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
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
Action of Pilate it being to be considered no otherwise than a publick Robbery and a power Luk. 22. 53. of darkness since in all his Proceedings there is not a footstep of a legal Process to be met with And it is so manifest that when religious Matters were in question the due Method and judicial Order of a legal Process have been violated a thousand times over and over that it would be superfluous to alledge any Examples of it here When Sovereigns punish or chastise a Pastor or Minister of the Church who has abused his Function or been defective in it this power does properly not proceed from the Civil Jurisdiction but from a Right translated to the Sovereign by the Church But those that are punished by the Civil Authority because they have stirr'd up by their turbulent Speeches and Sermons the People to Rebellion against their Soverereigns or have attempted to withdraw the Auditors from and to resist the Power of a legal Jurisdiction cannot be said to undergo Punishment on the account of the Christian Religion Furthermore it is false that the Church considered as such can claim any Jurisdiction properly speaking It is no less false that the Power of disposing and exercising those Functions belonging to each Church is a civil Act in regard of its publick Effect Mr. Houtuyn has been drawn into all these Errors by confounding the Commonwealth with the Church If these two be not very nicely distinguished but we allow the Church to be entirely swallowed up in the civil Power what have we got by shaking of the Popish Yoak For the condition of the Church will be never the better if all Ecclesiastical Matters without Exception are left to the arbitrary Disposal of Sovereigns To maintain which Mr. Houtuyn in contradiction to all Reason and the Scripture it self has invented A spiritual Good or the eternal Welfare of People as the main End and Duty of the Sovereign Power By Vertue of which he enables his Prince to force his Subjects to profess publickly what Religion he will be pleased to impose upon them tho' never so contrary to their own Opinion For it may be sufferable for a Man to keep his own Opinion concealed to himself but to be oblig'd to profess what is quite contrary to it is both abominable and intolerable The Saying of Constantine the Great so much extoll'd by Mr. Houtuyn himself is contradictory to his Assertion viz. That he could have wish'd all his Subjects to have been Christians but that he never forced any For this Emperour not only never attempted to force any one from his own Opinion which indeed was beyond his Power but also never constrained his Subjects to profess themselves Christians against their own Inclinations Our Author does also not a little contradict himself in what he says concerning Words sometimes exempting them from any civil Cognisance whereas before he had made them liable to the civil Jurisdiction What says he if our Faith express'd by Words should come to the knowledge of our Sovereign It ought to be look'd upon not so much as a Crime but rather as an Error to correct which is not to be effected by Punishments which do illuminate our Mind but rather by good Instructions But those that know the real difference betwixt the Common-wealth and Church that is to say betwixt the State and a Colledge may without much difficulty dissolve these knotty Questions which he has started concerining the Jurisdiction and Legislative Power of Princes over the Church As to the § LXIX It is to be observed that it is put beyond all question that Sovereigns have a Right to give the Authority and Force of a Law to such Statutes as they find suitable to the State it being their Prerogative to determine according to what Laws Judgment is to be given in Civil Courts of Judicature what is punishable and what is to be left to the Conscience of every Subject But it implies an Absurdity to attribute to Sovereigns a Right of giving publick Authority to Prophesies themselves neither the Intrinsick nor Historical Faith having any dependence on the Civil Jurisdiction by the force of which Subjects may be obliged to act but not to believe From whence it is evident that if any Prophecy appear to be from God it cannot receive any Addition by the Authority of the Prince no more than if he should declare Cicero to be a good Latin Author But in case a pretended Prophecy be either ambiguous or supposititious in it self and a Prince should persuade himself to be able by his own Authority to make it pass current for Truth he would be look'd upon as one beyond his Senses What he insinuates concerning the New Testament in general is much of the same Stamp It was not says he in the power of Christ and his Apostles to establish this Doctrine of the New Testament by Publick Authority which was the reason it remain'd in a private condition â—ill such time when Princes having received the Christian Faith they gave it a publick Authority and the force of Laws But the Rules and Doctrine of Christ cannot receive any additional Strength from the Civil Power it being contrary to its Genius to be established and promoted by civil Punishments For whosoever out of fear of Temporal Punishments professes in outward shew only this Doctrine does not act according to nor fulfil the Will of Christ The same may be repliy'd to § LXX For as the Scripture and the Christian Doctrine do not owe their Authority to the civil Jurisdiction the latter being introduced in the Government by God's peculiar Assistance inspite of all the Resistance of the civil Powers So ought the Interpretation of the the ambiguous and controverted Passages in the holy Scripture not to be determined by the Sovereign Authority it belonging not to the Prince only but to the whole Church or such as are authorised by the Church tho' at the same time the Prince considered as the Chief Member of it cannot bâ—â—xcluded from having his share in such a Debate It is a prophane Expression when he says Christ himself having an unquestionable Power of introducing a new Law must needs have a right to interpret the same But since during the time of his abode here he lived among those that either out of Ignorance or Disobedience did not own Christ and that in a private Condition subject to the civil Power it is evident that his Laws Doctrine and the Interpretation of them did acquire their obliging Power and publick Authority from the civil Constitution A little more would have made the Office of Christ as being Mediator of the World also dependent from the civil Jurisdiction Is it not a prodigious Absurdity to affirm That the Doctrine of Christ has received its publick Authority from the civil Power among those who denied Christ And what follows That if at the time of Christ Princes had been Christians they would have acknowledged him for the
Founder of the Christian Church shewed himself in his Behaviour from Moses Moses was commanded by God to deliver the Posterity of the Patriarchs from the Bondage of Aegypt and to lead them according to God's Govenant with them into Canaan the Land of Promise where he was to Erect a New Commonwealth and to Establish their Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws at the same time The better therefore to Establish his Authority not only amongst his Country-men over whom he had no other Lawful Jurisdiction but also to gain Credit with the Aegyptians that hitherto had kept the others under their Jurisdiction he did by his Extraordinary and Miraculous Deeds give them most evident Demonstrations of his Divine Commission and of a secret Correspondence with God Almighty These Miracles struck such a Terror into the Aegyptian King that his Obstinacy was at last overcome who else in all likelihood would not have parted upon easie terms with so vast a number of his Subjects Their number being sufficient to make up a new and strong People And the Jews moved by his Miracles and in acknowledgment of the Benefits received from his Hands and being sensible that God stood by him in all his Vndertakings willingly received him for their Prince and General As long as he lived he exercised this Princely Authority in the highest degree for he did Constitute amongst them both their Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws and Ordained and Established their whole Government He used to Administer Justice Inflict Punishents upon those that were found Criminal he had the Power of Constitating Magistrates and others that were to aid and assist him in his Office and those that attempted against his Authority he made sensible of their Folly by inflicting most severe Punishments upon them There was all that time no occasion for the levying of Taxes upon the People except what was requisite for the Maintainance and Ornament of their Publick Religious Service He was very watchful for the Preservation of the People and if they were Attack'd by their Enemies used to defend them by Force of Arms. Lastly when he knew that he was shortly to depart this Life he Constituted his Successor who was to be their General and under whose Conduct they were to be put into Possession of the so long desired Land of Promise from whence it is very evident that Moses as long as he lived bore the Office of a Prince and that he was the Founder of the State or Commonwealth of the Jews § 13. But if we look upon our Saviour What on the other â—and our Saviour did when he established his Church Jesus Christ he acted in a quite different manner from whence it was very evident that his intention was not to Erect a new State here upon Earth 'T is true he gained to himself a great deal of Credit and Authority by his Miracles but these were no terrifying Miracles or such as ever proved injurious to any So when his Disciples would have persuaded him to command fire to come down from Heaven and consume those that refused Luke 9. 54 â—5 to receive him they met with a severe Rebuke The main Demonstrations he used to give them of his Diviniâ—y always tendâ—d to the benefit of others and the Miracles performed by him were of such a nature as must needs attract the love and favour of all Men and at the same time were apparent and convincing Proofs of his Divinity not any thing less than a Divine Power being able to cause a new Motion or Alteration in the course of Nature without Natural means For he went about doing good and he aling Acts 16. 38. all that were oppressed of the Devil All which had not the least Relation towards the laying of the Foundation of a new State He had some Disciples but these were few in number unarmed poor of a mean Profession and Condition and of so little Authority that it was impossible for them to make the least pretension of setting up a State of their own or of raising any Commotions or Disturbances in another State And when the multitude in acknowledgment of the benefits received by his Doctrine and Miracles would at several times have proclaimed him King he absconded and made his escape The principal Care he took of his Followers was to instruct them by his Doctrine from whence they were called Disciples and they in return used to give him the Name of Master or Teacher Neither did he Constitute any new Laws at least not any that could be supposed to have any reference towards the Establishment of a new State but the Antient Law as far as it was given to Mankind in general was explained and the People exhorted to a due observance of it He did never execute Luke 12. 