consequently be of a quite different nature and make up a particular Sovereignty Wherefore if both these should happen to be joined in one Person he becomes thereby at once master over our Lives and Consciences But if this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction be lodged in another Person he must either at the same time be acknowledged to have a Power of executing his Decrees by his own Prerogative or else to have only an Authority of giving Sentence leaving the Execution of it to the civil Magistrates If the first of these two be supposed it is evident that a double headed Sovereignty must carry along with it great Inconveniencies and Distractions and if the latter those that exercise the Sovereignty in the State must be look'd upon as Executioners only to this holy Judge All these Things duely considered as they must needs occasion great Convulsions in the State so no man that is not beyond his Wits will be apt to imagine unless it be made appear by most evident Proofs that Christ intended to introduce by his Doctrine such pernicious Diseases into civil Societies For tho' it is impossible that no Controversies should be raised in the Church like Christ himself has foretold it in the Parable by Matthew c. 13. 24. And St. Paul in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. 19. Nevertheless if any Controversie does arise he that is the first Author of it must of necessity maintain his Opinion under a colour at least of its being agreeable to the Scriptures For if any one should pretend to introduce a new Article of Faith without endeavouring to prove it out of the holy Scripture he would be look'd upon as a mad Man tho' he should call to his aid all the Sophistications of the Philosophers And if he should insist upon the Authority of Traditions without the Scriptures this would only serve to disclose the weakness of that Foundation whereupon he builds his Doctrine But if any one should make an attempt against any Article of Faith received already as such in the Church he is scarce worth taking notice of unless he should be able to alledge at least some specious Reasons out of the holy Scripture for his Opinion And in such a case especially if his Endeavours seem to proceed from a real Love to Truth he ought not to be absolutely slighted without being heard and his Reasons examined So that then the whole decision of the Matter must depend from a right Interpretation of the several passages in the holy Scripture relating to this Controversie And to find out this Interpretation I see not any necessity which obliges us to have recourse to a Sovereign Power or any infallible Authority but only to such Mâ—ans as â—â— most proper for the searching into and findâ—ng out the genuine Sense of other Authors viz. by a true Knowledge of the Tongue and a diligent search into the nature and whole sâ—ame of the Christian Religion and by duely comparing the Articles of Faith and observing their Annology and Connexion Whosoever besides this has a natural good Judgment and is not propossessed with Prejudice private Interest or Passion it will oâ— no such difficult Task for him to find out the genuine Sense of the Scriptures and to demonstrate it so plainly that such as oppose him will by the consent of all Understanding People be judged to be in the wrong So did our Saviour at several times convince the Pharisâ—es and Saduceans out of the whole Scripture and by the force of his Arguments taken from thence that they were not able to make any further reply And why should it not be reasonably supposed that in each Christian Church there may be found a sufficient number of Teachers capable of disproving such as pretend to introduce among them Innovations and false Doctrines But supposing that these alone should prove insufficient they may call to their aid those of the Neighbouring most famous Churches From whence it appears that there is no absolute Necessity of acknowledging a Judge General of Controversies in the Church And put the Case that those that dissent from the Church are so numerous as to have spread their Doctrine all over the State this Judge will prove useless in his Office For if he pretends to have recourse to violent means to make them renounce their false Opinion they will in all probability oppose force to force But if he takes the other way and endeavours to convince them of their Earor by Arguments taken out of the holy Scripture this may be done as well by other Teachers sitly qualified for their Office than by such a Judge General in the Church Neither ought we to be so over timerous as to believe that Errors should in so much prevail over Truth as to domineer always and every where over it it being not to be question'd but that by help of the most clear-sighted Teachers in the Church these Clouds may be soon dispersed and Truth again appear in its splendor I appeal to Experience whether not a great many Heresies by the only help of prevailing Truth without the assistance of such a Judge or any human Force have by degrees dwindled away and at last quite disappeared It must be confest there are some erroneous Opinions which being nourished and maintained by a Temporal Interest and certain Reasons of State of some particular Churches are not so easie to be suppressed Of this kind are those Controversies wherein the Protestants differ with the Papishes All which if duely considered are so deeply entangled with the Interest of the Popish Monarchy that it is impossible for the Roman Catholicks to recede an Inch from the point of the controverted Articles without diminution of their Authority and endangering their great Revenues so that all hopes of an Union betwixt them and the Protestants are in vain unless the latter can resolve to submit themselves under the same Popish Yoak which they have shaken off so long ago I cannot sufficiently admire that gross way of Arguing made use of by the Papishes when they talk of nothing else but the Authority of their Church telling us that if we would but once acknowledge the same all the Differences and Questions concerning the chief Articles of Faith would fall a-course making themselves both Party and Judge and pretending to give Sentence in their own Case according to their own Testimony They always make use of this Sophism that they attribute only to themselves the glorious Name of the True Church excluding all orher Christians from it but such as are of the same Communion with them And to back this pretence nothing is more common among them than to lay aside all manner of demonstrative Arguments founded in the Scriptures and in lien thereof to find out new Methods unknown to the Apostles of Converting People and to endeavour to establish their Authority by all manner of violence against those that dare to maintain Truth in opposition to their Doctrine For which
Controversies sooner composed and Heresies suppressed or quite extinguished but if the whole matter be duely weighed it will appear that such an Ecclesiastical Monarch may be very easily spared in the Church For granting such Whether it be necessary to set up a general Judge of all Controversies in the Church an universal Judge of all Controversies arising in the Church he must be supposed to be infallible and that beyond all contradiction as well in point of Matter of Fact as to the lawfulness of the Case for it may so happen that it be plain enough whether a Doctrine be erroneous or not when at the same time it may be disputable whether the said Error ought to be laid to a certain Man's Charge or not For if an Appeal be allowed from this Judge after Sentence pronounced there will never be an end of the Process It is therefore absolutely requisite that this infallible Authority should be so manifestly proved that it cannot reasonably be called in question For unless this Authority be unquestionable for the decision of this Controversie we must run from this Judge to another who must also be supposed to be Infallible and so in infinite it being granted by all without Exception that no body ought to be a Judge in his own Case And since this Privilege of being Infallible could not be granted by any body but by God alone the whole Body of Christians being not invested with such a Power it must plainly be proved out of the Scriptures that this particular Prerogative and Authority was granted to one certain Person for him and his Successors to decide all Controversies concerning the Articles of Faith without being liable to any Error But of this there is not the least footstep in the holy Scripture Nay the Apostles when they were sent by Christ into all the World were endued with the same Spirit and had an equal Authority So that there is but one way now left for the attaining to the true Knowledge of the Christian Religion both for the Teachers in the Church and all Believers in general which is to study the Scriptures devoutly and without Intermission And whoever pretends to Inspiration 2 Tim. 3. 