[42]

self is perswaded. Every man, in that, has the supreme and
absolute Authority of judging for himself. And the Rea-
son is, because no body else is concerned in it, nor can
receive any prejudice from his Conduct therein.

But besides their Souls, which are Immortal, Men have
also their Temporal Lives here upon Earth; the State where-
of being frail and fleeting, and the duration uncertain; they
have need of several outward Conveniences to the support
thereof, which are to be procured or preserved by Pains
and industry. For those things that are necessary to the
comfortable support of our Lives are not the spontaneous
Products of Nature, nor do offer themselves fit and pre-
pared for our use. This part therefore draws on another
care, and necessarily gives another Imployment. But the
pravity of Mankind being such, that they had rather in-
juriously prey upon the Fruits of other Mens Labours, than
take pains to provide for themselves; the necessity of pre-
serving Men in the Possession of what honest industry has
already acquired, and also of preserving their Liberty and
strength, whereby they may acquire what they further want;
obliges Men to enter into Society with one another; that
by mutual Assistance, and joint Force, they may secure unto
each other their Proprieties, in the things that contribute
to the Comfort and Happiness of this Life; leaving in
the mean while to every Man the care of his own Eter-
nal Happiness, the attainment whereof can neither be fa-
cilitated by another Mans Industry, nor can the loss of it
turn to another Mans Prejudice, nor the hope of it be forced
from him by any external Violence. But forasmuch as Men
thus entring into Societies, grounded upon their mutual
Compacts of Assistance, for the Defence of their Tem-
poral Goods, may nevertheless be deprived of them, ei-
ther by the Rapine and Fraud of their Fellow-Citizens, or
by the hostile Violence of Forreigners; the Remedy of
this Evil consists in Arms, Riches, and Multitude of Citi-

[43]

zens; the Remedy of the other in Laws; and the Care
of all things relating both to the one and the other, is
committed by the Society to the Civil Magistrate. This is
the Original, this is the Use, and these are the Bounds of the
Legislative (which is the Supreme) Power, in every Com-
monwealth. I mean, that Provision may be made for the
security of each Mans private Possessions; for the Peace,
Riches, and publick Commodities of the whole Peo-
ple; and, as much as possible, for the Increase of their
inward Strength, against Forreign Invasions.

These things being thus explain’d, it is easie to under-
stand to what end the Legislative Power ought to be di-
rected, and by what Measures regulated; and that is the
Temporal Good and outward Prosperity of the Society;
which is the sole Reason of Mens entring into Society, and
the only thing they seek and aim at in it. And it is also
evident what Liberty remains to Men in reference to
their eternal Salvation, and that is, that every one should
do what he in his Conscience is perswaded to be ac-
ceptable to the Almighty, on whose good pleasure and
acceptance depends their eternal Happiness. For Obedi-
ence is due in the first place to God, and afterwards to
the Laws.

But some may ask, What if the Magistrate should en-
joyn any thing by his Authority that appears unlawful to
the Conscience of a private Person? I answer, That if
Government be faithfully administred, and the Counsels
of the Magistrate be indeed directed to the publick Good,
this will seldom happen. But if perhaps it do so fall out;
I say, that such a private Person is to abstain from the Action
that he judges unlawful; and he is to undergo the Punish-
ment, which it is not unlawful for him to bear. For the pri-
vate Judgment of any Person concerning a Law enacted in
Political Matters, for the publick Good, does not take away
the Obligation of that Law, nor deserve a Dispensation. But

[44]

if the Law indeed be concerning things that lie not with-
in the Verge of the Magistrate’s Authority; (as for Exam-
ple, that the People, or any Party amongst them, should be
compell’d to embrace a strange Religion, and join in the
Worship and Ceremonies of another Church,) men are not
in these cases obliged by that Law, against their Consci-
ences. For the Political Society is instituted for no other
end but only to secure every mans Possession of the things
of this life. The care of each mans Soul, and of the things
of Heaven, which neither does belong to the Common-
wealth, nor can be subjected to it, is left entirely to eve-
ry mans self. Thus the safeguard of mens lives, and
of the things that belong unto this life, is the business of
the Commonwealth; and the preserving of those things
unto their Owners is the Duty of the Magistrate. And
therefore the Magistrate cannot take away these worldly
things from this man, or party, and give them to that;
nor change Propriety amongst Fellow-Subjects, (no not
even by a Law) for a cause that has no relation to the
end of Civil Government; I mean, for their Religion;
which whether it be true or false, does no prejudice to
the worldly concerns of their Fellow-Subjects, which are
the things that only belong unto the care of the Com-
monwealth.

