By Iohn Locke, Gent.


BOSTON, Printed and Sold by ROGERS and FOWLE in Queen-street, next to the Prison. 1743.



THE ensuing Letter concerning Tole­ration, first Printed in Latin this very Year, * in Holland, has already been Translated both into Dutch & French. So general and speedy an Approbation may therefore bespeak its favourable Reception in England. I think indeed there is no Nation un­der Heaven, in which so much has already been said upon that Subject, as Ours. But yet certain­ly there is no People that stand in more need of hav­ing something further both said and done amongst them, in this Point, than We do.

Our Government has not only bee [...] partial in Matters of Religion; but those also who have suf­fered under that Partiality, and have therefore en­deavoured by their Writings to vindicate their own Rights and Liberties, have for the most part done it upon narrow Principles, suited only to the Inter­ests of their own Sects.

This narrowness of Spirit on all sides has undoubt­edly been the principal Occasion of our Miseries and Conf [...]sions. But whatever have been the Occasion, it is now high time to seek for a thorow Cure. We have need of more generous Remedies than what have yet been made use of in our Distemper. It is [Page] neither Declarations of Indulgence, nor Acts of Comprehension, such as have yet been practised or projected amongst us, that can do the Work. The first will but palliate, the second encrease our Evil.

Absolute Liberty, Iust and True Liberty, Equal and Impartial Liberty, is the thing that we stand in need of. Now tho' this has indeed been much talked of, I doubt it has not been much understood; I am sure not at all practised, either by our Gover­nours towards the People, in general, or by any dis­senting Parties of the People towards one another.

I cannot therefore but hope that this Discourse, which treats of that Subject, however briefly, yet more exactly than any we have yet seen, demonstrat­ing both the Equitableness and Practicableness of the thing, will be esteemed highly seasonable, by all Men that have Souls large enough to prefer the true Interest of the Publick before that of a Party.

It is for the use of such as are already so spi­rited, or to inspire that Spirit into those that are not, that I have Translated it into our Language.

But the thing it self is so short, that it will not bear a longer Preface. I leave it therefore to the Consideration of my Countrymen, and heartily wish they may make the use of it that it appears to be designed for.



Honoured Sir,

SINCE you are pleased to inquire what are my Thoughts about the mutual Toleration of Christians in their dif­ferent Professions of Religion, I must needs answer you freely, That I esteem that To­leration to be the chief Characteristical Mark of the True Church. For whatsoever some People boast of the Antiquity of Places and Names, or of the Pomp of their Ou [...]ard Worship; Other [...] of the Reformation of [...] Discipline; [...] the Orthodoxy of then [...]; (for every one is Orthodox to himself:) these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather Marks of Men striving for Power and Empire over one another, than of the Church of Christ. Let any one have never so true a Claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of Charity, Meekness, and Good­will in general towards all Mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. Luke 22.25. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, said our Saviour to his Disciples, but ye shall [Page 8] not be so. The Business of True Religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external Pomp, nor to the obtaining of Ecclesiastical Dominion, nor to the exercising of Compulsive Force; but to the regulating of Mens Lives according to the Rules of Vertue and Piety. Whosoever will list hims [...]lf under the Banner of Christ, must in the first place, and above all things, make War upon his own Lusts and Vices. It is in vain for any Man to usurp the Name of Christian, without Holiness of Life, Pu­rity of Manners, and Benignity and Meekness of Spirit.

Thou when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren, (Luke 22.32.) said our Lord to Peter. It would indeed be very hard for one that appears careless about his own Salvation, to perswade me that he were extreamly concern'd for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other People Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian Religion in their own Hearts. If the Gospel and the Apostl [...]s may be credited, no Man can be a Christian without Charity, and with­out that Faith which works, not by Force, but by Love. Now I appeal to the Consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other Men upon pretence of Religion, whether they do it out of Friendship and Kindness towards them, or no: And I shall then indeed, and not till then, beli [...]ve they do [...]o, when I shall see those fiery Z [...]alots correcting, in the same manner, their Friends and familiar Acquaintance, for the manifest Sins [...]ey commit against the Precepts of the Gospel; when I shall see them pros [...]cute [Page 9] with Fire and Sword the Members of their own Communion that are tainted with enormous Vices, and without Amendment are in danger of eternal Perdition; and when I shall see them thus express their Love and Desire of the Salvation of their Souls, by the infliction of Torments, and exercise of all manner of Cruelties. For if it be out of a Principle of Charity, as they pretend, and Love to Men's Souls, that they deprive them of their Estates, maim them with corporal Punish­ments, starve and torment them in [...] Pris­ons, and in the end even take away their Lives; I say, if all this be done meerly to make Men Christians, and procure their Salvation, Why then do they suffer Whoredom, Fraud, Malice, and such like Enormities; (Rom. 1.) which (according to the Apo [...]tle) manifestly relish of Heathenish Corrup­tion, to predominate so much and abound amongst their Flocks and People? These, and such like things, are certainly more contrary to the Glory of God, to the Purity of the Church, and to the Salvation of Souls, than any conscientious Dissent from Ecclesiastical Decisions, or Separation from Publick Worship, whilst accompanied with Inno­cency of Life. Why then does this burning Zeal for Go [...], for the Church, and for the Salvation of Souls; burning, I say, literally, with Fire and Faggot; pass by those moral Vices and Wicked­nesses, without any Chastisement, which are acknowledged by all Men to be diametrically opposite to the Profession of Christianity; and bend all its Nerves either to the introducing of Ceremonies, or to the establishment of Opinions, which for the most part are about nice and intri­cate Matters, that exceed the Capacity of ordi­nary [Page 10] Understandings? Which of the Parties contending about these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of Schism or Heresie; whether those that domineer or those that suffer; will then at last be manifest, when the Cause of their Separation comes to be judged of. He certainly that follows Christ, embraces his Doc­trine, and bears his Yoke, tho' he forsake both Father and Mother, separate from the Publick Assembly and Ceremonies of his Country, or whomsoever, or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged an Heretick.

Now, tho' the Divisions that are amongst Sects should be allowed to be never so obstructive of the Salvation of Souls; yet nevertheless Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lasciviousness, Idolatry, and such like things, cannot be denied to be Works of the Flesh; concerning which the Apostle has ex­presly declared, that they who do them shall not in­herit the Kingdom of God. Whosoever therefore is sincerely sollicitous about the Kingdom of God, and thinks it his Duty to endeavour the Enlarge­ment of it amongst Men, ought to apply himself with no less care and industry to the rooting out of these Immoralities, than to the Extirpation of Sects. But if any one do otherwise, and whilst he is cruel and implacable towards those that differ from him in Opinion, he be indulgent to such Iniquities and Immoralities as are unbecoming the Name of a Christian, let such a one talk never so much of the Church, he plainly demonstrates by his Actions, that 'tis another Kingdom he aims at, and not the Advancement of the Kingdom of God.

That any Man should think fit to cause a­nother Man, whose Salvation he heartily desires, [Page 11] to expire in Torments, and that even in an un­converted estate; would, I confess, seem very strange to me; and, I think, to any other also. But no body, surely, will ever believe that such a Carriage can proceed from Charity, Love, or Good-will. If any one maintain that Men ought to be compelled by Fire and Sword to profess cer­tain Doctrines, and conform to this or that exteriour Worship, without any regard had unto their Morals; if any one endeavour to convert those that are Erroneous unto the Faith, by forc­ing them to profess things that they do not be­lieve, and allowing them to practise things that the Gospel does not permit; it cannot be doubted in­deed but such a one is desirous to have a numerous Assembly joyned in the same Profession with him­self: But that he principally intends by those means to compose a truly Christian Church, is altogether incredible. It is not therefore to be wondred at, if those who do not really contend for the Advancement of the true Religion, and of the Church of Christ, make use of Arms that do not belong to the Christian Warfare. If, like the Captain of our Salvation, they sincerely de­sired the Good of Souls, they would tread in the Steps, and follow the perfect Example of that Prince of Peace; who sent out his Soldiers to the subduing of Nations, and gathering them in­to his Church, not armed with the Sword, or o­ther Instruments of Force, but prepared with the Gospel of Peace, and with the Exemplary Holi­ness of their Conversation. This was his Method. Tho' if Infidels were to be converted by force, if those that are either blind or obstinate were to be drawn off from their Errors by Armed Soldiers, [Page 12] we know very well that it was much more easie for Him to do it, with Armies of Heavenly Le­gions, than for any Son of the Church, how po­tent soever, with all his Dragoons.

The Toleration of those that differ from others in Matters of Religion, is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine Rea­son of Mankind, that it seems monstrous for Men to be so blind, as not to perceive the Ne­cessity and Advantage of it, in so clear a Light. I will not here tax the Pride and Ambition of some, the Passion and uncharitable Zeal of others. These are Faults from which Humane Affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as no body will bear the plain Imputa­tion of, without covering them with some speci­ous Colour; and so pretend to Commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular Passions. But however, that some may not co­lour their spirit of Persecution and unchristian Cruelty, with a Pretence of Care of the Publick Weal, and Observation of the Laws; and that others, under pretence of Religion, may not seek Impunity for their Libertinism and Licentious­ness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the Pr [...]tences of Loy­alty and Obedience to the Prince, or of Ten­derness and Sincerity in the Worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distin­guish exactly the Business of Civil Government from that of Religion, and to settle the just Bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the Controversies that will be always a [...]ising, between those that have, or at least pret [...]nd to [Page 13] have, on the one side, a Concernment for the Interest of Mens Souls, and on the other side, a Care of the Common-wealth.

The Common-wealth seems to me to be a Soci­ety of Men constituted only for the procuring, pres [...]rving, and advancing of their own Civil In­ter [...]sts.

Civil Interests I call Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of Body; and the Possession of out­ward things, such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture, and the like.

It is the Duty of the Civil Magistrate, by the impartial Execution of equal Laws, to secure un­to all the People in general, and to every one of his Subjects in particular, the just Possession of these things belonging to this Life. If any one presume to violate the Laws of Publick Justice and Equity, established for the Preservation of these things, his Presumption is to be check'd by the fear of Punishment, consisting in the Depri­vation or Diminution of those Civil Interests, or Goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no Man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the Deprivation of any part of his Goods, and much less of his Liberty or Life, therefore is the Magistrate armed with the Force and Strength of all his Subjects, in or­der to the punishment of those that violate any other Man's Rights.

Now that the whole Jurisdiction of the Ma­gistrate reaches only to these civil Concernments▪ and that all Civil Power, Right, and Dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of pro­moting these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the [Page 41] Salvation of Souls; these following Considera­tions seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate.

First, Because the Care of Souls is not com­mitted to the Civil Magistrate any more than to other Men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such Authority to one Man over another, as to compell any one to his Religion. Nor can any such Power be vested in the Magi­strate by the Consent of the People; because no man can so far abandon the care of his own Sal­vation, as blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether Prince or Subject, to prescribe to him what Faith or Worship he shall embrace. For no Man can, if he would, conform his Faith to the Dictates, of another. All the Life and Power of true Religion consists in the inward and full perswasion of the mind: And Faith is not Faith without believing. Whatever Profes­sion we make, to whatever outward Worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied in our mind that the one is true, and the other well pleasing unto God; such Profession and such Practic [...], far from being any furtherance, are indeed great Ob­stacles to our S [...]lvation. For in this manner, i [...]ead of expiating other Sins by the exercise of Religion; I say, in offering thus unto God Al­mighty such a Worship as we esteem to be dis­ [...]l [...]a [...]i [...]g unto him, we add unto the number of [...]ur other sins those also of Hypocrisie, and Con­t [...]mpt of his Di [...]ine Maj [...]sty.

In the second place. The care of Souls cannot belong to the Civil Magistrate, be [...]ause his Power [...] only in outward force: But tr [...]e and [...] R [...]ligi [...]n consis [...] in the inward persw [...]sion [Page 15] of the Mind; without which nothing can be ac­ceptable to God. And such is the nature of the Understanding, that it cannot be compell'd to the belief of any thing by outward Force. Con­fiscation of Estate, Imprisonment, Torments, no­thing of that Nature can have any such Efficacy as to make Men change the inward Judgment that they have framed of things.

