Toleration | Page 7

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. This would be the case at
Constantinople; and the reason of the thing is the same in any Christian
kingdom. The civil power is the same in every place. Nor can that
power, in the hands of a Christian prince, confer any greater authority
upon the Church than in the hands of a heathen; which is to say, just
none at all.
Nevertheless, it is worthy to be observed and lamented that the most
violent of these defenders of the truth, the opposers of errors, the
exclaimers against schism do hardly ever let loose this their zeal for
God, with which they are so warmed and inflamed, unless where they
have the civil magistrate on their side. But so soon as ever court favour
has given them the better end of the staff, and they begin to feel
themselves the stronger, then presently peace and charity are to be laid
aside. Otherwise they are religiously to be observed. Where they have
not the power to carry on persecution and to become masters, there they
desire to live upon fair terms and preach up toleration. When they are
not strengthened with the civil power, then they can bear most patiently
and unmovedly the contagion of idolatry, superstition, and heresy in
their neighbourhood; of which on other occasions the interest of
religion makes them to be extremely apprehensive. They do not
forwardly attack those errors which are in fashion at court or are
countenanced by the government. Here they can be content to spare
their arguments; which yet (with their leave) is the only right method of
propagating truth, which has no such way of prevailing as when strong
arguments and good reason are joined with the softness of civility and
good usage.
Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither single persons nor churches, nay, nor
even commonwealths, have any just title