1689
Translated by William Popple
Honoured Sir,
Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts aboutthe mutualtoleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, Imustneeds answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chiefcharacteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some peopleboast of theantiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship;others,of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of theirfaith— for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all othersof this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power andempire overone another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so truea claimto all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, andgood-willin general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians,he iscertainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings oftheGentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to hisdisciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1]The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is notinstituted inorder to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining ofecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, butto theregulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety.Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in thefirstplace and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. Itis invain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness oflife,purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone thatnameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou artconverted, strengthen thybrethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3]Itwould, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his ownsalvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. Forit isimpossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves tomakeother people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christianreligion intheir own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, noman can bea Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not byforce,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 doit outof friendship and kindness towards them or no? And I shall then indeed,and notuntil then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealotscorrecting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintancefor themanifest sins they commit against the precepts of the Gospel; when Ishall seethem persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communionthat aretainted with enormous vices and without amendment are in danger ofeternalperdition; and when I shall see them thus express their love and desireof thesalvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise ofallmanner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of charity, astheypretend, and love to men's souls that they deprive them of theirestates, maimthem with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisomeprisons, andin the end even take away their lives — I say, if all this be donemerelyto make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do theysufferwhoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according totheapostle)[4]manifestly relish of heathenishcorruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks andpeople?These, and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the gloryof God,to the purity of the Church, and to the salvation of souls, than anyconscientious dissent from ecclesiastical decisions, or separation frompublicworship, whilst accompanied with innocence of life. Why, then, doesthisburning zeal for God, for the Church, and for the salvation of souls —burning I say, literally, with fire and faggot — pass by those moralvicesand wickednesses, without any chastisement, which are acknowledged byall mento be diametrically opposite to the profession of Christianity, andbend allits nerves either to the introducing of ceremonies, or to theestablishment ofopinions, which for the most part are about nice and intricate matters,thatexceed the capacity of ordinary understandings? Which of the partiescontendingabout these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of schismorheresy, whether those that domineer or those that suffer, will then atlast bemanifest when the causes of their separation comes to be judged of He,certainly, that follows Christ, embraces His doctrine, and bears Hisyoke,though he forsake both father and mother, separate from the publicassembliesand ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever or whatsoever else herelinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic.
Now, though the divisions that are amongst sects should beallowed to benever so obstructive of the salvation of souls; yet, nevertheless,adultery,fornication, uncleanliness, lasciviousness, idolatry, and such-likethings,cannot be denied to be works of the flesh, concerning which the apostlehasexpressly declared that "they who do them shall not inherit the kingdomofGod."[5]Whosoever, therefore, is sincerelysolicitous about the kingdom of God and thinks it his duty to endeavourtheenlargement of it amongst men, ought to apply himself with no less careandindustry to the rooting out of these immoralities than to theextirpation ofsects. But if anyone do otherwise, and whilst he is cruel andimplacabletowards those that differ from him in opinion, he be indulgent to suchiniquities and immoralities as are unbecoming the name of a Christian,let sucha one talk never so much of the Church, he plainly demonstrates by hisactionsthat it is another kingdom he aims at and not the advancement of thekingdom ofGod.
That any man should think fit to cause another man — whosesalvation heheartily desires — to expire in torments, and that even in anunconvertedstate, would, I confess, seem very strange to me, and I think, to anyotheralso. But nobody, surely, will ever believe that such a carriage canproceedfrom charity, love, or goodwill. If anyone maintain that men ought tobecompelled by fire and sword to profess certain doctrines, and conformto thisor that exterior worship, without any regard had unto their morals; ifanyoneendeavour to convert those that are erroneous unto the faith, byforcing themto profess things that they do not believe and allowing them topractise thingsthat the Gospel does not permit, it cannot be doubted indeed but such aone isdesirous to have a numerous assembly joined in the same profession withhimself; but that he principally intends by those means to compose atrulyChristian Church is altogether incredible. It is not, therefore, to bewonderedat if those who do not really contend for the advancement of the truereligion,and of the Church of Christ, make use of arms that do not belong to theChristian warfare. If, like the Captain of our salvation, theysincerelydesired the good of souls, they would tread in the steps and follow theperfectexample of that Prince of Peace, who sent out His soldiers to thesubduing ofnations, and gathering them into His Church, not armed with the sword,or otherinstruments of force, but prepared with the Gospel of peace and withtheexemplary holiness of their conversation. This was His method. Thoughifinfidels were to be converted by force, if those that are either blindorobstinate were to be drawn off from their errors by armed soldiers, weknowvery well that it was much more easy for Him to do it with armies ofheavenlylegions than for any son of the Church, how potent soever, with all hisdragoons.
The toleration of those that differ from others in matters ofreligion is soagreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason ofmankind,that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive thenecessityand advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the prideandambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. Theseare faultsfrom which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed;but yetsuch as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering themwithsome specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they arecarriedaway by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may notcolourtheir spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence ofcare ofthe public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, underpretence ofreligion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism andlicentiousness; in aword, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by thepretences ofloyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity intheworship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguishexactlythe business of civil government from that of religion and to settlethe justbounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done,there canbe no end put to the controversies that will be always arising betweenthosethat have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernmentfor theinterest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of thecommonwealth.
The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of menconstituted only for theprocuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.
Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency ofbody; and thepossession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture,and thelike.
It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartialexecution of equallaws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of hissubjectsin particular the just possession of these things belonging to thislife. Ifanyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity,establishedfor the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checkedby thefear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution ofthose civilinterests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. Butseeing noman does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation ofany partof his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is themagistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, inorder tothe punishment of those that violate any other man's rights.
Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches onlyto thesecivil concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, isboundedand confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that itneithercan nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls,thesefollowing considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate.
First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civilmagistrate,any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, byGod;because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority toone manover another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can any suchpower bevested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no mancan sofar abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to thechoice ofany other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith orworshiphe shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to thedictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consist intheinward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith withoutbelieving. Whatever profession we make, to whatever outward worship weconform,if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true andtheother well pleasing unto God, such profession and such practice, farfrom beingany furtherance, are indeed great obstacles to our salvation. For inthismanner, instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of religion, Isay, inoffering thus unto God Almighty such a worship as we esteem to bedispleasingunto Him, we add unto the number of our other sins those also ofhypocrisy andcontempt of His Divine Majesty.
In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to thecivilmagistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but trueandsaving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, withoutwhichnothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of theunderstanding,that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force.Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that naturecan haveany such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgement that theyhaveframed of things.
It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use ofarguments, and,thereby; draw the heterodox into the way of truth, and procure theirsalvation.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 whatbecomes anygood man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off eitherhumanity orChristianity; but it is one thing to persuade, another to command; onething topress with arguments, another with penalties. This civil power alonehas aright to do; to the other, goodwill is authority enough. Every man hascommission to admonish, exhort, convince another of error, and, byreasoning,to draw him into truth; but to give laws, receive obedience, and compelwiththe sword, belongs to none but the magistrate. And, upon this ground, Iaffirmthat the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of anyarticles offaith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws. For laws are ofno forceat all without penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutelyimpertinent, because they are not proper to convince the mind. Neithertheprofession of any articles of faith, nor the conformity to any outwardform ofworship (as has been already said), can be available to the salvationof souls,unless the truth of the one and the acceptableness of the other untoGod bethoroughly believed by those that so profess and practise. Butpenalties are noway capable to produce such belief. It is only light and evidence thatcan worka change in men's opinions; which light can in no manner proceed fromcorporalsufferings, or any other outward penalties.
In the third place, the care of the salvation of men's soulscannot belongto the magistrate; because, though the rigour of laws and the force ofpenalties were capable to convince and change men's minds, yet wouldnot thathelp at all to the salvation of their souls. For there being but onetruth, oneway to heaven, what hope is there that more men would be led into it iftheyhad no rule but the religion of the court and were put under thenecessity toquit the light of their own reason, and oppose the dictates of theirownconsciences, and blindly to resign themselves up to the will of theirgovernorsand to the religion which either ignorance, ambition, or superstitionhadchanced to establish in the countries where they were born? In thevariety andcontradiction of opinions in religion, wherein the princes of the worldare asmuch divided as in their secular interests, the narrow way would bemuchstraitened; one country alone would be in the right, and all the restof theworld put under an obligation of following their princes in the waysthat leadto destruction; and that which heightens the absurdity, and very illsuits thenotion of a Deity, men would owe their eternal happiness or misery totheplaces of their nativity.
These considerations, to omit many others that might have beenurged to thesame purpose, seem unto me sufficient to conclude that all the power ofcivilgovernment relates only to men's civil interests, is confined to thecare ofthe 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 taketo be avoluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their ownaccord inorder to the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judgeacceptableto Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls.
I say it is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is born amember of anychurch; otherwise the religion of parents would descend unto childrenby thesame right of inheritance as their temporal estates, and everyone wouldholdhis faith by the same tenure he does his lands, than which nothing canbeimagined more absurd. Thus, therefore, that matter stands. No man bynature isbound unto any particular church or sect, but everyone joins himselfvoluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found thatprofessionand worship which is truly acceptable to God. The hope of salvation, asit wasthe only cause of his entrance into that communion, so it can be theonlyreason of his stay there. For if afterwards he discover anything eithererroneous in the doctrine or incongruous in the worship of that societytowhich he has joined himself, why should it not be as free for him to goout asit was to enter? No member of a religious society can be tied with anyotherbonds but what proceed from the certain expectation of eternal life. Achurch,then, is a society of members voluntarily uniting to that end.
It follows now that we consider what is the power of thischurch and untowhat laws it is subject.
