propagating of this Doctrine They destroy the very Essential part of our Faith which being a Gift of the Holy Ghost and a Belief founded in our Hearts is transmuted into an outward Confession where the Tongue to avoid Temporal Punishment is forced to speak those things which are in no wise agreeable to the Heart This however admits again of a Limitation For herein are not comprehended these Points which proceeding from Natural Religion are also contained in the Christian Doctrine and all of them imply a profound Reverence to be paid to the Supream BEING For it is beyond all question that those that act against the very Dictates of Reason ought to be subject to Civil Punishments since they strike at the very Foundation of Civil Societies Such are Idolatry Blasphemy Profanation of the Sabbath where nevertheless great care is to be taken that a due difference be made betwixt the Moral part of that Precept concerning the Sabbath which is unalterable and the Ceremonial part of it Princes therefore at their first entrance into the Communion of the Christian Church might Lawfully destroy the Images and Temples of the Idols and the Groves and other Meeting-places dedicated to their superstitious Worship Neither can it be called in question but that Christian Soveraigns have a Right to inflict Civil Punishments upon such as revile the whole System of the Christian Religion and ridicule the Mysteries of the Christian Faith at least they may Banish them the Country But for the rest it is in vain to believe that the true enlightning of our Mind and the inward consent to such Articles of Faith as surpass our Understanding can be procured by violent means or temporal punishments For supposing you force a Man to dissemble his thoughts to speak contrary to what he conceives in his own Opinion let his Confession be never so formal and his Gestures never so well composed and conformable to certain prescribed Rules this has not the least affinity with true Religion unless he at the same time does feel an inward motion and hearty compliance with what he professes Neither ought People according to the true Genius of the Doctrine of Christ be enticed to receive the Christian Religion by Temporal Interest Honours or other such like Advantages for Christ did promise that those that followed him should receive their Reward in the Life to come but fore-told them nothing but Crosses and Tribulations in this And those that embrace any Religion out of a Motive of Temporal Advantages do plainly shew that they have a greater Value for their own â—erest than Religion And certainly scarce any body that has but common sense can perswade himself that such a sort of Worship can be pleasing to God Almighty Sovereigns being not constituted for Religion's sake they cannot under that colour exact from their Subjects a blind Obedience in matters of Religion it being unquestionable that if Subjects should blindfold follow the Religion of their Sovereign they cannot by all his Authority be assured of their Salvation from whence it is evident that in case any Subject be fully convinced that he can out of the Holy Scripture discover any Errors which are crept into the Church even that by Law established especially concerning any Principal Point of Faith he neither can nor ought to be hindered in his design by the Sovereign Authority before his Reasons be heard and well debated in the presence of the best and ablest Judges and if by them he be legally and plainly convicted of his Error then and 〈◊〉 before ought he to be silenced To force People into the Church â—y the bare Civil Authority must needs fill the Commonwealth with Hypocrites who cannot be supposed to Act according to the Dictates of their Consciences For since in Religions Matters an absolute Uniformity betwixt the Heart and Tongue is required how can it otherwise be but that such as profess a Religion disagreeable to their Opinion should never be satisfied in their Consciences when they consider that they impose upon God Almighty § 49. The Care of preserving the Publick What Prerogatives belong to Sovereigns as being Protectors of the Publick Tranquility Peace belonging in a most peculiar manner to Sovereigns has furnished some with a specious Pretence to affirm that since differences in Religion cause frequent Convulsions in the State and it is to be deemed one of the greatest Happinesses of a Government if its Subjects in general are of one Religion all means tho' never so violent may be put in execution to extirpate these Differences in Religion They alledge that as much more precious our Souls are before our Bodies the more Sovereigns are obliged to be watchful over them and that the true Love which a Sovereign bears to his Subjects can never be more conspicuous than when he takes effectual care of their Salvation These it must be confess'd are very specious Pretences and have sometimes had such powerful influence over Princes who were else naturally not inclined to Severity that they have nevertheless by these plausible Arguments been prevailed upon to assist with their Authority the cruel Designs of Priests It will therefore not be beyond our scope to make a strict Enquiry what account ought to be made of these so specious Reasons in a well constituted Government In the first place then it is to be considered that it has been foretold by our Saviour that there should always be in the Church Weeds amongst the Wheat that is to say that there should be false Doctrines raised in the Church and these according to the Commands of our Saviour were not to be extirpated Root and Branch but to be reserved for the Day of Judgment For a Sovereign that takes to such violent courses may make a havock among his Subjects which commonly proves equally pernicious to the Innocent and Guilty nevertheless he will find it impracticable quite to abolish all Errors and Differences in the Church Never did any body shew a greater Love to Mankind than our Saviour who sacrificed himself for our Salvation Yet he made use of no other ways to propagate his Doctrine than Teaching when he might have commanded Twelve Legions of Angels to force Mankind to Obedience How can a Prince be esteemed to follow the Foot-steps of Christ who makes such profligate Wretches as the Dragoons his Apostles for the Conversion of his Subjects That Pretence of the Love of Sovereigns toward their Subjects let it be never so specious he ought not under that colour endeavour to subvert or alter the Method of propagating the Christian Doctrine according to the true Genius of the Christian Religion Besides this it is not absolutely necessary to maintain the Publick Tranquility that all the Subjects in general should be of one Religion or which is the same in effect the differences about some Points in Religion considered barely as such are not the true causes of Disturbances in a State but the Heats and Animosities Ambition
they are not preferrable in this Point before any other in Europe If any one questions thâ— Truth of it I appeal to Mr. Toland's Case concerning his Treatise Entituled Christianity not Mysterious It is both beyond my scope and the compass of a Letter to enter upon the Merits of the Cause on both Sides it will be sufficient here to refer my self to what has been Published against him lately here in England and in other Places All which if duely compared will soon evince how much the English Clergy â—as out-done the rest both by force of Argument and a generous gentle Behaviour But I am afraid I have abused your Lordship's Patience I will therefore conclude with recommending both my Author and my Self to your Lordship's Protection begging Leave to subscribe my self My Lord Your Devoted Servant J. Crull M. D. THE CONTENTS COncering Religion before Civil Societies were Instituted SECT 1. Every Man is accountable to God for his own Religion 2 How the same might be exercised in the free State of Nature 3 Parentâ— had originally the Care of Religious Worship lodged in them 4 Civil Societies were not constituted for Religions sake 5 Subjects did never submit their Opinions as to Religious Worship to the Disposal of their Sovereigns 6 What Power properly and according to the Laws of Nature belongs to Sovereigns in Ecclesiastical Affairs 7 Of the Nature of Revealed Religion 8 Among the Jews there was a very strict Vnion betwixt the Church and State 9 Who was the Supream Head of the Jewish Church 10 The Christian Religion is quite different from the Jewish 11 Some Reflections on the Behaviour of Moses when he laid the Foundation of the Commonwealth of the Jews 12 What on the other Hand our Saviour did when he Estalished his Church here on Earth 13 Christ was not the Founder of a New Common-wealth or People 14 Neither had he any Territories belonging to him 15 Christ did not exercise any Sovereign Power 16 But thâ— Office of a Doctor or Teacher 17 The Apostles did propagate the Doctrine of our Saviour 18 The Apostles had received their Authority of Teaching from God alone independant from any Human Power 19 The Apostles never assumed any Authority of Commanding others 20 Whether their Authority of Teaching does indirectly imply any right of Commanding others 21 Whether the Power of Absolution does imply any Right of Sovereignty 22 What is to be understood by absolving from Sins 23 Vnder whose Authority the Apostles did exercise the Power of Absolution 24 Of what nature it was 25 Whether St. Peter had any Prerogative granted above others 26 Whether the Power of Excommunicating imply a Sovereignty 27 The Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles contains nothing of Command 28 The Kingdom of Christ is no Temporal Kingdom 29 Whether the Christian Church ought to be considered as a State or Sovereignty 30 In the Primitive Church there was nothing like it 31 There is a great difference betwixt the Church and State 32 And the Doctors or Teachers in the Church are quite different from those that exercises the Sovereignty in a State 33 Whether the whole Christian Church ought to be considered as a State 34 It is not requisite to reduce the whole Christian Church under one Independant Severeignty or Head 35 Whether there ought not to be one Supream Judge in the Church to determine such Differences as may arise from time to time 36 An Example of a Controversie composed in the Apostles Times 37 Some Observations concerning the Nature and Vsefulness of General Councils 38 Concerning the Condition of the Christian Church under the Pagan Princes 39 Concerning its Condition under the Christian Emperours 40 The Church has not changed her Nature of being a Colledge or Society 41 Neither are Sovereigns thereby become Bishops 42 Christian Sovereigns are obliged to maintain and defend the Church 43 Of the Prerogatives of Princes in Ecclesiastical Affairs 44 Of the Power of Sovereigns over the Church Ministers 45 Of the Power of calling a Synod or Convention 46 Of their Power as to Church-Discipline 47 Of their Power of making Laws and Ecclesiastical Constitutions 48 How far Sovereigns are obliged to intermeddle in Religious Affairs when the Publick Safety lies at stake 49 Concerning Toleration of several Religions 50 Princes ought to be very careful not to be led away by false Suggestions 51 Sometimes the Prerogatives of Sovereigns are impaired under a religious Pretext 52 Concerning the Power of setting up a Reformation 53 Whether Subjects without the concurrence of their Sovereigns can pretend to set up a Reformation 54 OF THE Nature and Qualification OF RELIGION In REFERENCE to CIVIL SOCIETY c. AMong all those Questions which have for many Ages past been Controverted among Christians this may be deem'd one of the Chiefest which Treats of the Nature Authority and Power of the Church and which of the several Christian Sects ought most justly to claim the Title of the True Church The Romanists keep this for their last Reserve when Engag'd with the Protestants That they Attribute the Name of the True Church only to themselves and boldly stigmatize all such as are not of their Communion with the Names of rebellious Deserters This is the main Bulwark they rely upon thinking it sufficient to Alledge in their own behalf That they are not obliged so strictly to Examin and maintain every Article of their Faith against the Protestants since whatever Objections may be made out of the Holy Scripture the same ought to be rejected as Erroneous if not agreeable with the Interpretations and Traditions of their Church Thus making themselves both Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause â—esides this it is to be look'd upon as a Matter of the greatest Consequence both in regard of the Christian Church and the Publick Safety in a State to know exactly what bounds ought to be prescribed to the Priestly Order in Ecclesiastical Affairs as likewise to determin how far the Power of Sovereigns extends it self in Ecclesiastical Matters For if either of them transgress their Bounds it must of necessity prove the Cause of great Abuses Disturbances and Oppressions both in Church and State I was the sooner prevail'd upon to Search into the very bottom of this Question at this juncture of Time when not only the Romish Priests apply all their Cunning for the rooting out of the Protestants but also some of the greatest Princes in Christendom setting aside the Antient way of Converting People by Reason and force of Arguments have now recourse to opâ—n Violence and by Dragooning force their miserable Subjects to a Religion which always appear'd abominable to them But if we propose to our selves to examin this Point according to its own solid Principles as we ought to do without having recourse to Ambiguous Terms and Tergiversations it is absolutely requisite that we trace the very Original of Religion in General and of the Christian Religion in Particular so as
the Jewish Religion and Ceremonies and fortified them by very severe Laws no body upon Earth had Power to make the least alteration in them or to add any thing to or to diminish from them The Kings Saul and Vsiah paid dearly for it because they attempted to interfere with the Levites in their Office And those of the Jews that introduced a Foreign Religious Service are in the Holy Scripture Branded with Infamy So that their Kings had no further Power in Religiouâ— Conâ—erns than the Supream Inspection that every one in his Station not excepting the High Priest himself did Exercise his Office according to God's Commands and that the Ecclesiastical Constitutions were kept inviolable Neither did the Tribe of Levi or the Priestly Order make up a separate Body independent from the State but they were actually considered as part of the Nation and Subjects of their Kings who as we read sometimes Deposed them for several Crimes and if negligent in their Office used to give them severe Rebukes King David went further for he to maintain a decent Order in the Church disposed the several Ecclesiastical Functions among the Priests and Levites and ordered that the Singers and Door-waitors should take their places by Lott which nevertheless was not done without the Advice of the Chief Men and Elders of the People and the whole Tribe of Levi. In so doing he did not assume to himself the Power of Disposing or Altering any thing in their Religion but only over those that were Ordained by God Almighty for that Function viz. to Establish such an Order among them the better to enable them to 1 Chron. â— 26. seq Exercise their Function without Confusion For when afterwards instead of the Tabernacle a Temple was to be Erected that is to say when instead of a slight and decayed Building a most noble and firm Structure was to be built the same was not undertaken without God's Advice This Temple being the Principal of all Publick Structures it was the King's Care to see it Repaired in due time who also might levy a Tax for that use and provide for the necessary Expences of the Workmen it is very remarkable that we do not read in the Scriptures that any of those Kings that introduced Foreign Service among the Jews did ever attempt to force by Threats or otherwise their Subjects to such a Worship but rather by several Allurements enticed them to follow their Example and that such as were thus seduced did as well as their King receive Condign Punishment from God accordingly And that such among the Jews as abhorred this Idolatry ought not to be look'd upon as Rebellious Subjects upon that score but as Persons that did bear this Publick Calamity with Patience And as those Kings that Abolished Idolatry and Foreign Worship amongst the Jews are highly extolled in the Scriptures so those Impious Kings that were the Authors of this Idolatry were by the high Rank they bore in the State exempted from the ordinary Punishment which according to God's Ordinance was else to be inflicted upon all others that should attempt to introduce Idolatry Lastly another remarkable Observation may be made as to the Jewish Religion that whereas there was so strict an Unity betwixt the State and Religion that the latter might justly be called the Foundation Stone of the first and God had expresly enjoyned them an exact observance of it under forfeiture of the quiet Possession of that Country where their Commonwealth was Established the Felicity of the State depended absolutely from the due observance of that Religion and the Civil Magistrates were to take cognizance of all such Matters as might prove either dangerous or destructive to it as it may plainly appear by the Law of God prescribed in this behalf in the Books of Moses § 11. The Christian Religion differs in many points from that of the Jews not only The Genius of the Christian Religion is quite different from that of the Jews because it represents our Saviour to us as he has already appeared upon Earth and thereby has freed us from these many Ceremonies and Sacrifices which were so â—any Emblems of his future coming amongst us but also because the Christian Religion is by God's peculiar Providence endowed with such Qualifications that it ought and may be received by all Nations without Prejudice and consequently deserves the Name of an Universal Religion whereas the Divine Worship of the Jews was so adapted to that State as scarce to be suitable to any other being unaccessible to any other Nation but their own the Christian Religion on the other hand is now-a-days not tyed up to a certain Place or Temple but every 1 Tim. 2. 