I Now give you my Thoughts on the Queſtions you lately ſent me. As you ſet me the Taſk, you muſt take the Performance as it is without any Apology for its Defects. I have wrote with the uſual Freedom of a Friend, aiming at nothing but Truth, and to expreſs my ſelf ſo as to be underſtood. In order to anſwer your main Enquiry concerning the Extent of the civil Magiſtrate's Power reſpecting RELIGION; I ſuppoſe it needful to look back to the End, and therefore to the Original of it: By which Means I ſuppoſe a juſt Notion may be formed of what is properly their Buſineſs or the Object of their Power; and ſo without any inſuperable Difficulty we may thence learn what is out of that Compaſs.

That the SACRED SCRIPTURES are the alone Rule of Faith and Practice to a Chriſtian, all Proteſtants are agreed in; and muſt therefore inviolably maintain, that every Chriſtian has a Right of judging for himſelf what he is to believe and practice in Religion according to that Rule: Which I think on a full Examination you will find perfectly inconſiſtent with any Power in the civil Magiſtrate to make any penal Laws in Matters of Religion. Tho' Proteſtants are agreed in the Profeſſion of that Principle, yet too many in Practice have departed from it. The Evils that have been introduced thereby into the Chriſtian Church are more than can be reckoned up. Becauſe of the great Importance of it to the Chriſtian and to his ſtanding faſt in that Liberty wherewith CHRIST has made him free, you will not fault me if I am the longer upon it. The more firmly this is eſtabliſhed in our Minds; the more firm ſhall we be againſt all Attempts upon our Chriſtian Liberty, and better practice that Chriſtian Charity towards ſuch as are of different Sentiments from us in Religion that is ſo much recommended and inculcated in thoſe ſacred Oracles, and which a juſt Underſtanding of our Chriſtian Rights has a natural Tendency to influence us to. And tho' your Sentiments about ſome of thoſe Points you demand my Thoughts upon may have been different from mine; yet I perſwade my ſelf, you will not think mine to be far from the Truth when you ſhall have throughly weighed what follows. But if I am miſtaken in the Grounds I proceed upon or in any Concluſion drawn from true Premiſes, I ſhall be thankful to have the ſame pointed out: Truth being what I ſeek, to which all muſt bow firſt or laſt.

To proceed then as I have juſt hinted, I ſhall Firſt, briefly conſider the Origin and End of Civil Government.

Firſt, As to the Origin—Reaſon teaches us that all Men are naturally equal in Reſpect of Juriſdiction or Dominion one over another. Altho' true it is that Children are not born in this full State of Equality, yet they are born to it. Their Parents have a Sort of Rule & Jurdiſdiction over them when they come into the World, and for ſome Time after: But it is but a temporary one; which ariſes from that Duty incumbent on them to take Care of their Offspring during the imperfect State of Childhood, to preſerve, nouriſh and educate them (as the Workmanſhip of their own almighty MAKER, to whom they are to be accountable for them,) and govern the Actions of their yet ignorant Nonage, 'till Reaſon ſhall take its Place and eaſe them of that Trouble. For GOD having given Man an Underſtanding to direct his Actions, has given him therewith a Freedom of Will and Liberty of Acting, as properly belonging thereto, within the Bounds of that Law he is under: And whilſt he is in a State wherein he has no Underſtanding of his own to direct his Will, he is not to have any Will of his own to follow: He that underſtands for him muſt will for him too.—But when he comes to ſuch a State of Reaſon as made the Father free, the ſame muſt make the Son free too: For the Freedom of Man and Liberty of acting according to his own Will (without being ſubject to the Will of another) is grounded on his having Reaſon, which is able to inſtruct him in that Law he is to govern himſelf by, and make him know how far he is left to the Freedom of his own Will. So that we are born Free as we are born Rational. Not that we have actually the Exerciſe of either as ſoon as born; Age that bring 〈…〉 too. This natural Freedom is not a 〈…〉 what he pleaſes without any Re •• rd to any L • w; 〈…〉 Creature cannot but be made under a Law from its MAKER: But it conſiſts in a Freedom from any ſuperiour Power on Earth, and not being under the Will or legiſlative Authority of Man, and having only the Law of Nature (or in other Words, of its MAKER) for his Rule.

And as Reaſon tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i. e. with an equal Right to their Perſons; ſo alſo with an equal Right to their Preſervation; and therefore to ſuch Things as Nature affords for their Subſiſtence. For which Purpoſe GOD was pleaſed to make a Grant of the Earth in common to the Children of Men, firſt to Adam and afterwards to Noah and his Sons: as the Pſalmiſt ſays, Pſal. 115. 16. And altho' no one has originally a private Dominion excluſive of the reſt of Mankind in the Earth or its Products, as they are conſider'd in this their natural State; yet ſince GOD has given theſe Things for the Uſe of Men and given them Reaſon alſo to make Uſe thereof to the beſt Advantage of Life; there muſt of Neceſſity be a Means to appropriate them ſome Way or other, before they can be of any Uſe to any particular Perſon. And every Man having a Property in his own Perſon, the Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands are properly his own, to which no one has Right but himſelf; it will therefore follow that when he removes any Thing out of the State that Nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his Labour with it and joined ſomething to it that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. He having removed it out of the common State Nature placed it in, it hath by this Labour ſomething annexed to it that excludes the common Right of others; becauſe this Labour being the unqueſtionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a Right to what that is once joined to, at leaſt where there is enough and as good left in common for others. Thus every Man having a natural Right to (or being the Proprietor of) his own Perſon and his own Actions and Labour and to what he can honeſtly acquire by his Labour, which we call Property; it certainly follows, that no Man can have a Right to the Perſon or Property of another: And if every Man has a Right to his Perſon and Property; he has alſo a Right to defend them, and a Right to all the neceſſary Means of Defence, and ſo has a Right of puniſhing all Inſults upon his Perſon and Property.

But becauſe in ſuch a State of Nature, every Man muſt be Judge of the Breach of the Law of Nature and 〈◊〉 too (even in his own Caſe) and the greater Part being no ſtrict Obſervers of Equity and Juſtice; the Enjoyment of Property in this State is not very ſafe. Three Things are wanting in this State (as the celebrated Lock obſerves) to render them ſafe; viz. an eſtabliſhed known Law received and allowed by common Conſent to be the Standard of Right and Wrong, the common Meaſure to decide all Controverſies between them: For tho' the Law of Nature be intelligible to all rational Creatures; yet Men being biaſſed by their Intereſt as well as ignorant for Want of the Study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a Law binding to them in the Application of it to their particular Caſes. There wants alſo a known and indifferent Judge with Authority to determine all Differences according to the eſtabliſhed Law: for Men are too apt to be partial to themſelves, and too much wanting in a juſt Concern for the Intereſt of others. There often wants alſo in a State of Nature, a Power to back and ſupport the Sentence when right, and give it due Execution.—Now to remedy theſe Inconveniencies, Reaſon teaches Men to join in Society, to unite together into a Commonwealth under ſome Form or other, to make a Body of Laws agreable to the Law of Nature, and inſtitute one common Power to ſee them obſerved.—It is they who thus unite together, viz. the People, who make and alone have Right to make the Laws that are to take Place among them; or which comes to the ſame Thing, appoint thoſe who ſhall make them, and who ſhall ſee them executed.—For every Man has an equal Right to the Preſervation of his Perſon and Property; and ſo an equal Right to eſtabliſh a Law, or to nominate the Makers and Executors of the Laws which are the Guardians both of Perſon and Property.

Hence then the Fountain and Original of all civil Power is from the People, and is certainly inſtituted for their Sakes; or in other Words, which was the ſecond Thing propoſed, The great End of civil Government, is the Preſervation of their Perſons, their Liberties and Eſtates, or their Property. Moſt certain it is, that it muſt be for their own Sakes, the rendering their Condition better than it was in what is called a State of Nature (a State without ſuch eſtabliſh'd Laws as before mentioned, or without any common Power) that Men would willingly put themſelves out of that State. It is nothing but their own Good can be any rational Inducement to it: and to ſuppoſe they either ſhould or would do it on any other, is to ſuppoſe rational Creatures ought to change their State with a Deſign to make it worſe. And that Good which in ſuch a State they find a need of, is no other then a greater Security of Enjoyment of what belonged to them. That and that only can then be the true Reaſon of their uniting together in ſome Form or other they judge beſt for the obtaining that greater Security. That greater Security therefore of Life, Liberty, Money, Lands, Houſes, Family, and the like, which may be all comprehended under that of Perſon and Property, is the ſole End of all civil Government. I mean not that all civil Governments (as ſo called) are thus conſtituted: (tho' the Britiſh and ſome few other Nations are through a merciful Providence ſo happy as to have ſuch.) There are too too many arbitrary Governments in the World, where the People don't make their own Laws. Theſe are not properly ſpeaking Governments but Tyrannies; and are abſolutely againſt the Law of GOD and Nature. But I am conſidering Things as they be in their own Nature, what Reaſon teaches concerning them: and herein have given a ſhort Sketch of what the celebrated Mr. Lock in his Treatiſe of Government has largely demonſtrated; and in which it is juſtly to be preſumed all are agreed who underſtand the natural Rights of Mankind.

Thus having ſeen what the End of civil Government is; I ſuppoſe we ſee a fair Foundation laid for the Determination of the next Thing I propoſed to conſider: Which is, What Liberty or Power belonging to Man as he is a reaſonable Creature does every Man give up to the civil Government whereof he is a Member.—Some Part of their natural Liberty they do certainly give up to the Government, for the Benefit of Society and mutual Defence, (for in a political Society every one even an Infant has the whole Force of the Community to protect him) and ſomething therefore is certainly given up to the Whole for this Purpoſe.—Now the Way to know what Branches of natural Liberty are given up, and what remain to us after our Admiſſion into civil Society, is to conſider the Ends for which Men enter into a State of Government.—For ſo much Liberty and no more is departed from, as is neceſſary to ſecure thoſe Ends; the reſt is certainly our own ſtill. And here I ſuppoſe with the before-mentioned noble Aſſertor of the Liberties of humane Nature; all that is given up may be reduced to two Heads.—1ſt. The Power that every one has in a State of Nature to do whatever he judgeth ſit, for the Preſervation of his Perſon and Property and that of others alſo, within the Permiſſion of the Law of Nature, he gives up to be regulated by Laws made by the Society, ſo far forth as the Preſervation of himſelf (his Perſon and Property) and the reſt of that Society ſhall require And, 2. The Power of puniſhing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural Force (which he might before employ in the Execution of the Law of Nature by his own ſingle Authority as he thought fit) to aſſiſt the executive Power of the Society as the Law thereof ſhall require. For (he adds) being now in a new State wherein he is to enjoy many Conveniencies, from the Labour Aſſiſtance and Society of others in the ſame Community, as well as Protection from its whole Strength; he is to part alſo with as much of his natural Liberty and providing for himſelf, as the Good and Safety of the Society ſhall require; which is not only neceſſary but juſt, ſince the other Members of the Society do the like. Now if the giving up theſe Powers be ſufficient to anſwer thoſe Ends for which Men enter into a State of Government, viz. the better Security of their Perſons and Properties; then no more is parted with; and therefore all the reſt is ours ſtill. This I reſt on as certain, that no more natural Liberty or Power is given up than is neceſſary for the Preſervation of Perſon and Property.

I deſign not to mention many Particulars which according to this Rule I ſuppoſe are not parted with by entering into a State of Government: what is reducible to one or two general Heads is ſufficient to our preſent Purpoſe.—Tho' as I paſs I cannot forbear taking notice of one Point of Liberty which all Members of a free State and particularly Engliſhmen think belonging to them, and are fond of; and that is the Right that every one has to ſpeak his Sentiments openly concerning ſuch Matters as affect the good of the whole. Every Member of a Community ought to be concerned for the whole, as well as for his particular Part: His Life and all, as to this World is as it were embarked in the ſame Bottom, and is perpetually intereſted in the good or ill Succeſs thereof: Whenever therefore he ſees a Rock on which there is a Probability the Veſſel may ſplit, or if he ſees a Sand that may ſwallow it up, or if he foreſees a Storm that is like to ariſe; his own Intereſt is too deeply concerned not to give Notice of the Danger: And the Right he has to his own Life and Property gives him a Right to ſpeak his Sentiments. If the Pilot or Captain don't think fit to take any Notice of it, yet it ſeems to be certain they have no Right 〈…〉 of him who thinks he eſpys Danger to the whole Ships Crew, or to puniſh the well-meaning Informer. A Man would ſcarce deſerve the Character of a good Member of Society who ſhould reſolve to be ſilent on all Occaſions, and never mind, ſpeak or guard againſt the Follies or Ignorance or Miſtakes of thoſe at the Helm. And Government rather incourages than takes away a Liberty, the Uſe of which is ſo needful and often very beneficial to the Whole, as Experience has abundantly ſhown.

But not to detain you here,

I. The Members of a civil State or Society do retain their natural Liberty in all ſuch Caſes as have no Relation to the Ends of ſuch a Society.—In a State of Nature Men had a Right to read Milton or Lock for their Inſtruction or Amuſement: and why they do not retain this Liberty under a Government that is inſtituted for the Preſervation of their Perſons and Properties, is inconceivable. From whence can ſuch a Society derive any Right to hinder them from doing that which does not affect the Ends of that Society? Should a Government therefore reſtrain the free Uſe of the Scriptures, prohibit Men the reading of them, and make it Penal to examine and ſearch them; it would be a manifeſt Uſurpation upon the common Rights of Mankind, as much a Violation of natural Liberty as the Attack of a Highwayman upon the Road can be upon our civil Rights. And indeed with reſpect to the ſacred Writings, Men might not only read them if the Government did prohibit the ſame, but they would be bound by a higher Authority to read them, notwithſtanding any humane Prohibition. The Pretence of any Authority to reſtrain Men from reading the ſame, is wicked as well as vain.—But whether in ſome Caſes that have no Relation to the Ends of Government and wherein therefore Men retain their natural Liberty; if the civil Authority ſhould attempt by a Law to reſtrain Men, People might not be oblig'd to ſubmit therein, is not here at all the Queſtion: tho' I ſuppoſe that in ſuch Caſe wherein they ought to ſubmit, the Obligation thereto would ariſe from ſome other Conſideration, and not from the ſuppoſed Law; there being no binding Force in a Law where a rightful Authority to make the 〈◊〉 is wanting.

II. The Members of a civil State do 〈…〉 natural Liberty or Right of judging 〈…〉 of Religion. Every Man has an equal Right to follow 〈…〉 of his own Conſcien •• in the Affa ••• 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈…〉 is under an 〈…〉 himſelf (which contains the whole of it) and to make the beſt Uſe of it he can for his own Information in the Will of GOD, the Nature and Duties of Chriſtianity. And as every Chriſtian is ſo bound; ſo he has an unalienable Right to judge of the Senſe and Meaning of it, and to follow his Judgment wherever it leads him; even an equal Right with any Rulers be they Civil or Eccleſiaſtical.—This I ſay, I take to be an original Right of the humane Nature, and ſo far from being given up by the Individuals of a Community that it cannot be given up by them if they ſhould be ſo weak as to offer it. Man by his Conſtitution as he is a reaſonable Being capable of the Knowledge of his MAKER; is a moral & accountable Being: and therefore as every one is accountable for himſelf, he muſt reaſon, judge and determine for himſelf. That Faith and Practice which depends on the Judgment and Choice of any other Perſon, and not on the Perſon's own Underſtanding Judgment and Choice, may paſs for Religion in the Synagogue of Satan, whoſe Tenet is that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion; but with no underſtanding Proteſtant will it paſs for any Religion at all. No Action is a religious Action without Underſtanding and Choice in the Agent. Whence it follows, the Rights of Conſcience are ſacred and equal in all, and ſtrictly ſpeaking unalienable. This Right of judging every one for himſelf in Matters of Religion reſults from the Nature of Man, and is ſo inſeperably connected therewith, that a Man can no more part with it than he can with his Power of Thinking: and it is equally reaſonable for him to attempt to ſtrip himſelf of the Power of Reaſoning, as to attempt the veſting of another with this Right. And whoever invades this Right of another, be he Pope or Caeſar, may with equal Reaſon aſſume the other's Power of Thinking, and ſo level him with the Brutal Creation.—A Man may alienate ſome Branches of his Property and give up his Right in them to others; but he cannot transfer the Rights of Conſcience, unleſs he could deſtroy his rational and moral Powers, or ſubſtitute ſome other to be judged for him at the Tribunal of GOD.

But what may further clear this Point and at the ſame Time ſhew the Extent of this Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion, is this Truth, That the ſacred Scriptures are the alone Rule of Faith and Practice to every individual Chriſtian. Were it needful I might eaſily ſhow, the ſacred Scriptures have all the Character neceſſary to conſtitute a juſt and proper Rule of Faith and Practice, and that they alone have them.—It is ſufficient for all ſuch as acknowledge the divine Authority of the Scriptures, briefly to obſerve, that GOD the Author has therein declared he has given and deſigned them to be our only Rule of Faith and Practice. Thus ſays the Apoſtle Paul, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16; That they are given by Inſpiration from GOD, and are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Inſtruction in Righteouſneſs; that the Man of GOD may be perfect, thoroughly furniſhed unto every good Work. So the Apoſtle John in his Goſpel, Chap. 20. Ver. 31. ſays; Theſe Things are written that ye might believe that JESUS is the CHRIST, the SON of GOD, and that believing ye might have Life through his Name. And in his firſt Epiſtle, Chap. 5. Ver. 13. Theſe Things have I written, that ye may know that ye have eternal Life, and that ye may believe on the Name of the SON of GOD. Theſe Paſſages ſhow that what was written was to be the ſtanding Rule of Faith and Practice, compleat and moſt ſufficient for ſuch an End, deſigned by infinite Wiſdom in the giving them, containing every Thing needful to be known and done by Chriſtians, or ſuch as believe on the Name of the SON of GOD. Now inaſmuch as the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith and Practice to a Chriſtian; then every one has an unalienable Right to read, enquire into, and impartially judge of the Senſe and Meaning of it for himſelf. For if he is to be governed and determined therein by the Opinions and Determinations of any others, the Scriptures ceaſe to be a Rule to him, and thoſe Opinions or Determinations of others are ſubſtituted in the Room thereof. But you will ſay, The Prieſt's Lips ſhould keep Knowledge, and they ſhould ſeek the Law at his Mouth, Mal.—7.—Yes; that is, it is their Duty to explain the Scriptures, and the People's Duty at the ſame Time to ſearch the Scriptures to ſee whether thoſe Things they ſay are ſo. Acts 17. 11. The Officers CHRIST has commiſſioned in his Church, as Paſtors or Biſhops, are to teach his Laws, to explain as they are able the Mind & Will of CHRIST laid down in the Scriptures; but they have no Warrant to make any Laws for them, nor are their Sentiments the Rule to any Chriſtian, who are all commanded to prove all Things, to try the Spirits whether they be of GOD. 1 Thes. 5. 21. 1 Joh. 4. 1. I ſpeak as to wiſe Men, ſays PAUL, judge ye what I ſay, 1 Cor. 10. 15. Theſe and many other Texts I might have alledg'd, entirely anſwer the Objection, and eſtabliſh the Point before us.

