well weighed and the Reasons thereof duly examined on both sides is very plain and easy to be determined But if any moral Decrees are made by a Council the same are to be taken to have no obliging Power but what proceeds either from a preceding Commission and Authority or from the Approbation of these Churches so that Chuncils have no coercive Power over the Church I cannot but touch by the by upon this Head viz. that this Assertion The Council is above the Pope is of such a Nature as will easily gain credit with all that are guided by right Reason or the Scriptures For who can be so stupid as not to be sensible that a great many learned Men who with joint labour apply themselves to the search after Truth are to be preferred before the Judgment of one single Person and that oftentimes of such a one who has but a very indifferent insight into the Holy Scriptures and Divinity This seems to imply somewhat of a Contradiction that this Point is asserted by the self-same People who make the Papal Chair the Center of the Church and the Pope the Oâ—cumenick Bishop For the Romish Church pretends to be a Monarchical State but this Assertion of the Superiority of the Councils favours most of an Aristocracy But this Riddle may be unfolded in a few Words The French Clergy allows the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church as far as they find it suitable with their Interest But whenever he attempts any thing against them or the States Policy of that Kingdom the old Song of the Liberty of the Gallican Church and the antient Doctrine of the Sorbone is revived which serves the French Clergy now and then for a Pretext to persuade the vulgar sort of People that the Gallican Church has not been polluted with those gross and abominable Errours as are introduced in the Church of Rome The next thing to be considered is that it is most evident that if a Controversie arises which may be decided within the Body of one Church there is no Occasion for the Communicating in such a Point with other Churches And that in case one Church alone is not stock'd sufficiently with able Teachers for the composing of the Difference and therefore must call to its Aid those of other Churches it is superfluous to call together a greater number than may be sufficient for the accomplishment of the Work So did the Church of Antioch refer the whole Controversie to those of Jerusalem without giving the least Trouble to those of Phenice and Samaria though their Deputies passed in their Way thither through both these Places Besides this the Deputies that are sent ought to receive their Authority and Instruction from their several Churches whom they represent because no Church has without reserve submitted herself to the Determination of her Teachers but only as far as their Doctrine is agreeable to the Word of God Neither are the Words in the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. 17. to be understood any otherwise than with this Limitation Besides this it is absolutely requisite that such Persons as have raised a Controversie should be heard in the Council that their Reasons should be duely examined weighed and proceeded upon according to the Rules prescribed in the Holy Writ And if the Controversie does not barely concern a Point of Doctrine but implies a Temporal Interest those that have any Share in it cannot pretend to a Power of deciding the Point in Prejudice of the adverse Party From whence it is evident that the Points in question betwixt the Protestant Church and the Papal Chair cannot be composed by any Council their Difference arising not barely from Point of Doctrine but about Domination Temporal Dignities and vast Revenues Nor is there the least Probability of any Composition betwixt these two Parties by way of Arbitration For who is it that can pretend to decide so great a Point Who is likely to be accepted of as an Arbitrator by both Parties The Protestants in all likelihood will not be so foolish as to submit themselves and their Case to the Determination of any Assembly consisting all of Roman Catholicks their sworn Enemies nor can they have the Imprudence as to ask it And as for the Pope he likes his Station too well to put it to the Hazard of an Arbitration But if an Assembly should be proposed to consist of an equal Number chosen by each Party this Expedient would scarce take it being to be feared that they would scarce keep within the bounds of Moderation and that the Assembly would appear sometimes not unlike the Feast of the Centaures § 39. It having been hitherto demonstrated In what condition the Churches were under the Pagan Emperours at large that the Church is no State we must consider in the next place unto what kind of moral Bodies the Churches have the nearest relation as they were in primitive Times under the Pagan Princes It is evident enough That they were of the nature of Colledges or such Societies where a great many are joined for the carrying on a certain Business under this limitation nevertheless as not to be independent from the Civil Jurisdiction Concerning the nature of the Colledges and Corporations Jacobus Cujachus may be consulted before all others 7 Observ 30 and 16 and Observ 3 and 5. And it is here very well worth our most particular Observation that such Societies as were erected for the exercise of Religion were by Publick Authority allowed of in the antient Roman Empire This is attested among a great many others by Athanagoras in the beginning of his Apology for the Christians when he says It is by your Command you greatest of Princes that several Nations live according to their own Customs and Laws and every one without being controuled by any Penal Statutes freely exercise the same Religion in which he was educated And thus he proceeds immediately after All Mankind offer their Sacrifices and use other Religious Ceremonies according to the Custom of their Native Country This Liberty of Conscience was among others the true cause why the Christian Religion in so short a time did spread it self all over so vast an Empire and why in the beginning very few opposed its Progress the Magistrates not thinking it belonging to their Province to intermeddle with it And this is one Reason why we never read of the Apostles having desired leave from the Civil Magistrates to preach the Gospel or to plant a Church Tho' another Reason may be given why the Apostles were not obliged to ask leave from the Civil Magistrates for the Constituting of Christian Churches because the Apostles had received their immediate Authority of Preaching the Gospel from him who is the King of kings and by whose Command all Mankind were then called to repentance From what has been said this rational Conclusion may be drawn That the Apostles had not only a Power to plant Churches in all places where they