8. where Men may pray lifting up holy hands We need not appear before God with sumptuous Sacrifices but those Sacrifices which are acceptable to God are to be purchased without Gold or Silver Neither is the Ministry of the Gospel granted as a peculiar Priviledge to one particular Nation or Family but the Christians in general are called Priests before God and Apocal. 1. 6. 5. 10. no body is excluded from that Ministry provided he be endued with the necessary Qualifications except that St. Paul forbids Women 1 Tim. 11. 1â— to Teach Lastly Each Nation has an equal share in the Christian Religion neither can any of them claim a peculiar Right or Prerogative before others every one having equal share in the Merits of Christ Here is neither Jew nor Greek here is neither Bond nor Free neither Male nor Female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus There is neither Greek nor Jew Gal. 3. 28. Coloss 3. 11. Vide 1 Tim. 11. â—â— Circumcision or Vncircumcision Barbarian Scythian Bond nor Free but Christ is all and in all But because the Christian Religion is not like the Jewish adapted to one particular State that had its rise at the same time with this Religion but was introduced after Civil Societies were erected throughout the World The main point now in question is Whether after this Religion has been introduced it has altered the Nature of Civil Societies or the Rights of Sovereigns and whether by its establishment a new sort of Government separate and independent from the Civil Power has been introduced Or which is the same in effect Whether the Church is to be considered as a State separate and independent from the Civil Covernment which ought to be Governed and Maintained by Human Force and Power By the Word State we understand a considerable number of People who being joyned in one Society independent from another are Governed by their own Laws and How Moses behaved himself when he laid the Foundation of the Jewish Common-wealth Governors § 12. To trace the very Original of this point the Behaviour of Moses the Founder both of the Jewish Church and State must be taken into due consideration and how far different Jesus Christ the Saviour of Mankind and
Magistrates What likelihood can there be in all this that the Protestants should be as much concerned for a Temporal By-Interest as the Popish Clergy For whereas they first can expect no more than what is alloted them already the latter have no less in view than vast Riches and the Possessions of whole Kingdoms All these Matters duely considered may be convincing Proofs that all the Clamour which the Popish Clergy makes against the Protestants is of the same nature with that of Demetrius at Ephesus when he exclaimed against St. Paul Love and Meekness being the products of the Christian Faith the Cruelties of the Popish Clergy exercised against Protestants ought to be suspected by Princes and serve them as a forewarning what good is to be expected from those that prosecute with so much Barbarity all such as oppose their Pride and Ambition After the Persecutions were ceased in the Primitive Church the Arians were the first who shew'd their teeth to the Christians But they would have blushed for shame if they should have attempted to propagate their Religion by force of Arms and such other cruel Persecutions as are now in vogue among the Popish Clergy If we were not sufficiently convinced that the Spirit of Envy is not the Spirit of Christ we may be instructed as to this Point by our Saviour himself when he rebuked James and John who would have Luk. 9. 54 55 56. fire come down from Heaven in these words Ye know not what manner of Spirit you are of For the Son of Man is not come to destroy Mens lives but to save them The Sword of Christ is not girted on the side of Men but goes out of his Mouth and in all the Rev. 19. 15. holy Scripture there is not one passage where the Church of Christ is said to be drunken with the Blood of Hereticks but it is said of the Whore of Babylon that she is drunken with the Rev. 17. 6. Blood of the Saints and with the Blood of the Martyrs of Christ § 52. Lastly Since Sovereigns ought to be Sovereigns are often encroached upon in their rights under a religious pretext jealous of their own Prerogatives they may without Injustice make an Enquiry whether the Protestant or the Popish Religion be most encroaching upon their Authority and which of these two be most consistent with the Civil Government For whenever the Civil Power bears any diminution under a Religious Pretence it is then high time for Sovereigns to look about them to examine upon what Foundation these Pretensions are built it being evident that Civil Goverment was introduced before the Christian Religion and that therefore it ought plainly to be demonstrated how Civil Authority came to be diminished by the Christian Religion Now if we look into the Constitution of the Popish Clergy it is manifest that by many steps and degrees and by various Artifices and Intrigues they have at last patch'd up a Potent State of their own and that their Supream Head for these many Ages past is possess'd of great Territories and Acts as a Sovereign and not only this but also obtrudes his Authority upon all such as profess the Roman Catholick Religion For they don't think it sufficient that the whole Clergy have their dependance from him but he pretends to an Absolute Authority of determining all Matters of Faith by which means he is sure to guide the Minds of the People where ever he pleases If any thing in the World is destructive to the Civil Powers it must of necessity be this when a Party inhabiting their Territories disown their Jurisdiction and depending from a Foreign Power deny the Authority of their Natural Prince over them or at least acknowledge it no longer than they think it convenient If Neighbouring States are commonly the most jealous of one another must it not be look'd upon as a great Solocism of State to permit such as depend from a Foreign Jurisdiction to abide in the Commonwealth It is next door to take Foreign Garisons into our Forts or to allow a Foreign Force to Encamp in the midst of our Dominions And this Mischief seems to be the more pernicious when the Revenues by which the Grandeur of this Ecclesiastical State is maintained are squeezed out of the Subjects of any Prince and the best part of his Territories exhausted whereas on the contrary these Leeches are not only freed from all manner of Taxes but also pretend to a Legislative Authority so as to inflict Punishments upon the Subjects and to Absolve them from their Allegiance due to their Sovereigns I cannot see how Princes without great Prejudice to the Commonweal can allow the least Authority over their Persons to the Clergy For if the Prince and they happen to jarr together the poor Subjects pay for it with a Vengeance when they are to serve two Masters of a contrary side at one time and the Taxes must fall the heavier upon the Subjects where the Clergy are exempted from all Contributions Lastly is it not a heavy Burthen to the Subjects to be subject both to an Ecclesiastical and Temporal Jurisdiction The former being generally the most severe as is most evident in Spain and Italy where the Courts of Inquisition are in vogue It being therefore beyond all question that all these things are practised by the Roman Catholicks but in no wise by the Protestants such Princes as being misled by the Popish Clergy endeavour to extirpate their Protestant Subjects Act not only contrary to Justice but even against the very Dicrates of right Reason What has been objected by some viz. That Protestants have not been altogether free from the imputation of raising Disturbances in the State and having joined with a Foreign Power scarce deserves an Answer For this is not to be imputed to Religion it self but rather to some dangerous Juncture and other Circumstances which often prove the occasion of dangerous Commotions in a State Or else the Papists have first begun the Dance and what Wonder is it if some Protestants to avoid their cruel Designs against them have endeavoured to repel the Fury of their Adversaries and when they found themselves insufficient have sought for Aid by Foreign Princes For as it is the greatest piece of Injustice to compel Subjects by force of Arms to any Religion so these may justly defend their Religion by force of Arms especially if they live under a Government where they have a Right belonging to them of Protecting their Liberties against any Invaders § 53. Last of all it very well deserves to Concerning the Right of Reformation make an Enquiry who it is that has the Power in the Commonwealth to amend such Errors and Abuses as are crept into the Church either in Point of Doctrine Morality or Church-Government Or which turns to the same Account who has the Right of Reformation Where first of all it is unquestionable that there is no occasion of a Reformation where the
contains every particular Point of Doctrine in the true sense as they are proposed in the Holy Scripture And those are called Hereticks who only profess some particular Points out of the Holy Writ for such as absolutely reject it are counted Infidels and Reprobates but either deny or explain the rest in a wrong and perverted sense How can the Popish Clergy therefore assume the Title of the Catholick Church before they have and that without contradiction proved every Point of their Faith out of the Holy Scripture Or exclude us Protestants from that Title till they have proved that our Doctrine is contrary to it Lastly It is called the Apostolical Church as being founded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles And the true Church loses nothing of its intrinsick Value whether it has been planted by the Apostles or whether the Apostolical Doctrine has been transmitted to them by others § 54. But it is not a very difficult Task to Whether Subjects without the Consent of their Sovereigns may separate themselves from an Erroneous Religion introduce a Reformation in Religion with the mutual Consent of Sovereign and Subjects so it may be questioned whether Subjects may attempt a Reformation when their Sovereigns and the whole Clergy or at least the greatest part of them do not acknowledge their Error but rather pretend to maintain it In this case it is our Opinion that provided these Errors â—o touch the Fundamental Points of our 〈…〉 Subjects as by the Grace of God and the â—ight of his holy Spirit have attainâ—â—he true Knowledge may separate themselves from the Communion of that Church without the consent of their Sovereigns of the Clergy For every body being accountable to God for his Religion and answerable for his own Soul â—hose Salvation cannot absolutely be committed to any Body else and a Christian in Matters of Faith being not altogether to rely upon his Sovereign or the Clergy at least no farther than their Doctrine is congruous with the holy Scripture It is undeniable that Subjects may separate themselves from the Communion of that Church which is prosessed by their Sovereign and Clergy provided they can make it evidently appear that such a Church is infected with gross Abuses and dangerous Errors For the Church is a Colledge whose Members are not kept in Union by any Temporal Power but by the Union of the Faith and whosoever relinquishes that he dissolves the sacred Tye of the Believers Besides that it is not absolutely necessary for our Salvation that the Church be composed of a great Number but the same may be obtained either by a greater or lesser Number of the Believers Neither can this Separation prove in the least prejudicial to the Sovereign Authority it being supposed that those who have separated themselves adhere to the true pure Doctrine of the Gospel free from all Poison and Principles dangerous or prejudicial to the Government For civil Society was not instituted for Religion's sake neither does the Church of Christ participate of the nature of a Temporal State and therefore a Prince that embraces the Christian Faith does not thereby acquire an absolute Sovereignty over the Church or Mens Consciences So that if notwithstanding this Separation the Subjects pay due Allegiance to their Prince in Temporal Affairs there is no reason sufficient which can oblige him to trouble them meerly upon the score of their Consciences For what loss is it to the Prince whether his Subjects are of the same Religion with himself or of unother Or which was supposed before whether they did maintain the same Errors as he does The case indeed would be quite different if they should endeavour to withdaw themselves from their Allegiance to set up a separate Society without his Consent tho' it is undeniable that there are some Cases of Necessity when this civil Tye or Allegiance may be dissolved as for Instance when Subjects for want of sufficient Protection from their natural Prince are so hardly pressed upon by a more Potent Enemy that they are forc'd to submit to his Power And granted the Power of Sovereigns in the Church to be much greater than in effect it is Subjects are nevertheless bound to take care of their Souls whose Salvation is to be preferr'd before all other things in regard of which they may separate themselves from an Established Religion provided they are convinced of its Errors For that Subject who sacrifices his Life for his Prince does doubtless a glorious Action but what Prince can be so unreasonable as to expect that his Subjects should Sacrifice their Souls to the Devil for his sake That Prince therefore who does trouble his faithful Subjects for no other reason but because they cannot conform to his Opinion especially if they can maintain theirs out of the Holy Scripture commits an Act of Injustice Nay I cannot see how he can with Justice force them out of his Territories It is true he may refuse to receive Hereticks into his Dominions unless it be for Reasons of State Neither can a true Believer take it amiss if he is not permitted to settle in a Commonwealth govern'd by Hereticks For the Right of Naturalization belongs to Sovereigns which they may refuse and give to whom they think it convenient But as it is certainly the greatest Injustice in the World to force an in-born Natural Subject who has settled all his Fortunes in a Commonwealth meerly for his Religion's sake without being convicted of his Error out of his Native Country to the great detriment and danger of himself and his Family So if a Subject inclines voluntarily to leave his Native Country either to avoid the Frowns of his Prince or the hatred of the Clergy and Common People and to serve God with more freedom according to his own Conscience it ought not to be refused by his Sovereign I remember there is a certain Proverb used among the Germans viz. He that Commands the Country Commands Religion But this cannot be applied to the Princes of the Roman Catholick Religion who cannot lay any Claim to it it being evident that the Popish Clergy do not allow any such thing to these Princes And as to what concerns the Protestant Estates of Germany it cannot be denied but that they made use of this Pretension against the Emperor at the time of the Reformation which however ought to be thus interpreted That they denied the Emperor to have any Power of intermedling in the Affairs relating to their own Dominions not that only they claim'd it as belonging to the Rights of Sovereignty to impose any Religion tho' never so false upon their Subjects notwithstanding all which there are not wanting Examples that Princes have acted conformable to this Proverb with their Subjects A Prince who troubles his faithful Subjects meerly upon the score of Religion commits a gross Error no Christian Prince being obliged to propagate his Religion by forcible means provided his Subjects stand firm to their Allegiance to him
