prejudicial to other men's rights, nor do they break the public
peace of societies. Nay, even the sins of lying and perjury are
nowhere punishable by laws; unless, in certain cases, in which the
real turpitude of the thing and the offence against God are not
considered, but only the injury done unto men's neighbours and to
the commonwealth. And what if in another country, to a Mahometan or
a Pagan prince, the Christian religion seem false and offensive to
God; may not the Christians for the same reason, and after the same
manner, be extirpated there?

  But it may be urged farther that, by the law of Moses, idolaters
were to be rooted out. True, indeed, by the law of Moses; but that
is not obligatory to us Christians. Nobody pretends that everything
generally enjoined by the law of Moses ought to be practised by
Christians; but there is nothing more frivolous than that common
distinction of moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, which men
ordinarily make use of. For no positive law whatsoever can oblige
any people but those to whom it is given. "Hear, O Israel,"
sufficiently restrains the obligations of the law of Moses only to
that people. And this consideration alone is answer enough unto
those that urge the authority of the law of Moses for the inflicting
of capital punishment upon idolaters. But, however, I will examine
this argument a little more particularly.

  The case of idolaters, in respect of the Jewish commonwealth,
falls under a double consideration. The first is of those who, being
initiated in the Mosaical rites, and made citizens of that
commonwealth, did afterwards apostatise from the worship of the God of
Israel. These were proceeded against as traitors and rebels, guilty of
no less than high treason. For the commonwealth of the Jews, different
in that from all others, was an absolute theocracy; nor was there,
or could there be, any difference between that commonwealth and the
Church. The laws established there concerning the worship of One
Invisible Deity were the civil laws of that people and a part of their
political government, in which God Himself was the legislator. 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,* 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.*(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.

  * Exod. 22, 20, 21.

  *(2) Deut. 2.

  Thus far concerning outward worship. Let us now consider articles of