found their Auditors inclined to receive the Doctrine of the Gospel but that also in all other places whither this Doctrine was transplanted the Believers might enter into such a Society or plant a Church upon their own accord without any Commission or Permission for so doing from the Apostles but that pursuant to our Saviour's Expression it was sufficient if two or three were inclined to meet in his Name If we trace the true nature of these Societies which are constituted by a free Choice and Consent of certain Men. we may easily find to contain all of them something resembling a Democracy where such Matters as concern the whole Body of the Society are to be dispatched by common Consent and where no particular Person can claim any further Power over the rest than what he has received by their joint Consent From whence it may be rationally concluded that at the first beginning the Power of Constituting Teachers and other Ministers of the Church was originally lodged in the whole Church or the whole Congregation of the Believers And tho' it is unquestionable that in the first primitive Church Teachers were constituted by the Apostles in a great many places nevertheless the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implies something of a Democracy and is often used in the Scriptures in this Case argues sufficiently that this was not done without the Approbation of the Church It would be a hard Task to prove that the Apostles did constitute Teachers themselves in all lesser Towns or that they preached the Gospel in all lesser Places and Villages It seems rather probable that the Gospel was published by the Apostles in great Cities and other places of note from whence it was communicated unto other Places and that such Churches as were not provided with Teachers Bishops or Presbyters by the Apostles themselves or their special Authority used either to chuse those very Persons to that Function who were the first Preachers of the Gospel among them or any others whom they esteemed to be endowed before others with the Gift of Teaching If we consult the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans it seems that the Gospel had been taught at Rome before ever Peter and Paul came thither And the High Treasurer of the Chap. 16. Queen Candaces who is generally believed to have first carried the Doctrine of the Gospel to Aethiopia and to have been the first Founder of the Christian Churches in those Parts received no Ordination as a Bishop or Presbyter from Philip after his Baptism Neither did Acts 8. Christ or his Apostles prescribe any certain Form to be used in the Ordination of Bishops as he did in the use of the Sacraments which seems to prove that for the obtaining of this Function there is nothing more required than for the Person to be called by the Church and to have the Gift of Teaching It is not to be denied but that the Ordination of Ministers and Imposition of Hands by the Bishops and Presbyters is a very laudable and useful Ceremony and ought to be received as such with this restriction nevertheless that the same need not to be deemed so absolutely necessary as if without it no Person ought to be taken for a true Minister of the Church especially since these miraculous Gifts which accompanied that Ceremony in the Infancy of the Primitive Church are many Ages past become useless The Church like all other Colledges 1 Tim. 4 14. have power to collect Stipends for their Ministers and to make Collections for the Use of the Poor but in a different degree from that which belongs to Civil Magistrates or Sovereigns who levy Taxes and have a Power to force their Subjects to a compliance with their Commands But in the Church this Power is founded upon the meer Liberality and free Consent of all the Believers in general who being made sensible of their Duty of paying a Workman his Stipend and relieving those in Distress ought not to refuse such Acts of Justice and Humanity It properly belongs to all 1 Cor. 8. 2 3. c. 2. 12 13. c. 9. 5 9 7. Colledges as well as Churches to have a Power to make with joint Consent of their Members such Statutes as may conduce towards the obtaining the Ends of their Society provided they do not interfere with the legal Rights of their Sovereigns Of this kind are these Statutes which St. Paul recommends to the Corinthians in his first Epistle in the 7 Chapt. If any one acted contrary to these Rules he deservedly was to receive Correction or to undergo such a Penalty as was dictated by the Statute and which was to be laid upon him not by Vertue of an Inherent Power in the Colledge but pursuant to their Contract And tho' Colledges have not any Power or Jurisdiction over their Members unless what is absolutely requisite for the obtaining the true end of each Society or else has been granted to them by their Sovereigns Nevertheless it is often practised in these Societies and may be done without prejudice to the Rights of their Sovereigns that if any Differences arise betwixt the Members of one and the same Colledge these are composed by the Interposition and Arbitration of the rest of the Members of that Colledge or Society to the End that a mutual good