Now,if any one can shew me where there is a commonwealth at this time,constituted upon that foundation,I will acknowledge that the ecclesiastical laws do there unavoidably become a part of the civil,and that the subjects of that government both may and ought to be kept in strict conformity with that Church by the civil power.But there is absolutely no such thing under the Gospel as a Christian commonwealth.There are,indeed,many cities and kingdoms that have embraced the faith of Christ,but they have retained their ancient form of government,with which the law of Christ hath not at all meddled.He,indeed,hath taught men how,by faith and good works,they may obtain eternal life;but He instituted no commonwealth.He prescribed unto His followers no new and peculiar form of government,nor put He the sword into any magistrate's hand,with commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake their former religion and receive His.Secondly,foreigners and such as were strangers to the commonwealth of Israel were not compelled by force to observe the rites of the Mosaical law;but,on the contrary,in the very same place where it is ordered that an Israelite that was an idolater should be put to death (Exod.22,20,21),there it is provided that strangers should not be vexed nor oppressed.
I confess that the seven nations that possessed the land which was promised to the Israelites were utterly to be cut off;but this was not singly because they were idolaters.For if that had been the reason,why were the Moabites and other nations to be spared?No:the reason is this.God being in a peculiar manner the King of the Jews,He could not suffer the adoration of any other deity (which was properly an act of high treason against Himself)in the land of Canaan,which was His kingdom.For such a manifest revolt could no ways consist with His dominion,which was perfectly political in that country.All idolatry was,therefore,to be rooted out of the bounds of His kingdom because it was an acknowledgment of another god,that is say,another king,against the laws of Empire.The inhabitants were also to be driven out,that the entire possession of the land might be given to the Israelites.And for the like reason the Emims and the Horims were driven out of their countries by the children of Esau and Lot;and their lands,upon the same grounds,given by God to the invaders (Deut.2).But,though all idolatry was thus rooted out of the land of Canaan,yet every idolater was not brought to execution.The whole family of Rahab,the whole nation of the Gibeonites,articled with Joshua,and were allowed by treaty;and there were many captives amongst the Jews who were idolaters.David and Solomon subdued many countries without the confines of the Land of Promise and carried their conquests as far as Euphrates.Amongst so many captives taken,so many nations reduced under their obedience,we find not one man forced into the Jewish religion and the worship of the true God and punished for idolatry,though all of them were certainly guilty of it.If any one,indeed,becoming a proselyte,desired to be made a denizen of their commonwealth,he was obliged to submit to their laws;that is,to embrace their religion.But this he did willingly,on his own accord,not by constraint.He did not unwillingly submit,to show his obedience,but he sought and solicited for it as a privilege.And,as soon as he was admitted,he became subject to the laws of the commonwealth,by which all idolatry was forbidden within the borders of the land of Canaan.But that law (as I have said)did not reach to any of those regions,however subjected unto the Jews,that were situated without those bounds.Thus far concerning outward worship.Let us now consider articles of faith.The articles of religion are some of them practical and some speculative.
Now,though both sorts consist in the knowledge of truth,yet these terminate simply in the understanding,those influence the will and manners.Speculative opinions,therefore,and articles of faith (as they are called)which are required only to be believed,cannot be imposed on any Church by the law of the land.For it is absurd that things should be enjoined by laws which are not in men's power to perform.And to believe this or that to be true does not depend upon our will.But of this enough has been said already.
"But."will some say;"let men at least profess that they believe."A sweet religion,indeed,that obliges men to dissemble and tell lies,both to God and man,for the salvation of their souls!If the magistrate thinks to save men thus,he seems to understand little of the way of salvation.
And if he does it not in order to save them,why is he so solicitous about the articles of faith as to enact them by a law?Further,the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects.If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another man calls bread,he does no injury thereby to his neighbour.If a Jew do not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God,he does not thereby alter anything in men's civil rights.If a heathen doubt of both Testaments,he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen.The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no.I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd.
But the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions,but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person.And so it ought to be.For the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself.She seldom has received and,I fear,never will receive much assistance from the power of great men,to whom she is but rarely known and more rarely welcome.
