true God and the Son of God submitting themselves to his Judgment so that the Interpretation of the Christian Doctrine would have been owing by Christ to their Submission Away with such Fictions not agreeable even to common Sense He might as well say that God's Power over us Mortals did owe its original to the submission of Princes and in case they thought fit to withdraw themselves from this Obedience God Almighty I cannot relate it without horror must thereby be reduced to the Condition of a private Person In the next Assertion he is not altogether so much beyond his Senses when he grants even to Pagan Princes a Right of determining the controverted Points among Christians which is as much as to make a blind Man a competent Judge of the difference of Colours When the Primitive Christians were forced to appear before the Pagan Judges it was not on the Account of the Interpretation of the Scripture The Christians could never be guilty of so gross an Error as to Consult with the Unbelieving concerning the controverted Articles of Faith But being forced against their will to appear before them they could not avoid to receive their Judgment such as they were pleased to give as having no way left them to decline it Furthermore our Author is pleased to affirm That such an Interpretation ought to be look'd upon as establish'd by Publick Authority which carries along with it an obliging force at least in outward appearance so that Subjects are obliged to conform themselves to it by a verbal Confession tho' never so discrepant from that Opinion they keep concealed within their hearts But the outward Behaviour and verbal Confessions of a Christian which are not agreeable to the true Sentiments of his Heart having not the least affinity with Religion it self I don't see upon what Account this Chimerical Power is attributed to Princes unless it be to furnish them with a specious pretext to afflict their Innocent Subjects Thus much is certain that Christ did not command his Doctrine to be propagated by forcible means so that supposing the Articles thus established by the Civil Authority to be never so consonant to Truth it is nevertheless inconsistent with the Genius of the Christian Religion to impose them upon Subjects by force and under severe Penalties But supposing them to be false the case of Subjects must needs be very miserable when they suffer Punishment because they will not profess an erroneous or false Doctrine I see no other benefit to be reap'd from the egregious Assertions of our Author than to serve for a Justification of the most Tyrannical Persecutions that have been and to declare them to have been done by Vertue of a Legal Authority At this rate it will be no difficult Task to justifie the Proceedings against the Protestants in France which move both Pity and Horror in all good Men at least Mr. Houtuyn has very freely offered his Advice and Patronage What follows next is very smartly said to wit That the Coersive Power may be Legal whereas the Act of Obedience is not allowable No body of common sense but will acknowledge that this implies a most manifest Contradiction and that the Legal Sovereign Authority and the Obligation of paying Obedience to it are inseparable from one another Yet with this Nicety Mr. Houtuyn is so mightily taken that he does not consider that at the same time he grants an absolute Authority to his Prince to persecute his Subjects on the Account of Religion he takes away from them the Power of denying the true Religion But what Reason can be given why the one should have a coersive Power where the other cannot obey unless it be done on purpose to encourage ambitious and imperious Princes either to force their Subjects to a sinful compliance or never to want an Opportunity of afflicting the Innocent at Pleasure For those that take to these violent ways of propagating the Faith or rather to speak Truth Hypocrisie and Superstition by their booted Apostles are not contented to silence their Subjects dissenting from them in Point of Religion who are also debarr'd even to save themselves by flight tho' it be no small Misfortune to a Subject to be forced to leave his Native Country but they compel them to profess publickly those things for Truth which they abhor in their Hearts and appear to be Idolatrous Superstitious or Fictitious invented on purpose by those that make their Market by Religion Mr. Houtuyn himself cannot but confess That no body can safely acquiesce in any determination made concerning an Article of Faith unless by his own private Judgment he find it agreeable to the Word of God And if he find it not consonant to that he ought not to rest satisfied in it for fear he should disown his Faith this being the worst and most unbecoming thing belonging to a Christian But if it be unbecoming a Christian to deny his Faith which is the same in effect as to rest satisfied in ones own private Opinion and Conscience to keep secret within the heart what one believes not to indulge ones Tongue and to refrain from External Actions This being the Advice which in contradiction to himself he had not long before given to the Dissenting Subjects what Reason can he give for his Assertion when he attributes to his Prince a Power so unlimited that his Christian Subjects must either be forced to undergo such an Indignity or else the most horrible Persecutions that can be invented The first Inventer of this unlimited Power as far as ever I could learn was Mr. Thomas Hâ—bbs the worst Interpreter that ever was in Divinity whose Opinion as to this kind no body has taken so much pains to revive with the same Impudence as Mr. Adrian Houtuyn What I most admire at is that this should be attempted by one living in a State whose Maxims are quite opposite to these Principles and where consequently he could not reasonably propose to himself any Reward of his Adulation There being not the least likelihood that the States General of the Vnited Provinces should ever lay claim to such a Power As it is not very probable that Princes will apply themselves to the Ministry of the Church and undertake the Publick Exercise of the Pastoral Function in Person so that I cannot see to what purpose our Author has been so careful in asserting it in the behalf of Sovereigns Unless he has pleased himself with this Fancy that his Assertions cannot fail to make him to be the more admired among the Youngsters by how much the more remote they are from common Sense Thus much at present for Mr. Houtuyn FINIS Books Printed for Abel Roper at the Black Boy over against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street SOlid Philosophy asserted against the Fancies of the Ideists Or The Method to Science farther illustrated With Reflections on Mr. Lock 's Essay concerning Human Vnderstanding By I. S. A True History of the several Designs and Conspiracies against His Majesty's Sacred Person and Government as they were continually carry'd on from 1688. to 1697. Containing Matters extracted from Original Papers Depositions of the Witnesses and Authentick Records as