Correspondency may be cultivated among them In which sense is to be taken the Admonition which St. Paul gives to the Corinthians concerning this point in the 1 Epistle in the 6 Chapter in the first and following Verses Lastly because many Vices were at the time of the first publishing of the Gospel in vogue among the Heathens which were not punishable by the Pagan Laws they being more encouraged to the observance of Moral Duty by the prospect of Honours than by any civil Commands And the Christians believing it more peculiarly belonging to themselves to recommend and adorn their Profession by a holy Life and by an innocent Conversation to excel the Heathens some Statutes were at the very beginning introduced into the Primitive Church which were thought most convenient to correct all manner of Licentiousness according to St. Paul's Direction If any one that is called a Brother be a Fornicator or Covetous 1 Cor. 5. 2. or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such a one do not eat From whence it appears that in the primitive Times Church Censure was used in the Churches all which may easily be supposed to have been done without the least prejudice to the Sovereign Power it being always for the Interest of the State that Subjects should lead an innocent Life It is worth our Observation that the Punishments inflicted by vertue of these Statutes were of such a nature as might be put in execution without the least prejudice to the Civil Government such were private Admonitions publick Reprimands and Church Penances the extream Remedy was Excommunication by vertue of which a Member
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
they are not preferrable in this Point before any other in Europe If any one questions thâ— Truth of it I appeal to Mr. Toland's Case concerning his Treatise Entituled Christianity not Mysterious It is both beyond my scope and the compass of a Letter to enter upon the Merits of the Cause on both Sides it will be sufficient here to refer my self to what has been Published against him lately here in England and in other Places All which if duely compared will soon evince how much the English Clergy â—as out-done the rest both by force of Argument and a generous gentle Behaviour But I am afraid I have abused your Lordship's Patience I will therefore conclude with recommending both my Author and my Self to your Lordship's Protection begging Leave to subscribe my self My Lord Your Devoted Servant J. Crull M. D. THE CONTENTS COncering Religion before Civil Societies were Instituted SECT 1. Every Man is accountable to God for his own Religion 2 How the same might be exercised in the free State of Nature 3 Parentâ— had originally the Care of Religious Worship lodged in them 4 Civil Societies were not constituted for Religions sake 5 Subjects did never submit their Opinions as to Religious Worship to the Disposal of their Sovereigns 6 What Power properly and according to the Laws of Nature belongs to Sovereigns in Ecclesiastical Affairs 7 Of the Nature of Revealed Religion 8 Among the Jews there was a very strict Vnion betwixt the Church and State 9 Who was the Supream Head of the Jewish Church 10 The Christian Religion is quite different from the Jewish 11 Some Reflections on the Behaviour of Moses when he laid the Foundation of the Commonwealth of the Jews 12 What on the other Hand our Saviour did when he Estalished his Church here on Earth 13 Christ was not the Founder of a New Common-wealth or People 14 Neither had he any Territories belonging to him 15 Christ did not exercise any Sovereign Power 16 But thâ— Office of a Doctor or Teacher 17 The Apostles did propagate the Doctrine of our Saviour 18 The Apostles had received their Authority of Teaching from God alone independant from any Human Power 19 The Apostles never assumed any Authority of Commanding others 20 Whether their Authority of Teaching does indirectly imply any right of Commanding others 21 Whether the Power of Absolution does imply any Right of Sovereignty 22 What is to be understood by absolving from Sins 23 Vnder whose Authority the Apostles did exercise the Power of Absolution 24 Of what nature it was 25 Whether St. Peter had any Prerogative granted above others 26 Whether the Power of Excommunicating imply a Sovereignty 27 The Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles contains nothing of Command 28 The Kingdom of Christ is no Temporal Kingdom 29 Whether the Christian Church ought to be considered as a State or Sovereignty 30 In the Primitive Church there was nothing like it 31 There is a great difference betwixt the Church and State 32 And the Doctors or Teachers in the Church are quite different from those that exercises the Sovereignty in a State 33 Whether the whole Christian Church ought to be considered as a State 34 It is not requisite to reduce the whole Christian Church under one Independant Severeignty or Head 35 Whether there ought not to be one Supream Judge in the Church to determine such Differences as may arise from time to time 36 An Example of a Controversie composed in the Apostles Times 37 Some Observations concerning the Nature and Vsefulness of General Councils 38 Concerning the Condition of the Christian Church under the Pagan Princes 39 Concerning its Condition under the Christian Emperours 40 The Church has not changed her Nature of being a Colledge or Society 41 Neither are Sovereigns thereby become Bishops 42 Christian Sovereigns are obliged to maintain and defend the Church 43 Of the Prerogatives of Princes in Ecclesiastical Affairs 44 Of the Power of Sovereigns over the Church Ministers 45 Of the Power of calling a Synod or Convention 46 Of their Power as to Church-Discipline 47 Of their Power of making Laws and Ecclesiastical Constitutions 48 How far Sovereigns are obliged to intermeddle in Religious Affairs when the Publick Safety lies at stake 49 Concerning Toleration of several Religions 50 Princes ought to be very careful not to be led away by false