14. 15. or to a prophetical Spirit ought by undeniable Demonstrations to justifie his Pretensions These Qualifications which the Apostle Paul describes in the 2 Epistle to Timothy c. 2. 24 25 ought to be applied to all Bishops and Teachers in general And the Servant of the Lord he says must not strive but be gentle unto all Men apt to teach patiently In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth Out of what has been said it is apparent that if any one now adays does pretend to any Prerogative or Infallibility in deciding Controversies as to matter of Faith he ought to be endued with such extraordinary Qualifications as are most requisite for the due Explaining and Interpreting the Sense of the holy Scripture and this in so high a degree as that the other Teachers in the Church are not able to stand in Competition with him nay that even all their joint Endeavours in this kind are not to be compared to his Judgment Besides this it must be supposed that this universal Judge except he be to be look'd upon as an useless Engine must be invested with a Power to execute his Decrees and to oblige all Christians to acquiesce in his Judgment For if it be supposed that his Decrees have no other force than as far as they influence People by the force of Truth they would be either useless or else this Judge in vain pretends thereby to any further Prerogative but what he has in common with other Christians that apply themselves to the Study of the holy Scripture Furthermore this obliging Power must either have been obtained by a peculiar Privilegde granted by God Almighty or by a general consent of the Christians or by an inherent Right to a Sovereignty over all the Christian Churches As for a priviledge granted by God or the general consent of the Christian Churches there is not the least Proof of it as far as ever I could find And as to the pretended Sovereign Power its legal Title ought to be proved by such Documents as are suitable to so great a Pretension For it is a very insignificant Proof to alledge in a case of such Moment Tradition and a long continued Usurpation which adds nothing to the right of a long continued illegal Possession and cannot be taken for a solid Foundation whereupon to build a real Pretension to such a Sovereignty for it is possible that whereas something of a Prerogative was intended in the primitive times the same in process of Time has been abused and consequently degenerated into an insufferable Tyranny We cannot therefore but look upon such a Tradition aâ—â— aâ— not the least foundation in the Scriptures as very suspicious especially when we consider that such a Sovereign Power is quite contrary to the true Genius of the Christian Religion It may perhaps be objected that nothing else can be so powerful to put a stop to all Controversies but it ought to be considered also that thereby the worsest sort of Slavery must be introduced worse than that whereof Tacitus complains in his time Adempto per Inquisitiones loquendi audiendioque 〈◊〉 â—â— que ipsacum voce memoria perdatur si tam in nostra potestate foret oblivisci quam tacere By the Inquisition the benefit of our Tongue and Ears is taken away at once and if it was as easie to controul Mens Memories as it is to bridle their Tongues the very remembrance of things past had been long ago abolished among us Truly by such Methods perhaps the Commonwealth may be stock'd with Hypocrites and dissembling Hereticks but few will be brought over to the Orthodox Christian Faith As it is therefore absolutely requisite that a hidden Ulcer should be laid open whereby it may the sooner be purg'd from its Malignancy and proper Remedies more immediately be applied to the affected Part So is it much conducing in the Church that such Scruples and Erroneous Opinions as have seised our Minds should be brought to light that by applying timely Remedies they may be removed before they are gone too far than by couching them over to let them run into a malignant Suppuration which at last may turn to an incurable Gangren It is also to be taken notice of that if this Ecclesiastical Sovereignty be granted there must of necessity be a double headed Sovereign Power in one State it being evident that Subjects would be obliged to acknowledge the Authority of this Ecclesiastical Judge in point of Controversie as well and in the same measure as they do the Authority of their civil Governours in civil Actions And since this Ecclesiastical Sovereignty has a different scope from that for which Civil Societies were erected it must
they are not preferrable in this Point before any other in Europe If any one questions thâ— Truth of it I appeal to Mr. Toland's Case concerning his Treatise Entituled Christianity not Mysterious It is both beyond my scope and the compass of a Letter to enter upon the Merits of the Cause on both Sides it will be sufficient here to refer my self to what has been Published against him lately here in England and in other Places All which if duely compared will soon evince how much the English Clergy â—as out-done the rest both by force of Argument and a generous gentle Behaviour But I am afraid I have abused your Lordship's Patience I will therefore conclude with recommending both my Author and my Self to your Lordship's Protection begging Leave to subscribe my self My Lord Your Devoted Servant J. Crull M. D. THE CONTENTS COncering Religion before Civil Societies were Instituted SECT 1. Every Man is accountable to God for his own Religion 2 How the same might be exercised in the free State of Nature 3 Parentâ— had originally the Care of Religious Worship lodged in them 4 Civil Societies were not constituted for Religions sake 5 Subjects did never submit their Opinions as to Religious Worship to the Disposal of their Sovereigns 6 What Power properly and according to the Laws of Nature belongs to Sovereigns in Ecclesiastical Affairs 7 Of the Nature of Revealed Religion 8 Among the Jews there was a very strict Vnion betwixt the Church and State 9 Who was the Supream Head of the Jewish Church 10 The Christian Religion is quite different from the Jewish 11 Some Reflections on the Behaviour of Moses when he laid the Foundation of the Commonwealth of the Jews 12 What on the other Hand our Saviour did when he Estalished his Church here on Earth 13 Christ was not the Founder of a New Common-wealth or People 14 Neither had he any Territories belonging to him 15 Christ did not exercise any Sovereign Power 16 But thâ— Office of a Doctor or Teacher 17 The Apostles did propagate the Doctrine of our Saviour 18 The Apostles had received their Authority of Teaching from God alone independant from any Human Power 19 The Apostles never assumed any Authority of Commanding others 20 Whether their Authority of Teaching does indirectly imply any right of Commanding others 21 Whether the Power of Absolution does imply any Right of Sovereignty 22 What is to be understood by absolving from Sins 23 Vnder whose Authority the Apostles did exercise the Power of Absolution 24 Of what nature it was 25 Whether St. Peter had any Prerogative granted above others 26 Whether the Power of Excommunicating imply a Sovereignty 27 The Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles contains nothing of Command 28 The Kingdom of Christ is no Temporal Kingdom 29 Whether the Christian Church ought to be considered as a State or Sovereignty 30 In the Primitive Church there was nothing like it 31 There is a great difference betwixt the Church and State 32 And the Doctors or Teachers in the Church are quite different from those that exercises the Sovereignty in a State 33 Whether the whole Christian Church ought to be considered as a State 34 It is not requisite to reduce the whole Christian Church under one Independant Severeignty or Head 35 Whether there ought not to be one Supream Judge in the Church to determine such Differences as may arise from time to time 36 An Example of a Controversie composed in the Apostles Times 37 Some Observations concerning the Nature and Vsefulness of General Councils 38 Concerning the Condition of the Christian Church