any express command about them. For example: amongst the Jews the time and
place of their worship and the habits of those that officiated in it were
not mere circumstances, but a part of the worship itself, in which, if anything
were defective, or different from the institution, they could not hope that
it would be accepted by God. But these, to Christians under the liberty of
the Gospel, are mere circumstances of worship, which the prudence of every
Church may bring into such use as shall be judged most subservient to the
end of order, decency, and edification. But, even under the Gospel, those
who believe the first or the seventh day to be set apart by God, and consecrated
still to His worship, to them that portion of time is not a simple circumstance,
but a real part of Divine worship, which can neither be changed nor neglected.
In the next place: As the magistrate
has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in
any Church, so neither has he any power to forbid the use of such rites and
ceremonies as are already received, approved, and practised by any Church;
because, if he did so, he would destroy the Church itself: the end of whose
institution is only to worship God with freedom after its own manner.
You will say, by this rule, if
some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or (as the primitive
Christians were falsely accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous
uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate
obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly?
I answer: No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life,
nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship
of God, or in any religious meeting. But, indeed, if any people congregated
upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that
that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully
kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no
injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man's goods. And
for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether
the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that
do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth
receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either
in life or estate. And thus what may be spent on a feast may be spent on a
sacrifice. But if peradventure such were the state of things that the interest
of the commonwealth required all slaughter of beasts should be forborne for
some while, in order to the increasing of the stock of cattle that had been
destroyed by some extraordinary murrain, who sees not that the magistrate,
in such a case, may forbid all his subjects to kill any calves for any use
whatsoever? Only it is to be observed that, in this case, the law is not made
about a religious, but a political matter; nor is the sacrifice, but the slaughter
of calves, thereby prohibited.
By this we see what difference
there is between the Church and the Commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in
the Commonwealth cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the Church. Whatsoever
is permitted unto any of his subjects for their ordinary use, neither can
nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious
uses. If any man may lawfully take bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling
in his own house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in
his religious worship; though in the Church the use of bread and wine be very
different and be there applied to the mysteries of faith and rites of Divine
worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the commonweal of a people
in their ordinary use and are, therefore, forbidden by laws, those things
ought not to be permitted to Churches in their sacred rites. Only the magistrate
ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority to the
oppression of any Church, under pretence of public good.
It may be said: "What if a Church
be idolatrous, is that also to be tolerated by the magistrate?" I answer:
What power can be given to the magistrate for the suppression of an idolatrous
Church, which may not in time and place be made use of to the ruin of an orthodox
one? For it must be remembered that the civil power is the same everywhere,
and the religion of every prince is orthodox to himself. If, therefore, such
a power be granted unto the civil magistrate in spirituals as that at Geneva,
for example, he may extirpate, by violence and blood, the religion which is
there reputed idolatrous, by the same rule another magistrate, in some neighbouring
country, may oppress the reformed religion and, in India, the Christian. The
civil power can either change everything in religion, according to the prince's
pleasure, or it can change nothing. If it be once permitted to introduce anything
into religion by the means of laws and penalties, there can be no bounds put
to it; but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter everything, according
to that rule of truth which the magistrate has framed unto himself. No man
whatsoever ought, therefore, to be deprived of his terrestrial enjoyments
upon account of his religion. Not even Americans, subjected unto a Christian
prince, are to be punished either in body or goods for not embracing our faith
and worship. If they are persuaded that they please God in observing the rites
of their own country and that they shall obtain happiness by that means, they
are to be left unto God and themselves. Let us trace this matter to the bottom.
Thus it is: An inconsiderable and weak number of Christians, destitute of
everything, arrive in a Pagan country; these foreigners beseech the inhabitants,
by the bowels of humanity, that they would succour them with the necessaries
of life; those necessaries are given them, habitations are granted, and they
all join together, and grow up into one body of people. The Christian religion
by this means takes root in that country and spreads itself, but does not
suddenly grow the strongest. While things are in this condition peace, friendship,
faith, and equal justice are preserved amongst them. At length the magistrate
becomes a Christian, and by that means their party becomes the most powerful.
