WIND

What I say concerning the mutual toleration of private persons differing from one another in religion, I understand also of particular churches which stand, as it were, in the same relation to each other as private persons among themselves: nor has any one of them any manner of jurisdiction over any other; no, not even when the civil magistrate (as it sometimes happens) comes to be of this or the other communion. For the civil government can give no new right to the church, nor the church to the civil government. So that, whether the magistrate join himself to any church, or separate from it, the church remains always as it was before — a free and voluntary society. It neither requires the power of the sword by the magistrate's coming to it, nor does it lose the right of instruction and excommunication by his going from it. This is the fundamental and immutable right of a spontaneous society — that it has power to remove any of its members who transgress the rules of its institution; but it cannot, by the accession of any new members, acquire any right of jurisdiction over those 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.
我所说的在信仰上不同的私人之间的互相宽容，依我的理解不同的教会之间也应如此：任何一个教会对其它的教会都没有任何方式的审判权；即使当世俗的法官（如有时发生的那样）加入这个或那个团体，也不例外。因为世俗政府并不能给与那个教会新的权利，教会也不能给与政府新的权利。所以，不管这个法官加入或离开哪个教会，教会还是和它以前一样——一个自由和自愿的团体。法官的到来，教会既不需要他的剑的权力，他的离开，教会也不会失去规训和驱逐的权利。对于一个自我生成的社团而言这是基本的和永恒的权利——即它有权力驱离任何逾越它的制度的约束之成员；但是它不能通过任何新成员的加入而获得任何对那些没有加入的人的审判权利。所以，不同的教会之间应当遵守和平，平等及友好的原则，私人之间也是如此，相互之间没有任何管辖或者审判的借口。

WIND

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.
举一个例子，事情可以说得更清楚，让我们以两个教会为例——一个是阿米念派（Arminians），一个是加尔文派（Calvinists）——存在于君士坦丁堡的两个教派。谁能说因为在教义与礼仪上的不同其中一个教派有权利剥夺另一个教派成员的财产和自由（如我们看到的在其它地方发生的那样），而让土耳其人在一旁笑看基督徒对基督徒的非人道的残酷？但是如果其中一个教派有权力病态的对待另一个，那么我要问这种权力属于哪一方，依据什么样的权利？无疑的，人们会说：正统的教会拥有对谬误或者异端的教会的管辖权利。这样大而空的词句，实际上等于什么也没说。因为每个教会都认为自己是正统的；而别人是谬误或异端。因为，无论一个教会相信什么，它都认为自己所信为真，并把与之相对的宣称为错。所以，争论的双方在他们的教义的正确性和礼仪的纯洁性上，双方是平等的；也没有一位法官，他的判决能够解决这种争端，不管在君士坦丁堡还是地球上的任何其它地方。这个问题的裁断只能属于所有人的最高法官（上帝），对谬误的惩罚也只能属于祂。同时，让那些人考虑他们这样犯罪是多么的邪恶，鲁莽和傲慢的虐待别的主人的仆人，而不是他们自己的仆人，如果不是在他们的错误上增加不义，那么也是在他们的骄傲上增加不义。

WIND

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.
不，进一步说：假如能够表明争论的教会有一方是对的，也不能因此而使正统的一方有毁灭另一方的权利。因为教会既没有审判世俗事务的权力，而且火与剑也不是说服人们思想上的错误并告知真理的合适工具。尽管如此，我们不妨假设：世俗法官偏向于帮助其中的一方并把他的剑交到他们手里，（经过他的同意）他们可能会随心所欲的惩罚他们的反对者。那么谁能说：土耳其的君主可以授予一个基督教会惩罚另一个基督教会的权利？一个非基督徒因为信条的原因没有惩罚基督徒的权柄，那么他就不能授予任何基督的社团这样的权柄，也不能给与他们连他自己都没有的权利。这就是君士坦丁堡的情形；在任何基督的王国，也是同样的道理。世俗的权力在任何地方都是这样的道理。较之非基督徒手里的权力，基督君主手里的权力，也不能授予这个教会更大的权柄；这就是说，完全没有这样的权柄。

WIND

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.
然而，值得注意和令人遗憾的是：那些最激烈的真理的捍卫者，谬误的反对者和宗教派别分立的谴责者，却很少流露让他们狂热的那种对上帝的热情，除非世俗的法官站在他们一边。但是只要王室的帮助给了他们更好的结果，他们便立即自我感觉成了强者，然后和平与仁慈弃之一边了。在其它的情况下，他们谨守虔诚。在他们还没有拥有迫害他人的权力并成为主宰的地方，他们渴望公平相处并鼓吹宽容。当他们没有世俗权力支撑时，他们能够非常有耐心并冷静的忍受邻里偶像崇拜，迷信，异教的泛滥；对此在其它的场合宗教信仰的利益却使他们极端的忧虑。他们并不主动抨击在王室里流行的或者被政府支持的那些谬误。在这样的场合他们满足于节省他们的辩论；而辩论依然是唯一正确的传播真理的方法，有力的辩论和好的理性与礼貌的文雅和好的用途结合，真理才能获胜。

WIND

Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither single persons nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of religion. Those that are of another opinion would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war, how powerful a provocation to endless hatreds, rapines, and slaughters they thereby furnish unto mankind. No peace and security, no, not so much as common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst men so long as this opinion prevails, that dominion is founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms.
因此，不管是个人还是教会，不，连联邦也在内，谁都不能以宗教信仰的借口拥有任何正当的名义而侵犯彼此的世俗权利和世俗财产。对此抱有异议的那些人应该好好想想他们自己，他们会因此让人类埋下多么致命的纷争和战争的种子，激励起何等强烈的的无休无止的仇恨，掠夺和杀戮。只要那种认为世俗的统治权力是上帝的恩赐，信仰应该用暴力强制来传播的观点占了上风，那么在人们之间就不可能建立和保持和平和安全，甚至连普通的友好也不可能。

