 Honoured Sir, since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must need to answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church. For whatever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship, others of the reformation of their discipline, all of the orthodoxy of their faith, for everyone is orthodox to himself. These things and all others of this nature are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and goodwill in general toward all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, said our Saviour to his disciples, but ye shall not be so. Luke 22.25 The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must in the first place, and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to usurp the name of Christian without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity to Timothy 2.19, thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren, said our Lord to Peter, Luke 22.32. It would indeed be very hard for one that appears careless about his salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works not by force, but by love. Now I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretense of religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no. And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealots correcting in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of the gospel, when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices, and without amendment are in danger of eternal perdition, and when I shall see them thus express their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of charity as they pretend, and love to men's souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives, I say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer hordom, fraud, malice, and such like enormities which, according to the Apostle, Romans 1, manifestly relish of heathenish corruption to predominate so much and abound among their flocks and people. These and such like things are certainly more contrary to the glory of God, to the purity of the church, and to the salvation of souls, than any conscientious descent from ecclesiastical decisions or separation from public worship, most accompanied with innocence of life. Why then does this burning zeal for God, for the church and for the salvation of souls, burning I say literally with fire and faggot, pass by those moral vices and wickedness without any chastisement which are acknowledged by all men to be diametrically opposite to the profession of Christianity, and bend all its nerves either to the introducing of ceremonies or to the establishment of opinions, which for the most part are about nice and intricate matters that exceed the capacity of ordinary understandings. Which of the parties contending about these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of schism or heresy, whether those that domineer or those that suffer will then at last be manifest, when the causes of their separation comes to be judged of. He certainly, that follows Christ, embraces his doctrine and bears his yoke, though he forsake both father and mother, separate from the public assemblies and ceremonies of his country, or whosoever or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic. Now, though the divisions that are amongst sects should be allowed to be never so obstructive of the salvation of souls, yet nevertheless adultery, fornication, uncleanliness, lasciviousness, idolatry and such like things cannot be denied to be works of the flesh, concerning which the apostle has expressly declared, Galatians 5, that they who do them shall not inherit the kingdom of God, whosoever, therefore, is sincerely solicitous about the kingdom of God, and thinks that his duty to endeavor the enlargement of it amongst men ought to apply himself with no less care and industry to the rooting out of these immoralities than to the extirpation of sects. But if anyone do otherwise, and whilst he is cruel and implacable towards those that differ from him in opinion, he be indulgent to such iniquities and immoralities as are unbecoming the name of Christian, let such a one talk never so much of the church, he plainly demonstrates by his actions that it is another kingdom he aims at, and not the advancement of the kingdom of God, that any man should think fit to cause another man whose salvation he heartily desires to expire in torments, and that even in an unconverted state would, I confess, seem very strange to me, and I think to any other also, but nobody surely will ever believe that such a carriage can proceed from charity, love or good will, if anyone maintain that men ought to be compelled by fire and sword to profess certain doctrines, and conform to this or that exterior worship without any regard had unto their morals. If anyone endeavour to convert those that are erroneous unto the faith by forcing them to profess things that they do not believe, and allowing them to practice things that the Gospel does not permit, it cannot be doubted indeed, but such a one is desirous to have a numerous assembly joined in the same profession with himself, but that he principally intends by those means to compose a truly Christian church's altogether incredible. It is not therefore to be wondered at if those who do not really contend for the advancement of the true religion and of the church of Christ make use of arms that do not belong to the Christian warfare. If, like the captain of our salvation, they sincerely desired the good of souls, they would tread in the steps and follow the perfect example of that Prince of Peace who sent out his soldiers to the subduing of nations, and gathering them into his church, not armed with the sword or other instruments of force, but prepared with the Gospel of peace and with the exemplary holiness of their conversation, this was his method. Though if infidels were to be converted by force, if those that are either blind or obstinate were to be drawn off from their eras by armed soldiers, we know very well that it was much more easy for him to do it with armies of heavenly legions than for any son of the church, how potent so ever with all his dragoons. The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the genuine reason of mankind that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not hear tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults for which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed, but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of without covering them with some specious color and so pretend to commendation while they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But however that some may not color their spirit of persecution and unChristian cruelty with a pretense of care and of the public wheel and observation of the laws and that others under pretense of religion