under the Pagan Princes 39 Concerning its Condition under the Christian Emperours 40 The Church has not changed her Nature of being a Colledge or Society 41 Neither are Sovereigns thereby become Bishops 42 Christian Sovereigns are obliged to maintain and defend the Church 43 Of the Prerogatives of Princes in Ecclesiastical Affairs 44 Of the Power of Sovereigns over the Church Ministers 45 Of the Power of calling a Synod or Convention 46 Of their Power as to Church-Discipline 47 Of their Power of making Laws and Ecclesiastical Constitutions 48 How far Sovereigns are obliged to intermeddle in Religious Affairs when the Publick Safety lies at stake 49 Concerning Toleration of several Religions 50 Princes ought to be very careful not to be led away by false Suggestions 51 Sometimes the Prerogatives of Sovereigns are impaired under a religious Pretext 52 Concerning the Power of setting up a Reformation 53 Whether Subjects without the concurrence of their Sovereigns can pretend to set up a Reformation 54 OF THE Nature and Qualification OF RELIGION In REFERENCE to CIVIL SOCIETY c. AMong all those Questions which have for many Ages past been Controverted among Christians this may be deem'd one of the Chiefest which Treats of the Nature Authority and Power of the Church and which of the several Christian Sects ought most justly to claim the Title of the True Church The Romanists keep this for their last Reserve when Engag'd with the Protestants That they Attribute the Name of the True Church only to themselves and boldly stigmatize all such as are not of their Communion with the Names of rebellious Deserters This is the main Bulwark they rely upon thinking it sufficient to Alledge in their own behalf That they are not obliged so strictly to Examin and maintain every Article of their Faith against the Protestants since whatever Objections may be made out of the Holy Scripture the same ought to be rejected as Erroneous if not agreeable with the Interpretations and Traditions of their Church Thus making themselves both Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause â—esides this it is to be look'd upon as a Matter of the greatest Consequence both in regard of the Christian Church and the Publick Safety in a State to know exactly what bounds ought to be prescribed to the Priestly Order in Ecclesiastical Affairs as likewise to determin how far the Power of Sovereigns extends it self in Ecclesiastical Matters For if either of them transgress their Bounds it must of necessity prove the Cause of great Abuses Disturbances and Oppressions both in Church and State I was the sooner prevail'd upon to Search into the very bottom of this Question at this juncture of Time when not only the Romish Priests apply all their Cunning for the rooting out of the Protestants but also some of the greatest Princes in Christendom setting aside the Antient way of Converting People by Reason and force of Arguments have now recourse to opâ—n Violence and by Dragooning force their miserable Subjects to a Religion which always appear'd abominable to them But if we propose to our selves to examin this Point according to its own solid Principles as we ought to do without having recourse to Ambiguous Terms and Tergiversations it is absolutely requisite that we trace the very Original of Religion in General and of the Christian Religion in Particular so as
Supream Governour do thereby submit themselves to the Disposal of those their Sovereigns in such a manner as to oblige themselves that whatsoever they think conducing for the publick Welfare shall be taken as such by the whole Body and that they will always be ready to execute their Commands Wherefore Sovereigns are always invested with a full Power to force their Subjects to a compliance with their Commands by inflicting Punishments â—pon them But how is it possible to imagine that any Church or Congregation of the Believers should ever or ought to submit themselves so entirely to the Pleasure and Disposal of their Teachers as to oblige themselves to acquiesce barely in and to follow blindly whatever shall be proposed by them as conducing and leading to the way of Salvation it being certain without contradiction that none of the Believers do entirely submit themselves and their Faith to any Body but to God Almighty whose Will and Commands ought to be interpreted by the Teachers of the Church and their Auditors to be exhorted to a due Compliance with them For whoever it be that proposes any Doctrine surpassing human Reason if he pretends to gain credit by his Auditors must either claim it by Virtue of his own Authority or by Compulsion or by Virtue of a more Superiour Power But any Man that offers Matters not agreeable to Reason does thereby expose himself and so looses his Authority except he can by other more powerful means maintain his Doctrine and gain credit with his Auditors It was for this Reason that to the Greeks who were Men that sought after Wisdom and Reason the Preaching of the Apostles was Foolishness And S. Paul was for the same Reason nick-named 1 Cor. 1. 23. a Babler by the Athenian Philosophers Neither is any human Power capable of enforcing Acts 17. 18. the Mysteries of Faith and the Christian Doctrine upon People for which reason Christ told his Apostles Go and Teach and Believe and that with all your hearts to obtain which all human means which imply any Temporal Advantages or are forcible in their own nature are to be taken for Trifles and insufficient There is then no other Way left but that such Doctrines must be verified by a Superiour Being or Principle Mark 16. 20. viz. the Grace of God which always accompanies the Gospel and those Miracles wherewith the Apostles antiently authorized their Acts 14. â— Heb. 2 4. Doctrine Tho' it is at the same time undeniable that since the Gospel is sufficiently spread abroad in the World we do not now any more stand in need of such Miracles In the same manner as the Thunder and Lightning which were heard at the Publishing of the Ten Commandments were never repeated afterwards among the Jews The Christians therefore have submitted their Faith and Reason only to Christ whose Authority is unquestionable as being God himself and was testified by his Father's Voice from Heaven when he said This is my beloved Son in whom Mat. â— 17. Luk. 3. 22. I am well pleased And as the People of Israel willingly submitted their Faith to Moses as soon as he had given them plain Demonstrations of his Divine Commission so were Exod 20. 19. they obliged to subimt their Faith to the Apostles after they had once verified their Divine Commission by their Miracles Tho' it cannot be denied but that their Doctrine did sometimes produce good Effects without Miracles It is therefore very observable that when they preached and taught their Doctrine to such as were â—well versed in the Old Testament they did not take it amiss if their Auditors examined their Words whether they were consonant with the Prophesies contained therein From whence it is sufficently Acts 1â—â—â— apparent that no body ought to engage himself unto a blind Obedience of such Teachers as cannot verifie their immediate Divine Commission by Miracles so as to make his Faith absolutely dependant from their Doctrine without Exception but only so far as their Doctrine is sound agreeable to the Doctrine of those who had given manifest demonstrations of their divine Authority And for this Reason it is 〈◊〉 it â—â— not sufficient for a Teacher in the Church to say so it is and so it shall and must â—â— But he lies under an indispensible Obligation of maâ—â—ing it plain and apparent that what 〈…〉 to his Auditor is absolutely 〈◊〉 to the Doctrine published by Christ and his Apostles Neither ought the Auditors pâ—â— their Faith upon the Authority of their Teachers but to refer themselves to the Authority of God and his Word which is the Touchstone by which the Teachers Doctrine into be examined and approved The Schools of Philosophers used to take their Names from their Chief Teachers or Founders as we may observe in the Schools of Plato Aristoteles and Zeno But the Church ought to have no other Name but that she is the Church of God or Christ It was upon that score when S. Paul rebuked the Corinthians because some of them said they were of Paul some of Apollo some of Cephas and 1 Cor. 1 12 some of Christ So that since the holy Scripture is now established among us Christians ought not to be like the Disciples of Pythagoras who used for their Motto that old Saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He himself has spoken it But they have sufficient Authority to look themselves into the Holy Scripture and to examine whether the Doctrine of their Teachers be agreeable to the Doctrine of our Saviour For Christ when he said search â—â—e Scriptures did not only speak to his Disciples but to his Auditors in general And Joh. 5. 