It may indeed be alledged, that the Magistrate may make use of Arguments, and thereby draw the Heterodox into the way of Truth, and pro­cure their Salvation. I grant it. But this is com­mon to him with oth [...]r Men In teaching, in­structing, and redressing the Erroneous by Rea­son, he may certainly do what becomes any good Man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either Humanity or Christianity. But it is one thing to perswade, another to comma [...]d: One thing to press with Argument, another with Penalties. This the Civil Power alone has a Right to do: to the other Good-will is Au­thority enough. Ev [...]ry Man has Commission to a [...]monish, exhort, convince another of Error; an [...] by reasoning to draw him into Truth. But to give Laws, receive Obedience, and compel with the Sword, belongs to none but the Magi­strate. And u [...]on this ground I affirm, that the Magistrate's Pow [...]r [...]xt [...]nds not to the [...]stablishing of any Articles of Faith, or Forms of Worship, by th [...] force of his Laws. For Laws are of no force at all without Penalties, and Penalties in this case [...] absolutely imp [...]rtinent; because they are not prop [...]r to convince the mind. N [...]ither the Pro [...]ssion of any Articles of Faith, nor th [...] Conformity to any outward Form of Worship [Page 16] (as has already been said) can be available to the Salvation of Souls; unless the Truth of the one, and the acceptableness of the other unto God, be thoroughly believed by those that so profess and p [...]actise. But P [...]nalties are no ways capable to produce such Belief. It is only Light and E­vidence that can work a change in Mens O­pinions. And that Light can in no manner pro­ceed from corporal Sufferings, or any other out­ward Penalties.

In the third place. The care of the Salvation of Mens Souls cannot belong to the Magistrate; because, though the rigour of Laws and the force of Penalties were capable to convince and change Mens minds, yet would not that help at all to the Salvation of their Souls. For there being but one Truth, one way to heaven; what hopes is there that more Men would be led into it, if they h [...] no [...]er Rule to follow but the Religion of the Court; and were put under a necessity to quit the Light of their own Reason; to op­pose the Dictates of their own Consciences; and blindly to resign up themselves to the Will of their Gov [...]rnors, and to the Religion, which ei­th [...] Ignoran [...], Ambition, or Superstition had c [...]anc [...] to est [...]blish in the Countries where they were born? In th [...] variety and contradiction of Opi [...]ions in Religion, wher [...]in the Princes of the World are a [...] m [...]ch divided as in their Secular Inter [...]sts, the narrow way would be much strait­n [...]d. One Country alone would b [...] in the right, and all the rest of the World would be put un­d [...]r an Obligation of following their Princes in the ways that lead to Destruction. And that which heightens the absurdity, and very ill suits [Page 17] the Notion of a Deity, Men would owe their e­ternal Happiness or Misery to the places of their Nativity.

These Considerations, to omit many others that might have been urged to the same purpose, seem unto me sufficient to conclude that all the Power of Civil Government relates only to Mens Civil Interests; is confined to the care of the things of this World; and hath nothing to do with the World to come.

Let us now consider what a Church is. A Church then I take to be a voluntary Society of Men, join­ing themselves together of their own accord, in order to the publick worshipping of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the Salvation of their Souls.

I say it is a free and voluntary Society. No body is born a Member of any Church. Other­wise the Religion of Parents would descend unto Children, by the same right of Inheritance as their Temporal Estates, and every one would hold his Faith by the same Tenure he does his Lands; than which nothing can be imagined more ab­surd. Thus therefore that matter stands. No M [...]n by nature is bound unto any particular Church or Sect, but every one joins himself volun­tarily to that Society in which he believes he has found that Profession and Worship which is tru­ly acceptable unto God. The hopes of Salva­tion, as it was the only cause of his entrance in­to that Communion, so it can be the only rea­son of his stay there. For if afterwards he dis­cover any thing either erroneous in the Doctrine or incongruous in the Worship of that Society to which he has join'd himself; Why should it [Page 18] not be as free for him to go out, as it was to en­ter? No Member of a Religious Society can be tied with any other Bonds but what proceed from the certain expectation of eternal Life. A Church then is a Society of Members voluntarily uniting to this end.

It follows now that we consider what is the Pow­er of this Church, and unto what Laws it is subject.

Forasmuch as no Society, how free soever, or upon whatsoever slight occasion instituted, (whe­ther of Philosophers for Learning, of Merchants for Commerce, or of men of leisure for mutual Conversation and Discourse,) No Church or Com­pany, I say, can in the least subsist and hold to­gether but will presently dissolve and break to pieces, unless it be regulated by some Laws, and the Members all consent to observe some Order. Place, and time of meeting must be agreed on. Rules for admitting and excluding Members must be establisht. Distinction of Officers, and put­ting things into a regular Course, and such like, cannot be omitted. But since the joyning to­gether of several Members into this Church-So­ciety, as has already been demonstrated, is abso­lutely free and spontaneous, it necessarily follows, t [...]at the Right of making its Laws can belong to none but the Society it self; or at least (which is the same thing) to those whom the Society by common consent has authorised thereunto.

Some perhaps may object, that no such Socie­ty can be said to be a true Church, unless it have in it a Bishop, or Presbyter, with Ruling Au­thority derived from the very Apostles, and conti­nued down unto the pres [...]nt times by an unin­terrupted Succession.

[Page 19]To these I answer. In the first place, Let them shew me the Edict by which Christ has im­posed that Law upon his Church. And let not any man think me impertinent, if in a thing of this consequence, I require that the Terms of that Edict be very express and positive. For the Pro­mise he has made us, Mat. 18.20. that whereso­ever two or three are gathered together in his Name, he will be in the midst of them, seems to imply the contrary. Whether such an Assembly want any thing necessary to a true Church, pray do you consider. Certain I am, that nothing can be there wanting unto the Salvation of Souls; Which is sufficient to our purpose.

Next, Pray observe how great have always been the Divisions amongst even those who lay so much stress upon the Divine Institution, and con­tinued Succession of a certain Order of Rulers in the Church. Now their very Dissention unavoid­ably puts us upon a necessity of delib [...]rating, and consequently allows a Liberty of choosing that which upon consideration we prefer.

And in [...]he last place, I consent that these men have a Rul [...]r of their Church, established by su [...]h a long S [...]ri [...]s of Succession as they judge ne­cessary; p [...]ovid [...] I may have liberty at the same time to join my s [...]lf to [...]hat Society, in which I am perswaded those things are to be found which are necessary to [...] [...]va [...]ion of my Soul. In this manner Ec [...]l [...]si [...]tic [...]l Liberty will be preserved on all sides, [...]d no man will have a Legi [...]lator im­pose [...] upon him, [...]ut whom himself has chosen.

But [...]in [...] m [...]n [...] so sollicitous about the [...]rue [...], I would only ask them, here by [...]he way, i [...] it [...] not more agre [...]ble to the Chu [...]h of [Page 20] Christ, to make the [...]onditions of her Communion cons [...]st in su [...]h thi [...]gs, and such things only, as the H [...]ly Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared, in [...]x [...]r [...]s [...] Words, to be necessary to Salvation; I ask, I say, whether this be not more agreeable to the [...]hurch of Christ, than for men to impose their own Inventions and Interpr [...]ations upon others, as if they were of Divine Authority; and to establish by Ecclesiastical Laws, as absolutely nec [...]ssary to the Profession of Christianity, such things as the Holy Scriptures do either not men­tion, or at least not expresly command. Whosoever requires those things in order to Eccl [...]si [...]stical Communion, which Christ does not req [...]re in ord [...]r to life Eternal; he may perhaps indeed constitute a Society accommodated to his own Opinion, and his own Advantage; but how that can be called the Church of Christ, which is establish [...]d upon Laws that are not his, and which excludes such Persons from its Communion as he will one day receive into the Kingdom of Heaven, I understand not. But this being not a proper place to enquire into the marks of the true Church, I will only mind those that contend so earnestly f [...]r the Decrees of their own Society, and that cry out continually the Church, the Church, with as mu [...]h noise, and perhaps upon the same Principle, as the Ephesian Silversmiths did for their Diana; this, I say, I desire to mind them of, That the Gospel frequently declares that the true Disciples of Christ must suffer Persecution; but that the Chuch of Christ should persecute others, and f [...]rce others by Fire and Sword, to embrace her Faith and Doctrine, I could never yet find in any of the Books of the New Testament.

[Page 21]The end of a Religious Society (as has already been said) is the Publick Worship of God, and by means thereof the acquisition of Eternal Life. All Discipline ought therefore to tend to that End, and all Ecclesiastical Laws to be thereunto confined. Nothing ought, nor can be transacted in this Society, relating to the Possession of Ci­vil and Worldly Goods. No Force is here to be made use of, upon any occasion whatsoever. For Force belongs wholly to the Civil Magi­strate, and the Possession of all outward Goods is subject to his Jurisdiction.

But it may be asked, By what means then shall Ecclesiastical Laws be established, if they must be thus destitute of all compulsive Power? I answer, They must be established, by means suitable to the Nature of such Things, whereof the external Profession and Observation, if not proceeding from a thorow Conviction and Ap­probation of the Mind, is altogether useless and unprofitable. The Arms by which the Mem­bers of this Society are to be kept within their Duty, are Exhortations, Admonitions, and Ad­vices. If by these means the Offenders will not be reclaimed, and the Erroneous convinced, there remains nothing farther to be done, but that such stubborn and obstinate Persons, who give no ground to hope for their Reformation, should be cast out and separated from the Society. This is the last and utmost Force of Ecclesiastical Au­thority. No other Punishment can thereby be inflicted, than that the relation ceasing between the Body and the Member which is cut off, the Person so condemned ceases to be a part of that Church.

[Page 22]These things being thus determined, let us in­quire in the next place, how far the Duty of To­leration extends; and what is required from e­very one by it.

And first, I hold, That no Church is bound by the Duty of Toleration to retain any such Per­son in her Bosom, as after Admonition, continues obstinately to offend against the Laws of the So­ciety. For these being the Condition of Com­munion, and the Bond of the Society; If the Breach of them were permitted without any An­imadversion, the Society would immediately be thereby dissolved. But nevertheless, in all such Cases, care is to be taken that the Sentence of Excommunication, and the Execution thereof, carry with it no rough usage of Word or Action, whereby the ejected Person may any wise be dam­nified in Body or Estate. For all Force (as has often been said) belongs only to the Magistrate; nor ought any private Persons, at any time, to use Force, unless it be in Self-defence against un­just Violence. Excommunication neither does, nor can deprive the excommunicated Person of any of those Civil Goods that he formerly pos­sessed. All those things belong to the Civil Go­vernment, and are under the Magistrate's Pro­tection. The whole Force of Excommunicati­on consists only in this, that the Resolution of the Society in that respect being declared, the Union that was between the Body and some Mem­ber comes thereby to be dissolved; and that Relation ceasing, the participation of some cer­tain things, which the Society communicated to its Members, and unto which no Man has any Civil Right, comes also to cease. For there is [Page 23] no Civil Injury done unto the excommunicated Person, by the Church-Minister's refusing him that Bread and Wine, in the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, which was not bought with his, but other mens Money.

Secondly, No private Person has any Right, in any manner, to prejudice another Person in his Civil Enjoyments, because he is of another Church or Religion. All the Rights and Franchises that belong to him as a Man, or as a Denison, are inviolably to be Preserved to him These are not the Business of Religion. No Violence nor Injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian or Pagan. Nay, we must not content our selves with the narrow Measures of bare Justice. Cha­rity, Bounty and Liberality must be added to it. This the Gospel enjoyns; this Reason di­rects; and this that natural Fellowship we are born into requires of us. If any man err from the right way, it is his own Misfortune, no Injury to thee: Nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of this Life, because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come.