13 14. the Office of a Judge nay he refused to be an Arbitrator to convince the World that hâ—s Joh. 8 11. coming was intended for no such purpose Lastly he did himself pay Taxes to others and tho' it was in his Power to prevent it suffered himself to be Judged and Executed All which is altogether inconsistent with the Nature and Office of a Temporal Sovereign § 14. This will appear more clearly to us if Châ—ist did not Constitute a nâ—w People we duly consider that Christ never acted according to the Rules of those that intend to lay the Foundation of a new State For their principal and first care is to Constitute a new People that is to bring over to their side such a number of People as are willing and sufficient to be joyned under one Civil Government This Multitude of People is either Assembled at once and drawn out of another Commonwealth as Moses did or by degrees brought over out of other Commonwealths as Romulus gathered the People of Rome But it is easie to be seen that our Saviour's Intention was of a quite different Nature His Disciples were not so many in number as to have the least resemblance with a Nation or People neither were they instructed in those matters which have the least relation to the Establishment of a new Commonwealth Their dependance from him was not near the same which Subjects have of their Prince having never sworn Allegiance to him but only as Disciples from their Master being influenced by the Love and Admiration they had both for his Person and Doctrine Sometimes John 6. â—6 â—â— 68. a great Multitude of People would flock about him but these only came to hear him Preach and to be Spectators of his Miracles which being done they return'd to their respective homes And Christ never shewed the least inclination to command over or to withdraw them from the Obedience due to their Sovereigns Lastly when the time of his Death approached his most trusty and particular Friends and Followers absconded and durst not as much as make any publick appearance When we therefore speak of Christians we do not understand a certain Nation or People subject
Religion But in case Divines out of other Countries are to be called unto this Convocation or Assembly it is I think a plain case that these cannot appear there without leave first obtained from their Sovereigns And if a Council should be called consisting of selected Divines out of a great many Common-wealths this cannot be done without a foregoing Agreement made betwixt those Sovereigns that are concerned therein For it is not allowable for Subjects of another State to come to us upon such an Account noâ— can ours go to them upon such an Errand unless by joint Consent of the higher Powers And since Sovereigns cannot claim any Jurisdiction over one another there will be no place left for any Prerogative but Matters must be transacted according to mutual Contract § 47. For what Reasons the Primitive Theâ—r Right concerning Church-Discipline Christians did introduce Church Discipline viz. to be distinguished from the Heathens by their holy Life and Conversation and to supply the Defects of the civil Pagan Laws which did not restrain them from such Vices as were abominable to the Christians has been sufficiently explained before This Reason takes no more place now after whole Commonwealths as well as their Sovereigns are entred into the Communion of the Christian Church for there is not the same Occasion now to be distinguished from the Heathens by an unspotted Conversation after the rooting out of the Pagan Religion all Christians being under an equal Obligation to endeavour an unblemished Life But notwithstanding the general Conversion of whole Commonwealths to the Christian Faith care ought to be taken that Holiness of Life be not laid aside among Christians from whence arises this Question Whether it be better to make use of the antient Church Discipline now in the same manner as it was practised in the Primitive times Or whether it be not more expedient to admit of some Alterations after Sovereigns are entred into the Communion of the Church The last of these two seems to be most probable because this antient Church Discipline which was introduced for a certain time to supply the deficiency of the Pagan Laws and to amend their vicious Lives and Conversation and was thus left to the direction of certain People is not an Essential part of Christianity and besides this carries this Inconveniency along with it that it may easily degenerate into a kind of a pretended Soveraignty and prove prejudicial to the Civil Power And as Soveraigns have a Right to provide against every thing that may be the probable cause of Convulsions in the State so may this defect be supplied by the Civil Laws and Vices may be suppressed by Civil Punishments Neither do I see any reason to the contrary why Vices should not be as easily corrected by Punishments prescribed by the Civil Laws as by Church-Censures or why the first should not prove as effectual as the latter for the suppressing of Publick Scandals It will perhaps be objected That Ecclesiastical Discipline has a much greater Influence over Christians towards the amendment of their Lives than Civil Punishments because the first penetrates into the Heart whereas Civil Punishments do not touch us but superficially Unto this it may be answered That Church-Discipline does not always answer this end it being not to be doubted but that some Men tho' they undergo all the Church-Penances retain in their hearts the same vicious Inclinations or sometimes grow more stubborn and bold But if it be taken as an Expiation for our Sins in regard of God Almighty it is to be observed that if we pretend to an Expiation for any Trespasses which fall under the cognizance of Humane Laws we must therein be directed by the Word of God which does not prescribe Church-Penance as a proper Satisfaction in this case For our sins are not remitted because we have undergone Church-Penance but because our Hearts are purified by the Blood of Christ provided we by the Faith apply his Sufferings unto us But supposing it should be thought most convenient that some sort of Vices ought to be corrected by Church-Discipline the best Expedient would be to leave it first to the determination of the Civil Judges who according to the Circumstances of the Case ought to send the Delinquents to the Ecclesiastical Court there to undergo the Church-Censure For Christian Soveraigns have an unquestionable Right to determine what sort of Misdemeanors are punishable by the Civil Laws and which of them come under the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Courts and consequently to decree what sort of Church-Censure ought to be laid upon the Delinquents according to the different Nature of the Trespass which may be put in Execution by the Ministers accordingly Concerning Excommunication the same ought not to be put in Practice but with this caution that it ought not to be left to the discretion of Priests so as to be inflicted by them aâ— pleasure but this Power ought to be limited by certain Rules prescribed by those that have the Legislative Power in a State For in a Christian Commonwealth Excommunication alters the Civil Condition of a Subject and â—enders him infamous and detestable among his fellow-Christians And as it affects the Civil State of Subjects Soveraigns unless they will let others encroach upon their Prerogative ought to determine concerning its Legality § 48. Since the Christian Religion does not Concerning the Power of making Ecclesiastical Canons or Statutes in any wise diminish the Rights of Soveraigns these if entred into the Communion of the Church have a Power to examine what Canons or Ecclesiastical Statutes are received in the Church and if some of them are found superfluous or interfering with the Soveraign Power to abolish the same and if there appears any deficiency to supply what is wanting towards the maintaining a good Order and the Glory of the Church which however ought not to be done without the Advice at least of the chief Men of the Church and lastly give to those Statutes the force of Civil Laws This Power nevertheless of making Ecclesiastical Statutes must be exercised with a great deal of caution the same being limited to the outward form of the Church-Government and to maintain its Order and Decency Christians being not to be over-heap'd with a vast number of Canons For those that stretch Colos 2. 16. 21 22. 1 Tim. 4. â—4 the Power of Soveraigns to such a pitch as to make them the absolute Judges of the Christian Religion and to attribute to them a Right of establishing certain Articles of Faith by Civil Laws or to annex to them a force equal to the Civil Constitutions and to force upon their Subjects a certain Religion under severe Penalties or oblige them either to profess or to deny certain Points of Doctrine which are controverted amongst Christians These I say act quite contrary to the true Genius of the Christian Religion and to the Method made use of by Christ and his Apostles for the
OF THE Nature and Qualification OF RELIGION In Reference to Civil Society WRITTEN BY Samuel Puffendorff Counsellor of State to the Late King of Sweden Which may serve as an Appendix to the Author's Duty of Men. Translated from the Original LONDON Printed by D. E. for A. Roper at the Black Boy and A. Bosvile at the Dial both over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1698. THE Introductory Epistle Presented to the RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM Lord Craven Baron Craven OF HAMSTEAD MARSH My LORD THE extraordinary Character you have acquirâ—d by the joint Consent of those that have the Honour of your Acquaintance Encourages me to deviate from the common Road used by our Modern Authors being made sufficiently sensible how much a Mind endow'd with Genorous and Modest Inclinations the inseparable Companions of a Great Soul disdains the fulsome Praises which those Gentlemen make the Chief Subject of their Dedications whenever they pretend to Court the Patronage of Persons of Quality in behalf of their Treatises I must confess I should scarce have had so much Presumption thus to intrude my self into your Lordship's Favour if I had not been sufficiently persuaded that the Renown our Author has so deservedly gainâ—d both here and abroad and that under the Protection of some of the greatest Princâ—s in Europe would be prevailing enough with your Lordship to pardon an Undertaking which if in it self justifiable in nothing else might perhaps claim the benefit of a general Custom from your Goodness The Reputation of our Author being so universally and unquestionably established among all such as have a true relish of Learning I might without the least Prejudice to him supercede to enlarge here upon this Treatise if it were not rather out of a desire to satisfie the Curiosity of some who beleive to have sufficient Reason for certain Objections made against some Assertions contained in this Treatise than with an Intention to make the least Addition to a Piece which whether in regard of the nicety of the