Forasmuch as no society, how free soever, or upon whatsoeverslight occasioninstituted, whether of philosophers for learning, of merchants forcommerce, orof men of leisure for mutual conversation and discourse, no church orcompany,I say, can in the least subsist and hold together, but will presentlydissolveand break in pieces, unless it be regulated by some laws, and themembers allconsent to observe some order. Place and time of meeting must be agreedon;rules for admitting and excluding members must be established;distinction ofofficers, and putting things into a regular course, and suchlike,cannot beomitted. But since the joining together of several members into thischurch-society, as has already been demonstrated, is absolutely freeandspontaneous, it necessarily follows that the right of making its lawscanbelong to none but the society itself; or, at least (which is the samething),to those whom the society by common consent has authorised thereunto.
Some, perhaps, may object that no such society can be said tobe a truechurch unless it have in it a bishop or presbyter, with rulingauthorityderived from the very apostles, and continued down to the present timesby anuninterrupted succession.
To these I answer: In the first place, let them show me theedict by whichChrist has imposed that law upon His Church. And let not any man thinkmeimpertinent, if in a thing of this consequence I require that the termsof thatedict be very express and positive; for the promise He has made us,[6]that "wheresoever two or three are gathered together" in His name, Hewill be in the midst of them, seems to imply the contrary. Whether suchanassembly want anything necessary to a true church, pray do youconsider.Certain I am that nothing can be there wanting unto the salvation ofsouls,which is sufficient to our purpose.
Next, pray observe how great have always been the divisionsamongst eventhose who lay so much stress upon the Divine institution and continuedsuccession of a certain order of rulers in the Church. Now, their verydissension unavoidably puts us upon a necessity of deliberating and,consequently, allows a liberty of choosing that which uponconsideration weprefer.
And, in the last place, I consent that these men have a rulerin theirchurch, established by such a long series of succession as they judgenecessary, provided I may have liberty at the same time to join myselfto thatsociety in which I am persuaded those things are to be found which arenecessary to the salvation of my soul. In this manner ecclesiasticallibertywill be preserved on all sides, and no man will have a legislatorimposed uponhim but whom himself has chosen.
But since men are so solicitous about the true church, I wouldonly ask themhere, by the way, if it be not more agreeable to the Church of Christto makethe conditions of her communion consist in such things, and such thingsonly,as the Holy Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared, in expresswords, to benecessary to salvation; I ask, I say, whether this be not moreagreeable to theChurch of Christ than for men to impose their own inventions andinterpretations upon others as if they were of Divine authority, and toestablish by ecclesiastical laws, as absolutely necessary to theprofession ofChristianity, such things as the Holy Scriptures do either not mention,or atleast not expressly command? Whosoever requires those things in ordertoecclesiastical communion, which Christ does not require in order tolifeeternal, he may, perhaps, indeed constitute a society accommodated tohis ownopinion and his own advantage; but how that can be called the Church ofChristwhich is established upon laws that are not His, and which excludessuchpersons from its communion as He will one day receive into the KingdomofHeaven, I understand not. But this being not a proper place to inquireinto themarks of the true church, I will only mind those that contend soearnestly forthe decrees of their own society, and that cry out continually, "TheChurch! the Church!" with as much noise, and perhaps upon the sameprinciple, as the Ephesian silversmiths did for their Diana; this, Isay, Idesire to mind them of, that the Gospel frequently declares that thetruedisciples of Christ must suffer persecution; but that the Church ofChristshould persecute others, and force others by fire and sword to embraceherfaith and doctrine, I could never yet find in any of the books of theNewTestament.
The end of a religious society (as has already been said) isthe publicworship of God and, by means thereof, the acquisition of eternal life.Alldiscipline ought, therefore, to tend to that end, and allecclesiastical lawsto be thereunto confined. Nothing ought nor can be transacted in thissocietyrelating to the possession of civil and worldly goods. No force is hereto bemade use of upon any occasion whatsoever. For force belongs wholly tothe civilmagistrate, and the possession of all outward goods is subject to hisjurisdiction.
But, it may be asked, by what means then shall ecclesiasticallaws beestablished, if they must be thus destitute of all compulsive power? Ianswer:They must be established by means suitable to the nature of suchthings,whereof the external profession and observation — if not proceedingfrom athorough conviction and approbation of the mind — is altogether uselessand unprofitable. The arms by which the members of this society are tobe keptwithin their duty are exhortations, admonitions, and advices. If bythese meansthe offenders will not be reclaimed, and the erroneous convinced, thereremainsnothing further to be done but that such stubborn and obstinatepersons, whogive no ground to hope for their reformation, should be cast out andseparatedfrom the society. This is the last and utmost force of ecclesiasticalauthority. No other punishment can thereby be inflicted than that, therelationceasing between the body and the member which is cut off. The person socondemned ceases to be a part of that church.
These things being thus determined, let us inquire, in thenext place: Howfar the duty of toleration extends, and what is required from everyoneby it?
And, first, I hold that no church is bound, by the duty oftoleration, toretain any such person in her bosom as, after admonition, continuesobstinatelyto offend against the laws of the society. For, these being thecondition ofcommunion and the bond of the society, if the breach of them werepermittedwithout any animadversion the society would immediately be therebydissolved.But, nevertheless, in all such cases care is to be taken that thesentence ofexcommunication, and the execution thereof, carry with it no roughusage ofword or action whereby the ejected person may any wise be damnified inbody orestate. For all force (as has often been said) belongs only to themagistrate,nor ought any private persons at any time to use force, unless it be inself-defence against unjust violence. Excommunication neither does, norcan,deprive the excommunicated person of any of those civil goods that heformerlypossessed. All those things belong to the civil government and areunder themagistrate's protection. The whole force of excommunication consistsonly inthis: that, the resolution of the society in that respect beingdeclared, theunion that was between the body and some member comes thereby to bedissolved;and, that relation ceasing, the participation of some certain thingswhich thesociety communicated to its members, and unto which no man has anycivil right,comes also to cease. For there is no civil injury done unto theexcommunicatedperson by the church minister's refusing him that bread and wine, inthecelebration of the Lord's Supper, which was not bought with his butother men'smoney.
Secondly, no private person has any right in any manner toprejudice anotherperson in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church orreligion. Allthe rights and franchises that belong to him as a man, or as a denizen,areinviolably to be preserved to him. These are not the business ofreligion. Noviolence nor injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian orPagan.Nay, we must not content ourselves with the narrow measures of barejustice;charity, bounty, and liberality must be added to it. This the Gospelenjoins,this reason directs, and this that natural fellowship we are born intorequiresof us. If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, noinjuryto thee; nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of thislifebecause thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come.
What I say concerning the mutual toleration of private personsdifferingfrom one another in religion, I understand also of particular churcheswhichstand, as it were, in the same relation to each other as privatepersons amongthemselves: nor has any one of them any manner of jurisdiction over anyother;no, not even when the civil magistrate (as it sometimes happens) comesto be ofthis or the other communion. For the civil government can give no newright tothe church, nor the church to the civil government. So that, whetherthemagistrate join himself to any church, or separate from it, the churchremainsalways as it was before — a free and voluntary society. It neitherrequires the power of the sword by the magistrate's coming to it, nordoes itlose the right of instruction and excommunication by his going from it.This isthe fundamental and immutable right of a spontaneous society — that ithaspower to remove any of its members who transgress the rules of itsinstitution;but it cannot, by the accession of any new members, acquire any rightofjurisdiction over those that are not joined with it. And thereforepeace,equity, and friendship are always mutually to be observed by particularchurches, in the same manner as by private persons, without anypretence ofsuperiority or jurisdiction over one another.
That the thing may be made clearer by an example, let ussuppose twochurches — the one of Arminians, the other of Calvinists — residingin the city of Constantinople. Will anyone say that either of thesechurcheshas right to deprive the members of the other of their estates andliberty (aswe see practised elsewhere) because of their differing from it in somedoctrines and ceremonies, whilst the Turks, in the meanwhile, silentlystand byand laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians thus rage againstChristians? But if one of these churches hath this power of treatingthe otherill, I ask which of them it is to whom that power belongs, and by whatright?It will be answered, undoubtedly, that it is the orthodox church whichhas theright of authority over the erroneous or heretical. This is, in greatandspecious words, to say just nothing at all. For every church isorthodox toitself; to others, erroneous or heretical. For whatsoever any churchbelieves,it believes to be true and the contrary unto those things it pronounce;to beerror. So that the controversy between these churches about the truthof theirdoctrines and the purity of their worship is on both sides equal; noris thereany judge, either at Constantinople or elsewhere upon earth, by whosesentenceit can be determined. The decision of that question belongs only to theSupremejudge of all men, to whom also alone belongs the punishment of theerroneous.In the meanwhile, let those men consider how heinously they sin, who,addinginjustice, if not to their error, yet certainly to their pride, dorashly andarrogantly take upon them to misuse the servants of another master, whoare notat all accountable to them.
Nay, further: if it could be manifest which of these twodissenting churcheswere in the right, there would not accrue thereby unto the orthodox anyrightof destroying the other. For churches have neither any jurisdiction inworldlymatters, nor are fire and sword any proper instruments wherewith toconvincemen's minds of error, and inform them of the truth. Let us suppose,nevertheless, that the civil magistrate inclined to favour one of themand toput his sword into their hands that (by his consent) they mightchastise thedissenters as they pleased. Will any man say that any right can bederived untoa Christian church over its brethren from a Turkish emperor? Aninfidel, whohas himself no authority to punish Christians for the articles of theirfaith,cannot confer such an authority upon any society of Christians, norgive untothem a right which he has not himself. This would be the case atConstantinople; and the reason of the thing is the same in anyChristiankingdom. The civil power is the same in every place. Nor can thatpower, in thehands of a Christian prince, confer any greater authority upon theChurch thanin the hands of a heathen; which is to say, just none at all.