What I say concerning the mutual Toleration of private Persons differing from one another in Religion, I understand also of particular Churches; which stand as it were in the same relation to each other as private Persons among themselves; nor has any one of them any manner of Jurisdiction over any other, no not ev [...]n when the Civil Ma­gistrate (as it sometimes happens) comes to be of this or the other Communion. For the Civil Government can give no new Right to the Chu [...]h, nor the Church to the Civil Govern­ment. So that wh [...]ther the Magistrate joyn him­self [Page 24] to any Church, or separate from it, the Church remains always as it was before, a free and voluntary Society. It neither acquires the Power of the Sword by the Magistrate's coming to it, nor does it lose the Right of Instruction and Excommunication by his going from it. This is the fundamental and immutable Right of a spon­taneous Society; that it has power to remove any of its Members who transgress the Rules of its Institution. But it cannot, by the accession of any new Members, acquire any Right of Jurisdic­tion over those that are not joyned with it. And therefore Peace, Equity and Friendship, are al­ways mutually to be observed by particular Churches, in the same manner as by private Persons, without any pretence of Superiority or Jurisdiction over one another.

That the thing may be made yet clearer by an Example; Let us suppose two Churches, the one of Arminians, the other of Calvinists, residing in the City of Constantinople; Will any one say, that either of these Churches has Right to de­prive the Members of the other of their Estates and Liberty, (as we see practised elsewhere) be­cause of their differing from it in some Doctrines or Ceremonies; whilst the Turks in the mean while silently stand by, and laugh to see with what inhumane Cruelty Chris [...]ians thus rage against Christians? But if one of th [...]se Churches hath this Power of treating the other ill, I ask which of them it is to whom that Power belongs, and by what Right? It will be answered un­doubtedly, That it is the Orthodox Church which has the Right of Authority over the Erro­neous or Her [...]tical. This is in great and [Page 25] specious words, to say just nothing at all. For every Church is orthodox to it self; to others, Erroneous or Heretical. Whatsoever any Church believes, it believes to be true; and the contrary thereunto it pronounces to be Error. So that the Controversie between these Churches about the Truth of their Doctrines, and the Purity of their Worship, is on both sides equal; nor is there any Judge, either at Constantinople, or elsewhere upon Earth, by whose Sentence it can be deter­mined. The Decision of that Question belongs only to the Supream Judge of all men, to whom also alone belongs the Punishment of the Errone­ous. In the mean while, let those men consider how hainously they sin; Who, adding Injustice, if not to their Error yet certainly to their Pride, do rashly and arrogantly take upon them to misuse the Servants of another Master, who are not at all accountable to them.

Nay further, If it could be manifest which of these two dissenting Churches were in the right way, there would not accrue thereby to the Or­thodox any Right of destroying the other. For Churches have neither any Jurisdiction in worldly Matters, nor are Fire and Sword any proper Instruments wherewith to convince mens Minds of Error, and inform them of the Truth. Let us suppose, nevertheless, that the Civil Ma­gistrate inclined to savour one of them, and to put his Sword into their Hands; that (by his con­sent) they might chastise the Dissenters as they pleased. Will any man say, that any Right can be derived unto a Christian Church over its Bre­thren, from a Turkish Emperor? An Infidel, who has himself no Authority to punish Christians [Page 26] for the Articles of their Faith, cannot confer such an Authority upon any Society of Christians, nor give unto them a Right, which he has not him­self. This would be the Case at Constantinople. And the Reason of the t [...]ing is the same in any Christian Kingdom. The Civil Power is the same in every place; nor can that Power, in the Hands of a Christian Prince, confer any greater Authority upon the Church, than in the Hands of a Heathen; which is to say, just none at all.

Nevertheless, it is worthy to be observed, and lamented, that the most violent of these Defen­ders of the Truth, the Opposers of Errors, the Exclaimers against Schism, do hardly ever let loose this their Zeal for God, with which they are so warmed and inflamed, unless where they have the Civil Magistrate on their side. But so soon as ever Court-favour has given them the better end of the Staff, and they begin to feel themselves the stronger, then presently Peace and charity are to be laid aside; otherwise, they are religi­ously to be observed. Where they have not the Power to carry on Persecution, and to b [...]come Masters, there th [...]y desire to live upon fair Terms, and preach up Toleration. When they are not strengthned with the Civil Power, then they can bear most patiently and unmovedly the Conta­gion of Idolatry, Superstition and Heresie in their Neighbourhood; of which, in other Occasions, the I [...]t [...]rest of Religion makes them to be ex­tream [...]y apprehensive. They do not forwardly attack those Errors which are in fashion at Court, or are cou [...]tenanced by the Governm [...]nt. Here th [...]y ca [...] [...]e content to spare their Arguments; [...]ch yet (with their l [...]av [...]) is the only right [Page 27] Method of propagating Truth; which has no such way of prevailing, as when strong Argu­ments and good Reason are joyned with the soft­ness of Civility and good Usage.

No body therefore, in fine, neither single Per­sons, nor Churches, nay, nor even Commonwealths, have any just Title to invade the Civil Rights and Worldly Goods of each other upon pretence of Religion. Those that are of another Opinion, would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a Seed of Discord and War, how pow­erful a Provocation to endless Hatreds, Rapines, and Slaughters, they thereby furnish unto M [...] ­kind. No P [...]ace and Security, no not so much as common Fri [...]ndship, can [...]ver be establ [...]sh [...]d or preserved amongst M [...]n, so long as this Opi­nion prevail [...], Th [...]t Dominion is sounded in [...]race, and that Religion is to be propagated by force of Arms.

In the third Place: Let us see what the Duty of Tol [...]ra [...]ion r [...]quires fr [...]m those who are distinguish­ed from the rest of M [...]nkind, (from the [...]aity, as they please to call us) by some Eccl [...]s [...]stical Charact [...]r and Office; wh [...]ther they be Bishops, Priests, Presbyt [...], Ministers, or how [...]ver else dignified or distinguished. It is not my Business to enquire here into the Original of the Power or Dignity of the Clergy. This only I say, That whence-soever their Authority be sprung, since it is Ecclesiastical, it ought to be confined within the Bounds of the Church, nor can it in any man­ner be extended to Civil Affairs; because the Church it self is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the Commonwealth. The Boundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable. He jum­bles [Page 28] Heaven and Earth together, the things most remote and opposite, who mixes these Societies; which are in their Original, End, Business, and in every thing, perfectly distinct, and infinitely different from each other. No man therefore, with whatsoever Ecclesiastical Office he be dig­nified, can deprive another man, that is not of his Church and Faith, either of Liberty, or of any part of his Worldly Goods, upon the account of that difference which is between them in Religi­on. For whatever is not lawful to the whole Church, cannot, by any Ecclesiastical Right, be­come lawful to any of its Members.

But this is not all. It is not enough that Ecclesiastical Men abstain from Violence and Ra­pine, and all manner of Persecution. He that pretends to be a Successor of the Apostles, and takes upon him the Office of Teaching, is obliged also to admonish his Hearers of the Duties of Peace and Good will towards all men; as well towards the Erroneous, as the Orthodox; towards those that differ from them in Faith and Worship, as well as towards those that agree with them there­in. And he ought industriously to exhort all men, whether private Persons or Magistrates, (if any such there be in his Church) to Charity, Meekness and Toleration; and diligently en­deavour to allay and temper all that Heat and unreasonable Averseness of Mind, which either any man's fiery Zeal for his own Sect, or the Craft of others, has kindled against Dissenters. I will not undertake to represent how happy and how great would be the Fruit, both in Church and State, if the Pulpits every where sounded with this Doctrine of Peace and Toleration; lest I should seem to re­flect [Page 29] too severely upon those Men whose Digni­ty I desire not to detract from, nor would have it diminished either by others or themselves. But this I say, That thus it ought to be. And if any one that professes himself to be a Minister of the Word of God, a Preacher of the Gospel of Peace, teach otherwise; he either understands not, or neglects the Business of his Calling, and shall one day give account thereof unto the Prince of Peace. If Christians are to be admonished that they abstain from all manner of Revenge, e­ven after repeated Provocations and multiplied Injuries; how much more ought they who suf­fer nothing, who have had no harm done them forbear Violence, and abstain from all manner of ill usage towards those from whom they have re­ceived none. This Caution and Temper they ought certainly to use towards those who mind only their own Business, and are sollicitous for no­thing but that (whatever men think of them) they may worship God in that manner which they are persuaded is acceptable to him, and in which they have the strongest hopes of Eternal Salvation. In private domestick Affairs, in the management of Estates, in the conservation of Bodily Health, every man may consider what suits his own conveniency, and follow what course he likes best. No man complains of the ill management of his Neighbour's Affairs. No man is angry with another for an Error com­mitted in sowing his Land, or in marrying hi [...] Daughter. No body corrects a Spend-thrift for consuming his Substance in Taverns. Let any man pull down, or build, or make whatsoever Expen­ces he pleases; no body murmurs, no body con­trouls [Page 30] him; he has his Lib [...]rty. Bu [...] if any man do not frequent the Church; if he do not there conform his Behaviour exactly to the ac­customed Ceremonies, or if he bri [...]gs not his Children to be initiated in the Sacred Mysteries of this or the other Congregation; this imme­diately causes an Uproar; and the Neighbour­hood is filled with noise and clamour. Every one is ready to be the Avenger of so great a Crime. And the Zealots hardly have patience to refrain from Violence and Rapine so long till the Cause be heard, and the poor man be, according to Form, condemned to the loss of Liberty, Goods, or Life. Oh that our Ecclesiastical Ora­tors, of every Sect, would apply th [...]ms [...]lves with all the strength of Arguments that they are able, to the confounding of mens Errors! But let them spare their Persons. Let them not supply their wants of Reasons with the Instruments of Force, which belong to another Jurisdiction, and po ill become a Church man's Hands. Let them not call in the Magistrate's Authority to the aid of their Eloquence or Learning; lest, perhaps, whilst they pretend only Love for the Truth, this their intemperate Zeal, breathing nothing but Fire and Sword, betray their Ambition; and s [...]ew that what they desire is Temporal Domi­nion. For it will be v [...]ry diff [...]cult to pe [...]suade men of Sense, that he, who with dry Ey [...]s, and sati [...]faction of [...], can deliver his Brother unto the Executioner, to be burnt alive, do [...]s sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that Brother from the Flames of Hell in the world to come.

In the last pl [...]e, [...]et us now cons [...]r what is the Magistrate's Du [...]y in th [...] Busin [...]ss of T [...]lerati­on; which ce [...]tainly is very consid [...]rable.

[Page 31]We have already proved, That the Care of Souls do [...]s not belong to the Magistrate. Not a Magisterical Care, I mean, (if I may so call it) which consists in pre [...]ribing by Laws, and com­pelling by Punishments. But a charitable Care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and per­suading, cannot be denied unto any man. The Care therefore of every man's Soul belongs unto himself, and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the Care of his Soul? I answer, What if he neglect the Care of his Health, or of his Estate; which things are nearlier related to the Government of the Magistrate than the other? Will the Magistrate provide by an express Law, That such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible: That the Goods and Health of Subjects be not injured by the Fraud or Violence of others; they do not guard them from the Negligence or ill husbandry of the Poss [...]ssors themselves. No Man can be forced to be Rich or Healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God himself will not save men a­gainst their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some Prince were desirous to force his Subj [...]cts to accumulate Riches, or to preserve the Health and Strength of their Bodies. Shall it be pro­vided by Law, that they must consult none but Roman Physicians; and shall every one be bound to live according to their Prescriptions? What, shall no Potion, no Broth be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva Shop? Or, to make these Subjects rich, shall they all be obliged by Law to be­come Merchants, or Musicians? Or, shall every one turn Victualler, or Smith; because th [...] are [Page 32] some that maintain their Families plentifully, and grow rich in those Professions? But it may be said; There are a thousand ways to Wealth, but only one way to Heaven. 'Tis well said indeed, especially by those that plead for compelling men into this or the other Way. For if there were several ways that lead thither, there would not be so much as a pretence left for Compulsion. But now if I be marching on with my utmost vigor, in that way which, according to the Sacred Geo­graphy, leads streight to Ierusalem; Why am I beaten and ill used by othere, because, perhaps, I wear not Buskins; because my Hair is not of the right Cut; because perhaps I have not been dipt in the right Fashion; because I eat Flesh upon the Road, or some other Food wh [...]ch agrees with my stomach; because I avoid certain By-ways, which seem unto me to lead into Briars or Preci­pices; because amongst the several Paths that are in the same Road, I chuse that to walk in which seems to be the streightest and cleanest; because I avoid to keep company with some Travellers that are less grave, and others that are more sowr than they ought to be; or in sine, because I fol­low a Guide that either is, or is not cloathed in White, and crowned with a Mitre? Certainly, if we consider right, we shall find that for the most part they are such frivolous things as these, that (without any prejudice to Religion, or the Salvationof Souls, if not accompanied with Su­perstition or Hyprocrisie) might either be observ­ed or omitted; I say they are such like things as these, which breed implacable Enmities amongst Christian Brethren, who are all agreed in the sub­stantial and truly fundamental part of Religion.

