The Church distinct from the State, in its origin; 191 DISTINCT. and retains the authority of a bishop, and the sheep ought CHURCH not to rise against the shepherd." pendency of and em This distinction of the ecclesiastical and imperial authority, SECT. XIII. and of the societies to which they belonged, and the inde- The independency of one upon the other was plain to all Christians the Church in former ages, and may be so still to any that will without pire. prejudice and partiality consider a few things. As first, the difference of their originals; the ecclesiastical authority having been given by God to Christ, and by Christ immediately to His Apostles, as is evident from Matt. xxviii. 18-20, and from the history of the Acts of the Apostles, who by virtue [Acts 5. 28, 29.] of their commission, did all things contrary not only to the commands of their own magistrates in Jerusalem, but to [ib. 17.7.] the "decrees of Cæsar" all over the empire; for which they were called "pestilent fellows, and movers of sedition;" and [ib. 24. 5.] without a Divine commission to act as they did, they had been indeed the most pestilent and seditious fellows that ever were in the world. "Go ye therefore (said our Lord) [Matt. 28. 18.] and teach all nations," and "take heed to yourselves (saith (Acts 20. 28.] St. Paul to the elders assembled at Miletus) and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His blood." Here is a spiritual power set up in the Apostles against the civil powers of the Jewish and Gentile world; a power in the name of King Jesus, to preach down the Jewish and Gentile religions, to form their proselytes into churches, to make laws for the regulation and preservation of them, and to turn the world upside down. "Two" such "independent supreme powers" there were then in the world, "clashing" and "interfering" with one another, by the fault of the secular power, for three hundred years together, even after the credentials of miracles ceased, one commanding to preach up Jesus, another commanding not to preach about Him; and though "God is the God of order and not of con- [1 Cor. 14. fusion," He made the Christians "subject to these two clashing powers, who commanded them not only different, but contrary things at the same timed." Rights, chap. i. p. 33. ["That there cannot be two independent powers in the same society," is the subject of the first chapter of the Rights; which Hickes here meets by shewing that the c Ibid., p. 35. d Ibid. 33.1 PREFAT. SECT. XIII. 192 Two independent societies and powers at first; The same persons, as for instance, the many thousands DISCOURSE, that made up the Church in Jerusalem, had two such heads, the one spiritual, and the other temporal; and if these "two heads make a monster," as he blasphemously speaks, it was a monster of God's making, for the power which He gave to Christ, Christ gave to the Apostles, and they also gave to others, to proselyte the subjects of all civil sovereigns, and form them into societies, whether they would or no. It was then they kept a weekly holy-day', I mean the first day of the week, when they were forbidden by the magistrate. It was then they "exercised their spiritual functions in this and that place," when "the civil power commanded them from thence;" it was then "the clergy & put men in such posts in the Church, as made it necessary for their spiritual subjects to converse with them," though "the magistrate forbad them to have correspondence with such persons." The same was afterwards done in the reigns of apostate and heretical emperors, and the wisest heads among the Christians then never complained, that these two independent powers were "monstrous" or "absurd," as he asserts again and again, to the great dishonour of God. This pretended absurdity he endeavours to make out by mere fallacies, to deceive unwary readers, as where he says, that the " same man can no more be under different obligations, than at different places," which is true; but then those who are subject to two independent powers, commanding contrary things, can be but under one obligation, as the Apostles said unto their own magistrates at Jeru[Acts 5.29; salem, "We ought to obey God rather than men, and whe4. 