But what if the Magistrate believe such a Law as this to
be for the publick Good? I answer: As the private Judg-
ment of any particular Person, if erroneous, does not
exempt him from the obligation of Law, so the private
Judgment (as I may call it) of the Magistrate does not
give him any new Right of imposing Laws upon his
jects, which neither was in the Constitution of the Go-
vernment granted him, nor ever was in the power of the
People to grant: much less, if he make it his business to
enrich and advance his Followers and Fellow-sectaries,
with the Spoils of others. But what if the Magistrate

[45]

believe that he has a Right to make such Laws, and that
they are for the publick Good; and his Subjects believe
the contrary? Who shall be Judge between them? I an-
swer, God alone. For there is no Judge upon earth be-
tween the Supreme Magistrate and the People. God, I
say, is the only Judge in this case, who will retribute unto
every one at the last day according to his Deserts; that is,
according to his sincerity and uprightness in endeavouring
to promote Piety, and the publick Weal and Peace of
Mankind. But what shall be done in the mean while?
I answer: The principal and chief care of every one ought
to be of his own Soul first, and in the next place of the
publick Peace: tho’ yet there are very few will think ’tis
Peace there, where they see all laid waste.

There are two sorts of Contests amongst men; the one
managed by Law, the other by Force: and these are of
that nature, that where the one ends, the other always
begins. But it is not my business to inquire into the
Power of the Magistrate in the different Constitutions of
Nations. I only know what usually happens where Con-
troversies arise, without a Judge to determine them. You
will say then the Magistrate being the stronger will have
his Will, and carry his point. Without doubt. But the
Question is not here concerning the doubtfulness of the
Event, but the Rule of Right.

But to come to particulars. I say, First, No Opinions
contrary to human Society, or to those moral Rules
which are necessary to the preservation of Civil Society,
are to be tolerated by the Magistrate. But of these indeed
Examples in any Church are rare. For no Sect can easily
arrive to such a degree of madness, as that it should think
fit to teach, for Doctrines of Religion, such things as ma-
nifestly undermine the Foundations of Society, and are
therefore condemned by the Judgment of all Mankind:
because their own Interest, Peace, Reputation, every Thing,
would be thereby endangered.

[46]

Another more secret Evil, but more dangerous to the
Commonwealth, is, when men arrogate to themselves, and
to those of their own Sect, some peculiar Prerogative, co-
vered over with a specious shew of deceitful words, but
in effect opposite to the Civil Right of the Community.
For Example. We cannot find any Sect that teaches ex-
presly, and openly, that men are not obliged to keep
their Promise; that Princes may be dethroned by those
that differ from them in Religion; or that the Dominion
of all things belongs only to themselves. For these things,
proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on
them the Eye and Hand of the Magistrate, and awaken
all the care of the Commonwealth to a watchfulness against
the spreading of so dangerous an Evil. But nevertheless,
we find those that say the same things, in other words.
What else do they mean, who teach that Faith is not to be
kept with Hereticks? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the
priviledge of breaking Faith belongs unto themselves:
For they declare all that are not of their Communion to be
Hereticks, or at least may declare them so whensoever they
think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting
that Kings excommunicated forfeit their Crowns and King-
doms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate unto them-
selves the Power of deposing Kings: because they chal-
lenge the Power of Excommunication, as the peculiar
Right of their Hierarchy. That Dominion is founded in
Grace, is also an Assertion by which those that maintain
it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For
they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe,
or at least as not to profess, themselves to be the truly
pious and faithful. These therefore, and the like, who
attribute unto the Faithful, Religious and Orthodox, that
is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar Privi-
ledge or Power above other Mortals, in Civil Concern-

[47]

ments; or who, upon pretence of Religion, do challenge
any manner of Authority over such, as are not associated
with them in their Ecclesiastical Communion; I say these
have no right to be tolerated by the Magistrate; as nei-
ther those that will not own and teach the Duty of to-
lerating All men in matters of meer Religion. For what
do all these and the like Doctrines signifie, but that they
may, and are ready upon any occasion to seise the Go-
vernment, and possess themselves of the Estates and For-
tunes of their Fellow-Subjects; and that they only ask
leave to be tolerated by the Magistrate so long until they
find themselves strong enough to effect it?