Nevertheless, it is worthy to be observed and lamented thatthe most violentof these defenders of the truth, the opposers of errors, the exclaimersagainstschism do hardly ever let loose this their zeal for God, with whichthey are sowarmed and inflamed, unless where they have the civil magistrate ontheir side.But so soon as ever court favour has given them the better end of thestaff,and they begin to feel themselves the stronger, then presently peaceandcharity are to be laid aside. Otherwise they are religiously to beobserved.Where they have not the power to carry on persecution and to becomemasters,there they desire to live upon fair terms and preach up toleration.When theyare not strengthened with the civil power, then they can bear mostpatientlyand unmovedly the contagion of idolatry, superstition, and heresy intheirneighbourhood; of which on other occasions the interest of religionmakes themto be extremely apprehensive. They do not forwardly attack those errorswhichare in fashion at court or are countenanced by the government. Herethey can becontent to spare their arguments; which yet (with their leave) is theonlyright method of propagating truth, which has no such way of prevailingas whenstrong arguments and good reason are joined with the softness ofcivility andgood usage.
Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither single persons norchurches, nay, noreven commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights andworldlygoods of each other upon pretence of religion. Those that are ofanotheropinion would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a seedofdiscord and war, how powerful a provocation to endless hatreds,rapines, andslaughters they thereby furnish unto mankind. No peace and security,no, not somuch as common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongstmen solong as this opinion prevails, that dominion is founded in grace andthatreligion is to be propagated by force of arms.
In the third place, let us see what the duty of tolerationrequires fromthose who are distinguished from the rest of mankind (from the laity,as theyplease to call us) by some ecclesiastical character and office; whetherthey bebishops, priests, presbyters, ministers, or however else dignified ordistinguished. It is not my business to inquire here into the originalof thepower or dignity of the clergy. This only I say, that, whencesoevertheirauthority be sprung, since it is ecclesiastical, it ought to beconfined withinthe bounds of the Church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civilaffairs, because the Church itself is a thing absolutely separate anddistinctfrom the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed andimmovable. Hejumbles heaven and earth together, the things most remote and opposite,whomixes these two societies, which are in their original, end, business,and ineverything perfectly distinct and infinitely different from each other.No man,therefore, with whatsoever ecclesiastical office he be dignified, candepriveanother man that is not of his church and faith either of liberty or ofanypart of his worldly goods upon the account of that difference betweenthem inreligion. For whatsoever is not lawful to the whole Church cannot byanyecclesiastical right become lawful to any of its members.
But this is not all. It is not enough that ecclesiastical menabstain fromviolence and rapine and all manner of persecution. He that pretends tobe asuccessor of the apostles, and takes upon him the office of teaching,isobliged also to admonish his hearers of the duties of peace andgoodwilltowards all men, as well towards the erroneous as the orthodox; towardsthosethat differ from them in faith and worship as well as towards thosethat agreewith them therein. And he ought industriously to exhort all men,whetherprivate persons or magistrates (if any such there be in his church), tocharity, meekness, and toleration, and diligently endeavour to ally andtemperall that heat and unreasonable averseness of mind which either anyman's fieryzeal for his own sect or the craft of others has kindled againstdissenters. Iwill not undertake to represent how happy and how great would be thefruit,both in Church and State, if the pulpits everywhere sounded with thisdoctrineof peace and toleration, lest I should seem to reflect too severelyupon thosemen whose dignity I desire not to detract from, nor would have itdiminishedeither by others or themselves. But this I say, that thus it ought tobe. Andif anyone that professes himself to be a minister of the Word of God, apreacher of the gospel of peace, teach otherwise, he either understandsnot orneglects the business of his calling and shall one day give accountthereofunto the Prince of Peace. If Christians are to be admonished that theyabstainfrom all manner of revenge, even after repeated provocations andmultipliedinjuries, how much more ought they who suffer nothing, who have had noharmdone them, forbear violence and abstain from all manner of ill-usagetowardsthose from whom they have received none! This caution and temper theyoughtcertainly to use towards those. who mind only their own business andaresolicitous for nothing but that (whatever men think of them) they mayworshipGod in that manner which they are persuaded is acceptable to Him and inwhichthey have the strongest hopes of eternal salvation. In private domesticaffairs, in the management of estates, in the conservation of bodilyhealth,every man may consider what suits his own convenience and follow whatcourse helikes best. No man complains of the ill-management of his neighbour'saffairs.No man is angry with another for an error committed in sowing his landor inmarrying his daughter. Nobody corrects a spendthrift for consuming hissubstance in taverns. Let any man pull down, or build, or makewhatsoeverexpenses he pleases, nobody murmurs, nobody controls him; he has hisliberty.But if any man do not frequent the church, if he do not there conformhisbehaviour exactly to the accustomed ceremonies, or if he brings not hischildren to be initiated in the sacred mysteries of this or the othercongregation, this immediately causes an uproar. The neighbourhood isfilledwith noise and clamour. Everyone is ready to be the avenger of so greatacrime, and the zealots hardly have the patience to refrain fromviolence andrapine so long till the cause be heard and the poor man be, accordingto form,condemned to the loss of liberty, goods, or life. Oh, that ourecclesiasticalorators of every sect would apply themselves with all the strength ofargumentsthat they are able to the confounding of men's errors! But let themspare theirpersons. Let them not supply their want of reasons with the instrumentsofforce, which belong to another jurisdiction and do ill become aChurchman'shands. Let them not call in the magistrate's authority to the aid oftheireloquence or learning, lest perhaps, whilst they pretend only love forthetruth, this their intemperate zeal, breathing nothing but fire andsword,betray their ambition and show that what they desire is temporaldominion. Forit will be very difficult to persuade men of sense that he who with dryeyesand satisfaction of mind can deliver his brother to the executioner tobe burntalive, does sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that brotherfromthe flames of hell in the world to come.
In the last place, let us now consider what is themagistrate's duty in thebusiness of toleration, which certainly is very considerable.
We have already proved that the care of souls does not belongto themagistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), whichconsists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But acharitablecare, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannotbe deniedunto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs untohimself andis to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of hissoul? Ianswer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate,whichthings are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate thanthe other?Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall notbecomepoor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods andhealthof subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they donotguard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessorsthemselves.No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no.Nay, GodHimself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however,thatsome prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches,or topreserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be providedby lawthat they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone beboundto live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, nobroth, betaken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in aGenevashop? Or, to make these subjects rich, shall they all be obliged by lawtobecome merchants or musicians? Or, shall everyone turn victualler, orsmith,because there are some that maintain their families plentifully andgrow richin those professions? But, it may be said, there are a thousand ways towealth,but one only way to heaven. It is well said, indeed, especially bythose thatplead for compelling men into this or the other way. For if there wereseveralways that led thither, there would not be so much as a pretence leftforcompulsion. But now, if I be marching on with my utmost vigour in thatwaywhich, according to the sacred geography, leads straight to Jerusalem,why am Ibeaten and ill-used by others because, perhaps, I wear not buskins;because myhair is not of the right cut; because, perhaps, I have not been dippedin theright fashion; because I eat flesh upon the road, or some other foodwhichagrees with my stomach; because I avoid certain by-ways, which seemunto me tolead into briars or precipices; because, amongst the several paths thatare inthe same road, I choose that to walk in which seems to be thestraightest andcleanest; because I avoid to keep company with some travellers that arelessgrave and others that are more sour than they ought to be; or, in fine,becauseI follow a guide that either is, or is not, clothed in white, orcrowned with amitre? Certainly, if we consider right, we shall find that, for themost part,they are such frivolous things as these that (without any prejudice toreligionor the salvation of souls, if not accompanied with superstition orhypocrisy)might either be observed or omitted. I say they are such-like things asthesewhich breed implacable enmities amongst Christian brethren, who are allagreedin the substantial and truly fundamental part of religion.
But let us grant unto these zealots, who condemn all thingsthat are not oftheir mode, that from these circumstances are different ends. Whatshall weconclude from thence? There is only one of these which is the true waytoeternal happiness: but in this great variety of ways that men follow,it isstill doubted which is the right one. Now, neither the care of thecommonwealth, nor the right enacting of laws, does discover this waythat leadsto heaven more certainly to the magistrate than every private man'ssearch andstudy discovers it unto himself. I have a weak body, sunk under alanguishingdisease, for which (I suppose) there is one only remedy, but thatunknown. Doesit therefore belong unto the magistrate to prescribe me a remedy,because thereis but one, and because it is unknown? Because there is but one way forme toescape death, will it therefore be safe for me to do whatsoever themagistrateordains? Those things that every man ought sincerely to inquire intohimself,and by meditation, study, search, and his own endeavours, attain theknowledgeof, cannot be looked upon as the peculiar possession of any sort ofmen.Princes, indeed, are born superior unto other men in power, but innatureequal. Neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carryalongwith it the certain knowledge of other things, and least of all of truereligion. For if it were so, how could it come to pass that the lordsof theearth should differ so vastly as they do in religious matters? But letus grantthat it is probable the way to eternal life may be better known by aprincethan by his subjects, or at least that in this incertitude of thingsthe safestand most commodious way for private persons is to follow his dictates.You willsay: "What then?" If he should bid you follow merchandise for yourlivelihood, would you decline that course for fear it should notsucceed? Ianswer: I would turn merchant upon the prince's command, because, incase Ishould have ill-success in trade, he is abundantly able to make up myloss someother way. If it be true, as he pretends, that he desires I shouldthrive andgrow rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful voyages have brokenme. Butthis is not the case in the things that regard the life to come; ifthere Itake a wrong course, if in that respect I am once undone, it is not inthemagistrate's power to repair my loss, to ease my suffering, nor torestore mein any measure, much less entirely, to a good estate. What security canbegiven for the Kingdom of Heaven?