Commonwealth 'T is true the Church is a Society but not a Body Politick founded upon the Publick Authority but owes it Original to a higher Principle having not like other Colledges its dependency from the State What is alledged out of Titus 2. 9. Colos 3. 20 22. Rom. 13. 3 4. 1 Pet. 2. 14. is strangely misrepresented to evince that Ecclesiastical Matters are dependent from the absolute Pleasure of Sovereigns What Follows might also very well deserve some Animadversions if it were not beyond our scope at present N. 13. It is a gross Error That as a Consequence of this Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs he attributes to them the Titles of Pastors Ministers Heralds of God Bishops Priests and Apostles Pray with what Authority and with what sense For the Duty belonging to Sovereigns which entitles them to the name of being the Guardians of both Tables of the Decalogue and of being the Foster-Fathers and Defenders of the Church is of a far different Nature from what he would insinuate here And if it be not to be left to the absolute Judgment of the Clergy it self with exclusion of the rest of the Members of the Church to determine in Ecclesiastical Affairs what is agreeable to the Word of God how can this Judgment belong to the Sovereign alone without allowing a share to the rest of the Members of the Church These words in the § LXIV Each Sovereign may establish what Religion he pleases in his Dominions ought not to be let pass by without a severe Correction The Reason alledged is very frivolous Because all Publick and external Actions depend from the Publick Authority Is this your Assertion good Mr. Houtuyn that Princes may impose what Religion they please upon their Subjects and by their absolute Authority make it the establish'd Religion with exclusion to all others who if not complying must forsooth sly the Country What Religion they please do you say the the Pagan False Fictious or Superstitious it matters not which From whence pray was this Power derived to Sovereigns Not certainly from God except you can shew us a Divine Authority for it Not from the common consent of those that entred into Civil Societies Commonwealths not being instituted for Religion's sake and of a later date besides that such a Power is not requisite for the attaining that end for which Civil Societies were establish'd Neither is it left to the bare pleasure of any Person tho' considered as in the Natural state of Freedom to profess what Religion he pleases But supposing it was no Inference can be made from thence that the same may be forc'd upon others The distinction he makes betwixt the internal and external Religion must also be taken with a great deal of Circumspection lest some People might perswade themselves that it is indifferent what Religion a Man professes in outward shew provided he be satisfied as to the internal part of it Furthermore it is absolutely false that all Publick Actions that is every thing done in Publick in the Common-wealth owes its Original to the Sovereign Power there being several things to be done by Subjects in publick depending meerly from that Liberty belonging to them in the Natural state of Liberty or from God's Command or from a certain Power granted to them by God Almighty It is no less false That all exterior Actions depend from the Civil Authority For according to Mr. Houtuyn's Opinion the Doctrine of Divinity and the Confession of Faith as comprehended in a certain form are to be reckoned among those exterior Actions Mr. Houtuyn is much in the wrong when he pretends to draw an Inference from thence that because it belongs to Sovereigns to take care that their Subjects may be well instructed concerning what Opinion they ought to have of God as the Establisher of Justice they therefore have a Right of disposing in an Arbitrary way of revealed Religion and to declare any Religion whatsoever which pretends to Revelation the Establish'd Religion in the Commonwealth It is a much grosser Mistake yet when he asserts That any Religion establish'd in a State tho' never so false contributes to the Publick Tranquility of that Commonwealth It is possible that a Religion defective in some Points may nevertheless lead People into the way of Salvation but those that contain false Doctrines of God and his Attributes are incapable of producing that Effect The Publick Tranquility founded upon such false Opinions will be very unstable and may with more ease or at least with the same conveniency be obtained by the true Doctrine especially if it be taken into consideration that tho' it be possible that such Impostures may beguile the giddy-headed Multitude they cannot always pass for currant among Men of a sound Understanding It is to be remembred that the Southsayers at Rome cannot forbear laughing when they meet another of the same Profession We must beg Mr. Houtuyn's Pardon if we question his Authority when he pretends to perswade us That Faith which he is pleased to call every ones private Religion independent from any Temporal Power will not be impaired by a Man's professing any other Religion established by the Sovereign Authority and he leaves it to the discretion of those Civil Governours which of all Religions they will be pleased to establish in their Dominions whether that of the Japoneses of the Brachmans Mahometans Jews or Christians and among all those that pretend to the Christian Name such a one as may be most agreeable to their own Fancy I much question whether he will meet with many Tools that will take his Word for it A great part of Christendom did look upon it as a thing insufferable that the Pope of Rome should set up for the great Arbitrator of Christendom in matters relating to the Christian Faith tho' his Pretences did not reach further than to force one Religion upon the World which he knew was most likely to turn to his own Advantage But now it seems it has pleased God that Sovereigns should be invested with a Power of establishing any Religion at pleasure and it being beyond question that there are several Religions which have not the least relation to one another they may with the same Right at several times declare several distinct Religions nay even those that are quite opposite to one another the establish'd Religion and nevertheless every one of these must be accepted forsooth as the true Religion The next Consequence will be that Sovereigns having a Right of defending and altering the establish'd Religion and to punish such as trespass against it one Prince will have no more Right to cherish and maintain one Religion but his Successors may with the same Right abolish it and punish such of his Subjects as adhere to it So that according to the Doctrine of Mr. Houtuyn's Gospel the establish'd Religion will be settled upon the same Foundation with some Statutes which may be enacted and repeal'd by Sovereigns at pleasure In
OF THE Nature and Qualification OF RELIGION In Reference to Civil Society WRITTEN BY Samuel Puffendorff Counsellor of State to the Late King of Sweden Which may serve as an Appendix to the Author's Duty of Men. Translated from the Original LONDON Printed by D. E. for A. Roper at the Black Boy and A. Bosvile at the Dial both over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1698. THE Introductory Epistle Presented to the RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM Lord Craven Baron Craven OF HAMSTEAD MARSH My LORD THE extraordinary Character you have acquirâ—d by the joint Consent of those that have the Honour of your Acquaintance Encourages me to deviate from the common Road used by our Modern Authors being made sufficiently sensible how much a Mind endow'd with Genorous and Modest Inclinations the inseparable Companions of a Great Soul disdains the fulsome Praises which those Gentlemen make the Chief Subject of their Dedications whenever they pretend to Court the Patronage of Persons of Quality in behalf of their Treatises I must confess I should scarce have had so much Presumption thus to intrude my self into your Lordship's Favour if I had not been sufficiently persuaded that the Renown our Author has so deservedly gainâ—d both here and abroad and that under the Protection of some of the greatest Princâ—s in Europe would be prevailing enough with your Lordship to pardon an Undertaking which if in it self justifiable in nothing else might perhaps claim the benefit of a general Custom from your Goodness The Reputation of our Author being so universally and unquestionably established among all such as have a true relish of Learning I might without the least Prejudice to him supercede to enlarge here upon this Treatise if it were not rather out of a desire to satisfie the Curiosity of some who beleive to have sufficient Reason for certain Objections made against some Assertions contained in this Treatise than with an Intention to make the least Addition to a Piece which whether in regard of the nicety of the Subject it Treats of or of the Concatination and force of its Arguments deserves to be reckoned among the best now extant in Europe Those who center the utmost Felicity of Civil Society in a Democratical form of Government have not been wanting to charge our Author with too much Passion for that Doctrine of Passive Obedience which leaves Subjects to the absolute Disposal of their Princes But besides that the Appendix annexed to this Treatise written by our Author in opposition to Mr. Hobbes's Monstrous Principles concerning this unlimited Power may sufficiently clear him from this Imputation If these Gentlemen would have taken the pains to make a due comparison of the several Passages both in this and other Treatises of our Author relating to this Subject they might without much difficulty have been convincâ—d of their Error As far as I am capable of penetrating into the Matter it is the word Princeps or Prince which sticks most closely in their Stomachs not considering That the Words Summi Imperantes or Sovereigns and that of Princeps or Prince are Synoms to our Author and that out of a great many Passages in this Treatise it is sufficiently apparent that he attributes the Sovereign Power not always to one single Person but sometimes also to a Council invested with the Supream Administration of the Sovereign Authority in the Common-wealth If it were but only for that Advice given by our Author at the very beginning of his Appendix to young Lawyers to wit to take care that under the Pretence of maintaining the Prerogatives of Princes they should not be prodigal of their Liberty and Property and his asserting the Foundation of Civil Societies to be built upon the Common Consent of mutual Defence against Violences This alone I say might be a convincing Argument to any unbyass'd Person that his Aim was very remote from maintaining an Arbitrary Power in the State The next thing laid to our Author's Charge is that he so entirely separates the Christian Religion from the State as not to have the least Interference with one another whereas the contrary is now a-days practised in most Christian Staâ—â—s and in the Commonwealth of the Jews instituted by God s peculiar Direction this Union was inseparable It cannot be denied but that the outward Form of Church Government especially among the Protestants is in a great measure and in most places adapted to that of the State it being evident that most of the Monarchical States Episcopacy as most suitable with that Constitution was never abolished as on the contrary the same was quite extirpated in the Protestant Common-wealths This is most particularly observable among the Lutherans who tho' all agreeing in Point of Doctrine are nevertheless so far different from one another in the Ceremonial Point and outward Form of Church Government that in outward Appearance they seem'd to be so many several Churches Thus in the two Northern Kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark the Episcopal Authority tho' much diminished in its Revenues is retained to this day whereas in some Commonwealths in Germany where the same Religion is Established it is quite abolished and not the least footsteps of Subordination of Priests to be met with But this Objection is easily cleared if we take into due Consideration that it being the Intention of our Author to represent in those places Reliligion in its genuine and native Constitution freed from all what is foreign to its true Genius he did not think it convenient to clog it with any thing that was not an Essential part of it especially when his chief aim was to shew the real difference betwixt the Christian and Jewish Religion There are also not a few who prompted by a preposterous Zeal have imputed to our Author a certain kind of Libertinism in Religion for which I can see no other Reason than that they are dissatisfied with his Assertions against any thing that has the least resemblance of Persecution upon the score of Difference of Opinions I am well satisfied that the Reasons alledged by him are so solid in themselves and so exactly applied to this Purpose that they cannot but be Convincing to all such as are not prepossâ—ssed either with By Interest or a most stupid Ignorance For if the Slavery of the Body be absolutely repugnant to the Inclinations of a generous Soul How much more insupportable must the Slavery of the Mind be to a sublime Genius elevated above the common Sphere of bigotted Zealots Ignorance being the Mother of perverted Zeal and consequently of a persecuting Spirit the same ought to be look'd upon as the common Enemy of all such as are guided by the Light of true Reason I cannot but take notice here that our English Modern Clergy has of late gain'd so peculiar a Character of following so closely these footsteps of convincing such as differ from them in Opinion rather by strength of Argument than any forcible Means that I do not know whether
16. 1. 2 Cor. 8. 2 3 8. noble and excellent than â—â— other spiritual Gifts Alms are the only Taxes which belong to the Church and these also cannot be exacted 1 Tim. 5. 16. by the Sovereign Authority of the Church Tho' it be undeniable that every Church is obliged Phil. 4. 1â— Cor 9. â—◠〈…〉 to maintain its Ministers In the 2 Epist to the Corinthians c. 11. 28. St. Paul professeâ— That the Care of all the Churches lies upon him to strengthen those that were weak and to obâ—â—ate Scandals And in the next following Chapter he says That the Church of Corinth is an no wise inferior to other Churches which were planted by others who had exercised the Apostolical Function before him Neither is any thing to be met withal in the Holy Scripture which proves the Subordination of one Church to another Nay the Congregations of small Towns and even of private Families are often stiled Churches as those of vast Cities and those particular Churches which 1 Thâ—â— 2. 14. 2 Thâ—â— 1. 4. were planted in Judea are called the Churches of God In the Epistle to the Ephesians c. 1. 22. c. 5. 23. and to the Colossianâ— c. 1 18 24. Christ is called the Head of the Body of the Church which he has presented to himself a glorious Church not having Spot or Wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be Holy and without Blemish sanctified by Christ's Redemption and Ephes 5. 26 27. cleansed with the washing of Water by the Word What Qualifications are required in a Bishop or a Governour of a particular Church is expressed in the 1 Epistle to Timothy c. 3. 2. and following Verses in the 2 Epistle to Timothy c. 4. 2. in the Epistle to Titus c. 1. 2 8 9 and c. 2. 7. All which if duely examined have a relation meerly to the Purity of his Doctrine and his being blameless in his Behaviour and do not in the least savour of any thing properly belonging to the Supream Governours of a State For it is said that he must be the Husband of one Wife Vigilant Sober of a good Behaviour given to Hospitality apt to Teach Not given to Wine no Striker not greedy of Filthy Lucre but patient not a Bawler not Covetous One that ruled well his own House having his Children in Subjection with all Gravity Not a Novice not lifted up with Pride All which are such Vertues as belong properly to a Teacher or a private Person In the 1 Epistle to Timothy c. 3. 15. the Church is called the House of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The Pillar and Ground of Truth like we are used to affix Proclamations to great Pillars to the view of every body Tho' some antient Manuscripts refer these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth to the following Sentence the Preceding ending with the words The Church of the living God Then begins a new Sentence thus The pillar and ground of Truth and without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh c. So that in this sense this Passage is parallel to what Christ told St. Peter by St. Matthew c. 16. 18. and to that of St. John c. 20. 31. The Titles of Honour belonging to the Christian Church are recited in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 12. 