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
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
to Examin both their Natural Qualifications in reference to Civil Society For if this which is to be look'd upon as the Foundation Stone be well Secured And we afterwards do look into the Scriptures to investigate in what manner Christ himself has represented his Doctrine to us it will be no difficult Task to judge whether according to the Institution of our Saviour there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Sovereignty exercised by Priests Or whether Princes have a Right to make use of an Absolute Power Or can Compel their Subjects to Obedience by Force of Arms in Matters of Religion § 1. That there is a Supream Being the Conceâ—â—ing Relâ—gion before Civil Societies wâ—râ— Iâ—â—â—ituted Author and Creator both of the Universe and especially of Mankind which ought to be acknowledged and worshipped as such by Menkind as they are Rational Creatures has been generally receiv'd not only among Christians but also by most of the Pagan Philosophers that to pretend to demonstrate it here would be Superfluous and perhaps might be taken as done in prejudice of the judicious Reader since scarce any body that is not beyond his right Wits can be supposed now a days to make the least Doubt of the Verity of this Assertion The true Knowledge of Divine Worship arises from two several Springs For we either by true Ratioâ—ination deducâ—d out of the Light of Nature may be Convinced of those Sentiments we ought to have of God and what Reverence is due to him from us Mortals Or else some Matters being beyond our Apprehension by the bare Light of Nature are by God's special Command Revealed to Mankind Both Kinds are to be the Subject of the following Treatise with this Restriction nevertheless not to insist upon each particular Head of either of them any further than they have relation to Civil Society § 2. The first Thing which is to be considered both in Natural and Revealed Religion Every Man is accountable for his Religion is That every body is obliged to worship God in his own Person Religious Duty being not to be performed by a Deputy but by himself in Person who expects to reap the Benefit of religious Worship promised by God Almighty For Man being a rational Creature owing its Off-spring to God alone is thereby put under such an indispensible Obligation that the Cosideration of worshipping him to the utmost of his Power can never be entirely exstinguished in a rational Soul And here lies the main difference betwixt that Care which we ought to have our Souls and that of our Bodies the latter of which may be committed to the Management of others who being to be Accountable for all Injuries which may befall us under their Tuition we are thereby freed from any Guilt against our selves So do we commit our selves when we pass the Seas to the Management of the Master of a Ship by whose sole Care without our own Assistance we are conducted to the desired Port. But no body can so entirely tâ—ansfer the Care of his Soul and the Exercise of Religious Worship from himself to another Man as to make him alone Accountable for all Miscarriages and to free himself from Punishment Every one of us shall give Rom. 14. 12. Rom. 9. 3. Account of himself to God And it is in vain for St. Paul to wish to be Accursed from Christ for his Brethren his Kinsmen according to the Flesh And though it is undeniable That those who have been negligent in taking care of other Peoples Souls that were committed to their Charge shall receive Punishment Nevertheless these whose Souls have been thus neglected shall perish with them for having put too much Trust in others and neglected their own Salvation As it is plainly expressed by the Prophet Ezekiel 33. 7 8. And the Habak 2. 4. Mark 16. 16. Just shall live by Faith And the Evangelist St. Mark speaks without any Reservation He that believed not shall be damned without distinction whether you were seduced by others or whether you have renounced your Faith for worldly Ends. § 3. From whence it is evident That Religion How the same is to be exercised in the free State of Nature having its relation to God the same may be exercised without the Communion of a great many And that a Man ought not to judge of the Soundness of his Doctrine or Religion by the Number of those that adhere to it So that it is manifest That at the beginning of the World our first Parents might and did really perform Religious Duties And that if one alone or a few together live in a solitary Place they are therefore not to be deem'd to live without Religion because they do not make up a Congregation For God being the only Judge of what is best pleasing to him in his Worship knows and searches the very bottom of our Hearts And since we are not able without his Assistance to perform religious Duties the same can't be esteem'd properly our own Invention As those that live in the free State of Nature are not Subject to any Human Power So in the same State their Religion having only a relation to God Almighty unto whom alone they are bound to pay Reverence it is free from all Human Force or Power which in this State of Natural Freedom they may exercise either according to the Dictates of Reason or according to Divine Revelation and according to the best of their Knowledge may dispose the outward Form of their religious Worship without being accountable to any body but God Almighty Neither can they be