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
Legislator a single Person or whole Society receive by such an Offence that an Action lies against the Offender In the same manner as a Creditor has a right to sue his Debtor for a Debt contracted with him In which respect it is that Sins are often called Debts in the holy Scripture But in this double or sometimes threefold Action which arises from one Offence committed against several Persons each is to be considered as separate from the other so that tho' one Action be taken off the other remains notwithstanding this in full force For as God does not remit Sins Mat. 5 23. 24. without Satisfaction given from the Offender to the offended Person So tho' the Offender be reconciled to the offended nevertheless is he obliged to seek for Remission of his Sin by God And if the Offence be hainous and of such a Nature as to be scandalous to a whole Society he ought there also to endeavour his Reconcilation by begging forgiveness of them Therefore to remit a Sin is the same Thing â—â— to remit an Action or to release one from an Action which the offended Party had against the Offender And he that has an Action against another by reason of some Offence committed against him may properly be said to have Power to remit that Offence or Sin as far as his Action reaches For God himself does not make use of his uncontrouled Power of remitting of Sins so as without any further Respect and by his mere Pleasure to remit their Sins to some and to punish others For to pardon Offences promiscuously without any further regard but bare Pleasure is in effect to render Laws ineffectual and Laws are made to no purpose by him who at the same time grants a License of Trespassing against them And because it was beyond all Human Power to give Satisfaction to God Almighty for our Offences our Saviour Jesus Christ has made use of a most wonderful Moderation betwixt Justice and Mercy in giving due Satisfaction in his own Person So that whoever by the Faith appropriates the same to himself thereby obtains Remission of his Sins from God And as to that part which belongs to Men to forgive God has commanded them not to be rigorous if the Offender beg forgiveness because every one of us must every day expect Forgiveness of his Sins from God Almighty and we all commit sometimes Offences against our Neighbours who if they would all act rigorously with us our Condition would be most deplorable Wherefore we ought to forgive our Mat. 6. 12 14 15. c. 5. 25 c. 18 25. Luke 17. 3. Debts as we would have others forgive us their Debts Neither are we to be too rigorous against such Sinners as have by their Offences proved scandalous to a whole Society but if they seriously repent we ought not to deny them our Pardon It is also worth our further Observation That the following Words Verily I say unto you whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you shall loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven are Mat. 18. 18. spoken by Christ also of the Remission of an Offence by the Party offended Neither does the Sense of the preceding Words allow to apply them only to his Disciples they being spoken not only to the Apostles but to the Believers in general § 24. Supposing then that the Apostles were Vnder whose name and authority the Apostles did exercise this power of Absolution to remit such Sins as were not committed against them it must necessarily follow That they when they remitted Sins did it either in the name of such particular Persons against whom the said Sins were committed or in the name of a whole Society or else in the name of some Human or Divine Legislator Now it is certain that no body can remit another Man's lawful Action without his order or consent no more than you can lawfully take away another's Right or Property and therefore it is absolutely necessary first to make our peace with the Person offended without which we ought not to seek for Pardon from God Almighty at least he that has offended ought to take first a firm Resolution to give Satisfaction as far as is in his Power Christ says Mat. 5. 24. Luke 19. 8. First be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy Gift And St. Paul offered to make Satisfaction to Philemon for what Damage he had received from Onesimus From hence arises v. 18 19. that general and common Rule That if Restitution be not made there can be no Remission of the Sin For it is ridiculous and a contradiction in it self to profess to God Almighty a true Repentance for an unjust Act and at the same time enjoy the benefit of it But as for the Remission of such enormous Crimes as were committed against a whole Society the Apostles had their share in it as is evident out of the 1 Epistle to the Corinâ—h â— 5. 4 5. and 2 Corinth c. 2. 10. c. 11. 29. and will be more treated of hereafter It will be sufficient in this place to take notice that what Authority was exercised by them in this kind was much inferior to that power which they had received of Retaining and Forgiving of Sins But to remit Sins in the name of those that had the Sovereign and Legislative Power in the State did not belong to the Apostles their Commission and Power being not to interfer with the Civil Jurisdiction or to diminish its Prerogatives Wherefore Civil Magistrates justly may and do punish Offenders according to the Laws of the Realm notwithstanding they have made their peace with God The only way then for the Apostles was to forgive Sins in the Name of God by whose Authority they had received their Commission as is evident out of these Words Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you shall loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven § 25. But if we propose to form to our Of what nature this Power was selves a true Idea of the Power granted to the Apostles when the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given unto them and how far it extends it self we must take into serious Consideration in what manner Christ himself did remit Sins whilst he lived among us upon Earth This is sufficiently manifest out of several Passages in St. Matthew 9. 2. Mark 2. 3. Luke 5. 20. c. 7. 47 48 39 50. where our Saviour verifies his Power of forgiving of Sins by a Miracle which could not but be the effect of a Divine Power Besides this there was no Plaintiff or Defendant there was no open or express Confession of Sin but as soon as Christ saw their Faith he pronounced Remission of Sin And if we peruse the whole New Testament it will most evidently appear that neither Christ nor his Apostles did forgive Sins in a judicial way where Crimes