Perhaps some will say that they do not suppose this infalliblejudgement,that all men are bound to follow in the affairs of religion, to be inthe civilmagistrate, but in the Church. What the Church has determined, that thecivilmagistrate orders to be observed; and he provides by his authority thatnobodyshall either act or believe in the business of religion otherwise thantheChurch teaches. So that the judgement of those things is in the Church;themagistrate himself yields obedience thereunto and requires the likeobediencefrom others. I answer: Who sees not how frequently the name of theChurch,which was venerable in time of the apostles, has been made use of tothrow dustin the people's eyes in the following ages? But, however, in thepresent caseit helps us not. The one only narrow way which leads to heaven is notbetterknown to the magistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannotsafelytake him for my guide, who may probably be as ignorant of the way asmyself,and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am.Amongstso many kings of the Jews, how many of them were there whom anyIsraelite, thusblindly following, had not fallen into idolatry and thereby intodestruction?Yet, nevertheless, you bid me be of good courage and tell me that allis nowsafe and secure, because the magistrate does not now enjoin theobservance ofhis own decrees in matters of religion, but only the decrees of theChurch. Ofwhat Church, I beseech you? of that, certainly, which likes him best.As if hethat compels me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the otherChurch,did not interpose his own judgement in the matter. What difference istherewhether he lead me himself, or deliver me over to be led by others? Idependboth ways upon his will, and it is he that determines both ways of myeternalstate. Would an Israelite that had worshipped Baal upon the command ofhis kinghave been in any better condition because somebody had told him thatthe kingordered nothing in religion upon his own head, nor commanded anythingto bedone by his subjects in divine worship but what was approved by thecounsel ofpriests, and declared to be of divine right by the doctors of theirChurch? Ifthe religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving, becausethe headof that sect, the prelates and priests, and those of that tribe, do allofthem, with all their might, extol and praise it, what religion can everbeaccounted erroneous, false, and destructive? I am doubtful concerningthedoctrine of the Socinians, I am suspicious of the way of worshippractised bythe Papists, or Lutherans; will it be ever a jot safer for me to joineitherunto the one or the other of those Churches, upon the magistrate'scommand,because he commands nothing in religion but by the authority andcounsel of thedoctors of that Church?
But, to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that the Church(if aconvention of clergymen, making canons, must be called by that name) isfor themost part more apt to be influenced by the Court than the Court by theChurch.How the Church was under the vicissitude of orthodox and Arian emperorsis verywell known. Or if those things be too remote, our modern Englishhistoryaffords us fresh examples in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary,andElizabeth, how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees,theirarticles of faith, their form of worship, everything according to theinclination of those kings and queens. Yet were those kings and queensof suchdifferent minds in point of religion, and enjoined thereupon suchdifferentthings, that no man in his wits (I had almost said none but an atheist)willpresume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could,with asafe conscience, obey their several decrees. To conclude, it is thesame thingwhether a king that prescribes laws to another man's religion pretendto do itby his own judgement, or by the ecclesiastical authority and advice ofothers.The decisions of churchmen, whose differences and disputes aresufficientlyknown, cannot be any sounder or safer than his; nor can all theirsuffragesjoined together add a new strength to the civil power. Though this alsomust betaken notice of — that princes seldom have any regard to the suffragesofecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and way ofworship.
But, after all, the principal consideration, and whichabsolutely determinesthis controversy, is this: Although the magistrate's opinion inreligion besound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical, yet, if I benotthoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safetyfor me infollowing it. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against thedictates of myconscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed. I maygrow richby an art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some disease byremedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a religionthat Idistrust and by a worship that I abhor. It is in vain for an unbelieverto takeup the outward show of another man's profession. Faith only and inwardsincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God. The mostlikely andmost approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient, if hisstomach rejectit as soon as taken; and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sickman'sthroat, which his particular constitution will be sure to turn intopoison. Ina word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet this at least iscertain,that no religion which I believe not to be true can be either true orprofitable unto me. In vain, therefore, do princes compel theirsubjects tocome into their Church communion, under pretence of saving their souls.If theybelieve, they will come of their own accord, if they believe not, theircomingwill nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretenceofgood-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's souls,men cannotbe forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when allis done,they must be left to their own consciences.
Having thus at length freed men from all dominion over oneanother inmatters of religion, let us now consider what they are to do. All menknow andacknowledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped; why otherwise dotheycompel one another unto the public assemblies? Men, therefore,constituted inthis liberty are to enter into some religious society, that they meettogether,not only for mutual edification, but to own to the world that theyworship Godand offer unto His Divine Majesty such service as they themselves arenotashamed of and such as they think not unworthy of Him, nor unacceptableto Him;and, finally, that by the purity of doctrine, holiness of life, anddecent formof worship, they may draw others unto the love of the true religion,andperform such other things in religion as cannot be done by each privatemanapart.
These religious societies I call Churches; and these, I say,the magistrateought to tolerate, for the business of these assemblies of the peopleisnothing but what is lawful for every man in particular to take care of— Imean the salvation of their souls; nor in this case is there anydifferencebetween the National Church and other separated congregations.
But as in every Church there are two things especially to beconsidered— the outward form and rites of worship, and the doctrines and articlesofthings must be handled each distinctly that so the whole matter oftolerationmay the more clearly be understood.
Concerning outward worship, I say, in the first place, thatthe magistratehas no power to enforce by law, either in his own Church, or much lessinanother, the use of any rites or ceremonies whatsoever in the worshipof God.And this, not only because these Churches are free societies, butbecausewhatsoever is practised in the worship of God is only so farjustifiable as itis believed by those that practise it to be acceptable unto Him.Whatsoever isnot done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, norcan it beacceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people,contraryto 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 thatliberty isessentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyondexpression.
But perhaps it may be concluded from hence that I deny untothe magistrateall manner of power about indifferent things, which, if it be notgranted, thewhole subject-matter of law-making is taken away. No, I readily grantthatindifferent things, and perhaps none but such, are subjected to thelegislativepower. But it does not therefore follow that the magistrate may ordainwhatsoever he pleases concerning anything that is indifferent. Thepublic goodis the rule and measure of all law-making. If a thing be not useful tothecommonwealth, though it be never so indifferent, it may not presentlybeestablished by law.
And further, things never so indifferent in their own nature,when they arebrought into the Church and worship of God, are removed out of thereach of themagistrate's jurisdiction, because in that use they have no connectionat allwith civil affairs. The only business of the Church is the salvation ofsouls,and it no way concerns the commonwealth, or any member of it, that thisor theother ceremony be there made use of. Neither the use nor the omissionof anyceremonies in those religious assemblies does either advantage orprejudice thelife, liberty, or estate of any man. For example, let it be grantedthat thewashing of an infant with water is in itself an indifferent thing, letit begranted also that the magistrate understand such washing to beprofitable tothe curing or preventing of any disease the children are subject unto,andesteem the matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a law. In thatcase hemay order it to be done. But will any one therefore say that amagistrate hasthe same right to ordain by law that all children shall be baptised bypriestsin the sacred font in order to the purification of their souls? Theextremedifference of these two cases is visible to every one at first sight.Or let usapply the last case to the child of a Jew, and the thing speaks itself.Forwhat hinders but a Christian magistrate may have subjects that areJews? Now,if we acknowledge that such an injury may not be done unto a Jew as tocompelhim, against his own opinion, to practise in his religion a thing thatis inits nature indifferent, how can we maintain that anything of this kindmay bedone to a Christian?
Again, things in their own nature indifferent cannot, by anyhumanauthority, be made any part of the worship of God — for this veryreason:because they are indifferent. For, since indifferent things are notcapable, byany virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity, no human power orauthoritycan confer on them so much dignity and excellency as to enable them todo it.In the common affairs of life that use of indifferent things which Godhas notforbidden is free and lawful, and therefore in those things humanauthority hasplace. But it is not so in matters of religion. Things indifferent arenototherwise lawful in the worship of God than as they are instituted byGodHimself and as He, by some positive command, has ordained them to bemade apart of that worship which He will vouchsafe to accept at the hands ofpoorsinful men. Nor, when an incensed Deity shall ask us, "Who has requiredthese, or such-like things at your hands?" will it be enough to answerHimthat the magistrate commanded them. If civil jurisdiction extend thusfar, whatmight not lawfully be introduced into religion? What hodgepodge ofceremonies,what superstitious inventions, built upon the magistrate's authority,might not(against conscience) be imposed upon the worshippers of God? For thegreatestpart of these ceremonies and superstitions consists in the religioususe ofsuch things as are in their own nature indifferent; nor are they sinfuluponany other account than because God is not the author of them. Thesprinkling ofwater and the use of bread and wine are both in their own nature and intheordinary occasions of life altogether indifferent. Will any man,therefore, saythat these things could have been introduced into religion and made apart ofdivine worship if not by divine institution? If any human authority orcivilpower could have done this, why might it not also enjoin the eating offish anddrinking of ale in the holy banquet as a part of divine worship? Whynot thesprinkling of the blood of beasts in churches, and expiations by wateror fire,and abundance more of this kind? But these things, how indifferentsoever theybe in common uses, when they come to be annexed unto divine worship,withoutdivine authority, they are as abominable to God as the sacrifice of adog. Andwhy is a dog so abominable? What difference is there between a dog anda goat,in respect of the divine nature, equally and infinitely distant fromallaffinity with matter, unless it be that God required the use of one inHisworship and not of the other? We see, therefore, that indifferentthings, howmuch soever they be under the power of the civil magistrate, yetcannot, uponthat pretence, be introduced into religion and imposed upon religiousassemblies, because, in the worship of God, they wholly cease to beindifferent. He that worships God does it with design to please Him andprocureHis favour. But that cannot be done by him who, upon the command ofanother,offers unto God that which he knows will be displeasing to Him, becausenotcommanded by Himself. This is not to please God, or appease his wrath,butwillingly and knowingly to provoke Him by a manifest contempt, which isa thingabsolutely repugnant to the nature and end of worship.