Controuled or forced rather to worship God according to another's than their own Opinion But if any body pretends to bring them over to his Side he ought with suitable Arguments to Convince them how far he is in the Right and they in the Wrong There may be besides this another Reason be given why no body in what Condition soever ought to be forced to another Man's Religion because the Knowledge of Truth can't be implanted in us without proper and convincing Arguments such as are capable of preparing our Minds for the receiving of the True Doctrine of Religion And as to the Mysteries of the Christian Religion which transcend our Reason these must be acquired by the assistance of Divine Grace which is contrary to all Violence 'T is true a Prince may force a Subject to make an outward Confession by way of Mouth to comply in his Behaviour with his Commands and to dissemble his Thoughts or to speak contrary to his Belief but he can force no body to believe contrary to his own Opinion For we ought to bâ—lieve with Actâ— â— 37. all our Hearts but whatever is done in order to obtain any worldly Advantage or to avoid an imminent Evil of this kind can't be done with all our Heart But Faith cometh by Hearing Rom. 1â— 17. and Hearing by the Word of God Neither does our Saviour force his Word upon
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
Magistrates What likelihood can there be in all this that the Protestants should be as much concerned for a Temporal By-Interest as the Popish Clergy For whereas they first can expect no more than what is alloted them already the latter have no less in view than vast Riches and the Possessions of whole Kingdoms All these Matters duely considered may be convincing Proofs that all the Clamour which the Popish Clergy makes against the Protestants is of the same nature with that of Demetrius at Ephesus when he exclaimed against St. Paul Love and Meekness being the products of the Christian Faith the Cruelties of the Popish Clergy exercised against Protestants ought to be suspected by Princes and serve them as a forewarning what good is to be expected from those that prosecute with so much Barbarity all such as oppose their Pride and Ambition After the Persecutions were ceased in the Primitive Church the Arians were the first who shew'd their teeth to the Christians But they would have blushed for shame if they should have attempted to propagate their Religion by force of Arms and such other cruel Persecutions as are now in vogue among the Popish Clergy If we were not sufficiently convinced that the Spirit of Envy is not the Spirit of Christ we may be instructed as to this Point by our Saviour himself when he rebuked James and John who would have Luk. 9. 54 55 56. fire come down from Heaven in these words Ye know not what manner of Spirit you are of For the Son of Man is not come to destroy Mens lives but to save them The Sword of Christ is not girted on the side of Men but goes out of his Mouth and in all the Rev. 19. 15. holy Scripture there is not one passage where the Church of Christ is said to be drunken with the Blood of Hereticks but it is said of the Whore of Babylon that she is drunken with the Rev. 17. 6. Blood of the Saints and with the Blood of the Martyrs of Christ § 52. Lastly Since Sovereigns ought to be Sovereigns are often encroached upon in their rights under a religious pretext jealous of their own Prerogatives they may without Injustice make an Enquiry whether the Protestant or the Popish Religion be most encroaching upon their Authority and which of these two be most consistent with the Civil Government For whenever the Civil Power bears any diminution under a Religious Pretence it is then high time for Sovereigns to look about them to examine upon what Foundation these Pretensions are built it being evident that Civil Goverment was introduced before the Christian Religion and that therefore it ought plainly to be demonstrated how Civil Authority came to be diminished by the Christian Religion Now if we look into the Constitution of the Popish Clergy it is manifest that by many steps and degrees and by various Artifices and Intrigues they have at last patch'd up a Potent State of their own and that their Supream Head for these many Ages past is possess'd of great Territories and Acts as a Sovereign and not only this but also obtrudes his Authority upon all such as profess the Roman Catholick Religion For they don't think it sufficient that the whole Clergy have their dependance from him but he pretends to an Absolute Authority of determining all Matters of Faith by which means he is sure to guide the Minds of the People where ever he pleases If any thing in the World is destructive to the Civil Powers it must of necessity be this when a Party inhabiting their Territories disown their Jurisdiction and depending from a Foreign Power deny the Authority of their Natural Prince over them or at least acknowledge it no longer than they think it convenient If Neighbouring States are commonly the most jealous of one another must it not be look'd upon as a great Solocism of State to permit such as depend from a Foreign Jurisdiction to abide in the Commonwealth It is next door to take Foreign Garisons into our Forts or to allow a Foreign Force to Encamp in the midst of our Dominions And this Mischief seems to be the more pernicious when the Revenues by which the Grandeur of this Ecclesiastical State is maintained are squeezed out of the Subjects