The Evidence of the Point before us ariſes out of the Nature of a Rule of Faith and Practice. For a Rule of Faith and Practice is certainly that from which we muſt take and rectify all our Conceptions, and by which we ought to regulate all our Actions, concerning all thoſe Matters to which this Rule relates. As it is the Rule of our Faith, we muſt receive no Doctrines but what that contains: otherwiſe our Faith is not directed by that Rule; but other Things in that Caſe are taken up and believed for Truths which that Rule takes no Notice of; and therefore it is done on ſome other Authority, which in Reality therefore becomes our Rule, inſtead of that which of Right ought to be ſo. A Rule, conſidered as ſuch, is a Meaſure or Director with which a Thing is to be compared and made to agree: And therefore a Rule of Faith and Practice is that which being applied to our Minds directs and regulates them, by informing the Underſtanding and guiding the Will, and ſo influencing all our Actions. That which is the Rule of our Faith muſt point out to us and teach us the ſeveral Doctrines and inform us of the ſeveral Facts which we are to believe: And if we have entertained any wrong Notions or erroneous Opinions, they are to be corrected and regulated, by being compared and made to agree with this Rule. So alſo the Rule of our Practice is that from which we are to learn the ſeveral Duties we are to perform, and how all our Actions are to be regulated.—'Tis the Nature of a Rule of Faith and Practice to include all this. That whereby Men examine into the Truth of any Thing, is to them the Rule of Truth; that from whence they learn what they ought to believe, is to them the Rule of Faith; and that to which they conform their Actions, is their Rule of Practice. If Men receive the Doctrines preſcribed to them by the Pope, by a Council, by a Convocation or a Parliament, from the Writings of Fathers, or any Doctors of Learning and Reputation, and conform their Actions to the Dictates and Commands of any of theſe or ſuch like Authorities; the Authority to which they give this Honour, is undoubtedly the Rule of their Faith and Practice. And ſo if we ſubmit our ſelves truly and impartially to the Authority of CHRIST, and ſearch for the Truths we are to believe, and the Duties we are to perform in his written Word; then only do we make Him our Director and Guide, and the Scriptures the Rule of our Faith and Practice. And it is the ſacred Scriptures alone which have this Right to our intire Submiſſion, as now deſcribed: and no other Authority which has yet been or ever ſhall be ſet up, has any Manner of Right at all to govern and direct our Conſciences in religious Matters.

This is a Truth of too great Importance for a Chriſtian ever in any Meaſure to give up; and is ſo clear and obvious a Truth, as may well paſs for a ſelf-evident Maxim, That a Chriſtian is to receive his Chriſtianity from CHRIST alone. For what is it which is neceſſarily implied and ſuppoſed in the very Notion of a Chriſtian but this, that he is a Follower and Diſciple of CHRIST, one who receives and profeſſes to believe his Doctrines as true, and ſubmits to his Commands? And ſo far only as any does this, is he a Chriſtian: and ſo far therefore as he receives or admits any other Doctrines or Laws, is he to be denominated from that Perſon or Sect, from whoſe Authority or Inſtruction he receives them.

Every Society ought to be ſubject only to its own proper Legiſlature. The Truth of this is evident at the firſt View; and civil Societies readily adhere to this as an inviolable Principle. And this holds equally true with Reſpect to religious or civil Societies; and therefore as in the Church of CHRIST no other Power or Authority may be admitted but that of CHRIST alone; ſo no Laws may be made for, or any Doctrines be taught and enjoined upon the Church of CHRIST beſides thoſe he has made and taught and enjoined. The Laws of England are what the Legiſlature of England has paſſed into Laws; not what any other Power or Authority inſtitute or teach under that Name. And what theſe are, cannot be known from any other but the Law makers, by the Publications they have made and authorized. The Doctrines of the Church of Rome (if that by a Figure may be called ſo) are ſuch as that Church and its Legiſlature aſſert and own. So the Doctrines or Religion of CHRIST, is only that which he has appointed and taught, and all that is contained in Scripture: every Thing elſe is of Men only, and no Part of the Chriſtian Religion. What is taught by any eſtabliſhed Church, and not contained in Scripture, is indeed the Doctrine of that Church, but not of CHRIST: For none can make Laws to oblige the Church of CHRIST but CHRIST himſelf. The Church of CHRIST as ſuch, muſt receive its Laws from CHRIST only; i. e. from the Scriptures: for they are to be found no where elſe. The Chriſtian Religion is that which CHRIST has taught; and therefore what he has not taught, but ſome other Perſon, is not the Chriſtian Religion. So alſo the Church of CHRIST is that which is founded according to the Directions and Model by him laid down. That therefore which is not ſo founded, but upon Principles and Regulations laid down by Men, is ſo far not a Church of CHRIST, but of Men: And in all theſe Things the Scriptures only can be our Rule. For we cannot know what CHRIST teaches and commands, from what he does not ſay, and what is ſaid only by ſome other Perſon, but it muſt be from what he does teach and command; and all that is contained in his Word.

Again, if CHRIST be the Lord of the Conſcience, the ſole King in his own Kingdom; then it will follow, that all ſuch as in any Manner or Degree aſſume the Power of directing and governing the Conſciences of Men, are juſtly chargeable with invading his rightful Dominion; He alone having the Right they claim. Should the King of France take it into his Head to preſcribe Laws to the Subjects of the King of Great Britain; who would not ſay, it was an Invaſion of and Inſult offer'd to the Britiſh Legiſlature.

I might alſo add, That for any to aſſume the Power of directing the Conſciences of Men, not leaving them to the Scriptures alone, is evidently a declaring them to be defective and inſufficient to that Purpoſe; and therefore that our LORD who h • s left us the Scriptures for that Purpoſe, did not know what was neceſſary and ſufficient for us, and has given us a Law, the Defects of which were to be ſupplied by the Wiſdom of ſome of his own wiſer Diſciples. How high an Impeachment this is of his infinite Wiſdom, ſuch would do well to conſider, who impoſe their own Doctrines, Interpretations or Deciſions upon any Men by Puniſhments, legal Incapacities, or any other Methods beſides thoſe uſed and directed to in the ſacred Scriptures.

And as all Impoſers on Men's Conſciences are guilty of Rebellion againſt GOD and CHRIST, of manifeſt Diſobedience to and Contempt of their Authority and Commands; ſo all they who ſubmit their Conſciences to any ſuch unjuſt uſurp'd Authority, beſides the Share which ſuch Perſons neceſſarily have in the Guilt of the Uſurpers, as countenancing and giving in to their illegal Claim and ſupporting their wicked Pretenſions, they do likewiſe renounce Subjection to the Authority and Laws of CHRIST. To ſubmit our Conſciences to the Guidance of any Man or Order of Men, is not to reaſon and act according to our own Underſtanding; but to take every thing for true, that our ſpiritual Guide affirms to be ſo, and that meerly upon his Authority, without examining into, or ſeeing the Truth and Reaſonableneſs of it: And in every Inſtance wherein we thus ſubmit our ſelves to the Direction of any humane Authority, ſo far we ſet aſide and renounce all other Authority, our own Light and Reaſon, and even the Word of GOD and CHRIST: And the Authority of the Guide we ſubject our ſelves unto is ſubſtituted in the Stead of all theſe. If we muſt be directed and governed by any humane Power, it concerns us not what any other may teach and command; this the being ſubject to a Power neceſſarily ſuppoſes and includes. An Engliſhman is ſubject to the Crown and Laws of England, and has nothing to do with the Laws and Courts of Judicature in France or Spain, or any other State, but diſowns and renounces all Obedience thereto. This is a univerſal Rule: And therefore if our Conſciences are under the Direction of any humane Authority as to religious Matters; they ceaſe to be under the Direction of CHRIST. What CHRIST himſelf has told us is infallibly true, that no Man can ſerve two Maſters, but he muſt unavoidably prefer the one and neglect the other: And conſequently whoever looks upon himſelf to be under the Direction and Government of any humane Power in Matters of Religion, does thereby renounce the Authority of CHRIST, and withdraw Obedience from him.

From theſe Principles, we have here laid down, which can't but be held as indubitably true by every conſiſtent Proteſtant, THESE COROLLARIES may be deduced.

I. That the civil Authority hath no Power to make or ordain Articles of Faith, Creeds, Forms of Worſhip or Church Government. This I think evidently follows from what has been ſaid, that they can have no Power to decree any Articles of Faith. For theſe are already eſtabliſhed by CHRIST himſelf; and for Mortals to pretend any Right of Determination what others ſhall believe, is really to uſurp that Authority which belongs to CHRIST the ſupream King and Head of his Church; who only hath and can have a Right to preſcribe to the Conſciences of Men, as is evident from the laſt foregoing Head. So it alſo follows, that they have no Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies in Religion, or Forms of divine Worſhip. And this not only becauſe theſe Things have no Relation to the Ends of civil Society; it no Ways concerns the Common-Wealth or any Member of it, whether Men pray kneeling or ſtanding, whether the Sign of the Croſs be uſed or omitted in Baptiſm, that this or the other Ceremony be made uſe of in the Church; but alſo becauſe this is already ſufficiently done by CHRIST in the ſacred Scriptures. Theſe contain every Thing needful to be known or done by Chriſtians. It is CHRIST'S ſole Prerogative to inſtitute the whole and every Part of religious Worſhip. Who can tell what Homage will be pleaſing to GOD but He himſelf? Or in what Way the Creature ſhall attend upon him for the Obtainment of any ſpiritual Bleſſing but He himſelf? Can a Creature connect a divine Bleſſing with any of its own invented Methods of Worſhip? Or oblige him to be pleaſed or diſpleaſed in any other Way, or upon any other Terms, but thoſe himſelf has made and propoſed, and which are all manifeſtly contained in the Scriptures?

Objection, If it ſhould be here objected, That although CHRIST has inſtituted every Part of religious Worſhip; yet the particular Mode or Manner wherein ſome of thoſe Acts are to be attended he has not ſpecially pointed out, which therefore muſt be determined in order to perform the inſtituted Act of Worſhip: And why therefore may not the civil Authority determine ſuch Modes of Worſhip as well as eccleſiaſtical Rulers?

I know very well, ſome are fond of that Notion, that the Church (by which they mean the Church Officers or eccleſiaſtical Rulers in ſome Form or other conſider'd and acting) has Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies in Religion: and I am as willing for the preſent to allow the civil Authority has as much Power to do it, as thoſe eccleſiaſtical Rulers;—becauſe for any Thing I can tell at preſent, my Neck might be as eaſy under the Uſurpation of a civil Ruler, as an Eccleſiaſtical one: But neither of 'em have any Power of determining in the Caſe ſuppoſed.

As to eccleſiaſtical Rulers, CHRIST has preciſely bounded their Authority. They are to do what he has bid them, they are to open and explain their LORD'S Will to others, or in a Word to teach Men CHRIST'S Laws. For this I appeal to their Commiſſion, Math. 28. 20. And as this bounds their Authority on the one Side, ſo it draws the Line or Bound of Submiſſion on the other. When they teach us the Mind and Will of CHRIST our common Lord and Maſter; we are to hearken with Deference to them: but if they get out of that Line, and teach (or decree, I care not what you call it) ſome Thing that is not his Will, ſomething to be neceſſary for me to do in Religion which CHRIST has not made ſo; no Regard is due to them therein. And I ſuppoſe I may venture to ſay, no one Ceremony in Religion or Modality of any Act of inſtituted Worſhip, that has been deviſed and decreed by any ſince the Apoſtles Days as neceſſary, excluſive of any other, either was or is really neceſſary for a Chriſtian to do in attending theſe Acts of Religion or Parts of inſtituted Worſhip: At leaſt I know of no one: to be ſure ſuch as have been the Subjects of Debate between the Church of England on the one Side and the Diſſenters from that Eſtabliſhment on the othe; are unneceſſary. The decreeing ſuch unneceſſary Modalities of Religion therefore are without any Warrant from CHRIST: They teach therein what he has not commanded them, and no Chriſtian is bound to regard them therein.

But that the Objection may have a full and clear Anſwer, I offer a few Words farther.—The Objection ſuppoſes, that the Mode of performing ſome Acts of inſtituted Worſhip is not determined by CHRIST, which muſt therefore be determined by Man in order to perform ſuch Act of Worſhip.

To which I ſay,

1. If there be ſeveral Modes wherein ſuch Act or Acts of inſtituted Worſhip may be performed, Man may not determine the one excluſive of the other; and if there be but one Mode wherein it can be attended, there is indeed no Occaſion for a Determination upon it, all muſt of Neceſſity agree in ſuch a Mode of performing it. But in the former Caſe, no Determination may be made that it ſhall be performed only after ſuch a particular Mode, when it may be performed after another Manner as well. As for Inſtance, Public Prayer may be performed either ſtanding or kneeling: it being ſuppoſed that CHRIST has not determined the one Mode or the other; in ſuch Caſe Man may not determine that it ſhall be performed only ſtanding, or only kneeling; the Worſhippers muſt be left to their Liberty as CHRIST has left it: For it being the only Reaſon why Man may determine any Thing relating to an Act of Religion or divine Worſhip, viz. the Neceſſity of ſuch a Determination in order to the obeying a Law of CHRIST; then it is certain, where that Neceſſity is not found (as in the preſent Caſe) there no ſuch excluſive Determination may be made▪ theſe Matters of divine Worſhip, CHRIST'S Officers have nothing to do but to teach CHRIST'S Laws; and Chriſtians nothing elſe but to obey CHRIST'S Laws. It is therefore certain, that if all CHRIST'S Laws relating thereto may be obſerved, without the Determination of this or the other Ceremony or Mode of attending them; then the Determination of this or the other Ceremony as a Rule of Action for Chriſtians, falls not within the Compaſs of the Power of Man or any Order of Men. And I think the keeping to this Rule alone, that Man's Power in theſe Matters extends no farther than to a Determination of thoſe Things neceſſary to be determined in order to the performing of CHRIST'S Commands, is the only Way to preſerve CHRIST'S Worſhip in its Purity.—Certain it is, that the going beyond it has ſadly polluted it, and occaſioned Diviſions and Abundance of ſinful Strife.

2. In ſuch Caſes where any Thing is neceſſary to be determined in order to any worſhipping Aſſembly's obeying CHRIST'S Laws, the Power of ſuch Determination lies with ſuch worſhipping Aſſembly. It is a Law of CHRIST, that He be worſhipped in publick Aſſembly on the firſt Day of the Week; which can't be done unleſs ſome Place & Hour of the Day be fixed upon for that Purpoſe. If CHRIST had determined where and when the worſhipping Aſſembly ſhould meet, Man could not determine any Thing in the Matter: But ſince CHRIST has not; Time & Place muſt be determined by Man; elſe CHRIST'S Law in that Caſe could not be obeyed. And becauſe that Law muſt be obeyed, and can't be obeyed without ſuch a Determination of Time & Place; therefore it is, that Man may determine them, and is warranted to do it.—And every worſhipping Aſſembly beſt knowing their own particular Circumſtances, and being beſt able to judge what may be convenient or inconvenient in the Caſe, are won't to fix Time and Place for the Purpoſe: And who has right to intermeddle in the Matter without their Deſire or Conſent, I can't imagine. This is a Right our worſhipping Aſſemblies Claim, and I know not that any call it in Queſtion. Now altho' in this Inſtance, wherein ſomething falls neceſſarily under the Determination of Man in order to Chriſtians obeying a Law of CHRIST, no Ceremony or Mode of Worſhip is concerned; yet as I apprehend there is greater Reaſon why every worſhipping Aſſembly ſhould be left free in an uninterrupted Enjoyment of this Right to determine the Mode of any Act of Worſhip (undetermined by CHRIST) where there is a Neceſſity of ſuch a Determination in order to obey his Laws: and that becauſe Conſcience is immediately concerned therein. As I have ſaid before, I know not of ſuch a Caſe. Yet if Chriſtians do apprehend there is any Neceſſity, every worſhipping Aſſembly muſt in that Caſe determine for themſelves. They may be under a great Miſtake in determining that to be neceſſary which may not be ſo: but herein I think no others have a Power to determine for them. Not the civil Authority 〈◊〉 for the Reaſon before given, viz. That the Ceremony or particular Mode of performing an Act of divine Worſhip, has no Relation to the Ends of a civil Society: The Preſervation of Perſon or Property, no Ways requires the giving up this Liberty into the Hand of the civil Magiſtrate. This therefore muſt remain in the Individuals. The civil Intereſt of a State is no more affected, by kneeling or ſtanding in Prayer, then by praying with the Eyes ſhut or open; or by making the Figure of a Triangle or a Croſs upon a Perſon in Baptiſm, than by making no Figure at all. They have indeed none of them any Relations to the Ends of a civil Inſtitution. The civil Authority therefore have no Buſineſs with it. Nor have the eccleſiaſtical Officers Authority to determine in theſe Caſes for particular Chriſtians; becauſe it is not within their Commiſſion. We have ſeen before how their Authority is limited, and what is the Bound of Submiſſion from particular Chriſtians. As they are CHRIST'S Officers, they have Authority to teach Men his Mind in Things pertaining to his Kingdom.—So they have no Authority to teach Men any Thing but the Mind and Will of CHRIST. It is a Truth that ſhines with a Meridian Brightneſs, that whatever is not contained in a Commiſſion is out of it and excluded by it; and the teaching his Laws only being contained in the Commiſſion, what is not his Law is out of it and by that Commiſſion they are excluded from teaching it, or forbid by it. The Power then of determining in theſe Caſes before us, muſt lie with every diſtinct worſhipping Aſſembly; I don't mean excluſive of their Paſtor but with him And this I think is evident from the Right of private Judgment that every Chriſtian has in Matters of Religion. We have ſeen evidently that the ſacred Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Practice to every Chriſtian; from thence each one is bound to learn what that Worſhip is which Chriſt requires from him, and in what Manner be is to perform it: And therein is every one to be perſwaded in his own Mind. In all the Worſhip he pays to GOD he is bound to act underſtandingly, which he can't be ſaid to do if he does not underſtand for himſelf, and perform it in ſuch a Manner as he judges moſt agreeable to the Mind of Chriſt, and ſo moſt acceptable to him. If another Perſon ſees for him, it will be but a blind Service that he will yield. Every one muſt give Account of himſelf to GOD, to whom alone as his only Maſter he is to ſtand or fall: And it will be but a poor Account the Papiſt will have to give of all his ceremonious Worſhip, that the Pope or Prieſt directed him ſo.—How much farther will it go in that Day to ſay, the King, or Parliament, or Convocation directed me to pay ſuch or ſuch a Kind of Worſhip.