may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness in a word that none may impose either upon himself or others by the pretenses of loyalty and obedience to the Prince or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God, I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have or at least pretend to have on the one side a concernment for the interest of men's souls and on the other side a care of the commonwealth. The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving and advancing their own civil interests. Civil interests, I call life, liberty, health and indolency of body and the possession of outward things such as money, lands, houses, furniture and the like. It is the duty of the civil magistrate by the impartial execution of equal laws to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presumed to violate the laws of public justice and equity established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests or goods which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods and much less of his liberty or life, therefore is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights. Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments and that all civil power, right and dominion is bounded and confined to the only care of promoting these things and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these following considerations seem to me abundantly to demonstrate. First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate any more than to other men, it is not committed unto him, I say by God, because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind, and faith is not faith without believing. Whatever professionally make to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true, and the other will pleasing unto God. Such profession and such practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner, instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of religion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty such a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto him, we add unto the number of our other sins, those also of hypocrisy and contempt of his divine majesty. In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate because his power consists only in outward force, but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind without which nothing can be acceptable to God, and such is the nature of the understanding that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment that they have framed of things. It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments and thereby draw the heterodox into the way of truth and procure their salvation. I grant it, but this is common to him with other men. In teaching, instructing, and redressing the erroneous by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either humanity or Christianity, but it is one thing to persuade another to command, one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties. This civil power alone has a right to do. To the other, good will is authority enough. Every man has commissioned to admonish, exhort, convince another of error and by reasoning to draw him into truth. But to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword belongs to none but the magistrate, and upon this ground I affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith or forms of worship by the force of his laws. For laws are of no force at all without penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutely impertinent because they are not proper to convince the mind. Neither the profession of any articles of faith nor the conformity to any outward form of worship, this has already been said, can be available to the salvation of souls unless the truth of the one and the acceptableness of the other unto God be thoroughly believed by those that so profess and practice. But penalties are no way capable to produce such belief. It is only light and evidence that can work a change in men's opinions, which light can in no manner proceed from corporal sufferings or any other outward penalties. In the third place, the care of the salvation of men's souls cannot belong to the magistrate, because, though the rigor of laws and the force of penalties were capable to convince and change men's minds, yet would not that help at all to the salvation of their souls, for there being but one truth, one way to heaven. What hope is there that more men would be led into it if they had no rule but the religion of the court, and were put under the necessity to quit the light of their own reason and oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and blindly to resign themselves up to the will of their governors into the religion which either ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chance to establish in the countries where they were born in the variety and contradiction of opinions in religion, wherein the princes of the world are as much divided as their secular interests, the narrow way would be much straightened. One country alone would be in the right, and all the rest of the world put under an obligation of following their princes in the ways that lead to destruction, and that which heightens the absurdity and very ill suits the notion of a deity. Men would owe their eternal happiness or misery to the places of their nativity. These considerations, to admit many others that might have been urged at the same purpose, seem unto me sufficient to conclude that all the power of civil government relates only to men's civil interests as confined to the care of things of this world and have nothing to do with the world to come. Let us now consider what a church is. A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God and such manner as they judge acceptable to him and effectual to the salvation of their souls. I say it is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is born a member of any church, otherwise the religion of parents would descend unto children by the same right of inheritance as their temporal estates, and everyone would hold his faith by the same tenure he does his lands, then which nothing can be imagined more absurd. Thus, therefore, that matter stands. No man by nature is bound unto any particular church or sect, but everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found that profession and worship, which is truly acceptable to God, the hope of salvation, as it was the only cause of his entrance into that communion. So it can be the only reason of his stay there, for if afterwards he discover anything either erroneous in the doctrine or incongruous in the worship of that society to which he has joined himself, why should it not be as free for him to go out as it was to enter? No member of a religious society can be tied with any other bonds but what proceed from the