Then immediately all compacts are to be broken, all civil rights to be violated,
that idolatry may be extirpated; and unless these innocent Pagans, strict
observers of the rules of equity and the law of Nature and no ways offending
against the laws of the society, I say, unless they will forsake their ancient
religion and embrace a new and strange one, they are to be turned out of the
lands and possessions of their forefathers and perhaps deprived of life itself.
Then, at last, it appears what zeal for the Church, joined with the desire
of dominion, is capable to produce, and how easily the pretence of religion,
and of the care of souls, serves for a cloak to covetousness, rapine, and
ambition.
Now whosoever maintains that idolatry
is to be rooted out of any place by laws, punishments, fire, and sword, may
apply this story to himself. For the reason of the thing is equal, both in
America and Europe. And neither Pagans there, nor any dissenting Christians
here, can, with any right, be deprived of their worldly goods by the predominating
faction of a court-church; nor are any civil rights to be either changed or
violated upon account of religion in one place more than another.
But idolatry, say some, is a sin
and therefore not to be tolerated. If they said it were therefore to be avoided,
the inference were good. But it does not follow that because it is a sin it
ought therefore to be punished by the magistrate. For it does not belong unto
the magistrate to make use of his sword in punishing everything, indifferently,
that he takes to be a sin against God. Covetousness, uncharitableness, idleness,
and many other things are sins by the consent of men, which yet no man ever
said were to be punished by the magistrate. The reason is because they are
not prejudicial to other men's rights, nor do they break the public peace
of societies. Nay, even the sins of lying and perjury are nowhere punishable
by laws; unless, in certain cases, in which the real turpitude of the thing
and the offence against God are not considered, but only the injury done unto
men's neighbours and to the commonwealth. And what if in another country,
to a Mahometan or a Pagan prince, the Christian religion seem false and offensive
to God; may not the Christians for the same reason, and after the same manner,
be extirpated there?
But it may be urged farther that,
by the law of Moses, idolaters were to be rooted out. True, indeed, by the
law of Moses; but that is not obligatory to us Christians. Nobody pretends
that everything generally enjoined by the law of Moses ought to be practised
by Christians; but there is nothing more frivolous than that common distinction
of moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, which men ordinarily make use of.
For no positive law whatsoever can oblige any people but those to whom it
is given. "Hear, O Israel," sufficiently restrains the obligations of the
law of Moses only to that people. And this consideration alone is answer enough
unto those that urge the authority of the law of Moses for the inflicting
of capital punishment upon idolaters. But, however, I will examine this argument
a little more particularly.
The case of idolaters, in respect
of the Jewish commonwealth, falls under a double consideration. The first
is of those who, being initiated in the Mosaical rites, and made citizens
of that commonwealth, did afterwards apostatise from the worship of the God
of Israel. These were proceeded against as traitors and rebels, guilty of
no less than high treason. For the commonwealth of the Jews, different in
that from all others, was an absolute theocracy; nor was there, or could there
be, any difference between that commonwealth and the Church. The laws established
there concerning the worship of One Invisible Deity were the civil laws of
that people and a part of their political government, in which God Himself
was the legislator. Now, if any one can shew me where there is a commonwealth
at this time, constituted upon that foundation, I will acknowledge that the
ecclesiastical laws do there unavoidably become a part of the civil, and that
the subjects of that government both may and ought to be kept in strict conformity
with that Church by the civil power. But there is absolutely no such thing
under the Gospel as a Christian commonwealth. There are, indeed, many cities
and kingdoms that have embraced the faith of Christ, but they have retained
their ancient form of government, with which the law of Christ hath not at
all meddled. He, indeed, hath taught men how, by faith and good works, they
may obtain eternal life; but He instituted no commonwealth. He prescribed
unto His followers no new and peculiar form of government, nor put He the
sword into any magistrate's hand, with commission to make use of it in forcing
men to forsake their former religion and receive His.