Subject it Treats of or of the Concatination and force of its Arguments deserves to be reckoned among the best now extant in Europe Those who center the utmost Felicity of Civil Society in a Democratical form of Government have not been wanting to charge our Author with too much Passion for that Doctrine of Passive Obedience which leaves Subjects to the absolute Disposal of their Princes But besides that the Appendix annexed to this Treatise written by our Author in opposition to Mr. Hobbes's Monstrous Principles concerning this unlimited Power may sufficiently clear him from this Imputation If these Gentlemen would have taken the pains to make a due comparison of the several Passages both in this and other Treatises of our Author relating to this Subject they might without much difficulty have been convincâ—d of their Error As far as I am capable of penetrating into the Matter it is the word Princeps or Prince which sticks most closely in their Stomachs not considering That the Words Summi Imperantes or Sovereigns and that of Princeps or Prince are Synoms to our Author and that out of a great many Passages in this Treatise it is sufficiently apparent that he attributes the Sovereign Power not always to one single Person but sometimes also to a Council invested with the Supream Administration of the Sovereign Authority in the Common-wealth If it were but only for that Advice given by our Author at the very beginning of his Appendix to young Lawyers to wit to take care that under the Pretence of maintaining the Prerogatives of Princes they should not be prodigal of their Liberty and Property and his asserting the Foundation of Civil Societies to be built upon the Common Consent of mutual Defence against Violences This alone I say might be a convincing Argument to any unbyass'd Person that his Aim was very remote from maintaining an Arbitrary Power in the State The next thing laid to our Author's Charge is that he so entirely separates the Christian Religion from the State as not to have the least Interference with one another whereas the contrary is now a-days practised in most Christian Staâ—â—s and in the Commonwealth of the Jews instituted by God s peculiar Direction this Union was inseparable It cannot be denied but that the outward Form of Church Government especially among the Protestants is in a great measure and in most places adapted to that of the State it being evident that most of the Monarchical States Episcopacy as most suitable with that Constitution was never abolished as on the contrary the same was quite extirpated in the Protestant Common-wealths This is most particularly observable among the Lutherans who tho' all agreeing in Point of Doctrine are nevertheless so far different from one another in the Ceremonial Point and outward Form of Church Government that in outward Appearance they seem'd to be so many several Churches Thus in the two Northern Kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark the Episcopal Authority tho' much diminished in its Revenues is retained to this day whereas in some Commonwealths in Germany where the same Religion is Established it is quite abolished and not the least footsteps of Subordination of Priests to be met with But this Objection is easily cleared if we take into due Consideration that it being the Intention of our Author to represent in those places Reliligion in its genuine and native Constitution freed from all what is foreign to its true Genius he did not think it convenient to clog it with any thing that was not an Essential part of it especially when his chief aim was to shew the real difference betwixt the Christian and Jewish Religion There are also not a few who prompted by a preposterous Zeal have imputed to our Author a certain kind of Libertinism in Religion for which I can see no other Reason than that they are dissatisfied with his Assertions against any thing that has the least resemblance of Persecution upon the score of Difference of Opinions I am well satisfied that the Reasons alledged by him are so solid in themselves and so exactly applied to this Purpose that they cannot but be Convincing to all such as are not prepossâ—ssed either with By Interest or a most stupid Ignorance For if the Slavery of the Body be absolutely repugnant to the Inclinations of a generous Soul How much more insupportable must the Slavery of the Mind be to a sublime Genius elevated above the common Sphere of bigotted Zealots Ignorance being the Mother of perverted Zeal and consequently of a persecuting Spirit the same ought to be look'd upon as the common Enemy of all such as are guided by the Light of true Reason I cannot but take notice here that our English Modern Clergy has of late gain'd so peculiar a Character of following so closely these footsteps of convincing such as differ from them in Opinion rather by strength of Argument than any forcible Means that I do not know whether
us but by all gentle means persuades us to a Compliance with his Will according to St. Paul's 2 Cor. 5. 20. Saying Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God § 4. It is an unquestionable Truth and The first Care of religious Worship lodged in Parents generally received among Mankind That one is obliged to give a helping-hand to another in several Respects In the same manner it is with Religion that these who by nearest of Blood are in Duty bound to take Care of young Peoples Education ought at the same time to Instruct them in the true Knowledge of God and prepare their Minds for the receiving of the Christian Doctrine 'T is upon this score that this Care touches most nearly all Parents in regard of their Children it being the principal Part of Paternal Duty to take effectual Care that they may be throughly Instructed in all Matters relating to God and his holy Word and to be encouraged in all manner of religious Exercises For i◠is too dangerous to leave young People to their own Inclinations till they may be capable by the Strength of their own Reason to learn their Duty towards God And it would be much more dangerous to defer it under pretence or expectation of Revelations to be made upon that account at this time when the Word of God is already planted and established among us Besides that Children soon grow head-strong and refractory if they are not in their tender Age accustomed to pious Exercises Nevertheless Parents ought not to exercise this Paternal Office any otherwise than in a manner suitable to the Genius of the Christian Religion which will have them not to act with Violence but to be diligent and assiduous in Teaching Exhorting Praying and announcing God's Wrath. Wherefore the Priestly Office was originally joined with the Paternal in the antient Fathers of Families and Abraham is commended both for a good Father and a good Master of his House because he instructed his Children in all manner of Piety and himself Administred Circumcision Gen. 18. 19. The like Commands were made to Parents both in the Old and New Testament and the Patriarch Jacob removed the Idols out Ge. 17. 20 Deut. 6. 7. 11. 19. Eph. 6. 4. Gen. 35. 1 3 4. of his Family not by Compulsion but by Instructing those of his House in the Knowledge of the true God who thereupon voluntarily surrendred those Idols to his Disposal This part of the Paternal Office like all the rest does cease as soon as a Son after leaving his Father's House comes to set up for himself and consequently becomes the Father of a separate Family and enjoys the same Rights which his Father had before over him And tho' perhaps in such a Case a Father may still retain the priviledge of giving some Paternal Admonitions to his Sons yet ought the same to be look'd upon to resemble in their Nature our last Will or Testament which does not always imply properly a Command but ought to be observed for its good Intentions sake and to shew a due Reverence to the Memory of a Father never to be neglected by any that will not at the same time profess themselves guilty of Improbity § 5. Out of what has been said before it Civil Societies were not Instituted for Religions sake is most evident That Civil Governments were not erected for Religions sake or that Man did not enter into Civil Societies that they might with more conveniency establish and exercise their Religion For since Religions Exercises could be performed as well by a few as by a great Number and in a small Congregation as well as in a great one it was unnecessary to erect several great Societies on that account Besides that those who committed open violences against others which was the first motive that obliged Men to enter into Societies for their mutual Defence did not aim at the Religion of Mankind but to robb these that were weaker than themselves of their Liberty Life and Fortunes Neither does a Man's Probity and Piety receive the least addition by the Number of People which join in their Devotion For every one must be acceptable to God Almighty upon his own account neither is a Man always deem'd the more pious because he lives among such as are pious themselves Those Patriarchs that liv'd before Civil Societies were erected are no less Famous for their Piety than those that lived afterwards under a settled Government From whence it is evident That Religion is not an ingenious Invention of the first Founders of Commonwealths but as antient as Humane Raceit self it being sufficiently apparent that Mankind did not enter into Civil Societies till long after being enforced thereunto by great and weighty Reasons tho' at the same time it cannot be deny'd but that some have cunningly abused Religion for obtaining their Ends in the State But Religion in it self considered is not made subordinate to the State or to be deem'd a proper Instrument to serve a States Turn and to keep the People in Obedience And when Religion is called Vinculum Societatis Civilis The Cement of Civil Society it must be taken in this Sense That if all Religion and Regard which ought to be had to God's displeasure were abolished there would be no Tie left strong enough to oblige Mankind to a compliance with those Laws and fundamental Constitutions which are the original Foundation of all Common-wealths And that without the fear of being accountable to God Almighty no Human Power alone would be prevailing enough to bridle the Enormities of some stubborn and refractory Spirits § 6. It being therefore beyond question Subjects did not submit their Opinions in Matters of Religion to the Disposal of their Sovereigns That Commonwealths were not erected for Religions sake it is easie to be understood that the antient Fathers of Families when they first submitted themselves under a Civil Government were thereby not obliged to surrender at the same time their Religion in the same manner as they did their Lives and Fortunes to their Sovereigns for the obtaining the End of Civil Society which was their common Security The more because Religion was not instituted for the obtaining of this mutual Security and as such do's not contribute any thing towards the maintaining of Civil Society Religion arises from a much more noble Spring than Civil Government and more strictly obliges Mankind than any Civil Power and therefore is unalterable in its Nature Thus it would be not only useless but imply a Contradiction if a Man who is to become a Subject to a Civil Government should be obliged to swear Allegiance to his Sovereign in these following Terms I. N. N. Submit my Will entirely to your Commands I promise to love honour and trust in God according to your Pleasure and to put more Confidence in you than in