WIND

In the third place, let us see what the duty of toleration requires from those who are distinguished from the rest of mankind (from the laity, as they please to call us) by some ecclesiastical character and office; whether they be bishops, priests, presbyters, ministers, or however else dignified or distinguished. It is not my business to inquire here into the original of the power or dignity of the clergy. This only I say, that, whencesoever their authority be sprung, since it is ecclesiastical, it ought to be confined within the bounds of the Church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs, because the Church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable. He jumbles heaven and earth together, the things most remote and opposite, who mixes these two societies, which are in their original, end, business, and in everything perfectly distinct and infinitely different from each other. No man, therefore, with whatsoever ecclesiastical office he be dignified, can deprive another man that is not of his church and faith either of liberty or of any part of his worldly goods upon the account of that difference between them in religion. For whatsoever is not lawful to the whole Church cannot by any ecclesiastical right become lawful to any of its members.
第三，让我们来探讨一下对那些以某些教会的特征和神职区别于其他人（区别于俗人，如他们乐于对我们的称呼）的人，宽容的职责有什么要求；不管是主教，神父，长老，牧师，还是其他威严或者高贵的人们。我无意在此考察这种权力的来源或者神职人员的尊严。我只想说：无论他们的权柄来自何处，既然是教会的权柄，就应当限制在教会的范围，而不能以任何方式越入世俗的事务，因为教会本身绝对的应该与联邦（或联邦政府）分离并划清界限。这二者之间的边界是确定不变的。谁若把这两个在来源，目的，事务，以及所有的方面区别明显完全不同的组织混淆起来，谁就等于是把天空与大地这样的非常遥远并相对的事物混为一谈。因此，无论是拥有多么威严的教会职位，他也不能以他们之间宗教信仰的不同为借口，而剥夺另一个不属于他的教会和信仰的人的自由或财产。因为对别的整个教会非法的事情，不能凭借任何神职的权利而对这个教会的成员变得合法。

WIND

But this is not all. It is not enough that ecclesiastical men abstain from violence and rapine and all manner of persecution. He that pretends to be a successor of the apostles, and takes upon him the office of teaching, is obliged also to admonish his hearers of the duties of peace and goodwill towards all men, as well towards the erroneous as the orthodox; towards those that differ from them in faith and worship as well as towards those that agree with them therein. And he ought industriously to exhort all men, whether private persons or magistrates (if any such there be in his church), to charity, meekness, and toleration, and diligently endeavour to ally and temper all that heat and unreasonable averseness of mind which either any man's fiery zeal for his own sect or the craft of others has kindled against dissenters.
但是这不是事情的全部。仅仅教士自身放弃暴力和掠夺以及所有迫害的方式还是不够的。自称使徒的继承人并接过教导职务的人，也有义务去告诫他的听众有责任和平和善意的对待所有的人，对待谬误者也和对待正统者一样；对待那些在信仰和敬拜方式与他们不同的人也和对待在这些方面赞同他们的人一样。并且他还应当勤勉的劝诫所有的人务必仁慈，顺服和宽容，不论是私人还是法官（如果教会中有这样的人的话），努力的致力于化敌为友和缓和那些狂热和无理性的思想对抗，不管是为他自己教派狂热还是被煽动起来的对反对者的狂热。

WIND

I will not undertake to represent how happy and how great would be the fruit, both in Church and State, if the pulpits everywhere sounded with this doctrine of peace and toleration, lest I should seem to reflect too severely upon those men whose dignity I desire not to detract from, nor would have it diminished either by others or themselves. But this I say, that thus it ought to be. And if anyone that professes himself to be a minister of the Word of God, a preacher of the gospel of peace, teach otherwise, he either understands not or neglects the business of his calling and shall one day give account thereof unto the Prince of Peace. If Christians are to be admonished that they abstain from all manner of revenge, even after repeated provocations and multiplied injuries, how much more ought they who suffer nothing, who have had no harm done them, forbear violence and abstain from all manner of ill-usage towards those from whom they have received none! This caution and temper they ought certainly to use towards those. who mind only their own business and are solicitous for nothing but that (whatever men think of them) they may worship God in that manner which they are persuaded is acceptable to Him and in which they have the strongest hopes of eternal salvation.
如果每个地方的教堂讲坛都回响着这种和平和宽容教义的声音，我不会去描述在教会和国家会产生怎样幸福和伟大的成果，以免让我看起来对那些人反映太激烈了，而我并非想诋毁他们的尊严，也不想让他们的尊严被别人和他们自己贬低。但是我要说，事情本来应该那样。如果一个人宣称自己是上帝之道的牧师，和平福音的传道者，却教导相反的东西，那么，要么没有理解，要么就是把和平的主对他的呼招，并且将来有一天还要向祂交代的事情抛到脑后了。如果基督徒被告诫要放弃所有方式的报复，即使在屡遭触犯和伤害之后亦要如此，那么，当他们未遭苦难和伤害不是更应该对那些从未伤害过他们的人克制暴力并放弃所有方式的折磨！他们当然的应该谨慎和缓和的对待那些人，这些人仅仅关心自己的事情，除了以他们认为的能够被上帝接受的方式敬拜并且通过这种敬拜而充满永恒的拯救希望之外不再热心其它的事情（不管旁人怎么看他们）。