Secondly, foreigners and such as
were strangers to the commonwealth of Israel were not compelled by force to
observe the rites of the Mosaical law; but, on the contrary, in the very same
place where it is ordered that an Israelite that was an idolater should be
put to death,* there it is provided that strangers should not be vexed nor
oppressed. I confess that the seven nations that possessed the land which
was promised to the Israelites were utterly to be cut off; but this was not
singly because they were idolaters. For if that had been the reason, why were
the Moabites and other nations to be spared? No: the reason is this. God being
in a peculiar manner the King of the Jews, He could not suffer the adoration
of any other deity (which was properly an act of high treason against Himself)
in the land of Canaan, which was His kingdom. For such a manifest revolt could
no ways consist with His dominion, which was perfectly political in that country.
All idolatry was, therefore, to be rooted out of the bounds of His kingdom
because it was an acknowledgment of another god, that is say, another king,
against the laws of Empire. The inhabitants were also to be driven out, that
the entire possession of the land might be given to the Israelites. And for
the like reason the Emims and the Horims were driven out of their countries
by the children of Esau and Lot; and their lands, upon the same grounds, given
by God to the invaders.*(2) But, though all idolatry was thus rooted out of
the land of Canaan, yet every idolater was not brought to execution. The whole
family of Rahab, the whole nation of the Gibeonites, articled with Joshua,
and were allowed by treaty; and there were many captives amongst the Jews
who were idolaters. David and Solomon subdued many countries without the confines
of the Land of Promise and carried their conquests as far as Euphrates. Amongst
so many captives taken, so many nations reduced under their obedience, we
find not one man forced into the Jewish religion and the worship of the true
God and punished for idolatry, though all of them were certainly guilty of
it. If any one, indeed, becoming a proselyte, desired to be made a denizen
of their commonwealth, he was obliged to submit to their laws; that is, to
embrace their religion. But this he did willingly, on his own accord, not
by constraint. He did not unwillingly submit, to show his obedience, but he
sought and solicited for it as a privilege. And, as soon as he was admitted,
he became subject to the laws of the commonwealth, by which all idolatry was
forbidden within the borders of the land of Canaan. But that law (as I have
said) did not reach to any of those regions, however subjected unto the Jews,
that were situated without those bounds.
* Exod. 22, 20, 21.
*(2) Deut. 2.
Thus far concerning outward worship.
Let us now consider articles of faith.
The articles of religion are some
of them practical and some speculative. Now, though both sorts consist in
the knowledge of truth, yet these terminate simply in the understanding, those
influence the will and manners. Speculative opinions, therefore, and articles
of faith (as they are called) which are required only to be believed, cannot
be imposed on any Church by the law of the land. For it is absurd that things
should be enjoined by laws which are not in men's power to perform. And to
believe this or that to be true does not depend upon our will. But of this
enough has been said already. "But." will some say; "let men at least profess
that they believe." A sweet religion, indeed, that obliges men to dissemble
and tell lies, both to God and man, for the salvation of their souls! If the
magistrate thinks to save men thus, he seems to understand little of the way
of salvation. And if he does it not in order to save them, why is he so solicitous
about the articles of faith as to enact them by a law?
Further, the magistrate ought not
to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church
because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects.
If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another
man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to his neighbour. If a Jew do not
believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter
anything in men's civil rights. If a heathen doubt of both Testaments, he
is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the
magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any
man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false
and absurd. But the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions,
but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular
man's goods and person. And so it ought to be. For the truth certainly would
do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself. She seldom has
received and, I fear, never will receive much assistance from the power of
great men, to whom she is but rarely known and more rarely welcome. She is
not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force to procure her entrance
into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign
and borrowed succours. But if Truth makes not her way into the understanding
by her own light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force violence
can add to her. Thus much for speculative opinions. Let us now proceed to
practical ones.