God Almighty to set aside all your Command all Love Respect and Duty which I owe to God Almighty and to perform such things as I know to be contrary to him and his Commands For here ought to be remembred what the Apostles said We ought to obey God rather than Man Acts 5. 29. And whenever Sovereigns pretend to extend thus far their Authority they transgress their Bounds and if they inflict any Punishment on their Subjects for refusing to be obedient to their Commands on this Account such an Act ought to be look'd upon as illegal unjust and tyrannical God has verified this by extraordinary Miracles It was an absurd and illegal Proceeding when Darius overpersuaded by his Courtiers who intended to lay a Trap for Daniel issued out his Proclamation That no body for thirty Days should ask a Petition Dan. 6. 7. 9. of any God or Man For what concerns had the King with his Subjects Prayers unlawful Prayers being not accepted of by God Almighty especially with those made in private For if any one should have prayed in publick against the King it would been a quite different Case and such a one had deservedly received Punishment as an Enemy to his Sovereign Wherefore Daniel did very well in continuing his daily private Prayers according to his former Custom notwithstanding the King 's impious and foolish Command and was for this Reason by an extraordinary Miracle delivered out of the Lions Den. In the same manner did God preserve Daniel's three Companions in the midst of the Flames because they refused to worship the Golden Image according to the King's Command Though at the same time Dan. 3. 27 28. it is very probable that this Image set up by Nebuchadnezar was not intended to be worshipped as a God but only as a Sign or Emblem of that Eternal Being which he would have to be Adored and Worshipped by his Subjects Certainly Jeroboam could not be so much besides himself as to imagine or to pretend to persuade the Jews That the Golden Calves which he had caused to be made were the same God by whose Power they were brought out of Aegypt But he set them up as a Token or Representative whereby to put them in mind of the Benefits received from God the great Deliverer of Israel and that they might not want places where to pay their Devotions and perform their religeous Duties So that though he did not fall off from God but only for Reasons of State and because he thought it belonging to his Royal Prerogative made an Joseph Arch. 8. 3. Alteration in the outward Form of Worship Yet was he with his whole Family rooted out of Israel and the Jews for having obeyed and followed their King in his Idolatry 2 Reg. 19. 17 16. paid for it with the Loss of the Holy Land § 7. Sovereigns are nevertheless not excluded What Power according to the Law of Nature belongs Sovereigns in Ecclesiastical Affairs from having a certain Power and Disposal in Ecclesiastical Affairs as they are the Supream Heads and Governours of the Commonwealth and are therefore stil'd the Publick Fathers and Fathers of their Native Country And as has been said before as it is one of the Principal parts of Paternal Duty to implant Piety into their Children so Sovereigns ought to take care that Publick Discipline of which the Reverence due to God Almighty is one main Point to be maintained among their Subjects And whereas the Fear of God is the Foundation Stone of Probity and other Moral Vertues and it being the Interest of Sovereigns that the same be by all means encouraged in a State and that Religion is the strongest Knot for the maintaining a true Union betwixt Sovereigns and their Subjects God being a God of Truth who has commanded that Faith and Compacts should be sacred among Men It is therefore a Duty incumbent upon Sovereigns to take not only effectual Care that Natural Religion be maintain'd and cultivated among their Subjects But they have also a sufficient Authority to Enact such Laws as may enable them to keep their Subjects from committing any thing which tends either to the total Destruction or the Subversion of the Capital Points of Religion As if for instance any one should attempt to deny publickly the Existency of a God and his Providence to set up plurality of Gods to worship fictitious Gods or Idols in Gods stead to spread abroad Blasphemies for to worship the Devil enter with him into a Compact and such like Actions For if these are kept within the compass of Peoples Thoughts without breaking out into publick or outward Actions they are not punishable by the Law neither can any Humane Power take Cognizance of what is contained only and hidden in the Heart And as to what concerns those Ceremonies which have been annexed to Religious Worship though it be undeniable that one of the main Points towards the maintaining a good Order in the State is that a due Uniformity should be observed in the same Nevertheless Sovereigns need not be so very anxious on this Account because these Differences do not Overturn Religion it self neither do they as such considered dispose Subjects to raise Disturbances and Dissention in the State Neither can Sovereigns be any great Loosers by the Bargain if their Subjects differ in some Ceremonies no more than if they were divided into several Opinions concerning some Philosophical Doctrine But this is beyond all doubt that if under a Religious Pretext Subjects pretend to raise Factions which may prove dangerous to the State or hatch other secret Mischiefs these are Punishable by the Supream Magistrates notwithstanding their Religious Pretences for as Religion in its self considered is not the cause of Vices so ought it not to serve for a Cloak wherewith to cover and protect such treacherous Designs So the Roman Senate did acquit themselves very well in their Station when they Abolished these Debaucheries which were crept into the State with the Bachanals But those Sovereigns who Le◠〈…〉 have transgressed these Bounds by compelling their Subjects to a Religion of their own Invention have without doubt abused that Power wherewith they were entrusted Neither have these Princes acquitted themselves much better in their Station who have Persecuted their Subjects for no other Reason but because they Professed a Religion different from their own without making a due Enquiry whether their Doctrine were Erroneous or not Thus the Proceedings of Pliny the Younger a Man otherwise of a very good Temper against the Christians in Bithynia cannot in any wise be justified For he confesses himself That he never was present Plin. 10. Ep. 97. at the Tryals of the Christians and was therefore ignorant both of their Crime and consequently of what Punishment they deserved For these are his Words I only ask some of them several times whether they were Christians which they having constantly Professed they were I ordered them to be
the Jewish Religion and Ceremonies and fortified them by very severe Laws no body upon Earth had Power to make the least alteration in them or to add any thing to or to diminish from them The Kings Saul and Vsiah paid dearly for it because they attempted to interfere with the Levites in their Office And those of the Jews that introduced a Foreign Religious Service are in the Holy Scripture Branded with Infamy So that their Kings had no further Power in Religiouâ— Conâ—erns than the Supream Inspection that every one in his Station not excepting the High Priest himself did Exercise his Office according to God's Commands and that the Ecclesiastical Constitutions were kept inviolable Neither did the Tribe of Levi or the Priestly Order make up a separate Body independent from the State but they were actually considered as part of the Nation and Subjects of their Kings who as we read sometimes Deposed them for several Crimes and if negligent in their Office used to give them severe Rebukes King David went further for he to maintain a decent Order in the Church disposed the several Ecclesiastical Functions among the Priests and Levites and ordered that the Singers and Door-waitors should take their places by Lott which nevertheless was not done without the Advice of the Chief Men and Elders of the People and the whole Tribe of Levi. In so doing he did not assume to himself the Power of Disposing or Altering any thing in their Religion but only over those that were Ordained by God Almighty for that Function viz. to Establish such an Order among them the better to enable them to 1 Chron. â— 26. seq Exercise their Function without Confusion For when afterwards instead of the Tabernacle a Temple was to be Erected that is to say when instead of a slight and decayed Building a most noble and firm Structure was to be built the same was not undertaken without God's Advice This Temple being the Principal of all Publick Structures it was the King's Care to see it Repaired in due time who also might levy a Tax for that use and provide for the necessary Expences of the Workmen it is very remarkable that we do not read in the Scriptures that any of those Kings that introduced Foreign Service among the Jews did ever attempt to force by Threats or otherwise their Subjects to such a Worship but rather by several Allurements enticed them to follow their Example and that such as were thus seduced did as well as their King receive Condign Punishment from God accordingly And that such among the Jews as abhorred this Idolatry ought not to be look'd upon as Rebellious Subjects upon that score but as Persons that did bear this Publick Calamity with Patience And as those Kings that Abolished Idolatry and Foreign Worship amongst the Jews are highly extolled in the Scriptures so those Impious Kings that were the Authors of this Idolatry were by the high Rank they bore in the State exempted from the ordinary Punishment which according to God's Ordinance was else to be inflicted upon all others that should attempt to introduce Idolatry Lastly another remarkable Observation may be made as to the Jewish Religion that whereas there was so strict an Unity betwixt the State and Religion that the latter might justly be called the Foundation Stone of the first and God had expresly enjoyned them an exact observance of it under forfeiture of the quiet Possession of that Country where their Commonwealth was Established the Felicity of the State depended absolutely from the due observance of that Religion and the Civil Magistrates were to take cognizance of all such Matters as might prove either dangerous or destructive to it as it may plainly appear by the Law of God prescribed in this behalf in the Books of Moses § 11. The Christian Religion differs in many points from that of the Jews not only The Genius of the Christian Religion is quite different from that of the Jews because it represents our Saviour to us as he has already appeared upon Earth and thereby has freed us from these many Ceremonies and Sacrifices which were so â—any Emblems of his future coming amongst us but also because the Christian Religion is by God's peculiar Providence endowed with such Qualifications that it ought and may be received by all Nations without Prejudice and consequently deserves the Name of an Universal Religion whereas the Divine Worship of the Jews was so adapted to that State as scarce to be suitable to any other being unaccessible to any other Nation but their own the Christian Religion on the other hand is now-a-days not tyed up to a certain Place or Temple but every 1 Tim. 2. 