appears by the References to the Appendix wherein they are digested Publish'd with no other Design than to acquaint the English Nation that notwithstanding the Present Posture of Affairs our Enemies are still so Many Restless and Designing that all imaginable Care ought to be taken for the Defence and Safety of His Majesty and his Three Kingdoms By R. K. The Doctrine of Acids in the Cure of Diseases farther asserted Being an Answer to some Objections raised against it by Dr. F. Tuthill of Dorchester in Dorsetshire In which are contained some things relating to the History of Blood As also an Attempt to prove what Life is and that it is principally supported by an Acid and Sulphur To which is added an Exact Account of the Case of Edmund Turner Esq deceased as also the Case of another Gentleman now living exactly parallel to Mr. Turner's By John Colbatch a Member of the College of Physicians London Books Printed for A. Bosvile at the Dial against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street A Discourse of Conscience Shewing 1. What Conscience is and what are its Acts and Offices 2. What is the Rule of it 3. The several sorts of Conscience 4. How some Practical Cases or Questions concerning Conscience may be resolv'd 5. The Benefit and Happiness of a Good Conscience and the Unhappiness of an Evil one 6. How a Good Conscience may be attain'd and how we may judge whether we have attain'd it Publish'd chiefly for the Benefit of the Unlearned tho' it may also be useful to others Together with brief Reflections upon that which the Author of Christianity not Mysterious saith upon that known Text 1 Tim. 3. 16. The Christian Belief Wherein is asserted and proved That as there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason yet there are some Doctrines in it above Reason and these being necessarily enjoyn'd us to Believe are properly call'd Mysteries In Answer to a Book entituled Christianity not Mysterious The Second Edition with a Preface and other Additions
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
to any particular Government but in general all such as make profession of a certain Doctrine or Religion § 15. One of the main points which those Christ had no Teritories belonging to him that intend to Establish a new Commonwealth ought to take care of is how to acquire considerable Territories where their new Subjects may settle themselves and their Fortunes So Moses when he saw it not fecible to set up the Jewish Commonwealth within the bounds of Aegypt led them into the Desert and through such places as were not subject to any particular Government till such time that they Conquered the Land of Canaan and rooted out its Antient Inhabitants Neither were the Jews before they were put into Possession of this Country the less free for they were then a Nation independent from any Foreign Power and though they sometimes marched upon the Borders of other Princes nevertheless were they not during that time subject to their Jurisdiction partly because no body ever laid any particular claim to those Territories or if some of them did they marched through them like Soldiers of Fortune ready to make good their Pretences and Titles to these Lands by the edge of their Swords But Christ did say of himself That he was so poor as he had not where to lay his head He was always so far Mat. 8. 20. from attempting to acquire any Possessions or Territories or to encourage his Followers to do it that he rather chose to live during the whole course of his life in other Territories and under Civil Jurisdiction § 16. There are a great many other remarkable Christ did not exircise the Office of a Prince Circumstances from whence it may plainly be inferred that Christ never did nor intended to appear as a Prince here upon Earth When the Mother of the Sons of Zebedeus begged of our Saviour that her Sons might be prefer'd to the Chiefest Dignities in the Kingdom of Christ he rebuked her for her ignorance and Prophesied to his Followers a very slender share of outward Splendor and temporal Preferments but abundance of Persecution nay he plainly told and enjoyned his Disciples that they should not strive for Pre-eminency over one another as Temporal Princes do It shall says he not be so amongst you Vid. Mat. 20. 20. ordering them to live in an equal and Brotherlike degree with one another And to remove by his own Example all remnants of Luke 20. 26. Pride he in their presence did abase himself to that degree of Servitude as to wash the feet of St. Peter Lastly it is of great Consequence John 13. 9 10. at the first Establishment of a new Commonwealth that its Founder be long-lived that thereby he may be enabled to lay a more solid Foundation of the new Government For this reason it was that David's Soldiers would not any longer suffer him to expose his Person in Battel lest the light of Israel should 2 Sam. 21. 17. be extinguished the loss of his own Person being esteemed more than of a great many thousands But our Saviour did surrender himself voluntarily to death after he had scarce four years appeared in Publick and that without appointing a Successor who was to exercise any Power or Authority over those that followed his Doctrine § 17. As now Christ during his abode 〈…〉 of a Doctor or Teacher here upon Earth did not make the least appearance or outward shew resembling the greatness of Temporal Princes and as out of all his Actions there cannot be gathered the least thing which may prove his intention to have been to erect a new State or Common-wealth so it is sufficiently apparent that during the whole course of his publick Conversation on Earth he employed all his Time and Labour in publishing the Word of God So that in the Quality of a Doctor or Teacher he appeared to the Eyes of all the World John 1. 2â— whereas his Office of being the Saviour of Mankind was at that time understood only by such as were capable of applying the Antient Oracles of the Prophets to his Person Furthermore our Saviour to establish and shew his Authority made use of such Miracles as might be evident proofs of his Divine Power partly because the Antient Ceremonies which were to be abolished were first ordained by God's special Command partly because the principal Heads of his Doctrine were surpassing all Human Understanding But as for his way of Teaching it was plain and free from Vanity without all affectation wherein appeared nothing which justly might cause the least suspicion of fictitious Worship Notwithstanding his Doctrine appeared thus in her Native and Pure Simplicity yet so powerful were its Charmâ— that all what Human Art Dexterity Eloquence has been able to invent of that kind if compared to the solid Expessions of our Saviour is only superficial and insipid Neither do we find that he made use of any outward means to promote his Doctrine He did not call to his aid the Power and Authority of Civil Magistates to force People to receive his Words The Word was Mat. 11. 15. 13. 9. 43. Luke 8. 8 14. 