39. 1 Thes â— 21. 1 Joh 4â— S. Paul bid us to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good S. John says that we shall try the Spirits whether they are of God Neither can I conceive how the Examination of our selves which S. Paul so highly recommends to all that intend to be 1 Cor 11. 28 Partakers of the Lords Supper can be duely performed without meditating the Scriptures For in this case I take the condition of a Teacher and of a Physician to be quite different it being only required in the latter to understand the Art of Physick and to apply the same to his Patients which may be done with good Success tho' they be never so ignorant But it is not sufficient for a Teacher of a Church to be alone versed in the Articles of the Christian Religion that Church being to be deemed most excellent where the Auditors are not inferiour to their Teachers in the Cognition of the Mysteries of the Faith For the Apostles did not shun to declare unto Mankind all the Counsel Act. â—0 â—7 of God having not committed the Christian Doctrine to the care and custody of one particular Person who was to be the only Interpreter of it as the Sibyllin Oracles were antiently at Rome in the Custody of the
reason God has threatned in a most peculia manner to destroy this Monster of a State An Example of Controversie composed in the times of the Apostles § 37. The true Method of composing Controversies arisen in the Church is taught us by what is set us as an Example of this kind in the Acts c. 15. where it deserves our most particular Observation that the Controversy then in question was concerning a main Point in the Christian Religion viz. Whether a man might be saved without being circumcised according to the Institution of Moses For S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians c. 5. 2. had positively declared If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And it is very remarkable that this Question was started in the very Infancy of the Church when the Canon of the Church was not perfected and there were not wanting living Testimonies of such as had received the Doctrine of Christ from his own mouth and were endued with the Holy Ghost and Instructed with an Apostolical Authority Neither is it to be doubted but that Paul and Barnabas were endued with a sufficient Share of Wisdom and Understanding of the Holy Scripture for the reducing of this Errour as plainy appears out of the 5. verse of the above alledged Chapter that they opposed Act. 1◠such forcible Reasons against this erroneous Opinion that those that were come thither out of Judea were not able to contradict them So they appealed to the Authority of the Church of Jerusalem which being the V 2. Spring from whence the Christian Religion was derived into other Parts of the World they hoped to be back'd in this Opinion by such of the Members of that Church as did not without some Reluctancy brook the Abolishing of the Jewish Synagogue and that they were not quite beyond their guess but met with a great many there that were addicted to the same Opinion appears out of the 5th Verse in the same 15th Chapter To prevent therefore any further Disturbance which might be raised in the Antiochian Church by reason of this Controversie Paul and Barnabas with some others were deputed to go to the Church of Jerusalem to decide this Controversie When they came thither a Convocation was called consisting not only of the Apostles and Presbyters but also of the other Members of that Church not excepting those of the contrary side After their Reasons had been heard the Case was in debate a considerable time and at last the whole matter having been sufficiently disputed on both sides then Peter rose up not as an universal Judge or who pretended to decide the Controversie by Virtue of his Authority but his Proceeding was by demonstrative Arguments telling them what prodigious Effects had been wrought among the Gentiles by his preaching the Gospel to them after the Vision which appeared to him at Joppe Where Act. 11 9 he thus argues That since the Holy Ghost had in the same measure purified the Hearts of those Believers that were uncircumcised it would be unreasonable to put this Yoak upon the Neck of the Christians the more because they were not to be saved by Circumcision but through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ Paul and Barnabas being of the same Opinion did declare at the same time what Miracles and Wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them which would not have been done if they were to be taken for unsanctified as being not circumcised or if Circumcision was an essential Part of the Christian Faith After all had held their Peace that is to say no body further appearing who could contradict them or oppose their Arguments James at last arose declaring that the Vision of Peter did agree to the Words of the Prophets and that therefore it was his Opinion that such among the Centiles as did turn to Christ ought not to be troubled But that they also in some measure might gratifie themselves and to induce them not to fly the Conversation of such of the Gentiles as received the Christian Faith it was thought sit that these should abstain from Pollution of Idols from Fornication from things strangled and from Blood all which was forbidden by the Mosaic Law and partly disagreeable to the Law of Nature as Fornication which nevertheless was a common Vice among the Gentiles the rest being things indifferent in themselves might easily be let alone rather than give Offence to a Brother This having been approved of by common Consent and as it appears even by those that were of a contrary Sentiment before a Synodical Epistle was writ to the Church at Antioch in the name not only of those Apostles and Elders but also of the Brethren of the Church of Jerusalem Judas and Silas were deputed to carry this Epistle who being arrived at Antioch did not publish it in the nature of a Law but having delivered it to the Brethren from whom it met with a general Approbation they exhorted them with many words to a due Observance of it § 38. If the whole matter be duly weighed Some Observations concerning the natura and use of Councils it furnishes us with several Observations which may not a little contribute towards the Explaining the Nature of Ecclesiastical Councils In the first place it is most apparent that these Councils are not such Bodies whose Authority is everlasting for the Government of the Church But that they are extraordinary Convocations or Conventions composed out of some selected and most eminent Men of the Church who are called together for the composing certain Controversies arisen in the Church And because those Councils were very frequent in the Church from its Primitive times this alone may serve as a convincing argument that the Church never acknowledged one infallible Judge for the deciding of Controversies For to what purpose were so many Heads set to work if one single Person was sufficient and infallible in the Decision of them And what is yet more if the Decrees of the Councils had only their obliging Force from his Confirmation Furthermore those that compose such a Council are not to be considered as Members of an Assembly or Colledge who by the Majority of Votes can so absolutely determine the Question in hand as to be obligatory to all Christians in general Truth generally speaking not depending from the Plurality of Suffrages much less can they pretend to a legislative Power vested in them so as to impose what Laws or Canons they please upon the Church But they may be considered no otherwise than Men deputed by the Churches for the examining the true Grounds of the Controversies laid before them and for searching for the Decision of them in the Holy Scripture So that these Churches are not obliged to acquiesce in this Decision any further than they find it agreeable to the Word of God For it may chance to fall out so that a Controversie which appears at first sight very intricate and difficult afterwards being