8. where Men may pray lifting up holy hands We need not appear before God with sumptuous Sacrifices but those Sacrifices which are acceptable to God are to be purchased without Gold or Silver Neither is the Ministry of the Gospel granted as a peculiar Priviledge to one particular Nation or Family but the Christians in general are called Priests before God and Apocal. 1. 6. 5. 10. no body is excluded from that Ministry provided he be endued with the necessary Qualifications except that St. Paul forbids Women 1 Tim. 11. 1â— to Teach Lastly Each Nation has an equal share in the Christian Religion neither can any of them claim a peculiar Right or Prerogative before others every one having equal share in the Merits of Christ Here is neither Jew nor Greek here is neither Bond nor Free neither Male nor Female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus There is neither Greek nor Jew Gal. 3. 28. Coloss 3. 11. Vide 1 Tim. 11. â—â— Circumcision or Vncircumcision Barbarian Scythian Bond nor Free but Christ is all and in all But because the Christian Religion is not like the Jewish adapted to one particular State that had its rise at the same time with this Religion but was introduced after Civil Societies were erected throughout the World The main point now in question is Whether after this Religion has been introduced it has altered the Nature of Civil Societies or the Rights of Sovereigns and whether by its establishment a new sort of Government separate and independent from the Civil Power has been introduced Or which is the same in effect Whether the Church is to be considered as a State separate and independent from the Civil Covernment which ought to be Governed and Maintained by Human Force and Power By the Word State we understand a considerable number of People who being joyned in one Society independent from another are Governed by their own Laws and How Moses behaved himself when he laid the Foundation of the Jewish Common-wealth Governors § 12. To trace the very Original of this point the Behaviour of Moses the Founder both of the Jewish Church and State must be taken into due consideration and how far different Jesus Christ the Saviour of Mankind and
Legislator a single Person or whole Society receive by such an Offence that an Action lies against the Offender In the same manner as a Creditor has a right to sue his Debtor for a Debt contracted with him In which respect it is that Sins are often called Debts in the holy Scripture But in this double or sometimes threefold Action which arises from one Offence committed against several Persons each is to be considered as separate from the other so that tho' one Action be taken off the other remains notwithstanding this in full force For as God does not remit Sins Mat. 5 23. 24. without Satisfaction given from the Offender to the offended Person So tho' the Offender be reconciled to the offended nevertheless is he obliged to seek for Remission of his Sin by God And if the Offence be hainous and of such a Nature as to be scandalous to a whole Society he ought there also to endeavour his Reconcilation by begging forgiveness of them Therefore to remit a Sin is the same Thing â—â— to remit an Action or to release one from an Action which the offended Party had against the Offender And he that has an Action against another by reason of some Offence committed against him may properly be said to have Power to remit that Offence or Sin as far as his Action reaches For God himself does not make use of his uncontrouled Power of remitting of Sins so as without any further Respect and by his mere Pleasure to remit their Sins to some and to punish others For to pardon Offences promiscuously without any further regard but bare Pleasure is in effect to render Laws ineffectual and Laws are made to no purpose by him who at the same time grants a License of Trespassing against them And because it was beyond all Human Power to give Satisfaction to God Almighty for our Offences our Saviour Jesus Christ has made use of a most wonderful Moderation betwixt Justice and Mercy in giving due Satisfaction in his own Person So that whoever by the Faith appropriates the same to himself thereby obtains Remission of his Sins from God And as to that part which belongs to Men to forgive God has commanded them not to be rigorous if the Offender beg forgiveness because every one of us must every day expect Forgiveness of his Sins from God Almighty and we all commit sometimes Offences against our Neighbours who if they would all act rigorously with us our Condition would be most deplorable Wherefore we ought to forgive our Mat. 6. 12 14 15. c. 5. 25 c. 18 25. Luke 17. 3. Debts as we would have others forgive us their Debts Neither are we to be too rigorous against such Sinners as have by their Offences proved scandalous to a whole Society but if they seriously repent we ought not to deny them our Pardon It is also worth our further Observation That the following Words Verily I say unto you whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you shall loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven are Mat. 18. 18. spoken by Christ also of the Remission of an Offence by the Party offended Neither does the Sense of the preceding Words allow to apply them only to his Disciples they being spoken not only to the Apostles but to the Believers in general § 24. Supposing then that the Apostles were Vnder whose name and authority the Apostles did exercise this power of Absolution to remit such Sins as were not committed against them it must necessarily follow That they when they remitted Sins did it either in the name of such particular Persons against whom the said Sins were committed or in the name of a whole Society or else in the name of some Human or Divine Legislator Now it is certain that no body can remit another Man's lawful Action without his order or consent no more than you can lawfully take away another's Right or Property and therefore it is absolutely necessary first to make our peace with the Person offended without which we ought not to seek for Pardon from God Almighty at least he that has offended ought to take first a firm Resolution to give Satisfaction as far as is in his Power Christ says Mat. 5. 24. Luke 19. 8. First be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy Gift And St. Paul offered to make Satisfaction to Philemon for what Damage he had received from Onesimus From hence arises v. 18 19. that general and common Rule That if Restitution be not made there can be no Remission of the Sin For it is ridiculous and a contradiction in it self to profess to God Almighty a true Repentance for an unjust Act and at the same time enjoy the benefit of it But as for the Remission of such enormous Crimes as were committed against a whole Society the Apostles had their share in it as is evident out of the 1 Epistle to the Corinâ—h â— 5. 4 5. and 2 Corinth c. 2. 10. c. 11. 29. and will be more treated of hereafter It will be sufficient in this place to take notice that what Authority was exercised by them in this kind was much inferior to that power which they had received of Retaining and Forgiving of Sins But to remit Sins in the name of those that had the Sovereign and Legislative Power in the State did not belong to the Apostles their Commission and Power being not to interfer with the Civil Jurisdiction or to diminish its Prerogatives Wherefore Civil Magistrates justly may and do punish Offenders according to the Laws of the Realm notwithstanding they have made their peace with God The only way then for the Apostles was to forgive Sins in the Name of God by whose Authority they had received their Commission as is evident out of these Words Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you shall loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven § 25. But if we propose to form to our Of what nature this Power was selves a true Idea of the Power granted to the Apostles when the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given unto them and how far it extends it self we must take into serious Consideration in what manner Christ himself did remit Sins whilst he lived among us upon Earth This is sufficiently manifest out of several Passages in St. Matthew 9. 2. Mark 2. 3. Luke 5. 20. c. 7. 47 48 39 50. where our Saviour verifies his Power of forgiving of Sins by a Miracle which could not but be the effect of a Divine Power Besides this there was no Plaintiff or Defendant there was no open or express Confession of Sin but as soon as Christ saw their Faith he pronounced Remission of Sin And if we peruse the whole New Testament it will most evidently appear that neither Christ nor his Apostles did forgive Sins in a judicial way where Crimes
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
second Admonition lest we Tit. 3. 10. Thes 2. 14. 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2 Gal. 1. 8 9. should be infected with his false Doctrine for which he is to expect due Punishment from God Almighty Neither does that passage in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians 5. 1. and following Verses and in the 2 Epistle to the Corinthians 13. 2 10. where St. Paul declares that according to the Power given him he intends to deliver the incestuous Person to Satan take it in what sense you please involve any Civil Jurisdiction or Command no more than those in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians 6. 9. seq in the 1 Timothy 1. 20. in the 2 Epist of John 5. 10. All which passages signifie no more than that every body may freely decline the Conversation of such People as he thinks may be reproach or hurtful to him without implying a prejudice to their Reputation in Civil Affairs So that by avoiding the Conversation of ill Livers we are not obliged to retire from the World that is we need not be so scrupulous in avoiding such Conversation as to neglect our Duty or other necessary Business appertaining to Civil Society And in this sense it is appliable as well to Christians as to Pagans of an ill Conversation The Commission of the Apostles contains nothing resembling any Sovereign Power § 28. Lastly if we cast our eyes upon those Instructions which Christ gave to his Apostles and Disciples it will evidently appear that their Commission had not the least relation to the Establishment of a Sovereign State A State cannot be without a Supream Head who having Power to bestow Honours and Dignities this generally proves the occasion of ambitious Designs A State cannot be maintained without considerable Revenues which entices Men to Avarice But if we look upon our Saviour we shall find that his main Endeavour is to keep his Disciples from ambitious Mat. 18 1 2 3 4. c. 23 8. Mark 9. 33. Luke 9. 46. Joh. 13. 