35 there He that can take let him take it And how often do we read that he exclaimed to them He that hath Ears to hear let him hear It was not God Almighty's pleasure to pull People head-long into Heaven or to make use of the new French way of Converting them by Dragoons But he has laid open to us the way of our Salvation in such a manner as not to have quite debarr'd us from our own choise so that if we will be refractory we may prove the cause of our own Destruction Neither did it please Almighty God to inveigle Mankind by the Allurements of Profit and Temporal Pleasures but rather to foretel those that should follow his Doctrine nothing but Adversities Calamities Persecutions and all sorts of Afflictions reserving the chiefest Reward till after this Life where also such as had neglected his Doctrine were to receive condign Punishment This is the most evident Proof that can be given of the intrinsick Value and extraordinary Worth of the Christian Doctrine the natural Constitution of Mankind in general being such as to be chiefly moved with those Objects that are present and affect our Senses whereas those things that are represented to our Minds at a distance are but faintly received and often meet with dubious Interpretations It is worth our Observation what Method Christ made use of in his Doctrine viz. That he taught as one having Authority as it is expressed by Matth. 7. â—9 not as the Scribes that is he had no recourse to the Authority and Traditions of their Antient Rabbi's so as to sâ—t up for an Interpreter of their antient Laws but he spoke Lord-like and as a Legislator who had a lawful Authority belonging to himself to propose his Doctrine It is my Will and Command who is it that dare gain-say
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
Decemviri And because Christians do not build their Faith upon any Human Authority but upon the Word of God alone they are Joh. 6. 1â— 1 Thes 4â— said to be taught of God For which Reason S. Paul utterly denied that they had any Dominion over the Faith of the Corinthians or which is the same in effect that they could exercise any Dominion over them under the 〈◊〉 of Faith For the rest as Christians 〈…〉 which are well versed in the Scriptures may without great difficulty try their Teacher's Doctrine by the Touchstone of the Holy Scripture So the Catechism and other compendious Instructions relating to the chiefest Articles of the Christian Faith may be sufficient for those of a meaner Capacity wherein all Christians ought to be well instructed in their younger Years both by their Parents and Teachers of the Church this being likely to prove more useful to those of an indifferent Capacity than all the other Subtilities and Controversies which in themselves are not absolutely necessary or requisite to be understood by every Christian in particular And if we duely consider what is required by the Apostle for the obtaining of Rom. 10. 9 10. â—â—m 1. â— 2 â—â—m 2. â—â— Salvation we shall find that this Knowledge may be attained to without much Difficulty because the Confession that Jesus was Christ the Son of God is the Foundation Stone and as it was the Center of the Christian Religion and that this Article was chiefly 〈◊〉 20. 3. opposed by the Gates of Hell in the time of the Primitive Christians the Apostle S. John prescribes this as a general Rule to be particularly taken notice of by such as are of a mean Capacity Hereby know you said he the Spirit of God Every Spirit that confesseth 〈◊〉 4 â— â— that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is of God and every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is not of God Though from hence no Inference ought to be made as if Christian may neglect or ought not also to be well instructed concerning all the other Articles of Faith or that it is indifferent for any Christian to believe what he pleaseâ— concerning the rest of the Articles of the Christian Doctrine § 34. It being then evident that there 〈…〉 is a great difference betwixt the condition of particular Churches and that of a State or Commonwealth It may further he enquired into whether perhaps those Churches united don 't make up a Body like to that of a grâ—â—t State For it is certain that the Word Church is in the Scriptures attributed to the whole Body of the Believers wheresoever dispersed throughout the World yet so that there is not the least appearance if a duâ— regard he had to our Saviour's Intention of a Design to erect a State Go you into all the World and Mark 16. â—â— Preach the Gospel to every Creature are the Words of our Saviour to his Disciples Here is no mention made of any Persons who should be the supream Governours over the rest as is usual and absolutely necessary in a State nor any certain Place of Residence appointed for these Governours from whence the rest should receive their Orders Neither is the least care taken by what means they should maintain a Correspondency with their capital City And truly considering the vast Extent of the World and the prodigious Distance of those Countries where the Apostles Preached the Gospel besides that there was a mortal Enmity betwixt some of these States these were unsurmountable Obstacles for the settling and maintaining a Correspondency betwixt them So that it does not appear by what means all the Christians could be united under one State It is not denied but that there is often mention made in the Scripture of the Union of the Christians as in the 1 Cor. c. 12. 12 13. As the body is one and had many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body So also is Christ For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit Christ says in the 10. Chap. of S. John ver 16 My Sheep hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd Which shews that all the Sheep are brought into one Flock by hearing the Voice of their Pastour who is Christ So it is said in the Epistle to the Ephesians ch 4. ver 2 3 4 5 6. Forbearing one another in love endeavouring the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace There is one body and one Spirit even as you are called in one hope of your calling One Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all And Christ in his farewel Sermon does Joh. 13 chiefly recommend to his Disciples Charity and Unity as the true Badges of Christianity And the Name of Brother which particularly Vid. 1 Cor. 13. Colos 3. 14. Gal. 6. 