propagating of this Doctrine They destroy the very Essential part of our Faith which being a Gift of the Holy Ghost and a Belief founded in our Hearts is transmuted into an outward Confession where the Tongue to avoid Temporal Punishment is forced to speak those things which are in no wise agreeable to the Heart This however admits again of a Limitation For herein are not comprehended these Points which proceeding from Natural Religion are also contained in the Christian Doctrine and all of them imply a profound Reverence to be paid to the Supream BEING For it is beyond all question that those that act against the very Dictates of Reason ought to be subject to Civil Punishments since they strike at the very Foundation of Civil Societies Such are Idolatry Blasphemy Profanation of the Sabbath where nevertheless great care is to be taken that a due difference be made betwixt the Moral part of that Precept concerning the Sabbath which is unalterable and the Ceremonial part of it Princes therefore at their first entrance into the Communion of the Christian Church might Lawfully destroy the Images and Temples of the Idols and the Groves and other Meeting-places dedicated to their superstitious Worship Neither can it be called in question but that Christian Soveraigns have a Right to inflict Civil Punishments upon such as revile the whole System of the Christian Religion and ridicule the Mysteries of the Christian Faith at least they may Banish them the Country But for the rest it is in vain to believe that the true enlightning of our Mind and the inward consent to such Articles of Faith as surpass our Understanding can be procured by violent means or temporal punishments For supposing you force a Man to dissemble his thoughts to speak contrary to what he conceives in his own Opinion let his Confession be never so formal and his Gestures never so well composed and conformable to certain prescribed Rules this has not the least affinity with true Religion unless he at the same time does feel an inward motion and hearty compliance with what he professes Neither ought People according to the true Genius of the Doctrine of Christ be enticed to receive the Christian Religion by Temporal Interest Honours or other such like Advantages for Christ did promise that those that followed him should receive their Reward in the Life to come but fore-told them nothing but Crosses and Tribulations in this And those that embrace any Religion out of a Motive of Temporal Advantages do plainly shew that they have a greater Value for their own â—erest than Religion And certainly scarce any body that has but common sense can perswade himself that such a sort of Worship can be pleasing to God Almighty Sovereigns being not constituted for Religion's sake they cannot under that colour exact from their Subjects a blind Obedience in matters of Religion it being unquestionable that if Subjects should blindfold follow the Religion of their Sovereign they cannot by all his Authority be assured of their Salvation from whence it is evident that in case any Subject be fully convinced that he can out of the Holy Scripture discover any Errors which are crept into the Church even that by Law established especially concerning any Principal Point of Faith he neither can nor ought to be hindered in his design by the Sovereign Authority before his Reasons be heard and well debated in the presence of the best and ablest Judges and if by them he be legally and plainly convicted of his Error then and 〈◊〉 before ought he to be silenced To force People into the Church â—y the bare Civil Authority must needs fill the Commonwealth with Hypocrites who cannot be supposed to Act according to the Dictates of their Consciences For since in Religions Matters an absolute Uniformity betwixt the Heart and Tongue is required how can it otherwise be but that such as profess a Religion disagreeable to their Opinion should never be satisfied in their Consciences when they consider that they impose upon God Almighty § 49. The Care of preserving the Publick What Prerogatives belong to Sovereigns as being Protectors of the Publick Tranquility Peace belonging in a most peculiar manner to Sovereigns has furnished some with a specious Pretence to affirm that since differences in Religion cause frequent Convulsions in the State and it is to be deemed one of the greatest Happinesses of a Government if its Subjects in general are of one Religion all means tho' never so violent may be put in execution to extirpate these Differences in Religion They alledge that as much more precious our Souls are before our Bodies the more Sovereigns are obliged to be watchful over them and that the true Love which a Sovereign bears to his Subjects can never be more conspicuous than when he takes effectual care of their Salvation These it must be confess'd are very specious Pretences and have sometimes had such powerful influence over Princes who were else naturally not inclined to Severity that they have nevertheless by these plausible Arguments been prevailed upon to assist with their Authority the cruel Designs of Priests It will therefore not be beyond our scope to make a strict Enquiry what account ought to be made of these so specious Reasons in a well constituted Government In the first place then it is to be considered that it has been foretold by our Saviour that there should always be in the Church Weeds amongst the Wheat that is to say that there should be false Doctrines raised in the Church and these according to the Commands of our Saviour were not to be extirpated Root and Branch but to be reserved for the Day of Judgment For a Sovereign that takes to such violent courses may make a havock among his Subjects which commonly proves equally pernicious to the Innocent and Guilty nevertheless he will find it impracticable quite to abolish all Errors and Differences in the Church Never did any body shew a greater Love to Mankind than our Saviour who sacrificed himself for our Salvation Yet he made use of no other ways to propagate his Doctrine than Teaching when he might have commanded Twelve Legions of Angels to force Mankind to Obedience How can a Prince be esteemed to follow the Foot-steps of Christ who makes such profligate Wretches as the Dragoons his Apostles for the Conversion of his Subjects That Pretence of the Love of Sovereigns toward their Subjects let it be never so specious he ought not under that colour endeavour to subvert or alter the Method of propagating the Christian Doctrine according to the true Genius of the Christian Religion Besides this it is not absolutely necessary to maintain the Publick Tranquility that all the Subjects in general should be of one Religion or which is the same in effect the differences about some Points in Religion considered barely as such are not the true causes of Disturbances in a State but the Heats and Animosities Ambition
and perverted Zeal of some who make these Differences their Tools wherewith they often raise Disturbances in the State Such turbulent Spirits ought to be curbed and care to be taken so to tye up their Hands as that they want Power to influence the Minds of such Subjects as otherwise would be well satisfied to enjoy peaceably a Liberty of Conscience And what should move a Prince to disturb his good Subjects meerly upon the score of Differences in Opinion as long as they live quietly under his Goverment For supposing their Opinion to be erroneous it is not at his but their own Peril and they alone must be answerable for it For in my Opinion Sovereigns are entrusted with the Sword wherewith to dissect Controversies as Alexander did with the Gordian Knot But that it may not be objected as if I intended to encourage all sorts of Heresies and Licentiousness I do declare that this is far different from my purpose but that on the contrary it is to be wished and ought to be endeavoured to procure but one Faith and Religion in a State and especially such a one as is absolutely agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the Holy Scripture such a one as cannot but contrbute towards the maintaining of the Publick Tranquility For I do not think that all Uniformity in Religion is equally capable of procuring that Union neither can the Pagan Religion Mahometans Arians Anabaptists and that of Antichrist himself claim that Prerogative but only the true and antient Religion contained in the Holy Scripture For this is only to be deemed the truly Antient Religion which is derived from the pure and genuine Spring of the Primitive Christian Religion As among the Jews such only could boast to follow the true foot-steps of Antiquity as proved their Doctrine out of the Books of Moses