Toleration | Page 5

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 authorised
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 in a thing of this consequence I require
that the terms of that edict be very express and positive; for the promise
He has made us,[6] 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 consist in such things,
and such things only, as the Holy Spirit has in the 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 expressly
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
excludes 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 Ephesian
silversmiths did for their Diana; this, I say, I 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 and
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 thereunto 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: