So that the original Signification of the Word â—â—clesia implies not that of a State but only a certain Qualification of a Democratical Government it being evident that a great number of 〈◊〉 cannot conveniently give their assâ—nt to a thing unless they be Convened in one Place In the Translation the LXX Interpreters this Word is taken for a Convention ot Meeting of a considerable number of People met not only for the exercise of Divine Worship but also for unlawful Ends. So the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the Ps 26 5 Luk. 2â— 3. 4 c â—8 24. Acts 19 32 3â— Num. 20. 8 10 Jos 16. 1 2. 2 Chron. 15. 9. c. 34 â—8 Calling and Summoning an Assembly about Matters concerning the Commonwealth But in the New Testament the word Ecclesia is generally taken either for all the Christians in General wherever dispersed or for the Congregation of the Believers in a certain Country City private House or Family In either sense if we duely weigh the Attributes and Actions properly belonging to the Church for by these we ought to judge of the Nature of a thing in Moral Cases we do not meet with any thing which has a relation to What actions are celebrated in Scripture as belonging to the Church a Civil State The true â—ncomium most frequently given to the Members of the Church is that they are Brothers holy and redeemed by the Blood of Christ Their chief Actions are said to be to hear the Word of God to pray unto and praise God to be Charitable to walk in the fear of God to Fast and to provide for the Poor It is spoken of St. Paul and Barnabas That Act 1. 4. 23. they did Constitute Elders in those Churches which they had planted in Asia where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made â—se of which implies as much as having made them by Suffrages of the Congregation in the same manner as the Decrees used to pass in the antient Democracies by the plurality of Votes by which it appears that they pretended to no Absolute Power of Constituting Elders over them but such as 〈◊〉 approved of by the Congregation And it iâ— remarkable that these nevertheless are said to have been made Overseers over the Chuâ—ch by the Holy Act. 20 â—8 2 Chron. 10. 5 Ghost So were the Judges that were set in the Land by Jehosaphat stiled Judges for the Lord because whoever is fitly qualified for any Office or Function not contrary to the Word of God and has obtained the same by lawful ways and Means may justly be said to have been Constituted in that same Office by God Almighty And though it belongs most properly to the Church to constitute Teachers this nevertheless does not imply any Act of Sovereignty it being evident that a private Colledge or Society subject to another Jurisdiction may lawfully enjoy the same Power A Diffension being arosen concerning an Article of Faith in the Church of Antiocha they determined Act. 15. 2 that some of them should go concerning this Question then in dispute to the Church of Jerusalem And these Deputies were by the rest of the Brethren conducted out of the Town in their way to Jerusalem where this Question having been debated and determined they sent Word thus to their Brethren It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us c. where it is to be observed that to send Deputies concerning such Matters as are not intended in prejudice of the Sovereign Power for one Congregation to consult another concerning any Articles of Faith and to determine any Differences about them are to be looked upon as Actions of such a nature which do not imply a Sovereign and Absolute Power but may legally belong to a private Colledge or sometimes a private Person provided the Business in hand be not imposed upon its Members but transacted and admitted by common consent So the Church of Jerusalem chose certain Men who were to be Overseers Act. 6. 1 1. of the Poor which they had a Right to do as being a Society or Colledge In the same Sense ought to be taken what is said in the 2 Epistle to the Corinthians c. 8. 19. That the Churches had chosen one to travel with St. Paul The Church is called a Flock which is to be â—ed by the Bishops with the pure Word of Acts 20 28. God who are to preserve it from the Wolves That is to say from Men speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Against those Teachers of the Church ought to be watchful not ceasing to Admonish their Auditors to avoid their Snares What concerns that passage in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians c. 6. 1. and following Verses it is apparent enough that there is not any Sovereign Authority or Jurisdiction granted to the Christians barely considered as Christians But the Apostle enjoyns them that in case of any Differences in Civil Affairs among the Members of the Church they should rather refer it to the Arbitration of the Brethren than to go to Law before the Gentiles and fall under the Censure of being Avaricious In the following Chapter it is plainly expressed that no body by becoming a Member of the Church does change his Qualification or Function which belonged to him as a Subject or that Christianity is inconsistent with the Subjection to a Civil Government a Servant therefore by being a Christian does not become a Freeman neither is a Subject thereby absolved from the Allegiance due to his Sovereign concerning the Union and Modesty which ought to be practised in the Church or the Christian Congregations where the Word of God was Preached and the Sacraments Ep. Rom. 13 1. 2 Tim. 5 8. 14 c. 6. 1 2. Administred St. Paul speaks in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. 18 and following Verses and in the 14 Chap. 34 40 Verse And what sort of Religiouâ— Exercises was to be used in these Congregations is expressed in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians c. 14. viz. to be Vid Eph. 4. 2. Hymns Doctrines Tongues Prophesies Revelations Interpretations all which are to be applied to Edifie the Congregation and in the 12 Chapter 28 Verse the several Degrees and Functions of the Members of the Church are thus enumerated First Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then Gifts of Healings Helps Governments Diversities of Tongues All which are Requisites Eph. 4. 11 belonging to the propagating and establishing of the Gospel and are Gifts of that self same Spirit who dispenses his Gifts to every Man as he pleases So that he that has received more noble Endowments can therefore not claim any Prerogative as being a more honorable Member of this Mystical Body or pretend to any Jurisdiction over such as are not endowed with these Qualifications in the same Degree as himself And charity which is the inseparable Attribute of all Christians is more 1 Cor.
§ 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
Christian Churches St. Peter had in the abovementioned place made his Confession That Jesus was the Son of the living God This excellent Confession did deserve a suitable answer from Christ who said thou art Peter as if he would say persist in this thy Confession Peter which does in no wise imply that Peter should thereby have deserved those Prerogatives over the other Apostles as the Romanists do pretend to For St. Peter did not make this Confession for himself only but in the Name of all those unto whom Christ spoke at that time In the same manner as he spoke in the Name of the rest of the Disciples by St. John 6. 69. We believe and are sure that thou art Christ the Son of the living God Joh. 1. 34 36 42 45 49. Mat. 10. 32 33. John 11 27. Acts 4. 11. Neither was Peter the first that made this Confession For before him the same had been made by John the Baptist by St. Andrew Philip and Nathanael And it is no difficult Task to prove out of several passages of the holy Scripture that none could be taken for a true Disciple of Christ unless he had made this â— 8. â—â— â— 9. â—0 22. Confession And our Saviour to shew of what consequence this Confession was added these Words Vpon this Rock I will build my Church Which is as much as to say this Doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God is the main Foundation Stone whereupon is to be built the mystical Edifice of the Christian Church So that no further inference can be made from these Words than what is expressed to the same purpose by St. John 20. 31. and in the 1 Epist of John 2. 22. c. 3. â—0 c. 4 2. viz That the fundamental Article of the Christian Religion is That Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messias and the Son of the living God § 27. It also is worth our Consideration Whâ—thâ—r the Power of 〈…〉 any Sovâ—reign Right of Juriâ—â—cation whether the Power of Excommunication which was used by the Apostles and in the Primitive Church implies any Sovereign Authority such as ought to be exercised in a State Unto this we answer in the Negative provided the same be taken according to the proper Use and End of its genuine and primitive Institution For that this Power may with conveniency enough be made use of if misapplied to serve an ambitious Design and to keep the poor People in awe is sufficiently proved by Experience It seems to me that there was a remarkable Difference betwixt the Excommunication of the Jews by virtue of which they were excluded from their Synagogues and the Excommunication used among the Primitive Christians For among the Jews where the Sovereigns and the People professed one and the same Religion which also was entirely united with the State it might easily happen that the Exclusion from the Synagogue did carry along with it several Inconveniencies in Civil Affairs and might therefore not unjustly be considered at the same time as a Civil Punishment which rendered the Offenders infamous in the Commonwealth Especially since according to the Fundamental Constitution of that Government there were several things belonging to Religion punishable by their civil Constitutions But it being already put beyond Question that neither our Saviour nor his Apostles did ever pretend to any Civil Power and that besides this the Primitive Christians lived under the Jurisdiction of other Princes how could their Excommunication Ban or what other sort of Ecclesiastical Censine was used among them be supposed to have any influence upon the Civil State and Condition of the Christians or to have been of the same nature and force properly speaking as Civil Punishments are This will more plainly appear if we examine those Passages where this Matter is compleatly treated of in the New Testament It is said in Matthew 18. 15. 16 17. If thy Brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his Fault between thee and him alone If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee One or Two more that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every Word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen Man and a Publican Certainly out of this passage nothing can be inferr'd that has any relation to a Temporal Jurisdiction or Sovereignty but barely shews us how differences ought to be composed among Christians So St. Paul ordains 1 Cor. â— 1. 2. that we shall rather leave Differences to the Arbitration of a Brother or rather take wrong than to go to Law with a Brother before the Unbelievers to the great shame of the Christian Name So that tho' it is else required from the Offender to beg the Pardon of and Vid. Mat 5. 40. offer Satisfaction to the Person offended nevertheless if he neglect his Duty in this Point Christ commanded that the offended Party shall first offer a Reconciliation and try before he brings his Action against the Offender whether Satisfaction for the Injury received and a Reconciliation may not be obtained by a private Arbitration If this prove fruitless he says he ought to take along with him two or three Witnesses to try whether they can prevail with his Adversary to bring him to a more pliable Temper and at the same time may testifie That the offended Party did offer every thing which might tend towards a Reconciliation betwixt them But if after all this he remain obstinate the Difference ought to be referr'd to the whole Congregation of the Believers residing in that Place for I see no reason why by the word Ecclesia or Church the Presbyters only should be understood But if they also cannot prevail with their Authority over his Stubborness let him then be unto thee like a Heathen man and Publican unto whom his Trespasses will not be remitted because he refuses to acknowledge his Offence or to give Satisfaction for it which is as much as to say fly his Conversation like that of a vile Person which eâ—â—ry one may freely do without being thereuâ—â—â— compelled by any Superior Power For that the Jews did not converse with the Heaâ—â—ns and Publicans except in Civil 〈…〉 of no great force against us it being ceâ—â—ain that the Heathens and Publicans were noâ— so infamous in themselves by any Civil Constitution the Jews being at that time subject to the Heathens who matter'd not their Conversation Besides this it is left to every ones free Choice whom he will admit into his familiar Conversation and always was a certain Rule among the wiser Sort not to be familiar with People of a perversed Humour and an ill Life whose Conversation every body may avoid as he finds it most convenient So the Apostle bids us to reject a Man that is a Heretick after the first and
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
Decemviri And because Christians do not build their Faith upon any Human Authority but upon the Word of God alone they are Joh. 6. 1â— 1 Thes 4â— said to be taught of God For which Reason S. Paul utterly denied that they had any Dominion over the Faith of the Corinthians or which is the same in effect that they could exercise any Dominion over them under the 〈◊〉 of Faith For the rest as Christians 〈…〉 which are well versed in the Scriptures may without great difficulty try their Teacher's Doctrine by the Touchstone of the Holy Scripture So the Catechism and other compendious Instructions relating to the chiefest Articles of the Christian Faith may be sufficient for those of a meaner Capacity wherein all Christians ought to be well instructed in their younger Years both by their Parents and Teachers of the Church this being likely to prove more useful to those of an indifferent Capacity than all the other Subtilities and Controversies which in themselves are not absolutely necessary or requisite to be understood by every Christian in particular And if we duely consider what is required by the Apostle for the obtaining of Rom. 10. 9 10. â—â—m 1. â— 2 â—â—m 2. â—â— Salvation we shall find that this Knowledge may be attained to without much Difficulty because the Confession that Jesus was Christ the Son of God is the Foundation Stone and as it was the Center of the Christian Religion and that this Article was chiefly 〈◊〉 20. 3. opposed by the Gates of Hell in the time of the Primitive Christians the Apostle S. John prescribes this as a general Rule to be particularly taken notice of by such as are of a mean Capacity Hereby know you said he the Spirit of God Every Spirit that confesseth 〈◊〉 4 â— â— that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is of God and every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is not of God Though from hence no Inference ought to be made as if Christian may neglect or ought not also to be well instructed concerning all the other Articles of Faith or that it is indifferent for any Christian to believe what he pleaseâ— concerning the rest of the Articles of the Christian Doctrine § 34. It being then evident that there 〈…〉 is a great difference betwixt the condition of particular Churches and that of a State or Commonwealth It may further he enquired into whether perhaps those Churches united don 't make up a Body like to that of a grâ—â—t State For it is certain that the Word Church is in the Scriptures attributed to the whole Body of the Believers wheresoever dispersed throughout the World yet so that there is not the least appearance if a duâ— regard he had to our Saviour's Intention of a Design to erect a State Go you into all the World and Mark 16. â—â— Preach the Gospel to every Creature are the Words of our Saviour to his Disciples Here is no mention made of any Persons who should be the supream Governours over the rest as is usual and absolutely necessary in a State nor any certain Place of Residence appointed for these Governours from whence the rest should receive their Orders Neither is the least care taken by what means they should maintain a Correspondency with their capital City And truly considering the vast Extent of the World and the prodigious Distance of those Countries where the Apostles Preached the Gospel besides that there was a mortal Enmity betwixt some of these States these were unsurmountable Obstacles for the settling and maintaining a Correspondency betwixt them So that it does not appear by what means all the Christians could be united under one State It is not denied but that there is often mention made in the Scripture of the Union of the Christians as in the 1 Cor. c. 12. 12 13. As the body is one and had many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body So also is Christ For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit Christ says in the 10. Chap. of S. John ver 16 My Sheep hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd Which shews that all the Sheep are brought into one Flock by hearing the Voice of their Pastour who is Christ So it is said in the Epistle to the Ephesians ch 4. ver 2 3 4 5 6. Forbearing one another in love endeavouring the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace There is one body and one Spirit even as you are called in one hope of your calling One Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all And Christ in his farewel Sermon does Joh. 13 chiefly recommend to his Disciples Charity and Unity as the true Badges of Christianity And the Name of Brother which particularly Vid. 1 Cor. 13. Colos 3. 14. Gal. 6. 10. belongs to the Christians seems to imply a general union betwixt them But if we consider the Nature of these holy Tyes we may easily observe them to have been in no ways adapted to the Constitution of a temporal Government but properly belonging to the Establishment and Union of a mystical Body For as none of them requires of implies any dependency from a Temporal Power so they may belong in common to all Christians tho' living in far distant Countries and several Jurisdictions § 35. Neither does it appear for what end 〈…〉 for Châ—â—stians 〈…〉 united under one State or purpose all the Christians in General should be reduced under one State For each Congregation or Church may with more â—ase and conveniency constitute Teachers in their Churches sitly qualified for the Ministry of the Gospel and have a more watchful Eye over those who are known and near at hand than can be expected from one single Person tho' never so wise living at a great distance who being besides this ovewhelmed with multitude of Businesses is forced to see with other Peoples Eyes and to hear with other Peoples Ears Neither is it a sufficient Reason what is alledged that for the composing and determining of such Differences as may arise betwixt the Teachers of the Church or betwixt them and others a General Court ought to be established in the Christian Church it being evident that such Cases can be no where determined with more conveniency than in the same Government where they live and that there cannot any sufficient reason be given why they should not acknowledge the same Jurisdiction with the rest of their fellow Subjects There is one objection which has something of colour in it for it is alledged That if all the Christian Churches throughout the World were united under one Head whether under one Person or a certain Assembly matters not the unity of Faith might be better preserved
consequently be of a quite different nature and make up a particular Sovereignty Wherefore if both these should happen to be joined in one Person he becomes thereby at once master over our Lives and Consciences But if this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction be lodged in another Person he must either at the same time be acknowledged to have a Power of executing his Decrees by his own Prerogative or else to have only an Authority of giving Sentence leaving the Execution of it to the civil Magistrates If the first of these two be supposed it is evident that a double headed Sovereignty must carry along with it great Inconveniencies and Distractions and if the latter those that exercise the Sovereignty in the State must be look'd upon as Executioners only to this holy Judge All these Things duely considered as they must needs occasion great Convulsions in the State so no man that is not beyond his Wits will be apt to imagine unless it be made appear by most evident Proofs that Christ intended to introduce by his Doctrine such pernicious Diseases into civil Societies For tho' it is impossible that no Controversies should be raised in the Church like Christ himself has foretold it in the Parable by Matthew c. 13. 24. And St. Paul in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. 19. Nevertheless if any Controversie does arise he that is the first Author of it must of necessity maintain his Opinion under a colour at least of its being agreeable to the Scriptures For if any one should pretend to introduce a new Article of Faith without endeavouring to prove it out of the holy Scripture he would be look'd upon as a mad Man tho' he should call to his aid all the Sophistications of the Philosophers And if he should insist upon the Authority of Traditions without the Scriptures this would only serve to disclose the weakness of that Foundation whereupon he builds his Doctrine But if any one should make an attempt against any Article of Faith received already as such in the Church he is scarce worth taking notice of unless he should be able to alledge at least some specious Reasons out of the holy Scripture for his Opinion And in such a case especially if his Endeavours seem to proceed from a real Love to Truth he ought not to be absolutely slighted without being heard and his Reasons examined So that then the whole decision of the Matter must depend from a right Interpretation of the several passages in the holy Scripture relating to this Controversie And to find out this Interpretation I see not any necessity which obliges us to have recourse to a Sovereign Power or any infallible Authority but only to such Mâ—ans as â—â— most proper for the searching into and findâ—ng out the genuine Sense of other Authors viz. by a true Knowledge of the Tongue and a diligent search into the nature and whole sâ—ame of the Christian Religion and by duely comparing the Articles of Faith and observing their Annology and Connexion Whosoever besides this has a natural good Judgment and is not propossessed with