WIND

In private domestic affairs, in the management of estates, in the conservation of bodily health, every man may consider what suits his own convenience and follow what course he likes best. No man complains of the ill-management of his neighbour's affairs. No man is angry with another for an error committed in sowing his land or in marrying his daughter. Nobody corrects a spendthrift for consuming his substance in taverns. Let any man pull down, or build, or make whatsoever expenses he pleases, nobody murmurs, nobody controls him; he has his liberty. But if any man do not frequent the church, if he do not there conform his behaviour exactly to the accustomed ceremonies, or if he brings not his children to be initiated in the sacred mysteries of this or the other congregation, this immediately causes an uproar. The neighbourhood is filled with noise and clamour. Everyone is ready to be the avenger of so great a crime, and the zealots hardly have the patience to refrain from violence and rapine so long till the cause be heard and the poor man be, according to form, condemned to the loss of liberty, goods, or life.
在私人的家庭事务上，在财产管理上，在身体健康的保护上，每个人都可以考虑依自己的方便，用自己最喜欢的方式去做。没有人会抱怨他的邻居在这些事情上的错误管理。没有人会因为另一个人在播种土地或者出嫁女儿的事情上犯错而愤怒。没有人会纠正一个在酒店中挥霍他的财产的人。让每个人或拆或建或者做他喜欢的花费，没有人窃窃私议，没有人加以控制；他有他的自由。但是，如果谁不经常去教堂，不按习俗严格的约束自己的行为，或者不领自己的孩子加入这个或那个聚会的神圣仪式，马上就会引起一场风波。左邻右舍会充满喧闹之声，每个人都跃跃而欲成为如此大罪的复仇者，并且在案件尚未审理，那个可怜的人未经正当程序被宣告丧失自由，财产或者生命之前，这些狂热分子很少有耐心去克制他们的暴力和掠夺。

WIND

Oh, that our ecclesiastical orators of every sect would apply themselves with all the strength of arguments that they are able to the confounding of men's errors! But let them spare their persons. Let them not supply their want of reasons with the instruments of force, which belong to another jurisdiction and do ill become a Churchman's hands. Let them not call in the magistrate's authority to the aid of their eloquence or learning, lest perhaps, whilst they pretend only love for the truth, this their intemperate zeal, breathing nothing but fire and sword, betray their ambition and show that what they desire is temporal dominion. For it will be very difficult to persuade men of sense that he who with dry eyes and satisfaction of mind can deliver his brother to the executioner to be burnt alive, does sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that brother from the flames of hell in the world to come.
Oh,我们每个派别的教会雄辩家都会竭尽他们的辩才，试图说明他们能够挫败人们的错误思想。但是请他们放过别人吧。请他们不要用强制的手段去提供别人的理性的需要，这种强制属于另一种管辖权，成为教士的手段实是一种错误。请他们不要呼求世俗法官的权柄来帮助他们的雄辩或者学习，以免当他们自称只爱真理的时候，他们的无节制的狂热，充满的却只是火与剑，从而暴露他们的野心并表明他们想要的其实是世俗的统治权。因为，很难说服一个人的感觉：一个眼不掉泪，内心满意的把他的弟兄交给执行者去活活烧死，确实是真诚和由衷的要去拯救他的弟兄脱离将来的世界的地狱之火。

WIND

In the last place, let us now consider what is the magistrate's duty in the business of toleration, which certainly is very considerable.
最后，让我们来考虑在宽容的事情上世俗法官的职责，这当然是非常重要的。

WIND

We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.
我们已经说明：对灵魂的关心不属于法官的事情。不是法官关心的事，我的意思是（如果我可以这样说的话）：法官的事情是由法律规定并由惩罚来强制的。但是一种仁慈的关怀，是指教导，劝诫和说服，是不会被每个人拒绝的。所以，这种对每个人灵魂的的关怀属于他自己并且留给他自己。但是，如果他对自己的灵魂漠不关心呢？我的回答是：如果他对自己的健康或者他的财产漠不关心呢？这种事情不是比别的事情与法官管辖的关系更近吗？法官能够用明文的法律条文来保证这样的人不该变穷和生病？法律最大可能保证的，是国民（一个国家的人）的财产和健康不因他人的欺骗和暴力遭受损害；它们不能保护这些人自己的随意和错误的农事管理。不论一个人愿意与否，都不能强迫他富裕或者健康。没有，上帝也不会违背一个人的意愿来拯救他。

WIND

Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop? Or, to make these subjects rich, shall they all be obliged by law to become merchants or musicians? Or, shall everyone turn victualler, or smith, because there are some that maintain their families plentifully and grow rich in those professions? But, it may be said, there are a thousand ways to wealth, but one only way to heaven. It is well said, indeed, especially by those that plead for compelling men into this or the other way. For if there were several ways that led thither, there would not be so much as a pretence left for compulsion.
然而，让我们假设一下：某个君主欲强迫他的臣民积累财富或者保持身体的健康和力量。应当通过法律以让这些臣民只能找罗马的医师吗？并且每个人只应当根据他们的药方而活下去吗？想想，除了瓦提肯（Vatican），或者基尼瓦（Geneva）药店里的药物，禁止到其他地方去买，会怎么样？或者，为了使臣民富裕，应当通过法律强迫他们成为销售商或者音乐家？或者，每个人都应当开饭店，做铁匠，因为有人通过这些行业富足的供养了他们的家庭并变得富裕？但是，有人可能会这样说：创造财富的途径有上千种，通往天堂的路只有一条。确实，这话说得好，特别是那些为宗教上强迫他人走这条或那条路的人辩护的人。因为如果有好几条路通往天国，那么就不会留下那么多的强迫借口了。