certain expectation of eternal life. A church, then, is a society of members voluntarily uniting to that end. It follows now that we consider what is the power of this church, and unto what laws it is subject. For as much as no society, how free, so ever, or upon what sort of a slight occasion instituted, whether of philosophers for learning, of merchants for commerce, or of men of leisure, for mutual conversation and discourse. No church or company, I say, can in the least subsist and hold together, but will presently dissolve and break into pieces, unless it be regulated by some laws, and the members all consent to observe some order. Place and time of meeting must be agreed on. Rules for admitting and excluding members must be established. Distinction of officers and putting things into a regular course and such like cannot be omitted. But since the joining together of several members into this church society, as has already been demonstrated, is absolutely free and spontaneous, it necessarily follows that the right of making its laws can belong to none but the society itself, or at least, which is the same thing to those whom the society, by common consent, has authorized thereunto. Some perhaps may object that no such society can be said to be a true church, unless it have in it a bishop, or presbyter, with ruling authority derived from the very apostles, and continued down to the present times by an uninterrupted succession. To these I answer, in the first place, let them show me the edict by which Christ has imposed that law upon his church, and let not any man think me impertinent. If a thing of this consequence I require, that the terms of that edict be very express and positive, for the promise he has made to us, Matthew, 1820, that wheresoever two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them, seems to imply the contrary. Whether such an assembly want anything necessary to a true church, pray do you consider. Certain I am that nothing can be there wanting unto the salvation of souls, which is sufficient to our purpose. Next, pray observe how great have always been the divisions amongst even those who lay so much stress upon the divine institution and continued succession of a certain order of rulers in the church. Now their very dissension unavoidably puts us upon a necessity of deliberating, and consequently allows a liberty of choosing that which upon consideration we prefer. And, in the last place, I consent that these men have a ruler in their church, established by such a long series of succession as they judge necessary, provided I may have liberty at the same time to join myself to that society in which I am persuaded those things are to be found which are necessary to the salvation of my soul. In this manner ecclesiastical liberty will be preserved on all sides, and no man will have a legislator imposed upon him but whom himself has chosen. But since men are so solicitous about the true church, I would only ask them here, by the way, if it be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ to make the conditions of her communion consistent such things and such things only, as the Holy Spirit has in Holy Scriptures declared in express words to be necessary to salvation. I ask, I say, whether this be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ than for men to impose their own inventions and interpretations upon others as if they were of divine authority, and to establish by ecclesiastical laws as absolutely necessary to the profession of Christianity such things as the Holy Scriptures do either not mention, or at least not express the command. Whosoever requires those things in order to ecclesiastical communion, which Christ does not require in order to life eternal, he may perhaps indeed constitute a society accommodated to his own opinion and his own advantage. But how that can be called the Church of Christ, which is established upon laws that are not his, and which exclude such persons from its communion as he will one day receive into the kingdom of heaven, I understand not. But this being not a proper place to inquire into the marks of the true Church, I will only mind those that contend so earnestly for the decrees of their own society and that cry out continually the Church, the Church, with as much noise and perhaps upon the same principle as the Ephesians silversmiths did for their Diana. This I say, a desire to mind them of, that the Gospel frequently declares that the true disciples of Christ must suffer persecution, but that the Church of Christ should persecute others and force others by fire and sword to embrace her faith in doctrine, I could never yet find in any of the books of the New Testament. The end of a religious society, as has already been said, is the public worship of God and by means thereof the acquisition of eternal life. All discipline ought therefore to tend to that end and all ecclesiastical laws to be there unto confined. Nothing ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of civil and worldly goods. No force is here to be made use of upon any occasion whatsoever, for force belongs wholly to the civil magistrate and the possession of all outward goods is subject to his jurisdiction. But it may be asked, by what means then shall ecclesiastical laws be established if they must be thus destitute of all compulsive power? I answer, they must be established by means suitable to the nature of such things, whereof the external profession and observation, if not proceeding from a thorough conviction and approbation of the mind, is altogether useless and unprofitable. The arms by which the members of this society are to be kept within their duty are exhortations, admonitions, and advices. If by these means the offenders will not be reclaimed and the erroneous convinced, there remains nothing further to be done but that such stubborn and obstinate persons who give no ground to hope for their reformation should be cast out and separated from the society. This is the last and utmost force of ecclesiastical authority. No other punishment can thereby be inflicted than that, the relation ceasing between the body and the member which is cut off. The person so condemned ceases to be a part of that church. These things being thus determined let us inquire in the next place how far the duty of toleration extends and what is required from everyone by it. And first I hold that no church is bound by the duty of toleration to retain any such person in her bosom as after admonition continues obstinately to offend against the laws of the society. For these being the condition of communion and the bond of the society, if the breach of them were permitted without any animad version, the society would immediately be thereby dissolved. But nevertheless in all such cases care is to be taken that the