But it will be here asked: "If nothing belonging to divineworship beleft to human discretion, how is it then that Churches themselves havethepower of ordering anything about the time and place of worship and thelike?" To this I answer that in religious worship we must distinguishbetween what is part of the worship itself and what is but acircumstance. Thatis a part of the worship which is believed to be appointed by God andto bewell-pleasing to Him, and therefore that is necessary. Circumstancesare suchthings which, though in general they cannot be separated from worship,yet theparticular instances or modifications of them are not determined, andthereforethey are indifferent. Of this sort are the time and place of worship,habit andposture of him that worships. These are circumstances, and perfectlyindifferent, where God has not given any express command about them.Forexample: amongst the Jews the time and place of their worship and thehabits ofthose that officiated in it were not mere circumstances, but a part oftheworship itself, in which, if anything were defective, or different fromtheinstitution, they could not hope that it would be accepted by God. Butthese,to Christians under the liberty of the Gospel, are mere circumstancesofworship, which the prudence of every Church may bring into such use asshall bejudged most subservient to the end of order, decency, and edification.But,even under the Gospel, those who believe the first or the seventh dayto be setapart by God, and consecrated still to His worship, to them thatportion oftime is not a simple circumstance, but a real part of Divine worship,which canneither be changed nor neglected.
In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to impose byhis laws theuse of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he anypower toforbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received,approved,and practised by any Church; because, if he did so, he would destroythe Churchitself: the end of whose institution is only to worship God withfreedom afterits own manner.
You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should havea mind tosacrifice infants, or (as the primitive Christians were falselyaccused)lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practiseany othersuch heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them,becausethey are committed in a religious assembly? I answer: No. These thingsare notlawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; andthereforeneither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting.But,indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should bedesirousto 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, andburn anypart of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to anyone, noprejudice to another man's goods. And for the same reason he may killhis calfalso in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing toGod orno, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrateis onlyto take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that therebe noinjury done to any man, either in life or estate. And thus what may bespent ona feast may be spent on a sacrifice. But if peradventure such were thestate ofthings that the interest of the commonwealth required all slaughter ofbeastsshould be forborne for some while, in order to the increasing of thestock ofcattle that had been destroyed by some extraordinary murrain, who seesnot thatthe magistrate, in such a case, may forbid all his subjects to kill anycalvesfor any use whatsoever? Only it is to be observed that, in this case,the lawis not made about a religious, but a political matter; nor is thesacrifice,but the slaughter of calves, thereby prohibited.
By this we see what difference there is between the Church andtheCommonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth cannot beprohibited bythe magistrate in the Church. Whatsoever is permitted unto any of hissubjectsfor their ordinary use, neither can nor ought to be forbidden by him toanysect of people for their religious uses. If any man may lawfully takebread orwine, either sitting or kneeling in his own house, the law ought not toabridgehim of the same liberty in his religious worship; though in the Churchthe useof bread and wine be very different and be there applied to themysteries offaith and rites of Divine worship. But those things that areprejudicial to thecommonweal of a people in their ordinary use and are, therefore,forbidden bylaws, those things ought not to be permitted to Churches in theirsacred rites.Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do notmisuse hisauthority to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of publicgood.
It may be said: "What if a Church be idolatrous, is that alsoto betolerated by the magistrate?" I answer: What power can be given to themagistrate for the suppression of an idolatrous Church, which may notin timeand place be made use of to the ruin of an orthodox one? For it must beremembered that the civil power is the same everywhere, and thereligion ofevery prince is orthodox to himself. If, therefore, such a power begrantedunto the civil magistrate in spirituals as that at Geneva, for example,he mayextirpate, by violence and blood, the religion which is there reputedidolatrous, by the same rule another magistrate, in some neighbouringcountry,may oppress the reformed religion and, in India, the Christian. Thecivil powercan either change everything in religion, according to the prince'spleasure,or it can change nothing. If it be once permitted to introduce anythingintoreligion by the means of laws and penalties, there can be no bounds putto it;but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter everything, accordingto thatrule of truth which the magistrate has framed unto himself. No manwhatsoeverought, therefore, to be deprived of his terrestrial enjoyments uponaccount ofhis religion. Not even Americans, subjected unto a Christian prince,are to bepunished either in body or goods for not embracing our faith andworship. Ifthey are persuaded that they please God in observing the rites of theirowncountry and that they shall obtain happiness by that means, they are tobe leftunto God and themselves. Let us trace this matter to the bottom. Thusit is: Aninconsiderable and weak number of Christians, destitute of everything,arrivein a Pagan country; these foreigners beseech the inhabitants, by thebowels ofhumanity, that they would succour them with the necessaries of life;thosenecessaries are given them, habitations are granted, and they all jointogether, and grow up into one body of people. The Christian religionby thismeans takes root in that country and spreads itself, but does notsuddenly growthe strongest. While things are in this condition peace, friendship,faith, andequal justice are preserved amongst them. At length the magistratebecomes aChristian, and by that means their party becomes the most powerful.Thenimmediately all compacts are to be broken, all civil rights to beviolated,that idolatry may be extirpated; and unless these innocent Pagans,strictobservers of the rules of equity and the law of Nature and no waysoffendingagainst the laws of the society, I say, unless they will forsake theirancientreligion and embrace a new and strange one, they are to be turned outof thelands and possessions of their forefathers and perhaps deprived of lifeitself.Then, at last, it appears what zeal for the Church, joined with thedesire ofdominion, is capable to produce, and how easily the pretence ofreligion, andof the care of souls, serves for a cloak to covetousness, rapine, andambition.
Now whosoever maintains that idolatry is to be rooted out ofany place bylaws, punishments, fire, and sword, may apply this story to himself.For thereason of the thing is equal, both in America and Europe. And neitherPagansthere, nor any dissenting Christians here, can, with any right, bedeprived oftheir worldly goods by the predominating faction of a court-church; norare anycivil rights to be either changed or violated upon account of religionin oneplace more than another.
But idolatry, say some, is a sin and therefore not to betolerated. If theysaid it were therefore to be avoided, the inference were good. But itdoes notfollow that because it is a sin it ought therefore to be punished bythemagistrate. For it does not belong unto the magistrate to make use ofhis swordin punishing everything, indifferently, that he takes to be a sinagainst God.Covetousness, uncharitableness, idleness, and many other things aresins by theconsent of men, which yet no man ever said were to be punished by themagistrate. The reason is because they are not prejudicial to othermen'srights, nor do they break the public peace of societies. Nay, even thesins oflying and perjury are nowhere punishable by laws; unless, in certaincases, inwhich the real turpitude of the thing and the offence against God arenotconsidered, but only the injury done unto men's neighbours and to thecommonwealth. And what if in another country, to a Mahometan or a Paganprince,the Christian religion seem false and offensive to God; may not theChristiansfor 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 berooted out. True, indeed, by the law of Moses; but that is notobligatory to usChristians. Nobody pretends that everything generally enjoined by thelaw ofMoses ought to be practised by Christians; but there is nothing morefrivolousthan that common distinction of moral, judicial, and ceremonial law,which menordinarily make use of. For no positive law whatsoever can oblige anypeoplebut those to whom it is given. "Hear, O Israel," sufficientlyrestrains the obligations of the law of Moses only to that people. Andthisconsideration alone is answer enough unto those that urge the authorityof thelaw 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 adouble consideration. The first is of those who, being initiated in theMosaical rites, and made citizens of that commonwealth, did afterwardsapostatise from the worship of the God of Israel. These were proceededagainstas traitors and rebels, guilty of no less than high treason. For thecommonwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others, was anabsolutetheocracy; nor was there, or could there be, any difference betweenthatcommonwealth and the Church. The laws established there concerning theworshipof One Invisible Deity were the civil laws of that people and a part oftheirpolitical government, in which God Himself was the legislator. Now, ifany onecan shew me where there is a commonwealth at this time, constitutedupon thatfoundation, I will acknowledge that the ecclesiastical laws do thereunavoidably become a part of the civil, and that the subjects of thatgovernment both may and ought to be kept in strict conformity with thatChurchby the civil power. But there is absolutely no such thing under theGospel as aChristian commonwealth. There are, indeed, many cities and kingdomsthat haveembraced the faith of Christ, but they have retained their ancient formofgovernment, 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 eternallife; butHe instituted no commonwealth. He prescribed unto His followers no newandpeculiar form of government, nor put He the sword into any magistrate'shand,with commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake theirformerreligion and receive His.
Secondly, foreigners and such as were strangers to thecommonwealth ofIsrael were not compelled by force to observe the rites of the Mosaicallaw;but, on the contrary, in the very same place where it is ordered thatanIsraelite that was an idolater should be put to death,[7] there it is providedthat strangers should not bevexed nor oppressed. I confess that the seven nations that possessedthe landwhich was promised to the Israelites were utterly to be cut off; butthis wasnot singly because they were idolaters. For if that had been thereason, whywere the Moabites and other nations to be spared? No: the reason isthis. Godbeing in a peculiar manner the King of the Jews, He could not suffertheadoration of any other deity (which was properly an act of high treasonagainstHimself) in the land of Canaan, which was His kingdom. For such amanifestrevolt could no ways consist with His dominion, which was perfectlypoliticalin that country. All idolatry was, therefore, to be rooted out of thebounds ofHis kingdom because it was an acknowledgment of another god, that issay,another king, against the laws of Empire. The inhabitants were also tobedriven out, that the entire possession of the land might be given totheIsraelites. And for the like reason the Emims and the Horims weredriven out oftheir countries by the children of Esau and Lot; and their lands, uponthe samegrounds, given by God to the invaders.[8]But,though all idolatry was thus rooted out of the land of Canaan, yeteveryidolater was not brought to execution. The whole family of Rahab, thewholenation of the Gibeonites, articled with Joshua, and were allowed bytreaty; andthere were many captives amongst the Jews who were idolaters. David andSolomonsubdued many countries without the confines of the Land of Promise andcarriedtheir conquests as far as Euphrates. Amongst so many captives taken, somanynations reduced under their obedience, we find not one man forced intotheJewish religion and the worship of the true God and punished foridolatry,though all of them were certainly guilty of it. If any one, indeed,becoming aproselyte, desired to be made a denizen of their commonwealth, he wasobligedto submit to their laws; that is, to embrace their religion. But thishe didwillingly, on his own accord, not by constraint. He did not unwillinglysubmit,to show his obedience, but he sought and solicited for it as aprivilege. And,as soon as he was admitted, he became subject to the laws of thecommonwealth,by which all idolatry was forbidden within the borders of the land ofCanaan.But that law (as I have said) did not reach to any of those regions,howeversubjected unto the Jews, that were situated without those bounds.