WIND

But now, if I be marching on with my utmost vigour in that way which, according to the sacred geography, leads straight to Jerusalem, why am I beaten and ill-used by others because, perhaps, I wear not buskins; because my hair is not of the right cut; because, perhaps, I have not been dipped in the right fashion; because I eat flesh upon the road, or some other food which agrees with my stomach; because I avoid certain by-ways, which seem unto me to lead into briars or precipices; because, amongst the several paths that are in the same road, I choose that to walk in which seems to be the straightest and cleanest; because I avoid to keep company with some travellers that are less grave and others that are more sour than they ought to be; or, in fine, because I follow a guide that either is, or is not, clothed in white, or crowned with a mitre? Certainly, if we consider right, we shall find that, for the most part, they are such frivolous things as these that (without any prejudice to religion or the salvation of souls, if not accompanied with superstition or hypocrisy) might either be observed or omitted. I say they are such-like things as these which breed implacable enmities amongst Christian brethren, who are all agreed in the substantial and truly fundamental part of religion.
但是现在，如果我正依据那个引导人到耶路撒冷的神圣地理学劲头十足的开始我的长途跋涉，为什么要被他人暴力虐待和折磨？可能因为：我没有穿高统靴；或者我的头发未按某种样式修剪；或者我未按某种方式受洗；或者在路上我吃了肉或其它很对我胃口的食物；或者我绕开了一段在我看来要导向荆棘或悬崖的路；或者在几条通向目的地的路中我选了一条在我看来最近最好走的路；或者我避免与不怎么严肃的人以及过于酸腐的人为伴；或者，最后，因为我跟随了一个穿或未穿白衣，戴或未戴主教头冠的人。其实，如果我们考虑正确的话，我们会发现：这其中的大多数都是非常琐碎的（如果不带迷信或伪善，对信仰或灵魂的拯救而言就不会有任何伤害）可遵守可不遵守的事情。我说，就是诸如此类的事情在基督徒弟兄之间激起不可宽容的仇恨，而本来基督徒在信仰的实质内容和真实的基础部分都是意见一致的。

WIND

But let us grant unto these zealots, who condemn all things that are not of their mode,that from these circumstances are different ends. What shall we conclude fromthence? There is only one of these which is the true way to eternal happiness:but in this great variety of ways that men follow, it is still doubted which isthe right one. Now, neither the care of the commonwealth, nor the rightenacting of laws, does discover this way that leads to heaven more certainly to the magistrate than every private man's search and study discovers it unto himself.

但是假如我们承认这些不合他们模式就要遭受惩罚的宗教狂热者的意见：这些不同的条件将导致不同的结果。我们又会得出什么结论呢？这其中只有一条路是通向永恒幸福的路：但是在这许多条路之中，哪一条路对还是不能确定的。现在，不论法官是对共同利益的关心，还是正确的立法，都不能比每个私人探索和研习他自己的路更确定的发现引向天堂的路。

WIND

I have a weak body, sunk under a languishing disease, for which (I suppose) there is one only remedy, but that unknown. Does it therefore belong unto the magistrate to prescribe me a remedy, because there is but one, and because it is unknown? Because there is but one way for me to escape death, will it therefore be safe for me to do whatsoever the magistrate ordains? Those things that every man ought sincerely to inquire into himself, and by meditation, study, search, and his own endeavours, attain the knowledge of, cannot be looked upon as the peculiar possession of any sort of men.
我身体虚弱，因为疾病而情绪低落，这种病（我猜想）只有一种治疗的方法，但是我还不知道。所以，应该由法官来为我规定一种治疗的方法，因为只有一种，而又不知道？因为对我而言只有一条路逃离死亡，所以安全的方法就是按法官的指令去做？所有那些事情，每个人应该真诚的询问他自己，通过沉思，研习，探索，和他自己的努力而获得相关的知识，不能视为某种人的独特财产。

WIND

Princes, indeed, are born superior unto other men in power, but in nature equal. Neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other things, and least of all of true religion. For if it were so, how could it come to pass that the lords of the earth should differ so vastly as they do in religious matters? But let us grant that it is probable the way to eternal life may be better known by a prince than by his subjects, or at least that in this incertitude of things the safest and most commodious way for private persons is to follow his dictates. You will say: "What then?" If he should bid you follow merchandise for your livelihood, would you decline that course for fear it should not succeed? I answer: I would turn merchant upon the prince's command, because, in case I should have ill-success in trade, he is abundantly able to make up my loss some other way. If it be true, as he pretends, that he desires I should thrive and grow rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful voyages have broken me. But this is not the case in the things that regard the life to come; if there I take a wrong course, if in that respect I am once undone, it is not in the magistrate's power to repair my loss, to ease my suffering, nor to restore me in any measure, much less entirely, to a good estate. What security can be given for the Kingdom of Heaven?
君主们在权力上确实生来就比其他人更具威望，但是在自然本性上大家是平等的，权利和统治的手段都不会必然的带来别的某种知识，与真正的信仰就更没有关系了。因为如果有关系，那怎么解释地球上的君主在宗教事务上会有如此大的分歧？但是如果我们承认君主比他的臣民更可能知道那条永恒生命的道路，或者至少承认在这种不确定的事情上私人最安全最可行的方法就是按照君主的命令行事。你会问：“那意味着什么？”如果他命令你去从商，你能因为担心不会成功而拒绝吗？我的回答是：我会按照君主的命令去从商，因为，如果我在贸易上失败了，他完全有能力用其它的途径弥补我的损失。如果他声称的是真实的，是想要我兴旺致富的，当我因为失败而破产的时候他会让我再一次站立起来的。但是，在考虑将来的世界的问题上不是这么回事；如果我走错了路，并因此而毁了自己，对于一个好人，是不能通过法官的权力来修复这种损失，缓和我的痛苦的，也不能使我得到任何程度的恢复，更不必说完全恢复了。对于天国君主能够给与什么保证呢？