sentence of excommunication and the execution thereof carry with it no rough usage of word or action whereby the ejected person may anywise be damnedified in body or estate. For all force, as has often been said, belongs only to the magistrate nor ought any private persons at any time to use force unless it be in self-defense against unjust violence. Excommunication either does nor can deprive the excommunicated person of any of those civil goods that he formerly possessed. All those things belong to the civil government and are under the magistrates protection. The whole force of excommunication consists only in this that the resolution of the society in that respect being declared the union that was between the body and some member comes thereby to be dissolved and that relation ceasing the participation of some certain things which the society communicated to its members and unto which no man has any civil right comes also to cease. For there is no civil injury done unto the excommunicated person by the church ministers refusing him that bread and wine in the celebration of the Lord's supper which was not bought with his but other men's money. Secondly, no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church or religion. All the rights and franchises that belong to him as a man or as a Denzian are inviolably to be preserved to him. These are not the business of religion. No violence nor injury is to be offered him whether he be Christian or pagan. Nay, we must not content ourselves with the narrow measures of bare justice charity bounty and liberality must be added to it. This the gospel enjoins this reason directs and this that natural fellowship we are born into requires of us. If any man err from the right way it is his own misfortune. No injury to thee nor therefore art thou to punish him and things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable and that which is to come. What I say concerning the mutual toleration of private persons differing from one another in religion I understand also of particular churches which stand as it were in the same relation to each other as private persons among themselves nor has any one of them any manner of jurisdiction over any other. No, not even when the civil magistrate as it sometimes happens comes to be of this or the other communion. For the civil government can give no new right to the church nor the church to the civil government so that whether the magistrate join himself to any church or separate from it the church remains always as it was before a free and voluntary society. It neither requires the power of the sword by the magistrates coming to it nor does it lose the right of instruction and excommunication by his going from it. This is the fundamental and immutable right of a spontaneous society that it has power to remove any of its members who transgress the rules of its institution but it cannot by the accession of any new members acquire any right of jurisdiction over those that are not joined with it and therefore peace equity and friendship are always mutually to be observed by particular churches in the same manner as by private persons without any pretense of superiority or jurisdiction over one another. That the thing may be made clearer by an example let us suppose two churches the one of Arminians the other of Calvinists residing in the city of Constantinople. Will anyone say that either of these churches has right to deprive the members of the other from their estates and liberty as we see practiced elsewhere because of their differing from it in some doctrines and ceremonies whilst the Turks in the meanwhile silently stand by and laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians thus rage against Christians but if one of these churches hath this power of treating the other ill I ask which of them it is to whom that power belongs and by what right it will be answered undoubtedly that it is the orthodox church which has the right of authority over the erroneous or heretical this is in great and specious words to say just nothing at all for every church's orthodox to itself to others erroneous or heretical for whatsoever any church believes it believes to be true and the contrary unto those things it pronounces to be error so that the controversy between these churches about the truth of their doctrines and the purity of their worship is on both signs equal nor is there any judge either at Constantinople or elsewhere upon earth by whose sentence it can be determined the decision of that question belongs only to the supreme judge of all men to whom also alone belongs the punishment of the erroneous in the meanwhile let those men consider how heinously they sin who adding injustice if not to their error yet certainly to their pride do rashly and arrogantly take upon them to misuse the servants of another master who are not at all accountable to them nay further if it could be manifest which of these two dissenting churches were in the right there would not accrue thereby unto the orthodox any right of destroying the other for churches have neither any jurisdiction in worldly matters nor are fire and sword any proper instruments wherewith to convince men's minds of error and inform them of the truth let us suppose nevertheless that the civil magistrate inclined to favor one of them and to put his sword into their hands that by his consent they might chastise the dissenters as they pleased will any man say that any right can be derived onto a Christian church over its brethren from a Turkish emperor an infidel who has himself no authority to punish Christians for the articles of their faith cannot confer such an authority upon any society of Christians nor give unto them a right which he has not himself this would be the case at Constantinople and the reason of the thing is the same in any Christian kingdom the civil power is the same in every place nor can that power in the hands of a Christian prince confer any greater authority upon the church than in the hands of a heathen which is to say just none at all nevertheless it is worthy to be observed and lamented that the most violent of these defenders of the truth the opposers of errors the exclaimers against schism do hardly ever let loose this their zeal for god with which they are so warmed and inflamed unless where they have the civil magistrate on their side but so soon as ever court favor has given them the better end of the staff and they begin to feel themselves the stronger than presently peace and charity are to be laid aside otherwise they are religiously to be observed where they have not the power to carry on persecution and to become masters there they desire to live upon fair terms and preach up toleration when they are not strengthened with the civil power then they can bear most patiently and unmovedly