Suggestions 51 Sometimes the Prerogatives of Sovereigns are impaired under a religious Pretext 52 Concerning the Power of setting up a Reformation 53 Whether Subjects without the concurrence of their Sovereigns can pretend to set up a Reformation 54 OF THE Nature and Qualification OF RELIGION In REFERENCE to CIVIL SOCIETY c. AMong all those Questions which have for many Ages past been Controverted among Christians this may be deem'd one of the Chiefest which Treats of the Nature Authority and Power of the Church and which of the several Christian Sects ought most justly to claim the Title of the True Church The Romanists keep this for their last Reserve when Engag'd with the Protestants That they Attribute the Name of the True Church only to themselves and boldly stigmatize all such as are not of their Communion with the Names of rebellious Deserters This is the main Bulwark they rely upon thinking it sufficient to Alledge in their own behalf That they are not obliged so strictly to Examin and maintain every Article of their Faith against the Protestants since whatever Objections may be made out of the Holy Scripture the same ought to be rejected as Erroneous if not agreeable with the Interpretations and Traditions of their Church Thus making themselves both Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause â—esides this it is to be look'd upon as a Matter of the greatest Consequence both in regard of the Christian Church and the Publick Safety in a State to know exactly what bounds ought to be prescribed to the Priestly Order in Ecclesiastical Affairs as likewise to determin how far the Power of Sovereigns extends it self in Ecclesiastical Matters For if either of them transgress their Bounds it must of necessity prove the Cause of great Abuses Disturbances and Oppressions both in Church and State I was the sooner prevail'd upon to Search into the very bottom of this Question at this juncture of Time when not only the Romish Priests apply all their Cunning for the rooting out of the Protestants but also some of the greatest Princes in Christendom setting aside the Antient way of Converting People by Reason and force of Arguments have now recourse to opâ—n Violence and by Dragooning force their miserable Subjects to a Religion which always appear'd abominable to them But if we propose to our selves to examin this Point according to its own solid Principles as we ought to do without having recourse to Ambiguous Terms and Tergiversations it is absolutely requisite that we trace the very Original of Religion in General and of the Christian Religion in Particular so as
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
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.
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
reason God has threatned in a most peculia manner to destroy this Monster of a State An Example of Controversie composed in the times of the Apostles § 37. The true Method of composing Controversies arisen in the Church is taught us by what is set us as an Example of this kind in the Acts c. 15. where it deserves our most particular Observation that the Controversy then in question was concerning a main Point in the Christian Religion viz. Whether a man might be saved without being circumcised according to the Institution of Moses For S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians c. 5. 2. had positively declared If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And it is very remarkable that this Question was started in the very Infancy of the Church when the Canon of the Church was not perfected and there were not wanting living Testimonies of such as had received the Doctrine of Christ from his own mouth and were endued with the Holy Ghost and Instructed with an Apostolical Authority Neither is it to be doubted but that Paul and Barnabas were endued with a sufficient Share of Wisdom and Understanding of the Holy Scripture for the reducing of this Errour as plainy appears out of the 5. verse of the above alledged Chapter that they opposed Act. 1◠such forcible Reasons against this erroneous Opinion that those that were come thither out of Judea were not able to contradict them So they appealed to the Authority of the Church of Jerusalem which being the V 2. Spring from whence the Christian Religion was derived into other Parts of the World they hoped to be back'd in this Opinion by such of the Members of that Church as did not without some Reluctancy brook the Abolishing of the Jewish Synagogue and that they were not quite beyond their guess but met with a great many there that were addicted to the same Opinion appears out of the 5th Verse in the same 15th Chapter To prevent therefore any further Disturbance which might be raised in the Antiochian Church by reason of this Controversie Paul and Barnabas with some others were deputed to go to the Church of Jerusalem to decide this Controversie When they came thither a Convocation was called consisting not only of the Apostles and Presbyters but also of the other Members of that Church not excepting those of the contrary side After their Reasons had been heard the Case was in debate a considerable time and at last the whole matter having been sufficiently disputed on both sides then Peter rose up not as an universal Judge or who pretended to decide the Controversie by Virtue of his Authority but his Proceeding was by demonstrative Arguments telling them what prodigious Effects had been wrought among the Gentiles by his preaching the Gospel to them after the Vision which appeared to him at Joppe Where Act. 11 9 he thus argues That since the Holy Ghost had in the same measure purified the Hearts of those Believers that were uncircumcised it would be unreasonable to put this Yoak upon the Neck of the Christians the more because they were not to be saved by Circumcision but through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ Paul and Barnabas being of the same Opinion did declare at the same time what