All what degenerates from the Nature of its genuine Spring tho' back'd by the Traditions of some Ages being only to be look'd upon as an inveterate Error Princes being then Protectors of the Publick Tranquility have an Authority to inspect what Canons are received into the Church and to cause them to be examined according to the true Tenure of the Holy Scripture and this care is not to be committed to the management of a few who may perhaps be swayed by Faction or Interest but to all such as have a solid knowledge of the Holy Scripture If every thing be found consonant to its Rules then may a Sovereign by his Authority Command this Doctrine to be Taught both in publick and private But where there is not any Publick Form of Religion established in a Commonwealth it is the Sovereign's care that one may be composed by the assistance of such as are well versed in the Holy Scripture which being approved of by the general consent of his Subjects ought to be professed by all and all those especially who pretend to the Ministry are to be tyed up to its Rules This form of Worship being once received a Prince may justly deny his Peotection to all such as will not comply with it unless he find it to be against the Common Interest of the Common-weal If any one should undertake to contradict this Publick Form especially in such Points as are the Heads of the Christian Religion he ought to be admonished to desist his Reasons if he has any to be examined and when convicted of his Error to be silenced if all this prove fruitless he may lawfully be banished For since according to the Doctrine of the Apostles we are to avoid the Conversation of Hereticks it would be unreasonable that a whole Society of Men should fly from one or a few capricious Persons So that he or they ought to seek out for a new Habitation after they have been legally convicted of their Error for fear they should spread their erroneous Doctrines further than may be consistent with the Publick Safety But we allow no other Punishment in such a case except their Doctrine should amount to Blasphemy § 50. Notwithstanding what has been alledg'd Concerning Tolerating of several Religions in a State there may be such a juncture of Time Circumstances that Sovereigns may nay ought with a safe Conscience to tolerate such of their Subjects as are of a different Opinion from the Established Religion For it may so happen that the number of the Dissenters is so great as not to be expelled without great Prejudice to the State and not without danger to the Commonwealth if they should settle under another Government For that common Saying of a certain Sort of Men that 't is better to have a Country lie waste than to have it inhabited by Hereticks savours of Barbarity if not Inhumanity And a certain Prince who said that he would rather walk out of his Territories with nothing but a Staff in his hands than to suffer it to be inhabited by Hereticks may well pass for one of the most bigotted Zealots in Christendom For the Doctrine of the Gospel is not destructive to civil Society neither is thereby the least Obligation laid upon Princes to propagate Religion by violent and destructive means or to undertake more in that behalf than belongs to them as Protectors of the publick Tranquility they may therefore with a safe Conscience supercede such violent ways by which the State either is endangered or weakned especially since neither our Saviour did make use of them himself nor commanded any thing like it to his Apostles On the other hand those that expect to be tolerated in a State ought by all means to endeavour to live peaceably and quietly and as becomes good Subjects they ought not to Teach any Doctrine which savours of Sedition and Disobedience or to suffer such Principles to be fomented in their Congregations as may prove destructive to the Prerogatives of their Sovereigns For there is not the least question to be made but Princes have a right to rout out such as propagate these Doctrines they having not the least relation to Religion but are like spots wherewith some turbulen Heads bespatter the Christian Religion Besides this there is another duty incumbent to Sovereigns over a State where more than one Religion is tolerated viz. to keep a watchful eye over them that the Dissenting Parties do not break out into extravagant Expressions about the Differences in Religion these being the Fuel that enflames them into Animosities which oftentimes prove the spring of Factions Troubles and intestine Commotions A much greater Obligation lies upon Sovereigns to tolerate Dissenters if they when they first submitted to the Government had their Liberty of Conscience granted them by Contract or have obtain'd it afterwards by certain Capitulations any following Statutes or by the fundmental Laws of the Land all which ought to be sacred to Princes and to be observed by them with the same Circumspection as they expect a due Obedience from their Subjects No Opinion concerning matter of
Religion ought to be declared Erroneous before it be duely examined and the Parties convicted especially if they are ready to prove the same out of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith And great care is to be taken that such a Decision be not left to the Management of their Adversaries who being perhaps guided by self Interest oftentimes are both Accusers and Judges There are not a few Politicians who are of opinion that Sovereigns may with a safe Conscience give Protection to their Subjects tho' of an erroneous Opinion provided it be for the benefit of the Commonwealth especially if care be taken that they do not draw away others into the same Error For supposing the established Religion both in point of Doctrine and Morality to excel all others it is to be hoped that the Dissenting Parties may be in time brought over to it rather than to be feared that they should seduce others Besides that it may contribute to the encrease of the Zeal and Learning of the established Clergy it being sufficiently proved by Experience that in those places and times where and when no Religious Differences were in agitation the Clergy soon degenerated into Idleness and Barbarity § 51. Furthermore as Sovereigns in all other Sovereigns in matters of Religion ought not to be misguided by Flatterers Matters of Moment ought to act with great Circumspection so especially in matters of Religion they cannot proceed with too much caution an injustice of this nature being the most sensible of all that can be done to a Subject For what can be more abominable than to let Subjects suffer unjustly for their Faith in Christ and that perhaps for no other reason but because some others out of self Interest cannot agree with them in Opinion And if a Prince who prompted by his own cruel Inclinations tyrannises over his Subjects is odious to all the World how much more abominable appears a Prince who acts the part of an Executioner and is made an Instrument by others to fulfil their cruel Designs against their Fellow Subjects All Christian Princes therefore as they tender their Consciences ought to avoid all manner of Extreamities in Matters of this Nature which ought never to be undertaken unless they be well instructed beforehand in every particular Point A Prince ought not only to be satisfyed with or rely entirely on what is represented to him by his Clergy tho' never so pious in outward appearance there being too many Instances to be given that the best of Princes by their own Inclinations abhorring all manner of Cruelty have by the Instigation of over-zealous Clergy-Men turn'd the most cruel Tyrants We scarce ever read of any Prince who undertook to decide Controversies in Physick or other Sciences except he had attained to a particular Knowledge in these Matters and why should Sovereigns be too forward in deciding Religious Differences which are of much greater Moment the eternal and temporal welfare of Millions of People do depend thereon unless they be very well instructed in every thing that has any relation to it And since Princes very rarely bestow sufficient Time and Pains in being fully instructed in Divinity it is to be wished that they would be byassed by their own natural Understanding rather than be influenc'd by the Opinions of others As for an Instance in those Controversies which are betwixt the Protestants and Papists there are such evident Signs from whence it is a difficult matter for a Christian Prince to discern which of these two ought to be preferred before the other For if it be considered