Prejudice private Interest or Passion it will oâ— no such difficult Task for him to find out the genuine Sense of the Scriptures and to demonstrate it so plainly that such as oppose him will by the consent of all Understanding People be judged to be in the wrong So did our Saviour at several times convince the Pharisâ—es and Saduceans out of the whole Scripture and by the force of his Arguments taken from thence that they were not able to make any further reply And why should it not be reasonably supposed that in each Christian Church there may be found a sufficient number of Teachers capable of disproving such as pretend to introduce among them Innovations and false Doctrines But supposing that these alone should prove insufficient they may call to their aid those of the Neighbouring most famous Churches From whence it appears that there is no absolute Necessity of acknowledging a Judge General of Controversies in the Church And put the Case that those that dissent from the Church are so numerous as to have spread their Doctrine all over the State this Judge will prove useless in his Office For if he pretends to have recourse to violent means to make them renounce their false Opinion they will in all probability oppose force to force But if he takes the other way and endeavours to convince them of their Earor by Arguments taken out of the holy Scripture this may be done as well by other Teachers sitly qualified for their Office than by such a Judge General in the Church Neither ought we to be so over timerous as to believe that Errors should in so much prevail over Truth as to domineer always and every where over it it being not to be question'd but that by help of the most clear-sighted Teachers in the Church these Clouds may be soon dispersed and Truth again appear in its splendor I appeal to Experience whether not a great many Heresies by the only help of prevailing Truth without the assistance of such a Judge or any human Force have by degrees dwindled away and at last quite disappeared It must be confest there are some erroneous Opinions which being nourished and maintained by a Temporal Interest and certain Reasons of State of some particular Churches are not so easie to be suppressed Of this kind are those Controversies wherein the Protestants differ with the Papishes All which if duely considered are so deeply entangled with the Interest of the Popish Monarchy that it is impossible for the Roman Catholicks to recede an Inch from the point of the controverted Articles without diminution of their Authority and endangering their great Revenues so that all hopes of an Union betwixt them and the Protestants are in vain unless the latter can resolve to submit themselves under the same Popish Yoak which they have shaken off so long ago I cannot sufficiently admire that gross way of Arguing made use of by the Papishes when they talk of nothing else but the Authority of their Church telling us that if we would but once acknowledge the same all the Differences and Questions concerning the chief Articles of Faith would fall a-course making themselves both Party and Judge and pretending to give Sentence in their own Case according to their own Testimony They always make use of this Sophism that they attribute only to themselves the glorious Name of the True Church excluding all orher Christians from it but such as are of the same Communion with them And to back this pretence nothing is more common among them than to lay aside all manner of demonstrative Arguments founded in the Scriptures and in lien thereof to find out new Methods unknown to the Apostles of Converting People and to endeavour to establish their Authority by all manner of violence against those that dare to maintain Truth in opposition to their Doctrine For which
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
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
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
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
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
a Right of constituting Ministers For says he their Right is the same But a Prince who makes not Profession of the Christian Faith tho' he has Christian Subjects under his Jurisdiction and allows them the free Exercise of their Religion has nevertheless not the least Power over their Church as being no Member of it It is no less false what he says that since Princes are become Christians the Vocation of Ministers does no more depend from the Church Just as a Man by submitting himself under another Jurisdiction is no more at his own disposal For a Prince by becoming a Member of the Church does thereby not make himself Master of that Church but rather submits to the Obedience of Christ the Head of the Church and therefore does not incroach all its Rights to himself but only can claim his share as such unless a certain Church should voluntarily surrender its Rights as far as it lies in its power to the Sovereign And I see no reason why the Church may not be under the Protection of a Christian Sovereign as representing a certain Person in the Commonwealth and therefore to Act and Decree by plurality of Votes which implies a Right at least by Consent For there is a Medium betwixt the State or Commonwealth and a disorderly Multitude viz. a Colledge where there is no occasion for a coerâ—ive â—overeign Power This may be illustrated by an Example For