But the laſt Thing included in this Corollary is, that civil Rulers have no Authority to determine for Chriſtians the Form of Church Government: and that for the Reaſons before given, viz. Becauſe this would be going beſide the End of civil Government, and becauſe this is already done by Chriſt. If his Word be a compleat Rule of Faith and Practice to the Chriſtian; it ſurely contains ſufficient Inſtruction in the Nature of a Church; what Kinds of Officers Chriſt has inſtituted, what their Work and Buſineſs is; what the Rights and Priviledges of the Church are, and on what Terms to be enjoyed; what the Diſcipline thereof is, and how it is to be adminiſtred. For that which is the Rule of Faith and Practice to a Chriſtian (as he is a Subject of Chriſt) muſt certainly be the Meaſure of his Faith and Practice: For that certainly cannot be the Meaſure of his Faith and Practice which contains any Thing more or leſs than he ought to believe and practice. Chriſt is the Head of his Church, a King in his own Kingdom; a Part of whoſe Royalty it is to give Laws to his Subjects; theſe are contained in the ſacred Scriptures, which are open to all for the learning and underſtanding of them. And ſo far are Men from having any Power of inſtituting or forming a Church for Chriſt, that it is their greateſt Honour to be Servants in the Houſe of GOD. Heb. 3. 5. This being Truth, that Chriſt has ſhown us what his Will is touching the ordering of his Houſe in the ſacred Scriptures; it then follows, that none either Pope or Caeſar, can have any Authority to preſcribe to Chriſtians how it ſhall be order'd, to form the Model or any Part of it.

II. The next Corollary I ſhall deduce from the Principles before laid down, is, That the ci • il Authority have no Power to eſtabliſh any Religion (i. e. any Profeſſions of Faith, Modes of Worſhip, or Church Government) of a human Form and Compoſition, as a Rule binding to Chriſtians; much leſs may they do this on any Penalties whatſoever.—Religion muſt remain on that Foot where Chriſt has placed it. He has fully declared his Mind as to what Chriſtians are to believe and do in all religious Matters: And that Right of private Judgment belonging to every Chriſtian evidenced in the preceeding Pages, neceſſarily ſuppoſes it is every one's Duty, Priviledge and Right to ſearch the ſacred Writings as Chriſt has bid him, and know and judge for himſelf what the Mind and Will of his only Lord and Maſter is in theſe Matters.—It does, I think, from hence follow, that no Order of Men have any Right to eſtabliſh any Mode of Worſhip, &c. as a Rule binding to particular Chriſtians. For if they may, then Chriſtians are abridg'd or rather ſtriped of their Right, which is to involve our ſelves in a Contradiction. For if A has a Right to judge for himſelf what his Maſter's Will is, then B can have no Right to impoſe his own Sentiments concerning that Maſter's Will as a Rule for A.—For to ſuppoſe A has a Right, which B has a Right to take from him, is to ſuppoſe A has no Right at all; which is a direct Inconſiſtency. And to ſuppoſe B in ſuch Caſe has a Right to puniſh A for not receiving his Eſtabliſhment, is but to increaſe the Abſurdity.

But here you will ſay, Tho' they have no Authority to eſtabliſh a Religion of their own deviſing, yet have they not Authority to eſtabliſh a pure Religion drawn out of the ſacred Scriptures, either by themſelves or ſome ſynodical Aſſemblies, and oblige their Subjects upon (at leaſt) negative Penalties to receive the ſame.—This I ſhall endeavour fairly to conſider when I have obſerved, that if by the Word Eſtabliſh be meant only an Approbation of certain Articles of Faith and Modes of Worſhip, of Government, or Recommendation of them to their Subjects: I am not arguing againſt it. But to carry the Notion of a religious Eſtabliſhment ſo far as to make it a Rule binding to the Subjects, or on any Penalties whatſoever, ſeems to me to be oppreſſive of Chriſtianity, to break in upon the ſacred Rights of Conſcience, and the common Rights and Priviledges of all good Subjects.—For let it be ſuppoſed as now pleaded, that the Clergy or a ſynodical Aſſembly draw up the Articles and Form of Religion, agreeable in their Judgment to the ſacred Scriptures, and the Reception of the ſame be made binding by the civil Authority on their Subjects;—It will then follow, That all ſuch Eſtabliſhments are certainly right and agreeable to the ſacred Scriptures. For it is impoſſible to be true that any can have Right or Authority to oblige Chriſtians to believe or practice any thing in Religion not true or not agreeable to the Word of GOD: Becauſe that would deſtroy the ſacred Scriptures from being the only Rule of Faith and Practice in Religion to a Chriſtian. If the ſacred Scriptures are his Rule of Faith and Practice, he is oblig'd and that by GOD himſelf, to believe and practice accordingly. No Man therefore, or Order of Men can have any Right or Power to oblige the Chriſtian to believe or do any Thing in Religion contrary to, or different from, what GOD has obliged him: The Poſition of the one is the Removal of the other. This then is certain, that if this Propoſition be true, that a humane religious Eſtabliſhment is a Rule binding to Chriſtians, or that the civil Authority have Power to oblige their Subjects to receive them;—then they are always right and agreeable to GOD'S Word; but the latter is not true;—therefore the Propoſition is falſe. Humane Eſtabliſhments in Matters of Religion, carry in them no Force or Evidence of Truth. They who make them are no Ways exempt from humane Frailties and Imperfections: They are as liable to Error and Miſtake, to Prejudice and Paſſion, as any others. And that they have erred in their Determinations, and decreed and eſtabliſhed Light to be Darkneſs, & Darkneſs to be Light, that they have perplexed the Conſciences of Men, and corrupted the Simplicity of the Faith in CHRIST, many Councils and Synods and Aſſemblies of State are a notorious Proof. King Henry the 8th's Parliament and Convocation, who eſtabliſhed the famous ſix bloody Articles of Religion in the Year 1540, had as much Right or Power to make a religious Eſtabliſhment binding to the Subjects, as any King and Parliament ſince. If therefore the civil Authority has a Power to make a religious Eſtabliſhment binding to the Subjects; thoſe ſix Articles were true, tho' they contained abominable Abſurdities, and amazing Falſhoods; and the People were obliged to believe them, and thoſe who ſuffered for diſbelieving them ſuffered juſtly.—

Perhaps you will here ſay; Altho' they have no Authority to make an Eſtabliſhment contrary to Scripture; yet why may they not have Authority to make an Eſtabliſhment agreable to the Scriptures, that ſhall be a binding Rule to Chriſtians, without the Suppoſition or that Propoſition's being liable to ſuch an Inference from it (which I have made) viz. That then their Eſtabliſhments are certainly right and agreeable to Scripture, or in other Words that they who make them muſt be ſuppoſed to be veſted with Infallibility. —I will give then a Reaſon, if what already ſaid does not ſatisfy.—Let us then have but a clear and determinate Idea of the Subject we are ſpeaking of; and I think you will find the Concluſion certain. This religious Eſtabliſhment that has this binding Force in it,—is either in the very Words of the Scriptures themſelves; or in Propoſitions formed by this Body of Men we are ſpeaking of, which in their Judgment contain the true Senſe and Meaning of the Scripture.—There can be no other Senſe put upon it.—The former of theſe can't be meant; for that is the Scripture it ſelf which I am pleading is the alone Rule in the Caſe before us: Beſides 'tis a Vanity to talk of Mortals making the Conſtitutions of GOD ALMIGHTY to become a binding Rule to Chriſtians. So that the Point before us comes to this Propoſition, viz. That the civil Authority have Power to make ſuch a religious Eſtabliſhment which they think is agreeable to Scripture, a binding Rule to Chriſtians.—Then it follows, that what they think to be the Senſe of the Scriptures, is the Rule for the Chriſtian: for that what they ſo lay down for the Senſe of the Scriptures ſhould be a Rule binding to Chriſtians, and that yet what they think is the Senſe and Meaning of the Scripture, is not the Rule for a Chriſtian, is a Contradiction.—It follows alſo, that what they think to be the true Senſe of Scripture, is certainly the true Senſe of it:—For to ſuppoſe, that what they lay down for the Senſe and Meaning of the ſacred Scriptures, is a binding Rule to Chriſtians, and that yet the ſame is not the true Senſe of Scripture, is a Contradiction; unleſs that Propoſition be falſe, that the ſacred Scriptures are the alone Rule of Faith and Practice to a Chriſtian, which is a ſacred Maxim with every true Proteſtant. So that if a religious Eſtabliſhment which they think to be agreeable to Scripture is a binding Rule to a Chriſtian; it is the true Senſe of Scripture, and the Suppoſal that they are veſted with Authority to make their religious Eſtabliſhments a binding Rule to a Chriſtian, does neceſſarily infer their being inveſted with Infallibility too.—Again—to ſuppoſe any Thing not agreeable to the ſacred Scriptures can be a binding Rule in Matters of Religion to a Chriſtian is what no Chriſtian will aſſert; becauſe it deſtroys the Chriſtian's only Rule in Matters of Religion. The ſacred Scriptures alone (or what is agreeable thereto) are a Rule in Matters of Religion to a Chriſtian:—A religious Eſtabliſhment (ſay you) made by the civil Authority which they think to be agreeable to the Scriptures, is a Rule binding to a Chriſtian: Therefore (ſay I) ſuch a religious Eſtabliſhment made by the civil Authority which they think to be agreable to the Scriptures, is certainly agreable to them. Until theſe Contradictions can be reconciled— viz. —That which is not agreable to the ſacred Scriptures cannot be a Rule binding to a Chriſtian in Matters of Religion—and—this, That which is not agreable to the Scriptures is (or may be) a Rule binding to a Chriſtian in Matters of Religion; or—the Scriptures are the alone Rule of Faith and Practice to a Chriſtian, and this—That ſomething which the Pope or Caeſar thinks to be agreable to the Scripture, is a Rule of the Chriſtian's Faith and Practice;—or the Scriptures are the alone Rule, and not the alone Rule of Faith and Practice to a Chriſtian;—or that which is a binding Rule to a Chriſtian in theſe Matters, is not a binding Rule to him:—Until theſe Contradictions can be reconciled, it will ſtand for a Truth, that if the civil Authority have Power to make a religious Eſtabliſhment which they think agreable to the Scriptures, a Rule binding to Chriſtians;—then ſuch their Eſtabliſhments are certainly agreable to the Scriptures, and ſo they inveſted with Infallibility.—So that inſtead of finding one infallible Man upon Earth (at Rome) we may find a Body of them in every civil State at leaſt throughout Chriſtendom, and why not throughout the Earth: For the civil Authority, conſidered as ſuch, muſt have equal Right and Power of determining in theſe Matters in every State.

But you will ſay; the Queſtion is concerning an Eſtabliſhment that is agreable to Scripture and therefore whether ſuch an one is not a Rule binding to the Subjects.—I anſwer—It is no Rule at all; and ſo has no binding Force in it, as it is an human Eſtabliſhment: it's binding Force is derived from another Quarter. The only Reaſon why it is a Rule binding to a Chriſtian is, becauſe it is the Scripture, or the Will of GOD contained in the Scripture. What binds the Chriſtian in Religion are the Words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the Doctrine which is according to Godlineſs. This true Chriſtians receive out of a Regard to a much higher Authority than belongs to any Set of Mortals.

If it be ſtill demanded; But have not theſe Synods who draw up theſe Eſtabliſhments out of the Scriptures, or the civil Authority with them, a Right to judge of the Senſe and Meaning of the Scripture in thoſe Matters, and ſo determine what ſhall or ſhall not paſs for true, and be received by the Members of the Community.—I know ſome plead for ſuch a Power: And I think if a human religious Eſtabliſhment can be a binding Rule to Chriſtians; they muſt, either a Synod, or civil Authority, or both together, have Power to determine the Senſe of Scripture as now pleaded for: and if they have no ſuch Power, it is moſt evident their Eſtabliſhments can be no binding Rule to Chriſtians. But this is certain, they have no ſuch Power: The Pretence to it is a Spice of that Antichriſtianiſm that ought to be baniſhed out of the World.—For that this very Suppoſition removes the ſacred Scriptures from being a Rule of Faith and Practice to private Chriſtians, and ſets up humane Determinations inſtead of them; inaſmuch as—that from which the Chriſtian receives his Information what he is to believe & do, is evidently the Rule of Faith & Practice in thoſe particular Caſes at leaſt; and in the preſent ſuppoſed Caſe, he is to receive his information from a human Determination. The Scriptures therefore are ſtruck out from being a Rule of Faith and Practice to private Chriſtians; and human Determinations ſubſtituted in their Room.—However the Scriptures may be ſuppoſed or pretended to be the Rule to thoſe Bodies of Men who make thoſe Determinations; yet it is evident in this Caſe, the Scriptures are ſo entirely reduced into the Power of Man, that in Truth theſe Bodies of Men, or their Determinations are render'd the only and compleat Rule to others.—A Tenet that ſuits very well at Rome. But to ſhow the Abſurdity and Wickedneſs of this Principle, that Synods or the civil Authority may determine the Senſe of Scripture for private Chriſtians as above ſuppoſed; let me add, That all, whether Popes, Councils, Synods or civil States, that have made their religious Eſtabliſhments, have always pretended they took the ſacred Scriptures for their Rule in making them, and that they are agreable to the Scripture. Upon this Principle, all theſe muſt be received in their Turns, and in the ſeveral civil States where they are made—For thoſe Synods (or in a Word) the civil Authority in thoſe ſeveral Ages, or States, have had all equal Claim to this Right of determining the Senſe of Scripture, and ſo of making theſe religious Eſtabliſhments. How very different and contrary theſe have been, one to another; who, at all acquainted with Hiſtory does not know? That is Falſehood in England, which is Truth at Rome and France,—And that was Truth in England Yeſterday, which is falſe there to Day. And ſo a Man (I don't ſay a Chriſtian; for as that Means a Diſciple of CHRIST, and it can't conſiſtently mean any Thing elſe, is by this Principle baniſhed out of the World both Name and Thing) might Yeſterday walk to Heaven in a Path, which if walked in this Day wou'd lead him down to Hell. Alas what is the Chriſtian bid to ſearch the Scriptures for, to repair to the Law and Teſtimony, as being the only Light to direct us in theſe religious and important Concerns; if it comes to this at laſt, that he muſt receive his Information and Direction herein, from ſome poor fallible Creatures. This Principle, that a humane religious Eſtabliſhment is a Rule binding to Chriſtians, does eternally militate with thoſe plain Commands of the ſupream Lawgiver; is big with the Abſurdities I have juſt hinted at, and numberleſs more; has proved the grand Engine of oppreſſing Truth, Chriſtianity, and murdering the beſt Men the World has had in it; promoting and ſecuring Hereſy, Superſtition and Idolatry; and ought to be abhorred by all Chriſtians.

But if you demand again; Is it not evident GOD has veſted them with ſuch a Power, ſince he has bid us, obey them that have the Rule over us, Heb. 13. 17. and that we be ſubject to the higher Powers: for that the Powers that be, are of GOD, Rom. 13. 1. Will it not follow, that if GOD requires our Subjection to them, they muſt needs be veſted with ſuch Authority as is now pleaded for.—It has been already ſhewn that a Suppoſal that they are veſted with ſuch Authority, neceſſarily ſuppoſes they are veſted with Infallibility too; otherwiſe the Chriſtian lies expoſed to have a Rule of Practice in Religion different from the Word of GOD; which no Chriſtian may admit of. If the ſacred Scriptures are the ſtanding invariable Rule in theſe Matters to every Chriſtian, (which is an inconteſtible Truth) then he can't poſſibly lie expoſed to have any Thing elſe made a binding Rule to him in Matters of Religion; GOD has not ſubjected him in this Caſe to any other: and he may properly be ſaid to rebel againſt GOD, when he puts himſelf in Subjection to any other;—And the Thing now pleaded for, That an Order of Men are veſted with Authority from GOD to make any religious Eſtabliſhment which they think agreable to the Scriptures, a Rule binding to Chriſtians, does neceſſarily ſuppoſe one of theſe two Things; that a Chriſtian may have ſomething different from the ſacred Scriptures for his Rule (i. e. That it is GOD'S Will he ſhall be in a State liable to be bound by a Rule different from his Word) which is impoſſible; or elſe, that theſe Men veſted with this Authority, are alſo veſted with Infallibility.—Now ſince it is moſt evident, they are not veſted with this Infallibility, it is equally evident they are not veſted with this Authority now pleaded for: and therefore no ſuch Thing is implied in thoſe Texts now adduced for the Proof thereof.—A great Duſt I know has been raiſed by the ſophiſtical Reaſonings of ſome Men from theſe Texts, who would erect a ſpiritual Tyranny over the Conſciences of Men. I will therefore diſtinctly conſider them, and ſhow that they no Ways ſuppoſe ſuch an Authority (as now pleaded for) is veſted in any Order of Men.

The Text in Heb. 13. 17. evidently relates to Church-Officers;—becauſe they are ſaid to watch for their Souls, which is not the Buſineſs of civil Rulers: and their being called in the Text, Rulers, will no Ways infer they have this Legiſlative Authority over a Church or particular Chriſtians; any more then Jair • s being called a Ruler of a Synagogue, will infer he had a legiſlative Authority over that Synagogue: Or that any ſubordinate Judges who are ſtrictly tied to the Laws in their Adminiſtration, being called Rulers, muſt needs alſo infer a Power of Legiſlation. Nor can it be infer'd from our being commanded to obey them; any more than our Obedience to Judges in their juſt Application of the Laws to particular Caſes, infer a Power of Legiſlation alſo in thoſe Judges. In a Word, theſe Officers in the Text have ſo much Authority, and no more than what CHRIST has given them. They have no more Authority in their Commiſſion, than what is to be found in Math. 28. 19, 20. where they are expreſly enjoined to teach People to obſerve CHRIST'S Laws; which neceſſarily excludes them from a Power of making Laws of their own for CHRIST'S Subjects. And the Reaſon given for our Obedience in the Text, does alſo ſuppoſe it; viz. for they watch for your Souls. By their adhering ſtrictly to the Will of CHRIST in their teaching Chriſtians, do they truly watch for the Salvation of their Souls; and therein are they to be attended to as the faithful Miniſters or Ambaſſadors of CHRIST, in hearing of whom (when they do ſo) we hear him that ſends, as he elſewhere tells us But if they go out of this Line in teaching Chriſtians, they then don't watch for their Souls, but for themſelves: and therein therefore no Obedience is due to them, even according to this very Text, which determines the Meaſure of our Regard to them, by their watching or not watching for the Salvation of our Souls.