Miracles and Wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them which would not have been done if they were to be taken for unsanctified as being not circumcised or if Circumcision was an essential Part of the Christian Faith After all had held their Peace that is to say no body further appearing who could contradict them or oppose their Arguments James at last arose declaring that the Vision of Peter did agree to the Words of the Prophets and that therefore it was his Opinion that such among the Centiles as did turn to Christ ought not to be troubled But that they also in some measure might gratifie themselves and to induce them not to fly the Conversation of such of the Gentiles as received the Christian Faith it was thought sit that these should abstain from Pollution of Idols from Fornication from things strangled and from Blood all which was forbidden by the Mosaic Law and partly disagreeable to the Law of Nature as Fornication which nevertheless was a common Vice among the Gentiles the rest being things indifferent in themselves might easily be let alone rather than give Offence to a Brother This having been approved of by common Consent and as it appears even by those that were of a contrary Sentiment before a Synodical Epistle was writ to the Church at Antioch in the name not only of those Apostles and Elders but also of the Brethren of the Church of Jerusalem Judas and Silas were deputed to carry this Epistle who being arrived at Antioch did not publish it in the nature of a Law but having delivered it to the Brethren from whom it met with a general Approbation they exhorted them with many words to a due Observance of it § 38. If the whole matter be duly weighed Some Observations concerning the natura and use of Councils it furnishes us with several Observations which may not a little contribute towards the Explaining the Nature of Ecclesiastical Councils In the first place it is most apparent that these Councils are not such Bodies whose Authority is everlasting for the Government of the Church But that they are extraordinary Convocations or Conventions composed out of some selected and most eminent Men of the Church who are called together for the composing certain Controversies arisen in the Church And because those Councils were very frequent in the Church from its Primitive times this alone may serve as a convincing argument that the Church never acknowledged one infallible Judge for the deciding of Controversies For to what purpose were so many Heads set to work if one single Person was sufficient and infallible in the Decision of them And what is yet more if the Decrees of the Councils had only their obliging Force from his Confirmation Furthermore those that compose such a Council are not to be considered as Members of an Assembly or Colledge who by the Majority of Votes can so absolutely determine the Question in hand as to be obligatory to all Christians in general Truth generally speaking not depending from the Plurality of Suffrages much less can they pretend to a legislative Power vested in them so as to impose what Laws or Canons they please upon the Church But they may be considered no otherwise than Men deputed by the Churches for the examining the true Grounds of the Controversies laid before them and for searching for the Decision of them in the Holy Scripture So that these Churches are not obliged to acquiesce in this Decision any further than they find it agreeable to the Word of God For it may chance to fall out so that a Controversie which appears at first sight very intricate and difficult afterwards being
of the Church was either for a time deprived from enjoying the benefit of the Publick Worship or entirely excluded from being a Member of the Church This being the utmost unto which any Colledge can pretend viz. entirely to exclude a Member of their Society This Exclusion tho' in it self considered of the greatest moment since thereby a Christian was deprived of the whole Communion with the Church Nevertheles did not alter the Civil State or Condition of a Subject But those that were thus excommunicated suffered no loss in their Dignities Honour Rights or Fortunes For that the Church Censures should extend to the real Prejudice of the civil Condition of any Subject is not any ways requisite for the obtaining the Ends for which the Church is Established Neither can it be supposed that without defrauding Sovereigns of their Right such a Power can be exercised over Subjects unless with their own Consent and by vertue of a publick Civil Authority § 40. The next thing which deserves our Consideration is whether the Church is and Concerning the condition of the Church under Christian Princes how far it received any Alteration from its former Condition after Princes whole Kingdoms and States did profess the Christian Religion Where it is to be observed That the Churches did thereby not receive any essential Perfection it being evident that the Christian Religion could be exercised and subsist without the State and Commonwealths did not depend from the Christian Religion The scope of the Christian Religion and of civil Governments being quite different in their own nature For our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Conversation Phil. 3. 20. 2 Cor. 5 ◠8. 1 Cor. 14 19. is in Heaven and if in this Life only we have hope in Christ we are of all Men most miserable For this Reason it was that the Apostles were never forward to appear before Princes tho' they might have obtained an easie Access by their miraculous Deeds So Herod was exceeding glad when he saw Jesus because he hoped to have seen some Miracle done Luke 23. 8. by him But they were very cautious in this point lest it might appear to some as if the Gospel wanted to be maintained by Human Strength or that perhaps those Princes might pretend to a greater Authority over them than was consistent with the safety of the Christian Religion Notwithstanding all this the Christian Religion does not in any wise impair or ecclipse the legal Rights of Sovereigns but rather confirms and establishes the civil Power Mat. 22. 