of any Prince and the best part of his Territories exhausted whereas on the contrary these Leeches are not only freed from all manner of Taxes but also pretend to a Legislative Authority so as to inflict Punishments upon the Subjects and to Absolve them from their Allegiance due to their Sovereigns I cannot see how Princes without great Prejudice to the Commonweal can allow the least Authority over their Persons to the Clergy For if the Prince and they happen to jarr together the poor Subjects pay for it with a Vengeance when they are to serve two Masters of a contrary side at one time and the Taxes must fall the heavier upon the Subjects where the Clergy are exempted from all Contributions Lastly is it not a heavy Burthen to the Subjects to be subject both to an Ecclesiastical and Temporal Jurisdiction The former being generally the most severe as is most evident in Spain and Italy where the Courts of Inquisition are in vogue It being therefore beyond all question that all these things are practised by the Roman Catholicks but in no wise by the Protestants such Princes as being misled by the Popish Clergy endeavour to extirpate their Protestant Subjects Act not only contrary to Justice but even against the very Dicrates of right Reason What has been objected by some viz. That Protestants have not been altogether free from the imputation of raising Disturbances in the State and having joined with a Foreign Power scarce deserves an Answer For this is not to be imputed to Religion it self but rather to some dangerous Juncture and other Circumstances which often prove the occasion of dangerous Commotions in a State Or else the Papists have first begun the Dance and what Wonder is it if some Protestants to avoid their cruel Designs against them have endeavoured to repel the Fury of their Adversaries and when they found themselves insufficient have sought for Aid by Foreign Princes For as it is the greatest piece of Injustice to compel Subjects by force of Arms to any Religion so these may justly defend their Religion by force of Arms especially if they live under a Government where they have a Right belonging to them of Protecting their Liberties against any Invaders § 53. Last of all it very well deserves to Concerning the Right of Reformation make an Enquiry who it is that has the Power in the Commonwealth to amend such Errors and Abuses as are crept into the Church either in Point of Doctrine Morality or Church-Government Or which turns to the same Account who has the Right of Reformation Where first of all it is unquestionable that there is no occasion of a Reformation where the
Clergy upon Admonition desist from these Abuses like as when a Creditor upon Summons is paid by his Debtor ought to supercede his Action against him But put the case that the Clergy either absolutely refuse or from time to time protract to desist from such Abuses so that there is but two ways left to be chosen either patiently to submit to their capricious Humour or else certain Persons in the State being damnified by these Abuses have a Right and Power to controul their Extravagancies Those that maintain the first Position must prove that the Clergy has been invested with such an unlimited Power by God Almighty to impose upon Christians even the most absurd Matters at leasure without being liable to be contrâ—â—ued by any Power upon Earth Or they must demonstrate that Christians have absolutely submitted their Faith to the Clergy and that in such a manner that every thing which should be ordained by them should be received for Truth with all imaginable submission and patience But because it would savour of too much Impudence to pretend to the first it lies then at their Door to prove that the Clergy and their Supream Head did never err either in Point of Doctrine Ceremonies or Church-Government All which having been sufficiently demonstrated to the contrary by the consent of several Christian Nations We are of Opinion that when any Abuses are crept into the Church which are prejudicial to the Commonwealth or the Authority of Sovereigns these by vertue of their Sovereign Right and Prerogative have a Power to abolish and reform all such matters as interfere with the Publick Good and Civil Authority At the same time it cannot be denyed but that in a case of such moment it may be very convenient to acquainâ— the People with the Reasons of such a Reformation lest they should be surprized at it and look upon it as an Innovation which might prove of dangerous consequence And if especially the Rights of the People are invaded by these Abuses this Reformation ought to be undertaken with the knowledge and approbation of the Subjects It may be objected that by such a Reformation Divisions are raised in the Church But this is to be look'd upon as a matter of no great Weight such a Division being not to be imputed to those that rectifie such Errors but to those that obstinately refuse to return into the right Path either out â— Self-interest or Pride There is nothing more obvious out of the antient Ecclesiastical History than that such as were plainly convicted of an Error used to be excluded from the Communion of the Church But such as begin a Reformation upon a good and legal Account can under no Colour whatsoever be accused of Schism or Rebellion For those are Rebels who by forcible Ways endeavour to withdraw themselves from the Allegiance due to their lawful Sovereign Whereas all such as free themselves from Abuses