Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	catholic_n	particular_a	union_n	3,907	5	9.8315	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56257	Of the nature and qualification of religion in reference to civil society written by Samuel Puffendorff ... ; which may serve as an appendix to the author's Duty of men ; translated from the original.; De habitu religionis Christianae ad vitam civilem. English	Pufendorf, Samuel, Freiherr von, 1632-1694.; Crull, J. (Jodocus), d. 1713?; Pufendorf, Samuel, Freiherr von, 1632-1694. De officio hominis et civis.	1698 (1698)	Wing P4180; ESTC R6881	106,116	202

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 contr●●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 acquain● 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 ● 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

contains every particular Point of Doctrine in the true sense as they are proposed in the Holy Scripture And those are called Hereticks who only profess some particular Points out of the Holy Writ for such as absolutely reject it are counted Infidels and Reprobates but either deny or explain the rest in a wrong and perverted sense How can the Popish Clergy therefore assume the Title of the Catholick Church before they have and that without contradiction proved every Point of their Faith out of the Holy Scripture Or exclude us Protestants from that Title till they have proved that our Doctrine is contrary to it Lastly It is called the Apostolical Church as being founded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles And the true Church loses nothing of its intrinsick Value whether it has been planted by the Apostles or whether the Apostolical Doctrine has been transmitted to them by others § 54. But it is not a very difficult Task to Whether Subjects without the Consent of their Sovereigns may separate themselves from an Erroneous Religion introduce a Reformation in Religion with the mutual Consent of Sovereign and Subjects so it may be questioned whether Subjects may attempt a Reformation when their Sovereigns and the whole Clergy or at least the greatest part of them do not acknowledge their Error but rather pretend to maintain it In this case it is our Opinion that provided these Errors ●o touch the Fundamental Points of our 〈…〉 Subjects as by the Grace of God and the ●ight of his holy Spirit have attain●●he true Knowledge may separate themselves from the Communion of that Church without the consent of their Sovereigns of the Clergy For every body being accountable to God for his Religion and answerable for his own Soul ●hose Salvation cannot absolutely be committed to any Body else and a Christian in Matters of Faith being not altogether to rely upon his Sovereign or the Clergy at least no farther than their Doctrine is congruous with the holy Scripture It is undeniable that Subjects may separate themselves from the Communion of that Church which is prosessed by their Sovereign and Clergy provided they can make it evidently appear that such a Church is infected with gross Abuses and dangerous Errors For the Church is a Colledge whose Members are not kept in Union by any Temporal Power but by the Union of the Faith and whosoever relinquishes that he dissolves the sacred Tye of the Believers Besides that it is not absolutely necessary for our Salvation that the Church be composed of a great Number but the same may be obtained either by a greater or lesser Number of the Believers Neither can this Separation prove in the least prejudicial to the Sovereign Authority it being supposed that those who have separated themselves adhere to the true pure Doctrine of the Gospel free from all Poison and Principles dangerous or prejudicial to the Government For civil Society was not instituted for Religion's sake neither does the Church of Christ participate of the nature of a Temporal State and therefore a Prince that embraces the Christian Faith does not thereby acquire an absolute Sovereignty over the Church or Mens Consciences So that if notwithstanding this Separation the Subjects pay due Allegiance to their Prince in Temporal Affairs there is no reason sufficient which can oblige him to trouble them meerly upon the score of their Consciences For what loss is it to the Prince whether his Subjects are of the same Religion with himself or of unother Or which was supposed before whether they did maintain the same Errors as he does The case indeed would be quite different if they should endeavour to withdaw themselves from their Allegiance to set up a separate Society without his Consent tho' it is undeniable that there are some Cases of Necessity when this civil Tye or Allegiance may be dissolved as for Instance when Subjects for want of sufficient Protection from their natural Prince are so hardly pressed upon by a more Potent Enemy that they are forc'd to submit to his Power And granted the Power of Sovereigns in the Church to be much greater than in effect it is Subjects are nevertheless bound to