Again: That Church can have no right to be tole-
rated by the Magistrate, which is constituted upon such
a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby,
ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the Protection and
Service of another Prince. For by this means the Ma-
gistrate would give way to the settling of a forrein Ju-
risdiction in his own Country, and suffer his own People
to be listed, as it were, for Souldiers against his own Go-
vernment. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distin-
ction between the Court and the Church afford any re-
medy to this Inconvenience; especially when both the
one and the other are equally subject to the absolute Au-
thority of the same person; who has not only power to
perswade the Members of his Church to whatsoever he
lists, either as purely Religious, or in order thereunto,
but can also enjoyn it them on pain of Eternal Fire. It
is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Ma-
humetan only in his Religion, but in every thing else a
faithful Subject to a Christian Magistrate, whilst at the
same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind
obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople; who himself is
intirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor, and frames the
feigned Oracles of that Religion according to his pleasure.

[49]

more peaceable, and less apt to produce Disturbance of
State, than in any other Meetings whatsoever. But let
us examine particularly the Heads of these Accusations.

You’ll say, That Assemblies and Meetings endanger the
Publick Peace, and threaten the Commonwealth. I an-
swer: If this be so, Why are there daily such numerous
Meetings in Markets, and Courts of Judicature? Why are
Crowds upon the Exchange, and a Concourse of People
in Cities suffered? You’ll reply; Those are Civil Assem-
blies; but These we object against, are Ecclesiastical. I an-
swer: ‘Tis a likely thing indeed, that such Assemblies as
are altogether remote from Civil Affairs, should be most
apt to embroyl them. O, but Civil Assemblies are com-
posed of men that differ from one another in matters of
Religion; but these Ecclesiastical Meetings are of Persons
that are all of one Opinion. As if an Agreement in mat-
ters of Religion, were in effect a Conspiracy against the
Commonwealth; or as if men would not be so much the
more warmly unanimous in Religion, the less liberty they
had of Assembling. But it will be urged still, That Ci-
vil Assemblies are open, and free for any one to enter in-
to; whereas Religious Conventicles are more private, and
thereby give opportunity to Clandestine Machinations.
I answer, That this is not strictly true: For many Civil
Assemblies are not open to every one. And if some Re-
ligious Meetings be private, Who are they (I beseech you)
that are to be blamed for it? those that desire, or those
that forbid their being publick? Again; You’ll say, That
Religious Communion does exceedingly unite mens Minds
and Affections to one another, and is therefore the more
dangerous. But if this be so, Why is not the Magistrate
afraid of his own Church; and why does he not forbid
their Assemblies, as things dangerous to his Government?
You’ll say, Because he himself is a Part, and even the

[50]

Head of them. As if he were not also a Part of the
Commonwealth, and the Head of the whole People.

Let us therefore deal plainly. The Magistrate is afraid
of other Churches, but not of his own; because he is
kind and favourable to the one, but severe and cruel to
the other. These he treats like Children, and indulges
them even to Wantonness. Those he uses as Slaves; and
how blamelesly soever they demean themselves, recom-
penses them no otherwise than by Gallies, Prisons, Con-
fiscations, and Death. These he cherishes and defends:
Those he continually scourges and oppresses. Let him turn
the Tables: Or let those Dissenters enjoy but the same
Privileges in Civils as his other Subjects, and he will quick-
ly find that these Religious Meetings will be no longer
dangerous. For if men enter into Seditious Conspiracies,
’tis not Religion inspires them to it in their Meetings; but
their Sufferings and Oppressions that make them wil-
ling to ease themselves. Just and moderate Govern-
ments are every where quiet, every where safe. But Op-
pression raises Ferments, and makes men struggle to cast
off an uneasie and tyrannical Yoke. I know that Sediti-
ons are very frequently raised, upon pretence of Religion.
But ’tis as true that, for Religion, Subjects are frequently
ill treated, and live miserably. Believe me, the Stirs that
are made, proceed not from any peculiar Temper of this
or that Church or Religious Society; but from the com-
mon Disposition of all Mankind, who when they groan
under any heavy Burthen, endeavour naturally to shake
off the Yoke that galls their Necks. Suppose this Business
of Religion were let alone, and that there were some
other Distinction made between men and men, upon
account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Fea-
tures, so that those who have black Hair (for example)
or gray Eyes, should not enjoy the same Privileges as