[Page 33]But let us grant unto these Zealots, who con­demn all things that are not of their Mode, that from these Circumstances arise different Ends. What shall we conclude from thence? There is only one of these which is the true way to E­ternal Happiness. But in this great variety of ways that men follow, it is still doubted which is this right one. Now neither the care of the Com­mon-wealth, nor the Right of enacting Laws, does discover this way that leads to Heaven more certainly to the Magistrate, than every private man's Search and Study discovers it unto him­self. I have a weak Body, sunk under a lan­guishing Disease, for which (I suppose) there is one only Remedy, but that unknown: Does it therefore belong unto the Magistrate to prescribe me a Remedy; because there is but one, and because it is unknown? Because there is but one way for me to escape Death, will it therefore be safe for me to do whatsoever the Magistrate or­dains? Those things that every man ought sincerely to enquire into himself, and by Medita­tion, Study, Search, and his own Endeavours, at­tain the knowledge of, cannot be looked upon as the peculiar Possession of any one sort of Men. Princes indeed are born su perior unto other Men in Power, but in Nature equal. Neither the Right, nor the Art of Ruling, does necessarily car­ry along with it the certain Knowledge of other things; and least of all of the true Religion. For if it were so, how could it come to pass that the Lords of the Earth should differ so vastly as they do in Religious Matters? But let us grant that it is probable the way to Eternal Life may be better known by a Prince than by his Subjects; [Page 34] or at least, that in this incertitude of things, the safest and most commodious way for private Persons is to follow his Dictates. You will say, what then? If he should bid you follow Mer­chandise for your Livelihood, would you decline that Course for fear it should not succeed? I answer: I would turn Merchant upon the Princes Command, because in case I should have ill suc­cess in Trade, he is abundantly able to make up my Loss some other way. If it be true, as he pretends, that he desires I should thrive and grow rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful Voyages have broke me. But this is not the Case in the things that regard the Life to come. If there I take a wrong Course, if in that respect I am once undone; it is not in the Magistrates Power to repair my Loss, to ease my Suffering; or to restore me in any measure, much less entire­ly, to a good Estate. What Security can be giv­en for the Kingdom of Heaven?

Perhaps some will say that they do not suppose this infallible Iudgment, that all Men are bound to follow in the Affairs of Religion to be in the the Civil Magistrate, but in the Church. What the Church has determined, that the Civil Magi­strate orders to be observed; and he provides by his Authority that no body shall either act or be­lieve, in the business of Religion, otherwise than the Church teaches. So that the Judgment of those things is in the Church. The Magistrate himself yields Obedience thereunto, and requires the like Obedience from others. I answer; Who se [...]s not how frequently the Name of the Church which was so venerable in the time of the Apo­stles, has been made use of to throw Dust in Peo­ples [Page 35] Eyes, in following Ages? But however, in the present case it helps us not. The one on­ly narrow way which leads to Heaven is not better known to the Magistrate than to private persons; and therefore I cannot safely take him for my Guide, who may probably be as igno­rant of the way as my self, and who certainly is less concerned for my Salvation than I my self am. Amongst so many Kings of the Iews, how many of them were there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following, had not fallen into Idola­try, and thereby into Destruction? Yet never­theless, you bid me be of good courage, and tell me that all is now safe and secure, because the Magistrate does not now enjoyn the observance of his own Decrees in matters of Religion, but only the Decrees of the Church. Of what Church I beseech you? Of that certainly which likes him best. As if he that compels me by Laws and Pe­nalties to enter into this or the other Church, did not interpose his own Judgment in the matter. What difference is there whether he lead me him­self, or deliver me over to be led by others? I de­pend both ways upon his Will: and it is he that determines both ways of my eternal State. Would an Israelite, that had worshipped Baal upon the Command of his King, have been in any better condition, because some body had told him that the King ordered nothing in Religion upon his own Head, nor commanded any thing to be done by his Subjects in Divine Worship, but what was approved by the Counsel of Priests, and declared to be of Divine Right by the Doctors of their Church? If the Religion of any Church become therefore true and saving, because the Heads of that Sect, the [Page 36] Prelates and Priests, and those of that Tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol and praise it; what Religion can ever be accounted erroneous, false and destructive? I am doubtful concerning the Doctrine of the Socinians, I am suspicious of the way of Worship practised by the Papists, or Lutherans? Will it be ever a jot the safer for me to joyn either unto the one or the other of those Churches, upon the Magistrates Command; be­cause he commands nothing in Religion but by the Authority and Counsel of the Doctors of that Church?

But to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that the Church (if a Convention of Clergy-men, making Canons, must be called by that Name) is for the most part more apt to be influenced by the Court, than the Court by the Church. How the Church was under the Vicissitude of Ortho­dox and Arrian Emperors, is very well known. Or if those things be too remote; The English History affords us fresher Examples, in the Reigns of Henry the 8th, Edward the 6th, Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the Clergy changed their Decrees, their Articles of Faith, their Form of Worship, every thing, according to the inclination of those Kings and Queens. Yet were those Kings and Queens of such differ­ent minds, in point of Religion, and enjoyned thereupon such different things, that no man in his Wits (I had almost said none but an Atheist) will pr [...]sume to say that any sincere and upright Wor­shipp [...]r of God could, with a safe Conscience, obey their several Decrees. To conclude, It is the same thing whether a King that prescribes Laws to another mans Religion, pretend to do it [Page 37] by his own Judgment, or by the Ecclesiastical Authority and Advice of others. The Decisions of Churchmen, whose Differences and Disputes are sufficiently known, cannot be any sounder, or safer, than his. Nor can a [...]l their Suffrages joyned together add any new strength unto the Civil Power▪ Tho' this also must be taken notice of, that Princes seldom have any regard to the Suf­frages of Ecclesiastics that are not Favourers of their own Faith and way of Worship.

But after all, The Principal Consideration, and which absolutely determines this Controversie, is this. Although the Magistrates Opinion in Re­ligion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evang [...]lical, yet if I be not thoroughly perswaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safety for me in following it. No way what­soever that I shall walk in, against the Dictates of my Conscience, will ever bring me to the Man­sions of the Blessed. I may grow rich by an Art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some Dis [...]ase by Remedies that I have not Faith in; but I cannot be saved by a Religion that I distrust, and by a Worship that I abhor. It is in vain for an Unbeliever to take up the out­ward shew of another Mans Prof [...]ssion. Faith on­ly, and inward Sincerity, are the things that pro­cure acceptance with God. The most likely and most approv [...] Rem [...]dy can have no effect upon the Patient, if his Stomach reject it as soon as ta­ken. And y [...]u will in vain [...]ram a Medicine down a si [...]k M [...]ns Throat, which hi [...] parti [...]ular Constitu­tion w [...]l [...] into [...]ison. In a word. Whats [...]v [...]r may [...]e [...]ou [...]tful in R [...]ligion, y [...]t this at l [...]ast is c [...]t [...]in, that no Religion, which I [Page 38] believe not to be true, can be either true or pro­fitable unto me. In vain therefore do Princes compel their Subjects to come into their Church-communion, under pretence of saving their Souls. If they believe, they will come of their own ac­cord? if they believe not, their coming will no­thing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of Good-will and Charity, and concern for the Salvation of Mens Souls; Men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own Consciences.

Having thus at length freed Men from all Do­minion over one another in matters of Religion, let us now consider what they are to do. All men know and acknowledge that God ought to be publickly worshiped. Why otherwise do they compel one another unto the publick Assemblies? Men therefore constituted in this liberty are to enter into some Religious Society; that they may meet together, not only for mutual Edifi­cation, but to own to the World that they wor­ship God, and offer unto his divine Majesty such service as they themselves are not ashamed of, and such as they think not unworthy of him, nor unacceptable to him; and finally that by the purity of Doctrine, Holin [...]ss of Life, and decent Form of Worship, they may d [...]aw others unto the love of the true Religion; and perform such other things in Religion as cannot be done by each priva [...]e Man apart.

These Religi [...]us Socie [...]ies I call Churches, and t [...]es [...] I say the Magistrate [...]ugh [...] to tol [...]ra [...]e. For the bu [...]in [...]s [...] of these Ass [...]mblies of the People is no [...]i [...]g [...] what i [...] la [...]l for [...]v [...]ry Man in [Page 39] particular to take care of; I mean the Salva­tion of their Souls. Nor in this case is there any difference between the National Church, and o­ther separated Congregations. But as in every Church there are two things especially to be con­sidered; the outward Form and Rites of Wor­ship; And the Doctrines and Articles of Faith; These things must be handled each distinctly; that so the whole matter of Toleration may the more clearly be understood.

Concerning outward Worship, (I say, in the first place) that the Magistrate has no Power to en­force by Law, either in his own Church, or much less in another, the use of any Rites or Ceremo­nies whatsoever in the Worship of God. And this, not only because these Churches are free So­cieties; but because whatsoever is practised in the Worship of God, is only so far justifiable as it is believed by those that practise it to be accep­table unto him. Whatsoever is not done with that Assurance of Faith, is neither well in it self, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things therefore upon any People, contrary to their own Judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God; Which, considering that the end of all Religion is to please him, and that Liberty is essentially necessary to that End, ap­pears to be absurd beyond expression.

But perhaps it may be concluded from hence, that I deny unto the Magistrate all manner of Power about Indifferent things; which if it be not granted, the whole Subject matter of Law­making is taken away. No, I readily grant that Indifferent Things, and perhaps none but such are subjected to the Legislative Power. But it [Page 40] does not therefore follow, that the Magistrate may ordain whatsoever he pleases concerning any thing that is indifferent. The Publick Good is the Rule and measure of all Law-making. If a thing be not useful to the Commonwealth, tho' it be never so indifferent, it may not presently be established by Law.

But further: Things never so indifferent in their own nature, when th [...]y are brought into the Church and Worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the Magistrate's Jurisdiction; because in that use they have no connexion at all with Civil Affairs. The only business of the Church is the Salvation of Souls: And it no ways concerns the Common wealth, or any Member of it, that this, or the other Ceremony be there made use of. Neither the use, nor the Omission of any Ceremonies, in those Religious Assemblies, does either advantage or prejudice the Life, Liberty or Estate of any Man. For Example: L [...]t it be granted, that the washing of an Infant with Water is in it self an indifferent thing. Let it be granted also, that if the Magistrate understand such wash­ing to be profitable to the curing or preventing of any Disease that Children are subject unto, and esteem the matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a Law, in that case he may order it to be done. But will any one therefore say, that a Magistrate has the same Right to ordain, by Law, that all Children shall be baptized by Priests, in the sacred Font, in order to the Purification of their Souls? The extream difference of these two Cases is visible to every one at first sight. Or let us apply the last Case to the Child of a Iew, and the thing will speak it self. For what hinders but [Page 41] a Christian Magistrate may have Subjects that are Iews? Now if we acknowledge that such an In­jury may not be done unto a Iew, as to compel him, against his own Opinion, to practice in his Religion a thing that is in its nature indifferent; how can we maintain that any thing of this kind may be done to a Christian?