which are in the holy Scripture attributed to the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven here upon Earth It is without question that the Union of the Believers under Christ their King ought to be considered as a Kingdom or Empire but such a one as is not of this World and consequently of a quite different nature from that Sovereign Power which is exercised in a Civil Government Christ is there the King who having withdrawn himself from our sight has as it may be said settled his Court in Heaven His subjects are dispersed throughout all parts of the World where the Christian Doctrine is taught and received by the Believers who by the intrinlick Vertue of this Doctrine are confirmed in their Faith and made proof against all the Temptations and Malice of this World The Civil Power does not reach this Kingdom true Piety being not to be implanted by Human Force which is insufficient to procure God's Grace or raise those inward Motions which are chiefly acceptable to God Almighty and without which all our exterior Actions that may be enforced by a Civil Authority are to be deem'd vain and fruitless For the Kingdom of Christ being a Kingdom of Truth it requires no Civil Power or Force For Truth by the help of the Christian Doctrine and with the assistance of God's Grace does gently insinuate it self into the Hearts of Men and the Rewards or Punishments which those are to receive that either accept or despise this Doctrine are reserved for the Life to come He that will be pleased to examine those several Passages where mention is made of the Kingdom of Christ or the Kingdom of Heaven may soon be convinced that not any thing is to be met withal there which has the least resemblance to a Civil Power or Sovereignty Those that expect to enter into this Kingdom Mat. 3. 2. c. 4. 1â— c. 4. 23. c. 9. 35. must qualifie themselves by Repentance It is spoke of Christ himself that he went about Mat. 5. 1. seq preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven The Virtues and Qualifications which Christ requires in those that will enter into his Kingdom and consequently be blessed with eternal Salvation have but little relation to the Qualifications of a Subject in a Civil Government Mat. 5. 19. c. 7. 21. c. 6. 33. c. 13. 21. 33. 44 45 52. In that Kingdom every one is called great or the least according to his Proficiency in the Christian Doctrine and according to his Obedience or disobedience to it We are commanded first to seek the Righteousness of this Kingdom The great Mystery of this Kingdom is the powerful operation of the Word of c. 24. 47. God In this Kingdom are not only suffered those that are Foreigners to it but also its Enemies which is against the Maxims of a Mat. 16. 19. Civil Government The Keys of this Kingdom are contained in the Doctrine of Remission of Sins And what is taught us concerning Mat. 18. 1. c. 10. 21. c. 23. 8. Mark 9. 33 34. c. 10. 42. Precedency in the Kingdom of Heaven is quite contrary to what is practised in a Civil State It is allowable by the Civil Constitutions for every one to pursue his Right but in the Kingdom of Christ he is counted an ill Subject who will not remit a Trespass to Mat. 18. 23. c. 21. 14. Mark 10. 14. his Brother The Kingdom of Christ is also of the little Children Those that are employed in this Kingdom have different Tasks and undergo different sorts of Hardship and yet their Reward is the same This Kingdom is Mat. 20. 1. c. 21. 23 taken from those that refuse it whereas it is a Maxim of Temporal Sovereigns to force such c. 2â— 2. as are refractory to Obedience and this was the reason why after the Jews had despised it it was offered to the Gentiles He that will c. 25. 1. enjoy the Benefit of this Kingdom must not be sloathful The richest find always the easiest Reception in a Civil State but the rich Man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Christ Mat. 19. 23. Mark 10 23. Luke 12 32. He is accounted a good Subject in a State who is industrious and gathers Riches by all lawful ways and means but this is reckoned as superfluous in the Kingdom of Heaven One of the chiefest Motives which induced Mankind to enter into Civil Societies was to preserve themselves and their Possessions But Christ says Whoever he be of you that forsaked not all that he hath he cannot be my Disciple Luk. 1â— 33. And lastly of all he says The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation neither shall they say lo here or lo there for behold the Kingdom of God is within you It would be superfluous to c. 17. 21. alledge more for the proof of it all the rest being most of them the same in Substance § 30. Though it be evident that the Union Whether the Church be a State of the Believers under Christ their King and that Mystical Body whose Head is Christ the Members of all the Believers in general cannot be considered as a Temporal State nevertheless it is worth our enquiry whether not all those in General that profess the Christian Doctrine may be considered as a Body belonging under one Civil Government or at least have a near resemblance to a Civil Commonwealth Or which is the same in effect Whether the Church according to our Saviour's Intention ought to be considered as a State or Commonwealth We take here the Word State in its common Acceptation viz. for a certain Society of Men which being independent from any Foreign Jurisdiction live under the Protection of their own Sovereigns The main intention of this Question is that after we shall have made it appear That the Church according to the intention of Christ and his Apostles neither was nor could be a State it may from thence be concluded whether that Church which pretends to a Sovereignty considered as such be Christ's Church But to trace the very original of this Question it ought first of all to be considered in what What is unâ—erâ—tood in the holy Scripture by the word 〈◊〉 Sense the Word Ecclesia or Church is taken in the holy Scripture The word Ecclesia has its off-spring out of the Democracy's of the Greeks whereby they understood a Convention Meeting or sometimes a Concourse of the People or of a considerable Part of their Citizens in order to receive Propositions to consult and make Decrees concerning Matte belonging to the Commonwealth It is derâ—ved of â—vocare or to Call-forth not that there by was always understood an Assembly summoned out of a greater Multitude for I â—â— see no reason why not all the Citizens had Right to appear in those Assemblies but because they were called out of their private Dwelling-places and from their ordinarâ—â—usiness to meet in a publick Place
