Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

fore, that though this government continues firm in the exercise of a false religion, yet this is by accident, through the present genius of the people, which may change: but this does not prove but that the nature of such a religion, of which we only now speak, tends to subvert and betray the civil power. Hence Machiavel himself, in his animadversions upon Livy, makes it appear, that the weakness of Italy, which was once so strong, was caused by the corrupt practices of the papacy, in depraving and misusing religion to that purpose, which he, though himself a papist, says, could not have happened, had the Christian religion been kept in its first and native simplicity. Thus much may suffice for the clearing of the first proposition.

The inferences from hence are two.

1. If government depends upon religion, then this shows the pestilential design of those that attempt to disjoin the civil and ecclesiastical interest, setting the latter wholly out of the tuition of the former. But it is clear that the fanatics know no other step to the magistracy, but through the ruin of the ministry. There is a great analogy between the body natural and politic; in which the ecclesiastical or spiritual part justly supplies the part of the soul, and the violent separation of this from the other does as certainly infer death and dissolution, as the disjunction of the body and the soul in the natural; for when this once departs, it leaves the body of the commonwealth a carcass, noisome and exposed to be devoured by birds of prey. The ministry will be one day found, according to Christ's word, "the salt of the earth," the only thing that keeps societies of men from stench and corruption. These two interests are of that nature, that it is to be feared they cannot be divided, but they will also prove opposite; and, not resting in a bare diversity, quickly rise into a contrariety. These two are to the state what the elements of fire and water are to the body, which united compose, separated destroy it. I am not of the papists' opinion, who would make the spiritual above the civil state in power as well as dignity, but rather subject it to the civil; yet thus much I dare affirm, that the civil, which is superior, is upheld and kept up in being by the ecclesiastical and inferior; as it is in a building, where the upper part is supported by the lower; the church resembling the foundation, which indeed is the lowest part, but the most considerable. The magistracy cannot so much protect the ministry, but the ministers may do more in serving the magistrate. A taste of which truth you may take from the holy war, to which how fast and eagerly did men go, when the priest persuaded them, that whosoever died in that expedition, was a martyr? Those that will not be convinced what a help this is to the magistracy, would find how considerable it is, if they should chance to clash; this would certainly beat out the other. For the magistrate cannot urge obedience upon such potent grounds, as the minister, if

F

As for instance, if my

so disposed, can urge disobedience. governor should command me to do a thing, or I must die, or forfeit my estate; and the minister steps in, and tells me, that I offend God, and ruin my soul, if I obey that command, it is easy to see a greater force in this persuasion from the advantage of its ground. And if divines once begin "to curse Meroz," we shall see that Levi can use the sword as well as Simeon; and although ministers do not handle, yet they can employ it. This shows the imprudence, as well as the danger of the civil magistrate's exasperating those that can fire men's consciences against him, and arm his enemies with religion. For I have read heretofore of some, that having conceived an irreconcilable hatred of the civil magistrate, prevailed with men so far, that they went to resist him even out of conscience, and a full persuasion and dread upon their spirits, that, not to do it, were to desert God, and consequently to incur damnation. Now when men's rage is both heightened and sanctified by conscience, the war will be fierce; for what is done out of conscience, is done with the utmost activity. And then Campanella's speech to the king of Spain will be found true, Religio semper vicit, præsertim armata; which sentence deserves seriously to be considered by all governors, and timely to be understood, lest it comes to be felt.