WIND

Perhaps some will say that they do not suppose this infallible judgement, that all men are bound to follow in the affairs of religion, to be in the civil magistrate, but in the Church. What the Church has determined, that the civil magistrate orders to be observed; and he provides by his authority that nobody shall either act or believe in the business of religion otherwise than the Church teaches. So that the judgement of those things is in the Church; the magistrate himself yields obedience thereunto and requires the like obedience from others. I answer: Who sees not how frequently the name of the Church, which was venerable in time of the apostles, has been made use of to throw dust in the people's eyes in the following ages?
有人可能会说：他们并不认为这种完全可靠的判断——在信仰上所有人应该被限制服从——在于世俗的法官，而认为在于教会。教会决定的事情，世俗的法官命令遵守；他用他的权柄保证在信仰的事情上除了教会教导的任何人不得去做或相信别的。所以那些事情的断定在于教会；法官本人只是做到服从，并要求其他人服从而已。我的回答是：自教会备受尊重的使徒时期开始，谁没有看到后世教会的名义经常的被用来向人们的眼里扔尘土？

WIND

But, however, in the present case it helps us not. The one only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide, who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am. Amongst so many kings of the Jews, how many of them were there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following, had not fallen into idolatry and thereby into destruction?
但是，在目前的情形中，这样解释对我们没有帮助。引导到天堂的只有一条狭窄的路，法官并不比私人了解得更多，因此我不能放心的由他来指导我，对这条路他可能和我一样无知，他当然的不会比我更关心自己的拯救。在那么多的犹太国王中，有多少国王盲目跟从古以色列人，而没有堕入偶像崇拜并因此灭亡？

WIND

Yet, nevertheless, you bid me be of good courage and tell me that all is now safe and secure, because the magistrate does not now enjoin the observance of his own decrees in matters of religion, but only the decrees of the Church. Of what Church, I beseech you? of that, certainly, which likes him best. As if he that compels me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the other Church, did not interpose his own judgement in the matter. What difference is there whether he lead me himself, or deliver me over to be led by others? I depend both ways upon his will, and it is he that determines both ways of my eternal state. Would an Israelite that had worshipped Baal upon the command of his king have been in any better condition because somebody had told him that the king ordered nothing in religion upon his own head, nor commanded anything to be done by his subjects in divine worship but what was approved by the counsel of priests, and declared to be of divine right by the doctors of their Church? If the religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving, because the head of that sect, the prelates and priests, and those of that tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted erroneous, false, and destructive? I am doubtful concerning the doctrine of the Socinians, I am suspicious of the way of worship practised by the Papists, or Lutherans; will it be ever a jot safer for me to join either unto the one or the other of those Churches, upon the magistrate's command, because he commands nothing in religion but by the authority and counsel of the doctors of that Church?
然而，你还是要求我鼓起勇气并告诉我现在一切都安全可靠了，因为法官现在要求服从的不是他自己在信仰上的法令，而是教会的法令。请问你：是什么教会的法令？当然是与他最相似的了。在这件事情上，似乎他用法律和惩罚强迫我加入这间或那间教会，并不混杂他自己的判断。由他自己亲自来引导我，或者将我交由别的人来引导，这有什么区别呢？这两种方式我都将依赖他的意志，都是由他来决定我的永恒的情形。一个在国王的命令下敬拜巴力神（Baal）的古以色列人，会因为有人告诉他国王的命令中没有他自己的意志或者他的臣民的影响，只是被教士们商议承认并由教会长老们宣布的神圣权利而得到更好的条件？所以，如果任何教会的宗教信仰可以变成真实和拯救的信仰，只是因为那个教派，主教和教士们的首领以及那个部落的宗教首领们竭尽所能的吹捧和颂扬它，那么究竟还有什么宗教能够被认定是错误，虚假和毁灭性的？我怀疑索悉尼派（Socinians）的教义，我也怀疑天主教派（Papists，教皇信奉者）或者卢瑟派（Lutherans，以前译为路德派）的敬拜方式；对我来说，在法官的命令下加入那些教会中的这个或那个会略微安全些吗？因为在宗教信仰的问题上除了教会长老们的商议和权柄他并没有命令别的。

WIND

But, to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that the Church (if a convention of clergymen, making canons, must be called by that name) is for the most part more apt to be influenced by the Court than the Court by the Church. How the Church was under the vicissitude of orthodox and Arian emperors is very well known. Or if those things be too remote, our modern English history affords us fresh examples in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees, their articles of faith, their form of worship, everything according to the inclination of those kings and queens. Yet were those kings and queens of such different minds in point of religion, and enjoined thereupon such different things, that no man in his wits (I had almost said none but an atheist) will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could, with a safe conscience, obey their several decrees. To conclude, it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes laws to another man's religion pretend to do it by his own judgement, or by the ecclesiastical authority and advice of others. The decisions of churchmen, whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known, cannot be any sounder or safer than his; nor can all their suffrages joined together add a new strength to the civil power. Though this also must be taken notice of — that princes seldom have any regard to the suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and way of worship.
但是，要说事实的话，我们必须承认：教会（如果一个由牧师组成，制定教规的会议必须这样称呼的话）中的大多数更易于受王室的影响而不是相反。在正统派和阿里乌斯派（Arian，由亚历山大里亚的基督教牧师阿里乌斯Arius[AD250——336]提出，其争论的焦点是三一理论。阿里乌斯认为耶稣并不是一个完全的神，而是三一中较低的一位。）皇帝交替统治下的教会是个什么样子，已经为人所熟知。或者如果那些事情太过久远的话，我们近现代的英国历史提供了鲜活的例子：在亨利八世，爱德华六世，玛丽，以及伊丽莎白的统治下，牧师们是多么容易而圆滑的改变他们的教规，信条和敬拜的形式，任何事情都根据那些国王和女王的意愿。然而那些国王和女王在宗教信仰的观点上如此的不同，颁布的法令相去甚远，以至于没有人凭他自己的理智（我可以说除了无信仰者几乎没有人）能够说：一个诚实和正直的上帝的敬拜者能够以可靠的道德心遵守他们几个的教规。所以结论就是：一个国王不论是宣称以他自己的判断规定他人的信仰，还是宣称以教会的权柄和他人的建议，这是一回事。教士们的决定——教士之间的分歧和争论早已为人所熟知——并不会比国王更安全可靠；即令他们完全的一致也不会增加新的世俗权力。当然，还必须注意这样的事实：国王对于那些他不喜好的信仰和敬拜，很少理会。