of the Church was either for a time deprived from enjoying the benefit of the Publick Worship or entirely excluded from being a Member of the Church This being the utmost unto which any Colledge can pretend viz. entirely to exclude a Member of their Society This Exclusion tho' in it self considered of the greatest moment since thereby a Christian was deprived of the whole Communion with the Church Nevertheles did not alter the Civil State or Condition of a Subject But those that were thus excommunicated suffered no loss in their Dignities Honour Rights or Fortunes For that the Church Censures should extend to the real Prejudice of the civil Condition of any Subject is not any ways requisite for the obtaining the Ends for which the Church is Established Neither can it be supposed that without defrauding Sovereigns of their Right such a Power can be exercised over Subjects unless with their own Consent and by vertue of a publick Civil Authority § 40. The next thing which deserves our Consideration is whether the Church is and Concerning the condition of the Church under Christian Princes how far it received any Alteration from its former Condition after Princes whole Kingdoms and States did profess the Christian Religion Where it is to be observed That the Churches did thereby not receive any essential Perfection it being evident that the Christian Religion could be exercised and subsist without the State and Commonwealths did not depend from the Christian Religion The scope of the Christian Religion and of civil Governments being quite different in their own nature For our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Conversation Phil. 3. 20. 2 Cor. 5 ◠8. 1 Cor. 14 19. is in Heaven and if in this Life only we have hope in Christ we are of all Men most miserable For this Reason it was that the Apostles were never forward to appear before Princes tho' they might have obtained an easie Access by their miraculous Deeds So Herod was exceeding glad when he saw Jesus because he hoped to have seen some Miracle done Luke 23. 8. by him But they were very cautious in this point lest it might appear to some as if the Gospel wanted to be maintained by Human Strength or that perhaps those Princes might pretend to a greater Authority over them than was consistent with the safety of the Christian Religion Notwithstanding all this the Christian Religion does not in any wise impair or ecclipse the legal Rights of Sovereigns but rather confirms and establishes the civil Power Mat. 22. 21. Joh. 18. 2. Rom. 13. 1 Cor. 35. 24. as is apparent out of several passages in the holy Scripture If it should be granted that the Church was a State independent from any temporal Jurisdiction the consequence would be this That the civil Power could not but receive a most remarkable Limitation and Diminution and the condition of a Subject must receive a great alteration whereas on the other hand the condition of Christians or of Teachers in the Church considered as such is neither abolished nor altered because either the Prince or the Subjects in general do receive the Christian Faith there being not the least footstep to be met withal in the Scriptures implying any such alteration Besides this there is not any express Command in the New Testament directed to Sovereigns which entitles them to any particular Prerogative in the Church like to that which the Kings of Israel had received in the 17 Chap. of Deuteronomy From whence arises this conclusion that what right Sovereigns can claim in the Church and Church Affairs must be deduced either out of the natural constitution of the civil Power or out of the true Genius of the Christian Religion or else must owe its off-spring to the free consent of the Church § 41. Out of what has been laid down it Churches do not alter their nature of being a Colledge appears first of all that if a Prince or whole Commonwealth do receive the Doctrine of Christ the Church does thereby not receive any other Alteration as to her natural Constitution but that whereas she was formerly to be considered only as a private Society or Colledge yet such a one as being subordinate to the Law and therefore to be cherished by the Higher Powers who had no legal Right to disturb prosecute or destroy it She now being put under the particular Protection of her Sovereigns enjoys a greater share of Security and is beyond the reach of the Persecutions of the Infidels Notwithstanding this the Church is thereby not exalted from a Colledge to a State since by the receiving of the Christian Religion the civil Government does not undergo any Alteration or Diminution On the contrary Sovereigns loose nothing of their legal Rights neither are Subjects in any wise absolved from their Duties and Obligations For it implies a contradiction that a double Sovereignty and two different sorts of Obligations in the Subject should be lodged in one and the same Commonwealth It is a frivolous Objection that the Church and civil Government have different Ends and Objects not repugnant to one another For from thence is not to be inferred that the Church must be a State or that the Christian Religion cannot be propagated maintained or exercised without the Church assume the same Power that belongs to the civil Government In these places therefore where the whole People and the Prince profess the Christian Religion the Commonwealth receives the Church into its Protection and tho' strictly united there is no collision or emulation betwixt them nor does either of them receive any prejudice in their respective Rights but without the least Interference with one another the Church remains a Colledge whereof the Prince and all the Subjects are now become Members So that each Subject besides the Person he represented in the State has assumed that of a Christian and in this respect is esteemed a Member of the Church Neither is every one to be considered in the Church according to the Station or Dignity he bears in the Commonwealth but these Qualifications are as it were laid aside there and he is only regarded as a Christian So that the General of an Army cannot claim any Prerogative to himself in the Church beyond the private Centinel And it is past all doubt that one and the same Man may represent several Persons according to the several Functions and Obligations belonging to him § 42. It is also according to my Opinion 〈…〉 made Bishops beyond question that Kings Princes or other civil Magistrates by receiving the Christian Doctrine are not constituted Bishops or Teachers in the Church this Function not properly belonging to every Christian but only to such as have a lawful Vocation and are fitly qualified for it Besides this the Royal Office and that of Teachers are of such a nature that they cannot conveniently be Administred by one and the same Person not because of any natural repugnancy betwixt