the contagion of idolatry superstition and heresy in their neighborhood of which on other occasions the interest of religion makes them to be extremely apprehensive they do not forwardly attack those errors which are in fashion at court or are countenance by the government here they can be content to spare their arguments which yet with their leave is the only right method of propagating truth which has no such way of prevailing as when strong arguments and good reason are joined with the softness of civility and good usage nobody therefore in fine neither single persons nor churches nay nor even commonwealths have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of religion those that are of another opinion would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war how powerful of provocation to endless hatreds rapines and slaughters they thereby furnish unto mankind no peace and security no not so much as common friendship can ever be established or preserved amongst men so long as this opinion prevails that dominion is founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms in the third place let us see what the duty of toleration requires from those who are distinguished from the rest of mankind from the laity as they please to call us by some ecclesiastical character in office whether they be bishops priests presbyters ministers or however else dignified or distinguished it is not my business to inquire here into the original of the power or dignity of the clergy this only I say that once so ever their authority be sprung since it is ecclesiastical it ought to be confined within the bounds of the church nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs because the church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth the boundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable he jumbles heaven and earth together the things most remote and opposite who mixes these two societies which are in their original end business and in everything perfectly distinct and infinitely different from each other no man therefore with whatsoever ecclesiastical office he be dignified can deprive another man that is not of his church and faith either of liberty or of any part of his worldly goods upon the account of that difference between them in religion for whatsoever is not lawful to the whole church cannot by any ecclesiastical right become lawful of any of its members but this is not all it is not enough that ecclesiastical men abstain from violence and rapine and all manner of persecution he that pretends to be a successor of the apostles and takes upon him the office of teaching is obliged also to admonish his hearers of the duties of peace and goodwill toward all men as well toward the erroneous as the orthodox toward those that differ from them in faith and worship as well as toward those that agree with them therein and he ought industriously to exhort all men whether private persons or magistrates if any such there be in his church to charity meekness and toleration and diligently endeavour to ally and temper all that heat and unreasonable averseness of mind which either any man's fiery zeal for his own sect or the craft of others has kindled against dissenters I will not undertake to represent how happy and how great would be the fruit both in church and state if the pulpits everywhere sounded with this doctrine of peace and toleration lest I should seem to reflect too severely upon those men whose dignity I desire not to detract from nor would have it diminished either by others or themselves but this I say that thus it ought to be and if anyone that professes himself to be a minister of the word of God a preacher of the gospel of peace teach otherwise he either understands not or neglects the business of his calling and shall one day give account thereof unto the prince of peace if Christians are to be admonished that they abstain from all manner of revenge even after repeated provocations and multiplied injuries how much more ought they who suffer nothing who have had no harm done them forbear violence and abstain from all manner of ill usage toward those from whom they have received none this caution and temper they ought certainly to use toward those who mind only their own business and are solicitous for nothing but that whatever men think of them they may worship God in that manner which they are persuaded is acceptable to him and in which they have the strongest hopes of eternal salvation in private domestic affairs in the management of estates in the conservation of bodily health every man may consider what suits his own convenience and follow what course he likes best no man complains of the ill management of his neighbor's affairs no man is angry with another for an error committed in sowing his land or in marrying his daughter nobody corrects a spendthrift for consuming his substance in taverns let any man pull down or build or make whatsoever expenses he pleases nobody murmurs nobody controls him he has his liberty but if any man do not frequent the church if he do not there conform his behavior exactly to the accustomed ceremonies or if he brings not his children to be initiated in the sacred mysteries of this or the other congregation this immediately causes an uproar the neighborhood is filled with noise and clamor everyone is ready to be the avenger of so great a crime and the zealots hardly have the patience to refrain from violence and rapines so long till the cause be heard and the poor man be according to form condemned to the loss of liberty goods or life oh that our ecclesiastical orators of every sect would apply themselves with all the strength of arguments that they are able to the confounding of men's errors but let them spare their persons let them not supply their want of reasons with the instruments of force which belong to another jurisdiction and do ill become a churchman's hands let them not call in the magistrates authority to the aid of their eloquence or learning lest perhaps while they pretend only love for the truth this their intemperate zeal breathing nothing but fire and sword betray their ambition and show that what they desire is temporal dominion for it will be very difficult to persuade men of sense that he who with dry eyes and satisfaction of mind can deliver his brother to the executioner to be burned alive does sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that brother from the flames of hell in the world to come in the last place let us now consider what is the magistrates duty in the business of toleration which certainly is very considerable we have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate not a magisterial care i mean if i may so call it which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments but a charitable care which consists in teaching