that the Protestants are so far from forbidding the reading of the holy Scripture to the Laity that on the contrary they exhort them to it and make the Scriptures the Touchstone of their Doctrine and the true Judge of their Controversies That the Protestants trusting upon the goodness of their own Cause do not forbid the reading of Popish Authors but allow them to be publickly sold as being confident that the weakness of their Arguments cannot have any influence even over an indifferent Understanding it cannot but seem very strange why in the Church of Rome the Laity is not allowed the reading of the holy Scripture nay that they leave no stone unturn'd to suppress the Validity of the holy Scripture so that in those places where the Inquisition is in vogue a Man may with less danger be guilty of Blasphemy Perjury and other the most enormous Crimes than to read and examine the Mysteries of the holy Scripture On the other hand what a clamour do they make about Traditions and the Prerogatives of the Church which Title they claim as belonging in a most peculiar manner to themselves and notwithstanding the same is not allowed them by others they assume to themselves the Authority of giving Judgment in their own Cause It is very well worth the Consideration of a Prince that they will not allow our Books to be read among them and especially how careful they are in keeping them from the Knowledge of Great Men tho' belonging to the Communion of their Church Who is so ignorant as not to know what great Difficulties and Obstacles were to be surmounted before it could be obtained that the Augsburgh Confession was read to the Emperour Charles V. All which taken together are most evident Proofs to any unbyassed Person that the Protestants act like Men as relying upon the goodness of their Cause but the Roman Catholicks as mistrusting themselves and fearing that if their Doctrine should be examined according to the Tenure of the holy Scripture and out of the Protestant Wrttings the same would scarce bear the Touchstone It may also be taken into consideration how far different the Interest of the Roman Catholicks Party is from that of the Protestants For tho' both Parties with equal Zeal in Publick pretend to the Honour of God and the Truth of the Gospel and it is not to be denied but that a great many among the Roman Catholicks are very Zealous for the same nevertheless if we duely consider the Nature of Mankind in general it may easily be supposed that they aim at something more And what this something is is easily discernable if we make a due comparison betwixt the Clergy of both Parties Among the Protestants the greatest part of the Clergy are so stinted in their Revenues as to give them no opportunity of living in State what Respect is paid them is on the account of their Function as being Teachers their power very seldom reaches beyond their Revenues which are very moderate and oftentimes very mean Both their Persons and Estates depend from the Authority of their Sovereigns neither have they any where else to seek for Protection On the contrary in what Pomp and affluence of Fortune does the Popish Clergy live Unto what hight have they not exalted their Power in Europe Have they not so ordered their Matters as to be almost independant from the Civil
Clergy upon Admonition desist from these Abuses like as when a Creditor upon Summons is paid by his Debtor ought to supercede his Action against him But put the case that the Clergy either absolutely refuse or from time to time protract to desist from such Abuses so that there is but two ways left to be chosen either patiently to submit to their capricious Humour or else certain Persons in the State being damnified by these Abuses have a Right and Power to controul their Extravagancies Those that maintain the first Position must prove that the Clergy has been invested with such an unlimited Power by God Almighty to impose upon Christians even the most absurd Matters at leasure without being liable to be contrâ—â—ued by any Power upon Earth Or they must demonstrate that Christians have absolutely submitted their Faith to the Clergy and that in such a manner that every thing which should be ordained by them should be received for Truth with all imaginable submission and patience But because it would savour of too much Impudence to pretend to the first it lies then at their Door to prove that the Clergy and their Supream Head did never err either in Point of Doctrine Ceremonies or Church-Government All which having been sufficiently demonstrated to the contrary by the consent of several Christian Nations We are of Opinion that when any Abuses are crept into the Church which are prejudicial to the Commonwealth or the Authority of Sovereigns these by vertue of their Sovereign Right and Prerogative have a Power to abolish and reform all such matters as interfere with the Publick Good and Civil Authority At the same time it cannot be denyed but that in a case of such moment it may be very convenient to acquainâ— the People with the Reasons of such a Reformation lest they should be surprized at it and look upon it as an Innovation which might prove of dangerous consequence And if especially the Rights of the People are invaded by these Abuses this Reformation ought to be undertaken with the knowledge and approbation of the Subjects It may be objected that by such a Reformation Divisions are raised in the Church But this is to be look'd upon as a matter of no great Weight such a Division being not to be imputed to those that rectifie such Errors but to those that obstinately refuse to return into the right Path either out â— Self-interest or Pride There is nothing more obvious out of the antient Ecclesiastical History than that such as were plainly convicted of an Error used to be excluded from the Communion of the Church But such as begin a Reformation upon a good and legal Account can under no Colour whatsoever be accused of Schism or Rebellion For those are Rebels who by forcible Ways endeavour to withdraw themselves from the Allegiance due to their lawful Sovereign Whereas all such as free themselves from Abuses unjustly imposed upon them without their own consent or any Divine Authority rather deserve to be stiled defenders of their own Liberty and Conscience especially if these Abuses and Errors are dangerous to their Souls For no Teacher no Bishop no Convention whatsoever was ever invested with an absolute Power of domineering over Christians at pleasure so that no Remedy should be left against their Usurpation It cannot therefore but be look'd upon as a great piece of Impudence in the Roman Catholick Party when they assume to themselves wholly and entirely the Title of the Church with exclusion to all others that are not of the same Communion For they either must pretend their Church to be the Universal or else a particular Church By the Universal Church is according to the Tenure of the Holy Scripture understood the whole multitude of the Believers wheresoever dispersed in the World whose Union consists in this That they acknowledge one God one Redeemer one Baptism one Faith and Eternal Salvation from whence only are excluded such as pretend to dissolve this Union that is who deny the true God and his Son Christ and who do not agree with the very Fundamental Principles of the Christian Religion This is the true Catholick Church not the Pope with his Ecclesiasticks and Ceremonies who impose their Authority upon Christendom And since those that for weighty Reasons have withdrawn themselves from the Church of Rome may and do believe a true Baptism a true God and Father a Faith agreeable to the Holy Scripture it is evident that the Roman Church is not to be taken for the Universal Church and that a Christian may be a Member of the true Catholick Church in a right sense notwithstanding that he never was in the Communion of the Roman Church or upon better Consideration has freed himself from its Abuses and Errors But the Popish Religion considered as a particular Church as it ought to be tho' if we unravel the bottom of its modern Constitution it will easily appear that the whole frame of that Church is not so much adapted to the Rules of a Christian Congregation as to a Temporal State where under a Religious pretext the chief aim is to extend its Sovereignty over the greatest part of Europe those that have withdrawn themselves from that Communion are no more to be counted Rebels than our Modern Philosophers are to be taken for Fools and Madmen because they differ in Opinion from Aristotle For all Believers who adhere to the true Faith are in regard of their Head Jesus Christ of an equal degree and aim all at the same End And Christ having given this Promise to all Believers That where two or three were gathered together Mat. 18. 