10. belongs to the Christians seems to imply a general union betwixt them But if we consider the Nature of these holy Tyes we may easily observe them to have been in no ways adapted to the Constitution of a temporal Government but properly belonging to the Establishment and Union of a mystical Body For as none of them requires of implies any dependency from a Temporal Power so they may belong in common to all Christians tho' living in far distant Countries and several Jurisdictions § 35. Neither does it appear for what end 〈…〉 for Châ—â—stians 〈…〉 united under one State or purpose all the Christians in General should be reduced under one State For each Congregation or Church may with more â—ase and conveniency constitute Teachers in their Churches sitly qualified for the Ministry of the Gospel and have a more watchful Eye over those who are known and near at hand than can be expected from one single Person tho' never so wise living at a great distance who being besides this ovewhelmed with multitude of Businesses is forced to see with other Peoples Eyes and to hear with other Peoples Ears Neither is it a sufficient Reason what is alledged that for the composing and determining of such Differences as may arise betwixt the Teachers of the Church or betwixt them and others a General Court ought to be established in the Christian Church it being evident that such Cases can be no where determined with more conveniency than in the same Government where they live and that there cannot any sufficient reason be given why they should not acknowledge the same Jurisdiction with the rest of their fellow Subjects There is one objection which has something of colour in it for it is alledged That if all the Christian Churches throughout the World were united under one Head whether under one Person or a certain Assembly matters not the unity of Faith might be better preserved
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
them but that each of them is involved in such a multitude of Trouble and variety of Business that it cannot rationally be supposed for one Man to be able to undergo such a Fatigue Iâ—â—s no less evident that Sovereigns by becoming Christians are not authorised to alter the Ministry of the Church or to order it at pleasure or to force the Ministers of the Gospel to teach any Doctrine which is not founded in the Scriptures or to preach up Human Inventions for Articles of Faith For what and how Ministers ought to Teach is prescribed by God himself who expects an exact Obedience in this Point as well from Kings as other Christians And it is to be considered that whenever Princes receive the Christian Doctrine the Teachers notwithstanding this remain in their former Station as to their Duty and Obligation to God as well as all the rest of their Christian Subjects who having received their Instructions as to their Religion only from God without the assistance of their Sovereigns these cannot claim any right to impose any thing of this kind upon them § 43. Notwithstanding all this it is not Concerning the Duty and Right of Christian Princes of defending the Church to be supposed that Sovereigns by becoming Christians have acquir'd no peculiar Rights or have not a more particular Duty laid upon them than before There being certain Obligations which owe their off-spring to the union of that Duty which is incumbent to every Christian with that of the Royal Office The first and chiefest of these Obligations seems to be that Sovereigns ought to be Defenders of the Church which they are oblig'd to protect not only against all such of their Subjects as dare to attempt any thing against it but also against Foreigners who pretend to be injurious to their Subjects upon that score And tho' the Christian Doctrine is not to be propagated by violence or force of Arms and our Saviour has highly recommended Patience and Sufferings as peculiar Vertues belonging to Christians Princes are nevertheless not debarr'd from their Right of Protecting the Christian Religion by all lawful means and Patience ought not to take place here except when no other lawful means can secure us against our Enemies So we see that St. Paul Acts 2. 2â— saved himself from being scourged by declaring himself to be a Roman and escaped the Fury of the Jews by making his Appeal to the Emperour And our Saviour himself left this Mat. 10. 2â— Advice to his Disciples That when they were persecuted in one City they should fly into another And it being an incumbent Duty belonging to all Sovereigns to defend their Subjects against all violence they ought to take more effectual care that they do not suffer any Injuries for the Christian Religions sake for what could be more reproachful to a Christian Prince than that his Subjects should be sufferers upon that account The next care which belongs to Christian Princes is to provide necessary Revenues for the exercise of the Christian Religion For as has been shewn before that no other Patrimony belonged to the Primitive Church but the Alms and free Contributions of the Believers and that these cannot but be supposed to be very uncertain the Ministers and Teachers in the Church run no small hazard of being exposed to want if they have nothing else to rely upon but the bare contributions of the Congregation who being in some places poor and Subject to other Taxes are incapable of supplying their want And not to dissemble the Truth after Princes and enâ—tire States have received the Doctrine of Christ it would appear very ill that whereas they enjoy such ample Revenues they would deal so sparingly with the Church the more because it is a general Maxim among Men to value a Function according to its Revenues What St. Paul recommends to the Romans in the 15th Chapter v. 27. and in the 1 Epist to the Corinthians 9. 11. ought to be the more taken notice of by Christian Princes because they can with less difficulty or any sensible injury to themselves put it in practise in their Station they having the management of the Publick Revenues in their hands It cannot be denied but that too vast Revenues are not always useful to Ministers of the Church and prove somâ—times prejudicial both to Church and State and that such as make profession of the Ministry of the Gospel ought not to make a Trade of their Function or to think it their main Business to gather Riches and take the Ministry for their By-work nevertheless if it be duely considered that he who cordially as he ought to do applies himself to the Ministerial Function has no other ways left him to provide for his Family and that the vulgar Sort scarce pay a due Respect to a Minister unless they see him live handsomely and well whereas he who is starv'd by his Function is the May-Game of the common People unto whom may be applied that old Saying of the Poet That this Man appears to be the Servant of a poor and wretched Lord. Apparet servum hunc esse Domini pauperis miserique Princes ought therefore to look upon this as one main part of their Devotion to settle certain and constant Sallaries or Revenues upon the Ministers of the Church as much as may be at least sufficient for their Maintainance In the Old Testament the Priests were to live from the Altar but those of the best kind were Vid. Ep. Gal. 6. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 4. brought to the Altar Besides this Princes ought not only to take care of Church-Buildings but also to erect and maintain Schools which being the Seminaries both of the Church and State if the first Rudiments of Christianity be not implanted in the Schools it cannot scarce be expected that Men when grown up should receive much benefit by publick Sermons § 44. But among other Considerations as Coâ—ceâ—ning the rights of Princes as to Ecclesiastical Affairs And first of the gâ—nâ—ral Inspection to what Rights properly belong to Princes as to Ecclesiastical Affairs it is evident that since by the Doctrine of the Gospel the Civil Power is in no wise impaired and a Prince cherishes a Church under his Jurisdiction he legally claims a Right of having a general Inspection over this as well as all other Societies at least so far as to take care that nothing be transacted in these Colledges to his Prejudice For Mankind being so perverse in its Nature that in Matters even the most Sacred if managed without controul they seldom let it slip through their hands without a Stain And that therefore it is scarce to be questioned but the Christian Doctrine is subject to the same Corruption and that under Pretence of Religion many pernicious Designs may be hatched against the Interest of the Commonwealth A Prince in whose Territories a Church is planted if he afterwards enters into the Communion of that Church has