[51]

other Citizens; that they should not be permitted ei-
ther to buy or sell, or live by their Callings; that
Parents should not have the Government and
Education of their own Children; that all should ei-
ther be excluded from the Benefit of the Laws, or
meet with partial Judges; can it be doubted but these
Persons, thus distinguished from others by the Colour
of their Hair and Eyes, and united together by one
common Persecution, would be as dangerous to the
Magistrate, as any others that had associated themselves
meerly upon the account of Religion? Some enter
into Company for Trade and Profit: Others, for want
of Business, have their Clubs for Clarret. Neighbour-
hood joyns some, and Religion others. But there is
one only thing which gathers People into Seditious
Commotions, and that is Oppression.

You’ll say; What, will you have People to meet at Di-
vine Service against the Magistrates Will? I answer; Why,
I pray, against his Will? Is it not both lawful and necessary
that they should meet? Against his Will, do you say? That’s
what I complain of. That is the very Root of all the
Mischief. Why are Assemblies less sufferable in a Church
than in a Theater or Market? Those that meet there
are not either more vicious, or more turbulent, than
those that meet elsewhere. The Business in that is,
that they are ill used, and therefore they are not to
be suffered. Take away the Partiality that is used
towards them in matters of Common Right; change
the Laws, take away the Penalties unto which they
are subjected, and all things will immediately become
safe and peaceable; Nay, those that are averse to the
Religion of the Magistrate, will think themselves so
much the more bound to maintain the Peace of the
Commonwealth, as their Condition is better in that

[52]

place than elsewhere; And all the several separate Con-
gregations, like so many Guardians of the Publick
Peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be
innovated or changed in the Form of the Govern-
ment: Because they can hope for nothing better than
what they already enjoy; that is, an equal Condition
with their Fellow-Subjects, under a just and moderate
Government. Now if that Church, which agrees in
Religion with the Prince, be esteemed the chief Sup-
port of any Civil Government, and that for no other
Reason (as has already been shewn) than because the
Prince is kind, and the Laws are favourable to it;
how much greater will be the Security of a Government,
where all good Subjects, of whatsoever Church they
be, without any Distinction upon account of Religion,
enjoying the same Favour of the Prince, and the same
Benefit of the Laws, shall become the common Sup-
port and Guard of it; and where none will have any
occasion to fear the Severity of the Laws, but those
that do Injuries to their Neighbours, and offend
against the Civil Peace?

That we may draw towards a Conclusion. The
Sum of all we drive at is, That every Man may en-
joy the same Rights that are granted to others. Is it
permitted to worship God in the Roman manner?
Let it be permitted to do it in the Geneva Form also.
Is it permitted to speak Latin in the Market-place?
Let those that have a mind to it, be permitted to do
it also in the Church. Is it lawfull for any man in
his own House, to kneel, stand, sit, or use any other
Posture; and to cloath himself in White or Black, in
short or in long Garments? Let it not be made unlaw-
ful to eat Bread, drink Wine, or wash with Water,
in the Church. In a Word: Whatsoever things are

[53]

left free by Law in the common occasions of Life, let
them remain free unto every Church in Divine Wor-
ship. Let no Mans Life, or Body, or House, or Estate,
suffer any manner of Prejudice upon these Accounts.
Can you allow of the Presbyterian Discipline? Why
should not the Episcopal, also have what they like?
Ecclesiastical Authority, whether it be administred by
the Hands of a single Person, or many, is every where
the same; and neither has any Jurisdiction in things
Civil, nor any manner of Power of Compulsion,
nor any thing at all to do with Riches and Reve-
nues.

Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and Sermons, are justified
by daily experience, and publick allowance. These
are allowed to People of some one Perswasion: Why
not to all? If any thing pass in a Religious Meeting
seditiously, and contrary to the publick Peace, it is to
be punished in the same manner, and no otherwise,
than as if it had happened in a Fair or Market. These
Meetings ought not to be Sanctuaries for Factious
and Flagitious Fellows: Nor ought it to be less law-
ful for Men to meet in Churches than in Halls: Nor
are one part of the Subjects to be esteemed more
blameable, for their meeting together, than others. Eve-
ry one is to be accountable for his own Actions; and
no Man is to be laid under a Suspition, or Odium,
for the Fault of another. Those that are Seditious,
Murderers, Thieves, Robbers, Adulterers, Slanderers, &c.
of whatsoever Church, whether National or not,
ought to be punished and suppressed. But those whose
Doctrine is peaceable, and whose Manners are pure
and blameless, ought to be upon equal Terms with
their Fellow-Subjects. Thus if Solemn Assemblies,
Observations of Festivals, publick Worship, be per-