22. where it is called The mount of Sion the City of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem the innumerable Company of Angels the General Assembly and Church of the first Born which are written in Heaven where God is the Judge of all and Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and the Sperit of just Men made perfect And in the Revelation c. 2. 3. the Churches of Asia are praised for their good Deeds and their Vices exposed with a severe Commination that if they did not repent their Candlestick which is the Doctrine of the Gospel should be taken away from them which is sufficient to shew that the Light of the Gospel may be extinguished in particular Churches All these passages if duely compared and examined do not furnish us with any Matter proving the Christian Church to be a State or to have any resemblance to a Temporal Sovereignty The Condition of the primitive Church was such as not to permit a Sovereignty within it self § 31. But besides what has been said already a great many Reasons may be alledged which sufficiently prove that it was not in the power of the Apostles to plant a Church resembling in Power to a Temporal Sovereignty if they had entertained any Thoughts of attempting a Design both unnecessary and illegal The common Security is the main End of every Government whereby Men are enabled to defend themselves by their united strength against all Injuries which cannot be performed without a considerable number of stout and well appointed Men. But the Name of the Church is often given to the Congregations of an indifferent Town nay even of private Families And does not our Saviour himself Mat. 1â— 20. say Where two or three are gathered in my Name there am I in the midst of them Which moved Tertullian to say Three make up a Church as well as a Colledge And where Christ is in the midst of a Congregation certainly there cannot be wanting sufficient Means to obtain Salvation viz. the Word the Minister and the Sacraments so that the end and scope of the Christian Religion may be attained to even in an indifferent numerous Congregation of the Believers Neither does the greater number of the Believers joyned in one Church like a vast number of People is necessary for the erecting of a State in it self considered add any thing or is necessary for the obtaining the end of the Christian Religion it being indifferent in regard of obtaining Salvation whether a Man worship God in a great or small Congregation From whence this inference may be made That in case the greatest part of the Church should separate it self from the others the rest notwithstanding all this may pursue and obtain the End of the Christian Faith Quite otherwise as it is with Temporal Commonweaths where if the greatest part of its Inhabitants happen to be rooted out the rest will be thereby disinabled to maintain the State These Qualifications belonging to Subjects especially to such of them as are to be preferred before others in a State either for their Usefulness or the honour of the Commonwealth are not esteemed the same in the Church so that he who does not excel in Riches Strength or Wisdom shall therefore not be deemed a good Christian Furthermore 1 Cor. 20. 21 22. those that pretend to lay the Foundation of a new State must have Territories belonging to them where their new Subjects may settle themselves and their Fortunes And all such as live or are seated in a Commonwealth if they pretend to set up a new State must either transplant themselves into another Country or
else overturn that Government under which they then live So when Moses delivered the Israelites from the Aegyptian Bondage he led them into the Desarts of Arabia And when Romulus had resolved to erect a new Commonwealth he first withdrew himself from the Subjection of the Kings of Alba and such of the Neighbouring Countries as were for being Members of that new Commonwealth did leave their former Habitations and settled themselves in Rome But neither Christ nor his Apostles did ever remove Christians from their Habitations to other Places but allowed every body to remain in the same Station and under the same Government without the least prejudice to the former Rights of their Sovereigns over them From whence it is evident that the Christians tho' never so numerous could not be in a condition to settle themselves under any one State of their own For since according to the Rules of the Christian Religion the Rights of Sovevereigns over their Subjects Lives and Goods are not taken away or impair'd and no body can be subject to two Masters there could be no pretence of erecting a new Sovereignty especially in the midst of another Common-wealth nay it was beyond their Power even to enter into such a Society as should be in the least prejudicial to the Rights of their present Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 1â— Sovereigns Who can be so ignorant in civil Affairs as not to understand what prodigious Sums of Money are required for the maintainig of a State And tho the Rights of Sovereigns do not extend so far as to take away from Subjects the private disposal of their Goods nevertheless may they lawfully restrain the Extravagancy of their Subjects if they pretend to dispose of their Goods in prejudice of the State For if this Liberty should be granted to the Subjects without limitation the State if deprived oâ— its nourishment would quickly be reduced to a languishing condition or else private Men might be enabled to erect a new State in the midst of the old one or at least to impair and endanger the Publick Safety And since those Sovereigns under whose Jurisdiction the Apostles lived had the same Right over the Fortunes of their Subjects as other Governments have and the Rights of Sovereigns were not taken away by the Doctrine of Christ there could be no other provision made for the maintainance of those Congregations as such but what was consistent with the lawful Rights of their Sovereigns and as much only as might lawfully be given by private Persons which could not exceed a private Fortune and were nothing more than Voluntary Contributions or Alms And whatsoever of any real Estate was attributed to these Uses was thereby not exempted from paying of Taxes no more than the Estates of other Subjects § 32. But if we take a full view of the The inward Structure of the Church is quite different from that of a State whole Structure of Civil Societies and by what means Subjects were united under one Government we shall find them to differ as Heaven and Earth from that Union which belongs properly to the Body of a Church If we trace that Original of Civil Societies or Commonwealths it is evident that Men having found the Inconveniencies and Dangers which attended a solitary Life in the free natural State did enter and unite themselves into Societies for their common Security And having agreed to a certain Form of Government did constitute one certain Person or a Counsel who were to be the supream Governours of that Society unto whom they submitted themselves and their fortunes for the common Benefit of that Society But Churches were erected upon quite another Foundation For here Men being made sensible of their miserable condition did not by their own accord and a general agreement turn themselves to God Almighty but being on the contrary overwhelmed with Darkness and Ignorance so as to be over secure and neglecting their own Salvation God did send his Messengers among them commanding all men every where to repent Here is not the least Acts 1â— 30. footstep of any general Agreement of Men to erect and submit themselves under one Church but each particular Person for himself without any respect or regard to others did follow Christ and his Doctrine And whereas in a Civil State the whole family has its dependency from their Master and enjoys all the Privileges belonging to them under his Protection it is quite different in the Church where the Wife is not obliged to follow her Husband's Religion nor the Servant the Master So were in the family of 1 Cor. 7. 12. 21. Nacissus who himself was not a Christian several Christian Servants who are saluted as such by S. Paul And in this sense is to be â—â—m 16. â—â— taken what is said by Christ He that loved Father or Mother Son or Daughter more than me is not worthy of me As likewise Mat. 10. 3â— c 12 5â— Luk. 1â— â—6 what is mentioned concerning Divisions Discords Dissensions which are to be raised by the Doctrine of Christ among the nearest Friends is to be understood of the strict Union betwixt Christ and the Believers which surpasses and is to be preferred before all the Tyes of Consangninity among Men. So Mat. â—0 34. that if a Father Husband or Master should turn Apostate the Son Wife or Servant are not obliged to follow their footsteps Neither is it requisite to be solicitous about any particular or certain Form of Government in the Church viz. whether the same ought to be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical For these seveveral Forms belonging only to a Civil Government are very preposterously made use of in the behalf of the Church which is far different from a Temporal State And as Churches and Commonwealths are erected for different Ends so the Offices belonging to both are altogether of a different Nature Who is so ignorant as not to know that for the obtaining the Ends of Civil Societies it was requisite to constitute various Degrees of Dignities appertaining to the Managers of the State whereas the most plain and natural Distinction betwixt Christians in reference to the Church is only that of Teachers and Auditors § 33. Besides all this the Teachers in a 9 There is a great difference betwixt Teachers in a Church and the Governours of a State Church do not only differ from Temporal Governours in a State in that these are constituted for different Ends But the main Difference is the very nature of their Constitution We will not insist here upon the Point of Succession by which a great many Sovereigns obtain their Sovereign Power which is quite otherwise in the Church But we will only treat in this place concerning the different Constitution betwixt Teachers and such Sovereigns as exercise the Supream Civil Power by Vertue of Election When therefore the Sovereign Power is lodged in any Persons by Election the rest who have thus chosen them their
Supream Governour do thereby submit themselves to the Disposal of those their Sovereigns in such a manner as to oblige themselves that whatsoever they think conducing for the publick Welfare shall be taken as such by the whole Body and that they will always be ready to execute their Commands Wherefore Sovereigns are always invested with a full Power to force their Subjects to a compliance with their Commands by inflicting Punishments â—pon them But how is it possible to imagine that any Church or Congregation of the Believers should ever or ought to submit themselves so entirely to the Pleasure and Disposal of their Teachers as to oblige themselves to acquiesce barely in and to follow blindly whatever shall be proposed by them as conducing and leading to the way of Salvation it being certain without contradiction that none of the Believers do entirely submit themselves and their Faith to any Body but to God Almighty whose Will and Commands ought to be interpreted by the Teachers of the Church and their Auditors to be exhorted to a due Compliance with them For whoever it be that proposes any Doctrine surpassing human Reason if he pretends to gain credit by his Auditors must either claim it by Virtue of his own Authority or by Compulsion or by Virtue of a more Superiour Power But any Man that offers Matters not agreeable to Reason does thereby expose himself and so looses his Authority except he can by other more powerful means maintain his Doctrine and gain credit with his Auditors It was for this Reason that to the Greeks who were Men that sought after Wisdom and Reason the Preaching of the Apostles was Foolishness And S. Paul was for the same Reason nick-named 1 Cor. 1. 23. a Babler by the Athenian Philosophers Neither is any human Power capable of enforcing Acts 17. 18. the Mysteries of Faith and the Christian Doctrine upon People for which reason Christ told his Apostles Go and Teach and Believe and that with all your hearts to obtain which all human means which imply any Temporal Advantages or are forcible in their own nature are to be taken for Trifles and insufficient There is then no other Way left but that such Doctrines must be verified by a Superiour Being or Principle Mark 16. 20. viz. the Grace of God which always accompanies the Gospel and those Miracles wherewith the Apostles antiently authorized their Acts 14. â— Heb. 2 4. Doctrine Tho' it is at the same time undeniable that since the Gospel is sufficiently spread abroad in the World we do not now any more stand in need of such Miracles In the same manner as the Thunder and Lightning which were heard at the Publishing of the Ten Commandments were never repeated afterwards among the Jews The Christians therefore have submitted their Faith and Reason only to Christ whose Authority is unquestionable as being God himself and was testified by his Father's Voice from Heaven when he said This is my beloved Son in whom Mat. â— 17. Luk. 3. 22. I am well pleased And as the People of Israel willingly submitted their Faith to Moses as soon as he had given them plain Demonstrations of his Divine Commission so were Exod 20. 19. they obliged to subimt their Faith to the Apostles after they had once verified their Divine Commission by their Miracles Tho' it cannot be denied but that their Doctrine did sometimes produce good Effects without Miracles It is therefore very observable that when they preached and taught their Doctrine to such as were â—well versed in the Old Testament they did not take it amiss if their Auditors examined their Words whether they were consonant with the Prophesies contained therein From whence it is sufficently Acts 1â—â—â— apparent that no body ought to engage himself unto a blind Obedience of such Teachers as cannot verifie their immediate Divine Commission by Miracles so as to make his Faith absolutely dependant from their Doctrine without Exception but only so far as their Doctrine is sound agreeable to the Doctrine of those who had given manifest demonstrations of their divine Authority And for this Reason it is 〈◊〉 it â—â— not sufficient for a Teacher in the Church to say so it is and so it shall and must â—â— But he lies under an indispensible Obligation of maâ—â—ing it plain and apparent that what 〈…〉 to his Auditor is absolutely 〈◊〉 to the Doctrine published by Christ and his Apostles Neither ought the Auditors pâ—â— their Faith upon the Authority of their Teachers but to refer themselves to the Authority of God and his Word which is the Touchstone by which the Teachers Doctrine into be examined and approved The Schools of Philosophers used to take their Names from their Chief Teachers or Founders as we may observe in the Schools of Plato Aristoteles and Zeno But the Church ought to have no other Name but that she is the Church of God or Christ It was upon that score when S. Paul rebuked the Corinthians because some of them said they were of Paul some of Apollo some of Cephas and 1 Cor. 1 12 some of Christ So that since the holy Scripture is now established among us Christians ought not to be like the Disciples of Pythagoras who used for their Motto that old Saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He himself has spoken it But they have sufficient Authority to look themselves into the Holy Scripture and to examine whether the Doctrine of their Teachers be agreeable to the Doctrine of our Saviour For Christ when he said search â—â—e Scriptures did not only speak to his Disciples but to his Auditors in general And Joh. 5. 39. 1 Thes â— 21. 1 Joh 4â— S. Paul bid us to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good S. John says that we shall try the Spirits whether they are of God Neither can I conceive how the Examination of our selves which S. Paul so highly recommends to all that intend to be 1 Cor 11. 28 Partakers of the Lords Supper can be duely performed without meditating the Scriptures For in this case I take the condition of a Teacher and of a Physician to be quite different it being only required in the latter to understand the Art of Physick and to apply the same to his Patients which may be done with good Success tho' they be never so ignorant But it is not sufficient for a Teacher of a Church to be alone versed in the Articles of the Christian Religion that Church being to be deemed most excellent where the Auditors are not inferiour to their Teachers in the Cognition of the Mysteries of the Faith For the Apostles did not shun to declare unto Mankind all the Counsel Act. â—0 â—7 of God having not committed the Christian Doctrine to the care and custody of one particular Person who was to be the only Interpreter of it as the Sibyllin Oracles were antiently at Rome in the Custody of the