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
and perverted Zeal of some who make these Differences their Tools wherewith they often raise Disturbances in the State Such turbulent Spirits ought to be curbed and care to be taken so to tye up their Hands as that they want Power to influence the Minds of such Subjects as otherwise would be well satisfied to enjoy peaceably a Liberty of Conscience And what should move a Prince to disturb his good Subjects meerly upon the score of Differences in Opinion as long as they live quietly under his Goverment For supposing their Opinion to be erroneous it is not at his but their own Peril and they alone must be answerable for it For in my Opinion Sovereigns are entrusted with the Sword wherewith to dissect Controversies as Alexander did with the Gordian Knot But that it may not be objected as if I intended to encourage all sorts of Heresies and Licentiousness I do declare that this is far different from my purpose but that on the contrary it is to be wished and ought to be endeavoured to procure but one Faith and Religion in a State and especially such a one as is absolutely agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the Holy Scripture such a one as cannot but contrbute towards the maintaining of the Publick Tranquility For I do not think that all Uniformity in Religion is equally capable of procuring that Union neither can the Pagan Religion Mahometans Arians Anabaptists and that of Antichrist himself claim that Prerogative but only the true and antient Religion contained in the Holy Scripture For this is only to be deemed the truly Antient Religion which is derived from the pure and genuine Spring of the Primitive Christian Religion As among the Jews such only could boast to follow the true foot-steps of Antiquity as proved their Doctrine out of the Books of Moses All what degenerates from the Nature of its genuine Spring tho' back'd by the Traditions of some Ages being only to be look'd upon as an inveterate Error Princes being then Protectors of the Publick Tranquility have an Authority to inspect what Canons are received into the Church and to cause them to be examined according to the true Tenure of the Holy Scripture and this care is not to be committed to the management of a few who may perhaps be swayed by Faction or Interest but to all such as have a solid knowledge of the Holy Scripture If every thing be found consonant to its Rules then may a Sovereign by his Authority Command this Doctrine to be Taught both in publick and private But where there is not any Publick Form of Religion established in a Commonwealth it is the Sovereign's care that one may be composed by the assistance of such as are well versed in the Holy Scripture which being approved of by the general consent of his Subjects ought to be professed by all and all those especially who pretend to the Ministry are to be tyed up to its Rules This form of Worship being once received a Prince may justly deny his Peotection to all such as will not comply with it unless he find it to be against the Common Interest of the Common-weal If any one should undertake to contradict this Publick Form especially in such Points as are the Heads of the Christian Religion he ought to be admonished to desist his Reasons if he has any to be examined and when convicted of his Error to be silenced if all this prove fruitless he may lawfully be banished For since according to the Doctrine of the Apostles we are to avoid the Conversation of Hereticks it would be unreasonable that a whole Society of Men should fly from one or a few capricious Persons So that he or they ought to seek out for a new Habitation after they have been legally convicted of their Error for fear they should spread their erroneous Doctrines further than may be consistent with the Publick Safety But we allow no other Punishment in such a case except their Doctrine should amount to Blasphemy § 50. Notwithstanding what has been alledg'd Concerning Tolerating of several Religions in a State there may be such a juncture of Time Circumstances that Sovereigns may nay ought with a safe Conscience to tolerate such of their Subjects as are of a different Opinion from the Established Religion For it may so happen that the number of the Dissenters is so great as not to be expelled without great Prejudice to the State and not without danger to the Commonwealth if they should settle under another Government For that common Saying of a certain Sort of Men that 't is better to have a Country lie waste than to have it inhabited by Hereticks savours of Barbarity if not Inhumanity And a certain Prince who said that he would rather walk out of his Territories with nothing but a Staff in his hands than to suffer it to be inhabited by Hereticks may well pass for one of the most bigotted Zealots in Christendom For the Doctrine of the Gospel is not destructive to civil Society neither is thereby the least Obligation laid upon Princes to propagate Religion by violent and destructive means or to undertake more in that behalf than belongs to them as Protectors of the publick Tranquility they may therefore with a safe Conscience supercede such violent ways by which the State either is endangered or weakned especially since neither our Saviour did make use of them himself nor commanded any thing like it to his Apostles On the other hand those that expect to be tolerated in a State ought by all means to endeavour to live peaceably and quietly and as becomes good Subjects they ought not to Teach any Doctrine which savours of Sedition and Disobedience or to suffer such Principles to be fomented in their Congregations as may prove destructive to the Prerogatives of their Sovereigns For there is not the least question to be made but Princes have a right to rout out such as propagate these Doctrines they having not the least relation to Religion but are like spots wherewith some turbulen Heads bespatter the Christian Religion Besides this there is another duty incumbent to Sovereigns over a State where more than one Religion is tolerated viz. to keep a watchful eye over them that the Dissenting Parties do not break out into extravagant Expressions about the Differences in Religion these being the Fuel that enflames them into Animosities which oftentimes prove the spring of Factions Troubles and intestine Commotions A much greater Obligation lies upon Sovereigns to tolerate Dissenters if they when they first submitted to the Government had their Liberty of Conscience granted them by Contract or have obtain'd it afterwards by certain Capitulations any following Statutes or by the fundmental Laws of the Land all which ought to be sacred to Princes and to be observed by them with the same Circumspection as they expect a due Obedience from their Subjects No Opinion concerning matter of
