How the Church was under the vicissitude of orthodox and Arian emperors is very well known.Or if those things be too remote,our modern English history affords us fresh examples in the reigns of Henry VIII,Edward VI,Mary,and Elizabeth,how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees,their articles of faith,their form of worship,everything according to the inclination of those kings and queens.Yet were those kings and queens of such different minds in point of religion,and enjoined thereupon such different things,that no man in his wits (I had almost said none but an atheist)will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could,with a safe conscience,obey their several decrees.To conclude,it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes laws to another man's religion pretend to do it by his own judgement,or by the ecclesiastical authority and advice of others.The decisions of churchmen,whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known,cannot be any sounder or safer than his;nor can all their suffrages joined together add a new strength to the civil power.Though this also must be taken notice of-that princes seldom have any regard to the suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and way of worship.But,after all,the principal consideration,and which absolutely determines this controversy,is this:Although the magistrate's opinion in religion be sound,and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical,yet,if Ibe not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind,there will be no safety for me in following it.No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed.
I may grow rich by an art that I take not delight in;I may be cured of some disease by remedies that I have not faith in;but I cannot be saved by a religion that I distrust and by a worship that I abhor.It is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man's profession.Faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God.The most likely and most approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient,if his stomach reject it as soon as taken;and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sick man's throat,which his particular constitution will be sure to turn into poison.In a word,whatsoever may be doubtful in religion,yet this at least is certain,that no religion which I believe not to be true can be either true or profitable unto me.
In vain,therefore,do princes compel their subjects to come into their Church communion,under pretence of saving their souls.If they believe,they will come of their own accord,if they believe not,their coming will nothing avail them.How great soever,in fine,may be the pretence of good-will and charity,and concern for the salvation of men's souls,men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no.And therefore,when all is done,they must be left to their own consciences.Having thus at length freed men from all dominion over one another in matters of religion,let us now consider what they are to do.All men know and acknowledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped;why otherwise do they compel one another unto the public assemblies?Men,therefore,constituted in this liberty are to enter into some religious society,that they meet together,not only for mutual edification,but to own to the world that they worship God and offer unto His Divine Majesty such service as they themselves are not ashamed of and such as they think not unworthy of Him,nor unacceptable to Him;and,finally,that by the purity of doctrine,holiness of life,and decent form of worship,they may draw others unto the love of the true religion,and perform such other things in religion as cannot be done by each private man apart.These religious societies I call Churches;and these,I say,the magistrate ought to tolerate,for the business of these assemblies of the people is nothing but what is lawful for every man in particular to take care of-I mean the salvation of their souls;nor in this case is there any difference between the National Church and other separated congregations.But as in every Church there are two things especially to be considered-the outward form and rites of worship,and the doctrines and articles of things must be handled each distinctly that so the whole matter of toleration may the more clearly be understood.Concerning outward worship,I say,in the first place,that the magistrate has no power to enforce by law,either in his own Church,or much less in another,the use of any rites or ceremonies whatsoever in the worship of God.
And this,not only because these Churches are free societies,but because whatsoever is practised in the worship of God is only so far justifiable as it is believed by those that practise it to be acceptable unto Him.
Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself,nor can it be acceptable to God.To impose such things,therefore,upon any people,contrary to their own judgment,is in effect to command them to offend God,which,considering that the end of all religion is to please Him,and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end,appears to be absurd beyond expression.But perhaps it may be concluded from hence that I deny unto the magistrate all manner of power about indifferent things,which,if it be not granted,the whole subject-matter of law-****** 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.