[54]

mitted to any one sort of Professors; all these things
ought to be permitted to the Presbyterians, Indepen-
dents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others,
with the same Liberty. Nay, if we may openly speak
the Truth, and as becomes one Man to another, nei-
ther Pagan, nor Mahumetan, nor Jew, ought to be ex-
cluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth,
because of his Religion. The Gospel commands no such
thing.^* 1 Cor. 5. 12, 13. The Church, which judges not those that are
without, wants it not. And the Commonwealth, which
embraces indifferently all Men that are honest, peace-
able and industrious, repuires it not. Shall we suf-
fer a Pagan to deal and Trade with us, and shall we
not suffer him to pray unto and worship God? If
we allow the Jews to have private Houses and Dwel-
lings amongst us, Why should we not allow them to
have Synagogues? Is their Doctrine more false, their
Worship more abominable, or is the Civil Peace more
endangered, by their meeting in publick than in their
private Houses? But if these things may be granted to
Jews and Pagans, surely the condition of any Christi-
ans ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian
Commonwealth.

You’ll say, perhaps, Yes, it ought to be: Because
they are more inclinable to Factions, Tumults, and
Civil Wars. I answer: Is this the fault of the Chri-
stirn Religion? If it be so, truly the Christian Reli-
gion is the worst of all Religions, and ought neither
to be embraced by any particular Person, nor tolera-
ted by any Commonwealth. For if this be the Genius,
this the Nature of the Christian Religion, to be tur-
bulent, and destructive to the Civil Peace, that Church
it self which the Magistrate indulges will not always
be innocent. But far be it from us to say any such

[55]

thing of that Religion, which carries the greatest op-
position to Covetousness, Ambition, Discord, Contention,
and all manner of inordinate Desires; and is the most
modest and peaceable Religion that ever was. We must
therefore seek another Cause of those Evils that are
charged upon Religion. And if we consider right,
we shall find it to consist wholly in the Subject that I
am treating of. It is not the diversity of Opini-
ons, (which cannot be avoided) but the refusal of
Toleration to those that are of different Opinions,
(which might have been granted) that has produced
all the Bustles and Wars, that have been in the Chri-
stian World, upon account of Religion. The Heads
and Leaders of the Church, moved by Avarice and
insatiable desire of Dominion, making use of the im-
moderate Ambition of Magistrates, and the credulous
Superstition of the giddy Multitude, have incensed
and animated them against those that dissent from
themselves; by preaching unto them, contrary to the
Laws of the Gospel and to the Precepts of Charity,
That Schismaticks and Hereticks are to be outed of
their Possessions, and destroyed. And thus have they
mixed together and confounded two things that are
in themselves most different, the Church and the Com-
monwealth. Now as it is very difficult for men pa-
tiently to suffer themselves to be stript of the Goods,
which they have got by their honest Industry; and
contrary to all the Laws of Equity, both Humane and
Divine, to be delivered up for a Prey to other mens
Violence and Rapine; especially when they are other-
wise altogether blameless; and that the Occasion for
which they are thus treated does not at all belong to
the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but intirely to the
Conscience of every particular man; for the Conduct

[56]

of which he is accountable to God only; What else
can be expected, but that these men, growing weary
of the Evils under which they labour, should in the
end think it lawful for them to resist Force with
Force, and to defend their natural Rights (which are
not forfeitable upon account of Religion) with Arms
as well as they can? That this has been hitherto the
ordinary Course of things, is abundantly evident in
History: And that it will continue to be so hereaf-
ter, is but too apparent in Reason. It cannot indeed
be otherwise, so long as the Principle of Persecution
for Religion shall prevail, as it has done hitherto,
with Magistrate and People; and so long as those
that ought to be the Preachers of Peace and Con-
cord, shall continue, with all their Art and Strength,
to excite men to Arms, and sound the Trumpet of
War. But that Magistrates should thus suffer these In-
cendiaries, and Disturbers of the Publick Peace, might
justly be wondred at; if it did not appear that they
have been invited by them unto a Participation of
the Spoil, and have therefore thought fit to make
use of their Covetousness and Pride as means where-
by to increase their own Power. For who does not
see that these Good Men are indeed more Ministers
of the Government, than Ministers of the Gospel;
and that by flattering the Ambition, and favouring
the Dominion of Princes and men in Authority, they
endeavour with all their might to promote that Ty-
ranny in the Commonwealth, which otherwise they
should not be able to establish in the Church? This
is the unhappy Agreement that we see between the
Church and State. Whereas if each of them would
contain it self within its own Bounds, the one attend-
ing to the worldly Welfare of the Commonwealth,

