MM. AN ESSAY. 211 it is impossible in this case to gratify every religious sect or party in a nation. XI. Now if any weekly day whatsoever, be devoted to na- tural rest or to the worship of a god in acountry, as it serves the natural or civil interest of mankind, surely that very day seems most proper which the bulk of the people shall chuse, and espe- cially if both the rulers and the majority of the people agree in the same; even though thereason of their agreement is because they think it sacred to religion : Nor have the lesser sects or parties any reason to complain, that for the general good they are forbid public labours or sports, one day in a week. Upon this foot I think the final prohibition of public sports, labour or traf- fic on Sundays in a christian country may be vindicated. But if any particular sects think other days more sacred than those which are appointed by the government, they should never be constrained to work or labour on those days, except thenecessity of the state requires it, as I have before shewn. XII. These are some ofthe powers, whichI think a prince or a ruler may lay claim to in every religious society. And per- haps there may be yet a further right that the supreme civil power may have in religious societies, viz. wheresoever there is any colour or ground for suspicion that the members of these societies are doing any thing to the detriment ofthe public peace, there the prince may require the presence of some civil officer to inspect and see that nothing be done contrary to the welfare of the state : Always requiring at the same time that this officer make no manner of disturbance in the religious practices of this society, where theoffices of the civil government are not invaded, nor the public peace injured. If the prince has a right to do this in any other societies, where he has reason to suspect sedition, why may he not do it in religious societies also ? XIII. There are some other instances of power in things sacred which princes have claimed ; and even some of the best of our former writers in speaking of these matters, have allowed more power to civil governors in such points, than either reason or scripture will support. They have permitted princesto call and dismiss or concludesynods for settling religious controversies, to direct their meetings and to preside over them ? some have authorized them to adjust what crimes shall be subjected to church-censures, andwhat not, as well as to execute those cen- sures : They have given them power to determine circumstances in divine worship and to regulate all things of outward mode, form and ceremony, relating to order and decency, &c. But I can findno sufficient ground to justify these pretences eitherin reason or scriptures. That excellent writer Baron Puffendorf has fallen into these few mis- takes, in that valuable little discourse of his concerning '< The Relation be- tween Church cad State i or how -far the Christian and, Civil Life affect each o 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=