21. Joh. 18. 2. Rom. 13. 1 Cor. 35. 24. as is apparent out of several passages in the holy Scripture If it should be granted that the Church was a State independent from any temporal Jurisdiction the consequence would be this That the civil Power could not but receive a most remarkable Limitation and Diminution and the condition of a Subject must receive a great alteration whereas on the other hand the condition of Christians or of Teachers in the Church considered as such is neither abolished nor altered because either the Prince or the Subjects in general do receive the Christian Faith there being not the least footstep to be met withal in the Scriptures implying any such alteration Besides this there is not any express Command in the New Testament directed to Sovereigns which entitles them to any particular Prerogative in the Church like to that which the Kings of Israel had received in the 17 Chap. of Deuteronomy From whence arises this conclusion that what right Sovereigns can claim in the Church and Church Affairs must be deduced either out of the natural constitution of the civil Power or out of the true Genius of the Christian Religion or else must owe its off-spring to the free consent of the Church § 41. Out of what has been laid down it Churches do not alter their nature of being a Colledge appears first of all that if a Prince or whole Commonwealth do receive the Doctrine of Christ the Church does thereby not receive any other Alteration as to her natural Constitution but that whereas she was formerly to be considered only as a private Society or Colledge yet such a one as being subordinate to the Law and therefore to be cherished by the Higher Powers who had no legal Right to disturb prosecute or destroy it She now being put under the particular Protection of her Sovereigns enjoys a greater share of Security and is beyond the reach of the Persecutions of the Infidels Notwithstanding this the Church is thereby not exalted from a Colledge to a State since by the receiving of the Christian Religion the civil Government does not undergo any Alteration or Diminution On the contrary Sovereigns loose nothing of their legal Rights neither are Subjects in any wise absolved from their Duties and Obligations For it implies a contradiction that a double Sovereignty and two different sorts of Obligations in the Subject should be lodged in one and the same Commonwealth It is a frivolous Objection that the Church and civil Government have different Ends and Objects not repugnant to one another For from thence is not to be inferred that the Church must be a State or that the Christian Religion cannot be propagated maintained or exercised without the Church assume the same Power that belongs to the civil Government In these places therefore where the whole People and the Prince profess the Christian Religion the Commonwealth receives the Church into its Protection and tho' strictly united there is no collision or emulation betwixt them nor does either of them receive any prejudice in their respective Rights but without the least Interference with one another the Church remains a Colledge whereof the Prince and all the Subjects are now become Members So that each Subject besides the Person he represented in the State has assumed that of a Christian and in this respect is esteemed a Member of the Church Neither is every one to be considered in the Church according to the Station or Dignity he bears in the Commonwealth but these Qualifications are as it were laid aside there and he is only regarded as a Christian So that the General of an Army cannot claim any Prerogative to himself in the Church beyond the private Centinel And it is past all doubt that one and the same Man may represent several Persons according to the several Functions and Obligations belonging to him § 42. It is also according to my Opinion 〈…〉 made Bishops beyond question that Kings Princes or other civil Magistrates by receiving the Christian Doctrine are not constituted Bishops or Teachers in the Church this Function not properly belonging to every Christian but only to such as have a lawful Vocation and are fitly qualified for it Besides this the Royal Office and that of Teachers are of such a nature that they cannot conveniently be Administred by one and the same Person not because of any natural repugnancy betwixt
Commonwealth 'T is true the Church is a Society but not a Body Politick founded upon the Publick Authority but owes it Original to a higher Principle having not like other Colledges its dependency from the State What is alledged out of Titus 2. 9. Colos 3. 20 22. Rom. 13. 3 4. 1 Pet. 2. 14. is strangely misrepresented to evince that Ecclesiastical Matters are dependent from the absolute Pleasure of Sovereigns What Follows might also very well deserve some Animadversions if it were not beyond our scope at present N. 13. It is a gross Error That as a Consequence of this Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs he attributes to them the Titles of Pastors Ministers Heralds of God Bishops Priests and Apostles Pray with what Authority and with what sense For the Duty belonging to Sovereigns which entitles them to the name of being the Guardians of both Tables of the Decalogue and of being the Foster-Fathers and Defenders of the Church is of a far different Nature from what he would insinuate here And if it be not to be left to the absolute Judgment of the Clergy it self with exclusion of the rest of the Members of the Church to determine in Ecclesiastical Affairs what is agreeable to the Word of God how can this Judgment belong to the Sovereign alone without allowing a share to the rest of the Members of the Church These words in the § LXIV Each Sovereign may establish what Religion he pleases in his Dominions ought not to be let pass by without a severe Correction The Reason alledged is very