13 14 15 16. Designs and Covetousness The Instruction given by Christ to his Disciples in S. Matthew 10. when after having endowed them with the Gift of Miracles he sent them as it was to make their first Tryal among the Jews deserves particularly here to be taken notice of tho' it is not to be questioned but that the same Instruction remained in force for the most part after they were sent among the Gentiles The first Precept in this Instruction is That they shall take heed not to abuse the Christian Doctrine and the Gift of Miracles for the heaping up of Gold and Silver which are otherwise accounted the Sinews of a State As you have received it for nothing so you shall give it for nothing is the Command which was very well observed by St. Peter when he said Silver and Gold have I Act. 3. 6. none And lest they should under pretence of Subsistance and acquiring Necessaries be enticed to Avarice Christ forbid them even to provide two Coats Shoes Staves or a Purse but that they should be contented with what they received from their Auditors It is not to be denied but that this Command may chiefly be applied to such Journeys as were not to be too long or in far distant Countries But on the other hand it ought to be taken into consideration that the Allowances to be given to those that preached the Gospel are compared to the Wages of Workmen which seldom amount to any more than is necessary for Subsistance or at the most cannot exceed a private Fortune having not the least comparison with those vast Revenues which are required to maintain a State As may be seen in Mat. 10. 10. Luk. 10. 7. 1 Cor 9. 11. And the passage in the 1 Epist to Timothy ◠18. chiefly relates to the Priesthood where it is expresly forbidden not to make a Trade of their Office and to sly Avarice as the root of all Evil and consequently of all those Abuses and Superstitions which have overwhelmed the Church of Rome And that by their Number they might not appear terrible Christ only sends them two and two with this express Mark 6. 7. Command not to force their Doctrine upon any Body but to seek for reception by a kind Salute and if they find them inclined to receive their Doctrine to abide there but to leave those whom they found unworthy and not ready to hear their Words and even to shake off the Dust of their Feet After these Instructions given Christ foretels them what Persecutions and Dangers they must undergo all which he will have them to overcome not by Force but by Patience by shewing their Innocence Mat. 5. 10 11. or flying to another Place The quite contrary is practised in Temporal Governments whose Founders lay this down for a sure Maxim of State Tu contra audentior ito Never shrink before your Enemy After the Ascension of our Saviour they dispersed into all Parts of the World according as they were inspired without having appointed any certain place of Residence for their Government from whence they might receive their Instructions or Commissions and where they were to be accountable concerning their Negotiation or where to fix the Center of their Correspondency at least thus much is certain that nothing like it is recorded in the holy Scripture Neither was it in their Power to have acquired any great Territories it being obvious that they lived always under another Jurisdiction and in such Places where the Government was already Established Nor had they any Authority to exact upon their Auditors except what they were pleased to allot them by voluntary Contribution For if they should have attempted any thing beyond it no doubt but those Magistrates under whose Jurisdiction they lived might legally have stopt their Proceedings as done in prejudice of their Authority For in case the generality or the greatest part of the Christians should have attempted to follow the Example of some of their Brethren at Jerusalem who were for having Acts 2. 44 45. c. 4. 5. all things in Common it had been lawful for their Sovereigns to put a stop to their inconsiderate Design which needs must have tended to the great detriment of the Common-wealth Lastly the Apostles did not oblige their Auditors to leave their antient Habitations like Moses led the Israelites out of Aegypt but left them in quiet Possession of their former Station and honest Functions not pretending to any Innovation but that they should receive the Christian Religion § 29. It is furthermore to be consicered whether the Doctrine of Christ which unites The Kingdom of Christs implies no Temporal Sovereignty our Hearts under the Obedience of Christ by the Faith does not by vertue of this Union constitute a certain Sovereignty resembling the Sovereign Power of our Civil Governments To this we answer in the Negative as it may plainly appear to those that will duely consider the Nature and Qualifications
else overturn that Government under which they then live So when Moses delivered the Israelites from the Aegyptian Bondage he led them into the Desarts of Arabia And when Romulus had resolved to erect a new Commonwealth he first withdrew himself from the Subjection of the Kings of Alba and such of the Neighbouring Countries as were for being Members of that new Commonwealth did leave their former Habitations and settled themselves in Rome But neither Christ nor his Apostles did ever remove Christians from their Habitations to other Places but allowed every body to remain in the same Station and under the same Government without the least prejudice to the former Rights of their Sovereigns over them From whence it is evident that the Christians tho' never so numerous could not be in a condition to settle themselves under any one State of their own For since according to the Rules of the Christian Religion the Rights of Sovevereigns over their Subjects Lives and Goods are not taken away or impair'd and no body can be subject to two Masters there could be no pretence of erecting a new Sovereignty especially in the midst of another Common-wealth nay it was beyond their Power even to enter into such a Society as should be in the least prejudicial to the Rights of their present Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 1â— Sovereigns Who can be so ignorant in civil Affairs as not to understand what prodigious Sums of Money are required for the maintainig of a State And tho the Rights of Sovereigns do not extend so far as to take away from Subjects the private disposal of their Goods nevertheless may they lawfully restrain the Extravagancy of their Subjects if they pretend to dispose of their Goods in prejudice of the State For if this Liberty should be granted to the Subjects without limitation the State if deprived oâ— its nourishment would quickly be reduced to a languishing condition or else private Men might be enabled to erect a new State in the midst of the old one or at least to impair and endanger the Publick Safety And since those Sovereigns under whose Jurisdiction the Apostles lived had the same Right over the Fortunes of their Subjects as other Governments have and the Rights of Sovereigns were not taken away by the Doctrine of Christ there could be no other provision made for the maintainance of those Congregations as such but what was consistent with the lawful Rights of their Sovereigns and as much only as might lawfully be given by private Persons which could not exceed a private Fortune and were nothing more than Voluntary Contributions or Alms And whatsoever of any real Estate was attributed to these Uses was thereby not exempted from paying of Taxes no more than the Estates of other Subjects § 32. But if we take a full view of the The inward Structure of the Church is quite different from that of a State whole Structure of Civil Societies and by what means Subjects were united under one Government we shall find them to differ as Heaven and Earth from that Union which belongs properly to the Body of a Church If we trace that Original of Civil Societies or Commonwealths it is evident that Men having found the Inconveniencies and Dangers which attended a solitary Life in the free natural State did enter and unite themselves into Societies for their common Security And having agreed to a certain Form of Government did constitute one certain Person or a Counsel who were to be the supream Governours of that Society unto whom they submitted themselves and their fortunes for the common Benefit of that Society But Churches were erected upon quite another Foundation For here Men being made sensible of their miserable condition did not by their own accord and a general agreement turn themselves to God Almighty but being on the contrary overwhelmed with Darkness and Ignorance so as to be over secure and neglecting their own Salvation God did send his Messengers among them commanding all men every where to repent Here is not the least Acts 1â— 30. footstep of any general Agreement of Men to erect and submit themselves under one Church but each particular Person for himself without any respect or regard to others did follow Christ and his Doctrine And whereas in a Civil State the whole family has its dependency from their Master and enjoys all the Privileges belonging to them under his Protection it is quite different in the Church where the Wife is not obliged to follow her Husband's Religion nor the Servant the Master So were in the family of 1 Cor. 7. 12. 21. Nacissus who himself was not a Christian several Christian Servants who are saluted as such by S. Paul And in this sense is to be â—â—m 16. â—â— taken what is said by Christ He that loved Father or Mother Son or Daughter more than me is not worthy of me As likewise Mat. 10. 3â— c 12 5â— Luk. 1â— â—6 what is mentioned concerning Divisions Discords Dissensions which are to be raised by the Doctrine of Christ among the nearest Friends is to be understood of the strict Union betwixt Christ and the Believers which surpasses and is to be preferred before all the Tyes of Consangninity among Men. So Mat. â—0 34. that if a Father Husband or Master should turn Apostate the Son Wife or Servant are not obliged to follow their footsteps Neither is it requisite to be solicitous about any particular or certain Form of Government in the Church viz. whether the same ought to be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical For these seveveral Forms belonging only to a Civil Government are very preposterously made use of in the behalf of the Church which is far different from a Temporal State And as Churches and Commonwealths are erected for different Ends so the Offices belonging to both are altogether of a different Nature Who is so ignorant as not to know that for the obtaining the Ends of Civil Societies it was requisite to constitute various Degrees of Dignities appertaining to the Managers of the State whereas the most plain and natural Distinction betwixt Christians in reference to the Church is only that of Teachers and Auditors § 33. Besides all this the Teachers in a 9 There is a great difference betwixt Teachers in a Church and the Governours of a State Church do not only differ from Temporal Governours in a State in that these are constituted for different Ends But the main Difference is the very nature of their Constitution We will not insist here upon the Point of Succession by which a great many Sovereigns obtain their Sovereign Power which is quite otherwise in the Church But we will only treat in this place concerning the different Constitution betwixt Teachers and such Sovereigns as exercise the Supream Civil Power by Vertue of Election When therefore the Sovereign Power is lodged in any Persons by Election the rest who have thus chosen them their
