« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
to make it go down the better, to make the object of this submission as reasonable as possible. Whereas the others, beginning with the Christian doctrine, which they aimed to render as absurd as possible, very equitably contrived to make it sit easy on their followers, by a licentious kind of toleration destructive of all Church Discipline.
End of Notes to Book I.
CHURCH AND STATE.
OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
OF THE NATURE OF THAT UNION BETWEEN CHURCH
AND STATE, WHICH PRODUCES A RELIGION ESTABLISHED BY LAW.
HAVING now dispatched the first part of this
I. The Origin of Civil Society; the natural deficiency of its plan; and how the influence of religion only can supply that defect:
II. How all natural and moral good, and consequently this of Religion to the State, may be improved by human art and contrivance; together with the necessity there is of seeking this improvement: And,
III. As the finding it depends on an exact knowledge of a civil and of a Religious Society, their distinct natures and ends have been shewn and explained :
We are at length enabled to discover how this improvement is to be brought about.
For having, by a diligent enquiry, found,
I. First, That the care of Civil Society extends only to the Body and its concerns ; and the care of Religious Society only to the Soul; it necessarily follows, that the civil magistrate, if he will improve this natural influence of Religion by human art and contrivance, must seek some UNION or ALLIANCE with the Church. For his office not extending to the care of souls, he hath not, in himself, power to inforce the influence of religion: and the church's province not extending to the body, and consequently being without coercive power, she has not, in herself alone, a power of applying that influence to civil purposes. The conclusion is, that their joint powers must co-operate, to apply and inforce the influence of religion, in such a manner as may best serve the true interests both of church and state. But they can never act conjointly but in union and alliance *
II. Secondly, Having found, that each society is sovereign, and independent on the other, it as necessarily follows, that such union can be produced only “ Inæquale
* Ambas potestates, ecclesiasticam et civilem, ita esse divino numine constitutas, ut in suo genere & ordine unaquæque sub uno Deo proxime collocata prima ac suprema fit: collatæ vero invicem, sociæ fæderatæque sunt,ergo ambæ potestates supremæ ac principes in suo ordine, conjunctæque & amicæ, non una alteri per sese subdita, subordinataque est--satis enim claruit duas quidem potestates esse oportere, ecclesiasticam & civilem, quæ principales ac supremæ, & tamen sociæ, conjunctæ & amicæ, ne societas humana distrahatur. Mutuam sibi operam debent, præstantque, & sese mutuo non tantum adjuvant, verum etiam temperant. Bossuet, I. v. C. 31, 32, & 33. F. T.
by FREE CONVENTION AND MUTUAL COMPACT: because whatever is sovereign and independent can be brought to no act without its own consent: but nothing can give birth to a free convention, but a sense of mutual wants which may be supplied, or a view of mutual benefits which may be gained, by it. Such, then, is the nature of that Union which produceth a CHURCH BY LAW ESTABLISHED; and which is indeed no other than a politic league and alliance for mutual support and defence. For the state not having the care of souls, cannot, of itself, inforce the influence of religion ; and therefore seeks aid of the church: and the church having no coercive power (the consequence of its care not extending to bodies) as naturally flies for protection to the state *. This being of the nature of that alliance which Grotius calls, FÆDUS INÆQUALE. “ fædus (says he) hic intelligo quod ex ipsa vi pac“ tionis manentem prælationem quandam alteri donat : oc Hoc est ubi quis tenetur alterius imperium ac majes
tatem conservare UT POTENTIORI PLUS HONORIS, INFERIORI PLUS AUXILII DEFERATUR 7."
From whence it is seen, that, were those common notions true, which we have been at so much pains to confute, concerning the nature of a church and state, there could be neither room nor motive for this alliance. Were they not independent on each other, there could be no ROOM; because freedom of will, the very essence of this alliance, would be wanting on one part;
* Hæc extant præclara Arnulfi Lexovensis Episcopi verba, “ Dignitas ecclesiastica regiam provehit potius quam adimit dig. “ nitatem, et regalis dignitas ecclesiasticam conservare potius " consuevit quam tollere libertatem. Equidem quasi quibusdam “ sibi invicem complexibus dignitas ecclesiastica & regalis con“ current; cum nec reges salutem sine ecclesia, nececclesia pacem “ sine protectione regia consequatur.” Marca, 1. ii. C. 12. F.T.
+ De Jure Belli & Pac. Lib. i. cap. ü. $ 21,
and had the state the care of souls, or the church the care of bodies, there could be no mutual MOTIVE; for, in the first case, the state, by its own authority, might apply religion to civil purposes : in the latter, the church, having, in consequence of the care of bodies, an inherent coercive power, might, by its authority, provide for its own security.
An ALLIANCE then, by free convention, being in its nature such that each party must have its motives for contracting ; our next enquiry will be, first,
I. What those motives were, which the state had for seeking, and the church for accepting, the offers of an Union. And, secondly,
II. What were the mutual benefits and advantages arising therefrom.
By the first part of which enquiry, we hope to make it appear, THAT THIS ALLIANCE WAS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY FOR SECURING THE WELL-BEING AND HAPPINESS OF CIVIL SOCIETY : And by the second, THAT NO COMMON RIGHT OF MAN, CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS, IS IMPEACHED BY IT. To demonstrate which is one of the principal ends of this discourse.
OF THE MOTIVES THE STATE HAD TO SEEK, AND
THE CHURCH TO ACCEPT, AN ALLIANCE.
THE motives the magistrate had to seek this Alliance were these:
I. To preserve the essence and purity of Religion.
II. To improve its usefulness, and apply its influence in the best manner.