admonishing and persuading cannot be denied unto any man the care therefore of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself but what if he neglect the care of his soul i answer what if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate which things are nearly or related to the government of the magistrate than the other will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick laws provide as much as possible that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others they do not guard them from the negligence or ill husbandry of the possessors themselves no man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no nay god himself will not save man against their wills let us suppose however that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but roman physicians and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions what shall no potion no broth be taken but what is prepared either in the Vatican suppose or in a Geneva shop or to make these subjects rich shall they all be obliged by law to become merchants or musicians or shall everyone turn victual or smith because there are some that maintain their families plentifully and grow rich in these professions but it may be said there are a thousand ways to wealth but only one way to heaven it is well said indeed especially by those that plead for compelling men into this or the other way for if there were several ways that led thither there would not be so much as a pretense left for compulsion but now if i be marching on with my utmost vigor in that way which according to the sacred geography leads straight to Jerusalem why am i beaten and ill used by others because perhaps i wear not buskins because my hair is not of the right cut because perhaps i have not been dipped in the right fashion because i eat flesh upon the road or some other food which agrees with my stomach because i avoid certain byways which seem unto me to lead into briars or precipices because amongst the several paths that are on the same road i choose that to walk in which seems to be the straightest and cleanest because i avoid to keep company with some travelers that are less grave and others that are more sour than they ought to be or and fine because i follow a guide that either is or is not clothed in white or crowned with a mitre certainly if we consider right we shall find that for the most part there are such frivolous things as these that without any prejudice to religion or the salvation of souls if not accompanied with superstition or hypocrisy might be observed or omitted i say they are such like things as these which breed implacable emnities amongst christian brethren who are all agreed in the substantial and truly fundamental part of religion but let us grant unto these zealots who condemn all things that are not of their mode that from these circumstances are different ends what shall we conclude from thence there is only one of these which is the true way to eternal happiness but in this great variety of ways that men follow it is still doubted which is the right one now neither the care of the commonwealth nor the right enacting of laws does discover this way that leads to heaven more certainly to the magistrate than every private man search and study discovers it unto himself i have a weak body sunk under a languishing disease for which i suppose there's only one remedy but that unknown does it therefore belong unto the magistrate to prescribe me a remedy because there is but one and because it is unknown because there is but one way for me to escape death will it therefore be safe for me to do whatsoever the magistrate ordains those things that every man ought sincerely to inquire into himself and by meditation study search and his own endeavors attain the knowledge of cannot be looked upon as the peculiar possession of any sort of men princes indeed are born superior unto other men in power but in nature equal neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other things and least of all true religion for if it were so how could it come to pass that the lords of the earth should differ so vastly as they do in religious matters but let us grant that it is probable the way to eternal life may be better known by a prince than by his subjects or at least that in this in certitude of things the safest and most commodious way for private persons is to follow his dictates you will say what then if he should bid you follow merchandise for your livelihood would you decline that course for fear it should not succeed i answer i would turn merchant upon the prince's command because in case i should have ill success in trade he is abundantly able to make up my loss some other way if it be true as he pretends that he desires i should thrive and grow rich he can set me up again when unsuccessful voyages have broken me but this is not the case in the things that regard the life to come if there i take a wrong course if in that respect i am once undone it is not in the magistrates power to repair my loss to ease my suffering nor to restore me in any measure much less entirely to a good estate what security can be given for the kingdom of heaven perhaps some will say that they do not suppose this infallible judgment that all men are bound to follow in the affairs of religion to be in the civil magistrate but in the church what the church has determined that the civil magistrate orders to be observed and he provides by his authority that nobody shall either act or believe in the business of religion otherwise than the church teaches so that the judgment of those things is in the church the magistrate himself yields obedience there too and requires the like obedience from others i answer who sees not how frequently the name of the church which was venerable in time of the apostles has been made use of to throw dust in the people's eyes in the following ages but however in the present case it helps us not the one only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons and therefore i cannot safely take him for my guide who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than i myself am amongst so many kings of the jews how many of them were there whom any israelite thus blindly following had not fallen into idolatry and thereby into destruction yet nevertheless you bid me be of good courage and tell me that all is now safe and secure because the magistrate does not now enjoy the observance of his own decrees in matters of religion but only the decrees of the church of what church i beseech you of that certainly which likes him best as if he that compels me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the other church did not interpose his own judgment in the matter what difference is there whether he lead me himself or deliver me over to be led by others i depend both ways upon his