take care of their Souls whose Salvation is to be preferr'd before all other things in regard of which they may separate themselves from an Established Religion provided they are convinced of its Errors For that Subject who sacrifices his Life for his Prince does doubtless a glorious Action but what Prince can be so unreasonable as to expect that his Subjects should Sacrifice their Souls to the Devil for his sake That Prince therefore who does trouble his faithful Subjects for no other reason but because they cannot conform to his Opinion especially if they can maintain theirs out of the Holy Scripture commits an Act of Injustice Nay I cannot see how he can with Justice force them out of his Territories It is true he may refuse to receive Hereticks into his Dominions unless it be for Reasons of State Neither can a true Believer take it amiss if he is not permitted to settle in a Commonwealth govern'd by Hereticks For the Right of Naturalization belongs to Sovereigns which they may refuse and give to whom they think it convenient But as it is certainly the greatest Injustice in the World to force an in-born Natural Subject who has settled all his Fortunes in a Commonwealth meerly for his Religion's sake without being convicted of his Error out of his Native Country to the great detriment and danger of himself and his Family So if a Subject inclines voluntarily to leave his Native Country either to avoid the Frowns of his Prince or the hatred of the Clergy and Common People and to serve God with more freedom according to his own Conscience it ought not to be refused by his Sovereign I remember there is a certain Proverb used among the Germans viz. He that Commands the Country Commands Religion But this cannot be applied to the Princes of the Roman Catholick Religion who cannot lay any Claim to it it being evident that the Popish Clergy do not allow any such thing to these Princes And as to what concerns the Protestant Estates of Germany it cannot be denied but that they made use of this Pretension against the Emperor at the time of the Reformation which however ought to be thus interpreted That they denied the Emperor to have any Power of intermedling in the Affairs relating to their own Dominions not that only they claim'd it as belonging to the Rights of Sovereignty to impose any Religion tho' never so false upon their Subjects notwithstanding all which there are not wanting Examples that Princes have acted conformable to this Proverb with their Subjects A Prince who troubles his faithful Subjects meerly upon the score of Religion commits a gross Error no Christian Prince being obliged to propagate his Religion by forcible means provided his Subjects stand firm to their Allegiance to him

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 I●●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. 2● 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. 2● 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 en●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 som●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 Co●ce●ning the rights of Princes as to Ecclesiastical Affairs And first of the g●n●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

else overturn that Government under which they then live So when Moses delivered the Israelites from the Aegyptian Bondage he led them into the Desarts of Arabia And when Romulus had resolved to erect a new Commonwealth he first withdrew himself from the Subjection of the Kings of Alba and such of the Neighbouring Countries as were for being Members of that new Commonwealth did leave their former Habitations and settled themselves in Rome But neither Christ nor his Apostles did ever remove Christians from their Habitations to other Places but allowed every body to remain in the same Station and under the same Government without the least prejudice to the former Rights of their Sovereigns over them From whence it is evident that the Christians tho' never so numerous could not be in a condition to settle themselves under any one State of their own For since according to the Rules of the Christian Religion the Rights of Sovevereigns over their Subjects Lives and Goods are not taken away or impair'd and no body can be subject to two Masters there could be no pretence of erecting a new Sovereignty especially in the midst of another Common-wealth nay it was beyond their Power even to enter into such a Society as should be in the least prejudicial to the Rights of their present Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 1● Sovereigns Who can be so ignorant in civil Affairs as not to understand what prodigious Sums of Money are required for the maintainig of a State And tho the Rights of Sovereigns do not extend so far as to take away from Subjects the private disposal of their Goods nevertheless may they lawfully restrain the Extravagancy of their Subjects if they pretend to dispose of their Goods in prejudice of the State For if this Liberty should be granted to the Subjects