Thus far concerning outward worship. Let us now considerarticles of faith.
The articles of religion are some of them practical and somespeculative.Now, though both sorts consist in the knowledge of truth, yet theseterminatesimply in the understanding, those influence the will and manners.Speculativeopinions, therefore, and articles of faith (as they are called) whicharerequired only to be believed, cannot be imposed on any Church by thelaw of theland. For it is absurd that things should be enjoined by laws which arenot inmen's power to perform. And to believe this or that to be true does notdependupon our will. But of this enough has been said already. "But." willsome say; "let men at least profess that they believe." A sweetreligion, indeed, that obliges men to dissemble and tell lies, both toGod andman, for the salvation of their souls! If the magistrate thinks to savementhus, he seems to understand little of the way of salvation. And if hedoes itnot in order to save them, why is he so solicitous about the articlesof faithas to enact them by a law?
Further, the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching orprofessing ofany speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner ofrelationto the civil rights of the subjects. If a Roman Catholic believe thatto bereally the body of Christ which another man calls bread, he does noinjurythereby to his neighbour. If a Jew do not believe the New Testament tobe theWord of God, he does not thereby alter anything in men's civil rights.If aheathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished asapernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate and the estates of thepeoplemay be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. Ireadilygrant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business oflaws is notto provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and securityof thecommonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person. And so itought tobe. For the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once leftto shiftfor herself. She seldom has received and, I fear, never will receivemuchassistance from the power of great men, to whom she is but rarely knownandmore rarely welcome. She is not taught by laws, nor has she any need offorceto procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevailby theassistance of foreign and borrowed succours. But if Truth makes not herwayinto the understanding by her own light, she will be but the weaker foranyborrowed force violence can add to her. Thus much for speculativeopinions. Letus now proceed to practical ones.
A good life, in which consist not the least part of religionand true piety,concerns also the civil government; and in it lies the safety both ofmen'ssouls and of the commonwealth. Moral actions belong, therefore, to thejurisdiction both of the outward and inward court; both of the civilanddomestic governor; I mean both of the magistrate and conscience. Here,therefore, is great danger, lest one of these jurisdictions intrenchupon theother, and discord arise between the keeper of the public peace and theoverseers of souls. But if what has been already said concerning thelimits ofboth these governments be rightly considered, it will easily remove alldifficulty in this matter.
Every man has an immortal soul, capable of eternal happinessor misery;whose happiness depending upon his believing and doing those things inthislife which are necessary to the obtaining of God's favour, and areprescribedby God to that end. It follows from thence, first, that the observanceof thesethings is the highest obligation that lies upon mankind and that ourutmostcare, application, and diligence ought to be exercised in the searchandperformance of them; because there is nothing in this world that is ofanyconsideration in comparison with eternity. Secondly, that seeing oneman doesnot violate the right of another by his erroneous opinions and unduemanner ofworship, nor is his perdition any prejudice to another man's affairs,therefore, the care of each man's salvation belongs only to himself.But Iwould not have this understood as if I meant hereby to condemn allcharitableadmonitions and affectionate endeavours to reduce men from errors,which areindeed the greatest duty of a Christian. Any one may employ as manyexhortations and arguments as he pleases, towards the promoting ofanotherman's salvation. But all force and compulsion are to be forborne.Nothing is tobe done imperiously. Nobody is obliged in that matter to yieldobedience untothe admonitions or injunctions of another, further than he himself ispersuaded. Every man in that has the supreme and absolute authority ofjudgingfor himself. And the reason is because nobody else is concerned in it,nor canreceive any prejudice from his conduct therein.
But besides their souls, which are immortal, men have alsotheir temporallives here upon earth; the state whereof being frail and fleeting, andtheduration uncertain, they have need of several outward conveniences tothesupport thereof, which are to be procured or preserved by pains andindustry.For those things that are necessary to the comfortable support of ourlives arenot the spontaneous products of nature, nor do offer themselves fit andprepared for our use. This part, therefore, draws on another care andnecessarily gives another employment. But the pravity of mankind beingsuchthat they had rather injuriously prey upon the fruits of other men'slaboursthan take pains to provide for themselves, the necessity of preservingmen inthe possession of what honest industry has already acquired and also ofpreserving their liberty and strength, whereby they may acquire whattheyfarther want, obliges men to enter into society with one another, thatbymutual assistance and joint force they may secure unto each other theirproperties, in the things that contribute to the comfort and happinessof thislife, leaving in the meanwhile to every man the care of his own eternalhappiness, the attainment whereof can neither be facilitated by anotherman'sindustry, nor can the loss of it turn to another man's prejudice, northe hopeof it be forced from him by any external violence. But, forasmuch asmen thusentering into societies, grounded upon their mutual compacts ofassistance forthe defence of their temporal goods, may, nevertheless, be deprived ofthem,either by the rapine and fraud of their fellow citizens, or by thehostileviolence of foreigners, the remedy of this evil consists in arms,riches, andmultitude of citizens; the remedy of the other in laws; and the care ofallthings relating both to one and the other is committed by the societyto thecivil magistrate. This is the original, this is the use, and these arethebounds of the legislative (which is the supreme) power in everycommonwealth. Imean that provision may be made for the security of each man's privatepossessions; for the peace, riches, and public commodities of the wholepeople;and, as much as possible, for the increase of their inward strengthagainstforeign invasions.
These things being thus explained, it is easy to understand towhat end thelegislative power ought to be directed and by what measures regulated;and thatis the temporal good and outward prosperity of the society; which isthe solereason of men's entering into society, and the only thing they seek andaim atin it. And it is also evident what liberty remains to men in referenceto theireternal salvation, and that is that every one should do what he in hisconscience is persuaded to be acceptable to the Almighty, on whose goodpleasure and acceptance depends their eternal happiness. For obedienceis due,in the first place, to God and, afterwards to the laws.
But some may ask: "What if the magistrate should enjoinanything by hisauthority that appears unlawful to the conscience of a private person?"Ianswer that, if government be faithfully administered and the counselsof themagistrates be indeed directed to the public good, this will seldomhappen. Butif, perhaps, it do so fall out, I say, that such a private person is toabstainfrom the action that he judges unlawful, and he is to undergo thepunishmentwhich it is not unlawful for him to bear. For the private judgement ofanyperson concerning a law enacted in political matters, for the publicgood, doesnot take away the obligation of that law, nor deserve a dispensation.But ifthe law, indeed, be concerning things that lie not within the verge ofthemagistrate's authority (as, for example, that the people, or any partyamongstthem, should be compelled to embrace a strange religion, and join intheworship and ceremonies of another Church), men are not in these casesobligedby that law, against their consciences. For the political society isinstitutedfor no other end, but only to secure every man's possession of thethings ofthis life. The care of each man's soul and of the things of heaven,whichneither does belong to the commonwealth nor can be subjected to it, isleftentirely to every man's self. Thus the safeguard of men's lives and ofthethings that belong unto this life is the business of the commonwealth;and thepreserving of those things unto their owners is the duty of themagistrate. Andtherefore the magistrate cannot take away these worldly things fromthis man orparty and give them to that; nor change propriety amongst fellowsubjects (nonot even by a law), for a cause that has no relation to the end ofcivilgovernment, I mean for their religion, which whether it be true orfalse doesno prejudice to the worldly concerns of their fellow subjects, whichare thethings that only belong unto the care of the commonwealth.
But what if the magistrate believe such a law as this to befor the publicgood? I answer: As the private judgement of any particular person, iferroneous, does not exempt him from the obligation of law, so theprivatejudgement (as I may call it) of the magistrate does not give him anynew rightof imposing laws upon his subjects, which neither was in theconstitution ofthe government granted him, nor ever was in the power of the people togrant,much less if he make it his business to enrich and advance hisfollowers andfellow-sectaries with the spoils of others. But what if the magistratebelievethat he has a right to make such laws and that they are for the publicgood,and his subjects believe the contrary? Who shall be judge between them?Ianswer: God alone. For there is no judge upon earth between the suprememagistrate and the people. God, I say, is the only judge in this case,who willretribute unto every one at the last day according to his deserts; thatis,according to his sincerity and uprightness in endeavouring to promotepiety,and the public weal, and peace of mankind. But What shall be done inthemeanwhile? I answer: The principal and chief care of every one ought tobe ofhis own soul first, and, in the next place, of the public peace; thoughyetthere are very few will think it is peace there, where they see alllaid waste.
There are two sorts of contests amongst men, the one managedby law, theother by force; and these are of that nature that where the one ends,the otheralways begins. But it is not my business to inquire into the power ofthemagistrate in the different constitutions of nations. I only know whatusuallyhappens where controversies arise without a judge to determine them.You willsay, then, the magistrate being the stronger will have his will andcarry hispoint. Without doubt; but the question is not here concerning thedoubtfulnessof the event, but the rule of right.
But to come to particulars. I say, first, no opinions contraryto humansociety, or to those moral rules which are necessary to thepreservation ofcivil 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 sucha degreeof madness as that it should think fit to teach, for doctrines ofreligion,such things as manifestly undermine the foundations of society and are,therefore, condemned by the judgement of all mankind; because their owninterest, peace, reputation, everything would be thereby endangered.
Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to thecommonwealth, is whenmen arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, somepeculiarprerogative covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, butin effectopposite to the civil right of the community. For example: we cannotfind anysect that teaches, expressly and openly, that men are not obliged tokeep theirpromise; that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from theminreligion; or that the dominion of all things belongs only tothemselves. Forthese things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw onthem theeye and hand of the magistrate and awaken all the care of thecommonwealth to awatchfulness against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But,nevertheless,we find those that say the same things in other words. What else dothey meanwho teach that faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning,forsooth,is that the privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; fortheydeclare all that are not of their communion to be heretics, or at leastmaydeclare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning oftheirasserting that kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms?It isevident that they thereby arrogate unto themselves the power ofdeposing kings,because they challenge the power of excommunication, as the peculiarright oftheir hierarchy. That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertionbywhich those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession ofallthings. For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, oratleast as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faithful.These,therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious,andorthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiarprivilege orpower above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretenceofreligion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are notassociatedwith them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no rightto betolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own andteach theduty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do alltheseand the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready uponanyoccasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estatesandfortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to betoleratedby the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough toeffectit?
Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by themagistrate whichis constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it dotherebyipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service ofanotherprince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settlingof aforeign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to belisted,as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does thefrivolous andfallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford anyremedy tothis inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other areequallysubject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not onlypower topersuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either aspurelyreligious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on painofeternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be aMahometanonly in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to aChristianmagistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound toyieldblind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirelyobedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of thatreligionaccording to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christianswouldyet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged thesameperson to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in thestate.
Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny thebeing of a God.Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society,can haveno hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even inthought,dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine anddestroyall religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challengetheprivilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though notabsolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establishdominationover others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught,therecan be no reason why they should not be tolerated.
It remains that I say something concerning those assemblieswhich, beingvulgarly called and perhaps having sometimes been conventicles andnurseries offactions and seditions, are thought to afford against this doctrine oftoleration. But this has not happened by anything peculiar unto thegenius ofsuch assemblies, but by the unhappy circumstances of an oppressed orill-settled liberty. These accusations would soon cease if the law oftoleration were once so settled that all Churches were obliged to laydowntoleration as the foundation of their own liberty, and teach thatliberty ofconscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging todissenters as tothemselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in matters ofreligion eitherby law or force. The establishment of this one thing would take awayall groundof complaints and tumults upon account of conscience; and these causesofdiscontents and animosities being once removed, there would remainnothing inthese assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to producedisturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let usexamineparticularly the heads of these accusations.
You will say that assemblies and meetings endanger the publicpeace andthreaten the commonwealth. I answer: If this be so, why are there dailysuchnumerous meetings in markets and Courts of Judicature? Why are crowdsupon theExchange and a concourse of people in cities suffered? You will reply:"Those are civil assemblies, but these we object against areecclesiastical." I answer: It is a likely thing, indeed, that suchassemblies as are altogether remote from civil affairs should be mostapt toembroil them. Oh, but civil assemblies are composed of men that differfrom oneanother in matters of religion, but these ecclesiastical meetings areofpersons that are all of one opinion. As if an agreement in matters ofreligionwere in effect a conspiracy against the commonwealth; or as if menwould not beso much the more warmly unanimous in religion the less liberty they hadofassembling. But it will be urged still that civil assemblies are openand freefor any one to enter into, whereas religious conventicles are moreprivate andthereby give opportunity to clandestine machinations. I answer thatthis is notstrictly true, for many civil assemblies are not open to everyone. Andif somereligious meetings be private, who are they (I beseech you) that are tobeblamed for it, those that desire, or those that forbid their beingpublic!Again, you will say that religious communion does exceedingly unitemen's mindsand affections to one another and is therefore the more dangerous. Butif thisbe so, why is not the magistrate afraid of his own Church; and why doeshe notforbid their assemblies as things dangerous to his Government? You willsaybecause he himself is a part and even the head of them. As if he werenot alsoa part of the commonwealth, and the head of the whole people!
Let us therefore deal plainly. The magistrate is afraid ofother Churches,but not of his own, because he is kind and favourable to the one, butsevereand cruel to the other. These he treats like children, and indulgesthem evento wantonness. Those he uses as slaves and, how blamelessly soever theydemeanthemselves, recompenses them no otherwise than by galleys, prisons,confiscations, and death. These he cherishes and defends; those hecontinuallyscourges and oppresses. Let him turn the tables. Or let thosedissenters enjoybut the same privileges in civils as his other subjects, and he willquicklyfind that these religious meetings will be no longer dangerous. For ifmenenter into seditious conspiracies, it is not religion inspires them toit intheir meetings, but their sufferings and oppressions that make themwilling toease themselves. Just and moderate governments are everywhere quiet,everywheresafe; but oppression raises ferments and makes men struggle to cast offanuneasy and tyrannical yoke. I know that seditions are very frequentlyraisedupon pretence of religion, but it is as true that for religion subjectsarefrequently ill treated and live miserably. Believe me, the stirs thatare madeproceed not from any peculiar temper of this or that Church orreligioussociety, but from the common disposition of all mankind, who when theygroanunder any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke thatgallstheir necks. Suppose this business of religion were let alone, and thattherewere some other distinction made between men and men upon account oftheirdifferent complexions, shapes, and features, so that those who haveblack hair(for example) or grey eyes should not enjoy the same privileges asothercitizens; that they should not be permitted either to buy or sell, orlive bytheir callings; that parents should not have the government andeducation oftheir own children; that all should either be excluded from the benefitof thelaws, or meet with partial judges; can it be doubted but these persons,thusdistinguished from others by the colour of their hair and eyes, andunitedtogether by one common persecution, would be as dangerous to themagistrate asany others that had associated themselves merely upon the account ofreligion?Some enter into company for trade and profit, others for want ofbusiness havetheir clubs for claret. Neighbourhood joins some and religion others.But thereis only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions, andthat isoppression.
You will say "What, will you have people to meet at divineserviceagainst the magistrate's will?" I answer: Why, I pray, against hiswill?Is it not both lawful and necessary that they should meet? Against hiswill, doyou say? That is what I complain of; that is the very root of all themischief.Why are assemblies less sufferable in a church than in a theatre ormarket?Those that meet there are not either more vicious or more turbulentthan thosethat meet elsewhere. The business in that is that they are ill used,andtherefore they are not to be suffered. Take away the partiality that isusedtowards them in matters of common right; change the laws, take away thepenalties unto which they are subjected, and all things willimmediately becomesafe and peaceable; nay, those that are averse to the religion of themagistrate will think themselves so much the more bound to maintain thepeaceof the commonwealth as their condition is better in that place thanelsewhere;and all the several separate congregations, like so many guardians ofthepublic peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be innovated orchangedin the form of the government, because they can hope for nothing betterthanwhat they already enjoy — that is, an equal condition with theirfellow-subjects under a just and moderate government. Now if thatChurch whichagrees in religion with the prince be esteemed the chief support of anycivilgovernment, and that for no other reason (as has already been shown)thanbecause the prince is kind and the laws are favourable to it, how muchgreaterwill be the security of government where all good subjects, ofwhatsoeverChurch they be, without any distinction upon account of religion,enjoying thesame favour of the prince and the same benefit of the laws, shallbecome thecommon support and guard of it, and where none will have any occasionto fearthe severity of the laws but those that do injuries to their neighboursandoffend against the civil peace?
That we may draw towards a conclusion. The sum of all we driveat is thatevery man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others. Is itpermittedto worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be permitted to do it in theGenevaform also. Is it permitted to speak Latin in the market-place? Letthose thathave a mind to it be permitted to do it also in the Church. Is itlawful forany man in his own house to kneel, stand, sit, or use any otherposture; and toclothe himself in white or black, in short or in long garments? Let itnot bemade unlawful to eat bread, drink wine, or wash with water in thechurch. In aword, whatsoever things are left free by law in the common occasions oflife,let them remain free unto every Church in divine worship. Let no man'slife, orbody, or house, or estate, suffer any manner of prejudice upon theseaccounts.Can you allow of the Presbyterian discipline? Why should not theEpiscopal alsohave what they like? Ecclesiastical authority, whether it beadministered bythe hands of a single person or many, is everywhere the same; andneither hasany jurisdiction in things civil, nor any manner of power ofcompulsion, noranything at all to do with riches and revenues.
Ecclesiastical assemblies and sermons are justified by dailyexperience andpublic allowance. These are allowed to people of some one persuasion;why notto all? If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously andcontrary to thepublic peace, it is to be punished in the same manner and no otherwisethan asif it had happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought not to besanctuaries for factious and flagitious fellows. Nor ought it to beless lawfulfor men to meet in churches than in halls; nor are one part of thesubjects tobe esteemed more blamable for their meeting together than others. Everyone isto be accountable for his own actions, and no man is to be laid under asuspicion or odium for the fault of another. Those that are seditious,murderers, thieves, robbers, adulterers, slanderers, etc., ofwhatsoeverChurch, whether national or not, ought to be punished and suppressed.But thosewhose doctrine is peaceable and whose manners are pure and blamelessought tobe upon equal terms with their fellow-subjects. Thus if solemnassemblies,observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one sortofprofessors, all these things ought to be permitted to thePresbyterians,Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with thesameliberty. Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one mantoanother, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excludedfrom thecivil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospelcommandsno such thing. The Church which "judgeth not those that arewithout"[9]wants it not. And thecommonwealth, which embraces indifferently all men that are honest,peaceable,and industrious, requires it not. Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal andtradewith us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto and worship God? Ifwe allowthe Jews to have private houses and dwellings amongst us, why should wenotallow them to have synagogues? Is their doctrine more false, theirworship moreabominable, or is the civil peace more endangered by their meeting inpublicthan in their private houses? But if these things may be granted toJews andPagans, surely the condition of any Christians ought not to be worsethantheirs in a Christian commonwealth.