WIND

But, after all, the principal consideration, and which absolutely determines this controversy, is this: Although the magistrate's opinion in religion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical, yet, if I be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safety for me in following it. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed. I may grow rich by an art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some disease by remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a religion that I distrust and by a worship that I abhor. It is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man's profession. Faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God. The most likely and most approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient, if his stomach reject it as soon as taken; and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sick man's throat, which his particular constitution will be sure to turn into poison. In a word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet this at least is certain, that no religion which I believe not to be true can be either true or profitable unto me. In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their Church communion, under pretence of saving their souls. If they believe, they will come of their own accord, if they believe not, their coming will nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of good-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences.
总而言之，完全决定这种争论的首要考虑是：尽管世俗法官在信仰上的观点可能可信，他指出的道路也可能确实是真正的福音（Evangelical：福音派新教徒，我的理解是偏重于对福音书的理解），然而，如果我不是完全的被他的观点说服，那么我跟从它就不是安全的。无论我走哪条路，只要违背我的道德心的指示，就不可能到达那蒙福的所在。我可以通过我不喜欢的手艺获取财富；我可以通过我不确信的药物治愈一些疾病；但是，我不能通过一种我不相信的信仰和一种我憎恨的敬拜方式获得拯救。一个不信者接受另一个人声称的外在形式是没有意义的。只有信仰和内心的诚实才可能获得上帝的悦纳。如果一个病人服药马上就吐出来，那么很可能有效很被他人认可的药物对他也没有效果；如果你猛灌一个病人药物而他特殊的条件使它转变为毒药，那是不可能治好的。一句话，信仰上无论什么都可以怀疑，但是有一点是确定的：我相信不为真的信仰就不会为真，对我也没有用。所以，国王们在拯救灵魂的借口下强迫他们的臣民加入他们的教会团体，是没有用的。如果他们相信，他们会自愿加入，如果他们不相信，他们的加入又有何用。总之，无论善意，仁慈以及对灵魂拯救的关心的借口是何等的伟大，不能不管人们的意愿而被强迫得救。所以，这些事情人们必须留给他们自己的道德心去决定。

WIND

Norman Rockwell的那幅画（自由敬拜）要表达的意思，洛克在几百年前就非常明白的表达并论述了。

WIND

Having thus at length freed men from all dominion over one another in matters of religion, let us now consider what they are to do. All men know and acknowledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped; why otherwise do they compel one another unto the public assemblies? Men, therefore, constituted in this liberty are to enter into some religious society, that they meet together, not only for mutual edification, but to own to the world that they worship God and offer unto His Divine Majesty such service as they themselves are not ashamed of and such as they think not unworthy of Him, nor unacceptable to Him; and, finally, that by the purity of doctrine, holiness of life, and decent form of worship, they may draw others unto the love of the true religion, and perform such other things in religion as cannot be done by each private man apart.
至此，在宗教信仰的事情上终于解脱了彼此间的支配权力，下面让我们来考虑他们应该如何去做。每个人知道并承认：应当公开的敬拜上帝；那为什么他们要彼此强迫参加这种公开的聚会呢？所以，自由结合的人们加入某个信仰团体，在一起聚会，不仅仅是为了相互教导启发，也是向世界表明他们敬拜上帝以及向祂神圣的权柄献上他们自己问心无愧的和他们认为值得并会被上帝接受的这种敬拜；最后，通过纯正的教义，圣洁的生活和得体的敬拜形式，他们可以把其他人吸引到对真正的信仰的爱中来，完成每个分离的个人做不到的其他宗教信仰事宜。

WIND

These religious societies I call Churches; and these, I say, the magistrate ought to tolerate, for the business of these assemblies of the people is nothing but what is lawful for every man in particular to take care of — I mean the salvation of their souls; nor in this case is there any difference between the National Church and other separated congregations.
这些信仰团体我称之为教会；我认为，世俗的法官应当对教会宽容（至此，洛克所说的宽容我理解为不使用强制），因为这些人聚会的事情，每个人独自处理完全是合法的——我的意思是对他们灵魂的拯救；国家教会和其他分离的信仰团体在这种事情上没有任何不同。
But as in every Church there are two things especially to be considered — the outward form and rites of worship, and the doctrines and articles of things must be handled each distinctly that so the whole matter of toleration may the more clearly be understood.
但是，因为每个教会都有两件特别的事情需要考虑——外在形式和敬拜仪式，以及教义和信条，这二者必须分开并阐释清楚，才能更明白的理解整个的宽容。

WIND

Concerning outward worship, I say, in the first place, that the magistrate has no power to enforce by law, either in his own Church, or much less in another, the use of any rites or ceremonies whatsoever in the worship of God. And this, not only because these Churches are free societies, but because whatsoever is practised in the worship of God is only so far justifiable as it is believed by those that practise it to be acceptable unto Him. Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please Him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression.
关于外在的敬拜仪式，我说，首先，法官没有权力用法律去强制实行任何一种敬拜上帝的仪式，不管是在他自己参加的教会，还是其它的教会。这一点，不仅因为教会是自由的社团，也因为人们在敬拜上帝时无论做什么，仅仅是那些敬拜者相信这样做可被上帝悦纳。没有信仰的保证无论做什么自己既不认可，也不会被上帝接受。所以，仪式的强迫对于任何人，若与他们内心的判断相对立，只会命令他们去触怒上帝，考虑到所有宗教信仰的目的都是为了取悦上帝，而信仰自由对此目的又是十分必要，这样做就显得无法表达的荒谬了。