[57]

the other to the Salvation of Souls, it is impossible
that any Discord should ever have hapned between
them. Sed, pudet hæc opprobria, &c. God Almighty grant,
I beseech him, that the Gospel of Peace may at
length be preached, and that Civil Magistrates grow-
ing more careful to conform their own Consciences
to the Law of God, and less sollicitous about the
binding of other mens Consciences by Humane Laws,
may, like Fathers of their Country, direct all their
Counsels and Endeavours to promote universally the
Civil Welfare of all their Children; except only of
such as are arrogant, ungovernable, and injurious to
their Brethren, and that all Ecclesiastical men, who
boast themselves to be the Successors of the Apostles,
walking peaceably and modesty in the Apostles steps,
without intermedling with State-Affairs, may apply
themselves wholly to promote the Salvation of Souls.

Farewell.

PErhaps it may not be amiss to add a few things
concerning Heresy and Schism. A Turk is not, nor
can be, either Heretick or Schismatick, to a Chrishian:
and if any man fall off from the Christian Faith to Ma-
humetism, he does not thereby become a Heretick or
Schismatick, but an Apostate and an Infidel. This no
body doubts of. And by this it appears that men of
different Religions cannot be Hereticks or Schismaticks
to one another.

We are to enquire therefore, what men are of the
same Religion. Concerning which, it is manifest that
those who have one and the same Rule of Faith and
Worship, are of the same Religion: and those who

[58]

have have not the same Rule of Faith and Worship
are of different Religions. For since all things that
belong unto that Religion are contained in that Rule,
it follows necessarily that those who agree in one Rule
are of one and the same Religion: and vice versâ. Thus
Turks and Christians are of different Religions: because
these take the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their
Religion, and those the Alcoran. And for the same
reason, there may be different Religions also even a-
mongst Christians. The Papists and the Lutherans, tho’
both of them profess Faith in Christ, and are there-
fore called Christians, yet are not both of the same
Religion: because These acknowledge nothing but the
Holy Scriptures to be the Rule and Foundation of their
Religion; Those take in also Traditions and the De-
crees of Popes, and of these together make the Rule
of their Religion. And thus the Christians of St. John
(as they are called) and the Christians of Geneva are
of different Religions: because These also take only the
Scriptures; and Those I know not what Traditions, for
the Rule of their Religion.

This being setled, it follows; First, that Heresy is
a Separation made in Ecclesiastical Communion between
men of the same Religion, for some Opinions no way
contained in the Rule it self. And Secondly, that a-
mongst those who acknowledge nothing but the Holy
Scriptures to be their Rule of Faith, Heresy is a Sepa-
ration made in their Christian Communion, for Opi-
nions not contained in the express words of Scripture.
Now this Separation may be made in a twofold man-
ner.

1. When the greater part, or (by the Magistrate’s
Patronage) the stronger part, of the Church separates
it self from others, by excluding them out of her Com-
munion, because they will not profess their Belief of

[59]

certain Opinions which are not the express words of the
Scripture. For it is not the paucity of those that are
separated, nor the Authority of the Magistrate, that
can make any man guilty of Heresy. But he only is
an Heretick who divides the Church into parts, intro-
duces Names and Marks of Distinction, and voluntari-
ly makes a Separation because of such Opinions.

2. When any one separates himself from the Com-
munion of a Church, because that Church does not
publickly profess some certain Opinions which the Ho-
ly Scriptures do not expresly teach.