frivolous Because all Publick and external Actions depend from the Publick Authority Is this your Assertion good Mr. Houtuyn that Princes may impose what Religion they please upon their Subjects and by their absolute Authority make it the establish'd Religion with exclusion to all others who if not complying must forsooth sly the Country What Religion they please do you say the the Pagan False Fictious or Superstitious it matters not which From whence pray was this Power derived to Sovereigns Not certainly from God except you can shew us a Divine Authority for it Not from the common consent of those that entred into Civil Societies Commonwealths not being instituted for Religion's sake and of a later date besides that such a Power is not requisite for the attaining that end for which Civil Societies were establish'd Neither is it left to the bare pleasure of any Person tho' considered as in the Natural state of Freedom to profess what Religion he pleases But supposing it was no Inference can be made from thence that the same may be forc'd upon others The distinction he makes betwixt the internal and external Religion must also be taken with a great deal of Circumspection lest some People might perswade themselves that it is indifferent what Religion a Man professes in outward shew provided he be satisfied as to the internal part of it Furthermore it is absolutely false that all Publick Actions that is every thing done in Publick in the Common-wealth owes its Original to the Sovereign Power there being several things to be done by Subjects in publick depending meerly from that Liberty belonging to them in the Natural state of Liberty or from God's Command or from a certain Power granted to them by God Almighty It is no less false That all exterior Actions depend from the Civil Authority For according to Mr. Houtuyn's Opinion the Doctrine of Divinity and the Confession of Faith as comprehended in a certain form are to be reckoned among those exterior Actions Mr. Houtuyn is much in the wrong when he pretends to draw an Inference from thence that because it belongs to Sovereigns to take care that their Subjects may be well instructed concerning what Opinion they ought to have of God as the Establisher of Justice they therefore have a Right of disposing in an Arbitrary way of revealed Religion and to declare any Religion whatsoever which pretends to Revelation the Establish'd Religion in the Commonwealth It is a much grosser Mistake yet when he asserts That any Religion establish'd in a State tho' never so false contributes to the Publick Tranquility of that Commonwealth It is possible that a Religion defective in some Points may nevertheless lead People into the way of Salvation but those that contain false Doctrines of God and his Attributes are incapable of producing that Effect The Publick Tranquility founded upon such false Opinions will be very unstable and may with more ease or at least with the same conveniency be obtained by the true Doctrine especially if it be taken into consideration that tho' it be possible that such Impostures may beguile the giddy-headed Multitude they cannot always pass for currant among Men of a sound Understanding It is to be remembred that the Southsayers at Rome cannot forbear laughing when they meet another of the same Profession We must beg Mr. Houtuyn's Pardon if we question his Authority when he pretends to perswade us That Faith which he is pleased to call every ones private Religion independent from any Temporal Power will not be impaired by a Man's professing any other Religion established by the Sovereign Authority and he leaves it to the discretion of those Civil Governours which of all Religions they will be pleased to establish in their Dominions whether that of the Japoneses of the Brachmans Mahometans Jews or Christians and among all those that pretend to the Christian Name such a one as may be most agreeable to their own Fancy I much question whether he will meet with many Tools that will take his Word for it A great part of Christendom did look upon it as a thing insufferable that the Pope of Rome should set up for the great Arbitrator of Christendom in matters relating to the Christian Faith tho' his Pretences did not reach further than to force one Religion upon the World which he knew was most likely to turn to his own Advantage But now it seems it has pleased God that Sovereigns should be invested with a Power of establishing any Religion at pleasure and it being beyond question that there are several Religions which have not the least relation to one another they may with the same Right at several times declare several distinct Religions nay even those that are quite opposite to one another the establish'd Religion and nevertheless every one of these must be accepted forsooth as the true Religion The next Consequence will be that Sovereigns having a Right of defending and altering the establish'd Religion and to punish such as trespass against it one Prince will have no more Right to cherish and maintain one Religion but his Successors may with the same Right abolish it and punish such of his Subjects as adhere to it So that according to the Doctrine of Mr. Houtuyn's Gospel the establish'd Religion will be settled upon the same Foundation with some Statutes which may be enacted and repeal'd by Sovereigns at pleasure In