questionless a Right to examin what Matters and in what Manner they are transacted in the Convention of their Presbyters or in their Ecclesiastical Courts if there be any such among them Whether they do not transgress their Bounds whether they act according to the Civil Laws or whether they do not assume to themselves a Power to determine such Cases as properly belong to the Civil Jurisdiction Of this Kind are Matrimonial Cases which without Reason and upon very slender Pretences the Priests have drawn under their Jurisdiction to the great Prejudice of the Sovereign Power For it being an unquestionable Right belonging to Sovereigns to constitute Laws concerning Matrimonial Cases according to the Law of Nature and of God I cannot see any Reason why they have not a Right to determine Matrimonial Differences And because the Ministers of the Church make use of Church discipline the Prince may make a legal Enquiry whether under Pretence of these Rules prescribed by our Saviour they do not introduce Novelties which may prove prejudicial to the State And as these Enchroachments are no essential Part of the Christian Doctrine but rather to be looked upon like Spots which disgnise its natural Beauty So I cannot see with what Face it can be denied that those ought to be taken off especially by the Authority of those whose Interest is most nearly concerned unless they have Impudence enough to own that the Christian Religion may lawfully be misapplied to By-uses And let it be granted that every thing is transacted as it ought to be in these Conventions of the Presbyters Consistories or Episcopal Courts why should they be asham'd or angry at their Sovereigns taking Cognisance of their Proceedings And this Right of Inspection does never cease after the Sovereign has once entred into the Communion of the Church it being his Duty to take care that no Abuses may creep into the Church in process of Time that may endanger the State § 45. Because the Right of Constituting Concerning the Right of Princes as to Church Ministers Ministers of the Church does originally belong to the whole Congregation the Prince must needs have his Share in it as being a Member of the Congregation I say his Share For it is not reasonable that a Minister should be forced upon any Church against their Consent and without their Approbation except it be for very weighty Reasons For the Right of Constituting Ministers in the Church does not belong to the Prince in the same manner as it is his Prerogative to constitute Civil Magistrates and other Publick Ministers of State which being a part of the Sovereign Power cannot be called in question But Teachers in the Church considered meerly as such are none of the King's Ministers but Servants of Christ and Ministers of the Church not Officers of the State And because in the Primitive Church Ministers used to be constituted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by the Suffrages of the Christians the Prince may lawfully claim his Vote in the same Church whereof he is a Member But as for the other Churches under his Jurisdiction they ought to be left to their free Choice exept there be some prevailing Reasons which oblige the Prince to interpose his Authority it being unjust that a Minister should be put upon a Church against their Will if they can alledge any lawful Exception against him For a Teacher thus forced upon his Auditors for whom they have neither esteem nor Love is likely to edifie but little by his Doctrine Nevertheless Sovereigns ought to have a watchful Eye over the Churches and to take care that Persons not fitly qualified for this sacred Function may not be promoted to the Ministry either by Simony or other unlawful Means For though it is the Interest of the whole Church to provide against these Corruptions Sovereigns are likely to do it with much better Success than can be expected from private Persons They may authorise certain Persons to be present at these Elections and who by their Authority may prevent all manner of Disorder or Corruption and at the same time make a due enquiry whether such Persons as are to be put into the Ministry are of an approved Life and Doctrine And because the Ministers of the Church do 1 Tim. 3 10. sometimes act negligently or preposterously in their Office which often proves the Occasion of Scandal and Schism in the Church Rom. 16 17. Sovereigns may constitute over them Inspectors with an Authority to reprove and sometimes to punish such as transgress their Rules But these Inspectors being no less subject to human Frailties than other men Care ought to be taken that their Authority be so limited as to be accountable of all their Proceedings either to the Prince or before a Consistory authorised for that purpose if they transgress their Bounds or trespass upon the Ministers of the Church As all these maters do contribute to the maintaining of good Order in the Church and may best be put in execution by the Sovereign Authority So it is manifest that Princes as they are chief Members of the Church may justly claim this Prerogative as properly belonging to their high Station and Princely Office § 46. In case of any Difference or Controversie Concerning the Right of calling together a Synod concerning any Point of Doctrine which may sometimes arise in the Church so that the Teachers are divided in their Opinions it belongs to the Sovereign Authority to take care that these Differences may be composed not only as the Sovereign is a Member of the Church but as he is the Supream Head of the Commonwealth It having been frequently observed that Differencee of Opinions and Animosities of the Parties concerned cause great Commotions in the State Upon such Occasions Sovereigns have a Right to call together an Assembly of the most able Divines and to authorise them to examine the Controversie and to determine it according to the Tenure of the Scriptures The Supream Direction of this Assembly ought to be managed by the Prince'◠Authority For since it can scarce be supposed that matters should be transacted there without Heats and Animosities it will be both for the Honour and Interest of this Assembly if by the Presence of certain Persons well versed in Business these Heats be allayed and matters carried on with an equal Temperament Neither do I see how any one besides the Prince can lay claim to this Power of calling such an Assembly for put the case that one Party should refuse to appear and to submit unto the other's Direction which way will they be able to compel them to it And who is it that can with less Difficulty put in execution the Decrees of such a Synod than he who has the Sovereign Power in his Hands Tho' at the same time it ought not to be forgotten that this Power must not extend it self beyond its due Bounds but be suitable to the Genius of the Christian