*

2. If the safety of government is founded upon the truth of religion, then this shows the danger of any thing that may make even the true religion suspected to be false. To be false, and to be thought false, is all in one respect of men, who act not according to truth, but apprehension; as, on the contrary, a false religion, while apprehended true, has the force and efficacy of truth. Now there is nothing more apt to induce men to a suspicion of any religion, than frequent innovation and change: for since the object of religion, God; the subject of it, the soul of man; and the business of it, truth, is always one and the same; variety and novelty is a just presumption of falsity. It argues sickness and distemper in the mind, as well as in the body, when a man is continually turning and tossing from one side to the other. The wise Romans ever dreaded the least innovation in religion: hence we find the advice of Mecenas to Augustus Cæsar, in Dion Cassius, in the fifty-second book, where he counsels him to detest and persecute all innovators of divine worship, not only as contemners of the gods, but as the most pernicious disturbers of the state. For when men venture to make changes in things sacred, it argues great boldness with God, and this naturally imports little belief of him; which if the people once perceive, they will take their creed also, not from the magistrate's laws, but his example. Hence in England, where religion has been still purifying, and hereupon almost always in the fire and the furnace; atheists and irreligious persons have

* See Serm. xii.

taken no small advantage from our changes. For in king Edward the sixth's time, the divine worship was twice altered in two new liturgies. In the first of queen Mary, the protestant religion was persecuted with fire and fagot, by law and public counsel of the same persons, who had so lately established it. Upon the coming in of queen Elizabeth, religion was changed again, and within a few days the public council of the nation made it death for a priest to convert any man to that religion, which before with so much eagerness of zeal had been restored. So that is observed by an author, that in the space of twelve years, there were four changes about religion made in England, and that by the public council and authority of the realm; which were more than were made by any Christian state throughout the world, so soon one after another, in the space of fifteen hundred years before. Hence it is, that the enemies of God take occasion to blaspheme, and call our religion statism. And now adding to the former those many changes that have happened since, I am afraid we shall not so easily claw off that name; nor, though we may satisfy our own conscience in what we profess, be able to repel and clear off the objections of the rational world about us, which not being interested in our changes as we are, will not judge of them as we judge: but debate them by impartial reason, by the nature of the thing, the general practice of the church; against which new lights, sudden impulses of the Spirit, extraordinary calls, will be but weak arguments to prove any thing but the madness of those that use them, and that the church must needs wither, being blasted with such inspirations. We see therefore how fatal and ridiculous innovations in the church are: and indeed when changes are so frequent, it is not properly religion, but fashion. This, I think, we may build upon as a sure ground, that where there is continual change, there is great show of uncertainty, and uncertainty in religion is a shrewd motive, if not to deny, yet to doubt of its

truth.

Thus much for the first doctrine. I proceed now to the second, viz.:

II. That the next and most effectual way to destroy religion, is to embase the teachers and dispensers of it. In the handling of this I shall show,

1. How the dispensers of religion, the ministers of the word, are embased or rendered vile. 2. How the embasing or vilifying them is a means to destroy religion.

1. For the first of these, the ministers and dispensers of the word are rendered base or vile two ways:

(1.) By divesting them of all temporal privileges and advantages, as inconsistent with their calling. It is strange, since the priest's office heretofore was always splendid, and almost regal,