will and it is he that determines both ways of my eternal state wooden israelite that had worshiped by all upon the command of his king have been in any better condition because somebody had told him that the king ordered nothing in religion upon his own head nor commanded anything to be done by his subjects in divine worship but what was approved by the council of priests and declared to be of divine right by the doctors of their church if the religion of any church become therefore true and saving because the head of that sect the prelates and priests and those of that tribe do all of them with all their might extoll and praise it what religion can ever be accounted erroneous false and destructive i am doubtful concerning the doctrine of the sosinians i am suspicious of the way of worship practiced by the papists or Lutherans will it be ever a jot safer for me to join either unto the one or the other of those churches upon the magistrates command because he commands nothing in religion but by the authority and council of the doctors of that church but to speak the truth we must acknowledge that the church if a convention of clergymen making cannons must be called by that name is for the most part more apt to be influenced by the court than the court by the church how the church was under the vicissitude of orthodox and arian emperors is very well known or if those things be too remote our modern english history affords us fresh examples in the reigns of henry the eighth edward the sixth mary and elizabeth how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees their articles of faith their form of worship everything according to the inclination of those kings and queens yet were those kings and queens of such different minds and point of religion and enjoined therefore such different things that no man in his wits i had almost said none but an atheist will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshiper of god could with a safe conscience obey their several decrees to conclude it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes laws to another man's religion pretend to do it by his own judgment or by the ecclesiastical authority and advice of others the decisions of churchmen whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known cannot be any sounder or safer than his nor can all their suffrages joined together add a new strength to the civil power though this also must be taken notice of that princes seldom have any regard to the suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favors of their own faith and way of worship but after all the principal consideration and which absolutely determines this controversy is this although that magistrates opinion and religion be sound and the way that he appoints be truly evangelical yet if i be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind there will be no safety for me in following it no way whatsoever that i shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed i may grow rich by an art that i take not delight in i may be cured of some disease by remedies that i have not faith in that i cannot be saved by a religion that i distrust and by a worship that i abhor it is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man's profession faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with god the most likely and most approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient if his stomach rejected as soon as taken and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sick man's throat which his particular constitution will be sure to turn into poison in a word whatsoever may be doubtful in religion yet this at least is certain that no religion which i believe not to be true can be either true or profitable unto me in vain therefore do princes compel their subjects to come into their church communion and a pretense of saving their souls if they believe they will come of their own accord if they believe not their coming will nothing avail them how great so ever in fine maybe the pretense of goodwill and charity and concern for the salvation of men's souls men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no and therefore when all is done they must be left to their own consciences having thus at length freed men from all dominion over one another in matters of religion let us now consider what they are to do all men know and acknowledge that god ought to be publicly worshiped why otherwise do they compel one another unto the public assemblies men therefore constituted in this liberty are to enter into some religious society that they meet together not only for mutual edification but to own to the world that they worship god and offer unto his divine majesty such service as they themselves are not ashamed of and such as they think not unworthy of him nor unacceptable to him and finally that by the purity of doctrine holiness of life and decent form of worship they may draw others unto the love of the true religion and perform such other things in religion as cannot be done by each private man apart these religious societies i call churches and these i say the magistrate ought to tolerate for the business of these assemblies of the people is nothing but what is lawful for every man in particular to take care of i mean the salvation of their souls not in this case is there any difference between the national church and other separated congregations but as in every church there are two things especially to be considered the outward form and rights of worship and the doctrines and articles of faith these things must be handled each distinctly so that the whole matter of toleration may the more clearly be understood concerning outward worship i say in the first place that the magistrate has no power to enforce by law either in his own church or much less in another the use of any rights or ceremonies whatsoever in the worship of god and this not only because these churches are free societies but because whatsoever is practiced in the worship of god is only so far justifiable as it is believed by those that practice it to be acceptable unto him whatsoever is not done without assurance of faith is neither well in itself nor can it be acceptable to god to impose such things therefore upon any people contrary to their own judgment is in effect to command them to offend god which considering that the end of all religion is to please him and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end appears to be absurd beyond expression but perhaps it may be concluded from hence that i deny unto the magistrate all manner of power about indifferent things which if it be not granted the whole subject matter of lawmaking is taken away no i readily grant that indifferent things and perhaps none but such are subjected to the legislative power but it does not therefore