Both these are Hereticks: because they err in Fun-
damentals, and they err obstinately against Knowledge.
For when they have determined the Holy Scriptures to
be the only Foundation of Faith, they nevertheless lay
down certain Propositions as fundamental, which are
not in the Scripture; and because others will not ac-
knowledge these additional Opinions of theirs, nor
build upon them as if they were necessary and funda-
mental, they therefore make a Separation in the Church;
either by withdrawing themselves from the others, or
expelling the others from them. Nor does it signifie
any thing for them to say that their Confessions and
Symboles are agreeable to Scripture, and to the Analo-
gy of Faith. For if they be conceived in the express
words of Scripture, there can be no question about
them; because those things are acknowledged by all
Christians to be of Divine Inspiration, and therefore
fundamental. But if they say that the Articles which
they require to be profess’d, are Consequences deduced
from the Scripture; it is undoubtedly well done of
them who believe and profess such things as seem unto
them so agreeable to the Rule of Faith. But it would be
very ill done to obtrude those things upon others, unto
whom they do not seem to be the indubitable Doctrines

[60]

of the Scripture. And to make a Separation for such
things as these, which neither are nor can be funda-
mental, is to become Hereticks. For I do not think
there is any man arrived to that degree of madness, as
that he dare give out his Consequences and Interpreta-
tions of Scripture as Divine Inspirations, and compare
the Articles of Faith that he has framed according to
his own Fancy with the Authority of the Scripture.
I know there are some Propositions so evidently agree-
able to Scripture, that no body can deny them to be
drawn from thence: but about those therefore there
can be no difference. This only I say, that however
clearly we may think this or the other Doctrine to
be deduced from Scripture, we ought not therefore to
impose it upon others, as a necessary Article of Faith,
because we believe it to be agreeable to the Rule of
Faith; unless we would be content also that other Do-
ctrines should be imposed upon us in the same manner;
and that we should be compell’d to receive and profess
all the different and contradictory Opinions of Luthe-
rans, Calvinists, Remonstrants, Anabaptists, and other
Sects, which the Contrivers of Symbols, Systems and
Confessions, are accustomed to deliver unto their Fol-
lowers as genuine and necessary Deductions from the
Holy Scripture. I cannot but wonder at the extra-
vagant arrogance of those men who think that they
themselves can explain things necessary to Salvation more
clearly than the Holy Ghost, the Eternal and Infinite
Wisdom of God.

Thus much concerning Heresy; which word in com-
mon use is applied only to the Doctrinal part of Reli-
gion. Let us now consider Schism, which is a Crime
near a-kin to it. For both those words seem unto me
to signifie an ill-grounded Separation in Ecclesiastical
Communion, made about things not necessary. But

[61]

since Use, which is the Supream Law in matter of Lan-
guage, has determined that Heresy relates to Errors in
Faith, and Schism to those in Worship or Discipline, we
must consider them under that Distinction.

Schism then, for the same reasons that have already
been alledged, is nothing else but a Separation made
in the Communion of the Church, upon account of some-
thing in Divine Worship, or Ecclesiastical Discipline, that
is not any necessary part of it. Now nothing in Wor-
ship or Discipline can be necessary to Christian Com-
munion, but what Christ our Legislator, or the Apo-
stles, by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have comman-
ded in express words.

In a word: He that denies not any thing that the
holy Scriptures teach in express words, nor makes a
Separation upon occasion of any thing that is not ma-
nifestly contained in the Sacred Text; however he may
be nick-named by any Sect of Christians, and declared
by some, or all of them to be utterly void of true Chri-
stianity, yet indeed and in truth this man cannot be
either a Heretick or Schismatick.

These things might have been explained more large-
ly, and more advantageously: but it is enough to have
hinted at them, thus briefly, to a Person of your parts.

FINIS.

Books lately Printed for Awnsham Churchill at
the Black Swan at Amen-Corner.

AN Historical Account of Making the Penal Laws by the Papists
against the Protestants, and by the Protestants against the Pa-
pists. Wherein the true Ground and Reason of Making the Laws is
given, the Papists most barbarous Usage of the Protestants here in
England, under a Colour of Law, set forth; and the Reformation
Vindicated from the Imputation of being Cruel and Bloody, unjustly
cast upon it by those of the Romish Communion. By Samuel Blackerby,
Barrister of Grays-Inn. Fol.

A Modest Enquiry, Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome, and Bi-
shop of that Church? Wherein, I. The Arguments of Cardinal
Bellarmine and others, for the Affirmative, are considered. II. Some
Considerations taken Notice of, that render the Negative highly
Probable. Quarto.

The Spirit of France, and the Politick Maxims of Lewis XIV. laid
open to the World. Quarto.