unjustly imposed upon them without their own consent or any Divine Authority rather deserve to be stiled defenders of their own Liberty and Conscience especially if these Abuses and Errors are dangerous to their Souls For no Teacher no Bishop no Convention whatsoever was ever invested with an absolute Power of domineering over Christians at pleasure so that no Remedy should be left against their Usurpation It cannot therefore but be look'd upon as a great piece of Impudence in the Roman Catholick Party when they assume to themselves wholly and entirely the Title of the Church with exclusion to all others that are not of the same Communion For they either must pretend their Church to be the Universal or else a particular Church By the Universal Church is according to the Tenure of the Holy Scripture understood the whole multitude of the Believers wheresoever dispersed in the World whose Union consists in this That they acknowledge one God one Redeemer one Baptism one Faith and Eternal Salvation from whence only are excluded such as pretend to dissolve this Union that is who deny the true God and his Son Christ and who do not agree with the very Fundamental Principles of the Christian Religion This is the true Catholick Church not the Pope with his Ecclesiasticks and Ceremonies who impose their Authority upon Christendom And since those that for weighty Reasons have withdrawn themselves from the Church of Rome may and do believe a true Baptism a true God and Father a Faith agreeable to the Holy Scripture it is evident that the Roman Church is not to be taken for the Universal Church and that a Christian may be a Member of the true Catholick Church in a right sense notwithstanding that he never was in the Communion of the Roman Church or upon better Consideration has freed himself from its Abuses and Errors But the Popish Religion considered as a particular Church as it ought to be tho' if we unravel the bottom of its modern Constitution it will easily appear that the whole frame of that Church is not so much adapted to the Rules of a Christian Congregation as to a Temporal State where under a Religious pretext the chief aim is to extend its Sovereignty over the greatest part of Europe those that have withdrawn themselves from that Communion are no more to be counted Rebels than our Modern Philosophers are to be taken for Fools and Madmen because they differ in Opinion from Aristotle For all Believers who adhere to the true Faith are in regard of their Head Jesus Christ of an equal degree and aim all at the same End And Christ having given this Promise to all Believers That where two or three were gathered together Mat. 18. 20. in his Name there would he be in the midst of them no Church can claim any Prerogative by reason of the number of its Adherents What the Romanists alledge for themselves out of the Apostolical Creed is so full of absurdity that it contradicts it self viz. out of these words I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolical Church For except they could cajole us into a belief that these words imply as much as to say There is but one true Church upon Earth which is the Roman Catholick there being no other besides that I cannot see what Inference can be drawn from thence to their Advantage Besides that the very sense of the words contradict this Interpretation if Reason the Holy Scripture and Experience it self did not sufficiently convince us to the contrary It is beyond contradiction that there is but one true Church upon Earth there being but one God one Christ one Baptism and one Faith But concerning one Point many Errors and Abuses may be committed Neither have the Popish Party any reason to brag of a particular Holiness especially concerning these matters wherein they differ from the Protestants The word Catholick relates here to a Doctrine not to a Sovereign State whose Authority is to be Universal over Christendom so that that Church is to be esteemed a Catholick Church which
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
he being not answerable in particular for their Religion It cannot be taken notice of without astonishment how both in former times and our Age some Princes who were naturally not enclined to Cruelty having in other respects given great Proofs of their Clemency yet have been prevailed upon to raise the most horrid Persecutions against their Subjects barely upon the score of Religion But it has been foretold in Holy Scripture that this Fate should attend the Christian Church when it is said That Mighty Kings upon Earth should commit Rev. 18. 3. Whoredom with the Whore of Babylon And who is ignorant that Gallants will often commit the most barbarous Acts meerly to please their Harlots All true Christians therefore ought couragiously to oppose the Threats and Attempts of this Beast committing the rest to Divine Providence And as for such Princes and States as have shaken off the Yoke of Popish Slavery if they seriously reflect how their fellow-Protestants are persecuted and in what barbarous manner they are treated will questionless without my Advice take such measures as may be most convenient for to secure themselves from so imminent a Danger The following ANIMADVERSIONS Made by the Author upon some Passages of a Book Entituled A POLITICAL EPITOMY Concerning the Power of Sovereigns in Ecclesiastical Affairs WRITTEN BY ADRIAN HOUTUYN Having a very near Relation to the former TREATISE it was thought sit to Insert them here by way