« السابقةمتابعة »
wealth is one way, and a Church another way, defined. In their opinions, The Church and Commonwealth are Corporations, not distinguished only in nature and definition, but in subsistence perpetually severed; so that they which are of the one can neither appoint nor execute in whole nor in part the duties which belong to them which are of the other, without open breach of the Law of God, which hath divided them, and doth require that so being divided they should distinctly or severally work, as depending both upon God, and not hanging one upon the other's approbation for that which either hath to do. We say, That the care of Religion being common to all Societies Politic, such Societies as do embrace the true Religion have the name of the Church given unto every one of them for distinction from the rest; so that every Body Politic hath some Religion, but the Church that Religion which is only true. Truth of Religion is the proper difference whereby a Church is distinguished from other politic Societies of men; we here mean true Religion in gross, and not according to every particular :* for they which in some particular points of Religion do sever from the Truth, may nevertheless truly (if we compare them to men of an heathenish Religion) be said to hold and profess that Religion which is true. For which cause, there being of old so many politic Societies stablished through the world, only the Commonwealth of Israel which had the Truth of Religion was in that respect the Church of God: and the Church of Jesus Christ is every such politic Society of men as doth in Religion hold that Truth which is proper to Christianity. As a politic Society it doth maintain Religion, as a Church that Religion which God hath revealed by Jesus Christ. With us, therefore, the name of a Church importeth only a Society of men, first united into some public form of Regiment, and secondly, distinguished from other Societies by the exercise of Religion. With them on the other side, the name of the Church in this present question importeth not only a multitude of men so united and so distinguished, but also further the same divided necessarily and perpetually from the body of the Commonwealth ; so that even in such a politic Society as consisteth of none but Christians, yet
. [See Vol. II. p. 301, “ CHURCH is a word, &c.”]
the Church and Commonwealth are two Corporations (each] independently subsisting by itself.
We hold, That seeing there is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the Commonwealth, nor any member of the Commonwealth which is not also of the Church of England ;* therefore as in a figure triangle the base doth differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the self-same line is both a base and also a side; a side simply, a base if it chance to be the bottom and underlie the rest; so, albeit properties and actions of one do cause the name of a Commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of the Church, to be given to a multitude, yet one and the self-same multitude may in such sort be both.† Nay, it is so with us, That no person appertaining to the one can be denied also to be of the other: contrariwise, unless they against us should hold, That the Church and the Commonwealth are two, both distinct and separate societies; of which two one comprehendeth always persons not belonging to the other, (that which they do) they could not conclude out of the difference between the Church and the Commonwealth, namely, that the Bishops may not meddle with the affairs of the Commonwealth, because they are Governors of another Corporation, which is the Church ; nor Kings, with making Laws for the Church, because they have Government, not of this Corporation, but of another divided from it, the Commonwealth ; † and the walls of separation between these two must for ever be upheld : they hold the necessity of Personal separation, which clean excludeth the power of one man's dealing with both; we of Natural, but that one and the same person may in both bear principal sway.
* [Thus have men willingly allowed themselves to be deluded, and would delude others ; for not by Scriptural but by Secular Law is every individual constrained to be a member of a National Church ; to which constraint Reason and Revelation being equally opposed, it is therefore so far not a Scriptural but a fictitious Church. A Religion consisting of types and ceremonies, and whose requirements could be observed in accordance with the letter of its injunctions might, as was the Jews', be one with a Commonwealth. But such a Religion not being now sanctioned by the Deity, and one of a totally opposite nature having been substituted, whose ministrations must be observed “not of the letter, but of the spirit,” (2 Cor. iii. 6); and which requires of all its followers the internal qualifications of “ belief” and
regeneration,” not simply ritual, but actual; and operative from a divine principle, not because of “the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colos. ii. 22); it follows, that every Christian, and consequently every true Church, is composed only of members, as far as can be judged of by“ discerning of spirits” (1 Cor. xii. 10), who are thus Scripturally combined; agreeably to Article XIX. of the Church of England, “ The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men.”]
† [Every person born within the bounds of the Commonwealth is a subject thereof; but Baptism being the initiating rite into the visible Church of Christ, no person can be a member of it so soon as born, and may never ritually become one: hence it is only by Secular Law that every“ member of the Commonwealth is also of the Church."]
I [A New Testament Bishop is restrained from the one, in 2 Tim. ii. 4; and though a temporal officer may hold his office by hereditary succession, an hereditary vicegerent in the
The causes of common-received errors in this point seem to have been especially two: one, That they who embrace true Religion, living in such Commonwealths as are opposite thereunto; And, in other public affairs, retaining Civil communion with such as [them]; are constrained, for the exercise of their religion, to have a several communion with those who are of the same Religion with them. This was the state of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and Babylon; the state of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this case, because the proper affairs and actions of the Church, as it is the Church, hath no dependance on the Laws, or upon the Government of the Civil State, an. opinion hath thereby grown, that even so it should be always. This was it which deceived Allen in the writing of his Apology: “ The Apostles (saith he) did govern the Church in Rome, when Nero bare rule, even as at this day in all the Church's dominions: the Church hath a spiritual Regiment without dependance, and so ought she to have amongst Heathens, or with Christians.” Another occasion of which misconceit is, That things appertaining to Religion are both distinguished from other affairs, and have always had in the Church spiritual persons chosen to be exercised about them. By which distinction of Spiritual affairs and persons therein employed, from Temporal, the error of Personal separation always necessary between the Church and Commonwealth hath strengthened itself. For of every politic Society that being true which Aristotle saith, namely, “ That the scope thereof is not simply to live, nor the duty Arist. so much to provide for the life, as for means of living lib.iii
. well: and that even as the soul is the worthier part of cap. 6. Church of Christ is a monstrous anomaly in its economy, and militates against Christ's doctrine to Nicodemus, " a Ruler of the Jews,” John iii. 1—7.]
