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 magistrate's coming to it,nor does it lose the right of instruction and excommunication by his going from it.This is the fundamental and immutable right of a spontaneous society-that it has power to remove any of its members who transgress the rules of its institution;but it cannot,by the accession of any new members,acquire any right of jurisdiction over those that are not 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 pretence 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 of their estates and liberty (as we see practised 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 is 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 pronounce;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 sides equal;nor is there any judge,either at Constantinople or elsewhere upon earth,by whose sentence it can be determined.The decision of that question belongs only to the 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 favour one of them and to put his sword into their hands that (by his consent)they might chastise the dissenters as they pleased.Will any man say that any right can be derived unto a Christian church over its brethren from a Turkish emperor?An infidel,who has himself no authority to punish Christians 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.