19.] ther it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you, more than unto Him, judge ye." Such another fallacious way of speaking is that, where he saith, that "there cannot be two independent powers in the same society;" this is his beloved phrase, which signifies nothing; for it begs the question by supposing the Church and empire to be one and the same society, which were always held to be different, Rights, p. 35. Ibid., [§ 2.] pp. 33, 34. ["One power may command him to keep holyday upon an ecclesiastical, the other to work upon a civil account: the ecclesiastical power may oblige a person to exercise his function, in this or that place; the civil power (for reasons relating to the state) may command him from thence."] g Ibid., p. 34. Ibid., chap. i. § 1. p. 33. i Ibid., p. 20, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, &c. The same persons may be subjects of distinct societies. 193 INDE and independent one of another; and therefore though there CHURCH cannot be two independent powers in the same society, yet PENDENT. in two such different societies there may be two independent powers, and the same persons may be subjects to both. So the same number of men may be freemen of the cities of London and York, and these two cities may sometimes clash and interfere with one another; but when that happens, they can be but under one obligation, and that is to side with the city they know or believe is in the right. But though the same men may put themselves under two independent powers, yet, by his way of reasoning, it is absurd to say that God can make them so subject. He hath the confidence to say, it is a doctrine'as absurd and impossible on earth, as multiplicity of Gods is in heaven;' and that it is a notion which, "instead of being founded in Christianity, savours most grossly of heathenish divinity." O tempora! O mores! But secondly, this ancient distinction of the ecclesiastical and imperial power, or of the Church from the empire, is evident not only from the difference of their several originals, but from their different extents, the different ways by which men are admitted into them, and their different rights and privileges, which for brevity's sake I shall consider altogether. For the Church is one society, one body all the world over, under one Priesthood, and one Head, Jesus Christ; from whence it comes to pass, that he who is rightly admitted into any one Church, is admitted into all; and he who is rightly turned out of one Church, is turned out of all; and he that hath a right to communion in one Church, hath a right of communion in all. Which is not so in empires, kingdoms, or sovereign states, which make not one, but many different and independent societies, among which, whosoever becomes a subject of one, doth not thereby become a subject of the others; nor can he, who can challenge the freedom and liberties of one of them, thereby challenge the freedom and liberties of all the rest. Natural birth, or civitatis donatio, which we call naturalization, makes a member and subject of the one; but spiritual birth or baptism, makes a member and subject of the other; and as baptizing a foreigner in the Church of England doth not make him a citizen of the Rights, chap. i. § 5. p. 36. 194 Other distinctions between Church and State. DISCOURSE, PREFAT. English nation, so neither doth his naturalization, as such, SECT. XIII. make him a member of the Church of England; because he may be an infidel, heretic, or excommunicate person, or a schismatic from the Catholic Church. These few suggestions shew that the Church and state are different societies, and independent of one another, and subsist by different powers, as they always do in ruptures of one from the other, however they happen; as when the Church abusing her power, and going beyond the limits of it, forces the state to defend itself against her by force; or on the other hand, when the state at any time happens to persecute the Church. I might also shew the difference between these two powers and societies, and the independency of one of them upon the other, from the diversity of their ends and objects; and the differing means, by which they obtain those different ends. But for that I refer my reader to the forecited proæmium of Du Pin'; and when he hath read it he will not wonder that all antiquity formerly admitted this distinction, as a principle fundamental to the Church; and that the emperor Valentinian I., upon the vacancy of the see of Milan", sending for the bishops of the province, spoke thus to them", "You know very well from the Scriptures what kind of man he ought to be, who is worthy of the high priesthood; that he should be a person who ought to instruct his subjects not only by his words, but by his works, setting forth himself as a pattern of all virtue, and his conversation as a testimony