Again: Things in their own nature indif­ferent cannot, by any human Authority, be made any part of the Worship of God; for this very reason; because they are indifferent. For since indifferent things are not capble, by any Virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity; no human Power or Authority can confer on them so much Dignity, and Excellency, as to enable them to do it. In the common Affairs of Life, that use of indifferent things which God has not forbidden, is free and lawful: And therefore in those things human Authority has place. But it is not so in matters of Religion. Things indifferent are not otherwise lawful in the Worship of God than as they are instituted by God himself; and as he, by some positive command, has ordain'd them to be made a part of that Worship which he will vouchsafe to accept of at the hands of poor sinful Men. Nor when an incensed Deity shall ask us, (Who has required these, or such like things at your hands?) will it be enough to answer him, that the Magistrate commanded them. If Civil Juris­diction extended thus far, what might not lawfully be introduced into Religion? What hodge-podge of Ceremonies, what superstitious Inventi­ons, built upon the Magistrate's Authority, might not (against Conscience) be imposed upon the Worshippers of God? For the greatest part [Page 42] of these Ceremonies and Superstitions consists in the Religious Use of such things as are in their own nature indifferent: Nor are they sinful upon any other account than because God is not the Author of them. The sprinkling of Water, and the use of Bread and Wine, are both in their own nature, and in the ordinary occasions of Life, altogether indifferent. Will any Man therefore say that these things could have been introduced into Religion, and made a part of Divine Wor­ship, if not by Divine Institution? If any Hu­man Authority or Civil Power could have done this; why might it not also injoyn the eating of Fish, and drinking of Ale, in the Holy Banquet, as a part of Divine Worship? Why not the sprinkling of the Blood of Beasts in Churches and Expiations by Water or Fire, and abundance more of this kind? But these things, how indifferent soever they be in common uses, when they come to be annexed unto Divine Worship, without Divine Authority, they are as abominable to God, as the Sacrifice of a Dog. And why a Dog so abominable? What difference is there between a Dog and a Goat, in respect of the Divine Nature, equally and infinicely distant from all Affinity with Matter; unless it be that God required the use of the one in his Worship, and not of the other? We see therefore that indifferent things, how much soever they be under the Power of the Civil Magistrate, yet cannot upon that pre­tence be introduced into Religion, and imposed upon Religious Ass [...]mblies; because in the Wor­ship of God they wholly cease to be indifferent. He that worships God does it with design to plea [...]e him, and procure his Favour. But that cannot be [Page 43] done by him, who, upon the command of another, offers unto God that which he knows will be displea­sing to him, because not commanded by himself. This is not to please God, or appease his Wrath, but willingly and knowingly to provoke him, by a manifest Contempt; Which is a thing absolutely repugnant to the nature and end of Worship.

But it will here be asked: If nothing belonging to Divine Worship be left to human Discretion, how is it then that Churches themselves have the Power of ordering any thing about the Time and Place of Worship, and the like? To this I answer; That in Religious Worship we must distinguish be­tween what is part of the Worship it self, and what is but a Circumstance. That is a part of the Worship which is believed to be appointed by God, and to be well-pleasing to him; and therefore that is necessary. Circumstances are such things which, tho' in general they cannot be separated from Worship, yet the particular instan­ces or modifications of them are not determined; and therefore they are indifferent. Of this sort are the Time and Place of Worship, the Habit and Posture of him that worships. These are Circumstances, and perf [...]ctly indifferent where God has not given any express Command about them. For example: Amongst the Iews the Time and Place of their Worship, and the Habits of those that officiated in it, were not meer Cir­cumstances, but a part of the Worship it self; in which if any thing were defective, or different from the Institution, they could not hope that it wo [...]l [...] be accepted by God. But these, to Chri­stians u [...]der the liberty of the Gospel, are meer Circumstances of Worship, which the Prudence [Page 44] of every Church may bring into such use as shall be judged most subservient to the end of Order, Decency, and Edification. Tho' even under the Gospel also, those who believe the First, or the Seventh Day, to be set apart by God, and conse­crated still to his Worship; to them that por­tion of Time is not a simple Circumstance, but a real Part of Divine Worship, which can neither be changed nor neglected.

In the nex [...] place: As the Magistrate has no Power to impose by his Laws, the use of any Rites and Ceremonies in any Church; so neither has he any Power to forbid the use of such Rites and Ceremonies as are already received, approved, and practised by any Church. Because if he did so, he would destroy the Church it self; the end of whose Institution is only to worship God with freedom, after its own manner.

You will say, by this Rule, if some Congrega­tions should have a mind to sacrifice Infants or (as the Primitive Christians were falsly accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous Uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous Enormities, is the Magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a Religious Assembly? I answer, No. These things are nor lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the Worship of God, or in any Religious Meeting. But indeed if any People congregated upon account of Religion, should be desirous to sacrifice a Calf, I d [...]ny that That ought to be prohibited by a Law. Melibaeus, whose Calf it is, may lawfully kill his own Calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no Injury is thereby done to [Page 45] any one, no Prejudice to another man's Goods. And for the same reason he may kill his Calf al­so in a Religious Meeting. Whether the do­ing so be well-pleasing to God, or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the Magistrate is only to take care that the Com­mon-wealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no Inju [...]y done to any man, either in Life or Estate. And thus what may be spent on a Feast may be spent on a Sacrifice. But if peradven­ture such were the state of things, that the Inter­est of the Common-wealth required all slaughter of Beasts should be forborn for some while, in order to the increasing of the Stock of Cattel, that had been destroyed by some extraordinary Murrain; Who sees not that the Magistrate in such a case, may forbid all his Subjects to [...]ill any Calves for any use whatsoever? Only 'tis to be observed, that in this case the Law is not made about a Religious, but a Political matter; n [...]r is the Sacrifice, but the Slaughter of Calves thereby prohibited.

By this we see what difference there is between the Church and the Common-wealth. What­soever is lawful in the Common-wealth, cannot be prohibited by the Magistrate in the Church. Whatsoever is permitted unto any one of his Sub­jects for their ordinary use, neither can, nor ought to be forbidden by him to any Sect of People for their Religious Uses. If any man may law­fully take Bread or Wine, either sitting or kneel­ing, in his own house, the Law ought not to a­bridge him of the same Liberty in his Religious Worship; tho' in the Church the use of Bread and Wine be very different, and be there appli­ed [Page 46] to the Mysteries of Faith, and Rites of Divine Worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the Common weal of a People in their ordinary use, and are therefore forbidden by Laws, those things ought not to be permitted to Churches in their Sacred Rites. Only the Magistrate ought always to be very careful, that he do not misuse his Authority, to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of publick Good.

It may be said; What if a Church be Idola­tr [...]us, is that also to be tolerated by the Magistrate? In answer, I ask; What Power can be given to the Magistrate for [...]e Suppression of an Idolatrous Chu [...]ch, which may not, in time and place, be made use of to the ruin of an Orthodox one? For it [...]u [...]t be remembred that the Civil Power is the sin [...]e every where, and the Religion of [...]very Prince is Orthodox to himself. If therefore such a Power be granted unto the Civil Magistrate in Spirituals, as that at Geneva (for Example) he may extirpate, by Violence and Blood, the Reli­gion which is there reputed Idolatrous; by the same Rule another Magistrate, in some neigh­bouring Country, may oppress the Reformed Religion; and, in India, the Christian. The Civil Power can either change every thing in Re­ligion, according to the Prince's pleasure, or it can change nothing. If it be once permitted to introduce any thing into Religion, by the means of Laws and Penalties, there can be no [...]ounds put to it; but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter every thing, according to that Rule of Truth which the Magistrate has framed unto himself. No man whatsoever ought there­fore to be deprived of his Terrestrial Enjoyments, [Page 47] upon account of his Religion. Not even Ameri­cans, subjected unto a Christian Prince, are to be punished either in Body or Goods, for not im­bracing our Faith and Worship. If they are per­swaded that they please God in observing the Rites of their own Country, and that they shall obtain Happiness by that means, they are to be left unto God and themselves. Let us trace this matter to the bottom. Thus it is. An incon­siderable and weak number of Christians, desti­tute of every thing, arrive in a Pagan Country. These Foreigners beseech the Inhabitants, by the bowels of Humanity, that they would succour them with the necessaries of Life. Those neces­saries are given them; Habitations are granted; and they all join together, and grow up into one Body of People. The Christian Religion by this means takes root in that Country, and spreads it self; but does not suddenly grow the strongest. While things are in this Condition, Peace, Friend­ship, Faith, and equal Justice, are preserved a­mongst them. At length the Magistrate be­comes a Christian, and by that means their Party becomes the most powerful. Then immediately all Compacts are to be broken, all Civil Rights to be violated, that Idolatry may be extirpated; And unless these innocent Paga [...], strict Observers of the Rules of Equity and of the Law of Nature, and no ways offending against the Laws of the Society, I say unless they will forsake their ancient Religion, and embrace a new and strange one, they are to be turned out of the Lands and Pos­sessions of their Forefathers, and perhaps deprived of Life it self. Then at last it appears what Zeal for the Church, joined with the desire of Domi­nion, [Page 48] is capable to produce; and how easily the pretence of Religion, and of the care of Souls, serves for a Cloak to Covetousness, Rapine and Ambition.

Now whosoever maintains that Idolatry is to be rooted out of any place by Laws, Punishments, Fire, and Sword, may apply this Story to himself. For the reason of the thing is equal, both in A­merica and Europe. And neither Pagans there, nor any Dissenting Christians here, can with any right be deprived of their worldly Goods, by the predominating Faction of a Court-Church: nor are any Civil Rights to be either changed or vio­lated upon account of Religion in [...] place more than another.

But Idolatry (say some) is a Sin, and therefore not to be tolerated. If they said, it were there­fore to be avoided; the Inference were good. But it does not follow, that because it is a Sin, it ought therefore to be punished by the Magistrate. For it does not belong unto the Magistrate to make use of his Sword in Punishing every thing, indifferently, that he takes to be a Sin against God. Covetousness, Uncharitableness, Idleness, and many other things are sins, by the consent of all m [...]n, which yet no man ever said were to be pu [...]ished by the Magistrate The reason is, because they are not prejudicial to other mens Right [...], nor do they break the publick Peace of [...]. Nay, even the Sins of Lying, and Perju [...]y, are no where punishable [...]y Laws; un­l [...]ss [...], in which the r [...]al Turpitude of the t [...]i [...]g, and the Off [...]nce against God, are not co [...]s [...]r [...]d, but only the Inju [...]y done unto mens Neighbours, and to the Commonwealth. [Page 49] And what if in another Country, to a Mahume­tan, or a Pagan Prince, the Christian Religion seem false and offensive to God; may not the Christians, for the same reason, and after the same manner, be extirpated there?

But it may be urged further, That by the Law of Moses, Idolaters were to be rooted out. True indeed, by the Law of Moses: But that is not obligatory to us Christians. No body pretends that every thing generally, enjoyned by the Law of Moses, ought to be practised by Christians. But there is nothing more frivolous than that common distinction of Moral, Judicial and Ceremonial Law, which men ordinarily make use of. For no positive Law, whatsoever, can oblige any People, but those to whom it is given. Hear O Israel; sufficiently restrains the Obli­gation of the Law of Moses only to that People: And this Consideration alone is Answer enough unto those that urge the Authority of the Law of Moses; for the inflicting of Capital Punish­ments upon Idolaters. But however, I will exa­mine this Argument a little more particularly.

The Case of Idolaters, in respect of the Iewish Common-wealth, falls under a double Conside­ration. The first is, of those who, being initiated in the Mosaical Rites, and made Citizens of that Common-wealth, did afterwards apostatize from the Worship of the God of Israel. These were proceeded against as Traytors and Rebels, guilty of no less than High Treason. For the Common-wealth of the Iews, different in that from all o­thers, was an absolute Theocracy; nor was there or could there be, any difference between that Common-wealth and the Church. The Laws [Page 50] established there concerning the Worship of one Invisible Deity, were the civil Laws of that People, and a part of their Political Government; in which God himself was the Legislator. Now if any one can shew me where there is a Common-wealth, at this time, constituted upon that Foundation, I will ac­knowledge that the Ecclesiastical Laws do there unavoidably become a part of the Civil; and that the Subjects of that Government both may, and ought to be kept in strict conformity with that Church, by the Civil Power. But there is abso­lutely no such thing, under the Gospel, as a Chris­tian Common-wealth. There are, indeed, many Cities and Kingdoms that have embraced the Faith of Christ; but they have retained their ancient Form of Government; with which the Law of Christ hath not at all medled. He, in­deed, hath taught men how, by Faith and good Works, they may attain Eternal Life. But he instituted no Common-wealth. He prescribed unto his Followers no new and peculiar Form of Government; Nor put he the Sword into any Magistrate's Hand, with Commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake their former Religion, and receive his.