reason God has threatned in a most peculia manner to destroy this Monster of a State An Example of Controversie composed in the times of the Apostles § 37. The true Method of composing Controversies arisen in the Church is taught us by what is set us as an Example of this kind in the Acts c. 15. where it deserves our most particular Observation that the Controversy then in question was concerning a main Point in the Christian Religion viz. Whether a man might be saved without being circumcised according to the Institution of Moses For S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians c. 5. 2. had positively declared If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And it is very remarkable that this Question was started in the very Infancy of the Church when the Canon of the Church was not perfected and there were not wanting living Testimonies of such as had received the Doctrine of Christ from his own mouth and were endued with the Holy Ghost and Instructed with an Apostolical Authority Neither is it to be doubted but that Paul and Barnabas were endued with a sufficient Share of Wisdom and Understanding of the Holy Scripture for the reducing of this Errour as plainy appears out of the 5. verse of the above alledged Chapter that they opposed Act. 1◠such forcible Reasons against this erroneous Opinion that those that were come thither out of Judea were not able to contradict them So they appealed to the Authority of the Church of Jerusalem which being the V 2. Spring from whence the Christian Religion was derived into other Parts of the World they hoped to be back'd in this Opinion by such of the Members of that Church as did not without some Reluctancy brook the Abolishing of the Jewish Synagogue and that they were not quite beyond their guess but met with a great many there that were addicted to the same Opinion appears out of the 5th Verse in the same 15th Chapter To prevent therefore any further Disturbance which might be raised in the Antiochian Church by reason of this Controversie Paul and Barnabas with some others were deputed to go to the Church of Jerusalem to decide this Controversie When they came thither a Convocation was called consisting not only of the Apostles and Presbyters but also of the other Members of that Church not excepting those of the contrary side After their Reasons had been heard the Case was in debate a considerable time and at last the whole matter having been sufficiently disputed on both sides then Peter rose up not as an universal Judge or who pretended to decide the Controversie by Virtue of his Authority but his Proceeding was by demonstrative Arguments telling them what prodigious Effects had been wrought among the Gentiles by his preaching the Gospel to them after the Vision which appeared to him at Joppe Where Act. 11 9 he thus argues That since the Holy Ghost had in the same measure purified the Hearts of those Believers that were uncircumcised it would be unreasonable to put this Yoak upon the Neck of the Christians the more because they were not to be saved by Circumcision but through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ Paul and Barnabas being of the same Opinion did declare at the same time what Miracles and Wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them which would not have been done if they were to be taken for unsanctified as being not circumcised or if Circumcision was an essential Part of the Christian Faith After all had held their Peace that is to say no body further appearing who could contradict them or oppose their Arguments James at last arose declaring that the Vision of Peter did agree to the Words of the Prophets and that therefore it was his Opinion that such among the Centiles as did turn to Christ ought not to be troubled But that they also in some measure might gratifie themselves and to induce them not to fly the Conversation of such of the Gentiles as received the Christian Faith it was thought sit that these should abstain from Pollution of Idols from Fornication from things strangled and from Blood all which was forbidden by the Mosaic Law and partly disagreeable to the Law of Nature as Fornication which nevertheless was a common Vice among the Gentiles the rest being things indifferent in themselves might easily be let alone rather than give Offence to a Brother This having been approved of by common Consent and as it appears even by those that were of a contrary Sentiment before a Synodical Epistle was writ to the Church at Antioch in the name not only of those Apostles and Elders but also of the Brethren of the Church of Jerusalem Judas and Silas were deputed to carry this Epistle who being arrived at Antioch did not publish it in the nature of a Law but having delivered it to the Brethren from whom it met with a general Approbation they exhorted them with many words to a due Observance of it § 38. If the whole matter be duly weighed Some Observations concerning the natura and use of Councils it furnishes us with several Observations which may not a little contribute towards the Explaining the Nature of Ecclesiastical Councils In the first place it is most apparent that these Councils are not such Bodies whose Authority is everlasting for the Government of the Church But that they are extraordinary Convocations or Conventions composed out of some selected and most eminent Men of the Church who are called together for the composing certain Controversies arisen in the Church And because those Councils were very frequent in the Church from its Primitive times this alone may serve as a convincing argument that the Church never acknowledged one infallible Judge for the deciding of Controversies For to what purpose were so many Heads set to work if one single Person was sufficient and infallible in the Decision of them And what is yet more if the Decrees of the Councils had only their obliging Force from his Confirmation Furthermore those that compose such a Council are not to be considered as Members of an Assembly or Colledge who by the Majority of Votes can so absolutely determine the Question in hand as to be obligatory to all Christians in general Truth generally speaking not depending from the Plurality of Suffrages much less can they pretend to a legislative Power vested in them so as to impose what Laws or Canons they please upon the Church But they may be considered no otherwise than Men deputed by the Churches for the examining the true Grounds of the Controversies laid before them and for searching for the Decision of them in the Holy Scripture So that these Churches are not obliged to acquiesce in this Decision any further than they find it agreeable to the Word of God For it may chance to fall out so that a Controversie which appears at first sight very intricate and difficult afterwards being
of the Church was either for a time deprived from enjoying the benefit of the Publick Worship or entirely excluded from being a Member of the Church This being the utmost unto which any Colledge can pretend viz. entirely to exclude a Member of their Society This Exclusion tho' in it self considered of the greatest moment since thereby a Christian was deprived of the whole Communion with the Church Nevertheles did not alter the Civil State or Condition of a Subject But those that were thus excommunicated suffered no loss in their Dignities Honour Rights or Fortunes For that the Church Censures should extend to the real Prejudice of the civil Condition of any Subject is not any ways requisite for the obtaining the Ends for which the Church is Established Neither can it be supposed that without defrauding Sovereigns of their Right such a Power can be exercised over Subjects unless with their own Consent and by vertue of a publick Civil Authority § 40. The next thing which deserves our Consideration is whether the Church is and Concerning the condition of the Church under Christian Princes how far it received any Alteration from its former Condition after Princes whole Kingdoms and States did profess the Christian Religion Where it is to be observed That the Churches did thereby not receive any essential Perfection it being evident that the Christian Religion could be exercised and subsist without the State and Commonwealths did not depend from the Christian Religion The scope of the Christian Religion and of civil Governments being quite different in their own nature For our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Conversation Phil. 3. 20. 2 Cor. 5 ◠8. 1 Cor. 14 19. is in Heaven and if in this Life only we have hope in Christ we are of all Men most miserable For this Reason it was that the Apostles were never forward to appear before Princes tho' they might have obtained an easie Access by their miraculous Deeds So Herod was exceeding glad when he saw Jesus because he hoped to have seen some Miracle done Luke 23. 8. by him But they were very cautious in this point lest it might appear to some as if the Gospel wanted to be maintained by Human Strength or that perhaps those Princes might pretend to a greater Authority over them than was consistent with the safety of the Christian Religion Notwithstanding all this the Christian Religion does not in any wise impair or ecclipse the legal Rights of Sovereigns but rather confirms and establishes the civil Power Mat. 22. 21. Joh. 18. 2. Rom. 13. 1 Cor. 35. 24. as is apparent out of several passages in the holy Scripture If it should be granted that the Church was a State independent from any temporal Jurisdiction the consequence would be this That the civil Power could not but receive a most remarkable Limitation and Diminution and the condition of a Subject must receive a great alteration whereas on the other hand the condition of Christians or of Teachers in the Church considered as such is neither abolished nor altered because either the Prince or the Subjects in general do receive the Christian Faith there being not the least footstep to be met withal in the Scriptures implying any such alteration Besides this there is not any express Command in the New Testament directed to Sovereigns which entitles them to any particular Prerogative in the Church like to that which the Kings of Israel had received in the 17 Chap. of Deuteronomy From whence arises this conclusion that what right Sovereigns can claim in the Church and Church Affairs must be deduced either out of the natural constitution of the civil Power or out of the true Genius of the Christian Religion or else must owe its off-spring to the free consent of the Church § 41. Out of what has been laid down it Churches do not alter their nature of being a Colledge appears first of all that if a Prince or whole Commonwealth do receive the Doctrine of Christ the Church does thereby not receive any other Alteration as to her natural Constitution but that whereas she was formerly to be considered only as a private Society or Colledge yet such a one as being subordinate to the Law and therefore to be cherished by the Higher Powers who had no legal Right to disturb prosecute or destroy it She now being put under the particular Protection of her Sovereigns enjoys a greater share of Security and is beyond the reach of the Persecutions of the Infidels Notwithstanding this the Church is thereby not exalted from a Colledge to a State since by the receiving of the Christian Religion the civil Government does not undergo any Alteration or Diminution On the contrary Sovereigns loose nothing of their legal Rights neither are Subjects in any wise absolved from their Duties and Obligations For it implies a contradiction that a double Sovereignty and two different sorts of Obligations in the Subject should be lodged in one and the same Commonwealth It is a frivolous Objection that the Church and civil Government have different Ends and Objects not repugnant to one another For from thence is not to be inferred that the Church must be a State or that the Christian Religion cannot be propagated maintained or exercised without the Church assume the same Power that belongs to the civil Government In these places therefore where the whole People and the Prince profess the Christian Religion the Commonwealth receives the Church into its Protection and tho' strictly united there is no collision or emulation betwixt them nor does either of them receive any prejudice in their respective Rights but without the least Interference with one another the Church remains a Colledge whereof the Prince and all the Subjects are now become Members So that each Subject besides the Person he represented in the State has assumed that of a Christian and in this respect is esteemed a Member of the Church Neither is every one to be considered in the Church according to the Station or Dignity he bears in the Commonwealth but these Qualifications are as it were laid aside there and he is only regarded as a Christian So that the General of an Army cannot claim any Prerogative to himself in the Church beyond the private Centinel And it is past all doubt that one and the same Man may represent several Persons according to the several Functions and Obligations belonging to him § 42. It is also according to my Opinion 〈…〉 made Bishops beyond question that Kings Princes or other civil Magistrates by receiving the Christian Doctrine are not constituted Bishops or Teachers in the Church this Function not properly belonging to every Christian but only to such as have a lawful Vocation and are fitly qualified for it Besides this the Royal Office and that of Teachers are of such a nature that they cannot conveniently be Administred by one and the same Person not because of any natural repugnancy betwixt
Religion But in case Divines out of other Countries are to be called unto this Convocation or Assembly it is I think a plain case that these cannot appear there without leave first obtained from their Sovereigns And if a Council should be called consisting of selected Divines out of a great many Common-wealths this cannot be done without a foregoing Agreement made betwixt those Sovereigns that are concerned therein For it is not allowable for Subjects of another State to come to us upon such an Account noâ— can ours go to them upon such an Errand unless by joint Consent of the higher Powers And since Sovereigns cannot claim any Jurisdiction over one another there will be no place left for any Prerogative but Matters must be transacted according to mutual Contract § 47. For what Reasons the Primitive Theâ—r Right concerning Church-Discipline Christians did introduce Church Discipline viz. to be distinguished from the Heathens by their holy Life and Conversation and to supply the Defects of the civil Pagan Laws which did not restrain them from such Vices as were abominable to the Christians has been sufficiently explained before This Reason takes no more place now after whole Commonwealths as well as their Sovereigns are entred into the Communion of the Christian Church for there is not the same Occasion now to be distinguished from the Heathens by an unspotted Conversation after the rooting out of the Pagan Religion all Christians being under an equal Obligation to endeavour an unblemished Life But notwithstanding the general Conversion of whole Commonwealths to the Christian Faith care ought to be taken that Holiness of Life be not laid aside among Christians from whence arises this Question Whether it be better to make use of the antient Church Discipline now in the same manner as it was practised in the Primitive times Or whether it be not more expedient to admit of some Alterations after Sovereigns are entred into the Communion of the Church The last of these two seems to be most probable because this antient Church Discipline which was introduced for a certain time to supply the deficiency of the Pagan Laws and to amend their vicious Lives and Conversation and was thus left to the direction of certain People is not an Essential part of Christianity and besides this carries this Inconveniency along with it that it may easily degenerate into a kind of a pretended Soveraignty and prove prejudicial to the Civil Power And as Soveraigns have a Right to provide against every thing that may be the probable cause of Convulsions in the State so may this defect be supplied by the Civil Laws and Vices may be suppressed by Civil Punishments Neither do I see any reason to the contrary why Vices should not be as easily corrected by Punishments prescribed by the Civil Laws as by Church-Censures or why the first should not prove as effectual as the latter for the suppressing of Publick Scandals It will perhaps be objected That Ecclesiastical Discipline has a much greater Influence over Christians towards the amendment of their Lives than Civil Punishments because the first penetrates into the Heart whereas Civil Punishments do not touch us but superficially Unto this it may be answered That Church-Discipline does not always answer this end it being not to be doubted but that some Men tho' they undergo all the Church-Penances retain in their hearts the same vicious Inclinations or