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
true God and the Son of God submitting themselves to his Judgment so that the Interpretation of the Christian Doctrine would have been owing by Christ to their Submission Away with such Fictions not agreeable even to common Sense He might as well say that God's Power over us Mortals did owe its original to the submission of Princes and in case they thought fit to withdraw themselves from this Obedience God Almighty I cannot relate it without horror must thereby be reduced to the Condition of a private Person In the next Assertion he is not altogether so much beyond his Senses when he grants even to Pagan Princes a Right of determining the controverted Points among Christians which is as much as to make a blind Man a competent Judge of the difference of Colours When the Primitive Christians were forced to appear before the Pagan Judges it was not on the Account of the Interpretation of the Scripture The Christians could never be guilty of so gross an Error as to Consult with the Unbelieving concerning the controverted Articles of Faith But being forced against their will to appear before them they could not avoid to receive their Judgment such as they were pleased to give as having no way left them to decline it Furthermore our Author is pleased to affirm That such an Interpretation ought to be look'd upon as establish'd by Publick Authority which carries along with it an obliging force at least in outward appearance so that Subjects are obliged to conform themselves to it by a verbal Confession tho' never so discrepant from that Opinion they keep concealed within their hearts But the outward Behaviour and verbal Confessions of a Christian which are not agreeable to the true Sentiments of his Heart having not the least affinity with Religion it self I don't see upon what Account this Chimerical Power is attributed to Princes unless it be to furnish them with a specious pretext to afflict their Innocent Subjects Thus much is certain that Christ did not command his Doctrine to be propagated by forcible means so that supposing the Articles thus established by the Civil Authority to be never so consonant to Truth it is nevertheless inconsistent with the Genius of the Christian Religion to impose them upon Subjects by force and under severe Penalties But supposing them to be false the case of Subjects must needs be very miserable when they suffer Punishment because they will not profess an erroneous or false Doctrine I see no other benefit to be reap'd from the egregious Assertions of our Author than to serve for a Justification of the most Tyrannical Persecutions that have been and to declare them to have been done by Vertue of a Legal Authority At this rate it will be no difficult Task to justifie the Proceedings against the Protestants in France which move both Pity and Horror in all good Men at least Mr. Houtuyn has very freely offered his Advice and Patronage What follows next is very smartly said to wit That the Coersive Power may be Legal whereas the Act of Obedience is not allowable No body of common sense but will acknowledge that this implies a most manifest Contradiction and that the Legal Sovereign Authority and the Obligation of paying Obedience to it are inseparable from one another Yet with this Nicety Mr. Houtuyn is so mightily taken that he does not consider that at the same time he grants an absolute Authority to his Prince to persecute his Subjects on the Account of Religion he takes away from them the Power of denying the true Religion But what Reason can be given why the one should have a coersive Power where the other cannot obey unless it be done on purpose to encourage ambitious and imperious Princes either to force their Subjects to a sinful compliance or never to want an Opportunity of afflicting the Innocent at Pleasure For those that take to these violent ways of propagating the Faith or rather to speak Truth Hypocrisie and Superstition by their booted Apostles are not contented to silence their Subjects dissenting from them in Point of Religion who are also debarr'd even to save themselves by flight tho' it be no small Misfortune to a Subject to be forced to leave his Native Country but they compel them to profess publickly those things for Truth which they abhor in their Hearts and appear to be Idolatrous Superstitious or Fictitious invented on purpose by those that make their Market by Religion Mr. Houtuyn himself cannot but confess That no body can safely acquiesce in any determination made concerning an Article of Faith unless by his own private Judgment he find it agreeable to the Word of God And if he find it not consonant to that he ought not to rest satisfied in it for fear he should disown his Faith this being the worst and most unbecoming thing belonging to a Christian But if it be unbecoming a Christian to deny his Faith which is the same in effect as to rest satisfied in ones own private Opinion and Conscience to keep secret within the heart what one believes not to indulge ones Tongue and to refrain from External Actions This being the Advice which in contradiction to himself he had not long before given to the Dissenting Subjects what Reason can he give for his Assertion when he attributes to his Prince a Power so unlimited that his Christian Subjects must either be forced to undergo such an Indignity or else the most horrible Persecutions that can be invented The first Inventer of this unlimited Power as far as ever I could learn was Mr. Thomas Hâ—bbs the worst Interpreter that ever was in Divinity whose Opinion as to this kind no body has taken so much pains to revive with the same Impudence as Mr. Adrian Houtuyn What I most admire at is that this should be attempted by one living in a State whose Maxims are quite opposite to these Principles and where consequently he could not reasonably propose to himself any Reward of his Adulation There being not the least likelihood that the States General of the Vnited Provinces should ever lay claim to such a Power As it is not very probable that Princes will apply themselves to the Ministry of the Church and undertake the Publick Exercise of the Pastoral Function in Person so that I cannot see to what purpose our Author has been so careful in asserting it in the behalf of Sovereigns Unless he has pleased himself with this Fancy that his Assertions cannot fail to make him to be the more admired among the Youngsters by how much the more remote they are from common Sense Thus much at present for Mr. Houtuyn FINIS Books Printed for Abel Roper at the Black Boy over against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street SOlid Philosophy asserted against the Fancies of the Ideists Or The Method to Science farther illustrated With Reflections on Mr. Lock 's Essay concerning Human Vnderstanding By I. S. A True History of the several Designs and Conspiracies against His Majesty's Sacred Person and Government as they were continually carry'd on from 1688. to 1697. Containing Matters extracted from Original Papers Depositions of the Witnesses and Authentick Records as appears by the References to the Appendix wherein they are digested Publish'd with no other Design than to acquaint the English Nation that notwithstanding the Present Posture of Affairs our Enemies are still so Many Restless and Designing that all imaginable Care ought to be taken for the Defence and Safety of His Majesty and his Three Kingdoms By R. K. The Doctrine of Acids in the Cure of Diseases farther asserted Being an Answer to some Objections raised against it by Dr. F. Tuthill of Dorchester in Dorsetshire In which are contained some things relating to the History of Blood As also an Attempt to prove what Life is and that it is principally supported by an Acid and Sulphur To which is added an Exact Account of the Case of Edmund Turner Esq deceased as also the Case of another Gentleman now living exactly parallel to Mr. Turner's By John Colbatch a Member of the College of Physicians London Books Printed for A. Bosvile at the Dial against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street A Discourse of Conscience Shewing 1. What Conscience is and what are its Acts and Offices 2. What is the Rule of it 3. The several sorts of Conscience 4. How some Practical Cases or Questions concerning Conscience may be resolv'd 5. The Benefit and Happiness of a Good Conscience and the Unhappiness of an Evil one 6. How a Good Conscience may be attain'd and how we may judge whether we have attain'd it Publish'd chiefly for the Benefit of the Unlearned tho' it may also be useful to others Together with brief Reflections upon that which the Author of Christianity not Mysterious saith upon that known Text 1 Tim. 3. 16. The Christian Belief Wherein is asserted and proved That as there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason yet there are some Doctrines in it above Reason and these being necessarily enjoyn'd us to Believe are properly call'd Mysteries In Answer to a Book entituled Christianity not Mysterious The Second Edition with a Preface and other Additions
to any particular Government but in general all such as make profession of a certain Doctrine or Religion § 15. One of the main points which those Christ had no Teritories belonging to him that intend to Establish a new Commonwealth ought to take care of is how to acquire considerable Territories where their new Subjects may settle themselves and their Fortunes So Moses when he saw it not fecible to set up the Jewish Commonwealth within the bounds of Aegypt led them into the Desert and through such places as were not subject to any particular Government till such time that they Conquered the Land of Canaan and rooted out its Antient Inhabitants Neither were the Jews before they were put into Possession of this Country the less free for they were then a Nation independent from any Foreign Power and though they sometimes marched upon the Borders of other Princes nevertheless were they not during that time subject to their Jurisdiction partly because no body ever laid any particular claim to those Territories or if some of them did they marched through them like Soldiers of Fortune ready to make good their Pretences and Titles to these Lands by the edge of their Swords But Christ did say of himself That he was so poor as he had not where to lay his head He was always so far Mat. 8. 20. from attempting to acquire any Possessions or Territories or to encourage his Followers to do it that he rather chose to live during the whole course of his life in other Territories and under Civil Jurisdiction § 16. There are a great many other remarkable Christ did not exircise the Office of a Prince Circumstances from whence it may plainly be inferred that Christ never did nor intended to appear as a Prince here upon Earth When the Mother of the Sons of Zebedeus begged of our Saviour that her Sons might be prefer'd to the Chiefest Dignities in the Kingdom of Christ he rebuked her for her ignorance and Prophesied to his Followers a very slender share of outward Splendor and temporal Preferments but abundance of Persecution nay he plainly told and enjoyned his Disciples that they should not strive for Pre-eminency over one another as Temporal Princes do It shall says he not be so amongst you Vid. Mat. 20. 