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
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
§ LXV He entirely and without limitation ascribes to the Prince the Power of Constituting Ministers of the Gospel in the same manner as if they were Ministers of the State But in the Commonwealth of the Jews regulated according to God's own Institution no such Power was granted to their Kings Neither had the Apostles themselves tho' the most general Teachers that ever were as being sent to Preach the Gospel to all the World their Authority of Teaching from any Temporal Sovereigns Neither can it be proved that the Church at the time when Sovereigns first embraced the Christian Faith did transferr this Power of constituting Ministers of the Gospel without limitation to those Princes tho' at the same time it is not to be denied but that Sovereigns have a considerable share in it His Argument taken from the care Parents ought to have of the Salvation of their Children does not reach to what he pretends to prove for says he Princes being the Publick Fathers of the Common-wealth it belongs to their Princely Office to provide for the Eternal Salvation of their Subjects For besides that the Title of Father of the Commonwealth is a Metaphorical Expression the Fatherly and the Regal Office depend from a quite different Principle and the care to be taken of Children of a tender Age is of another Nature with that which ought to be employed for the Safety of a whole People neither were Sovereigns invested with the Supream Authority to enable them to procure Eternal Salvation to their Subjects God having prescribed other ways and means for the obtaining of it It cannot be denied but that a Prince must not be regardless of this Care nevertheless ought the same not to reach beyond its due Bounds but must be effected by such Methods as are approved of in the Holy Scripture and suit with the true Genius of the Christian Religion Wherefore it is in vain to attribute to Sovereigns a Power of obtruding any Religion at pleasure upon their Subjects it being beyond question that not all Religions are conducing to obtain Eternal Salvation So Abraham the Father of Believers did not impose upon his Children what Religion he thought most convenient but he charged them to walk in the ways of the Lord such as were manifested to them in the Holy Scripture What St. Paul says 1 Tim. 2. 2. is very well worth taking notice of viz. That the chief care of the Supream Governours shall be so to Rule over their Subjects that they may live under them not only honestly but piously this being the way to Eternal Salvation It is to be observed that those Princes for whom the Apostle enjoined the Christians to pray being Pagans made but little account of Piety especially of that belonging to the Christians but it was thought sufficient for the Christians to enjoy the common Benefit of the Publick Tranquility under their Protection the rest being left to their own care So we read that the Poet's enjoyment of his Muses was owing to Augustus Caesar's Protection nevertheless the Emperor did not concern himself about the Rules of Poetry Furthermore it is a very gross way of Arguing when he Asserts That the Commonwealth and Church are both one and the same thing under a Christian Prince whose Subjects also profess the Christian Religion the only difference being in respect of their different Qualifications They being in the Commonwealth to be considered as they are Subjects in the Church as Believers It seems Mr. Houtuyn looks upon that Difference to be of little moment which arises from divers Moral Qualifications and includes different Obligations and is founded upon another Legal Principle It is confess'd that in such a case where the Head is not differing in his Natural Constitution from the Rights and Power belonging to him the rest of the Members tho' differently considered under divers Qualifications are nevertheless to be look'd upon as one and the same Society As for instance If a Prince puts himself at the Head of all his Subjects upon an Expedition these tho' they may be considered either as Soldiers or Subjects yet do not differ in any Essential Part As for Example The People of Israel when going upon their Expedition under the Conduct of Joshua was the very same that afterwards under his Protection enjoyed and inhabited the Country of Canaan But the Church and Commonwealth tho' composed out of the self-same Persons do not only differ in their very Foundation but also a Sovereign cannot claim the same Right and Name of being the Supream Head of the Church in the same sense as he is the Supream Governour of the State For in the latter he exercises his Authority without controul being subject to no body But the Head of the Church is Christ who Rules it by his Word announced to us by the Teachers of the Church so that a Sovereign cannot as much as claim the Right of being Christ's Vicegerent in the Church And on the other hand tho' it is said of Christ That all Power is given unto him in Heaven and upon Earth nevertheless it cannot be said of him to be in the same manner the Head of Civil Societies as of the Church The next following Assertion runs thus Where the whole Commonwealth is not composed out of Christians the Church is a Congregation of the Believers in the Commonwealth But where all Subjects are Christians the Church is nevertheless nothing else than a Colledge in the Commonwealth But what he alledges of the Church being sometimes taken in the same sense with the Commonwealth is absolutely false For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 14 23. and those in Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are no Synoms but the latter is to be understood thus In all the Towns and Cities where there was any Christian Church The Inference he would make from the Military Function and the Administration of Justice being both included in one Government is to no purpose both of them owing their Off-spring to that End for which Civil Societies were instituted which is not the same in the Church and Sovereigns are entrusted with the Sword of War and Justice not with the Ministerial Function of Preaching the Gospel From whence it comes that Generals and Judges are subordinate to the Princely Office but not the Ministers of the Gospel they being barely considered as such not properly Ministers of the Prince and State but Ministers of Christ and the Church He says further That the assignation of the Ministerial Function does not appertain to the Internal part of Religion But if Faith comes from hearing and no body can believe without being instructed it is undeniable that those that Preach the Gospel have a share in the internal part of Religion they being to be considered as the Instruments by the help of whom the Gospel and consequently the Faith is conveyed to their Auditors It is false when he asserts That Sovereigns tho' no Christians have