and proof of his doctrine. Wherefore now do you place such an one in the bishop's chair, that we who administer the empire, may with all sincerity bow down our heads to him, and receive his reprehensions as spiritual medicines; for we being but men, must of necessity sometimes do amiss." This he said upon principle before the election, in which St. Ambrose the governor of the place was chosen; and when he was conse [Appendix, No. v.] m [A.D. 374, on the death of Auxentius.] Theodoret., Eccl. Hist., lib. iv. cap. vi. [ἴστε σαφῶς, ἅτε δὴ τοῖς θείοις λόγοις ἐντεθραμμένοι, ὁποῖον εἶναι προσήκει τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης ἠξιωμένον· καὶ ὡς οὐ χρὴ λόγῳ μόνῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ βίῳ τοὺς ἀρχομένους ῥυθμίζειν, καὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἑαυτὸν ἀρχετύπον προτιθέναι, καὶ μάρ τυρα ἔχειν τῆς διδασκαλίας τὴν πολιτείαν· τοιοῦτον δὴ οὖν καὶ νῦν τοῖς ἀρχιερατικοῖς ἐγκαθιδρύσατε θώκοις, ὅπως καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ τὴν βασιλείαν ιθύνοντες, εἰλικρινῶς αὐτῷ τὰς ἡμετέρας ὑποκλίνωμεν κεφαλὰς, καὶ τοὺς παρ ̓ ἐκείνοι γενομένους ἐλέγχους (ἀνθρώπους γὰρ ὄντας καὶ προσπταίειν ἀνάγκη) ὡς ἰατρικὴν ἀσπασώμεθα θεραπείαν. Apud Eccl. Hist., tom. iii. p. 153.] Their distinctness held by antiquity, and universally. 195 INDEPENDENT. crated, "the most excellent emperor"," as the historian calls CHURCH him, being present at the consecration, praised our Lord and Saviour in these words°; "Thanks be given to Thee our Almighty Lord and Saviour, who hath committed the government of souls to him, to whom I had committed the government of bodies, by which Thou hast declared that my opinion of him was just." This was that St. Ambrose, who in his tract of the Dignity of the Priesthood P, shews the practice of Christian princes in these words: "Thou mayest see the necks of kings and princes bowed down to the knees of bishops, and kissing their right hands, as thinking themselves guarded with their prayers." It was then upon principle so much the practice of emperors to kiss the hands of bishops, that the tyrant Maximus, who set up for the empire, rose up in the councilchamber at Triers to kiss the hand of the same St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in his second ambassage to him from the young emperor Valentinian II., but Ambrose refused him that respect. Princes then thought themselves, like other men, subject to the sacerdotal power, of which they had the same notion after the union of the Church with the empire, as those Christians had who lived before it; and I doubt not but Tertullian's rule is good in defence of it and the Church against our author, Quod apud mullos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum; as likewise that of Vincentius Lirinensis, Quod ab omnibus creditum, hoc vere Catholicum3. • Rights, chap. vii. [ó távτa äpioTos βασιλεὺς . χάρις σοι δέσποτα παντόκρατορ καὶ σῶτερ ἡμέτερε, ὅτι τῷδε τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἐγὼ μὲν ἐνεχείρησα σώματα, σὺ δὲ ψυχάς· καὶ τὰς ἐμὰς ψήφους δικαίας ἀπέφηνας.—Ibid., p. 154.] P cap. ii. [quippe cum videas regum colla et principum submitti genibus sacerdotum, et, exosculata eorum dextra, orationibus eorum credant se communiri.- Pseudo-Ambrose de Dignitate Sacerdotali, S. Ambr. Op., tom. ii. App. p. 359, B. This tract is certainly not St. Ambrose's, though in the MSS., which are very numerous, it is with one exception attributed to him; in this one it is entitled 'Sermo Gilberti Philosophi, Papæ urbis Romæ, qui cognominatus est Silvester, de Informatione Episcoporum,' that is, Sylvester II. Pope from A.D. 999 to 1003. On this the Benedictine editors remark, ' Omnia et personæ et tempori satis congruunt.' ་ Monitum, p. 358.] Ambros. Epist. lvi. ad Valent. Imp. [Ubi sedit in consistorio ingressus sum, adsurrexit ut osculum daret. Ego inter consistorianos steti. Hortari cæperunt alii ut ascenderem: vocare ille. Respondi ego: quid oscularis eum quem non agnoveris.-S. Ambr., Epist. xxiv. Op., tom. ii. p. 888, E. ed. Ben. There is no reason to think it was the hand of St. Ambrose that he would have kissed. Of the tract de Dignitate Sacerdotali the Bened. editors remark, 'quod nihil contineat ab Ambrosii et ingenio et sæculo non alienum,' p. 357. For instances of the practice in the case of private Christians, see Bingham, Antiq., book ii. chap. ix. sect. 2.] De Præscriptione Hæreticorum c. 21. [c. 28. p. 212, A. ed. Ben.] 8 [Quod ab omnibus creditum est, hoc... est vere proprieque Catholi |