supposing in a Commonwealth a certain Society or Company of Merchants regulated by certain Statures of their own under the Direction of some of its own Members Into this Colledge a Prince has a mind to be received as a Member paying his certain share By being thus made a Member of this Company he has not obtained an absolute disposal over this Society but rather has accommodated himself to the Statutes of the Colledge neither can he claim any other Prerogative there but what is derived either from his share in that Company or from a free Gift and voluntary consent of the rest of its Members and as a Member of this Colledge he is to be considered not as a Prince but as a Merchant There is nevertheless one remarkable difference viz. That it is in the Power of a Sovereign to hinder the setting up of such a Society which is not the same in regard of the Church He plainly betrays his Ignorance when he says That the Church is to be considered as a multitude of People comprehended in the Person of one Prince from whence the Prince represents the People like one Publick Person through whom the whole People declare their Sentiments For tho' this be appliable to the Commonwealth it is not to the Church they being quite different from one another It cannot be denied but that those who have the Sovereign Power in the State may Enact what Laws they think most convenient But to attribute the same Power to Sovereigns over the Church is a Madness and savours of Blasphemy And supposing a Prince should be misled into Errors or Heresie must therefore the whole Church be accounted Erroneous or Heretical Except he would perswade us also that Princes are Infallible Wherefore in those places where the Election of Ministers is independent from the Prince it is supposed to proceed from a Right transferred unto him by the Church The same is to be understood where this Election is managed either by the Bishops or Presbyters But in case the same be done by the whole Church it would be preposterous to say that such an Election was made by vertue of a Priviledge granted by the Prince Mr. Houtuyn having granted before That the Pastoral Function not being annexed to any certain Person considered as such had no dependency from the Civil Jurisdiction but owed its Institution to Christ Nevertheless in § LXVI he affirms That the actual Administration of the Ministerial Function is an External Publick Act such as is subject to the Civil Power Which is the same in effect as if he said Matrimony is a Divine Institution but it depends from the Prince whether he will allow his Subjects to Marry actually or not For supposing a Sovereign should take a Resolution to forbid the antient Exercise of the Ministerial Function what would in such a Case become of this Pastoral or Ministerial Function It is also insufferable what he says immediately after An Election is a voluntary Act therefore revocable at pleasure it being certain that it cannot be done without impairing the Reputation of the Minister What relates to § LXVII It is denied that Nebuchadonosor had any legal Authority to put to Death such as refused to adore the great Statue set up by his Order For a Prince who inflicts any Punishment upon his Subjects against the express Command of the holy Scripture does not at that time exercise his legal Authority but commits an hostile and tyrannical Act. So when King Ahab under pretence of a legal Process and by subborning of false Witnesses possess'd himself of Naboth's Vineyard did no more exercise his legal Jurisdiction than a Guardian may be said to do when he commits a Rape upon a Pupil committed to his Management But when the same Nebuchadonosor publishes his Edict That no body dare to blaspheme the God of the Jews he did without all question nothing but what belong'd to his high Station He runs on further viz. That Peter John Stephen Paul nay even our Saviour himself did appear before the Sanhedrim before Foelix Festus Caesar and Pilate without taking the least Exception against the legality of their Jurisdiction What could be more falsely invented Did Peter and John acknowledge the Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim in respect of the Christian Doctrine when they told them to their very Faces that they would not obey their Command of not preaching in the Name of Jesus Did Stephen acknowledge the Jurisdiction Act. 4. 19 20. of the Sanhedrim when he told them You uncircumcised in your Hearts and Ears you always resist the holy Ghost Neither is it an Argument that Paul and an infinite Number of Martyrs did acknowledge the Jurisdiction of those Princes and other Civil Magistrates when they being forced to appear before them endeavoured to prove their Innocence there being no other Tribunal to which they could appeal and it being at that time look'd upon as a Crime deserving Death for any one to profess himself a Christian All the defence they made may be reduced under two Heads For they either denied those Crimes laid to their Charge as calumnious or else they asserted even to the last That the profession of the Christian Religion did not depend from the Civil Jurisdiction And those Magistrates that absolved the Confessors of this Truth did in effect give this Sentence That this was a Cause not belonging to their Jurisdiction It is a wonder to me how Mr. Houtuyn who pretends to be a Lawyer can find out any thing in the least resembling a legal Process in that