that it is now looked upon as a piece of religion, to make it low and sordid. So that the use of the word minister is brought down to the literal signification of it, a servant; for now to serve and to minister, servile, and ministerial, are terms equivalent. But in the Old Testament the same word signifies a priest, and a prince, or chief ruler: hence, though we translate it "priest of On,' Gen. xli. 45, and "priest of Midian," Exod. iii. 1, and "as it is with the people, so with the priest," Isa. xxiv. 2, Junius and Tremellius render all these places, not by sacerdos, priest, but by præses, that is, a prince, or at least, a chief counsellor, or minister of state. And it is strange, that the name should be the same, when the nature of the thing is so exceeding different. The like also may be observed in other languages, that the most illustrious titles are derived from things sacred, and belonging to the worship of God. Baotos was the title of the Christian Cæsars, correspondent to the Latin Augustus; and it is derived from the same word that séßaoua, cultus, res sacra, or sacrificium. And it is usual in our language to make sacred an epithet to majesty; there was a certain royalty in things sacred. Hence the apostle, who, I think, was no enemy to the simplicity of the gospel, speaks of "a royal priesthood," 1 Pet. ii. 9, which shows, at least, that there is no contradiction or impiety in those terms. In old time, before the placing this office only in the line of Aaron, the head of the family, and first-born offered sacrifice for the rest; that is, was their priest. And we know, that such rule and dignity belonged at first to the masters of families, that they had jus vitæ et necis, jurisdiction and power of life and death in their own family; and from hence was derived the beginning of kingly government, a king being only a civil head, or master of a politic family, the whole people; so that we see the same was the foundation of the royal and sacerdotal dignity. As for the dignity of this office among the Jews, it is so pregnantly set forth in holy writ, that it is unquestionable. Kings and priests are still mentioned together, Lam. ii. 6, "The Lord hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest;" Hos. v. 2, "Hear, O priests, and give ear, O house of the king;" Deut. xvii. 12, "And the man that doeth presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die." Hence Paul, together with a blow, received this reprehension, Acts xxiii. 4, "Revilest thou God's high-priest?" And Paul in the next verse does not defend himself, by pleading an extraordinary motion of the Spirit, or that he was sent to reform the church, and might therefore lawfully vilify the priesthood and all sacred orders; but in the fifth verse he makes an excuse, and that from ignorance, the only thing that could take away the fault; namely, "that he knew not that he was the high-priest,' and subjoins a reason which farther advances the truth here

[ocr errors]

defended; "for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." To holy writ we might add the testimony of Josephus, of next authority to it in things concerning the Jews, who in sundry places of his history sets forth the dignity of the priests; and in his second book against Apion the grammarian, has these words, πάντων τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων δικασταὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐτάχθησαν, the priests were constituted judges of all doubtful causes. Hence Justin also in his thirty-sixth book has this, Semper apud Judæos mos fuit, ut eosdem reges et sacerdotes haberent. Though this is false, that they were always so, yet it argues, that they were so frequently, and that the distance between them was not great. To the Jews we may join the Egyptians, the first masters of learning and philosophy. Synesius, in his 57th epist., having shown the general practice of antiquity, ὁ πάλαι χρόνος ἤνεγκε τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἱερέας τε καὶ κρίτας, gives an instance in the Jews and Egyptians, who for many ages inò Tv iεpér Basthavensar, had no other kings but priests. Next, we may take a view of the practice of the Romans: Numa Pompilius, who civilized the fierce Romans, is reported in the first book of Livy sometimes to have performed the priest's office himself, Tum sacerdotibus creandis animum adjecit, quanquam ipse plurima sacra obibat; but when he made priests, he gave them a dignity almost the same with himself. And this honour continued together with the valour and prudence of that nation for the success of the Romans did not extirpate their religion; the college of the priests being in many things exempted even from the jurisdiction of the senate, afterwards the supreme power. Hence Juvenal, in his 2nd Sat., mentions the priesthood of Mars, as one of the most honourable places in Rome. And Julius Cæsar, who was chosen priest in his private condition, thought it not below him to continue the same office when he was created absolute governor of Rome, under the name of perpetual dictator. Add to these the practice of the Gauls mentioned by Cæsar, in his 6th book de Bello Gallico, where he says of the Druids, who were their priests, that they did judge de omnibus ferè controversiis publicis privatisque. See also Homer in the first book of his Iliad, representing Chryses priest of Apollo, with his golden sceptre, as well as his golden censer. But why have I produced all these examples of the heathens? Is it to make these a ground of our imitation? No, but to show that the giving honour to the priesthood was a custom universal amongst all civilized nations. And whatsoever is universal is also natural, as not being founded upon compact, or the particular humours of men, but flowing from the native results of reason; and that which is natural neither does nor can oppose religion. But you will say, This concerns not us, who have an express rule and word revealed. Christ was himself poor and despised, and withal has instituted such a ministry. To the first part of this plea I answer, that VOL. I.-9

F2

« AnteriorContinuar »