of APPENDIX IT is a Question of the greatest moment which if rightly determined tends to the Benefit of Mankind in general viz. Unto whom and under what Limitations the Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs is to be ascribed in the State If the old Proverb That those who chuse the middle way are commonly the most successful has not lost its force it may without question be most properly applied in this Case where both Extreams are equally dangerous since thereby the Consciences of Subjects are left to the arbitrary disposal either of the Pope of Rome or their Sovereigns There having not been wanting both in the last and our Age Men eminent for their Learning who have with very solid Arguments opposed the Tyranny of the first it is but reasonable for us to take heed that since we have escaped the danger of Scylla we may not be swallowed up by Charybdis For as scarce any body that is in his right Senses can go about to deny that the Sovereign Power ows its original either to God or the general Consent of the People So it is a matter mutually advantageous both to the Prince and Subjects to understand how far this Power is limited in the State that the first may not transgress their due Bounds and instead of being Fathers of their Subjects prove their most dangerous Enemies Adrian Houtuyn a Civilian in Holland having in a Treatise called A Political Epitomy inserted several Assertions tending to the latter of these two Extremes and it having been observed of late that this Book has been recommended by some Doctors in the Law to the great detriment of young Students I thought it not amiss to make some Animadversions upon his LXIII and following SECTIONS which may serve as a Guide to the younger Sort lest they under the Cloak of asserting the Prerogatives of Sovereigns may be mislead into the latter of these Extremes and attribute that to the Prince which God has reserved as his own Prerogative and thus irrecoverably play the Prodigal with their own Liberty and Property This Author speaking concerning the Prerogative of Princes Sect. LXIII runs on thus He has an uncontroul'd Power over all External Ecclesiastical Affairs which are not determined in the Holy Scripture He alledges for a Reason because that Power is granted to Sovereigns at the same time when Subjects submitted themselves and their Fortunes to their Disposal But it ought to be taken into Consideration that certain Matters belonging to the external Exercise of Religious Worship have so strict an Union with the internal Part that if the first be not disposed in a manner agreeable to this inseparable Tye the latter must of necessity undergo such Alterations as are inconsistent with its Nature And since Mr. Houtuyn do's not leave the internal Part to the Disposal of Sovereigns how can the exterior Worship be submitted to their meer Pleasure considering this strict Union betwixt them Besides this General Submission he speaks of admits of Limitation in regard of that End for which Civil Societies were Instituted which is the mutual defence against Violences From whence it is evident that there are certain Matters belonging to every private Person derived from the State of natural Freedom which were not absolutely left to the Disposal of Sovereigns at least no further than they were necessary to obtain that End Religion having not any relation to this End it is not to be imagined that Subjects did submit their Religion to the arbitrary Pleasure of Sovereigns And it being unquestionable that Subjects may exercise certain Acts belonging to them by Vertue of an inherent Right derived from the free State of Nature and independent from their Sovereigns it may rationally be concluded that when Subjects did submit themselves in Matters of Religion to their Sovereigns it was done with this Supposition that both the Prince and Subjects were of one and the same Religion and that the external Exercise of Religious Worship was not left to the Disposal of the first any further than in such Matters as are indifferent in regard of the internal Part of it What is alledged concerning the the maintaining a good Order and avoiding of Confusion it is to be observed that this is not the main End for which Civil Societies were Instituted nor has it any relation to it but only thus far as it may be instrumental to maintain the Publick Tranquility As to N. 2. It is to be observed that because Priests have a dependance from the Civil Power in certain Respects belonging to its Jurisdiction this does not involve Religion considered as such under the same Subjection The following words ought also to be taken notice of A Christian Prince commands over the Church as being a Colledge and representing one single Person in the Commonwealth The Church thus considered is a Civil Society or Body Politick founded upon the Publick Authority and Power and ought to be regarded as being in the same condition with other Colledges and Bodies Politick and in this Sense a King is the Head of the Church in his Dominions Whoever will consider the real difference betwixt the Church and Commonwealth must needs find as many Errors as there are words here For because a Prince has the Sovereign Jurisdiction in a Commonweath consisting of Christian Subjects no inference is to be made that therefore he may in the same degree exercise his Sovereignty in the Church as in the Common-wealth and that in the same Sense he may be called The Supream Head of the Church as of the