The other Text Rom. 13. 1. no doubt relates to civil Powers:—A Text often wrecked and tortured by ſuch Wits as were diſpoſed to ſerve the Deſigns of arbitrary Power, of erecting a civil Tyranny over a free People, and as often wreſted out of their Hands by the Force of Truth. Tho' my Buſineſs does not lie with civil Tyranny now, yet the Obſervation I ſhall make upon the Text will ſhow that neither civil, nor ſpiritual Tyranny is at all favoured by it.—Here then let me diſtinguiſh between two Things, which as they are really different, muſt be kept ſo in our Minds, if we would underſtand the Apoſtle; viz. Between the Powers which are, and the Powers which are not. This is a plain and undeniable Diſtinction; ſince it is well known there may be a pretended Power where there is really none. Now the higher Powers in the Text are the Powers which are. Since then it is expreſs and certain, that the Powers that be, are the Powers in the Text, the Powers which be of GOD, the Ordinance of GOD; it is only of ſuch Powers he ſpeaks of Subjection to. On the other Hand—the Powers that are not, are not the Powers that be; and ſo not the Powers in the Text, not the Powers that are of GOD, not his Ordinance, and ſo no Subjection to them required in this Text.—For Inſtance: The Powers that be in GREAT BRITAIN are the Government therein according to its own Conſtitution:—If then the higher Powers for the Adminiſtration rule not according to that Conſtitution, or if any King thereof ſhall rule ſo, as to change the Government from legal to arbitrary; the Power from GOD fails them, it is then a Power not in this Text, and ſo no Subjection due to it by the Text.—To apply this then to the preſent Caſe; we have ſeen before that civil Authority relates to the civil Intereſts of a People, (their Perſons and Properties) and is bounded by the ſame; that they can have no Power to make any religious Eſtabliſhment of their own deviſing, a Rule binding to Chriſtians:—When therefore they attempt to do ſo, they get out of their Line, with Reſpect to which they are not the Powers that be, in this Text. A Power that is no better than a pretended one, can't challenge any Obedience by Virtue of this Text. As this Text does not ſhew they have ſuch a Power, the Pretence of Obedience being due to them by this Text, if they ſhould be ſo vain as to fancy they have it, is a meer Vanity. The Truth of the Caſe is plainly this;—That this Text ſhews Obedience is due to civil Rulers in thoſe Caſes wherein they have Power to command, and does not call for it any farther: And when rightly underſtood affords not a Shadow of an Argument, of Obedience being due to them when they claim a Power in Matters of Religion which does not belong to them.—It appears indeed plainly, (tho' I need not ſpend Time upon it, in order to ſhow no Argument can be drawn from this Text in Favour of what it is now brought for, unleſs it be firſt proved from ſome other Text or Topick, that the civil Magiſtrate's Power does extend to the making any religious or eccleſiaſtical Eſtabliſhment a Rule binding to a Chriſtian, which never can be done, the contrary thereof being already demonſtrated) I ſay it appears from what the Apoſtle ſays in the 3d and 4th Verſes, that their Power is a limited one: and therefore the Obedience due is a limited Obedience.—Salus Populi eſt Lex Suprema, is the Apoſtle's Maxim; for he is expreſs that the End of all humane Authority is the Good of the Publick.—That therefore ſets the Bounds to civil Authority, as ſuch, on the one Side, and fixes the Bounds of Obedience on the other.—The Ground of Obedience cannot be extended beyond the Ground of that Authority to which Obedience is required.

Beſides, no Obedience is here required to be given but to ſuch Power as is from GOD: Until therefore it be ſhown that the civil Magiſtrate has Power from GOD to make any ſuch religious Eſtabliſhment (of which we are ſpeaking) a Rule binding to Chriſtians; this Text is in vain preſſed into the Service of ſuch as plead for any Obedience due to ſuch an Eſtabliſhment.—It muſt lie on them who plead this Obedience is due from Chriſtians,—to prove that GOD has veſted them with this Power. To pretend this Text for it, is begging the Queſtion, a taking the Point for granted which muſt be firſt proved; which I ſcruple not to ſay will never be done 'till we have a new Bible. For by this which CHRIST has given us, he allows us not to be reduced under any Yoke of Bondage, or to become the Servants of Men, not only allows but requires us to ſtand faſt in our Chriſtian Liberty, which ſubjects us in our Faith and Practice to CHRIST alone; and by that very Thing exempts us from every other Yoke, and from all other Laws not given us by CHRIST. 1 Cor. 7. 23. Gal. 5. 1. CHRIST perfectly knew the Weakneſs of humane Nature, and how apt Men are to aſſume Power over one another, even in Matters of a religious Nature, and how unfit they are to have any Dominion therein: He therefore charges and warns all his Diſciples and Followers againſt this great and dangerous Vice, which he knew would be very deſtructive to that Religion which he taught in Mat. 23. 8, 9, 10. Be not ye called Rabbi; For one is your Maſter even CHRIST, and all ye are brethren: And call no Man your Father upon Earth; for are is your Father which is in Heaven: Neither be ye called Maſters; for one is your Maſter even CHRIST. Here all Chriſtians are charg'd upon the Duty and Obedience they 〈◊〉 to CHRIST, that they ſhould none of them ſet themſelves up for authoritative Maſters, Judges, or Directors of Men in religious Matters; (as the Phariſees did) and likewiſe that they ſhould not ſubmit to any who ſhould ſet themſelves up as ſuch. CHRIST'S Prohibition here is ſo ſtrong, of this dangerous Practice of ſetting up or admitting of any other Rule or Judge in religious Matters beſides the Scripture, and of all Attempts to ſtrip Chriſtians of the moſt valuable of all Rights, even the Right of judging for themſelves in Matters of Religion, (directly inconſiſtent with which, is the Authority you have been now pleading for in the civil Powers in the Caſe we have been conſidering,) that Chriſtians here (I think) may ſafely take up their Reſt, and be reſolved to give Place by Subjection, no, not for an Hour to any humane Authority on Earth in any Matters of Religion, leaſt they caſt Diſhonour on CHRIST their only Lawgiver.

By what has been ſaid you may ſee the Falſhood of another Suppoſition or Argument you bring to ſupport the civil Magiſtrate's Authority in the Caſe before us, viz. That every Law not contrary to a ſuperior Law, is to be obeyed;—which you ſeem to take for an allowed Maxim, and ſo think you may fairly conclude, that any legal Injunctions of the civil Magiſtrate in Matters of Religion which are not contrary to ſome expreſs Law of GOD, are to be obeyed.—If that Propoſition be limited to thoſe Things which are the Objects of the civil Magiſtrate's Power, viz. the civil Intereſts of the People; if it ſtands for a Maxim it affects not the Caſe before us at all▪ But if it be extended to Things out or beyond the Line of their Power, as Matters of Religion are; it is then a Falſhood. In the latter extenſive Senſe it ſeems you take it for a Truth, or you would not argue from it as you do. The Rule (then ſay you) to know whether a particular Law is to be obeyed or not is to conſider that Law in Relation to a ſuperior Law; and if it prohibits nothing which a ſuperior Law requires, or enjoins nothing which a ſuperior Law prohibits the doing of, then it is to be obeyed.—This (I take it) is a Principle invented for the Support of Tyranny, and induſtriouſly defended for the Support of Tyranny of the worſt Kind, i. e. Spiritual: And if ſuch as are ſo mean as to flatter civil Rulers with Notions of exorbitant Power, and they only felt the Effects thereof in Fetters of Slavery, the Chriſtian Church, and the World too, had been happier than now it is. Rulers have their Infirmities as well as their Subjects, and are too often carried away by the Stream of Temptation to play the Tyrant: And ſtill as heretofore, the World affords many in it that love to have it ſo, and too many Aſſiſtants in forging the hateful Chains of Slavery and rivetting them on too if poſſible unſeen, whilſt they are induſtriouſly ſcattering falſe Notions of Power and Obedience, ſuch ſtupifying Potions as this (you have now thrown in my Way) that they may effectually lock up the Senſes of thoſe whom they would enſlave.—But to return whence I have digreſſed.—This pretended Rule, as it holds not at all in Matters of Religion; ſo it does not hold true in all other Caſes, even in thoſe that have no Relation to the End of civil Society, agreable to what has been already obſerved, Page 7. If civil Rulers ſhould take it into their Heads to make a Law, that no Man ſhall have Luther's Table-Talk in his Houſe, that every Man ſhall turn round upon his right Heel at twelve of the Clock every Day, (Sundays excepted) or any ſuch like wiſe Laws (Thouſands of which might be invented by a wiſe Tyrant;) By this Rule theſe Laws are to be ſtrictly obeyed, a higher Law to the contrary not being found. And yet I think it may be preſumed, a free-born People can never become ſo ſervile as to regard them, while they have Eyes to ſee that ſuch Rulers have gone out of the Line of their Power.—There is no Reaſon they ſhould be Fools becauſe their Rulers are ſo. Whenever the Power that is put in any Hands for the Government of any People is applied to any other End than the Preſervation of their Perſons and Properties, the ſecuring and promoting their civil Intereſts, (the End for which Power was put into their Hands) I ſay when it is applied to any other End, then (according to the great Mr. Lock) it becomes Tyranny. And ſince their Power would be as truly applied to another End, in making ſuch Laws as I have above hinted at, as in making thoſe that are notoriouſly unjuſt and oppreſſive, (tho' the latter is worſe;) then it as truly becomes Tyranny.—How long People are to bear with ſuch Tyranny, or what they may do to free themſelves from it, (I ſhould refer you to that Author in his Treatiſe of Government) were it at all needful to come into Conſideration in the preſent Caſe, as it is not; ſince the only Thing I had here to do, was to ſhow Obedience was not due to ſuch Laws, as I think I have done by ſhewing they had no rightful Authority to make them.

Let me add a Word farther for your ſerious Conſideration; do you think that when the Edict went forth in Germany for the burning of all the above mention'd Books of Martin Luther (when eighty Thouſand Volumes of them were deſtroyed) did that good Man, who hid one of them under the Foundation of his Houſe whereby it was perſerved, Sin in not delivering up the Book? Or when the Proclamation went forth in England in King Henry the Eight's Time, that Wickliff's, Tindall's, and many other Books, ſhould on certain Penalties be deliver'd up to be burned; did thoſe good People ſin, who refus'd to deliver them up? By the Rule you are pleading for, I ſee not but that you muſt charge Sin upon them for not obeying;—when yet I believe you cannot but in Conſcience acquit them; and if you do, it muſt then be upon the Principles I have laid down.

But I will no longer dwell here, it being ſomewhat foreign to the Point in Hand. I proceed to conſider this Rule as it reſpects religious Matters; to which it is ſo confidently applied by the Lovers of ſpiritual Tyranny.—And here, if this be the Rule, that we ought to obey human Laws in religious Matters in every Inſtance where we can't find a divine Law enjoining what they forbid, or forbidding what they enjoin; then it is evident, Religion is in Danger of being made a very burdenſome Thing. To Baptiſm you may add the Sign of the Croſs, the Salt, and Cream, and ſpitting in the Mouth, with a Hundred other Things, that a fruitful Imagination could furniſh out.—The Popiſh Wardrobe will yield ſome Furniture to dreſs up Religion with. But the Inventions of Men may ſtill go beyond. And if they do but take Care not to enjoin any Action or Modality in Religion not prohibited by ſome Command in the Bible; by this Rule Chriſtians are bound to obey. It is a neceſſary Conſequence of this Principle, that Chriſtians are ſubjected to a heavier Yoke than the Jews were under the Moſaick Diſpenſation. If you ſay, not; becauſe if the civil Rulers ſhould proceed ſo far (for I know not what elſe you can deviſe to ſay,) it would be contrary to a general Law we have from CHRIST; Gal. 5. 1. Be not intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage; which not only ſhows Chriſtians are not ſubjected to that particular Yoke, but alſo that their Yoke is not to be ſo heavy as that was; ſo that if they ſhould increaſe their Injunctions to make Religion now ſo burdenſome, as the Jewiſh was, it would be contrary to this ſuperior Law.—Be it ſo, but then remember this is true upon their Principles, that if they ſtop but one Hair ſhort, they will tell you, their Injunctions are not contrary to this general Law. If the Burden they lay upon you be at all leſs, by your Principle you confeſs yourſelf under the Obligation of Obedience; and how miſerable Chriſtians would be if human Law givers might go near ſuch a Length, I need not ſpend any Time to ſhow, it is ſo very obvious.—But farther, ſuppoſe civil Rulers ſhould go ſtill beyond; who are the Judges whether they go contrary to this Law or not?—Are the Rulers the Judges, or have private Chriſtians a Right of Judgment in this Caſe? If the Rulers only are to judge, we may be ſure they will judge in Favour of their own Laws: if they exceed this Bound you ſuppoſe ſet to them by this general Law;—they will never judge that Law of CHRIST to be contrary to their Laws: and if ſo, more miſerable yet is the Chriſtian's Condition. But if you ſay, private Chriſtians have a Right of Judgment for themſelves in this Caſe;—I then aſk, if they judge the Rulers in their Injunctions exceed the Bounds allowed by this Law of CHRIST, whether they are to be tollerated by the Rulers in their not conforming to thoſe Injunctions they judge contrary to this Law? They have gone as far (it is to be ſuppoſed) in conforming, as their Conſciences will ſuffer them: Are they then to be indulged to ſtop there according to their own Judgments, or muſt they ſtill conform farther, or elſe be ſubjected to a Penalty for not going farther? If they muſt be ſubjected to Penalties for not conforming in this Caſe; how deplorable is the Condition of Chriſtians? Obey the Inventions of Men or dye!—You will doubtleſs anſwer; they muſt be tollerated, ſince it is ſuppoſed they have a Right of judging for themſelves, when a human Injunction in Religion is contrary to a divine Law. This is undoubtedly true:—for to ſuppoſe they have a Right of Judgment for themſelves, is to ſuppoſe they have a Right to act according to their Judgment: and therefore none (not the civil Magiſtrate) can have any Right to hinder them. A Right that in this Caſe is dependent on the Will of another, is no Right at all. Suppoſe then, private Chriſtians ſhould judge that it is contrary to the Will of CHRIST expreſs'd in that Text, Gal. 5. 1. that the civil Magiſtrate ſhould make any legal Injunction at all in Religion (which is the Truth of the Caſe;) I then aſk, whether theſe who ſo judge are not to be allowed to act according to their Judgment, as well as the former? This ſurely can't be denied them; ſince the Right of private Judgment belongs to the latter as well as the former. If then Chriſtians have a Right to adhere ſtrictly to the Will of CHRIST delivered in the ſacred Scriptures in every Thing relating to their Faith and Practice in Religion, excluſive of all human legal Injunctions; then no Power on Earth can have any Right to make a Law to reſtrain them therefrom, or to add the leaſt Thing thereto.—For to have a Right to adhere to the ſacred Scriptures alone as a Rule in this Caſe, and not to have ſuch a Right is a Contradiction:—and ſo ſuppoſe the civil Magiſtrate has a Right to reſtrain them, or to add any one Law to CHRIST'S in this Caſe, is to ſuppoſe Chriſtians have not a Right to adhere to the ſacred Scriptures as their alone Rule. The Suppoſition therefore of any rightful Power in the civil Ruler to make any one Law in Matters of Religion, involves in it as plain a Contradiction to Truth, as a Right to a Thing and no Right to it does.—The Rule therefore which you would ſet up, by which to try what humane Laws in Matters of Religion are to be obeyed, is juſtly to be rejected; not only becauſe it ſubjects Chriſtians to an intollerable Yoke (if admitted,) but becauſe it can in no Inſtance be admitted, but at the Expence of a Chriſtian's natural and unalienable Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion.—It may do well enough to amuſe Men with a Pretence they have found out a Rule how far Chriſtians ought to obey the Laws of civil Rulers in Matters of Religion, and where they may ſafely ſtop; where they can find Perſons ſo weak as to think that civil Rulers have ſome Power to make Laws in theſe Matters:—But if that be the Truth that they have no Power at all to make any Law in theſe Caſes, then the ſetting up ſuch a Rule is a grand Abſurdity. Now I have ſhown evidently before, that the civil Magiſtrate can have no ſuch Power, that his Power relates to the civil Intereſts of a People, and is bounded thereby—that the ſacred Scriptures are the alone Rule of Faith and Practice in Religion to a Chriſtian; that the Right of private Judgment, what the Chriſtian is to believe and do in Religion according to that Rule, is his natural and unalienable Right; ſo that he neither really may nor can give up his Soul, his Conſcience in theſe Matters to the Controul of human Laws. And the Truth is, the civil Magiſtrate is ſo far from having a rightful Power in theſe Caſes, to make Laws for CHRIST'S Subjects; that in doing ſo, he violates the fundamental Priviledge of the Goſpel, the Birthright of Believers, Chriſtian Liberty. 2 Cor. 3. 17. Where the SPIRIT of the LORD is, there is Liberty, Gal. 4. 31. We are no, Children of the Bondwoman, but of the Free. It is impoſſible to ſuppoſe that GOD by his ſpecial Grace in the Goſpel ſhould free us from the Bondage of Ceremonies, his own Commandments, in theſe Things, and ſubject us to a more grevious Yoke, the Commandments of Men.—Nor has he given us this Gift only as a ſpecial Priviledge and Excellence of the free Goſpel above the ſervile Law; but has ſtrictly commanded us to keep and enjoy it.—You are called to Liberty, Gal. 5. 13.—1 Cor. 7. 23. Be not ye the Servants of Men, Gal. 5. 1. Stand faſt in the Liberty wherewith Chriſt has made us free. A Command accompany'd with the weightieſt Reaſons. Rom. 14. 9. 10. For to this End CHRIST both died and roſe and revived, that he might be LORD, both of the Dead and Living. But why doſt thou judge thy Brother, &c. How preſumeſt thou to be his Lord? To be whoſe only Lord, at leaſt in theſe Things, CHRIST both died and roſe and lived again—We ſhall all ſtand before the Judgment Seat of CHRIST. Why pretend you then to be a Lord, a Judge, in theſe Things, for which we are to be accountable to the Tribunal of CHRIST only, our Lord and Lawgiver? Who in ſo many expreſs Words, has told us we ſhall have himſelf only our Maſter in Religion, Math. 23.8, 9, 10.—One is your Maſter even CHRIST. By all which I think it is evident, that for Men to exerciſe ſuch a Power in religious Matters as you have been pleading for, is not only a Violation of the Rights of Chriſtians, whoſe Souls in Matters of Religion are S ••• ect 〈◊〉 • one but CHRIST and his Laws; but an Invaſion of the royal Power of CHRIST, who is the ſole Legiſlator in his own Kingdom.