Action of Pilate it being to be considered no otherwise than a publick Robbery and a power Luk. 22. 53. of darkness since in all his Proceedings there is not a footstep of a legal Process to be met with And it is so manifest that when religious Matters were in question the due Method and judicial Order of a legal Process have been violated a thousand times over and over that it would be superfluous to alledge any Examples of it here When Sovereigns punish or chastise a Pastor or Minister of the Church who has abused his Function or been defective in it this power does properly not proceed from the Civil Jurisdiction but from a Right translated to the Sovereign by the Church But those that are punished by the Civil Authority because they have stirr'd up by their turbulent Speeches and Sermons the People to Rebellion against their Soverereigns or have attempted to withdraw the Auditors from and to resist the Power of a legal Jurisdiction cannot be said to undergo Punishment on the account of the Christian Religion Furthermore it is false that the Church considered as such can claim any Jurisdiction properly speaking It is no less false that the Power of disposing and exercising those Functions belonging to each Church is a civil Act in regard of its publick Effect Mr. Houtuyn has been drawn into all these Errors by confounding the Commonwealth with the Church If these two be not very nicely distinguished but we allow the Church to be entirely swallowed up in the civil Power what have we got by shaking of the Popish Yoak For the condition of the Church will be never the better if all Ecclesiastical Matters without Exception are left to the arbitrary Disposal of Sovereigns To maintain which Mr. Houtuyn in contradiction to all Reason and the Scripture it self has invented A spiritual Good or the eternal Welfare of People as the main End and Duty of the Sovereign Power By Vertue of which he enables his Prince to force his Subjects to profess publickly what Religion he will be pleased to impose upon them tho' never so contrary to their own Opinion For it may be sufferable for a Man to keep his own Opinion concealed to himself but to be oblig'd to profess what is quite contrary to it is both abominable and intolerable The Saying of Constantine the Great so much extoll'd by Mr. Houtuyn himself is contradictory to his Assertion viz. That he could have wish'd all his Subjects to have been Christians but that he never forced any For this Emperour not only never attempted to force any one from his own Opinion which indeed was beyond his Power but also never constrained his Subjects to profess themselves Christians against their own Inclinations Our Author does also not a little contradict himself in what he says concerning Words sometimes exempting them from any civil Cognisance whereas before he had made them liable to the civil Jurisdiction What says he if our Faith express'd by Words should come to the knowledge of our Sovereign It ought to be look'd upon not so much as a Crime but rather as an Error to correct which is not to be effected by Punishments which do illuminate our Mind but rather by good Instructions But those that know the real difference betwixt the Common-wealth and Church that is to say betwixt the State and a Colledge may without much difficulty dissolve these knotty Questions which he has started concerining the Jurisdiction and Legislative Power of Princes over the Church As to the § LXIX It is to be observed that it is put beyond all question that Sovereigns have a Right to give the Authority and Force of a Law to such Statutes as they find suitable to the State it being their Prerogative to determine according to what Laws Judgment is to be given in Civil Courts of Judicature what is punishable and what is to be left to the Conscience of every Subject But it implies an Absurdity to attribute to Sovereigns a Right of giving publick Authority to Prophesies themselves neither the Intrinsick nor Historical Faith having any dependence on the Civil Jurisdiction by the force of which Subjects may be obliged to act but not to believe From whence it is evident that if any Prophecy appear to be from God it cannot receive any Addition by the Authority of the Prince no more than if he should declare Cicero to be a good Latin Author But in case a pretended Prophecy be either ambiguous or supposititious in it self and a Prince should persuade himself to be able by his own Authority to make it pass current for Truth he would be look'd upon as one beyond his Senses What he insinuates concerning the New Testament in general is much of the same Stamp It was not says he in the power of Christ and his Apostles to establish this Doctrine of the New Testament by Publick Authority which was the reason it remain'd in a private condition â—ill such time when Princes having received the Christian Faith they gave it a publick Authority and the force of Laws But the Rules and Doctrine of Christ cannot receive any additional Strength from the Civil Power it being contrary to its Genius to be established and promoted by civil Punishments For whosoever out of fear of Temporal Punishments professes in outward shew only this Doctrine does not act according to nor fulfil the Will of Christ The same may be repliy'd to § LXX For as the Scripture and the Christian Doctrine do not owe their Authority to the civil Jurisdiction the latter being introduced in the Government by God's peculiar Assistance inspite of all the Resistance of the civil Powers So ought the Interpretation of the the ambiguous and controverted Passages in the holy Scripture not to be determined by the Sovereign Authority it belonging not to the Prince only but to the whole Church or such as are authorised by the Church tho' at the same time the Prince considered as the Chief Member of it cannot bâ—â—xcluded from having his share in such a Debate It is a prophane Expression when he says Christ himself having an unquestionable Power of introducing a new Law must needs have a right to interpret the same But since during the time of his abode here he lived among those that either out of Ignorance or Disobedience did not own Christ and that in a private Condition subject to the civil Power it is evident that his Laws Doctrine and the Interpretation of them did acquire their obliging Power and publick Authority from the civil Constitution A little more would have made the Office of Christ as being Mediator of the World also dependent from the civil Jurisdiction Is it not a prodigious Absurdity to affirm That the Doctrine of Christ has received its publick Authority from the civil Power among those who denied Christ And what follows That if at the time of Christ Princes had been Christians they would have acknowledged him for the