sometimes grow more stubborn and bold But if it be taken as an Expiation for our Sins in regard of God Almighty it is to be observed that if we pretend to an Expiation for any Trespasses which fall under the cognizance of Humane Laws we must therein be directed by the Word of God which does not prescribe Church-Penance as a proper Satisfaction in this case For our sins are not remitted because we have undergone Church-Penance but because our Hearts are purified by the Blood of Christ provided we by the Faith apply his Sufferings unto us But supposing it should be thought most convenient that some sort of Vices ought to be corrected by Church-Discipline the best Expedient would be to leave it first to the determination of the Civil Judges who according to the Circumstances of the Case ought to send the Delinquents to the Ecclesiastical Court there to undergo the Church-Censure For Christian Soveraigns have an unquestionable Right to determine what sort of Misdemeanors are punishable by the Civil Laws and which of them come under the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Courts and consequently to decree what sort of Church-Censure ought to be laid upon the Delinquents according to the different Nature of the Trespass which may be put in Execution by the Ministers accordingly Concerning Excommunication the same ought not to be put in Practice but with this caution that it ought not to be left to the discretion of Priests so as to be inflicted by them aâ— pleasure but this Power ought to be limited by certain Rules prescribed by those that have the Legislative Power in a State For in a Christian Commonwealth Excommunication alters the Civil Condition of a Subject and â—enders him infamous and detestable among his fellow-Christians And as it affects the Civil State of Subjects Soveraigns unless they will let others encroach upon their Prerogative ought to determine concerning its Legality § 48. Since the Christian Religion does not Concerning the Power of making Ecclesiastical Canons or Statutes in any wise diminish the Rights of Soveraigns these if entred into the Communion of the Church have a Power to examine what Canons or Ecclesiastical Statutes are received in the Church and if some of them are found superfluous or interfering with the Soveraign Power to abolish the same and if there appears any deficiency to supply what is wanting towards the maintaining a good Order and the Glory of the Church which however ought not to be done without the Advice at least of the chief Men of the Church and lastly give to those Statutes the force of Civil Laws This Power nevertheless of making Ecclesiastical Statutes must be exercised with a great deal of caution the same being limited to the outward form of the Church-Government and to maintain its Order and Decency Christians being not to be over-heap'd with a vast number of Canons For those that stretch Colos 2. 16. 21 22. 1 Tim. 4. â—4 the Power of Soveraigns to such a pitch as to make them the absolute Judges of the Christian Religion and to attribute to them a Right of establishing certain Articles of Faith by Civil Laws or to annex to them a force equal to the Civil Constitutions and to force upon their Subjects a certain Religion under severe Penalties or oblige them either to profess or to deny certain Points of Doctrine which are controverted amongst Christians These I say act quite contrary to the true Genius of the Christian Religion and to the Method made use of by Christ and his Apostles for the
Religion ought to be declared Erroneous before it be duely examined and the Parties convicted especially if they are ready to prove the same out of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith And great care is to be taken that such a Decision be not left to the Management of their Adversaries who being perhaps guided by self Interest oftentimes are both Accusers and Judges There are not a few Politicians who are of opinion that Sovereigns may with a safe Conscience give Protection to their Subjects tho' of an erroneous Opinion provided it be for the benefit of the Commonwealth especially if care be taken that they do not draw away others into the same Error For supposing the established Religion both in point of Doctrine and Morality to excel all others it is to be hoped that the Dissenting Parties may be in time brought over to it rather than to be feared that they should seduce others Besides that it may contribute to the encrease of the Zeal and Learning of the established Clergy it being sufficiently proved by Experience that in those places and times where and when no Religious Differences were in agitation the Clergy soon degenerated into Idleness and Barbarity § 51. Furthermore as Sovereigns in all other Sovereigns in matters of Religion ought not to be misguided by Flatterers Matters of Moment ought to act with great Circumspection so especially in matters of Religion they cannot proceed with too much caution an injustice of this nature being the most sensible of all that can be done to a Subject For what can be more abominable than to let Subjects suffer unjustly for their Faith in Christ and that perhaps for no other reason but because some others out of self Interest cannot agree with them in Opinion And if a Prince who prompted by his own cruel Inclinations tyrannises over his Subjects is odious to all the World how much more abominable appears a Prince who acts the part of an Executioner and is made an Instrument by others to fulfil their cruel Designs against their Fellow Subjects All Christian Princes therefore as they tender their Consciences ought to avoid all manner of Extreamities in Matters of this Nature which ought never to be undertaken unless they be well instructed beforehand in every particular Point A Prince ought not only to be satisfyed with or rely entirely on what is represented to him by his Clergy tho' never so pious in outward appearance there being too many Instances to be given that the best of Princes by their own Inclinations abhorring all manner of Cruelty have by the Instigation of over-zealous Clergy-Men turn'd the most cruel Tyrants We scarce ever read of any Prince who undertook to decide Controversies in Physick or other Sciences except he had attained to a particular Knowledge in these Matters and why should Sovereigns be too forward in deciding Religious Differences which are of much greater Moment the eternal and temporal welfare of Millions of People do depend thereon unless they be very well instructed in every thing that has any relation to it And since Princes very rarely bestow sufficient Time and Pains in being fully instructed in Divinity it is to be wished that they would be byassed by their own natural Understanding rather than be influenc'd by the Opinions of others As for an Instance in those Controversies which are betwixt the Protestants and Papists there are such evident Signs from whence it is a difficult matter for a Christian Prince to discern which of these two ought to be preferred before the other For if it be considered that the Protestants are so far from forbidding the reading of the holy Scripture to the Laity that on the contrary they exhort them to it and make the Scriptures the Touchstone of their Doctrine and the true Judge of their Controversies That the Protestants trusting upon the goodness of their own Cause do not forbid the reading of Popish Authors but allow them to be publickly sold as being confident that the weakness of their Arguments cannot have any influence even over an indifferent Understanding it cannot but seem very strange why in the Church of Rome the Laity is not allowed the reading of the holy Scripture nay that they leave no stone unturn'd to suppress the Validity of the holy Scripture so that in those places where the Inquisition is in vogue a Man may with less danger be guilty of Blasphemy Perjury and other the most enormous Crimes than to read and examine the Mysteries of the holy Scripture On the other hand what a clamour do they make about Traditions and the Prerogatives of the Church which Title they claim as belonging in a most peculiar manner to themselves and notwithstanding the same is not allowed them by others they assume to themselves the Authority of giving Judgment in their own Cause It is very well worth the Consideration of a Prince that they will not allow our Books to be read among them and especially how careful they are in keeping them from the Knowledge of Great Men tho' belonging to the Communion of their Church Who is so ignorant as not to know what great Difficulties and Obstacles were to be surmounted before it could be obtained that the Augsburgh Confession was read to the Emperour Charles V. All which taken together are most evident Proofs to any unbyassed Person that the Protestants act like Men as relying upon the goodness of their Cause but the Roman Catholicks as mistrusting themselves and fearing that if their Doctrine should be examined according to the Tenure of the holy Scripture and out of the Protestant Wrttings the same would scarce bear the Touchstone It may also be taken into consideration how far different the Interest of the Roman Catholicks Party is from that of the Protestants For tho' both Parties with equal Zeal in Publick pretend to the Honour of God and the Truth of the Gospel and it is not to be denied but that a great many among the Roman Catholicks are very Zealous for the same nevertheless if we duely consider the Nature of Mankind in general it may easily be supposed that they aim at something more And what this something is is easily discernable if we make a due comparison betwixt the Clergy of both Parties Among the Protestants the greatest part of the Clergy are so stinted in their Revenues as to give them no opportunity of living in State what Respect is paid them is on the account of their Function as being Teachers their power very seldom reaches beyond their Revenues which are very moderate and oftentimes very mean Both their Persons and Estates depend from the Authority of their Sovereigns neither have they any where else to seek for Protection On the contrary in what Pomp and affluence of Fortune does the Popish Clergy live Unto what hight have they not exalted their Power in Europe Have they not so ordered their Matters as to be almost independant from the Civil
Clergy upon Admonition desist from these Abuses like as when a Creditor upon Summons is paid by his Debtor ought to supercede his Action against him But put the case that the Clergy either absolutely refuse or from time to time protract to desist from such Abuses so that there is but two ways left to be chosen either patiently to submit to their capricious Humour or else certain Persons in the State being damnified by these Abuses have a Right and Power to controul their Extravagancies Those that maintain the first Position must prove that the Clergy has been invested with such an unlimited Power by God Almighty to impose upon Christians even the most absurd Matters at leasure without being liable to be contrâ—â—ued by any Power upon Earth Or they must demonstrate that Christians have absolutely submitted their Faith to the Clergy and that in such a manner that every thing which should be ordained by them should be received for Truth with all imaginable submission and patience But because it would savour of too much Impudence to pretend to the first it lies then at their Door to prove that the Clergy and their Supream Head did never err either in Point of Doctrine Ceremonies or Church-Government All which having been sufficiently demonstrated to the contrary by the consent of several Christian Nations We are of Opinion that when any Abuses are crept into the Church which are prejudicial to the Commonwealth or the Authority of Sovereigns these by vertue of their Sovereign Right and Prerogative have a Power to abolish and reform all such matters as interfere with the Publick Good and Civil Authority At the same time it cannot be denyed but that in a case of such moment it may be very convenient to acquainâ— the People with the Reasons of such a Reformation lest they should be surprized at it and look upon it as an Innovation which might prove of dangerous consequence And if especially the Rights of the People are invaded by these Abuses this Reformation ought to be undertaken with the knowledge and approbation of the Subjects It may be objected that by such a Reformation Divisions are raised in the Church But this is to be look'd upon as a matter of no great Weight such a Division being not to be imputed to those that rectifie such Errors but to those that obstinately refuse to return into the right Path either out â— Self-interest or Pride There is nothing more obvious out of the antient Ecclesiastical History than that such as were plainly convicted of an Error used to be excluded from the Communion of the Church But such as begin a Reformation upon a good and legal Account can under no Colour whatsoever be accused of Schism or Rebellion For those are Rebels who by forcible Ways endeavour to withdraw themselves from the Allegiance due to their lawful Sovereign Whereas all such as free themselves from Abuses unjustly imposed upon them without their own consent or any Divine Authority rather deserve to be stiled defenders of their own Liberty and Conscience especially if these Abuses and Errors are dangerous to their Souls For no Teacher no Bishop no Convention whatsoever was ever invested with an absolute Power of domineering over Christians at pleasure so that no Remedy should be left against their Usurpation It cannot therefore but be look'd upon as a great piece of Impudence in the Roman Catholick Party when they assume to themselves wholly and entirely the Title of the Church with exclusion to all others that are not of the same Communion For they either must pretend their Church to be the Universal or else a particular Church By the Universal Church is according to the Tenure of the Holy Scripture understood the whole multitude of the Believers wheresoever dispersed in the World whose Union consists in this That they acknowledge one God one Redeemer one Baptism one Faith and Eternal Salvation from whence only are excluded such as pretend to dissolve this Union that is who deny the true God and his Son Christ and who do not agree with the very Fundamental Principles of the Christian Religion This is the true Catholick Church not the Pope with his Ecclesiasticks and Ceremonies who impose their Authority upon Christendom And since those that for weighty Reasons have withdrawn themselves from the Church of Rome may and do believe a true Baptism a true God and Father a Faith agreeable to the Holy Scripture it is evident that the Roman Church is not to be taken for the Universal Church and that a Christian may be a Member of the true Catholick Church in a right sense notwithstanding that he never was in the Communion of the Roman Church or upon better Consideration has freed himself from its Abuses and Errors But the Popish Religion considered as a particular Church as it ought to be tho' if we unravel the bottom of its modern Constitution it will easily appear that the whole frame of that Church is not so much adapted to the Rules of a Christian Congregation as to a Temporal State where under a Religious pretext the chief aim is to extend its Sovereignty over the greatest part of Europe those that have withdrawn themselves from that Communion are no more to be counted Rebels than our Modern Philosophers are to be taken for Fools and Madmen because they differ in Opinion from Aristotle For all Believers who adhere to the true Faith are in regard of their Head Jesus Christ of an equal degree and aim all at the same End And Christ having given this Promise to all Believers That where two or three were gathered together Mat. 18. 20. in his Name there would he be in the midst of them no Church can claim any Prerogative by reason of the number of its Adherents What the Romanists alledge for themselves out of the Apostolical Creed is so full of absurdity that it contradicts it self viz. out of these words I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolical Church For except they could cajole us into a belief that these words imply as much as to say There is but one true Church upon Earth which is the Roman Catholick there being no other besides that I cannot see what Inference can be drawn from thence to their Advantage Besides that the very sense of the words contradict this Interpretation if Reason the Holy Scripture and Experience it self did not sufficiently convince us to the contrary It is beyond contradiction that there is but one true Church upon Earth there being but one God one Christ one Baptism and one Faith But concerning one Point many Errors and Abuses may be committed Neither have the Popish Party any reason to brag of a particular Holiness especially concerning these matters wherein they differ from the Protestants The word Catholick relates here to a Doctrine not to a Sovereign State whose Authority is to be Universal over Christendom so that that Church is to be esteemed a Catholick Church which