are first examined but where the Faith was the forgiveness of Sins was the immediate consequence of it He that believed on him says 〈…〉 3. 1◠St. John is not condemned but he that believed not is condemned already Neither is that Confession whether tacit or express which ought to precede the Remission of Sins like to those Confessions which in Judicial Courts are required to be made by Offenders and are sure to meet with deserved Punishment But it has Jos 7 1◠◠20 21. a resemblance to those Confessions that are made to Physicians by such of their Patients as labour under a secret Distemper hoping thereby for Relief in their Diseases As it is expressed in the 32 Psalm v. 3 4 5. of David Neither can true Repentance be supposed without such a Confession for how can we ask forgiveness either of God or our Neighbour whom we have offended unless we confess and acknowledge our Error Lastly it is to be Prov. 28. observed That Christ and his Apostles during the time of Grace here upon Earth did not intend to set up a judicial Court but to preach and to announce repentance and forgiveness of Sins But of the great Day of Judgment it is said That God will proceed to Judgment in a solemn manner there the Supream Judge will sit upon the Throne of Judgment thère Seats are to be prepared for the Assessours Rev. 20. 12. the Books are to be opened and every one is to be judged according to his Works and that without Appeal It ought also to be taken notice of That tho' we have obtained pardon for an Offence from our Neighbour this does not always and necessarily imply a Pardon from God Almighty for it is possible that notwithstanding a Pardon obtained from Men God has not absolved us from that Offence as for instance if the Offender be without true Faith or an Hypocrite And on the other hand it is possible that our Offences are forgiven by God when forgiveness has been denied us by Men as in case our Neighbour refuses to pardon an Offence tho' we beg Forgiveness and profer Satisfaction to be made or a Priest being overcome by private Passion should deny us Absolution When therefore the Priest says Thy Sins are forgiven unto thee it is not always to be taken for granted that Christ does then make use of the same Words For God alone is the Judge of our Faith and even our Thoughts But Men can only give their Judgment according to such Circumstances or outward Signs as effect our Senses which often prove deceitful and far different from what we keep concealed within us And tho' in Civil Courts of Judicature it is sufficient if Judgment be given in a Case according to what is proved by Evidence notwithstanding the same may be contrary to Truth it is quite otherwise with God Almighty who searching into the very bottom of our Hearts cannot be deceived by Hypocrisie And tho' the Priest should tell thee a hundred times over and over thy Sins are forgiven unto the and thou art destitute of Faith it can avail thee nothing Lastly it ought not to be forgotten that when God did give unto the Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven he did not thereby surrender all his Power of forgiving Sins or of receiving penitent Sinners into his Favour or did debar himself from making use of this Power unless by the means of Priests so as to reserve only to himself the Supream Prerogative of remitting of Sins in case of an unjust refusal of the Priest No by no means for if this were granted it would be in vain for us to pray every day Forgive us our Sins All these things duely considered are evident Proofs that when it is said that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given unto the Apostles it is to be understood from the Doctrine of the Gospel which creats of the remission of Sins through our Faith in Christ when the Apostles taught this Doctrine to the Believers it was said of them that they forgave Sins in the same sense as they are said to save others by Preaching the Gospel to the Believers And on the contrary 〈…〉 4. 16. when they preach the Gospel to the Unbelieving they are said to have bound them so as that they shall be bound in Heaven The Apostles Joh 3. 18. therefore when they announced to the Believing the Grace of God and Forgiveness of Sins through Christ did open the Gates of Heaven and they shut them against such as being unbelieving refused to accept this Doctrine So that when a Minister of the Church applies this Doctrine of the Gospel to one particular Person he says thus much to him If thou believest according to thy Confession I announce and confirm unto thee Remission of thy Sins through the Merits of Christ so that thou mayest be now assured that the same are forgiven by Christ in Heaven But if thou not believest thy Sins are not forgiven For remission of Sins is the necessary consequence of Faith even before the Absolution is pronounced by the Priest it being not left to the arbitrary Pleasure of Men whether to apply the gracious Doctrine of Remission of Sins to a believing Person or not But he that believes is thereby justified before God notwithstanding he be prevented from receiving Absolution from the Priest Out of what has been said it is evident that according to the Intention of our Saviour these Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not to be made use of for the Establishment of a Temporal State or to gain other Temporal Advantages For Christ ordered the Apostles to preach Remission of Sins and give for nothing what they had received for nothing but not to traffick with the Word of God Neither did they by preaching the Gospel make Men subject to themselves but to Christ Nay St. Paul could not understand without Indignation that some among the Corinthians would 1 Cor. 1. 12 1◠Whether St. Peter had any be called from him some from Apollo c. § 26. But of what nature soever their Power or Function might be the same was granted Prerogative granted him before the rest of the Apostles in an equal degree to all the Apostles so that none of them cogld claim a particular Prerogative or at least not any right of Commanding the rest For if we peruse those several Mat. 28. 18 19 20. c. 23. 8. S. Joh. 20. 21 22 23. c. 13. 14 15 16. Passages in the holy Scripture where the Apostolical Function was established and conferred upon them there are not the least footsteps of Inequality to be found among them And that Passage St. Luke 22. 26 27. Epistle to the Galat. 2. 9 14. By St. Matth. 16. 18. which the Romanists make such a stir about contains nothing that can give any legal Pretence Superiority to St. Peter and much less to the Roman Bishops over all the
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