To illuſtrate and clear this Point, let me bring it down to a plain and familiar Inſtance. Let it be ſuppoſed a humane Law is made, that the Sign of a Croſs ſhall be made upon a Perſon's Forehead, after the Uſe of Water &c. in Baptiſm,—ſo that none ſhall be admitted to Baptiſm but who ſubmit to this Manner of Adminiſtration of it: or a Law requiring all who attend the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper to do it in a kneeling Poſture: and let it be ſuppoſed, that there is no particular Law to the contrary in the Goſpel forbidding thoſe Actions. Now according to the Rule you plead for, (on the Suppoſition now made,) Chriſtians are bound to obey theſe Laws. Now the contrary is evident. For it has been already demonſtrated, that every Chriſtian has a Right to adhere to the ſacred Scriptures as the only Rule of his Faith and Practice in Religion; and that the Right of private Judgment, what he is to believe and do in Religion according to that Rule, is really unalienable: he can't therefore be bound to yield any Obedience to ſuch Laws of Man, unleſs he be obliged to yield up an unalienable Right, which is a Contradiction. Beſides—If the making ſuch Laws are an Invaſion of CHRIST'S Authority; how is it poſſible the Propoſition ſhould be true, that a Chriſtian is obliged to obey them, unleſs the Chriſtian has two Maſters in Religion, contrary to Mat. 23. 8, 9, 10.—Where there is no Authority to command in Matters of Religion, there a Chriſtian is under no Obligation from ſuch Laws to obey: But in the Caſe before us, ſuch Laws are not only enjoined without Authority, but they interfere with CHRIST'S Authority: So that a Chriſtian is indeed very far from being bound to obey them.

Unto what has been already ſaid that will ſhew this, I ſhall add but a few Words. CHRIST has in the Goſpel Charter made a Grant of certain Privileges to thoſe who would be, and do approve themſelves his Subjects.—To them he has granted the Privilege of attending on him in the Ordinances he has inſtituted, for the conveying the ſanctifying Graces of his SPIRIT to their Souls, to prepare them for the Inheritance he has purchaſed and ſecured by Promiſe to ſuch as believe in and obey him.—As this is clear and certain in the Nature of the Thing it ſelf, that the Grantor of a Privilege has the ſole Right of fixing the Condition on which the Privilege ſhall be enjoyed by the Grantee; ſo it is equally certain, that if any other attempts in the leaſt Meaſure to alter the Condition on which ſuch Privilege is to be enjoyed by the Grant, he does therein invade the indiſputable Right of the Grantor. Now in the Caſe before us—there can't be a clearer Truth, than—that this is Chriſt's ſole Prerogative to make the Grant and fix the Conditions on which the Privileges are to be enjoyed, and that this is done in the Goſpel Charter. The Privileges are granted on the Conditions that are written in the Charter. The Privileges are not granted on certain Conditions to be invented by Men after the making of the Charter:—For that would ſuppoſe that infinite Wiſdom has granted certain Privileges to Chriſtians on ſuch Conditions as humane Weakneſs eſtabliſhes; and that Chriſt ſtrips himſelf of his Royalty to cloath a mere Creature with it, and makes the Creature the Director of his Bequeſts: To ſuppoſe which of Chriſt is to diſhonour him with a Witneſs. It is indeed the greateſt Abſurdity imaginable, to ſuppoſe this Matter could be ſettled by any other than Chriſt himſelf, who makes the Grant: And the Conditions lie as plainly in the Grant as the Privileges conveyed by it; That he who believes and obeys the Goſpel, has the Right to the Enjoyment of the Privileges belonging to a Subject of Chriſt.—This then being certain, that Chriſt has fixed the Conditions of Chriſtians enjoying the Privileges, the Ordinances of the Goſpel;—it is equally certain, that Man and every Order of Men are excluded by Chriſt himſelf from any Authority in this Matter: So that if any Man or Order of Men make any Alteration in thoſe Conditions, or make any new ones; they do it not only without Authority, but againſt it, and therein controul Chriſt's Authority. To apply this then to the Caſe before us:—Since the making the above-mentioned Figure on the Perſon to be baptized, or ſuch a particular bodily Poſture at the Reception of the Lord's Supper, are not fixed by Chriſt as the Conditions of Chriſtians enjoying theſe Ordinances, or by any Law of Chriſt made neceſſary in order to the Obſervance of theſe Inſtitutions of his; for Man to make them Conditions, without a Compliance with which Chriſtians may not have the Enjoyment of thoſe Ordinances, is not only to act without Authority, but is aſſuming an Authority which only belongs to Chriſt: it being a practical Declaration that Chriſt's Subjects ſhall not enjoy the Privileges of the Goſpel upon the Conditions fixed in Chriſt's Grant▪ Which is therefore evidently an Invaſion of Chriſt's kingly Office, and an evident Violation of the Rights of Chriſtians. So that it is certain, Chriſtians are not only, not bound to ſubmit to ſuch human Laws, but do truly profeſs their Adherence to CHRIST'S Authority, when they refuſe to do ſo.

But if you ſay here; altho' the Rule you have been pleading for will not hold;—yet if every Thing relating to Decency and Order in divine Worſhip be not particularly determined by CHRIST, why may not what is referrible thereto fall under the Determination of the Laws of the civil Authority, and be warranted by that apoſtolical Precept, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all Things be done decently and in Order; and ſo thoſe particular Inſtances I have mentioned be juſtly warranted by that Precept? If ſome body muſt determine in ſuch Caſes, why may not the civil Rulers do it? I anſwer—

1. If Chriſtians keep from Indecency and Diſorder in their Worſhip, they come up to the Rule given by the Apoſtle in the now mentioned Text; and this they may certainly do without the civil Magiſtrate's determining 〈◊〉 Thing about it. Chriſtians obſerved this apoſtolick Precept as 〈◊〉 before there was any ſuch Thing as a Chriſtian Magiſtrate to be found, as they have done ſince: And may do it as well to the ſecond Coming of CHRIST, without the civil Magiſtrate's intermeddling in this Matter (not to ſay with, more Honour to Chriſt and greater Peace in the Church, if 〈◊〉 forbears his Injunctions.) So that it is impoſſible to get an Inference from this Text in Favour of the civil Authority's determining any thing by their Laws in theſe Caſes.

2. If by what you would call Decency or Order in Worſhip be meant, either any Act or Mode of Worſhip, or any Ceremony that has any Religion at all placed in it; then I ſay, no Man or Order of Men has the leaſt Authority to invent or injoin any ſuch Thing: This would fall under our SAVIOUR'S Condemnation in Mark 7. 7.

3. Any ſuch Modes or Circumſtances of divine Worſhip which are ſuppoſed in this Objection left undetermined by Chriſt, may not be determined by any legal Injunctions of the civil Authority. And that—

(1.) Becauſe ſo to do, would be going out of their Line; theſe Things don't lie within the Compaſs of the End of their Inſtitution: The civil Intereſts of the People being no Ways concerned therein, as has been ſhewn in the preceeding Pages.

(2.) The Suppoſition that ſuch Modes or Circumſtances of divine Worſhip may be determined by human Laws, does alſo ſuppoſe that the civil Authority may fix Terms of Communion for Chriſtians: What is thus ſuppoſed enacted by a Legiſlature, is made a Rule of Action to the Subject by the very Suppoſition of its being made a Law; ſo that in this Caſe the Subject is to attend divine Worſhip, but according to a human Law; and is therefore excluded from the Benefit of divine Worſhip and Ordinances, in Caſe of a non-compliance with that human Injunction. This is the true State of the Matter with Reſpect to thoſe Inſtances I have juſt mentioned: And any the like Modes of Worſhip enjoined on Chriſtians by the Laws of Men, they are made the Terms of Communion to Chriſtians, the Conditions of their enjoying the external Privileges of Chriſtians: And for Men to fix any Terms of Communion for Chriſtians in this Manner, to make that neceſſary to their Enjoyment of the Privileges CHRIST has purchaſed for them which he has not made neceſſary, has been already demonſtrated an Invaſion of CHRIST'S kingly Authority.

(3.) The civil Authority may not determine ſuch Modes and Circumſtances of Worſhip by legal Injunctions; becauſe this would interfere with the Right of private Judgment that belongs to Chriſtians. The ſacred Scriptures are ſufficient to furniſh the Chriſtian unto every good Work; they hold forth ſufficient Light about the Modes and Circumſtances of divine Worſhip, which in this Objection are ſuppoſed to be left undetermined by CHRIST. And it is the Duty and Right of Chriſtians to learn from thence, and judge concerning their Duty in theſe as well as more important Matters of Religion; and ſuch Determinations of them are lawful and warrantable as are according to the general Rules of Scripture given to direct us herein. And therefore there may be various Modes of performing the ſame religious Duties that are each allowable and lawful: tho' ſome particular Circumſtances may make one more expedient to ſome Perſons than the other, and theſe alſo may be varied by the Providence of GOD. It is the Right therefore of Chriſtians, of every worſhipping Aſſembly, to determine for themſelves theſe Modes and Circumſtances of Worſhip, as I have before obſerved. And for the civil Authority here to ſtep in and determine by a Law, what Modes or Circumſtances of Worſhip ſhall be obſerved; for Inſtance, what Poſture we ſhall uſe in Prayer, when there are ſeveral equally expreſſive of our religious Reverence; interferes with the Chriſtian's unalienable Right of private Judgment. And when I ſay, every worſhipping Aſſembly has this Right of determining or agreeing for themſelves about the Modes or Circumſtances of Worſhip; it no Way ſuppoſes they have a Right to (or do by ſuch Agreements) exclude from their Communion any of their Chriſtian Brethren who may prefer the Uſe of a different allowable Mode of Worſhip. Whom CHRIST receives they are alſo to receive. CHRIST has fixed the Terms of Chriſtian Communion, and none may alter them.

But ſay you once more; That the civil Authority muſt have Power to make ſuch religious Eſtabliſhment which I have been impleading, in order to have Unity of Faith and Uniformity of Practice in Religion. Theſe you ſuppoſe neceſſary to Peace and good Order in the State; and that this Unity &c. is effected by ſuch a religious Eſtabliſhment, of which we are ſpeaking; and conſequently we muſt ſuppoſe them veſted with Power to make ſuch a one.—Much Weight I know has been laid upon this Argument by the Lovers of ſpiritual Tyranny, and many ignorant unthinking People have been amuſed and deceived by it: But if we will look cloſely into it, it will appear lighter than Vanity. For

1. Unity of Faith and Uniformity of Practice in Religion, never was nor can be effected in a Chriſtian State by any ſuch legal Eſtabliſhment of Religion pleaded for in the above-mentioned Argument. By a Chriſtian State, I mean at leaſt ſuch a one, where the ſacred Scriptures lie open to the People: and therefore I don't intend, to conſider this Propoſition relative to a Popiſh State, where People's Eyes being put out, they are more eaſily induced to follow their Leaders; tho' it be alſo true that this Unity of Faith is not found among them that are bound in the ſtrongeſt Chains of human Eſtabliſhments. This has been tried in Proteſtant States, to make all think and practice alike in Religion by legal Eſtabliſhments and annexed Penalties: but it never produced this Effect. It were eaſy if needful to multiply Inſtances: but it is ſufficient to our Purpoſe to Inſtance in our own Nation; where this Method has been tried ever ſince the Reformation, and as conſtantly found ineffectual for the accompliſhing this Uniformity, for the Sake of which theſe legal Eſtabliſhments 〈◊〉 been pretended to be made. So far 〈◊〉 this Method from bringing about an Unity of Faith, that this 〈◊〉 not found 〈◊〉 with them that ſubmit to a legal Eſtabliſhment It is notoriouſly known, that the Clergy of the Church of England are bound to ſubſcribe to the thirty nine Articles, i.e. to the Truth of Calviniſtick Principles: But has this Subſcription anſwer'd its End? Is it not known, that they ſubſcribe thoſe Articles in as widely diſtant and contradictory Senſes as were ever put on the moſt dubious Paſſage in the Bible. And the Truth is, if we conſider the almoſt infinite Variety with reſpect to the Underſtandings, Tempers and Advantages of Men for Improvement in Knowledge; it muſt be evident, that this Uniformity of Opinion and Practice in Religion, (as it has not) ſo it never can be produced by the Art and Policy of Man. A Scheme for an artificial Conformity in Aſpect, Shape and Stature of Body, is not a whit more ridiculous, than an Attempt to depreſs and contract the Underſtandings of ſome, to ſtretch the Capacities of others, to diſtort and torture all, 'till they are brought to one Size, and one Way of Thinking and Practice. So that if this Unity of Faith and Uniformity of Practice in Religion is neceſſary to the Peace of the State;—then it follow, that the civil Authority have a rightful Power to put to Death or baniſh all that cannot in Conſcience conform to their religious Eſtabliſhment. It will be to no Purpoſe for the avoiding this Conſequence, to ſay; the civil Magiſtrate may not riſe ſo high, or may affix ſome lower Penalties for Noncompliance with his Eſtabliſhment: For if this Conformity to his Eſtabliſhment be neceſſary to the Peace of the State, then the civil Magiſtrate has a Right to prevent a Non-compliance with ſuch Eſtabliſhment; and if leſſer Penalties will not do it, (as Experience has perpetually ſhown they will not) then they muſt riſe ſo high as Death, or Baniſhment: For a Right to prevent ſuch Non-compliance, that does not amount to a Right to prevent it effectually, is no Right to prevent it at all. So that on this Hypotheſis, all Non-conformiſts to the religious Eſtabliſhment of any State, are to be rooted out by Death, or Baniſhment as faſt as they appear: Which both Experience and the Nature of Things evidence will be continual; the cutting off all that appear to Day will no ways hinder others from appearing ſo To-morrow. Whence it is but a genuine Conſequence, that civil Government is one of the greateſt Plagues that can be ſent upon the World; ſince it muſt, in order to keep Peace in it, be perpetually deſtroying Men for no other Crime but judging for themſelves and acting according to their Conſciences in Matters of Religion; (and ſo perhaps very often the beſt Men in the State:) and all this in vain too, as to the propoſed End, viz. Uniformity of Practice in Religion, that being for ever out of their reach.

2. Such Unity, or Uniformity in Religion is not neceſſary to the Peace of a civil State. Since God has formed the Underſtandings of Men ſo different, with reſpect to Clearneſs, Strength, and Compaſs, and placed them in ſuch very different Circumſtances; a Difference of Sentiments in ſome Things in Religion, ſeems natural and unavoidable: and to ſuppoſe this does in its own Nature tend to the public Miſchief of the State, ſeems little leſs then arraigning infinite Wiſdom. From thence will ariſe greater Reaſon and Scope for mutual Forbearance and Chriſtian Charity. But it will certainly be found on Reflection, that it has no ill Aſpect on the civil State. Have we not known Perſons of different Sentiments and Practices in religious Matters, as Preſbyterians, Congregationaliſts, Church-Men (as commonly called) Baptiſts and Quakers, all living in the ſame Community in Quiet and Peace with one another? I mention not Papiſts; becauſe tho' the Principles of a conſiſtent Proteſtant, naturally tend to make him a good Subject in any civil State, even in a popiſh one, and therefore ought to be allowed in every State; yet that is not the Caſe with the Papiſt: for by his very Principles he is an Enemy of Traytor to a Proteſtant State: and ſtrictly ſpeaking Popery is ſo far from deſerving the name of Religion, that it is rather a Conſpiracy againſt it, againſt the Reaſon, Liberties, and Peace of Mankind; the viſible Head thereof the Pope being in Truth the Vice-gerent of the Devil, Rev. 13. 2. To pretend that ſuch as own the ſacred Scriptures to be the alone Rule of Faith and Practice in Religion, can't live in Peace and Love as good Neighbours and good Subjects, tho' their Opinions and Practices in religious Matters be different, is both falſe in Fact, and a vile Reproach caſt upon the Goſpel, which breaths nothing but Benelovence and Love among Men: and while it plainly teaches the Right of private Judgment in every one, it moſt forcibly enjoins the Duties of mutual Forbearance and Charity. That golden Precept of our bleſſed LORD: Whatſoever ye would that Men ſhould do unto you, do ye even ſo to them, Math. 7. 12, well taught and enforced by the Teachers of the Goſpel, would (if I may uſe the Word) infinitely more tend to make Chriſtians of the ſeveral Denominations in the State, good Neighbours and good Subjects, then this whimſical Notion of Uniformity. Which if it had always had its due Force on the Minds of Men, we ſhould never have heard of the Neceſſity of Uniformity in Religion to the Peace of the State, nor any ſuch legal Eſtabliſhment of Religion I have been impleading. That Precept being a ſacred Guard to the unalienable Rights of Conſcience, which are always invaded by ſuch Eſtabliſhments.

But if you ſay, that different Sects in Religion aiming at Superiority, and endeavouring to ſuppreſs each other, form contrary Factions in the State; which tends to diſtreſs and thwart the civil Adminiſtration.—I anſwer; The civil Authority's protecting all in their juſt Rights, and particularly this ineſtimable and unalienable one, the Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion, is the beſt Guard againſt the Evil ſuppoſed in the Objection. Beſides, this is no more a natural Conſequence of Men's thinking differently in Religion, than of different Judgments about Wit, or Poetry, Trade, or Huſbandry.

Or if you farther ſuppoſe, that Religion is a Matter of much greater Importance than theſe Things, and demands therefore a more warm and active Zeal. Be it ſo; Nothing farther follows from thence, than that we ſhould endeavour to ſupport its Honour in a Way ſuited to its Excellency; to inſtruct one another in its grand Principles and Duties, and recommend it by calm and ſtrong Perſwaſion.—It is by Truth CHRIST'S Kingdom is ſet up, as he himſelf has taught us, Luke 18. 37. And it is a moſt unnatural Exceſs of Zeal, for the pretended Defence of Religion, to renounce Humanity, and that equitable Regard and kind Affection, which are unalterably due from one Man to another.

If it be again ſaid, that tho' theſe above-mentioned Evils are directly contrary to the true Genius and Spirit of the Chriſtian Religion; yet they are the actual Conſequence of a Variety of Sects, exceeding fond of their particular Schemes. I anſwer; they are only accidental Abuſes to which the beſt Things are liable: The ſame Argument may be urged againſt Reaſon, and every Branch of natural and civil Liberty. It is equally concluſive as the Papiſts have uſed it againſt the Laity's having the Bible; viz. the Conſequence of People's having the Bible in their Hands to read, has been the riſing up of a Variety of Sects in the chriſtian World, and therefore they ought not to be permitted the Uſe of it. As no ſuch Concluſion can be drawn againſt every Body's having the Bible from ſuch Premiſes; ſo in the Caſe before us, no Concluſion againſt the Right of private Judgment for our ſelves in Matters of Religion, can be drawn from theſe Inconveniencies; which do not ſpring directly from it, but ariſe entirely from different Cauſes; from Pride, or fooliſh Bigotry, that either does not underſtand, or pays no Regard to the unalienable Rights of Conſcience.