[Bishop WARBURTON, in his Alliance between Church and State, Book II. chap. 5. (Works, Vol. IV. 1748. 4to.) says, " Aristotle's words are literally these, that society was instituted first for the sake of living, simply ; and then for the sake of living happily : nivouévn uè oồv toû şîv ČVEKEV, oùou de Toù eů 3ņu. (Pol. lib. i. c. 2.) He is extremely concise. But his meaning seems to be this, That the primary end of Civil Society, was to secure men from that mutual violence to which they are exposed in a state of nature: the secondary, to promote those accommodations of life which Civil Society only can bestow. And here I am sorry to observe, that this excellent man, in paraphrasing the words of Aristotle, so as to
Livius, lib. i.
man, so human Societies are much more to care for that which tendeth properly to the soul's estate, than for such
temporal things which the life hath need of: Other proof (Matt. there needeth none to shew that as by all men the Kingdom vi. 33.)
of God is to be sought first, so in all Commonwealths things spiritual ought above temporal to be sought for; and of things spiritual, the chiefest is Religion. For this cause, persons and things employed peculiarly about the affairs of Religion, are by an excellency termed Spiritual.* The
Heathens themselves had their Spiritual laws, and causes, lib. vi. and affairs, always severed from their temporal; neither Lapim did this make two independent estates among them. God
by revealing true Religion doth make them that receive it his Church. Unto the Jews he so revealed the truth of Religion, that he gave them in special considerations Laws, not only for the administration of things spiritual, but also temporal. The Lord himself appointing both the one and the other in that Commonwealth, did not thereby distract it into several independent communities, but institute several functions of one and the self-same community: some reasons therefore must there be all ready why it should be otherwise in the Church of Christ.
I shall not need to spend any great store of words in of their answering that which is brought out of the Holy Scripture
to shew that Secular and Ecclesiastical affairs and offices from the are distinguished; neither that which hath been borrowed
from antiquity, using by phrase of speech to oppose the Commonweal to the Church of Christ; neither yet their reasons which are wont to be brought forth as witnesses, that the Church and Commonweal were always distinct : for whether a Church or Commonweal do differ, is not the question we strive for ; but our controversy is concerning the kind of distinction whereby they are severed the one from the other; whether as under Heathen Kings the Church did deal with her own affairs within herself without depending at all upon any in Civil Authority, and the Commonweal in hers, altogether without the privity of the Church, so it ought to continue still even in such Common
difference of affairs and offices,
give a sense to his purpose (a purpose the Greek philosopher never thought of) has added, . nor the duty so much to provide for the life,' meaning this life." This passage in Aristotle is also commented on in Note *, Vol. I. p. 106. The passage in cap. 6 referred to by Hooker is, by Aristotle himself, referred to cap. 2.]
* [See Vol. II. p. 417.]
weals as have now publicly embraced the truth of Christian Religion; whether they ought evermore to be two Societies in such sort, several and distinct. I ask therefore, what Society was that in Rome, whereunto the Apostle did give the name of the Church of Rome in his time? If they answer (as needs they must) that the Church of Rome in those days was that whole Society of men which in Rome professed the name of Christ, and not that Religion which the Laws of the Commonweal did then authorize; we say as much, and therefore grant that the Commonweal of Rome was one Society, and the Church of Rome another, in such sort that there was between them no mutual dependence. But when whole Rome became Christian, where they all embraced the Gospel, and made Laws in defence thereof, if it be held that the Church and Commonweal of Rome did then remain as before, there is no way how this could be possible, save only one, and that is, they must restrain the name of a Church in a Christian Commonweal to the Clergy, excluding all the rest of believers, both Prince and people. For, if all that believe be contained in the name of the Church, how should the Church remain by personal subsistence divided from the Commonweal, when the whole Commonweal doth believe? The Church and the Commonweal are in this case therefore personally one Society, which Society being termed a Commonweal as it liveth under whatsoever form of secular Law and Regiment, a Church as it liveth under the spiritual Law of Christ; forsomuch as these two Laws contain so many and different Offices, there must of necessity be appointed in it some to one charge, and some to another, yet without dividing the whole and making it two several impaled Societies. * The difference therefore either of affairs or offices Ecclesiastical 1 Chron. from Secular, is no argument that the Church and Com- Heb.v.1.
[In this paragraph the word “ Church" has two meanings. Without stopping to inquire what apostle, and where does any apostle name " the church of Rome ?” it is granted by Hooker, that that church and the commonweal had “ no mutual dependence." But it must indeed be seriously inquired, When did “all Rome embrace the Gospel,” and all become “ believers, both Prince and people ?" It may be safely answered, Never did they become that “ peculiar people,” mentioned Tit. ii. 14. Again: the words “ embraced” and " believed" must here be understood in a far different sense from Rom. x. 8—10, the majority of no city or province having ever united the sincerity of confession and belief laid down by the Apostle. A Church, then, not made up principally of those who thus confess and believe; which is the case when the secular power places all indiscriminately within the same enclosure, is not that kind of Church which Christ and his apostles instituted and approved; Eph. ii. 20.]