Founder of the Christian Church shewed himself in his Behaviour from Moses Moses was commanded by God to deliver the Posterity of the Patriarchs from the Bondage of Aegypt and to lead them according to God's Govenant with them into Canaan the Land of Promise where he was to Erect a New Commonwealth and to Establish their Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws at the same time The better therefore to Establish his Authority not only amongst his Country-men over whom he had no other Lawful Jurisdiction but also to gain Credit with the Aegyptians that hitherto had kept the others under their Jurisdiction he did by his Extraordinary and Miraculous Deeds give them most evident Demonstrations of his Divine Commission and of a secret Correspondence with God Almighty These Miracles struck such a Terror into the Aegyptian King that his Obstinacy was at last overcome who else in all likelihood would not have parted upon easie terms with so vast a number of his Subjects Their number being sufficient to make up a new and strong People And the Jews moved by his Miracles and in acknowledgment of the Benefits received from his Hands and being sensible that God stood by him in all his Vndertakings willingly received him for their Prince and General As long as he lived he exercised this Princely Authority in the highest degree for he did Constitute amongst them both their Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws and Ordained and Established their whole Government He used to Administer Justice Inflict Punishents upon those that were found Criminal he had the Power of Constitating Magistrates and others that were to aid and assist him in his Office and those that attempted against his Authority he made sensible of their Folly by inflicting most severe Punishments upon them There was all that time no occasion for the levying of Taxes upon the People except what was requisite for the Maintainance and Ornament of their Publick Religious Service He was very watchful for the Preservation of the People and if they were Attack'd by their Enemies used to defend them by Force of Arms. Lastly when he knew that he was shortly to depart this Life he Constituted his Successor who was to be their General and under whose Conduct they were to be put into Possession of the so long desired Land of Promise from whence it is very evident that Moses as long as he lived bore the Office of a Prince and that he was the Founder of the State or Commonwealth of the Jews § 13. But if we look upon our Saviour What on the other â—and our Saviour did when he established his Church Jesus Christ he acted in a quite different manner from whence it was very evident that his intention was not to Erect a new State here upon Earth 'T is true he gained to himself a great deal of Credit and Authority by his Miracles but these were no terrifying Miracles or such as ever proved injurious to any So when his Disciples would have persuaded him to command fire to come down from Heaven and consume those that refused Luke 9. 54 â—5 to receive him they met with a severe Rebuke The main Demonstrations he used to give them of his Diviniâ—y always tendâ—d to the benefit of others and the Miracles performed by him were of such a nature as must needs attract the love and favour of all Men and at the same time were apparent and convincing Proofs of his Divinity not any thing less than a Divine Power being able to cause a new Motion or Alteration in the course of Nature without Natural means For he went about doing good and he aling Acts 16. 38. all that were oppressed of the Devil All which had not the least Relation towards the laying of the Foundation of a new State He had some Disciples but these were few in number unarmed poor of a mean Profession and Condition and of so little Authority that it was impossible for them to make the least pretension of setting up a State of their own or of raising any Commotions or Disturbances in another State And when the multitude in acknowledgment of the benefits received by his Doctrine and Miracles would at several times have proclaimed him King he absconded and made his escape The principal Care he took of his Followers was to instruct them by his Doctrine from whence they were called Disciples and they in return used to give him the Name of Master or Teacher Neither did he Constitute any new Laws at least not any that could be supposed to have any reference towards the Establishment of a new State but the Antient Law as far as it was given to Mankind in general was explained and the People exhorted to a due observance of it He did never execute Luke 12. 13 14. the Office of a Judge nay he refused to be an Arbitrator to convince the World that hâ—s Joh. 8 11. coming was intended for no such purpose Lastly he did himself pay Taxes to others and tho' it was in his Power to prevent it suffered himself to be Judged and Executed All which is altogether inconsistent with the Nature and Office of a Temporal Sovereign § 14. This will appear more clearly to us if Châ—ist did not Constitute a nâ—w People we duly consider that Christ never acted according to the Rules of those that intend to lay the Foundation of a new State For their principal and first care is to Constitute a new People that is to bring over to their side such a number of People as are willing and sufficient to be joyned under one Civil Government This Multitude of People is either Assembled at once and drawn out of another Commonwealth as Moses did or by degrees brought over out of other Commonwealths as Romulus gathered the People of Rome But it is easie to be seen that our Saviour's Intention was of a quite different Nature His Disciples were not so many in number as to have the least resemblance with a Nation or People neither were they instructed in those matters which have the least relation to the Establishment of a new Commonwealth Their dependance from him was not near the same which Subjects have of their Prince having never sworn Allegiance to him but only as Disciples from their Master being influenced by the Love and Admiration they had both for his Person and Doctrine Sometimes John 6. â—6 â—â— 68. a great Multitude of People would flock about him but these only came to hear him Preach and to be Spectators of his Miracles which being done they return'd to their respective homes And Christ never shewed the least inclination to command over or to withdraw them from the Obedience due to their Sovereigns Lastly when the time of his Death approached his most trusty and particular Friends and Followers absconded and durst not as much as make any publick appearance When we therefore speak of Christians we do not understand a certain Nation or People subject