3. Such legal Eſtabliſhments have a direct contrary Tendency to the Peace of a Chriſtian State. As the Exerciſe of private Reaſon, and free Enquiry in a ſtrict and conſtant Adherence to the ſacred Scriptures as the only Rule of Faith and Practice, is the moſt likely Means to produce Uniformity in the eſſential Principles of Chriſtianity as well as Practice; ſo this is certainly the moſt ſure Method of procuring Peace in the State. No Man having any Reaſon to repine at his Neighbour's Enjoyment of that Right, which he is not willing to be without himſelf; and on the ſame Grounds he challenges it for himſelf, he muſt be forced to own, that it is as reaſonable his Neighbour ſhould enjoy it. But then on the other Hand, every Claim of Power inconſiſtent with this Right, (as the making ſuch a human Eſtabliſhment of Religion of which we are ſpeaking) is an Encroachment on the Chriſtian's Liberty; and ſo far therefore he is in a State of Slavery: And ſo far as a Man feels himſelf in a State of Slavery, ſo far he feels himſelf unhappy, and has Reaſon to complain of that Adminiſtration which puts the Chain upon him. So that if Slavery be for the Peace of the civil State; then ſuch Eſtabliſhments as we are ſpeaking of, tend to promote the Peace of the State: i. e. what makes the Subjects miſerable, really makes them happy. And as it neceſſarily tends to the Miſery of ſome, ſo it alſo promotes Bigotry, Pride, and Ambition in ſuch as are fond of ſuch Eſtabliſhments: which have from Time to Time broken out in Extravagancies and Severities (upon good Subjects) in Men of Authority and Influence, and into Rage and Fury, Hatred and Obloquy, and ſuch like Wickedneſſes, in the impotent and commoner Sort. This has been the Caſe in all Places, more or leſs, as well as in our own Nation. Thus when K. Henry threw off the Popiſh Tyranny, he would not deſtroy and put an End to the Exerciſe of that unjuſt Power, but only transferred it to himſelf, and exerciſed it with great Severity. The ſame unjuſt Dominion over the Conſciences of Men was again exerciſed in the Reign of Elizabeth; who (tho' otherwiſe a wiſe Princeſs) yet being of an high and arbitrary Temper, preſſed Uniformity with Violence; and found Biſhops enough, Parker, Aylmer, Whitgift and others, to cheriſh that Temper, and promote ſuch Meaſures. Silencings, Deprivations, Impriſonments, Fines &c. upon the Account of Religion, were ſome of the powerful Reaſonings of thoſe Times. The Cries of innocent Priſoners, widowed Wives, and ſtarving Children, made no Impreſſion on their Hearts: Piety and Learning with them were void of Merit: Refuſal of Subſcriptions, and Non-conformity, were Crimes never to be forgiven. At the Inſtigation of that perſecuting Prelate Whitgift, Archbiſhop of Canterbury, the High Commiſſion Court was eſtabliſhed; which had a near Reſemblance to the Court of Inquiſition: (A fine Invention to promote Uniformity) Which by the Cruelties practiced in it in the two following Reigns, was render'd the Abhorrence of the Nation; ſo that it was diſſolved by Parliament, with a Clauſe, that no ſuch Court ſhould be erected for the future. A Creature framed to promote the wretched Deſigns of ſuch Perſecutors, was her weak Succeſſor James the Firſt, who gave the Puritans to underſtand—That if they did not conform, he would either hurry them out of the Kingdom, or elſe do worſe. The Biſhops ſupported by ſuch an inſpired King, according to Whitgift's impious and fordid Flattery, purſued the Maxim to accompliſh Uniformity by Perſecution. The grievous Severities and numerous Violences exerciſed on Non-conformiſts in that and the next Reign, under that tyrannical Prelate Laud, (ſaid in Parliament by Sir Harbottle Grimſtone, to be the great and common Enemy of all Goodneſs and good Men) are well known by all truly acquainted with the Hiſtory of thoſe Times: As well as the cruel Injuſtice exerciſed after the Reſtoration on great Numbers of as good Subjects as any in the Nation; meerly becauſe they could not come up to this Uniformity pleaded for, and enquired according to their Meaſure of Knowledge after the Truth, and deſired to worſhip GOD according to their Conſciences: until the late great Deliverer (WILLIAM the IIId. of happy Memory) of the Britiſh Nation from Popery and Slavery, freed thoſe miſerable Sufferers (noble Confeſſors for the Truth) from a Yoke of Bondage laid upon them, and gave them a Law for the Security of their Chriſtian Liberty; this Right of private Judgment I have been pleading for. And that this has promoted Peace in the State, Experience ſince has proved; as well as former Experience made it moſt evident, that the Incroachments upon this Right of private Judgment, by ſuch legal Eſtabliſhments, have been exceeding prejudicial to the Peace of the State: It being impoſſible but that ſuch Methods ſhould cauſe and perpetuate Schiſms and Diviſions of the Church, and diſturb and diſquiet the State; ſince the Wrath of Man cannot work the Righteouſneſs of GOD; and ſince civil Puniſhments have no Tendency to convince the Conſcience, but only to inflame the Paſſions againſt the Adviſers and Inflicters of them. And as Hiſtory gives us ſo dreadful an Account of the melancholy and tragical Effects of this Practice, one would think, that no People who have any Regard for the Peace of the Flock of CHRIST, who know the Worth of Liberty, would be fond of ſuch legal Eſtabliſhments, or any ſuch Methods as encroach upon Chriſtian Liberty, the moſt valuable of all our Rights.

Thus I think I have fully anſwered all your Objections againſt my ſecond Corollary. I therefore proceed to a third.

III. That the civil Authority ought to protect all their Subjects in the Enjoyment of this Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion, and the Liberty of worſhipping GOD according to their Conſciences. That being the End of civil Government (as we have ſeen) viz. the greater Security of Enjoyment of what belongs to every one, and this Right of private Judgment, and worſhipping GOD according to their Conſciences, being the natural and unalienable Right of every Men, what Men by entering into civil Society neither did, nor could give up into the Hands of the Community; it is but a juſt Conſequence, that they are to be protected in the Enjoyment of this Right as well as any other. A worſhipping Aſſembly of Chriſtians have ſurely as much Right to be protected from Moleſtation in their Worſhip, as the Inhabitants of a Town aſſembled to conſult their civil Intereſts from Diſturbance &c. This Right I am ſpeaking of, is the moſt valuable Right, of which every one ought to be moſt tender, of univerſal and equal Concernment to all; and Security and Protection in the Enjoyment of it the juſt Expectation of every Individual. And the civil Magiſtrate in endeavouring and doing this, moſt truly comes up to the Character of a nurſing Father to the Church of CHRIST. If this had been protected as it ought to have been, what infinite Miſchief to the Chriſtian Church had been prevented? From the Want of a due Care of this, the Clergy through Pride and Ambition aſſumed the Power of preſcribing to, impoſing on and domineering over the Conſciences of Men; civil Rulers for their own private Ends helping it forward; which went on 'till it produced the moſt deteſtable Monſter the Earth ever had upon it, the Pope, who has deluged the Earth with the Blood of Chriſtians. This being the true Spirit of Popery, to impoſe their Determinations on all within their Power by any Methods which may appear moſt effectual: and thoſe civil Magiſtrates that ſuffered and helped that Beaſt to invade this Right, did therein commit Fornication with her, and give her their Strength and Power; and ſo inſtead of proving Fathers to their People, proved the curſed Butchers of them. It has been by aſſerting and uſing this Right, that any of the Nations who have been drunk with the Wine of her Fornication, have come out from her Abominations: and would the civil Magiſtrates of thoſe Nations, who at this Day worſhip the Beaſt, but protect their Subjects in this natural Right of every one's judging for himſelf in Matters of Religion, according to that alone Rule the Bible; that ſettled Darkneſs of Ignorance, Error & Idolatry, which now involves them, would vaniſh as the Darkneſs of the Night does by the riſing of the Sun. How unſpeakably would the Advantages be, ariſing from the Protection of this Right, did they reach no further than to the Eſtates, Bodies, and Lives of Men?

All Reformations are built on this ſingle Principle I have been pleading for, from which we ſhould never depart: yet it muſt be owned and deſerves to be lamented, that the Reformed have too much departed from this Principle upon which they at firſt ſet up; whence it has come to paſs that Reformations in one Place and another have not been more perfect. For the Prince of Darkneſs has always found Means this Way to make a Stand againſt the moſt vigorous Efforts; and if any Advantages have been gained in any Point, to ſecure a ſafe Retreat, by infatuating Men with that ſtrange Sort of Pride, whereby they aſſume to themſelves only, but allow to none elſe, a Power of domineering over the Conſciences of others. Religion will certainly lie under Oppreſſion if this unjuſt Authority be transferred, to Decrees of Councils, Convocations, Injunctions of civil Magiſtrates, or from one Man or any Order of Men to another; as it is if we have any other Rule of Faith and Practice in Religion, beſides the Bible. It were eaſy to enlarge on the vaſt Advantages and Happineſs of admitting no other Rule or Guide but the ſacred Scriptures only: thence would flow the greateſt Bleſſings to Mankind, Peace and Happineſs to the World: ſo that if there be any Rights and Liberties of Men that challenge Protection and Security therein from the civil Magiſtrate, it is this natural Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion, that the ſacred Scriptures only may become the Rule to all Men in all religious Matters, as they ought to be. In a Word, this is the ſureſt Way for the Eaſe and Quiet of Rulers, as well as Peace of the State, the ſureſt Way to engage the Love and Obedience of all the Subjects. And if there be divers religious Sects in the State, and the one attempts to offend the other, and the Magiſtrate interpoſes only to keep the Peace; it is but a natural Conſequence to ſuppoſe—that in ſuch Caſe they all finding themſelves equally ſafe, and protected in their Rights by the civil Power, they will all be equally obedient. It is the Power given to one, to oppreſs the other, that has occaſioned all the Diſturbances about Religion. And ſhould the Clergy cloſely adhere to theſe Principles, inſtead of their being reproached for Pride and Ambition, as the Sowers of Strife and Contention and Diſturbance of the Peace of the Church of God; they would be honoured for their Work's ſake, eſteemed for their Character, loved as Bleſſings to the World, heard with Pleaſure, and become ſucceſsful in their Endeavours to recommend the Knowledge and Practice of Chriſtianity.

IV. It alſo follows from the preceeding Principles, that every Chriſtian has Right to determine for himſelf what Church to join himſelf to; and every Church has Right to judge in what Manner GOD is to be worſhipped by them, and what Form of Diſcipline ought to be obſerved by them, and the Right alſo of electing their own Officers. (For Brevity Sake I put them all together) From this Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion, ſufficiently demonſtrated in the foregoing Pages, it follows, that no Chriſtian is obliged to join himſelf to this or the other Church, becauſe any Man or Order of Men command him to do ſo, or becauſe they tell him the Worſhip and Diſcipline thereof is moſt conſonant to the ſacred Scriptures; For no Man has Right to judge for him, whether the Worſhip and Diſcipline of this or the other Church be moſt agreeable to the ſacred Scriptures; and therefore no other can have Right to determine for him to which he ought to join himſelf: This Right therefore muſt lie with every Chriſtian. As this is the Right of each Individual; ſo alſo of a Number of them agreeing in their Sentiments in theſe Things, to agree to obſerve the Ordinances of Chriſt together, for their mutual Edification according to the Rules of the Goſpel, which makes a particular Chriſtian Church. And having voluntarily agreed together for ſuch an End, no Man or Order of Men has any Authority to preſcribe to them, the Manner of their worſhipping GOD, or enjoining any Form of Church Diſcipline upon them. So a Number of ſuch Churches (who are all endowed with Equality of Power) have Right to judge for themſelves, whether it be moſt agreeable to the Mind of CHRIST, to conſociate together in any particular Form; as far Inſtance, of Preſbyteries, or Synods, or the like. And if they ſhould do ſo, ſuch Agreements of their's cannot be made a binding Rule to them, by any Law of Man; As has been demonſtrated in the preceeding Pages. Theſe Churches are all of them as free to think and judge for themſelves, as they were before ſuch Agreement; their Right of private Judgment not being given up, but reſerved entire for themſelves, when they entered into any ſuch ſuppoſed Agreement. And if on Experience of ſuch a Method of Regimen as they have agreed to, and farther Light, they judge any of them, there is good Reaſon for them to forbear practiſing farther in that Form; they are not held to continue therein, but have Right to act according to their preſent Light; they having no other Rule but the ſacred Scripture, they have always a Right to act their Judgment according to that Rule. So alſo if a greater or leſſer Number of Chriſtians in any particular Church, ſhall judge another Way of Worſhip, or Method of Diſcipline, more agreeable to the Mind of CHRIST, than what is practiſed in that Church; they have Right to withdraw, and to be embodied by themſelves. As they ought to ſignify this Deſire to their Brethren, ſo they ought to conſent▪ for they can have no Right to hold them to themſelves: and this without any Breach of Charity on either Side; or of after Communion, ſo long as they held to CHRIST the Head, and are agreed in the great Eſſentials of Chriſtianity. So alſo from the ſame Premiſſes it follows, that every Church or worſhipping Aſſembly has the Right of chooſing its own Officers:—Tho' it may ordinarily be a Point of Prudence for a Church deſtitute of a Paſtor, to conſult Paſtors of other Churches where they may be ſupplied with a Perſon ſuitable for that Office; yet that no Way ſuppoſes, the full Power of Election does not lie with the Church. It is for the better improving their Power of Election, that ſuch a Method is ever to be taken, and not becauſe they have not the Power of Election in themſelves. Nor can they be bound to this, if they ſee good Reaſon to act otherwiſe, (as the Caſe has ſometimes hapned and often may.) Nor can they be at all bound to elect the Perſon recommended: They are to prove him themſelves, and be fully ſatisfied in his Miniſterial Gifts and Qualifications, and may herein be controuled by no Power whatever. It is their own good, their everlaſting Intereſt that is concerned, and if they judge his Doctrine not agreeable to the ſacred Scriptures, that he is not qualified as he ought to be for a Goſpel Miniſter they have Right to reject him. As they have a Right of judging the Doctrines taught them them by the ſacred Scriptures, and of rejecting the ſame if not agreeable thereto, ſo it neceſſarily follows they have equal Right to refuſe ſuch a one for their Teacher, who does not teach according to the Scriptures.

But if it be demanded how this Power can be exerciſed, muſt every Individual be agreed in the Perſon, or no Election made?

I anſwer,

1. Such a univerſal Agreement is not neceſſary, the Election may be made by a Majority. Experience has ſhewn where the Candidate has had the Goſpel Qualifications for the Office, the Concurrence in the Choice has been univerſal, at leaſt ſo general as to bring no Difficulty in the Exerciſe of this Right. So when there has been any conſiderable Number who judged they had any weighty Reaſon againſt the Election made by a Majority, Experience has alſo ſhewn the Majority's denying themſelves of that Choice, and trying farther, has iſſued happily for the whole. In ſuch Caſes, 'tis certain, Wiſdom if profitable to direct. And that Rule of our Saviour's, Math. 7. 12. will go a great Way in keeping Churches in the peaceable Exerciſe of this Right.

2. Where a minor Part cannot in Judgment acquieſce in the Choice made by the major Part of the worſhipping Aſſembly, they have a Right to withdraw and chooſe a Miniſter for themſelves, or if not able to ſupport one may attend divine Worſhip in a neighbouring Church, where they find they may do it to greater Edification. They are all equally veſted in the ſame Right, and hold it independent one of another, and each one independent of the whole, or of all the reſt. So that the greater Number can have no Right to impoſe a Miniſter on the leſſer. It is not here as in civil Societies where the Right of each Individual is ſubjected to the Body, or ſo transferred to the Society, as that the Act of the Majority is legally to be conſidered as the Act of the whole, and binding to each Individual. As to what concerns Men's civil Intereſts, there is nothing in the Nature of Things to hinder or prevent its being lawful or beſt, ſo to transfer their Power to the Community. But it is not ſo in religious Matters, where Conſcience and Men's eternal Intereſts are concerned. If the Power of acting be transferred in this Caſe, as in that of civil Societies (now mentioned) Thus, if for Inſtance, the Majority ſhould elect an Arminian Teacher, the minor Part muſt be ſo concluded by that Choice, as to ſubmit to ſuch a One as their Teacher, when at the ſame Time it may be directly againſt their Conſciences to receive ſuch Doctrines or ſuch a Teacher. But ſince the Rights of Conſcience may not be touched, the Right of electing a Teacher is not transfer'd to the Body by the Individuals, as civil Rights may be in civil Societies. That Principle or Suppoſition, which any Ways infer, an Infringement upon the Rights of Conſcience, cannot be true; as that does, which ſuppoſes a Majority may impoſe a Miniſter on a leſſer Part.

If to avoid what I have aſſerted, that in ſuch Caſe a minor Part may withdraw and chooſe a Miniſter for themſelves, it be here ſaid—That they may remove their Habitations—

I Anſwer, Since this Right of electing a Teacher for themſelves does truly remain with them, after the Choice made by the Majority, that Right may be exerciſed by them, and why not in one Part of the civil State as well as another? They are guilty of no Crime for which they ſhould be baniſhed by the State, nor of any Thing whereby they have forfeited a Right of poſſeſſing their preſent Freeholds: their Right to their Freeholds remains, and conſequently their Right to exerciſe their Chriſtian Rights where they be, and have a Right to remain.—It is to no Purpoſe here to ſay, Perhaps the Legiſlature has fixed the Bounds of the Pariſh.—For the Legiſlature can make civil Societies, and may fix the Bounds of Towns and Pariſhes for civil Purpoſes; yet they can't make Churches, nor may they make any Laws that interfere with the Rights of Chriſtians.—Nor is it to any Purpoſe to ſay, This would open a Door to a great Multiplication of Churches: For how many populous Places, as well as Boſton, have tried it, and found Religion and Peace beſt promoted on theſe Principles; nor is there a probability that Churches will by this Means be increaſed beyond their Ability to ſupport their Miniſters.

By what I have ſaid you will find ſome other of your Queries anſwer'd, without my making particular Application, and therefore I leave that for you to do at your own Leiſure: And ſhould here finiſh my Letter, but that you inſiſt on my giving you my Sentiments on a Law made in your Colony May 1742, Intitled An Act for regulating Abuſes, and correcting Diſorders in Eccleſiaſtical Affairs: Which it ſeems, thro' the fond Opinion ſome Perſons among you had of it, was thruſt into one of our publick News Papers, ſoon after it was paſſed; under which every wiſe By-ſtander, that was a hearty Friend to your civil and religious Intereſts, was ready to write, Tell it not in Gath &c.