without limitation the State if deprived o● its nourishment would quickly be reduced to a languishing condition or else private Men might be enabled to erect a new State in the midst of the old one or at least to impair and endanger the Publick Safety And since those Sovereigns under whose Jurisdiction the Apostles lived had the same Right over the Fortunes of their Subjects as other Governments have and the Rights of Sovereigns were not taken away by the Doctrine of Christ there could be no other provision made for the maintainance of those Congregations as such but what was consistent with the lawful Rights of their Sovereigns and as much only as might lawfully be given by private Persons which could not exceed a private Fortune and were nothing more than Voluntary Contributions or Alms And whatsoever of any real Estate was attributed to these Uses was thereby not exempted from paying of Taxes no more than the Estates of other Subjects § 32. But if we take a full view of the The inward Structure of the Church is quite different from that of a State whole Structure of Civil Societies and by what means Subjects were united under one Government we shall find them to differ as Heaven and Earth from that Union which belongs properly to the Body of a Church If we trace that Original of Civil Societies or Commonwealths it is evident that Men having found the Inconveniencies and Dangers which attended a solitary Life in the free natural State did enter and unite themselves into Societies for their common Security And having agreed to a certain Form of Government did constitute one certain Person or a Counsel who were to be the supream Governours of that Society unto whom they submitted themselves and their fortunes for the common Benefit of that Society But Churches were erected upon quite another Foundation For here Men being made sensible of their miserable condition did not by their own accord and a general agreement turn themselves to God Almighty but being on the contrary overwhelmed with Darkness and Ignorance so as to be over secure and neglecting their own Salvation God did send his Messengers among them commanding all men every where to repent Here is not the least Acts 1● 30. footstep of any general Agreement of Men to erect and submit themselves under one Church but each particular Person for himself without any respect or regard to others did follow Christ and his Doctrine And whereas in a Civil State the whole family has its dependency from their Master and enjoys all the Privileges belonging to them under his Protection it is quite different in the Church where the Wife is not obliged to follow her Husband's Religion nor the Servant the Master So were in the family of 1 Cor. 7. 12. 21. Nacissus who himself was not a Christian several Christian Servants who are saluted as such by S. Paul And in this sense is to be ●●m 16. ●● taken what is said by Christ He that loved Father or Mother Son or Daughter more than me is not worthy of me As likewise Mat. 10. 3● c 12 5● Luk. 1● ●6 what is mentioned concerning Divisions Discords Dissensions which are to be raised by the Doctrine of Christ among the nearest Friends is to be understood of the strict Union betwixt Christ and the Believers which surpasses and is to be preferred before all the Tyes of Consangninity among Men. So Mat. ●0 34. that if a Father Husband or Master should turn Apostate the Son Wife or Servant are not obliged to follow their footsteps Neither is it requisite to be solicitous about any particular or certain Form of Government in the Church viz. whether the same ought to be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical For these seveveral Forms belonging only to a Civil Government are very preposterously made use of in the behalf of the Church which is far different from a Temporal State And as Churches and Commonwealths are erected for different Ends so the Offices belonging to both are altogether of a different Nature Who is so ignorant as not to know that for the obtaining the Ends of Civil Societies it was requisite to constitute various Degrees of Dignities appertaining to the Managers of the State whereas the most plain and natural Distinction betwixt Christians in reference to the Church is only that of Teachers and Auditors § 33. Besides all this the Teachers in a 9 There is a great difference betwixt Teachers in a Church and the Governours of a State Church do not only differ from Temporal Governours in a State in that these are constituted for different Ends But the main Difference is the very nature of their Constitution We will not insist here upon the Point of Succession by which a great many Sovereigns obtain their Sovereign Power which is quite otherwise in the Church But we will only treat in this place concerning the different Constitution betwixt Teachers and such Sovereigns as exercise the Supream Civil Power by Vertue of Election When therefore the Sovereign Power is lodged in any Persons by Election the rest who have thus chosen them their