Christian Churches St. Peter had in the abovementioned place made his Confession That Jesus was the Son of the living God This excellent Confession did deserve a suitable answer from Christ who said thou art Peter as if he would say persist in this thy Confession Peter which does in no wise imply that Peter should thereby have deserved those Prerogatives over the other Apostles as the Romanists do pretend to For St. Peter did not make this Confession for himself only but in the Name of all those unto whom Christ spoke at that time In the same manner as he spoke in the Name of the rest of the Disciples by St. John 6. 69. We believe and are sure that thou art Christ the Son of the living God Joh. 1. 34 36 42 45 49. Mat. 10. 32 33. John 11 27. Acts 4. 11. Neither was Peter the first that made this Confession For before him the same had been made by John the Baptist by St. Andrew Philip and Nathanael And it is no difficult Task to prove out of several passages of the holy Scripture that none could be taken for a true Disciple of Christ unless he had made this â— 8. â—â— â— 9. â—0 22. Confession And our Saviour to shew of what consequence this Confession was added these Words Vpon this Rock I will build my Church Which is as much as to say this Doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God is the main Foundation Stone whereupon is to be built the mystical Edifice of the Christian Church So that no further inference can be made from these Words than what is expressed to the same purpose by St. John 20. 31. and in the 1 Epist of John 2. 22. c. 3. â—0 c. 4 2. viz That the fundamental Article of the Christian Religion is That Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messias and the Son of the living God § 27. It also is worth our Consideration Whâ—thâ—r the Power of 〈…〉 any Sovâ—reign Right of Juriâ—â—cation whether the Power of Excommunication which was used by the Apostles and in the Primitive Church implies any Sovereign Authority such as ought to be exercised in a State Unto this we answer in the Negative provided the same be taken according to the proper Use and End of its genuine and primitive Institution For that this Power may with conveniency enough be made use of if misapplied to serve an ambitious Design and to keep the poor People in awe is sufficiently proved by Experience It seems to me that there was a remarkable Difference betwixt the Excommunication of the Jews by virtue of which they were excluded from their Synagogues and the Excommunication used among the Primitive Christians For among the Jews where the Sovereigns and the People professed one and the same Religion which also was entirely united with the State it might easily happen that the Exclusion from the Synagogue did carry along with it several Inconveniencies in Civil Affairs and might therefore not unjustly be considered at the same time as a Civil Punishment which rendered the Offenders infamous in the Commonwealth Especially since according to the Fundamental Constitution of that Government there were several things belonging to Religion punishable by their civil Constitutions But it being already put beyond Question that neither our Saviour nor his Apostles did ever pretend to any Civil Power and that besides this the Primitive Christians lived under the Jurisdiction of other Princes how could their Excommunication Ban or what other sort of Ecclesiastical Censine was used among them be supposed to have any influence upon the Civil State and Condition of the Christians or to have been of the same nature and force properly speaking as Civil Punishments are This will more plainly appear if we examine those Passages where this Matter is compleatly treated of in the New Testament It is said in Matthew 18. 15. 16 17. If thy Brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his Fault between thee and him alone If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee One or Two more that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every Word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen Man and a Publican Certainly out of this passage nothing can be inferr'd that has any relation to a Temporal Jurisdiction or Sovereignty but barely shews us how differences ought to be composed among Christians So St. Paul ordains 1 Cor. â— 1. 2. that we shall rather leave Differences to the Arbitration of a Brother or rather take wrong than to go to Law with a Brother before the Unbelievers to the great shame of the Christian Name So that tho' it is else required from the Offender to beg the Pardon of and Vid. Mat 5. 40. offer Satisfaction to the Person offended nevertheless if he neglect his Duty in this Point Christ commanded that the offended Party shall first offer a Reconciliation and try before he brings his Action against the Offender whether Satisfaction for the Injury received and a Reconciliation may not be obtained by a private Arbitration If this prove fruitless he says he ought to take along with him two or three Witnesses to try whether they can prevail with his Adversary to bring him to a more pliable Temper and at the same time may testifie That the offended Party did offer every thing which might tend towards a Reconciliation betwixt them But if after all this he remain obstinate the Difference ought to be referr'd to the whole Congregation of the Believers residing in that Place for I see no reason why by the word Ecclesia or Church the Presbyters only should be understood But if they also cannot prevail with their Authority over his Stubborness let him then be unto thee like a Heathen man and Publican unto whom his Trespasses will not be remitted because he refuses to acknowledge his Offence or to give Satisfaction for it which is as much as to say fly his Conversation like that of a vile Person which eâ—â—ry one may freely do without being thereuâ—â—â— compelled by any Superior Power For that the Jews did not converse with the Heaâ—â—ns and Publicans except in Civil 〈…〉 of no great force against us it being ceâ—â—ain that the Heathens and Publicans were noâ— so infamous in themselves by any Civil Constitution the Jews being at that time subject to the Heathens who matter'd not their Conversation Besides this it is left to every ones free Choice whom he will admit into his familiar Conversation and always was a certain Rule among the wiser Sort not to be familiar with People of a perversed Humour and an ill Life whose Conversation every body may avoid as he finds it most convenient So the Apostle bids us to reject a Man that is a Heretick after the first and
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
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
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