follow that the magistrate may ordain whatsoever he pleases concerning anything that is indifferent the public good is the rule and measure of all lawmaking if a thing be not useful to the commonwealth though it be never so indifferent it may not presently be established by law and further things never so indifferent in their own nature when they are brought into the church and worship of god are removed out of the reach of the magistrates jurisdiction because in that use they have no connection at all the civil affairs the only business of the church is the salvation of souls and it no way concerns the commonwealth or any member of it that this or the other ceremony be there made use of neither the use nor the omission of any ceremonies in those religious assemblies does either advantage or prejudice the life liberty or a state of any man for example let it be granted that the washing of an infant with water is in itself an indifferent thing let it be granted also that the magistrate understand such washing to be profitable to the curing or preventing of any disease the children are subject on to and esteem the matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a law in that case he may order it to be done but will anyone therefore say that a magistrate has the same right to ordain by law that all children shall be baptized by priests in the sacred font in order to the purification of their souls the extreme difference of these two cases is visible to everyone at first sight or let us apply the last case to the child of a Jew and the thing speaks itself for what hinders but a Christian magistrate may have subjects that are Jews now if we acknowledge that such an injury may not be done onto a Jew as to compel him against his own opinion to practice in his religion a thing that is in its nature indifferent how can we maintain that anything of this kind may be done to a Christian again things in their own nature indifferent cannot by any human authority be made any part of the worship of God for this very reason because they are indifferent for since indifferent things are not capable by any virtue of their own to propitiate the deity no human power or authority can confer on them so much dignity and excellence as to enable them to do it in the common affairs of life that use of indifferent things which God has not forbidden is free and lawful and therefore in those things human authority has place but it is not so in matters of religion things indifferent are not otherwise lawful in the worship of God than as they are instituted by God himself and as he by some positive command has ordained them to be made a part of that worship which he will vouch safe to accept at the hands of poor sinful men nor when an incensed deity shall ask us who has required these or such like things at your hands will it be enough to answer him that the magistrate commanded them if civil jurisdiction extend thus far what might not lawfully be introduced into religion what hodgepodge of ceremonies what superstitious inventions built upon the magistrates authority might not against conscience be imposed upon the worshipers of God for the greatest part of these ceremonies and superstitions consists in the religious use of such things as are in their own nature indifferent nor are they sinful upon any other account than because God is not the author of them the sprinkling of water and the use of bread and wine are both in their own nature and in the ordinary occasions of life altogether indifferent will any man therefore say that these things could have been introduced into religion and made a part of divine worship if not by divine institution if any human authority or civil power could have done this why might it not also enjoy the eating of fish and the drinking of ale in the holy banquet as a part of divine worship why not the sprinkling of the blood of beasts in churches and expiations by water or fire and abundance more of this kind but these things how indifferent so ever they be in common uses when they come to be annexed unto divine worship without divine authority they are as abominable to God as the sacrifice of a dog and why is a dog so abominable what difference is there between a dog and a goat in respect of the divine nature equally and infinitely distant from all affinity with matter unless it be that God require the use of one in his worship and not the other we see therefore that in different things how much so ever they be under the power of the civil magistrate yet cannot upon that pretense be introduced into religion and imposed upon religious assemblies because in the worship of God they wholly cease to be indifferent he that worships God does it with design to please him and procure his favor but that cannot be done by him who upon the command of another offers unto God that which he knows will be displeasing to him because not commanded by himself this is not to please God or appease his wrath but willingly and knowingly to provoke him by a manifest contempt which is a thing absolutely repugnant to the nature and end of worship but it will be here asked if nothing belonging to divine worship be left to human discretion how is it then that churches themselves have the power of ordering anything about the time and place of worship and the like to this I answer that in religious worship we must distinguish between what is part of the worship itself and what is but a circumstance that is a part of the worship which is believed to be appointed by God and to be well pleasing to him and therefore that is necessary circumstances are such things which though in general they cannot be separated from worship yet the particular instances or modifications of them are not determined and therefore they are indifferent of this sort are the time and place of worship habit and posture of him that worships these are circumstances and perfectly indifferent where God has not given any express command about them for example amongst the Jews the time and place of their worship and the habit of those that officiated in it were not mere circumstances but a part of the worship itself in which if anything were defective or different from the institution they could not hope that it would be accepted by God but these to Christians under the liberty of gospel are mere circumstances of worship which the prudence of every church may bring into such use as shall be judged most subservient to the end of order decency and edification but even under the gospel those who believe the first or the seventh day to be set apart by God and consecrated still to his worship to them that portion of time is not a simple circumstance but a real part of divine worship which can neither be changed nor neglected end part one letter concerning toleration by John Locke this recording is in the public domain