he being not answerable in particular for their Religion It cannot be taken notice of without astonishment how both in former times and our Age some Princes who were naturally not enclined to Cruelty having in other respects given great Proofs of their Clemency yet have been prevailed upon to raise the most horrid Persecutions against their Subjects barely upon the score of Religion But it has been foretold in Holy Scripture that this Fate should attend the Christian Church when it is said That Mighty Kings upon Earth should commit Rev. 18. 3. Whoredom with the Whore of Babylon And who is ignorant that Gallants will often commit the most barbarous Acts meerly to please their Harlots All true Christians therefore ought couragiously to oppose the Threats and Attempts of this Beast committing the rest to Divine Providence And as for such Princes and States as have shaken off the Yoke of Popish Slavery if they seriously reflect how their fellow-Protestants are persecuted and in what barbarous manner they are treated will questionless without my Advice take such measures as may be most convenient for to secure themselves from so imminent a Danger The following ANIMADVERSIONS Made by the Author upon some Passages of a Book Entituled A POLITICAL EPITOMY Concerning the Power of Sovereigns in Ecclesiastical Affairs WRITTEN BY ADRIAN HOUTUYN Having a very near Relation to the former TREATISE it was thought sit to Insert them here by way of APPENDIX IT is a Question of the greatest moment which if rightly determined tends to the Benefit of Mankind in general viz. Unto whom and under what Limitations the Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs is to be ascribed in the State If the old Proverb That those who chuse the middle way are commonly the most successful has not lost its force it may without question be most properly applied in this Case where both Extreams are equally dangerous since thereby the Consciences of Subjects are left to the arbitrary disposal either of the Pope of Rome or their Sovereigns There having not been wanting both in the last and our Age Men eminent for their Learning who have with very solid Arguments opposed the Tyranny of the first it is but reasonable for us to take heed that since we have escaped the danger of Scylla we may not be swallowed up by Charybdis For as scarce any body that is in his right Senses can go about to deny that the Sovereign Power ows its original either to God or the general Consent of the People So it is a matter mutually advantageous both to the Prince and Subjects to understand how far this Power is limited in the State that the first may not transgress their due Bounds and instead of being Fathers of their Subjects prove their most dangerous Enemies Adrian Houtuyn a Civilian in Holland having in a Treatise called A Political Epitomy inserted several Assertions tending to the latter of these two Extremes and it having been observed of late that this Book has been recommended by some Doctors in the Law to the great detriment of young Students I thought it not amiss to make some Animadversions upon his LXIII and following SECTIONS which may serve as a Guide to the younger Sort lest they under the Cloak of asserting the Prerogatives of Sovereigns may be mislead into the latter of these Extremes and attribute that to the Prince which God has reserved as his own Prerogative and thus irrecoverably play the Prodigal with their own Liberty and Property This Author speaking concerning the Prerogative of Princes Sect. LXIII runs on thus He has an uncontroul'd Power over all External Ecclesiastical Affairs which are not determined in the Holy Scripture He alledges for a Reason because that Power is granted to Sovereigns at the same time when Subjects submitted themselves and their Fortunes to their Disposal But it ought to be taken into Consideration that certain Matters belonging to the external Exercise of Religious Worship have so strict an Union with the internal Part that if the first be not disposed in a manner agreeable to this inseparable Tye the latter must of necessity undergo such Alterations as are inconsistent with its Nature And since Mr. Houtuyn do's not leave the internal Part to the Disposal of Sovereigns how can the exterior Worship be submitted to their meer Pleasure considering this strict Union betwixt them Besides this General Submission he speaks of admits of Limitation in regard of that End for which Civil Societies were Instituted which is the mutual defence against Violences From whence it is evident that there are certain Matters belonging to every private Person derived from the State of natural Freedom which were not absolutely left to the Disposal of Sovereigns at least no further than they were necessary to obtain that End Religion having not any relation to this End it is not to be imagined that Subjects did submit their Religion to the arbitrary Pleasure of Sovereigns And it being unquestionable that Subjects may exercise certain Acts belonging to them by Vertue of an inherent Right derived from the free State of Nature and independent from their Sovereigns it may rationally be concluded that when Subjects did submit themselves in Matters of Religion to their Sovereigns it was done with this Supposition that both the Prince and Subjects were of one and the same Religion and that the external Exercise of Religious Worship was not left to the Disposal of the first any further than in such Matters as are indifferent in regard of the internal Part of it What is alledged concerning the the maintaining a good Order and avoiding of Confusion it is to be observed that this is not the main End for which Civil Societies were Instituted nor has it any relation to it but only thus far as it may be instrumental to maintain the Publick Tranquility As to N. 2. It is to be observed that because Priests have a dependance from the Civil Power in certain Respects belonging to its Jurisdiction this does not involve Religion considered as such under the same Subjection The following words ought also to be taken notice of A Christian Prince commands over the Church as being a Colledge and representing one single Person in the Commonwealth The Church thus considered is a Civil Society or Body Politick founded upon the Publick Authority and Power and ought to be regarded as being in the same condition with other Colledges and Bodies Politick and in this Sense a King is the Head of the Church in his Dominions Whoever will consider the real difference betwixt the Church and Commonwealth must needs find as many Errors as there are words here For because a Prince has the Sovereign Jurisdiction in a Commonweath consisting of Christian Subjects no inference is to be made that therefore he may in the same degree exercise his Sovereignty in the Church as in the Common-wealth and that in the same Sense he may be called The Supream Head of the Church as of the
§ LXV He entirely and without limitation ascribes to the Prince the Power of Constituting Ministers of the Gospel in the same manner as if they were Ministers of the State But in the Commonwealth of the Jews regulated according to God's own Institution no such Power was granted to their Kings Neither had the Apostles themselves tho' the most general Teachers that ever were as being sent to Preach the Gospel to all the World their Authority of Teaching from any Temporal Sovereigns Neither can it be proved that the Church at the time when Sovereigns first embraced the Christian Faith did transferr this Power of constituting Ministers of the Gospel without limitation to those Princes tho' at the same time it is not to be denied but that Sovereigns have a considerable share in it His Argument taken from the care Parents ought to have of the Salvation of their Children does not reach to what he pretends to prove for says he Princes being the Publick Fathers of the Common-wealth it belongs to their Princely Office to provide for the Eternal Salvation of their Subjects For besides that the Title of Father of the Commonwealth is a Metaphorical Expression the Fatherly and the Regal Office depend from a quite different Principle and the care to be taken of Children of a tender Age is of another Nature with that which ought to be employed for the Safety of a whole People neither were Sovereigns invested with the Supream Authority to enable them to procure Eternal Salvation to their Subjects God having prescribed other ways and means for the obtaining of it It cannot be denied but that a Prince must not be regardless of this Care nevertheless ought the same not to reach beyond its due Bounds but must be effected by such Methods as are approved of in the Holy Scripture and suit with the true Genius of the Christian Religion Wherefore it is in vain to attribute to Sovereigns a Power of obtruding any Religion at pleasure upon their Subjects it being beyond question that not all Religions are conducing to obtain Eternal Salvation So Abraham the Father of Believers did not impose upon his Children what Religion he thought most convenient but he charged them to walk in the ways of the Lord such as were manifested to them in the Holy Scripture What St. Paul says 1 Tim. 2. 2. is very well worth taking notice of viz. That the chief care of the Supream Governours shall be so to Rule over their Subjects that they may live under them not only honestly but piously this being the way to Eternal Salvation It is to be observed that those Princes for whom the Apostle enjoined the Christians to pray being Pagans made but little account of Piety especially of that belonging to the Christians but it was thought sufficient for the Christians to enjoy the common Benefit of the Publick Tranquility under their Protection the rest being left to their own care So we read that the Poet's enjoyment of his Muses was owing to Augustus Caesar's Protection nevertheless the Emperor did not concern himself about the Rules of Poetry Furthermore it is a very gross way of Arguing when he Asserts That the Commonwealth and Church are both one and the same thing under a Christian Prince whose Subjects also profess the Christian Religion the only difference being in respect of their different Qualifications They being in the Commonwealth to be considered as they are Subjects in the Church as Believers It seems Mr. Houtuyn looks upon that Difference to be of little moment which arises from divers Moral Qualifications and includes different Obligations and is founded upon another Legal Principle It is confess'd that in such a case where the Head is not differing in his Natural Constitution from the Rights and Power belonging to him the rest of the Members tho' differently considered under divers Qualifications are nevertheless to be look'd upon as one and the same Society As for instance If a Prince puts himself at the Head of all his Subjects upon an Expedition these tho' they may be considered either as Soldiers or Subjects yet do not differ in any Essential Part As for Example The People of Israel when going upon their Expedition under the Conduct of Joshua was the very same that afterwards under his Protection enjoyed and inhabited the Country of Canaan But the Church and Commonwealth tho' composed out of the self-same Persons do not only differ in their very Foundation but also a Sovereign cannot claim the same Right and Name of being the Supream Head of the Church in the same sense as he is the Supream Governour of the State For in the latter he exercises his Authority without controul being subject to no body But the Head of the Church is Christ who Rules it by his Word announced to us by the Teachers of the Church so that a Sovereign cannot as much as claim the Right of being Christ's Vicegerent in the Church And on the other hand tho' it is said of Christ That all Power is given unto him in Heaven and upon Earth nevertheless it cannot be said of him to be in the same manner the Head of Civil Societies as of the Church The next following Assertion runs thus Where the whole Commonwealth is not composed out of Christians the Church is a Congregation of the Believers in the Commonwealth But where all Subjects are Christians the Church is nevertheless nothing else than a Colledge in the Commonwealth But what he alledges of the Church being sometimes taken in the same sense with the Commonwealth is absolutely false For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 14 23. and those in Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are no Synoms but the latter is to be understood thus In all the Towns and Cities where there was any Christian Church The Inference he would make from the Military Function and the Administration of Justice being both included in one Government is to no purpose both of them owing their Off-spring to that End for which Civil Societies were instituted which is not the same in the Church and Sovereigns are entrusted with the Sword of War and Justice not with the Ministerial Function of Preaching the Gospel From whence it comes that Generals and Judges are subordinate to the Princely Office but not the Ministers of the Gospel they being barely considered as such not properly Ministers of the Prince and State but Ministers of Christ and the Church He says further That the assignation of the Ministerial Function does not appertain to the Internal part of Religion But if Faith comes from hearing and no body can believe without being instructed it is undeniable that those that Preach the Gospel have a share in the internal part of Religion they being to be considered as the Instruments by the help of whom the Gospel and consequently the Faith is conveyed to their Auditors It is false when he asserts That Sovereigns tho' no Christians have
carried to the Place of Execution it being plain to me That of what Nature soever their Confession might be such an inflexible Humour and obstinate Behaviour ought not to go unpunished § 8. But the Condition of Mankind being Of the Nature of revealed Religion such That it was impossible by the sole help of Natural Religion to attain to that Felicity which was proposed by the great Creator it had pleased the Great and All-wise God to reveal unto us Mortals his Will and to instruct us by what means we may obtain his Favour and how he expects to be Worshipped by us It is for this reason that no body of a right Understanding ought to make the least Scruple but that all such Matters as God has revealed to us in a manner surpassing our Natural Understanding ought to be reverenced by Mankind and to be received with a general consent and submission Among the several Doctrines thus revealed the Article of Justification or the Purging us from Sins through the Merits of our Saviour was one of the Principal ones And I am of Opinion that these bloody Sacrifices which from the very Beginning of the World were Instituted by God's Command were so many Emblems of this our Redemption by the Blood of Christ for without this supposition it would seem scarce Rational that a living Creature sensible of Death and Pains and which cannot be killed without great Torments should be destroyed for the Honour of its Creator As if Man should enter into the Work-House of an Artificer and by destroying his Handy-Work pretend to do him an extraordinary Honour This most Antient way of Sacrificing the chief Badge of True Religion before it was Corrupted by Ignorance or Superstition though it was no small addition to Natural Religion yet did it cause no alteration as to the Exercise of it For in the State of Natural Freedom every one had a right to Sacrifice though at the same time every one was not obliged to Sacrifice for himself For this Ceremony of Sacrificing being only an Emblem representing the future Redemption of Mankind one and the same Sacrifice might answer that End in respect to all that were present at the time of the Sacrifice From hence it was become a Custom that the Heads of each Family used to Sacrifice for the rest and if more Families were assembled in order to Sacrifice it was to be Administred by him that was chosen by the rest for that purpose And it is observable that the same Person that had the Right of Sacrificing had also the Power of prescribing time and place for that Sacrifice Thus when afterwards God had Ordained the Ceremony or Sacrament of Circumcision Abraham did Administer the same in his House as being the Father of his Family What we have alledged concerning the Right of Sacrificing may be proved from thence that both Abel and Cain after they had left their Fathers House did Sacrifice And by several Passages in Genesis we Gen. 4. 3 4. are informed That the Antient Patriarchs being Fathers of their Families did erect Altars So Micha set up a House of Gods at home during the Anarchy in Israel there being then neither King nor any other Man that took care of the Publick Worship thus attributing to himself though unjustly the same Right Iude 17. 