Commonwealth 'T is true the Church is a Society but not a Body Politick founded upon the Publick Authority but owes it Original to a higher Principle having not like other Colledges its dependency from the State What is alledged out of Titus 2. 9. Colos 3. 20 22. Rom. 13. 3 4. 1 Pet. 2. 14. is strangely misrepresented to evince that Ecclesiastical Matters are dependent from the absolute Pleasure of Sovereigns What Follows might also very well deserve some Animadversions if it were not beyond our scope at present N. 13. It is a gross Error That as a Consequence of this Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs he attributes to them the Titles of Pastors Ministers Heralds of God Bishops Priests and Apostles Pray with what Authority and with what sense For the Duty belonging to Sovereigns which entitles them to the name of being the Guardians of both Tables of the Decalogue and of being the Foster-Fathers and Defenders of the Church is of a far different Nature from what he would insinuate here And if it be not to be left to the absolute Judgment of the Clergy it self with exclusion of the rest of the Members of the Church to determine in Ecclesiastical Affairs what is agreeable to the Word of God how can this Judgment belong to the Sovereign alone without allowing a share to the rest of the Members of the Church These words in the § LXIV Each Sovereign may establish what Religion he pleases in his Dominions ought not to be let pass by without a severe Correction The Reason alledged is very frivolous Because all Publick and external Actions depend from the Publick Authority Is this your Assertion good Mr. Houtuyn that Princes may impose what Religion they please upon their Subjects and by their absolute Authority make it the establish'd Religion with exclusion to all others who if not complying must forsooth sly the Country What Religion they please do you say the the Pagan False Fictious or Superstitious it matters not which From whence pray was this Power derived to Sovereigns Not certainly from God except you can shew us a Divine Authority for it Not from the common consent of those that entred into Civil Societies Commonwealths not being instituted for Religion's sake and of a later date besides that such a Power is not requisite for the attaining that end for which Civil Societies were establish'd Neither is it left to the bare pleasure of any Person tho' considered as in the Natural state of Freedom to profess what Religion he pleases But supposing it was no Inference can be made from thence that the same may be forc'd upon others The distinction he makes betwixt the internal and external Religion must also be taken with a great deal of Circumspection lest some People might perswade themselves that it is indifferent what Religion a Man professes in outward shew provided he be satisfied as to the internal part of it Furthermore it is absolutely false that all Publick Actions that is every thing done in Publick in the Common-wealth owes its Original to the Sovereign Power there being several things to be done by Subjects in publick depending meerly from that Liberty belonging to them in the Natural state of Liberty or from God's Command or from a certain Power granted to them by God Almighty It is no less false That all exterior Actions depend from the Civil Authority For according to Mr. Houtuyn's Opinion the Doctrine of Divinity and the Confession of Faith as comprehended in a certain form are to be reckoned among those exterior Actions Mr. Houtuyn is much in the wrong when he pretends to draw an Inference from thence that because it belongs to Sovereigns to take care that their Subjects may be well instructed concerning what Opinion they ought to have of God as the Establisher of Justice they therefore have a Right of disposing in an Arbitrary way of revealed Religion and to declare any Religion whatsoever which pretends to Revelation the Establish'd Religion in the Commonwealth It is a much grosser Mistake yet when he asserts That any Religion establish'd in a State tho' never so false contributes to the Publick Tranquility of that Commonwealth It is possible that a Religion defective in some Points may nevertheless lead People into the way of Salvation but those that contain false Doctrines of God and his Attributes are incapable of producing that Effect The Publick Tranquility founded upon such false Opinions will be very unstable and may with more ease or at least with the same conveniency be obtained by the true Doctrine especially if it be taken into consideration that tho' it be possible that such Impostures may beguile the giddy-headed Multitude they cannot always pass for currant among Men of a sound Understanding It is to be remembred that the Southsayers at Rome cannot forbear laughing when they meet another of the same Profession We must beg Mr. Houtuyn's Pardon if we question his Authority when he pretends to perswade us That Faith which he is pleased to call every ones private Religion independent from any Temporal Power will not be impaired by a Man's professing any other Religion established by the Sovereign Authority and he leaves it to the discretion of those Civil Governours which of all Religions they will be pleased to establish in their Dominions whether that of the Japoneses of the Brachmans Mahometans Jews or Christians and among all those that pretend to the Christian Name such a one as may be most agreeable to their own Fancy I much question whether he will meet with many Tools that will take his Word for it A great part of Christendom did look upon it as a thing insufferable that the Pope of Rome should set up for the great Arbitrator of Christendom in matters relating to the Christian Faith tho' his Pretences did not reach further than to force one Religion upon the World which he knew was most likely to turn to his own Advantage But now it seems it has pleased God that Sovereigns should be invested with a Power of establishing any Religion at pleasure and it being beyond question that there are several Religions which have not the least relation to one another they may with the same Right at several times declare several distinct Religions nay even those that are quite opposite to one another the establish'd Religion and nevertheless every one of these must be accepted forsooth as the true Religion The next Consequence will be that Sovereigns having a Right of defending and altering the establish'd Religion and to punish such as trespass against it one Prince will have no more Right to cherish and maintain one Religion but his Successors may with the same Right abolish it and punish such of his Subjects as adhere to it So that according to the Doctrine of Mr. Houtuyn's Gospel the establish'd Religion will be settled upon the same Foundation with some Statutes which may be enacted and repeal'd by Sovereigns at pleasure In
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