a Right of constituting Ministers For says he their Right is the same But a Prince who makes not Profession of the Christian Faith tho' he has Christian Subjects under his Jurisdiction and allows them the free Exercise of their Religion has nevertheless not the least Power over their Church as being no Member of it It is no less false what he says that since Princes are become Christians the Vocation of Ministers does no more depend from the Church Just as a Man by submitting himself under another Jurisdiction is no more at his own disposal For a Prince by becoming a Member of the Church does thereby not make himself Master of that Church but rather submits to the Obedience of Christ the Head of the Church and therefore does not incroach all its Rights to himself but only can claim his share as such unless a certain Church should voluntarily surrender its Rights as far as it lies in its power to the Sovereign And I see no reason why the Church may not be under the Protection of a Christian Sovereign as representing a certain Person in the Commonwealth and therefore to Act and Decree by plurality of Votes which implies a Right at least by Consent For there is a Medium betwixt the State or Commonwealth and a disorderly Multitude viz. a Colledge where there is no occasion for a coerâ—ive â—overeign Power This may be illustrated by an Example For supposing in a Commonwealth a certain Society or Company of Merchants regulated by certain Statures of their own under the Direction of some of its own Members Into this Colledge a Prince has a mind to be received as a Member paying his certain share By being thus made a Member of this Company he has not obtained an absolute disposal over this Society but rather has accommodated himself to the Statutes of the Colledge neither can he claim any other Prerogative there but what is derived either from his share in that Company or from a free Gift and voluntary consent of the rest of its Members and as a Member of this Colledge he is to be considered not as a Prince but as a Merchant There is nevertheless one remarkable difference viz. That it is in the Power of a Sovereign to hinder the setting up of such a Society which is not the same in regard of the Church He plainly betrays his Ignorance when he says That the Church is to be considered as a multitude of People comprehended in the Person of one Prince from whence the Prince represents the People like one Publick Person through whom the whole People declare their Sentiments For tho' this be appliable to the Commonwealth it is not to the Church they being quite different from one another It cannot be denied but that those who have the Sovereign Power in the State may Enact what Laws they think most convenient But to attribute the same Power to Sovereigns over the Church is a Madness and savours of Blasphemy And supposing a Prince should be misled into Errors or Heresie must therefore the whole Church be accounted Erroneous or Heretical Except he would perswade us also that Princes are Infallible Wherefore in those places where the Election of Ministers is independent from the Prince it is supposed to proceed from a Right transferred unto him by the Church The same is to be understood where this Election is managed either by the Bishops or Presbyters But in case the same be done by the whole Church it would be preposterous to say that such an Election was made by vertue of a Priviledge granted by the Prince Mr. Houtuyn having granted before That the Pastoral Function not being annexed to any certain Person considered as such had no dependency from the Civil Jurisdiction but owed its Institution to Christ Nevertheless in § LXVI he affirms That the actual Administration of the Ministerial Function is an External Publick Act such as is subject to the Civil Power Which is the same in effect as if he said Matrimony is a Divine Institution but it depends from the Prince whether he will allow his Subjects to Marry actually or not For supposing a Sovereign should take a Resolution to forbid the antient Exercise of the Ministerial Function what would in such a Case become of this Pastoral or Ministerial Function It is also insufferable what he says immediately after An Election is a voluntary Act therefore revocable at pleasure it being certain that it cannot be done without impairing the Reputation of the Minister What relates to § LXVII It is denied that Nebuchadonosor had any legal Authority to put to Death such as refused to adore the great Statue set up by his Order For a Prince who inflicts any Punishment upon his Subjects against the express Command of the holy Scripture does not at that time exercise his legal Authority but commits an hostile and tyrannical Act. So when King Ahab under pretence of a legal Process and by subborning of false Witnesses possess'd himself of Naboth's Vineyard did no more exercise his legal Jurisdiction than a Guardian may be said to do when he commits a Rape upon a Pupil committed to his Management But when the same Nebuchadonosor publishes his Edict That no body dare to blaspheme the God of the Jews he did without all question nothing but what belong'd to his high Station He runs on further viz. That Peter John Stephen Paul nay even our Saviour himself did appear before the Sanhedrim before Foelix Festus Caesar and Pilate without taking the least Exception against the legality of their Jurisdiction What could be more falsely invented Did Peter and John acknowledge the Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim in respect of the Christian Doctrine when they told them to their very Faces that they would not obey their Command of not preaching in the Name of Jesus Did Stephen acknowledge the Jurisdiction Act. 4. 19 20. of the Sanhedrim when he told them You uncircumcised in your Hearts and Ears you always resist the holy Ghost Neither is it an Argument that Paul and an infinite Number of Martyrs did acknowledge the Jurisdiction of those Princes and other Civil Magistrates when they being forced to appear before them endeavoured to prove their Innocence there being no other Tribunal to which they could appeal and it being at that time look'd upon as a Crime deserving Death for any one to profess himself a Christian All the defence they made may be reduced under two Heads For they either denied those Crimes laid to their Charge as calumnious or else they asserted even to the last That the profession of the Christian Religion did not depend from the Civil Jurisdiction And those Magistrates that absolved the Confessors of this Truth did in effect give this Sentence That this was a Cause not belonging to their Jurisdiction It is a wonder to me how Mr. Houtuyn who pretends to be a Lawyer can find out any thing in the least resembling a legal Process in that