WIND

But perhaps it may be concluded from hence that I deny unto the magistrate all manner of power about indifferent things, which, if it be not granted, the whole subject-matter of law-making is taken away. No, I readily grant that indifferent things, and perhaps none but such, are subjected to the legislative power. But it does not therefore follow that the magistrate may ordain whatsoever he pleases concerning anything that is indifferent. The public good is the rule and measure of all law-making. If a thing be not useful to the commonwealth, though it be never so indifferent, it may not presently be established by law.
但是，可能人们会由此推断：我否定法官在无关紧要的事情上的所有形式的权力，如果不承认这种权力，整个立法的针对目的都拿掉了。不，我当然愿意承认那些无关紧要的事情，可能还只是这些事情，是立法权力的针对目的。但是并不因此推论出在这些无关紧要的事情上法官可以随意颁布他高兴的法律。公益是立法的约束规则和评判尺度。如果一件事情不影响共同利益，就算它不那么无关紧要，也不可以用法律来干预。

WIND

And further, things never so indifferent in their own nature, when they are brought into the Church and worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the magistrate's jurisdiction, because in that use they have no connection at all with civil affairs. The only business of the Church is the salvation of souls, and it no way concerns the commonwealth, or any member of it, that this or the other ceremony be there made use of. Neither the use nor the omission of any ceremonies in those religious assemblies does either advantage or prejudice the life, liberty, or estate of any man. For example, let it be granted that the washing of an infant with water is in itself an indifferent thing, let it be granted also that the magistrate understand such washing to be profitable to the curing or preventing of any disease the children are subject unto, and esteem the matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a law. In that case he may order it to be done. But will any one therefore say that a magistrate has the same right to ordain by law that all children shall be baptised by priests in the sacred font in order to the purification of their souls? The extreme difference of these two cases is visible to every one at first sight. Or let us apply the last case to the child of a Jew, and the thing speaks itself. For what hinders but a Christian magistrate may have subjects that are Jews? Now, if we acknowledge that such an injury may not be done unto a Jew as to compel him, against his own opinion, to practise in his religion a thing that is in its nature indifferent, how can we maintain that anything of this kind may be done to a Christian?

进一步说，就其自身性质而言不那么平常的事情，一旦进入教会被用于敬拜上帝，就超出了世俗法官的管辖范围，因为这种用途不再和世俗事务有关联。教会唯一的事务是拯救灵魂，采用这种或其它的仪式不关乎世俗的共同利益或者任何成员的世俗利益。在信仰聚会中采用或不采用某些仪式都不有助或有损于任何人的生命，自由，或者财产。举例来说，假定用水洗婴孩其本身是一件平常的事情，也假定法官知道对于婴孩而言这样的洗浴有益于治疗和预防一些疾病，于是认为这种事情足够重要应当用法律来关注。在这种情况下，他可以命令这样做。但是有谁会因此说：法官有同样的权利用法律规定所有的婴孩为了洗净他们的灵魂应当由牧师放入圣水盆里受洗呢？这两种情形之间的巨大差别，每个人一眼就可以看出。或者让我们将这种情形应用于犹太人的婴孩，事情就更加清楚了。因为有什么可以阻止基督徒法官管制犹太人的呢？现在，如果我们承认不应如此违背一个犹太人的观点强迫他必须遭受这种耻辱，去实行一种就其本身性质来说很平常但却是信仰中的仪式，那么我们怎么能够认为这类事情可以对一个基督徒实行呢？