20. ordering them to live in an equal and Brotherlike degree with one another And to remove by his own Example all remnants of Luke 20. 26. Pride he in their presence did abase himself to that degree of Servitude as to wash the feet of St. Peter Lastly it is of great Consequence John 13. 9 10. at the first Establishment of a new Commonwealth that its Founder be long-lived that thereby he may be enabled to lay a more solid Foundation of the new Government For this reason it was that David's Soldiers would not any longer suffer him to expose his Person in Battel lest the light of Israel should 2 Sam. 21. 17. be extinguished the loss of his own Person being esteemed more than of a great many thousands But our Saviour did surrender himself voluntarily to death after he had scarce four years appeared in Publick and that without appointing a Successor who was to exercise any Power or Authority over those that followed his Doctrine § 17. As now Christ during his abode 〈…〉 of a Doctor or Teacher here upon Earth did not make the least appearance or outward shew resembling the greatness of Temporal Princes and as out of all his Actions there cannot be gathered the least thing which may prove his intention to have been to erect a new State or Common-wealth so it is sufficiently apparent that during the whole course of his publick Conversation on Earth he employed all his Time and Labour in publishing the Word of God So that in the Quality of a Doctor or Teacher he appeared to the Eyes of all the World John 1. 2â— whereas his Office of being the Saviour of Mankind was at that time understood only by such as were capable of applying the Antient Oracles of the Prophets to his Person Furthermore our Saviour to establish and shew his Authority made use of such Miracles as might be evident proofs of his Divine Power partly because the Antient Ceremonies which were to be abolished were first ordained by God's special Command partly because the principal Heads of his Doctrine were surpassing all Human Understanding But as for his way of Teaching it was plain and free from Vanity without all affectation wherein appeared nothing which justly might cause the least suspicion of fictitious Worship Notwithstanding his Doctrine appeared thus in her Native and Pure Simplicity yet so powerful were its Charmâ— that all what Human Art Dexterity Eloquence has been able to invent of that kind if compared to the solid Expessions of our Saviour is only superficial and insipid Neither do we find that he made use of any outward means to promote his Doctrine He did not call to his aid the Power and Authority of Civil Magistates to force People to receive his Words The Word was Mat. 11. 15. 13. 9. 43. Luke 8. 8 14. 35 there He that can take let him take it And how often do we read that he exclaimed to them He that hath Ears to hear let him hear It was not God Almighty's pleasure to pull People head-long into Heaven or to make use of the new French way of Converting them by Dragoons But he has laid open to us the way of our Salvation in such a manner as not to have quite debarr'd us from our own choise so that if we will be refractory we may prove the cause of our own Destruction Neither did it please Almighty God to inveigle Mankind by the Allurements of Profit and Temporal Pleasures but rather to foretel those that should follow his Doctrine nothing but Adversities Calamities Persecutions and all sorts of Afflictions reserving the chiefest Reward till after this Life where also such as had neglected his Doctrine were to receive condign Punishment This is the most evident Proof that can be given of the intrinsick Value and extraordinary Worth of the Christian Doctrine the natural Constitution of Mankind in general being such as to be chiefly moved with those Objects that are present and affect our Senses whereas those things that are represented to our Minds at a distance are but faintly received and often meet with dubious Interpretations It is worth our Observation what Method Christ made use of in his Doctrine viz. That he taught as one having Authority as it is expressed by Matth. 7. â—9 not as the Scribes that is he had no recourse to the Authority and Traditions of their Antient Rabbi's so as to sâ—t up for an Interpreter of their antient Laws but he spoke Lord-like and as a Legislator who had a lawful Authority belonging to himself to propose his Doctrine It is my Will and Command who is it that dare gain-say
me And in this one point only Christ exercised his Regal Power as well as his Office of Teaching when he promised great and ample Rewards to all such as should receive his Doctrine threatening with Eternal Damnation all those that should refuse to hearken to it He that believed not is condemned John 3 18. already are his Words quite contrary as it is with other speculative Sciences the Ignorance of which makes no body â—able to Punishments And in this Sense is to be taken what is related of our Saviour by St. John The reason why the Jews were so bent to the Destruction of 18. 37 Christ was because they abominated his Doctrine nor would they acknowledge him for the same Messias which was promised so long before But baâ—ing at that time no Criminal Jurisdiction belonging to themselves they were 〈◊〉 to forge Treason and Rebellion against him as it his design was to make himself King of the Jews Jesus therefore being examined by Pilate concerning this Accusation did not deny it but witnessed a good Confession viz. That his Kingdom was not of this 1 Tim. 6. 13. World which is as much as to say His Kingdom was not like those of Temporal Princes who exercise Acts of Sovereignty over their Subjects For if he had pretended to the same Prerogatives he might have commanded his Servants not his timerous Disciples but those strong Legions of Angels who always stand ready to his Command to protect their Lord from falling into the Hands of Pilate And when Pilate replied That he then professed himself to be a King he answered That he was Joh. 18. 37. King but a King of Truth and that for this cause he came into the World that he should bear witness unto Truth Pilate by what Christ had professed soon understood that this matter did not fall under his Cognizance and therefore answered What is Truth As if he would have said if nothing else can be objâ—cted against you but that you make profession of Truth I have no further business with you for Truth is not subject to any Temporal Jurisdiction Neither did the Laws of the Roman Empire wherein so many Nations were comprehended take any Cognizance at that time of the various Opinions of their Subjects in matters of Religion 16. 14 15 24 29. 26 31 â—2 as it plainly appears out of the Acts and out of the Apology of Athenagoras It was for this reason that Pilate would have discharged him if he had not at last thought it more convenient to appease the rage of the Jews by Sacrificing him though Innocent to their Fury But after Christ had once made this open Confession he refused to make any further answer to Pilate being sensible that Pilate was not dâ—sirous to be instructed in this Truth The Kingdom of Chriâ—t therefore is a Kingdom of Truth where he oâ— the force of Truth brings over our Soâ—ls to his Obedience and this Truth has such powerful Charms that the Kingdom of Christ needs not to be maintained by the same forcible means and Rules by which Subjects must be kept in Obedience to the Civil Powers And for the same reason it is that thâ—re need not be established a particular State in order to propagate and preserve Truth no more than it is necessary to set up a separate Common-wealth where Philosophy and other Sciences are to be taught For it is the true Genius of Truth and such her intrinsick vertue as to be convincing in it self provided she be but â—e presented in her genuine Shape and the fruits which she produces for the benefit of Mankind be dexterously proposed to the view of the World But the divine Truth has beyond all others this particular prerogative that by vertue and with the assistance of God's Grace our Minds are insensibly drawn into a Belief of those things that otherwise seem to surpass human Understanding § 18. Christ after having withdrawn himâ—â—â—â— Tâ—â— Apostles 〈…〉 of Christ from Human Conversation did Substitute in this Kingdom of Truth his Apostles but not in the same Rank with himself not as Kings but as Ministers and Heralds to publish his Doctrine As my Father said he had sent me over so send I you But how Joh. 20. 21. â—aâ— 61. 1. S. Luk. 4. 18. had the Father sent him viz. To preach the Gospel to the Poor to heal the broken Hearted to preach Deliverance to the Captives as it is expressed by Isaiah and St. Luke So that the Title of King of Truth was a peculiar Title appeartaining to Christ alone He tells them Mat 23. 10 Mat. 28. 20. Be you not called Masters for one is your Master Christ And their Calling was to Teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had Commanded St. Paul called his Function a Ministry which he had received of the Lord Jâ—suâ— to testifie the Gospel of the Grace of God The Apostles had the first Rank among Christ's Followers but the word Apostle 〈◊〉 â—0 2◠〈…〉 implies as much as a Missionary or one that is sent by another So that they had no other Power or Authority from themselves to Teach their Doctrine but to Instruct others in what they had received from Christ And when after the Death of our Saviour they were quite dejected and put into a panick Fear He by sending the Holy Ghost did so comfort and strengthen them that they appeared in Publick and inspite of the Jews and all the Danger that threatned them preached the Doctrine of the Gospel But the diversity of Languages being a main obstacle 1 Cor. 1â— â— towarâ—â— the spreading abroad of any Doctrine the Apostles were by the Foly Ghost upon Whitsunday Endowed with the Gift of speaking various Languaâ—es to enable them to bring the Nations into onâ— Union of Faith It being otherwise a Maxim of State received by those that intend to â—ay the Foundation of a new Commonwealth to take care that no more than one Language bâ— used among their Subjects It is also worth our taking Notice of that among those Languages which the Apostles spoke there were Languages of some Nations that were then Subjects to the Parthian Empire which was at that time in the same degree of Enmity and Hatred with the Romans as may now a-days be observed betwixt the Germans and Tuâ—ks Notwithstanding this mortal Hatred betwixt these several Nations and the difficulties which were to be surmounted in keeping a Correspondence betwixt them which could not but be a main Obstacle to their being ever united under one Head or Government the Union of Faith was introduced among them under the Kingdom of Truth The Apostlâ—s 〈…〉 their Power of â—eâ—ching from God alâ—ne withâ—â—t any dependence from any Tâ—mporâ—l Power § 19. The Apostles had nevertheless much more Authority for the exercising of their Function than others who profess human Sciences or Doctrines For these cannot pretend to any lawful Authority of Teaching in