I ſhall not deſcend into every Particular that might be offered upon it—Some few Remarks may ſuffice.

I. The Law is founded on this falſe Principle, viz. That the civil Authority hath Power to eſtabliſh a Form of Church-Government by penal Laws. The Act relates wholly to Matters of an eccleſiaſtical Nature: and as i • ſuppoſes, the civil Magiſtrate has Authority by penal Laws to regulate eccleſiaſtical Matters, ſo conſequently to eſtabliſh an eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution by penal Laws. It appears from the Preamble to the Act, that the declared Deſign of it is to keep Perſons from deviating from the eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline eſtabliſhed by Law, in the Year 1708 and that under the Penalties by this Law enacted.—But that they have no ſuch Authority, has been fully demonſtrated in the foregoing Pages, which I need not repeat. Whence it muſt follow, that the Act is fundamentally wrong, being made without any Authority. Be pleas'd to reflect one Minute on this Power challenged by this Law, to correct, and that by penal Laws, ſuch Diſorders as are purely of an eccleſiaſtical Nature, and ſee the Conſequence of it. One Diſorder to be corrected is, A Miniſter's preaching out of his own Pariſh undeſired by the Miniſter and major Part of the Church where he ſhall ſo preach. If the civil Magiſtrate has this Power the Act ſuppoſes, if he judges it to be a Diſorder for the Miniſter to preach in his own Pariſh on a Week Day, he may then reſtrain him: or if he t ••• ks it a Diſorder that there ſhould be any public Prayers but by a 〈◊〉 p ••• ted Form, he may then reſtrain all to ſuch a Form. It is 〈…〉 the civil Magiſtrate has Authority to correct eccleſiaſtical Diſorders, he has a Right to judge what is a Diſorder in the Church, and reſtrain the ſame. If he may execute this in one Inſtance, he may in another: and every Thing is on this Principle liable to be diſallowed in the Worſhip of God, which does not ſuit with the civil Magiſtrate's Opinion. Whatever he judges to be a Diſorder, is ſo by this Principle, and may be reſtrained accordingly. And ſo farewell all Chriſtian Liberty.—It ſignifies nothing to ſay, your civil Magiſtrates are ſo ſound in the Faith, there's no Danger they will go ſo far. I hope ſo indeed with you; tho' you can't tell what thoſe or others in ſucceeding Times may do. It is no new Thing for civil Authority to make dreadful Havock of the Liberties and Religion of Chriſtians; but the Argument, you ſee, proceeds upon the Nature of Things. The Principle, that Law ſtands upon, you may plainly ſee, is directly inconſiſtent in its own Nature, with the unalienable Rights of Chriſtians. What ſad Effects have been felt in our own Nation, in ſome former Reigns, from this very Principle's being put in Practice; who at all acquainted with Hiſtory can be ignorant? While they were executing what they were pleaſed to call wholſome Severities on Diſſenters, they were only in their Judgment correcting Diſorders in eccleſiaſtical Affairs. If this Power belongs to the civil Authority, as ſuch, it muſt belong to thoſe in one State as well as another; and is as juſtly challenged by the civil Authority in France, as in New-England. Let it be but once ſuppoſed the civil Magiſtrate has this Authority, where can you ſtop? what is there in Religion not ſubjected to his Judgment? All muſt be Diſorder in Religion, which he is pleaſed to call ſo; you can have no more of the external Part of Religion than he is pleaſed to leave you, and may have ſo much of Superſtition as he is pleaſed to enjoin under the Head of Order. So that this Law ſtands on no better a Foundation, than what infers the Deſtruction of Chriſtian Liberty.

Having made this general Obſervation, I go on, to conſider the firſt Paragraph, which runs thus—That if any ordained Miniſter or other Perſon licenſed as aforeſaid to preach, ſhall enter into any Pariſh not immediately under his Charge, and ſhall there preach or exhort the People, he ſhall be denied and ſecluded the Benefit of any Law of this Colony made for the Support and Encouragement of the Goſpel Miniſtry; except ſuch ordained Miniſter or licenſed Perſon ſhall be expreſly invited and deſired ſo to enter into ſuch other Pariſh, and there to preach and exhort the People, either by the ſettled Miniſter, and the major Part of the Church of ſaid Pariſh; or in Caſe there be no ſettled Miniſter, then by the Church or Society in ſaid Pariſh.

The Miniſter's heretofore ſuppoſed Right to have Aſſiſtance and Help from his Brethren in the Miniſtry by preaching, is hereby cut off. None may preach unleſs the major Part of the Church deſire it; tho' the Miniſter and one Half of the Church and all the reſt of the Congregation, which make up much the greater Part of the Number, who have Right to hear the Word preached, are ever ſo deſirous of hearing the Word from another, and apprehenſive (as the Caſe may be) of the great Neceſſity of it. Before this Law was paſſed, I ſhould have preſumed, there was not one Miniſter on the Continent, but what thought he had good Right to invite any orthodox Miniſter to preach in his Pulpit: not only Miniſters, but Churches in every Part of the World, have ſo ſuppoſed and practiſed. But it ſeems by this Law this Suppoſition is a Miſtake, and the Practice a Diſorder in the Church.—Yet if the Miniſter has no ſuch Right, how comes it to paſs, that the greater Part of his Hearers are cut off from any Right to hear ſuch as may be ever ſo well qualified to inſtruct. The Noncommunicants, which perhaps makes three Quarters of the Pariſh, are in one Part of this Paragraph conſider'd as a Cypher, and in another Part as having full Right to hear whom they deſire, viz. In a Pariſh where they have no ſettled Miniſter. In ſuch Caſe, it is ſuppoſed, by this Law, they have Right to hear any Miniſter they deſire, tho' not one Church-Member join with them in the Deſire; for they may make up a Majority of the Society without one Communicant with them.—Yet if the Day before, while the Miniſter of ſuch a Pariſh was living, it ſeems, if the ſame Perſons had been deſirous of hearing the ſame Man, they are by this Law cut off the Privilege; if the Miniſter's Deſ •• e too had been joined with them, it would have helped nothing: or rather (in ſhort) as this Law ſtands, this very Circumſtance of their having a Miniſter extinguiſhes their Right of hearing ſuch Preachers as they deſire. Such now being the plain Senſe of this Paragraph; I ſay then,—

II. That it is apparently inconſiſtent with itſelf, deprives Miniſters and particular Chriſtians of their Rights and Liberties, and inveſts a lordly Power in a ſmall Part of a Pariſh-Society, 〈…〉 Pa • t or one Half of a Church, over a worſhipping Aſſembly, ſince they never had nor can have any rightful Power to hinder other Chriſtians in the Pariſh from hearing ſuch Miniſters as they judge may promote their ſpiritual Good, as by this Law they are enabled to do.

III. It inveſts an exorbitant Power in Miniſters over a Church and Congregation. This may look very ſtrange, eſpecially when you reflect, that by the Preamble to this Law the Miniſters are repreſented as having departed from the eſtabliſhed eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, and been guilty of diſorderly and irregular Practices; and therefore are ſuch Perſons as are not fit to be left to conduct themſelves, in their miniſterial Office, nor to be governed by their own eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution, but muſt of Neceſſity be laid under ſome extraordinary legal Reſtraints. I ſay, they are thus plainly repreſented (whether truly, or not, is not the Queſtion) by the Preamble; yet, notwithſtanding all this, they are by this Law veſted with an exorbitant Power over the Churches. Chriſtians, it ſeems, muſt be ſtrip'd of an invaluable Branch of Liberty Chriſt has veſted them with, & the ſame muſt be lodged in that Order of Men, who are repreſented as unfaithful in the Execution of their Truſt. For by this Law every Miniſter has not only Power given him, to prevent any other Minſter's preaching in his Pariſh, not only if a ſmall Number deſire it, but if the whole worſhipping Aſſembly deſire it; not only in the Pulpit, but in any private Houſe, which is directly inconſiſtent with the Rights of Chriſtians: but alſo in Caſe a Pariſh be under a Neceſſity of ſettling another Miniſter thro' the Incumbent's Diſability to diſcharge his Paſtoral Office, it is put into his Power to negative any Choice they ſhall make of a Miniſter, and ſo Churches are really ſtript of their Right of electing their own Miniſters. It is plain by the Words of the Law, none can preach in the Pariſh without the ſettled Miniſter's Conſent: & if one preaches to Day by his Leave, and the whole worſhipping Aſſembly deſire his continued preaching, he has it in his Power by this Law to prevent his preaching To-morrow. And therefore if a Church can call and ſettle none (in ſuch a Caſe) but whom their preſent Paſtor pleaſes, (as is certainly the Caſe by this Law) the Right of electing their Miniſter is taken from them. A ſuppoſed Right in A, dependent on the Will of B, is no Right at all.—And this, as I have heard, is the Caſe of one Church on Connecticut River, now groaning under this Oppreſſion, which may alſo prove the Caſe of any, or of all other Churches in that Colony, if they remain under the Miſery of ſuch a Law.

IV. The Perſons ſuppoſed to be criminal by this Law, are ſubjected to an unreaſonable Puniſhment, and this too without any Trial in the Law, in any Form whatever. The ſuppoſed Crime is a Miniſter or licenſed Candidate's preaching in a Pariſh where the Incumbent and major Part of the Church have not invited: i.e. If the Incumbent has invited with one Half of the Church and three Quarters of the whole Pariſh, or if the whole Church and Pariſh invite, and not the Incumbent, or if there is not more than Half of the Church, or more than Half of the Society, where there is no Incumbent; each of theſe is ſuch a Crime for which the Puniſhment is, The Denial and Secluſion from the Benefit of any Law of the Colony made for the Support and Encouragement of the Goſpel Miniſtry. Now I find by looking into your Colony Law-Book, the Laws made for the aforeſaid Purpoſe may be ſum'd up in theſe few Words, viz. That all Agreements made by the Inhabitants of a Society or the major Part of them aſſembled in a Society-Meeting, reſpecting the Settlement and Maintenance of the Miniſter they have choſen, ſhall be binding to all the Inhabitants of ſuch Society, and to their Succeſſors; which Sums or Payments ſo agreed to ſhall be levied and aſſeſſed on the ſeveral Inhabitants in ſuch Society, according to their reſpective Eſtates from Time to Time, as they ſhall be ſet in the general Liſt; which Sums or Payments ſhall be gathered by ſuch Perſon ſaid Society ſhall appoint to be the Collector of them, who is to repa •• • o an Aſſiſtant or Juſtice of the Peace for a Warrant to enable him to collect the Rate. Now then, as by the preceeding Laws, ſuch Agreements are made binding to the Inhabitants of a Society and their Succeſſors &c. hence to be denied and ſecluded the Benefit of any Law made for the Support and Encouragement of the Goſpel Miniſtry, includes in it the being denied and ſecluded the Benefit of holding the Society to ſuch Agreements; and ſo this Law plainly intends, by prohibiting any Aſſiſtant or Juſtice of the Peace, to ſign any Warrant for collecting a Rate where a Miniſter has been certified againſt, as having acted contrary to this Law. So that, in ſhort, the Puniſhment is the Deprication of his Livelihood; and thence forward he may beg his Bread. This appears unreaſonable, to inflict ſo heavy a Puniſhment for preaching in ſuch Caſes as abovementioned, when (as it may happen) it might be evidently Duty ſo to do. But let the Preaching be at the Deſire of more or fewer, ſtill it is no Immorality: it is but an eccleſiaſtical Diſorder, even in the Account of this Law, which ſurely can't deſerve ſo ſevere a Penalty. Many groſs Immoralities have a much leſs Puniſhment aſſigned for them, than this heretofore ſuppoſed innocent Action of preaching the Goſpel. If the civil Peace was broken by it, I can't ſee how ſo ſevere a Puniſhment for it can be juſtified. But it is evident, the civil Peace is not broken by this ſuppoſed Crime, which is nothing but preaching the Goſpel; which is ſo far from breaking the Peace, or tending thereto, that it intirely tends to make Men better, and ſo better Subjects. The preaching out of his own Pariſh does not alter the Nature of the Action, nor is the natural Tendency of the Word changed thereby; no Man's civil Property or Intereſt is at all invaded by it; and how ſuch an Action can be puniſhed at all, appears myſterious to me! It is not for preaching Sedition or Treaſon, but even the Goſpel of Peace, that CHRIST'S Miniſters are render'd liable to be deprived of their daily Bread.

If it ſhould be here ſaid,—That theſe Laws made for the Support of the Goſpel Miniſtry, are to be looked upon as Acts of Favour, relative to ſuch as comply with the eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution of the Government; and ſo if any Miniſters will not keep within the Bounds of that Conſtitution, they juſtly forfeit ſuch Favour; and ſo the Puniſhment here is to be underſtood, a Declaration that their Right to ſuch Favour now ceaſes. I anſwer,

1. That Action, which by this Law is made thus criminal, is not contrary to, but well conſiſtent with the eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution, under which theſe Miniſters are ſuppoſed to ſettle. It is not inconſiſtent with that eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution, for any Miniſter to preach in any other Pariſh than his own to any Number of Chriſtians on their Deſire at any of their private religious Exerciſes.—But I will only Inſtance in one Particular made thus Criminal by this Act, which is warranted by that eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution, and the conſtant Practice of the Churches. The Right Hand of Fellowſhip is given at every Ordination, in which the Miniſters and Churches concerned, do ſolemnly promiſe to eſteem and treat the Perſon ordained as a duly authorized Miniſter of CHRIST, and to be ready on all Occaſions to own him as ſuch, and to aſſiſt him in his Work: In Conſequence of theſe ſolemn Promiſes, Miniſters & Churches have looked upon themſelves under ſuch Obligations to each other, that if one of theſe Miniſters judges he has real Need of Aſſiſtance in preaching, from another (where theſe mutual Obligations take Place) he has Right to aſk it, tho' the Church does not join with him in it, and the Church's ſo hearing him preach they have always judged (and therein they have judged truly) is acting but agreable to thoſe previous Obligations they have laid themſelves under to him, to treat him as an authorized Miniſter of CHRIST, and to hold Communion with him as ſuch; one Way of doing which, is certainly hearing the Word from him. So that it is plain, one Miniſter's preaching for another upon his Deſire, tho' the Church joins not in it, is at leaſt well conſiſtent with the Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution (and I need ſay no more of it in this Argument) under which theſe Miniſters are ſuppoſed to ſettle, according to the Objection: and therefore no Forfeiture is made, by ſuch an Action, of the Benefit of the Laws made in Favour of the eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution.—They have Right to this Benefit ſo long (at leaſt) as they act conſiſtently with that eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution under which they ſettled.—The Act, diſallow'd by this Law, and for which they are deprived of this Benefit, is conſiſtent with that Conſtitution.—In this Manner therefore 〈◊〉 deprive them of it, is to take it away while their Right to it in Equity remains good. This, you ſee, I have ſaid on the Suppoſition, thoſe Laws are to be conſidered only as Acts of Grace, as laid in the Objection. But then I ſay in the next Place—

2. The Laws here referred to, made for the Support of the Goſpel Miniſtry, are not Acts of Grace; they are no other than what the Legiſlature tho't themſelves obliged to make. If the civil Authority of a State are obliged to take Care for the Support of Religion, or in other Words, of Schools and the Goſpel Miniſtry, in order to their approving themſelves nurſings Fathers, (as, I ſuppoſe, every Body will own, and therefore I ſhall not ſpend any Time in proving it) then the Law eſpecially referred to is not an Act of Grace. It was what the Legiſlature judged moſt juſt, eaſy, and equal for the People, ſafe and eaſy for the Miniſter, who is to give himſelf wholly to his Work; or in a Word, beſt for the People and the Miniſter, that Contracts ſhould be ſo made, ſo binding and ſo performed; for both People and Miniſter are concerned in the Act. I don't ſay, the Legiſlature could not have provided as well in ſome other Way: this is no Ways neceſſary to be ſuppoſed in the Caſe. But as they were obliged to make ſome good Proviſion in the Caſe, both with reſpect to the People who are to pay, and the Miniſter who is to receive, ſo in their Wiſdom they fixed on that Method, as what was good for the whole. 'Tis therefore no more an Act of Gra • e, than any Act of the Legiſlature reſpecting any civil Intereſts or Contracts of the Subject. What the public Good calls for therein, they are obliged to do: And the Acts they make in Purſuance thereof are no Acts of Grace, but (ſtrictly ſpeaking) of Debt to the People. And as the Act, referred to, is not an Act of Grace, ſo this Law brings a Puniſhment, not only on the Miniſter, as before obſerved, but on the People too, by letting them looſe from their Agreement with their Miniſter, the now ſuppoſed Offender. For the Miniſter remaining with the People, they have a new Contract to make, and muſt take ſome other Method for performing it, than what the Law in the former Caſe had provided: And from the known ſtrait-handed Diſpoſition in too many towards the Support of the Goſpel, it muſt needs follow, that the Burden of the Support of it muſt lie much more unequally upon the People, and perhaps on but a very few. As this is the certain Conſequence, ſo is it a Certainty, that an innocent People are puniſhed, with their Miniſter, by this Law.—Beſides, how the letting a People looſe from their ſolemn Agreements with their Miniſter, for an Action never ſuppoſed criminal before this Law was made, and is certainly no Violation of the Contract he made with them, can conſiſt with Juſtice and Equity, is beyond the Ken of ordinary Underſtandings: which I might have argued from as a diſtinct Head; but it is ſufficient to obſerve it as I paſs, it lying now in my Way.—To return, As the Puniſhment is extraordinary, ſo is the Manner of inflicting it extraordinary too, viz. The Miniſter of the Pariſh where he ſhall ſo offend, or the civil Authority or any two of the Committee of ſuch Pariſh, ſending an Information thereof in Writing under their Hands to the Clerk of the Pariſh where ſuch offending Miniſter does belong, this does the Buſineſs at once, as appears by the third Paragraph in the Act.—So that meerly from the Information of one Perſon (as it may be) of a different Perſuaſion in Religion, and inclined from a Party-Spirit to oppreſs, or one that has a perſonal Prejudice againſt a Miniſter, given to the Clerk of a Pariſh (whether true or falſe) the Miniſter is deprived of his Livelihood. Thus the Buſineſs is effected without any Formality of a legal Trial, or the Shadow of it. This, as I take it, is directly contrary to the Priviledges of an Engliſhman contained in Magna Charta, which has coſt our Predeceſſors Rivers of Blood to defend, and tranſmit down as ſacred to their Deſcendants. If ſuch a Law as condemns a Man without hearing him, deſerves to be expunged the Records of a free People (I might ſay, any; ſuch a Law being a Scandal to human Nature) I leave you to ſay, what Fate ſuch a Law as this before us deſerves.