5 6. which the Ancient Fathers of Families had been possess'd of in more Antient Times § 9. It had pleased God according to his Amongst the Jews there was a strict vâ—ion betwixt the Church and State Wisdom not to send our Saviour or the Messias into the World soon after the Creation at a time when the whole World was not stockt with a sufficient number of Inhabitants lest his Sufferings might be obliterated by Oblivion or by a too long Tract of Time turned into a Fabulous Relation But he was to appear amongst us after the whole Earth was filled up every where with Inhabitants and Mankind was arrived as it was to its Age of Perfection It was also thought convenient and almost necessary that the Messias should not appear in this World all upon a sudden but after his Coming had been long foretold and expected in order to raise a more ardent desire after him in us Mortals and that he might find the easier a Reception amongst us when his Deeds were found so agreeable to what was Prophesied concerning him so many Ages before And that these Predictions or Prophesies might not through length of time come to decay and be buried in Oblivion God Almighty had in a most peculiar manner recommended them to the Care and Custody of the Jews amongst whom he as it may be said kept his Records of Prophesies it being the most likely that that same Nation from whence the Messias was one day to have his Off spring as Man upon Earth would preserve them with their utmost Care to their great Honour and Advantage It was questionless in a great measure for this Reason that God entered with them into so strict a League Circumcision being made the Bagde whereby to distinguish them from other Nations And being afterwards become a very numerous People and freed from the Aegyptian Bondage he himself established at once both their Civil Government and Religion which was not to cease till the appearing of our Saviour on Earth and this in such a manner that there was always to remain a strict Union betwixt their Religion and State Therefore the Administration of Religious Worship was committed to one particular Tribe amongst them unto whom according to God's special Command no Lands were allotted lest they might thereby be inticed to mind Temporal Possessions and Riches more than God's Service but were to be maintained out of the Tenths and other Revenues belonging to the Altar in which Sense God is called The Portion of the Levites There was also a certain place assigned for the Publick Exercise of Divine Worship with Exclusion of all others and their whole Religion was thus disposed by God's peculiar Order that the same could not be put in practise unless it were in a free Nation independent from any Foreign Power This was the true Reason why the Jews unless they would overturn the Foundation of their Religion could not be entirely United with any Foreign State And as the Jewish Religion and State were of the same Date their Laws both Exclesiastical and Civil having been Constituted at the same time and contained in one Book so was the Union betwixt their Religion and State so entire that the first could not remain standing after the fall of the last and therefore the destruction of the Temple and of the Commonwealth of the Jâ—ws was an infallible Sign of the total abolishment of their Religion They were called God's People and the Holy People because the whole Jewish Nation publickly professed the True Religion § 10. But because God himself had Established Who was the Supream Head of the Jewish Church
them but that each of them is involved in such a multitude of Trouble and variety of Business that it cannot rationally be supposed for one Man to be able to undergo such a Fatigue Iâ—â—s no less evident that Sovereigns by becoming Christians are not authorised to alter the Ministry of the Church or to order it at pleasure or to force the Ministers of the Gospel to teach any Doctrine which is not founded in the Scriptures or to preach up Human Inventions for Articles of Faith For what and how Ministers ought to Teach is prescribed by God himself who expects an exact Obedience in this Point as well from Kings as other Christians And it is to be considered that whenever Princes receive the Christian Doctrine the Teachers notwithstanding this remain in their former Station as to their Duty and Obligation to God as well as all the rest of their Christian Subjects who having received their Instructions as to their Religion only from God without the assistance of their Sovereigns these cannot claim any right to impose any thing of this kind upon them § 43. Notwithstanding all this it is not Concerning the Duty and Right of Christian Princes of defending the Church to be supposed that Sovereigns by becoming Christians have acquir'd no peculiar Rights or have not a more particular Duty laid upon them than before There being certain Obligations which owe their off-spring to the union of that Duty which is incumbent to every Christian with that of the Royal Office The first and chiefest of these Obligations seems to be that Sovereigns ought to be Defenders of the Church which they are oblig'd to protect not only against all such of their Subjects as dare to attempt any thing against it but also against Foreigners who pretend to be injurious to their Subjects upon that score And tho' the Christian Doctrine is not to be propagated by violence or force of Arms and our Saviour has highly recommended Patience and Sufferings as peculiar Vertues belonging to Christians Princes are nevertheless not debarr'd from their Right of Protecting the Christian Religion by all lawful means and Patience ought not to take place here except when no other lawful means can secure us against our Enemies So we see that St. Paul Acts 2. 2â— saved himself from being scourged by declaring himself to be a Roman and escaped the Fury of the Jews by making his Appeal to the Emperour And our Saviour himself left this Mat. 10. 2â— Advice to his Disciples That when they were persecuted in one City they should fly into another And it being an incumbent Duty belonging to all Sovereigns to defend their Subjects against all violence they ought to take more effectual care that they do not suffer any Injuries for the Christian Religions sake for what could be more reproachful to a Christian Prince than that his Subjects should be sufferers upon that account The next care which belongs to Christian Princes is to provide necessary Revenues for the exercise of the Christian Religion For as has been shewn before that no other Patrimony belonged to the Primitive Church but the Alms and free Contributions of the Believers and that these cannot but be supposed to be very uncertain the Ministers and Teachers in the Church run no small hazard of being exposed to want if they have nothing else to rely upon but the bare contributions of the Congregation who being in some places poor and Subject to other Taxes are incapable of supplying their want And not to dissemble the Truth after Princes and enâ—tire States have received the Doctrine of Christ it would appear very ill that whereas they enjoy such ample Revenues they would deal so sparingly with the Church the more because it is a general Maxim among Men to value a Function according to its Revenues What St. Paul recommends to the Romans in the 15th Chapter v. 27. and in the 1 Epist to the Corinthians 9. 11. ought to be the more taken notice of by Christian Princes because they can with less difficulty or any sensible injury to themselves put it in practise in their Station they having the management of the Publick Revenues in their hands It cannot be denied but that too vast Revenues are not always useful to Ministers of the Church and prove somâ—times prejudicial both to Church and State and that such as make profession of the Ministry of the Gospel ought not to make a Trade of their Function or to think it their main Business to gather Riches and take the Ministry for their By-work nevertheless if it be duely considered that he who cordially as he ought to do applies himself to the Ministerial Function has no other ways left him to provide for his Family and that the vulgar Sort scarce pay a due Respect to a Minister unless they see him live handsomely and well whereas he who is starv'd by his Function is the May-Game of the common People unto whom may be applied that old Saying of the Poet That this Man appears to be the Servant of a poor and wretched Lord. Apparet servum hunc esse Domini pauperis miserique Princes ought therefore to look upon this as one main part of their Devotion to settle certain and constant Sallaries or Revenues upon the Ministers of the Church as much as may be at least sufficient for their Maintainance In the Old Testament the Priests were to live from the Altar but those of the best kind were Vid. Ep. Gal. 6. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 4. brought to the Altar Besides this Princes ought not only to take care of Church-Buildings but also to erect and maintain Schools which being the Seminaries both of the Church and State if the first Rudiments of Christianity be not implanted in the Schools it cannot scarce be expected that Men when grown up should receive much benefit by publick Sermons § 44. But among other Considerations as Coâ—ceâ—ning the rights of Princes as to Ecclesiastical Affairs And first of the gâ—nâ—ral Inspection to what Rights properly belong to Princes as to Ecclesiastical Affairs it is evident that since by the Doctrine of the Gospel the Civil Power is in no wise impaired and a Prince cherishes a Church under his Jurisdiction he legally claims a Right of having a general Inspection over this as well as all other Societies at least so far as to take care that nothing be transacted in these Colledges to his Prejudice For Mankind being so perverse in its Nature that in Matters even the most Sacred if managed without controul they seldom let it slip through their hands without a Stain And that therefore it is scarce to be questioned but the Christian Doctrine is subject to the same Corruption and that under Pretence of Religion many pernicious Designs may be hatched against the Interest of the Commonwealth A Prince in whose Territories a Church is planted if he afterwards enters into the Communion of that Church has
questionless a Right to examin what Matters and in what Manner they are transacted in the Convention of their Presbyters or in their Ecclesiastical Courts if there be any such among them Whether they do not transgress their Bounds whether they act according to the Civil Laws or whether they do not assume to themselves a Power to determine such Cases as properly belong to the Civil Jurisdiction Of this Kind are Matrimonial Cases which without Reason and upon very slender Pretences the Priests have drawn under their Jurisdiction to the great Prejudice of the Sovereign Power For it being an unquestionable Right belonging to Sovereigns to constitute Laws concerning Matrimonial Cases according to the Law of Nature and of God I cannot see any Reason why they have not a Right to determine Matrimonial Differences And because the Ministers of the Church make use of Church discipline the Prince may make a legal Enquiry whether under Pretence of these Rules prescribed by our Saviour they do not introduce Novelties which may prove prejudicial to the State And as these Enchroachments are no essential Part of the Christian Doctrine but rather to be looked upon like Spots which disgnise its natural Beauty So I cannot see with what Face it can be denied that those ought to be taken off especially by the Authority of those whose Interest is most nearly concerned unless they have Impudence enough to own that the Christian Religion may lawfully be misapplied to By-uses And let it be granted that every thing is transacted as it ought to be in these Conventions of the Presbyters Consistories or Episcopal Courts why should they be asham'd or angry at their Sovereigns taking Cognisance of their Proceedings And this Right of Inspection does never cease after the Sovereign has once entred into the Communion of the Church it being his Duty to take care that no Abuses may creep into the Church in process of Time that may endanger the State § 45. Because the Right of Constituting Concerning the Right of Princes as to Church Ministers Ministers of the Church does originally belong to the whole Congregation the Prince must needs have his Share in it as being a Member of the Congregation I say his Share For it is not reasonable that a Minister should be forced upon any Church against their Consent and without their Approbation except it be for very weighty Reasons For the Right of Constituting Ministers in the Church does not belong to the Prince in the same manner as it is his Prerogative to constitute Civil Magistrates and other Publick Ministers of State which being a part of the Sovereign Power cannot be called in question But Teachers in the Church considered meerly as such are none of the King's Ministers but Servants of Christ and Ministers of the Church not Officers of the State And because in the Primitive Church Ministers used to be constituted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by the Suffrages of the Christians the Prince may lawfully claim his Vote in the same Church whereof he is a Member But as for the other Churches under his Jurisdiction they ought to be left to their free Choice exept there be some prevailing Reasons which oblige the Prince to interpose his Authority it being unjust that a Minister should be put upon a Church against their Will if they can alledge any lawful Exception against him For a Teacher thus forced upon his Auditors for whom they have neither esteem nor Love is likely to edifie but little by his Doctrine Nevertheless Sovereigns ought to have a watchful Eye over the Churches and to take care that Persons not fitly qualified for this sacred Function may not be promoted to the Ministry either by Simony or other unlawful Means For though it is the Interest of the whole Church to provide against these Corruptions Sovereigns are likely to do it with much better Success than can be expected from private Persons They may authorise certain Persons to be present at these Elections and who by their Authority may prevent all manner of Disorder or Corruption and at the same time make a due enquiry whether such Persons as are to be put into the Ministry are of an approved Life and Doctrine And because the Ministers of the Church do 1 Tim. 3 10. sometimes act negligently or preposterously in their Office which often proves the Occasion of Scandal and Schism in the Church Rom. 16 17. Sovereigns may constitute over them Inspectors with an Authority to reprove and sometimes to punish such as transgress their Rules But these Inspectors being no less subject to human Frailties than other men Care ought to be taken that their Authority be so limited as to be accountable of all their Proceedings either to the Prince or before a Consistory authorised for that purpose if they transgress their Bounds or trespass upon the Ministers of the Church As all these maters do contribute to the maintaining of good Order in the Church and may best be put in execution by the Sovereign Authority So it is manifest that Princes as they are chief Members of the Church may justly claim this Prerogative as properly belonging to their high Station and Princely Office § 46. In case of any Difference or Controversie Concerning the Right of calling together a Synod concerning any Point of Doctrine which may sometimes arise in the Church so that the Teachers are divided in their Opinions it belongs to the Sovereign Authority to take care that these Differences may be composed not only as the Sovereign is a Member of the Church but as he is the Supream Head of the Commonwealth It having been frequently observed that Differencee of Opinions and Animosities of the Parties concerned cause great Commotions in the State Upon such Occasions Sovereigns have a Right to call together an Assembly of the most able Divines and to authorise them to examine the Controversie and to determine it according to the Tenure of the Scriptures The Supream Direction of this Assembly ought to be managed by the Prince'◠Authority For since it can scarce be supposed that matters should be transacted there without Heats and Animosities it will be both for the Honour and Interest of this Assembly if by the Presence of certain Persons well versed in Business these Heats be allayed and matters carried on with an equal Temperament Neither do I see how any one besides the Prince can lay claim to this Power of calling such an Assembly for put the case that one Party should refuse to appear and to submit unto the other's Direction which way will they be able to compel them to it And who is it that can with less Difficulty put in execution the Decrees of such a Synod than he who has the Sovereign Power in his Hands Tho' at the same time it ought not to be forgotten that this Power must not extend it self beyond its due Bounds but be suitable to the Genius of the Christian