20. in his Name there would he be in the midst of them no Church can claim any Prerogative by reason of the number of its Adherents What the Romanists alledge for themselves out of the Apostolical Creed is so full of absurdity that it contradicts it self viz. out of these words I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolical Church For except they could cajole us into a belief that these words imply as much as to say There is but one true Church upon Earth which is the Roman Catholick there being no other besides that I cannot see what Inference can be drawn from thence to their Advantage Besides that the very sense of the words contradict this Interpretation if Reason the Holy Scripture and Experience it self did not sufficiently convince us to the contrary It is beyond contradiction that there is but one true Church upon Earth there being but one God one Christ one Baptism and one Faith But concerning one Point many Errors and Abuses may be committed Neither have the Popish Party any reason to brag of a particular Holiness especially concerning these matters wherein they differ from the Protestants The word Catholick relates here to a Doctrine not to a Sovereign State whose Authority is to be Universal over Christendom so that that Church is to be esteemed a Catholick Church which
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
contains every particular Point of Doctrine in the true sense as they are proposed in the Holy Scripture And those are called Hereticks who only profess some particular Points out of the Holy Writ for such as absolutely reject it are counted Infidels and Reprobates but either deny or explain the rest in a wrong and perverted sense How can the Popish Clergy therefore assume the Title of the Catholick Church before they have and that without contradiction proved every Point of their Faith out of the Holy Scripture Or exclude us Protestants from that Title till they have proved that our Doctrine is contrary to it Lastly It is called the Apostolical Church as being founded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles And the true Church loses nothing of its intrinsick Value whether it has been planted by the Apostles or whether the Apostolical Doctrine has been transmitted to them by others § 54. But it is not a very difficult Task to Whether Subjects without the Consent of their Sovereigns may separate themselves from an Erroneous Religion introduce a Reformation in Religion with the mutual Consent of Sovereign and Subjects so it may be questioned whether Subjects may attempt a Reformation when their Sovereigns and the whole Clergy or at least the greatest part of them do not acknowledge their Error but rather pretend to maintain it In this case it is our Opinion that provided these Errors â—o touch the Fundamental Points of our 〈…〉 Subjects as by the Grace of God and the â—ight of his holy Spirit have attainâ—â—he true Knowledge may separate themselves from the Communion of that Church without the consent of their Sovereigns of the Clergy For every body being accountable to God for his Religion and answerable for his own Soul â—hose Salvation cannot absolutely be committed to any Body else and a Christian in Matters of Faith being not altogether to rely upon his Sovereign or the Clergy at least no farther than their Doctrine is congruous with the holy Scripture It is undeniable that Subjects may separate themselves from the Communion of that Church which is prosessed by their Sovereign and Clergy provided they can make it evidently appear that such a Church is infected with gross Abuses and dangerous Errors For the Church is a Colledge whose Members are not kept in Union by any Temporal Power but by the Union of the Faith and whosoever relinquishes that he dissolves the sacred Tye of the Believers Besides that it is not absolutely necessary for our Salvation that the Church be composed of a great Number but the same may be obtained either by a greater or lesser Number of the Believers Neither can this Separation prove in the least prejudicial to the Sovereign Authority it being supposed that those who have separated themselves adhere to the true pure Doctrine of the Gospel free from all Poison and Principles dangerous or prejudicial to the Government For civil Society was not instituted for Religion's sake neither does the Church of Christ participate of the nature of a Temporal State and therefore a Prince that embraces the Christian Faith does not thereby acquire an absolute Sovereignty over the Church or Mens Consciences So that if notwithstanding this Separation the Subjects pay due Allegiance to their Prince in Temporal Affairs there is no reason sufficient which can oblige him to trouble them meerly upon the score of their Consciences For what loss is it to the Prince whether his Subjects are of the same Religion with himself or of unother Or which was supposed before whether they did maintain the same Errors as he does The case indeed would be quite different if they should endeavour to withdaw themselves from their Allegiance to set up a separate Society without his Consent tho' it is undeniable that there are some Cases of Necessity when this civil Tye or Allegiance may be dissolved as for Instance when Subjects for want of sufficient Protection from their natural Prince are so hardly pressed upon by a more Potent Enemy that they are forc'd to submit to his Power And granted the Power of Sovereigns in the Church to be much greater than in effect it is Subjects are nevertheless bound to take care of their Souls whose Salvation is to be preferr'd before all other things in regard of which they may separate themselves from an Established Religion provided they are convinced of its Errors For that Subject who sacrifices his Life for his Prince does doubtless a glorious Action but what Prince can be so unreasonable as to expect that his Subjects should Sacrifice their Souls to the Devil for his sake That Prince therefore who does trouble his faithful Subjects for no other reason but because they cannot conform to his Opinion especially if they can maintain theirs out of the Holy Scripture commits an Act of Injustice Nay I cannot see how he can with Justice force them out of his Territories It is true he may refuse to receive Hereticks into his Dominions unless it be for Reasons of State Neither can a true Believer take it amiss if he is not permitted to settle in a Commonwealth govern'd by Hereticks For the Right of Naturalization belongs to Sovereigns which they may refuse and give to whom they think it convenient But as it is certainly the greatest Injustice in the World to force an in-born Natural Subject who has settled all his Fortunes in a Commonwealth meerly for his Religion's sake without being convicted of his Error out of his Native Country to the great detriment and danger of himself and his Family So if a Subject inclines voluntarily to leave his Native Country either to avoid the Frowns of his Prince or the hatred of the Clergy and Common People and to serve God with more freedom according to his own Conscience it ought not to be refused by his Sovereign I remember there is a certain Proverb used among the Germans viz. He that Commands the Country Commands Religion But this cannot be applied to the Princes of the Roman Catholick Religion who cannot lay any Claim to it it being evident that the Popish Clergy do not allow any such thing to these Princes And as to what concerns the Protestant Estates of Germany it cannot be denied but that they made use of this Pretension against the Emperor at the time of the Reformation which however ought to be thus interpreted That they denied the Emperor to have any Power of intermedling in the Affairs relating to their own Dominions not that only they claim'd it as belonging to the Rights of Sovereignty to impose any Religion tho' never so false upon their Subjects notwithstanding all which there are not wanting Examples that Princes have acted conformable to this Proverb with their Subjects A Prince who troubles his faithful Subjects meerly upon the score of Religion commits a gross Error no Christian Prince being obliged to propagate his Religion by forcible means provided his Subjects stand firm to their Allegiance to him