V. I obſerve, by the ſecond Paragraph of this Law, any Aſſociation of Miniſters are ſubjected to the before-mentioned Penalty, That ſhall undertake to examine or licenſe any Candidate for the Miniſtry, or aſſume to themſelves the Deciſion of any Controverſy, or to counſel and adviſe in any Affair that by the Say-Brook Platform is within the Province and Juriſdiction of any other Aſſociation: Then and in ſuch Caſe every Member that ſhall be preſent in ſuch Aſſociation ſo licenſing, deciding or counſelling, ſhall be each and every of them denied and ſecluded the Benefit of any Law of this Colony made for the Support and Encouragement of the Goſpel-Miniſtry. Now this is ſubjecting Men to a heavy Puniſhment, for no Crime againſt the civil State, nay for Deeds in themſelves good, and ſuch as may be very ſerviceable to the Intereſts of Religion, as well as what may happen to be otherwiſe; for ſo the Acts of any Aſſociation ſometimes may be, that are allowed of by this Law.

As they who drew up the Platform, tho't it would be beſt for the Candidates of the Miniſtry to be examined, ſo they no doubt tho't every Aſſociation had Men of Learning and Fidelity to do it: and if it were done by any of them, the great End propoſed in ſuch Examination would be anſwered. And ſuppoſe the Aſſociation of New-London County ſhould examine and licenſe a Candidate, that belonged to the New-Haven Aſſociation, may it not be ſuppoſed it would be as well done, and as well anſwer the End, as if done in New-Haven. Or if a Pariſh within the Diſtrict of New-Haven Aſſociation, deſtitute of a Miniſter, ſhould after they had tried one Candidate and another, which they had been adviſed to by the Aſſociation, and not ſuited by any of them, aſk Advice of New-London Aſſociation, and they adviſe them to one within their Limits, who they judge well qualified for the Miniſtry, whom upon Trial they judge ſo too, and ſo are well ſuited in a Miniſter, what Harm comes of this? or what Iniquity was there in the Act of New-London Aſſociation adviſing in that Caſe? How often have Churches found it needful to do ſo, and Religion been ſerved by it? How often have they gone out of the Colony for ſuch Advice, and the Miniſters of the Maſſachuſetts adviſed Churches in Connecticut in ſuch a Caſe, on their Application for it; and ſo on the contrary, Miniſters in Connecticut, adviſed Churches in the Maſſachuſetts? Where lies the Difference! or was this always criminal in its own Nature! or if not, why ſhould a whole Aſſociation of Miniſters, for doing what I have above inſtanced in, be ſtripped of their Livings, as it ſeems by this Law they muſt! And what is more extraordinary ſtill, a Miniſter's meerly being preſent when it is done, renders him liable to this Puniſhment, whether he has any Hand in it or no; nay, for ought appears, if he ſhould proteſt againſt it, yet he eſcapes no Part of the Penalty. The Crime, it ſeems, is of ſuch a Nature, that if a Man be in the ſame Room, tho' he proteſts againſt the Action, he is ſtill equally faulty with the Actors: for ſince he is equally puniſhed, he muſt be ſuppoſed equally faulty. I don't imagine, you will envy any 〈◊〉 of Men the Glory of ſuch a rare Invention.—But to finiſh on this Head;—Nothing is more evident, than that ſuch an Examination or Advice, now inſtanced in, does not touch the civil Peace; and certainly therefore, the civil Authority go out of their Line to make this penal Law. And how near this comes to turning Judgment into Wormwood, may deſerve the ſerious Conſideration of ſome.

VI. The fourth Paragraph reſpects a licenſed Candidate's or any Layman's publickly preaching and exhorting in any Pariſh, not deſired in ſuch Manner as expreſſed in the firſt Paragraph. On which I ſhall but briefly obſerve, that the Words expreſſive of the Offence, are of ſo looſe or general Signification, as that a Perſon merely for religious Diſcourſe, or the moſt ſavoury Advice, ſeaſonably and prudently given at any private religious Meeting of Chriſtians, is liable to be treated as an Offender; and if I have not been miſinformed, there have been Inſtances of this: However that be, there is Danger of it. Or if a Man going into any publick Houſe, ſhould hear a Company talking profanely and wickedly, and thereupon ſeriouſly lay open their Sin, and gravely adviſe them thereupon, he would be liable to be treated as an Offender; and as the Hands may be, into which he might happen to fall, he would not eſcape it. But further, if it be ſuppoſed ſuch Preaching and Exhorting there referred to, be a Diſorder ſometimes, yet it is not always ſo: but whenever it is ſo (unleſs you ſuppoſe it done to the Interruption of ſome lawful Aſſembly) it is no Breach of the Peace, and comes not under civil Cognizance. Such diſorderly Perſons ought to be proceeded againſt in an eccleſiaſtical Manner, agreable to the Laws of CHRIST.

VII. I come now to the laſt Paragraph, which runs thus: That if any Foreigner or Stranger that is not an Inhabitant within this Colony, including as well ſuch Perſons, that have no eccleſiaſtical Character, or Licenſe to preach, as ſuch as have received Ordination or Licenſe to preach by any Aſſociation or Preſbytery, ſhall preſume to preach, teach or publickly to exhort in any Town or Society within this Colony, without the Deſire and Licenſe of the ſettled Miniſter and the major Part of the Church of ſuch Town or Society; or at the Call and Deſire of the Church and Inhabitants of ſuch Town or Society, provided that it ſo happen that there is no ſettled Miniſter there; that every ſuch Teacher or Exhorter ſhall be ſent (as a vagrant Perſon) by Warrant from any one Aſſiſtant or Juſtice of the Peace from Conſtable to Conſtable, out of the Bounds of this Colony. Since which, you tell me, there has been laſt October an Addition made viz. That whoſo thus offends ſhall pay the Coſts of his Tranſportation; and if he returns again and offends in ſuch Sort, it is made the Duty of any Aſſiſtant or Juſtice of the Peace that ſhall be informed thereof, to cauſe ſuch Perſon to be apprehended and brought before him, and if found guilty, to give Judgment that ſuch Perſon ſhall become bound in the penal Sum of an hundred Pounds lawful Money, to his peaceable and good Behaviour until the next County Court, in the County where the Offence ſhall be committed, and that ſuch Perſon will not offend again in like Manner; and the County Court may (if they ſee Cauſe) further bind &c. during their Pleaſure.—Occaſioned, as I am informed, by that good Gentleman Mr. Finl • y's coming at the Direction of a Preſbytery in the New-Jerſey Government, who had been applied to for a Miniſter, and preaching to a Preſbyterian Church at Milford, who had join'd themſelves to that Preſbytery, and put themſelves under their Care; for which being tranſported out of the Government, he returned and preached to a congregational Church at New-Haven, who had been allowed, as well as the former at Milford, to be a Society for the worſhipping of God, by the County Court at New-Haven, by Virtue of a Law formerly made for the Eaſe of ſuch as ſoberly diſſent from the Way of Worſhip and Miniſtry eſtabliſhed by the Laws of Connecticut; and for this he was adjudged by the civil Authority to 〈◊〉 tranſported again, which was but in Part effected thro' the Negligence of ſome Officer; and, I'm told, he returned and preached again.—This his Preaching and Exhorting, it ſeems, greatly diſquieted and diſturbed the People; as the Preamble to this Act expreſſes it.—Is it not ſtrange, the preaching of that peaceable and humble Chriſtian (as you confeſs his Behaviour beſpoke him to be while in the Colony) unto a Number of People, who had Right to hear the Goſpel preached from him, ſhould greatly diſquiet and diſturb ſuch as had their Choice in hearing others! Or could it diſquiet and diſturb any Minds except ſuch as can't bear their Chriſtian Neighbours ſhould enjoy their unalienable Rights!—But to return to the before mentioned laſt Paragraph, I obſerve, that any Stranger, not an Inhabitant in the Colony, who has received Ordination or Licenſe to preach from any ASSOCIATION or PRESBYTERY, that ſhall preſume to preach undeſired, as expreſſed in the Paragraph, is liable to be treated as a Vagrant, unworthy to tread on that Spot of Earth: But if he ſhould happen to be licenſed by the Patriarch of Greece, a Super-intendant of Denmark, or any Biſhop, he may eſcape the Laſh of this Law. If the coming in of a Stranger and preaching in ſuch a Manner be ſuch a Breach of the Peace, as is puniſhable by the State, why ſhould there be ſuch Partiality? Why ſhould Dr. Watts's preaching in ſuch Manner in Connecticut be a greater Crime, becauſe ordained by a Preſbytery, than any other Stranger's doing ſo that was licenſed by a Patriarch or Biſhop, &c.—However, that is much leſs to be wondered at, than ſuch Treatment as this Law ſubjects orthodox Miniſters to, even the beſt Miniſters of Chriſt upon Earth, for a mere Non-conformity to a certain Point of Order, that never took Place (I ſuppoſe) in any Church upon Earth.

But to be as brief as may be in the Conſideration of this Paragraph; Let the Queſtion be, if you pleaſe, exactly according to the Words, viz. Whether a civil State has rightful Authority to baniſh or thruſt out a confeſſedly orthodox Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt, tho' a Foreigner or Stranger, for only preaching the Goſpel to a Number, without the Deſire of the Incumbent, and major Part of the Church in the Pariſh wherein he ſhall ſo preach; the ſaid Miniſter being ſuppoſed to have a Right to Protection, and a Right to remain in that State, until he does ſomething to forfeit it?—I have truly ſtated it, becauſe I have mentioned the very ſuppoſed Crime for which ſuch Foreigners or Strangers are to be thruſt out of the Government; and I muſt neceſſarily ſuppoſe them true or orthodox Miniſters of Chriſt, becauſe this Law ſuppoſes them ſo, ſince it ſpeaks of ſuch as are ordained or licenſed by any Aſſociation or Preſbytery not within that Government; which includes all ſuch as are on this Continent, as well as Great-Britain (at leaſt) all of which are eſteemed orthodox. I put in the laſt Words, becauſe they really relate to the Subjects of the King of Great Britain, from whom the Government holds it Charter, and ſo to any Perſons in the Plantations, as well as on the Iſle of Great Britain, who have a Right therefore to be treated as Engliſhmen, or Fellow-Subjects under King GEORGE, and ſo may be truly ſaid to have a Right to remain in the Colony, in ſuch a Senſe as you will not allow to any belonging to another Kingdom. I don't mention this becauſe I would go into the Conſideration of what particular Powers may be in your Charter, different from others; tho' I confeſs, I can't find any Words in your Charter, that expreſs or imply a Power to do any Thing that is pretended to be done by this Law, to eſtabliſh or regulate by Law any Matters of an eccleſiaſtical Nature, to impoſe any civil Pains or Penalties in Matters of Conſcience, relating to the Worſhip of God. But neither your Colony, nor any other in the King's Dominions, have any rightful Authority to do as is here ſuppoſed, according to the Queſtion, as I have truly ſtated it. Let me here take a plain Caſe to illuſtrate the Point. Wickliff aroſe a Light in England, while Popery prevailed: be it ſuppoſed, he inſtructed a few in the Truth, but neither Biſhop nor Incumbent of the Pariſh would give Leave for his preaching. However, he goes on preaching the Goſpel, and the People will hear him. In this Caſe, the King and Parliament had no rightful Authority to baniſh Wickliff, or turn him out from the Iſland, for his ſo preaching. For, as has been already ſhewn in the preceeding Pages, the End of civil Government being the Preſervation of Perſon and Property, it would be a plain departing from the End of civil Government, to inflict any Puniſhment on Wickliff for his ſo preaching. What the civil Authority is obliged to defend and ſecure, is not hurt at all by the ſuppoſed Action of Wickliff; and it is really acting againſt the Deſign of the civil Magiſtrate's Truſt, to hurt an innocent Subject.—Beſides, the Right of private Judgment in Matters of Religion being unalienable, and what the civil Magiſtrate is rather oblig'd to protect his Subjects equally in, both Wickliff, and they who deſired to hear him, had a juſt Right to remain where they were, in the Enjoyment of that Right, free from all Moleſtation from any Perſons whatſoever; agreeable to what has been ſufficiently evidenced in the foregoing Pages.—On the other Hand, ſee the Abſurdity of ſuppoſing that the civil Magiſtrate had rightful Authority to have ſent away Wickliff. If the Magiſtrate had Right to ſend him away becauſe the ſtanding Clergy were unwilling he ſhould preach (that being one of the Caſes ſuppoſed in this Law) then the civil Authority muſt have had equal Right to ſend any other ſuch Perſon away, as faſt as they appeared; and conſequently they muſt be ſuppoſed to have had rightful Authority to hold their Subjects in the worſt Slavery, i.e. to keep them from the Exerciſe of their private Judgment in Matters of Religion; a Power to do which never was nor could be veſted in the civil Magiſtrate, by the People, by any original Compact, which is truly ſuppoſed the Foundation of all civil Government. It alters not the Nature of civil Government, whether the Magiſtrate be Proteſtant or Papiſt, Chriſtian or Pagan. What of Right appertains to the civil Magiſtrate by Virtue of his Office, muſt alſo neceſſarily belong to him, tho' Popiſh, or Heathen. The Suppoſal therefore that the civil Magiſtrate in England at that Day had rightful Authority to have ſent away Wickliff, for preaching the Goſpel without Leave of the Clergy, is big with too great an Abſurdity, for a conſiſtent Proteſtant to ſwallow. Suppoſe then theſe Colonies to have exiſted at that Time, or Great Britain and theſe Colonies Popiſh now, as Great-Britain was then, and Wickliff to come into any of them and preach in ſome Pariſh without the Conſent of the Incumbent, at the Deſire of a Number of People, it is certain, in this Caſe none of theſe Colonies could have any rightful Authority to thruſt him out of their Borders, or do any Thing like it.—The ſame Reaſons muſt conclude againſt theſe Colonies Authority to tranſport him, for coming and preaching now without an Incumbent's Leave at the Deſire of a Number, as in the former Caſe; the ſame Principles and Reaſoning will hold equally true, applied to any ſuch Inſtance as now before us, any Time ſince the Reformation from Popery. The civil Peace is no Ways broken by this Action of preaching, of which we are ſpeaking: But indeed if any ſhould take Occaſion from it, to contend and quarrel with their Neighbours, as Papiſts and Heathens have ſometimes done, the Apoſtle (James 4.1.) has ſhown us the true Spring thereof, the Luſts in Men's Hearts; the Outbreakings of which in Injuries to their Neighbours, fall under the civil Magiſtrate's Cognizance.—And the Rights of Conſcience and private Judgment in Matters of Religion are unalterably the ſame: And 'tis a Scandal to Chriſtians, to contend and quarrel with their Neighbours for enjoying them, and inexcuſable in a Proteſtant State to make any Infringement upon them. And it was on theſe very Principles, which I here Advance (and by which this Law muſt fall) that our firſt Reformers acted, and on which all Reformations muſt be built. And tho' our Nation in Times paſt under the Influence of a bigotted Clergy, and arbitrary weak or popiſh Princes, have made Laws founded on Principles contrary to theſe I have been pleading for; yet they ſeem in a great Meaſure rooted out of the Nation: and theſe Principles of Truth have taken Root, and been growing ever ſince the happy Revolution, and Act of Toleration; and 'tis to be hoped, will prevail & ſpread more and more, until all ſpiritual Tyranny, and lording it over the Conſciences of Men, be baniſhed out of the World.

But I ſhall finiſh with obſerving, That by Virtue of the Act of Toleration, all his Majeſty's Subjects are ſo freed from the Force of all Coercive Laws in Matters of Religion, relating to Worſhip and Diſcipline, that they act their own private Judgment, without Reſtraint:—That any Number of Chriſtians, greater or leſs, hear any Proteſtant Miniſter they deſire, without Controul from the Will of others, or Authority of the civil State:—Since this is the Caſe, and withal as plain as the Sun in the Meridian, that where ſuch a Law as this I have been conſidering, takes Place, There People are abridged of that Chriſtian Liberty, which the ſame Perſons would enjoy under the preſent Conſtitution, if they were in England. And how far therefore it falls ſhort of denying and ſecluding them from the Benefit of the Act of Toleration, I leave you to ſay, who well know, that it is expreſly provided by the Terms of your Charter, that the Laws to be made in Virtue of it, ſhall not be contrary to the Laws of England. This Right of private Judgment and Liberty now mentioned, is confeſſed and ſecured to you by that Law which was the Glory of the Reign of WILLIAM and MARY; but by your Law now before me, it is denied to you. How you will clear it from a Contrariety to the former, I know not. Nor is this about a trivial Matter, or what is dependent upon the Will of your Legiſlature. The Rights of Magna Charta depend not on the Will of the Prince, or the Will of the Legiſlature; but they are the inherent natural Rights of Engliſhmen: ſecured and confirmed they may be by the Legiſlature, but not derived from nor dependent on their Will. And if there be any Rights, any Priviledges, that we may call natural and unalienable, this is one, viz. the Right of private Judgment, and Liberty of worſhipping God according to our Conſciences, without controul from human Laws. A Priviledge more valuable than the civil Rights of Magna Charta.—This we hold, not from Man, but from GOD: which therefore no Man can touch and be innocent. And all the Invaders of it will certainly find, when they ſhall ſtand at his Bar, from whom we hold this, that CHRIST will be King in his own Kingdom.—In the mean Time, it ſtands Chriſtians in Hand to hold faſt this Priviledge, and to be on their Guard againſt all Attempts made upon it. And I doubt not, thoſe Miniſters who were apprehenſive of this, and freely addreſſed the Legiſlative Body of Connecticut (as I hear was done October 1742.) for a Repeal of this Law, did therein what was pleaſing to their great Lord & Maſter which is in Heaven. They acted becoming ſuch as durſt not themſelves, and were willing to do what lay in their Power that others might not, Lord it over God's Heritage. Not that I would inſinuate, that there were no others like-minded with them—but that therein they ſet an excellent Example for others to copy after, and what was proper to awaken the Attention of Chriſtians. It has commonly been the Caſe, that Chriſtian Liberty, as well as Civil, has been loſt by little and little; and Experience has taught, that it is not eaſy to recover it, when once loſt. So precious a Jewel is always to be watched with a careful Eye: for no People are likely to enjoy Liberty long, that are not zealous to preſerve it.—As a real Friend to it, I have given you my Thoughts with Freedom and Plainneſs, as you deſired. If they prove ſatisfying to you, and you judge that they may be any Ways ſerviceable to the Cauſe of Truth and Chriſtian Liberty, you may uſe them for that Purpoſe as you ſhall think beſt.