WIND

Again, things in their own nature indifferent cannot, by any human authority, be made any part of the worship of God — for this very reason: because they are indifferent. For, since indifferent things are not capable, by any virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity, no human power or authority can confer on them so much dignity and excellency as to enable them to do it. In the common affairs of life that use of indifferent things which God has not forbidden is free and lawful, and therefore in those things human authority has place. But it is not so in matters of religion. Things indifferent are not otherwise lawful in the worship of God than as they are instituted by God Himself and as He, by some positive command, has ordained them to be made a part of that worship which He will vouchsafe to accept at the hands of poor sinful men. Nor, when an incensed Deity shall ask us, "Who has required these, or such-like things at your hands?" will it be enough to answer Him that the magistrate commanded them. If civil jurisdiction extend thus far, what might not lawfully be introduced into religion? What hodgepodge of ceremonies, what superstitious inventions, built upon the magistrate's authority, might not (against conscience) be imposed upon the worshippers of God? For the greatest part of these ceremonies and superstitions consists in the religious use of such things as are in their own nature indifferent; nor are they sinful upon any other account than because God is not the author of them. The sprinkling of water and the use of bread and wine are both in their own nature and in the ordinary occasions of life altogether indifferent. Will any man, therefore, say that these things could have been introduced into religion and made a part of divine worship if not by divine institution? If any human authority or civil power could have done this, why might it not also enjoin the eating of fish and drinking of ale in the holy banquet as a part of divine worship? Why not the sprinkling of the blood of beasts in churches, and expiations by water or fire, and abundance more of this kind? But these things, how indifferent soever they be in common uses, when they come to be annexed unto divine worship, without divine authority, they are as abominable to God as the sacrifice of a dog. And why is a dog so abominable? What difference is there between a dog and a goat, in respect of the divine nature, equally and infinitely distant from all affinity with matter, unless it be that God required the use of one in His worship and not of the other? We see, therefore, that indifferent things, how much soever they be under the power of the civil magistrate, yet cannot, upon that pretence, be introduced into religion and imposed upon religious assemblies, because, in the worship of God, they wholly cease to be indifferent. He that worships God does it with design to please Him and procure His favour. But that cannot be done by him who, upon the command of another, offers unto God that which he knows will be displeasing to Him, because not commanded by Himself. This is not to please God, or appease His wrath, but willingly and knowingly to provoke Him by a manifest contempt, which is a thing absolutely repugnant to the nature and end of worship.
另一方面，就其自身性质而言平常的事情也不能依靠人类的权力而成为敬拜上帝仪式的一部分——恰恰由于这个原因：因为它们平常。因为，既然平常的事情没有能力凭借自身的美德去愉悦上帝，那么就没有任何人类力量或者权力能够赋予它们如此的高贵和优点使它们有能力承担这一点。在平常的生活当中，行上帝未予禁止的事情是自由和合法的，所以在这些事情上人类的权力还是有位置的。但是在宗教事务上就不是这么回事。这些平常的事情，如果不是被上帝亲自制定，如果不是被上帝用肯定的命令规定可以做为敬拜的一部分，这些祂允诺可从可怜的罪恶的人类手中接受，那么，用于敬拜就是不合法的。当盛怒的上帝斥问我们：“是谁从你们手上要求这些东西的？”我们回答祂这是世俗法官的命令就不够了。倘若世俗的管辖权可以扩张得这么远，那还有什么不能合法的引入宗教信仰领域？无论多么混杂的仪式，无论多么迷信的编造，依靠这种法官的权力，不会违背上帝敬拜者的道德心而强加于他们？因为这些仪式和迷信的绝大部分都在于将本来平常的事情用于宗教用途；这些之所以邪恶并不是因为别的原因，只是因为它们并非来自上帝。洒水，吃面包，饮葡萄酒就其自身来说，或者在生活当中都是平常的事情。所以，谁能说如果不是因为神所制定这些事情能够引入宗教并成为敬拜仪式的一部分？如果任何人类权柄或者世俗权力能够这样做，那么为什么不可以命令在圣餐上吃鱼喝啤酒并成为神圣敬拜的一部分？那为什么不可以在教堂里洒动物的血，用水或火来赎罪，以及诸如此类的事情？因为这些事情，无论在通常情况下是多么的平常，一旦被用于神圣的敬拜，而没有神的权柄，就会像献祭狗一样变得为神所憎恨。而为什么献祭狗如此可憎？在神性上同样远离敬拜的狗和羊，仅仅因为上帝选择这一个而未选择另一个，有什么不同吗？由此我们可以看到：平常的事情，无论它们怎样受到世俗法官的管辖，也不能被宣称引入宗教并强加于信仰聚会，因为，在敬拜上帝时，它们不再平常。一个人敬拜上帝，为的是愉悦上帝并获得祂的帮助。但是他不能在另一个人的命令之下，将他知道因为不是来自上帝不会愉悦上帝的奉献给祂。这不是愉悦上帝，或者平息祂的愤怒，而是用明显的蔑视去故意激怒祂，这绝对是与敬拜的性质和目的背道而驰的。

WIND

But it will be here asked: "If nothing belonging to divine worship be left to human discretion, how is it then that Churches themselves have the power of ordering anything about the time and place of worship and the like?" To this I answer that in religious worship we must distinguish between what is part of the worship itself and what is but a circumstance. That is a part of the worship which is believed to be appointed by God and to be well-pleasing to Him, and therefore that is necessary. Circumstances are such things which, though in general they cannot be separated from worship, yet the particular instances or modifications of them are not determined, and therefore they are indifferent. Of this sort are the time and place of worship, habit and posture of him that worships. These are circumstances, and perfectly indifferent, where God has not given any express command about them. For example: amongst the Jews the time and place of their worship and the habits of those that officiated in it were not mere circumstances, but a part of the worship itself, in which, if anything were defective, or different from the institution, they could not hope that it would be accepted by God. But these, to Christians under the liberty of the Gospel, are mere circumstances of worship, which the prudence of every Church may bring into such use as shall be judged most subservient to the end of order, decency, and edification. But, even under the Gospel, those who believe the first or the seventh day to be set apart by God, and consecrated still to His worship, to them that portion of time is not a simple circumstance, but a real part of Divine worship, which can neither be changed nor neglected.
这里人们可能会问：“如果在属于神圣敬拜的事情上没有给人类留下任何的选择余地，那么教会他们自己如何拥有规定敬拜的时间地点以及诸如此类的权力？”对此我的回答是：在宗教信仰的敬拜中我们必须辨别什么是敬拜本身，什么是敬拜的细节。敬拜本身的部分须相信要由上帝来指定并能为祂所悦纳，所以那是必须的。细节是诸如此类的事情，虽然一般它们不能与敬拜相分离，然而特别的情况或修改并未禁止，因此它们就显得无关紧要。这一类的事情诸如敬拜的时间和地点，信徒敬拜的习惯和姿势。这些就是细节，完全的无关紧要，在这些事情上上帝没有明确的诫令。举例来说：在犹太人中，他们敬拜的时间和地点以及习惯就不仅仅是细节，而是敬拜本身的一部分，在这些当中，如果任何事情有缺陷，或与惯例不同，他们就不能期望为上帝所接受。但是这些事情，对于享有福音书的自由的基督徒来说，只不过是敬拜的细节，对此每个教会都可以将它们用于他们认为最有用的诫令，庄重和教诲的目的。但是，即使在福音书之下，那些信守第一或者第七天为上帝专门规定的信徒来说，仍然是敬拜本身，对他们来说这个时间的规定就不是简单的细节问题，确实是神圣的敬拜的一部分，即不能更改也不能忽略。