A good life, in which consist not
the least part of religion and true piety, concerns also the civil government;
and in it lies the safety both of men's souls and of the commonwealth. Moral
actions belong, therefore, to the jurisdiction both of the outward and inward
court; both of the civil and domestic governor; I mean both of the magistrate
and conscience. Here, therefore, is great danger, lest one of these jurisdictions
intrench upon the other, and discord arise between the keeper of the public
peace and the overseers of souls. But if what has been already said concerning
the limits of both these governments be rightly considered, it will easily
remove all difficulty in this matter.
Every man has an immortal soul,
capable of eternal happiness or misery; whose happiness depending upon his
believing and doing those things in this life which are necessary to the obtaining
of God's favour, and are prescribed by God to that end. It follows from thence,
first, that the observance of these things is the highest obligation that
lies upon mankind and that our utmost care, application, and diligence ought
to be exercised in the search and performance of them; because there is nothing
in this world that is of any consideration in comparison with eternity. Secondly,
that seeing one man does not violate the right of another by his erroneous
opinions and undue manner of worship, nor is his perdition any prejudice to
another man's affairs, therefore, the care of each man's salvation belongs
only to himself. But I would not have this understood as if I meant hereby
to condemn all charitable admonitions and affectionate endeavours to reduce
men from errors, which are indeed the greatest duty of a Christian. Any one
may employ as many exhortations and arguments as he pleases, towards the promoting
of another man's salvation. But all force and compulsion are to be forborne.
Nothing is to be done imperiously. Nobody is obliged in that matter to yield
obedience unto the admonitions or injunctions of another, further than he
himself is persuaded. Every man in that has the supreme and absolute authority
of judging for himself. And the reason is because nobody else is concerned
in it, nor can receive any prejudice from his conduct therein.
But besides their souls, which
are immortal, men have also their temporal lives here upon earth; the state
whereof being frail and fleeting, and the duration uncertain, they have need
of several outward conveniences to the support thereof, which are to be procured
or preserved by pains and industry. For those things that are necessary to
the comfortable support of our lives are not the spontaneous products of nature,
nor do offer themselves fit and prepared for our use. This part, therefore,
draws on another care and necessarily gives another employment. But the pravity
of mankind being such that they had rather injuriously prey upon the fruits
of other men's labours than take pains to provide for themselves, the necessity
of preserving men in the possession of what honest industry has already acquired
and also of preserving their liberty and strength, whereby they may acquire
what they farther want, obliges men to enter into society with one another,
that by mutual assistance and joint force they may secure unto each other
their properties, in the things that contribute to the comfort and happiness
of this life, leaving in the meanwhile to every man the care of his own eternal
happiness, the attainment whereof can neither be facilitated by another man's
industry, nor can the loss of it turn to another man's prejudice, nor the
hope of it be forced from him by any external violence. But, forasmuch as
men thus entering into societies, grounded upon their mutual compacts of assistance
for the defence of their temporal goods, may, nevertheless, be deprived of
them, either by the rapine and fraud of their fellow citizens, or by the hostile
violence of foreigners, the remedy of this evil consists in arms, riches,
and multitude of citizens; the remedy of the other in laws; and the care of
all things relating both to one and the other is committed by the society
to the civil magistrate. This is the original, this is the use, and these
are the bounds of the legislative (which is the supreme) power in every commonwealth.
I mean that provision may be made for the security of each man's private possessions;
for the peace, riches, and public commodities of the whole people; and, as
much as possible, for the increase of their inward strength against foreign
invasions.
These things being thus explained,
it is easy to understand to what end the legislative power ought to be directed
and by what measures regulated; and that is the temporal good and outward
prosperity of the society; which is the sole reason of men's entering into
society, and the only thing they seek and aim at in it. And it is also evident
what liberty remains to men in reference to their eternal salvation, and that
is that every one should do what he in his conscience is persuaded to be acceptable
to the Almighty, on whose good pleasure and acceptance depends their eternal
happiness. For obedience is due, in the first place, to God and, afterwards
to the laws.