You will say, perhaps: "Yes, it ought to be; because they aremoreinclinable to factions, tumults, and civil wars." I answer: Is this thefault of the Christian religion? If it be so, truly the Christianreligion isthe worst of all religions and ought neither to be embraced by anyparticularperson, nor tolerated by any commonwealth. For if this be the genius,this thenature of the Christian religion, to be turbulent and destructive tothe civilpeace, that Church itself which the magistrate indulges will not alwaysbeinnocent. But far be it from us to say any such thing of that religionwhichcarries the greatest opposition to covetousness, ambition, discord,contention,and all manner of inordinate desires, and is the most modest andpeaceablereligion that ever was. We must, therefore, seek another cause of thoseevilsthat are charged upon religion. And, if we consider right, we shallfind it toconsist wholly in the subject that I am treating of. It is not thediversity ofopinions (which cannot be avoided), but the refusal of toleration tothose thatare of different opinions (which might have been granted), that hasproducedall the bustles and wars that have been in the Christian world uponaccount ofreligion. The heads and leaders of the Church, moved by avarice andinsatiabledesire of dominion, making use of the immoderate ambition ofmagistrates andthe credulous superstition of the giddy multitude, have incensed andanimatedthem against those that dissent from themselves, by preaching untothem,contrary to the laws of the Gospel and to the precepts of charity, thatschismatics and heretics are to be outed of their possessions anddestroyed.And thus have they mixed together and confounded two things that are inthemselves most different, the Church and the commonwealth. Now as itis verydifficult for men patiently to suffer themselves to be stripped of thegoodswhich they have got by their honest industry, and, contrary to all thelaws ofequity, both human and divine, to be delivered up for a prey to othermen'sviolence and rapine; especially when they are otherwise altogetherblameless;and that the occasion for which they are thus treated does not at allbelong tothe jurisdiction of the magistrate, but entirely to the conscience ofeveryparticular man for the conduct of which he is accountable to God only;whatelse can be expected but that these men, growing weary of the evilsunder whichthey labour, should in the end think it lawful for them to resist forcewithforce, and to defend their natural rights (which are not forfeitableuponaccount of religion) with arms as well as they can? That this has beenhithertothe ordinary course of things is abundantly evident in history, andthat itwill continue to be so hereafter is but too apparent in reason. Itcannotindeed, be otherwise so long as the principle of persecution forreligion shallprevail, as it has done hitherto, with magistrate and people, and solong asthose that ought to be the preachers of peace and concord shallcontinue withall their art and strength to excite men to arms and sound the trumpetof war.But that magistrates should thus suffer these incendiaries anddisturbers ofthe public peace might justly be wondered at if it did not appear thattheyhave been invited by them unto a participation of the spoil, and havethereforethought fit to make use of their covetousness and pride as meanswhereby toincrease 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,byflattering the ambition and favouring the dominion of princes and meninauthority, they endeavour with all their might to promote that tyrannyin thecommonwealth which otherwise they should not be able to establish intheChurch? This is the unhappy agreement that we see between the Churchand State.Whereas if each of them would contain itself within its own bounds —theone attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other tothesalvation of souls — it is impossible that any discord should ever havehappened between them. Sed pudet hoec opprobria. etc. God Almightygrant, Ibeseech Him, that the gospel of peace may at length be preached, andthat civilmagistrates, growing more careful to conform their own consciences tothe lawof God and less solicitous about the binding of other men's consciencesbyhuman laws, may, like fathers of their country, direct all theircounsels andendeavours to promote universally the civil welfare of all theirchildren,except only of such as are arrogant, ungovernable, and injurious totheirbrethren; and that all ecclesiastical men, who boast themselves to bethesuccessors of the Apostles, walking peaceably and modestly in theApostles'steps, without intermeddling with State Affairs, may apply themselveswholly topromote the salvation of souls.
P it may notbe amiss to add a few thingsconcerning heresy and schism. A Turk is not, nor can be, either hereticorschismatic to a Christian; and if any man fall off from the Christianfaith toMahometism, he does not thereby become a heretic or schismatic, but anapostateand an infidel. This nobody doubts of; and by this it appears that menofdifferent religions cannot be heretics or schismatics to one another.
We are to inquire, therefore, what men are of the samereligion. Concerningwhich it is manifest that those who have one and the same rule of faithandworship are of the same religion; and those who have not the same ruleof faithand worship are of different religions. For since all things thatbelong untothat religion are contained in that rule, it follows necessarily thatthose whoagree in one rule are of one and the same religion, and vice versa.Thus Turksand Christians are of different religions, because these take the HolyScriptures to be the rule of their religion, and those the Alcoran. Andfor thesame reason there may be different religions also even amongstChristians. ThePapists and Lutherans, though both of them profess faith in Christ andaretherefore called Christians, yet are not both of the same religion,becausethese acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be the rule andfoundationof their religion, those take in also traditions and the decrees ofPopes andof these together make the rule of their religion; and thus theChristians ofSt. John (as they are called) and the Christians of Geneva are ofdifferentreligions, because these also take only the Scriptures, and those Iknow notwhat traditions, for the rule of their religion.
This being settled, it follows, first, that heresy is aseparation made inecclesiastical communion between men of the same religion for someopinions noway contained in the rule itself; and, secondly, that amongst those whoacknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be their rule of faith,heresyis a separation made in their Christian communion for opinions notcontained inthe express words of Scripture. Now this separation may be made in atwofoldmanner:
1. When the greater part, or by the magistrate's patronage thestrongerpart, of the Church separates itself from others by excluding them outof hercommunion because they will not profess their belief of certainopinions whichare not the express words of the Scripture. For it is not the paucityof thosethat are separated, nor the authority of the magistrate, that can makeany manguilty of heresy, but he only is a heretic who divides the Church intoparts,introduces names and marks of distinction, and voluntarily makes aseparationbecause of such opinions.
2. When any one separates himself from the communion of aChurch becausethat Church does not publicly profess some certain opinions which theHolyScriptures do not expressly teach.
Both these are heretics because they err in fundamentals, andthey errobstinately against knowledge; for when they have determined the HolyScriptures to be the only foundation of faith, they nevertheless laydowncertain propositions as fundamental which are not in the Scripture, andbecauseothers will not acknowledge these additional opinions of theirs, norbuild uponthem as if they were necessary and fundamental, they therefore make aseparation in the Church, either by withdrawing themselves from others,orexpelling the others from them. Nor does it signify anything for themto saythat their confessions and symbols are agreeable to Scripture and totheanalogy of faith; for if they be conceived in the express words ofScripture,there can be no question about them, because those things areacknowledged byall Christians to be of divine inspiration and therefore fundamental.But ifthey say that the articles which they require to be professed areconsequencesdeduced from the Scripture, it is undoubtedly well done of them whobelieve andprofess such things as seem unto them so agreeable to the rule offaith. But itwould be very ill done to obtrude those things upon others unto whomthey donot seem to be the indubitable doctrines of the Scripture; and to makeaseparation for such things as these, which neither are nor can befundamental,is to become heretics; for I do not think there is any man arrived tothatdegree of madness as that he dare give out his consequences andinterpretationsof Scripture as divine inspirations and compare the articles of faiththat hehas framed according to his own fancy with the authority of Scripture.I knowthere are some propositions so evidently agreeable to Scripture thatnobody candeny them to be drawn from thence, but about those, therefore, therecan be nodifference. This only I say — that however clearly we may think this orthe other doctrine to be deduced from Scripture, we ought not thereforetoimpose it upon others as a necessary article of faith because webelieve it tobe agreeable to the rule of faith, unless we would be content also thatotherdoctrines should be imposed upon us in the same manner, and that weshould becompelled to receive and profess all the different and contradictoryopinionsof Lutherans, Calvinists, Remonstrants, Anabaptists, and other sectswhich thecontrivers of symbols, systems, and confessions are accustomed todeliver totheir followers as genuine and necessary deductions from the HolyScripture. Icannot but wonder at the extravagant arrogance of those men who thinkthat theythemselves can explain things necessary to salvation more clearly thanthe HolyGhost, the eternal and infinite wisdom of God.
Thus much concerning heresy, which word in common use isapplied only to thedoctrinal part of religion. Let us now consider schism, which is acrime nearakin to it; for both these words seem unto me to signify anill-groundedseparation in ecclesiastical communion made about things not necessary.Butsince use, which is the supreme law in matter of language, hasdetermined thatheresy relates to errors in faith, and schism to those in worship ordiscipline, we must consider them under that distinction.
Schism, then, for the same reasons that have already beenalleged, isnothing else but a separation made in the communion of the Church uponaccountof something in divine worship or ecclesiastical discipline that is notanynecessary part of it. Now, nothing in worship or discipline can benecessary toChristian communion but what Christ our legislator, or the Apostles byinspiration of the Holy Spirit, have commanded in express words.
In a word, he that denies not anything that the HolyScriptures teach inexpress words, nor makes a separation upon occasion of anything that isnotmanifestly contained in the sacred text — however he may be nicknamedbyany sect of Christians and declared by some or all of them to beutterly voidof true Christianity — yet in deed and in truth this man cannot beeithera heretic or schismatic.
These things might have been explained more largely and moreadvantageously,but it is enough to have hinted at them thus briefly to a person ofyour parts.
Notes:
1. Luke 22. 25.
2. II Tim. 2. 19.
3. Luke 22. 32.
4. Rom. I.
5. Gal. 5.
6. Matt. 18. 20.
7. Exod. 22, 20, 21.
8. Deut. 2.
9. I Cor. 5. 12, 13.
| Home John Locke Works | |
| Original URL:http://constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm | TextVersion Maintained:Constitution Society Original date: 1998/10/18 — | |
| If you want good preparation forcpt exam Cisco CCNA Wireless updated computer based training then get the things done from Pass 4Sures.Cisco650-196 Exam Questions Wireless audio study guide online tools are surely going to make great preparation possible.Latest Pass 4Sure Cisco648-375 video lectures are perfect for you in all respects.Let642-627 study tools support you well and you will be having good preparation indeed.Working properly requires determination and focus which is possible through getting642-627 dumps. |