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 habits 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 the 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 ****** circumstance,but a real part of Divine worship,which can neither be changed nor neglected.In the next place:As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church,so neither has he any power to forbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received,approved,and practised by any Church;because,if he did so,he would destroy the Church itself:the end of whose institution is only to worship God with ******* after its own manner.You will say,by this rule,if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants,or (as the primitive Christians were falsely accused)lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness,or practise any other such heinous enormities,is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them,because they are committed in a religious assembly?I answer:No.These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life,nor in any private house;and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God,or in any religious meeting.But,indeed,if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf,I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law.Meliboeus,whose calf it is,may lawfully kill his calf at home,and burn any part of it that he thinks fit.For no injury is thereby done to any one,no prejudice to another man's goods.And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting.Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no,it is their part to consider that do it.The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice,and that there be no injury done to any man,either in life or estate.And thus what may be spent on a feast may be spent on a sacrifice.But if peradventure such were the state of things that the interest of the commonwealth required all slaughter of beasts should be forborne for some while,in order to the increasing of the stock of cattle that had been destroyed by some extraordinary murrain,who sees not that the magistrate,in such a case,may forbid all his subjects to kill any calves for any use whatsoever?Only it is to be observed that,in this case,the law is not made about a religious,but a political matter;nor is the sacrifice,but the slaughter of calves,thereby prohibited.By this we see what difference there is between the Church and the Commonwealth.
Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the Church.Whatsoever is permitted unto any of his subjects for their ordinary use,neither can nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious uses.If any man may lawfully take bread or wine,either sitting or kneeling in his own house,the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in his religious worship;though in the Church the use of bread and wine be very different and be there applied to the mysteries of faith and rites of Divine worship.But those things that are prejudicial to the commonweal of a people in their ordinary use and are,therefore,forbidden by laws,those things ought not to be permitted to Churches in their sacred rites.Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority to the oppression of any Church,under pretence of public good.It may be said:"What if a Church be idolatrous,is that also to be tolerated by the magistrate?"I answer:What power can be given to the magistrate for the suppression of an idolatrous Church,which may not in time and place be made use of to the ruin of an orthodox one?For it must be remembered that the civil power is the same everywhere,and the religion of every prince is orthodox to himself.If,therefore,such a power be granted unto the civil magistrate in spirituals as that at Geneva,for example,he may extirpate,by violence and blood,the religion which is there reputed idolatrous,by the same rule another magistrate,in some neighbouring country,may oppress the reformed religion and,in India,the Christian.The civil power can either change everything in religion,according to the prince's pleasure,or it can change nothing.If it be once permitted to introduce anything into religion by the means of laws and penalties,there can be no bounds put to it;but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter everything,according to that rule of truth which the magistrate has framed unto himself.No man whatsoever ought,therefore,to be deprived of his terrestrial enjoyments upon account of his religion.