But some may ask: "What if the
magistrate should enjoin anything by his authority that appears unlawful to
the conscience of a private person?" I answer that, if government be faithfully
administered and the counsels of the magistrates be indeed directed to the
public good, this will seldom happen. But if, perhaps, it do so fall out,
I say, that such a private person is to abstain from the action that he judges
unlawful, and he is to undergo the punishment which it is not unlawful for
him to bear. For the private judgement of any person concerning a law enacted
in political matters, for the public good, does not take away the obligation
of that law, nor deserve a dispensation. But if the law, indeed, be concerning
things that lie not within the verge of the magistrate's authority (as, for
example, that the people, or any party amongst them, should be compelled to
embrace a strange religion, and join in the worship and ceremonies of another
Church), men are not in these cases obliged by that law, against their consciences.
For the political society is instituted for no other end, but only to secure
every man's possession of the things of this life. The care of each man's
soul and of the things of heaven, which neither does belong to the commonwealth
nor can be subjected to it, is left entirely to every man's self. Thus the
safeguard of men's lives and of the things that belong unto this life is the
business of the commonwealth; and the preserving of those things unto their
owners is the duty of the magistrate. And therefore the magistrate cannot
take away these worldly things from this man or party and give them to that;
nor change propriety amongst fellow subjects (no not even by a law), for a
cause that has no relation to the end of civil government, I mean for their
religion, which whether it be true or false does no prejudice to the worldly
concerns of their fellow subjects, which are the things that only belong unto
the care of the commonwealth.
But what if the magistrate believe
such a law as this to be for the public good? I answer: As the private judgement
of any particular person, if erroneous, does not exempt him from the obligation
of law, so the private judgement (as I may call it) of the magistrate does
not give him any new right of imposing laws upon his subjects, which neither
was in the constitution of the government granted him, nor ever was in the
power of the people to grant, much less if he make it his business to enrich
and advance his followers and fellow-sectaries with the spoils of others.
But what if the magistrate believe that he has a right to make such laws and
that they are for the public good, and his subjects believe the contrary?
Who shall be judge between them? I answer: God alone. For there is no judge
upon earth between the supreme magistrate and the people. God, I say, is the
only judge in this case, who will retribute unto every one at the last day
according to his deserts; that is, according to his sincerity and uprightness
in endeavouring to promote piety, and the public weal, and peace of mankind.
But What shall be done in the meanwhile? I answer: The principal and chief
care of every one ought to be of his own soul first, and, in the next place,
of the public peace; though yet there are very few will think it is peace
there, where they see all laid waste.
There are two sorts of contests
amongst men, the one managed by law, the other by force; and these are of
that nature that where the one ends, the other always begins. But it is not
my business to inquire into the power of the magistrate in the different constitutions
of nations. I only know what usually happens where controversies arise without
a judge to determine them. You will say, then, the magistrate being the stronger
will have his will and carry his point. Without doubt; but the question is
not here concerning the doubtfulness of the event, but the rule of right.
But to come to particulars. I say,
first, no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which
are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by
the magistrate. But of these, indeed, examples in any Church are rare. For
no sect can easily arrive to such a degree of madness as that it should think
fit to teach, for doctrines of religion, such things as manifestly undermine
the foundations of society and are, therefore, condemned by the judgement
of all mankind; because their own interest, peace, reputation, everything
would be thereby endangered.
Another more secret evil, but more
dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to
those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative covered over with a specious
show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil right of the
community. For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches, expressly and
openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be
dethroned by those that differ from them in religion; or that the dominion
of all things belongs only to themselves. For these things, proposed thus
nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate
and awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the
spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those that say
the same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that faith
is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the privilege
of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they declare all that are not
of their communion to be heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever
they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that kings excommunicated
forfeit their crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate
unto themselves the power of deposing kings, because they challenge the power
of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their hierarchy. That dominion
is founded in grace is also an assertion by which those that maintain it do
plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For they are not so wanting
to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to profess themselves
to be the truly pious and faithful. These, therefore, and the like, who attribute
unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto
themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil
concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of
authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical
communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as
neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in
matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify,
but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government
and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects;
and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until
they find themselves strong enough to effect it?