Secondly, Foreigners, and such as were Stran­gers to the Common-wealth of Israel, were not compell'd by force to observe the Rites of the Mosaical Law. But, on the contrary, in the very same place, where it is ordered, that an Israelite, that was an Idolater, should be put to death, there it is provided, that Strangers should not be vexed nor oppressed. Exod. 22.20, 21. I confess, that the Seven Nations, that possest the Land which was promised to the Israelites, were utterly to be [Page 51] cut off. But this was not singly because they were Idolaters. For, if that had been the Rea­son; Why were the Moabites, and other Na­tions to be spared? No, the Reason is this. God being in a peculiar manner the King of the Iews, he could not suffer the Adoration of any other Deity, (which was properly an Act of High Treason against himself) in the Land of Canaan, which was his Kingdom. For such a manifest Revolt could no ways consist with his Dominion which was perfectly Political, in that Country. All Idolatry was therefore to be rooted out of the Bounds of his King [...]om; because it was an acknowledgment of another God; that is to say, another King; against the Laws of Empire. The Inhabitants were also to be driven out, that the entire possession of the Land might be given to the Israelites. And for the like Reason, the Emims, and the Horims were driven out of their Countries, by the Children of Esau and Loi; and their Lands, upon the same grounds, given by God to the Invaders. Deut. 2. But though all Idolatry was thus rooted out of the Land of Canaan, yet every Idolater was not brought to Execution. The whole Family of Rahab, the whole Nation of the Gibeonites, articled with Io­shua, and were allowed by Treaty: and there were many Captives amongst the Iews, who were Idolaters. David and Solomon subdued many Countries without the Confines of t [...]e Land of Promise, and carried their Conquests as far as Euphrates. Amongst so many Captives taken so many Nations reduced under their Obedience, we find not one man forced into the Jewish Re­ligion, and the Worship of the True God; and [Page 52] punished for Idolatry; though all of them were certainly guilty of it. If any one indeed, becom­ing a Proselyte, desired to be made a Denison of their Common-wealth, he was obliged to submit unto their Laws; that is, to embrace their Re­ligion. But this he did willingly, on his own ac­cord, not by constraint. He did not unwilling­ly submit, to shew his Obedience; But he sought and sollicited for it, as a Privilege; And as soon as he was admitted, he became subject to the Laws of the Commonwealth; by which all Idolatry was forbidden within the Borders of the Land of Canaan. But that Law (as I have said) did not reach to any of those Regions, however subjected unto the Iews, that were situated with­out those Bounds.

Thus far concerning outward Worship. Let us now consider Articles of Faith.

The Articles of Religion are some of them Practical, and some Speculative. Now, tho' both sorts consist in the Knowledg [...] of Truth, yet these terminate simply in the Understanding, Those in [...]uence the Will and Manners. Speculative Opinions, therefore, and Articles of Faith (as they are called) which are required only to be believ­ed, cannot be imposed on any Church by the Law of the Land. For it is absurd that things should be enjoyned by Laws, which are not in mens power to perform. And to believe this or that to be true, does not depend upon our Will. But of this enough has been said already. But (will some say) let men at least profess that they believe. A sweet Religion indeed, that obliges men to dissemble, and tell Lyes both to God and Man, for the Salvation of their Souls! If [Page 53] the Magistrate thinks to save men thus, he seems to understand little of the way of Salvation. And if he does it not in order to save them; Why is he so sollicitous about the Articles of Faith as to enact them by a Law?

Further, The Magistrate ought not to forbid the Preaching or Professing of any Speculative Opinions in any Church, because they have no manner of relation to the Civil Rights of the Subjects. If a Roman Catholick believe that to be really the Body of Christ, which another man calls Bread, he does no injury thereby to his Neighbour. If a Iew do not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter any thing in mens Civil Rights. If a Heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not ther [...]fore to be punished as a pernicious Citi­zen. The Power of the Magistrate, and the Estates of the People, may be equally secure, whe­ther any man believe these things or no. I rea­dily grant, that these Opinions are false and absurd. But the business of Laws is not to provide for the Truth of Opinions, but for the Safety and Secu­rity of the Commonwealth, and of every parti­cular mans Goods and Person. And so it ought to be. For Truth certainly would do well enough, if she were once left to shift for her Self. She seldom has received, and I fear never will receive, much Assistance from the Power of Great men; to whom she is but rarely known, and more rarely welcome. She is not taught by Laws, nor has she any need of Force to procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors indeed prevail by the as [...]stance of forr [...]ign and borrowed Succours. But if Truth makes not her [...]ay into the [Page 54] Understanding by her own Light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force Violence can add to her. Thus much for Speculative Opinions. Let us now proceed to Practical ones.

A Good Life, in which consists not the least part of Religion and true Piety, concerns also the Civil Government; and in it lies the safety both of Mens Souls, and of the Commonwealth. Moral Actions belong therefore to the Jurisdiction both of the outward and inward Court; both of the Civil and Domestick Governor; I mean, both of the Magistrate and Conscience. Here there­fore is great danger, least one of these Jurisdictions intrench upon the other, and Discord arise be­tween the Keeper of the publick Peace, and the Overseers of Souls. But if what has been alrea­dy said concerning the Limits of both those Go­vernments be rightly considered, it will easily re­move all difficulty in this matter.

Every man has an Immortal Soul, capable of Eternal Happiness or Misery; whose Happiness depending upon his believing and doing those things in this Life, which are necessary to the obtaining of Gods Favour, and are presc [...]ibed by God to that end; it follows from thence, 1st, That the observance of th [...]se things is the highest Obligation that li [...]s upon Mankind, and that our utmost Care, Application, and Diligence, ought to b [...] exercis [...]d in th [...] S [...]arch and Performance of them; B [...]cause there is nothing in thi [...] World that is of any consid [...]ration in comparison with Eternity. 2dly, That seeing one Man does not violate the Right of another, by his Erroneous Opinions, and undue manner of Worship, nor i [...] his Per [...]ition any p [...]ejudice to another Mans Affai [...]s; [Page 55] therefore the care of each Mans Salvation be­longs only to himself. But I would not have this understood, as if I meant hereby to condemn all charitable Admonitions, and affectionate En­deavours to reduce Men from Errors; which are indeed the greatest Duty of a Christian. Any one may employ as many Exhortations and Ar­guments as he pleases, towards the promoting of another man's Salvation. But all Force and Compulsion are to be forborn. Nothing is to be done imperiously. No body is obliged in that matter to yield Obedience unto the Admonitions or Injunctions of another, further than he him­self is perswaded. Every man, in that, has the supreme and absolute Authority of judging for himself. And the Reason is, because no body else is concerned in it, nor can receive a [...] pre­judice from his Conduct therein.

But besides their Souls, which are Immortal, Men have also their Temporal Lives here upon Earth; the State whereof being frail and fleet­ing, and the duration uncertain; they have n [...]ed of several outward Conveniences to the sup­port thereof, which are to be procured or preser­v [...]d by Pains and Industry. For those things that are necessary to the comfortable support of our Lives, are not the spontaneous Products of Na­ture, nor do offer themselves sit and prepared for our use. This part therefore draws on another care, and necessarily gives another Imploym [...]nt. But the pravity of Mankind being such, that they had rather injuriously prey upon the Fruits of o­ther Mens Labou [...]s, than take pains to provi [...]e for themselves; the n [...]c [...]ssity of [...] Men in the Possession of what hone [...]t indu [...]try [...] al­ready [Page 56] acquired; a [...] a [...]so of preserving their Li­berty and Strength, whereby they may acquire what they further want; obliges M [...]n to enter into Society with one another; that [...]y mutual Assistance, and joi [...]t [...]orce, they may secure un­to each other their Proprieties, in the things that contribute to the Comfort and Happiness of this Life; leaving in the mean while to every Man the care of his own Eternal Happiness, the attain­ment whereof can neither be facilitated by ano­ther Mans Industry, nor can the loss of it turn to another Mans Prejudice, nor the hope of it be forced from him by any external Violence. But forasmuch as Men thus entring into Societies, grounded upon their mutual Compacts of Assist­ance, for the Defence of their Temporal Goods, may nevertheless be deprived of them, either by the Rapine and Fraud of their Fellow Citizens, or by the hostile Violence of Forreigners; the Remedy of this Evil consists in Arms, Rich­es, and Multitude of Citizens; the Reme­dy of the other in Laws; and the Care of all things relating both to the one and the o­ther, is committed by the Society to the Civil Magistrate. This is the Orginal, this is the [...]se and these are the Bounds of the Legislative (which is the Supreme) Power, in every [...]mmonwealth. I mean, that Provision may be made for t [...]e Se­curity of each Mans private Po [...]ions; for the Peace, Riches, and publick Commodities of the whole People; and, as much as possible, for the Increase of their inward Strength, against Forreign I [...]vasions.

These things be [...]g thus explain'd, it is easie to understand t [...] w [...]t [...]nd the Legislative Power [Page 57] ought to be directed, and by what Measures re­gulated; and that is the Temporal Good and outward Prosperity of the Society, which is the sole Reason of Mens entring into Society, and the only thing they seek and aim at in it. And it is also evident what Liberty remains to Men in re­ference to their eternal Salvation; and that is, that every one should do what he in his Consci­ence is perswaded to be acceptable to the Al­mighty, on whose good pleasure and acceptance depends his eternal Happiness. For Obedience is due in the first place to God, and afterwards to the Laws.

But some may ask, What if the Magistrate should enjoyn any thing by his Authority that appears unlawful to the Conscience of a private Person? I answer, That if Government be faithfully admi­nistred, and the Counsels of the Magistrate be in­deed directed to the publick Good, this will sel­dom happen. But if perhaps it do so fall out; I say, that such a private Person is to abstain from the Action that he judges unlawful; and he is to undergo the Punishment, which it is not unlawful for him to bear For the private Judgment of any Person concerning a Law en­acted in Political Matters, for the publick Good, does not take away the Obligation of that Law, nor deserve a Dispensation. But if the Law in­deed be concerning things that lie not within the Verge of the Magistrate's Authority; (as for Example, that the People, or any Party amongst them, should be compell'd to embrace a strange Religion, and join in the Worship and Ceremo­nies of another Church,) men are not in these cases obliged by that Law, against their Consciences. [Page 58] For the Political Society is instituted for no other end but only to secure every mans Possession of the things of this life. The care of each mans Soul, and of the things of Heaven, which neither does belong to the Commonwealth, nor can be subjected to it, is left entirely to every mans self. Thus the safeguard of mens lives, and of the things that belong unto this life, is the business of the Commonwealth; and the preserving of those things unto their Owners is the Duty of the Magistrate. And therefore the Magistrate can­not take away these worldly things from this man, or party, and give them to that; nor change Propriety amongst Fellow-Subjects, (no not even by a Law) for a cause that has no relation to the end of Civil Government; I mean, for their Religion; which whether it be true or false, does no prejudice to the worldly concerns of their Fellow-Subjects, which are the things that only belong unto the care of the Commonwealth.

But what if the Magistrate believe such a Law as this to be for the publick Good? I answer: As the private Judgment of any particular Per­son, if erroneous, does not exempt him from the obligation of Law, so the private Judgment (as I may call it) of the Magistrate does not give him any new Right of imposing Laws upon his Subjects; which neither was in the Constitution of the Government granted him, nor ever was in the power of the People to grant; and least of all, if he make it his business to enrich and ad­vance his Followers and Fellow-sectaries, with the Spoils of others. But what if the Magistrate believe that he has a Right to make such Laws, and that they are for the publick Good; and his [Page 59] Subjects believe the contrary? Who shall be Iudge between them? I answer, God alone. For there is no Judge upon earth between the Supreme Magistrate and the People. God, I say, is the only Judge in this case, who will retribute unto every one at the last day according to his Deserts; that is, according to his sincerity and uprightness, in endeavouring to promote Piety, and the publick Weal and Peace of Mankind. But what shall be done in the mean while? I answer: The principal and chief care of every one ought to be of his own Soul first, and in the next place of the publick Peace: tho' yet there are very few will think 'tis Peace there, were they see all laid waste.