Action of Pilate it being to be considered no otherwise than a publick Robbery and a power Luk. 22. 53. of darkness since in all his Proceedings there is not a footstep of a legal Process to be met with And it is so manifest that when religious Matters were in question the due Method and judicial Order of a legal Process have been violated a thousand times over and over that it would be superfluous to alledge any Examples of it here When Sovereigns punish or chastise a Pastor or Minister of the Church who has abused his Function or been defective in it this power does properly not proceed from the Civil Jurisdiction but from a Right translated to the Sovereign by the Church But those that are punished by the Civil Authority because they have stirr'd up by their turbulent Speeches and Sermons the People to Rebellion against their Soverereigns or have attempted to withdraw the Auditors from and to resist the Power of a legal Jurisdiction cannot be said to undergo Punishment on the account of the Christian Religion Furthermore it is false that the Church considered as such can claim any Jurisdiction properly speaking It is no less false that the Power of disposing and exercising those Functions belonging to each Church is a civil Act in regard of its publick Effect Mr. Houtuyn has been drawn into all these Errors by confounding the Commonwealth with the Church If these two be not very nicely distinguished but we allow the Church to be entirely swallowed up in the civil Power what have we got by shaking of the Popish Yoak For the condition of the Church will be never the better if all Ecclesiastical Matters without Exception are left to the arbitrary Disposal of Sovereigns To maintain which Mr. Houtuyn in contradiction to all Reason and the Scripture it self has invented A spiritual Good or the eternal Welfare of People as the main End and Duty of the Sovereign Power By Vertue of which he enables his Prince to force his Subjects to profess publickly what Religion he will be pleased to impose upon them tho' never so contrary to their own Opinion For it may be sufferable for a Man to keep his own Opinion concealed to himself but to be oblig'd to profess what is quite contrary to it is both abominable and intolerable The Saying of Constantine the Great so much extoll'd by Mr. Houtuyn himself is contradictory to his Assertion viz. That he could have wish'd all his Subjects to have been Christians but that he never forced any For this Emperour not only never attempted to force any one from his own Opinion which indeed was beyond his Power but also never constrained his Subjects to profess themselves Christians against their own Inclinations Our Author does also not a little contradict himself in what he says concerning Words sometimes exempting them from any civil Cognisance whereas before he had made them liable to the civil Jurisdiction What says he if our Faith express'd by Words should come to the knowledge of our Sovereign It ought to be look'd upon not so much as a Crime but rather as an Error to correct which is not to be effected by Punishments which do illuminate our Mind but rather by good Instructions But those that know the real difference betwixt the Common-wealth and Church that is to say betwixt the State and a Colledge may without much difficulty dissolve these knotty Questions which he has started concerining the Jurisdiction and Legislative Power of Princes over the Church As to the § LXIX It is to be observed that it is put beyond all question that Sovereigns have a Right to give the Authority and Force of a Law to such Statutes as they find suitable to the State it being their Prerogative to determine according to what Laws Judgment is to be given in Civil Courts of Judicature what is punishable and what is to be left to the Conscience of every Subject But it implies an Absurdity to attribute to Sovereigns a Right of giving publick Authority to Prophesies themselves neither the Intrinsick nor Historical Faith having any dependence on the Civil Jurisdiction by the force of which Subjects may be obliged to act but not to believe From whence it is evident that if any Prophecy appear to be from God it cannot receive any Addition by the Authority of the Prince no more than if he should declare Cicero to be a good Latin Author But in case a pretended Prophecy be either ambiguous or supposititious in it self and a Prince should persuade himself to be able by his own Authority to make it pass current for Truth he would be look'd upon as one beyond his Senses What he insinuates concerning the New Testament in general is much of the same Stamp It was not says he in the power of Christ and his Apostles to establish this Doctrine of the New Testament by Publick Authority which was the reason it remain'd in a private condition â—ill such time when Princes having received the Christian Faith they gave it a publick Authority and the force of Laws But the Rules and Doctrine of Christ cannot receive any additional Strength from the Civil Power it being contrary to its Genius to be established and promoted by civil Punishments For whosoever out of fear of Temporal Punishments professes in outward shew only this Doctrine does not act according to nor fulfil the Will of Christ The same may be repliy'd to § LXX For as the Scripture and the Christian Doctrine do not owe their Authority to the civil Jurisdiction the latter being introduced in the Government by God's peculiar Assistance inspite of all the Resistance of the civil Powers So ought the Interpretation of the the ambiguous and controverted Passages in the holy Scripture not to be determined by the Sovereign Authority it belonging not to the Prince only but to the whole Church or such as are authorised by the Church tho' at the same time the Prince considered as the Chief Member of it cannot bâ—â—xcluded from having his share in such a Debate It is a prophane Expression when he says Christ himself having an unquestionable Power of introducing a new Law must needs have a right to interpret the same But since during the time of his abode here he lived among those that either out of Ignorance or Disobedience did not own Christ and that in a private Condition subject to the civil Power it is evident that his Laws Doctrine and the Interpretation of them did acquire their obliging Power and publick Authority from the civil Constitution A little more would have made the Office of Christ as being Mediator of the World also dependent from the civil Jurisdiction Is it not a prodigious Absurdity to affirm That the Doctrine of Christ has received its publick Authority from the civil Power among those who denied Christ And what follows That if at the time of Christ Princes had been Christians they would have acknowledged him for the