Again: That Church can have no
right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom
that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves
up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the
magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his
own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers
against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction
between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience;
especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute
authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members
of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order
thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal 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 Christian 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 government 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 belonging to dissenters
as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled 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 animosities being once removed, there would remain
nothing in these assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce
disturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us examine
particularly the heads of these accusations.
You will say that assemblies and
meetings endanger the public peace and threaten the commonwealth. I answer:
If this be so, why are there daily such numerous meetings in markets and Courts
of Judicature? Why are crowds upon the Exchange and a concourse of people
in cities suffered? You will reply: "Those are civil assemblies, but these
we object against are ecclesiastical." I answer: It is a likely thing, indeed,
that such assemblies as are altogether remote from civil affairs should be
most apt to embroil them. Oh, but civil assemblies are composed of men that
differ from one another in matters of religion, but these ecclesiastical meetings
are of persons that are all of one opinion. As if an agreement in matters
of religion were in effect a conspiracy against the commonwealth; or as if
men would not be so much the more warmly unanimous in religion the less liberty
they had of assembling. But it will be urged still that civil assemblies are
open and free for any one to enter into, whereas religious conventicles are
more private and thereby give opportunity to clandestine machinations. I answer
that this is not strictly true, for many civil assemblies are not open to
everyone. 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. Is it lawful for any man in his own house to kneel,
stand, sit, or use any other posture; and to clothe himself in white or black,
in short or in long garments? Let it not be made unlawful to eat bread, drink
wine, or wash with water in the church. In a word, whatsoever things are left
free by law in the common occasions of life, let them remain free unto every
Church in divine worship. Let no man's life, or body, or house, or estate,
suffer any manner of prejudice upon these accounts. Can you allow of the Presbyterian
discipline? Why should not the Episcopal also have what they like? Ecclesiastical
authority, whether it be administered by the hands of a single person or many,
is everywhere the same; and neither has any jurisdiction in things civil,
nor any manner of power of compulsion, nor anything at all to do with riches
and revenues.
Ecclesiastical assemblies and sermons
are justified by daily experience and public allowance. These are allowed
to people of some one persuasion; why not to all? If anything pass in a religious
meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, it is to be punished
in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or
market. These meetings ought not to be sanctuaries for factious and flagitious
fellows. Nor ought it to be less lawful for men to meet in churches than in
halls; nor are one part of the subjects to be esteemed more blamable for their
meeting together than others. Every one is to be accountable for his own actions,
and no man is to be laid under a suspicion or odium for the fault of another.
Those that are seditious, murderers, thieves, robbers, adulterers, slanderers,
etc., of whatsoever Church, whether national or not, ought to be punished
and suppressed. But those whose doctrine is peaceable and whose manners are
pure and blameless ought to be upon equal terms with their fellow-subjects.
Thus if solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted
to any one sort of professors, all these things ought to be permitted to the
Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others,
with the same liberty. Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes
one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded
from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel
commands no such thing. The Church which "judgeth not those that are without"*
wants it not. And the commonwealth, which embraces indifferently all men that
are honest, peaceable, and industrious, requires it not. Shall we suffer a
Pagan to deal and trade with us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto
and worship God? If we allow the Jews to have private houses and dwellings
amongst us, why should we not allow them to have synagogues? Is their doctrine
more false, their worship more abominable, or is the civil peace more endangered
by their meeting in public than in their private houses? But if these things
may be granted to Jews and Pagans, surely the condition of any Christians
ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian commonwealth.
* I Cor. 5. 12, 13.
You will say, perhaps: "Yes, it
ought to be; because they are more inclinable to factions, tumults, and civil
wars." I answer: Is this the fault of the Christian religion? If it be so,
truly the Christian religion is the worst of all religions and ought neither
to be embraced by any particular person, nor tolerated by any commonwealth.