Memorials of the Method and Manner of Proceedings in Parlia-
ment in Passing Bills: Together with several Rules and Customs,
which by long and constant Practice have obtained the Name of
Orders of the House. Gathered by Observation, and out of the Jour-
nal-Books, from the time of Edward VI. Octavo.

Dr. Burnet‘s Tracts in Two Volumes. Vol. I. Containing,
1. His Travels into Switzerland, Italy and Germany; with an Ap-
pendix. 2. Animadversions on the Reflections upon the Travels.
3. Three Letters of the Quietists, Inquisition, and State of Italy.
Vol. II. 4. His Translations of Lactantius of the Death of Per-
secutors. 5. His Answers to Mr. Varillas: In Three Parts.
Twelves.

A Collection of Texts of Scripture, with short Notes upon them
And some other Observations against the Principal Popish Errors.
Twelves.

The Fallibility of the Roman Church, Demonstrated from the
Manifest Error of the Second Nicene and Trent Councils, which
Assert, That the Veneration and Honorary Worship of Images, is a Tra-
dition Primitive and Apostolical. Quarto.

A Demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her Councils,
have Erred; by shewing, That the Councils of Constance, Basil,
and Trent, have, in all their Decrees touching Communion in one
Kind, contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ:
with an Appendix, in Answer to the XXI. Chapter of the Author
of A Papist Misrepresented, and Represented. Quarto.

A Treatise of Traditions, Part I. Wherein it is proved, That we
have Evidence sufficient from Tradition; 1. That the Scriptures are
the Word of God. 2. That the Church of England owns the true
Canon of the Books of the Old Testament. 3. That the Copies of
the Scripture have not been corrupted. 4. That the Romanists have
no such Evidence for their Traditions. 5. That the Testimony of
the present Church of Rome can be no sure Evidence of Apostolical
Tradition. 6. What Traditions may securely be relied upon, and
what not. Quarto.

A Treatise of Traditions, Part II. Shewing the Novelty of the
pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome; as being, 1. Not
mentioned by the Ancients of their Discourses of Traditions Apostoli-
cal, truly so called, or so esteemed by them. Nor, 2. In their
Avowed Rule, or Symbol of Faith. Nor, 3. In the Instructions gi-
ven to the Clergy, concerning all those things they were to teach the
People. Nor, 4. In the Examination of a Bishop at his Ordination.
Nor, 5. In the Ancient Treatises designed to instruct Christians in
all the Articles of their Faith. 6. From the Confessions of Romish
Doctors: with an Answer to the Arguments of Mr. Mumford for
Traditions; And a Demonstration, That the Heathens made the same
Plea from Tradition as the Romanists do; and that the Answer of
the Fathers to it doth fully justifie the Protestants. Quarto.

All these four Books Written by the Reverend D. Whitby, D. D.

An Exhortation to Charity (and a Word of Comfort) to the
Irish Protestants: Being a Sermon Preached at Steeple in Dorsetshire,
upon occasion of the Collection for Relief of the Poor Protestants in
this Kingdom, lately fled from Ireland: By Samuel Bold, Rector of
Steeple. Quarto.

Foxes and Firebrands, or a Specimen of the Danger and Harmony
of Popery and Separation, First, Second, and Third Parts.

Sir W. Temple‘s Observation on Holland.

— Miscellanea.

Mr. Selden`s Table-Talk, or Discourses on various Subjects.

A List of the present Parliament, Lords and Commons,

Present Case stated about Allegiance to King William and Queen
Mary.

Debates of the late Oxford and Westminster Parliament.

Monsieur Jerew‘s Accomplishment. Octavo.

Scripture-Prophesies, Compleat: in 2 Vol. Octavo.

A New System of the Revelations. Twelves.

Voyages of Syam. Octavo.

Obedience due to the present King, notwithstanding our Oaths to
the former: By a Divine of the Church of England.

The late Lord Russell‘s Case, with Observations upon it. Writ by
the Right Honourable Henry Lord Delamere. Fol.

Considerations humbly offered for taking the Oath of Allegiance
to King William and Queen Mary. Quarto.

Mr. Masters of Submission to Divine Providence.

Dr. Worthington of the Resurrection. Octavo.

An Answer to Bishop Lake‘s (late of Chichester) Declaration of his
dying in belief of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, &c.

Dr. Carsael‘s Assize-Sermon at Abingdon, Aug 6. 1689.