There are two sorts of Contests amongst Men, the one manag'd by Law, the other by Force; and these are of that nature, that where the one ends, the other always begins. But it is not my business to inquire into the Power of the Magi­strate in the different Constitutions of Nations. I only know what usually happens where Con­troversies arise, without a Judge to determine them. You will say then the Magistrate being the stronger will have his Will, and carry his point. Without doubt. But the Question is not here concerning the doubtfulness of the Event, but the Rule of Right.

But to come to particulars. I say, First, No Opinions contrary to human Society, or to those moral Rules which are necessary to the preserva­tion of Civil Society, are to be tolerated by the Magistrate. But of these indeed Examples in a­ny Church are rare. For no Sect can easily ar­rive to such a degree of madness, as that it should [Page 60] think fit to teach, for Doctrines of Religion, such things as manifestly undermine the Foundations of Society, and are therefore condemned by the Judgment of all Mankind: because their own Interest, Peace, Reputation, every Thing, would be thereby endangered.

Another more secret Evil, but more dangerous to the Commonwealth, is, when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own Sect, some peculiar Prerogative, covered over with a specious shew of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the Civil Right of the Community. For Example. We cannot find any Sect that teaches expresly, and openly, that Men are not obliged to keep their Promise; that Princes may be dethroned by those that differ from them in Religion; or that the Dominion of all things be­longs only to themselves. For these things, pro­posed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the Eye and Hand of the Magistrate, and awaken all the care of the Commonwealth to a watchfulness against the spreading of so danger­ous an Evil. But nevertheless, we find those that say the same things, in other words. What else do they mean, who teach that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the priviledge of breaking Faith belongs unto thems [...]lves: For they declare all that are not of their Communion to be Hereticks, or at least may declare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning of their assert­ing that Kings excommunicated forfeit their Crowns and Kingdoms? It i [...] [...]vi [...]ent that they thereby arrogate unto t [...]ems [...]lves the Power of deposing Kings: because they challenge the Power of Excommunication, [Page 61] as the peculiar Right of their Hier­rarchy. That Dominion is founded in Grace, is also an Assertion by which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For they are not so wanting to them­selves as not to believe, or at least as not to pro­fess, themselves to be the truly pious and faith­ful. These therefore, and the like, who attri­bute unto the Faithful, Religious & Orthodox; that is, in plain terms, unto themselves; any peculiar Priviledge or Power above other Mortals, in Civil Concernments; or who, upon pretence of Religion, do challenge any manner of Autho­rity over such as are not associated with them in their Ecclesiastical Communion; I say these have no right to be tolerated by the Magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the Duty of tolerating All men in matters of meer Religion. For what do all these and the like Doctrines signifie, but that those Men may, and are ready upon any occasion to seise the Go­vernment, and possess themselves of the Estates and Fortunes of their Fellow-Subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the Ma­gistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

Again; That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the Magistrate, which is cons [...]itut­ed upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do th [...]reby, ipso facto, deliver th [...]ms [...]lves up to the Protection and Service of another P [...]i [...]ce. For by this means the Magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign Juris [...]iction in his own Country, and suffer his own [...]o [...]le [...]o be listed, as it were, for Soldiers against hi [...] own [Page 62] Government. Nordoes the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court & the Church afford any remedy to this Inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute Authority of the same Person; who has not only power to perswade the Mem­bers of his Church to whatsoever he lists, (ei­ther as purely Religious, or as in order thereunto) but can also enjoyn it them on pain of Eternal Fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess him­self to be a Mahumetan only in his Religion, but in every thing else a faithful Subject to a Christi­an Magistrate, whilst at the same time he ac­knowledges himself bound to yield blind obedi­ence to the Mufti of Constantinople; who him­self is intirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor, and frames the feigned Oracles of that Religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahumetan living amongst Christians, would yet more ap­parently renounce their Government, if he ac­knowledged the same Person to be Head of his Church who is the Supreme Magistrate in the State.

Lastly, Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God. Promises, Covenants, and Oaths, which are the Bonds of Humane So­ciety, can have no hold upon an Atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all. Besides also, those that by their A­theism undermine and destroy all Religion, can have no pretence of Religion whereupon to chal­lenge the Privilege of a Toleration. As for o­ther Practical Opinions, though not absolutely free from all Error, yet if they do not tend to e­stablish Domination over others, or Civil Impu­nit [...] [Page 63] to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no Reason why they should not be tolerated.

It remains that I say something concerning those Assemblies, which being vulgarly called, and perhaps having sometimes been Conventicles, and Nurseries of Factions and Seditions, are tho't to afford the strongest matter of Objection against this Doctrine of Toleration. But this has not hap­ned by any thing peculiar unto the Genius of such Assemblies, but by the unhappy Circum­stances of an oppressed or illsetled Liberty. These Accusations would soon cease, if the Law of Toleration were once so settled, that all Churches were obliged to lay down Toleration as the Foundation of their own Liberty; and teach that Liberty of Conscience is every mans natural Right, equally belonging to Dissenters as to themselves; and that no body ought to be compelled in matters of Religion, either by Law or Force. The Establishment of this one thing would take away all ground of Complaints and Tumults upon account of Con­science. And these Causes of Discontents and Animosities being once removed, there would remain nothing in these Assemblies that were not more peaceable, and less apt to produce Dis­turbance of State, than in any other Meetings whatsoever. But let us examine particularly the Heads of these Accusations.

You'll say, That Assemblies and Mee [...]ings en­danger the Publick Peace, and threaten the Common­wealth. I answer: If this be so, Why are there daily such numerous Meetings in Markets, and Courts of Judicature? Why are Crowds upon [Page 62] the Exchange, and a Concourse of People in Cities suffered? You'll reply; These are Civil Assemblies; but those that we object against are Ecclesiastical. I answer: 'Tis a likely thing indeed, that such Assemblies as are altogether re­mote from Civil Affairs, should be most apt to embroyl them. O, but Civil Assemblies are composed of men that differ from one another in matters of Religion, were in effect a Conspiracy against the Commonwealth; or as if men would not be so much the more warmly unanimous in Religion, the less liberty they had of Assemb­ling. But it will be urged still, That Civil As­semblies are open, and free for any one to en­ter into; whereas Religious Conventicles are more private, and thereby give opportunity to Clandestine Machinations. I answer, That this is not strictly true: For many Civil Assemblies are not open to every one. And if some Reli­gious Me [...]tings be private, Who are they (I be­se [...]ch you) that are to be blamed for it? those that desire, or those that forbid their being pub­lick? Again; You'll say, That Religious Com­munion does exceedingly unite mens Minds and Affections to one another, & is therefore the more dangerous. But if this be so, Why is not the Magistrate afraid of his own Church; and why does he not forbid their Assemblies, as things dangerous to his Government? You'll say, Be­cause he himself is a Part, and even the Head of them. As if he were not also a Part of the Commonwealth, and the Head of the whole Peo­ple.

Let us therefore deal plainly. The Magistrate is afraid of other Churches, but not of his own; [Page 65] because he is kind and favourable to the one, but severe and cruel to the other. These he treats like Children, and indulges them even to Wantonness: Those he uses as Slaves; and how blamelesly soever they demean themselves, recompenses them no otherwise than by Gallies, Prisons, Confiscations, and Death. These he cherishes and defends: Those he continually scourges and oppresses. Let him turn the Ta­bles: Or let those Dissenters enjoy but the same Priviledges in Civils as his other Subjects, and he will quickly find that these Religious Meet­ings will be no longer dangerous. For if men enter into Seditious Conspiracies, 'tis not Reli­gion that inspires them to it in their Meetings; but their Sufferings and Oppressions that make them willing to ease themselves. Just and Mo­derate Governments are every where quiet, every where safe. But Oppression raises Ferments, and makes Men struggle to cast off an uneasie and tyrannical Yoke. I know that Seditions are very frequently raised, upon pr [...]t [...]nce of Religion. But 'tis as true that, for Religion, Subjects are frequently ill treated, and live miserably. Be­lieve me, the Stirs that are made proceed not from any peculiar Temper of this or that Church or Religious Society; but from the common Disposition of all Mankind, who when they groan under any heavy Burthen, endeavour natu­rally to shake off the Yoke that galls their Necks. Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone, and that there were some oth [...]r Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes and Features; so th [...]t those who have black Hair (for Example) [Page 66] or grey Eyes, should not enjoy the same Privi­leges as other Citizens; that they should not be permitted either to buy or sell, or live by their Callings; that Parents should not have the Go­vernment and Education of their own Children; that they should either be excluded from the Be­nefit of the Laws, or meet with partial Judges; can it be doubted but these Persons, thus distin­guished from others by the Colour of their Hair and Eyes, and united together by one common Persecution, would be as dangerous to the Ma­gistrate, as any others that had associated them­selves meerly upon the account of Religion. Some enter into Company for Trade and Profit: Others, for want of Business, have their Clubs for Clarret: Neighbourhoods joins some, and Reli­gion others. But there is one only Thing which gathers People into Seditious Commotions, and that is Oppression.

You'll say; What, will you have People mee [...] at Divine Service against the Magistrates Will? I answer; Why, I pray, against his Will? Is it not both lawful and necessary that they should meet? Against his Will, do you say? That's what I complain of. That is the very Root of all the Mischief. Why are As­semblies less sufferable in a Church than in a Theater or Market? Those that meet the [...]e are not either more vicious, or more turbulent, than those that meet elsewhere. The Business in that is, that they are ill used, and therefore therefore they are not to be suffered. Take a­way the Partiality that is used towards th [...]m in matters of common Right; change the Laws; take away the Penalties unto which they [Page 67] are subjected; and all things will immediately become safe and peaceable. Nay, those that are averse to the Religion of the Magistrate, will think themselves so much the more bound to maintain the Peace of the Commonwealth, as their Con­dition is better in that Place than elsewhere; And all the several separate Congregations, like so many Guardians of the publick Peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be innovated or changed in the Form of the Government: Be­cause they can hope for nothing better than what they already enjoy; that is, an equal Condition with their Fellow-Subjects, under a just and mode­rate Government. Now if that Church, which agrees in Religion with the Prince, be esteemed the chief Support of any Civil Government, and that for no other other Reason (as has already been shewn) than because the Prince is kind, and the Laws are favourable to it; how much greater will be the Security of a Government, where all good Subjects, of whatsoever Church they be, without any Distinction upon account of Religion, enjoying the same Favour of the Prince, and the same Benefit of the Laws, shall become the com­mon Support and Guard of it; and where none will have any occasion to fear the Seve [...]y of the Laws, but those that do Injuries to their Neigh­bours, and offend against the Civil Peace?

That we may draw towards a Conclusion. The Sum of all we drive at is, That every Man may enjoy the same Rights that are granted to others. Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be permitted to do it in th [...] Ge­neva Form also. Is it permitted to speak Latin in the Market-pla [...]? Let those that have a [Page 68] mind to it, be permitted to do it also in the Church. Is it lawful for any man in his own House, to kneel, stand, sit, or use any other Posture; an [...] to cloath himself in White or Black, in short or in long Garments? Let it not be made unlawful to eat Bread, drink Wine, or wash with Water, in the Church. In a Word: Whatsoever things are left free by Law in the common occasions of Life, let them remain free unto every Church in Divine Worship. Let no Mans Life, or Body, or House, or Estate, suffer any manner of Prejudice upon these Accounts. Can you allow of the Presbyterian Discipline? Why should not the Episcopal also have what they like? Ecclesiastical Authority, whether it be administred by the Hands, of a single Person, or many, is every where the same; and neither has any Jurisdiction in things Civil, nor any man­ner of Power of Compulsion, nor any thing at all to do with Riches and Revenues.

Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and Sermons, are justified by daily experience, and publick Allow­ance. These are allowed to People of some one Perswasion: Why not to all? If any thing pass in a Religious Meeting seditiously, and con­trary to the Publick Peace, it is to be punished in the same manner, and no otherwise, than as if it had happened in a Fair or Ma [...]ket. These Meetings ought not to be Sanctuaries for Facti­ous and Flagitious Fellows; Nor ought it to be less lawful for Men to meet in Churches than in Halls; Nor ar [...] one part of the Subjects to be esteemed m [...]re blamea [...]le, for their meeting to­gether, tha [...] others. Ev [...]ry [...]e is to be accoun­table for h [...] own Actio [...]s; [...]nd no man is to be [Page 69] laid under a Suspicion or Odium, for the Fault of another. Those that are Seditious, Murder­ers, Thieves, Robbers, Adulterers, Slanderers, &c. of whatsoever Church, whether National, or not, ought to be punished and suppressed. But those whose Doctrine is peaceable, & whose Manners are pure and blameless, ought to be upon equal Terms with their Fellow Subjects. Thus if solemn Assem­blies, Observations of Festivals, Publick Worship, be permitted to any one sort of Professors; all these things ought to be permitted to the Pres­byterians, Independants, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same Liberty. Nay if we may openly speak the Truth and as becomes one Man to another; neither Pagan, nor Mahumetan, nor Iew, ought to be excluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, be­cause of his Religion. The Gospel commands no such thing. The Church, which judges not those that are without, (2 Cor. 5.12, 13.) wants it not. And the commonwealth, which em­braces indifferently all men that are honest, peace­able, and industrious, requires it not. Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal and trade with us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto, and worship God? If we allow the Iews to have private Houses and Dwellings amongst us, Why should we not allow them to have Synagogues? Is their Doctrine more false, their Worship more abomi­nable, or is the Civil Peace more endangered, by their meeting in publick, than in their private Houses? But if these things may be granted to Iews and Pagans, surely the Condition of any Christians ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian Commonwealth.

[Page 70]You'll say, perhaps, Yes, it ought to be: Be­cause they are more inclinable to Factions, Tu­mults, and Civil Wars. I answer: Is this the fault of the Christian Religion? If it be so, tru­ly the Christian Religion is the worst of all Re­ligions, and ought neither to be embraced by any particular Person, nor tolerated by any Common­wealth. For if this be the Genius, this the Na­ture of the Christian Religion, to be turbulent, and destructive to the Civil Peace; that Church it self which the Magistrate indulges will not al­ways be innocent. But far be it from us to say any such thing of that Religion, which carries the greatest opposition to Covetousness, Ambi­tion, Discord, Contention, and all manner of in­ordinate Desires▪ and is the most mod [...]st and peaceable Religion that ever was. We must therefore seek another Cause of those Evils that are charged upon Religion. And if we consider right, we shall find it to consist wholly in the Subject that I am treating of. It is not the Di­versity of Opinions, (which cannot be avoided) but the Refusal of Toleration to those that are of different Opinions, (which might have been granted) that has produced all the Bustles and Wars that have been in the Christian World, up­on account of Religion. The Heads and Lead­ers of the Church, moved by Avarice and insa­tiable desire of Dominion, making use of the im­moderate Ambition of Magistrates, and the cre­dulous Superstition of the giddy Multitude, have incensed and animated them against those that dissent from themselves; by preaching unto them, contrary to the Laws of the Gospel, and to the Precepts of Charity, That Schisma­ticks [Page 71] and Hereticks are to be outed of their Pos­sessions, and destroyed. And thus have they mixed together, and confounded two things that are in themselves most different, the Church and the Commonwealth. Now as it is very difficult for men patiently to suffer themselves to be stript of the Goods, which they have got by their honest Industry; and contrary to all the Laws of E­quity, both Humane and Divine, to be delivered up for a Prey to other mens Violence and Ra­pine; especially when they are otherwise alto­gether blameless, and that the Occasion for which they are thus treated, does not at all belong to the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but entire­ly to the Conscience of every particular man, for the Conduct of which he is accountable to God only; What else can be expected, but that these men, growing weary of the Evils under which they labour, should in the end think it lawful for them to resist Force with Force, and to defend their natural Rights (which are not forfeitable upon account of Religion) with Arms as well as they can? That this has been hither­to the ordinary course of things, is abundantly evident in History: And that it will continue to be so hereafter, is but too apparent in Reason. It cannot indeed be otherwise, so long as the Prin­ciple of Persecution for Religion shall pervail, as it has done hitherto, with Magistrate and People; and so long as those [...]hat ought to be the Preach­ers of Peace and Concord, shall continue, with all their Art and Strength, to excite men to Arms, and sound the Trumpet of War. But that Ma­gistrates should thus suffer these Incendiaries, and Disturbers of the Publick Peace, might justly be [Page 72] wondered at; if it did not appear that they have been invited by them unto a Participation of the Spoil, and have therefore thought fit to make use of their Covetousness and Pride, as Means whereby to increase their own Power. For who does not see that these Good Men are indeed more Ministers of the Government, than Ministers of the Gospel; and that by flattering the Ambi­tion, and favouring the Dominion of Princes and Men in Authority, they endeavour with all their might to promote that Tyranny in the Common­wealth, which otherwise they should not be a­ble to establish in the Church? This is the un­happy Agreement that we see between the Church and State. Whereas if each of them would con­tain it self within its own Bounds, the one at­tending to the worldly welfare of the Com­mon wealth, the other to the Salv [...]tion of Souls, it is impossible that any Discord should ever have hapned between them. Sed, pudet haec opprobria, &c. God Almighty grant, I beseech him, that the Gospel of Peace may at length be Preached, and that Civil Magistrates growing more careful to conform their own Consciences to the Law of God, and less solicitous about the binding of other mens Consciences by Humane Laws, may, like Fathers of their Country, direct all their Counsels and Endeavours to promote uni­versally the Civil Welfare of all their Children; except only of such as are arrogant, ungovernable, and injurious to their Brethren; and that all Eccle­siastical men, who boast thems [...]lv [...]s to be the Suc­cessors of the Apostles, walking peaceably & mo­d [...]stly in the Apostles steps, without intermedling with State-Affairs, may apply themselves wholly to promote the Salvation of Souls. Farewel.



PErhaps it may not be amiss to add a few things concerning Heresie and Schism. A Turk is not, nor can be, either Heretick, or Schisma­tick to a Christian: and if any man fall off from the Christian Faith to Mahumetism, he does not thereby become a Heretick or Schismatick, but an Apostate, and an Infidel. This no body doubts of. And by this it appears that men of differ­ent Religions cannot be Hereticks or Schisma­ticks to one another.

We are to enquire therefore, what men are of the same Religion. Concerning which it is mani­fest that those who have one and the same Rule of Faith and Worship, are of the same Religion; and those who have not the same Rule of Faith and Worship, are of different Religions. For since all things that belong unto that Religion, are contained in that Rule, it follows necessarily, that those who agree in one Rule, are of one and the same Religion: and vice versa. Thus Turks and Christians are of different Religions; be­cause these take the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Religion, and those the Alcoran. And for the same reason, there may be different Religions also even amongst Christians. The Pa­pists and the Lutherans, though both of them profess Faith in Christ, and are therefore called Christians, yet are not both of the same Religion because These acknowledge nothing but the Holy [Page 74] Scriptures to be the Rule and Foundation of their Religion; Those take in also Traditions and the Decrees of Popes, and of all these together make the Rule of their Religion. And thus the Christians of St. Iohn (as they are called) and the Christians of Geneva, are of different Religions; because These also take only the Scriptures; and Those, I know not what Traditions, for the Rule of their Religion.

This being setled, it follows; First, that He­resie is a Separation made in Ecclesiastical Com­munion between men of the same Religion, for some Opinions no way contained in the Rule it self. And Secondly That amongst those who ac­knowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be their Rule of Faith, Heresie is a Separation made in their Christian Communion, for Opini­ons not contained in the express words of Scrip­ture. Now this Separation may be made in a twofold manner.

1. When the greater part, or (by the Magi­strate's Patronage) the stronger part, of the Church separates it self from others, by exclud­ing them out of her Communion, because they will not profess their Belief of certain Opinions which are not to be found in the express words of Scripture, For it is not the paucity of those that are separated, nor the Authority of the Ma­gistrate, that can make any man guilty of Here­sie. But he only is an Heretick who divides the Church into parts, introduces Names and Marks of Distinction, and voluntarily makes a Separa­tion because of such Opinions.

2. When any one separates himself from the Communion of a Church, because that Church [Page 75] does not publickly profess some certain Opinions which the Holy Scriptures do not expresly teach.

Both these are Hereticks: because they err in Fundamentals, and they err obstinately against Knowledge. For when they have determined the Holy Scriptures to be the only Foundation of Faith; they nevertheless lay down certain Propo­sitions as fundamental, which are not in the Scripture; and because others will not acknow­ledge these additional Opinions of theirs, nor build upon them as if they were necessary and fun­damental, they therefore make a Separation in the Church; either by withdrawing themselves from the others, or expelling the others from them. Nor does it signifie any thing for them to say that their Confessions and Symboles are agreeable to Scripture, and to the Analogy of Faith. For if they be conceived in the express words of Scrip­ture, there ca [...] [...]e no question about them; be­cause those are acknowledged by all Christians to be of Divine Inspiration, and therefore fundamental. But if they say that the Articles which they require to be profess'd are Consequences deduced from the Scripture; it is undoubtedly well done of them to believe and profess such things as seem unto them so agreeable to the Rule of Faith; But it would be very ill done to obtrude those things upon others, unto whom they do not seem to be the indubitable Doctrines of the Scripture. And to make a Separation for such things as these, which neither are nor can be fundamental, is to become Hereticks▪ For I do not think there is any man arrived to that degree of madness, as that he dare give out his Consequences and Interpretations of Scripture as Divine Inspirations, [Page 76] and compare the Articles of Faith that he has framed according to his own Fancy with the Authority of the Scripture. I know there are some Propositions so evidently agreeable to Scrip­ture, that no body can deny them to be drawn from thence; but about those therefore there can be no difference. This only I say, that however clearly we may think this or the other Doctrine to be deduced from Scripture, we ought not there­fore to impose it upon others, as a necessary Arti­cle of Faith, because we believe it to be agreea­ble to the Rule of Faith; unless we would be content also that other Doctrines should be im­posed upon us in the same manner; and that we should be compell'd to receive and profess all the different and contradictory Opinions of Lu­therans, Calvinists, Remonstrants, Anabaptists, an [...] other Sects, which the Contrivers of Symbols, Systems and Confessions, are accu [...]tomed to de­liver unto their Followers as genuine and necessa­ry Deductions from the Holy Scripture. I can­not but wonder at the extravagant arrogance of those Men who think that they themselves can explain things necessary to Salvation more clearly than the Holy Ghost, the Eternal and Infinite Wisdom of God.

Thus much concerning Heresie; which word in common use is applied only to the Doctrinal part of Religion. Let us now consider Schism, which is a Crime near akin to it. For both those words seem unto me to signifie an ill-grounded Separation in Ecclesiastical Communion, made about things not necessary. But since Use, which is the Supreme Law in matter of Language, has deter­mined that Heresie relates to Errors in Faith and [Page 77] Schism to those in Worship or Discipline, we must consider them under that Distinction.

Schism then, for the same reasons that have already been alledged, is nothing else but a Separation made in the Communion of the Church, upon account of something in Divine Worship, or Ecclesiastical Discipline, that is not any necessary part of it. Now nothing in Worship or Discipline can be necessary to Christian Commu­nion, but what Christ our Legislator, or the Apo­stles, by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have com­manded in express words.

In a word: He that denies not any thing that the Holy Scriptures teach in express words, nor makes a Separation upon occasion of any thing that is not manifestly contained in the Sacred Text; however he may be nick-named by any Sect of Christi [...]ns, and declared by some, or all of them to be utterly void of true Christianity, yet indeed and in truth this Man cannot be either a Here­tick or a Schismatick.

These things might have been explained more largely, and more advantageously: but it is e­nough to have hinted at them, thus briefly, to a Person of your parts.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.