For if this be the genius, this the nature of the Christian religion, to be
turbulent and destructive to the civil peace, that Church itself which the
magistrate indulges will not always be innocent. But far be it from us to
say any such thing of that religion which carries the greatest opposition
to covetousness, ambition, discord, contention, and all manner of inordinate
desires, and is the most modest and peaceable religion that ever was. We must,
therefore, seek another cause of those evils that are charged upon religion.
And, if we consider right, we shall find it to consist wholly in the subject
that I am treating of. It is not the diversity of opinions (which cannot be
avoided), but the refusal of toleration to those that are of different opinions
(which might have been granted), that has produced all the bustles and wars
that have been in the Christian world upon account of religion. The heads
and leaders of the Church, moved by avarice and insatiable desire of dominion,
making use of the immoderate ambition of magistrates and the credulous superstition
of the giddy multitude, have incensed and animated them against those that
dissent from themselves, by preaching unto them, contrary to the laws of the
Gospel and to the precepts of charity, that schismatics and heretics are to
be outed of their possessions and destroyed. And thus have they mixed together
and confounded two things that are in themselves most different, the Church
and the commonwealth. Now as it is very difficult for men patiently to suffer
themselves to be stripped of the goods which they have got by their honest
industry, and, contrary to all the laws of equity, both human and divine,
to be delivered up for a prey to other men's violence and rapine; especially
when they are otherwise altogether blameless; and that the occasion for which
they are thus treated does not at all belong to the jurisdiction of the magistrate,
but entirely to the conscience of every particular man for the conduct of
which he is accountable to God only; what else can be expected but that these
men, growing weary of the evils under which they labour, should in the end
think it lawful for them to resist force with force, and to defend their natural
rights (which are not forfeitable upon account of religion) with arms as well
as they can? That this has been hitherto the ordinary course of things is
abundantly evident in history, and that it will continue to be so hereafter
is but too apparent in reason. It cannot indeed, be otherwise so long as the
principle of persecution for religion shall prevail, as it has done hitherto,
with magistrate and people, and so long as those that ought to be the preachers
of peace and concord shall continue with all their art and strength to excite
men to arms and sound the trumpet of war. But that magistrates should thus
suffer these incendiaries and disturbers of the public peace might justly
be wondered at if it did not appear that they have been invited by them unto
a participation of the spoil, and have therefore thought fit to make use of
their covetousness and pride as means whereby to increase their own power.
For who does not see that these good men are, indeed, more ministers of the
government than ministers of the Gospel and that, by flattering the ambition
and favouring the dominion of princes and men in authority, they endeavour
with all their might to promote that tyranny in the commonwealth which otherwise
they should not be able to establish in the Church? This is the unhappy agreement
that we see between the Church and State. Whereas if each of them would contain
itself within its own bounds- the one attending to the worldly welfare of
the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls- it is impossible that
any discord should ever have happened between them. Sed pudet hoec opprobria.
etc. God Almighty grant, I beseech Him, that the gospel of peace may at length
be preached, and that civil magistrates, growing more careful to conform their
own consciences to the law of God and less solicitous about the binding of
other men's consciences by human laws, may, like fathers of their country,
direct all their counsels and endeavours to promote universally the civil
welfare of all their children, except only of such as are arrogant, ungovernable,
and injurious to their brethren; and that all ecclesiastical men, who boast
themselves to be the successors of the Apostles, walking peaceably and modestly
in the Apostles' steps, without intermeddling with State Affairs, may apply
themselves wholly to promote the salvation of souls.
FAREWELL.
PERHAPS it may not be amiss to
add a few things concerning heresy and schism. A Turk is not, nor can be,
either heretic or schismatic to a Christian; and if any man fall off from
the Christian faith to Mahometism, he does not thereby become a heretic or
schismatic, but an apostate and an infidel. This nobody doubts of; and by
this it appears that men of different religions cannot be heretics or schismatics
to one another.
We are to inquire, therefore, what
men are of the same religion. Concerning which it is manifest that those who
have one and the same rule of faith and worship are of the same religion;
and those who have not the same rule of faith and worship are of different
religions. F
