DISPUTATIO,

HABITA

IN SCHOLIS PUBLICIS,

ANNO 1756.

SUMMARY.

PRELIMINARY observations on the state of these realms before the Reformation, after that event, and after the Revolution. There are some, even in these days, who think that our separation from the church of Rome cannot be defended but by the plea of necessity; and when they would defend themselves from the crime of schism, endeavor with all their power to show that the doctrine of that church is full of errors, its discipline full of fraud, and its worship full of superstition : this, however, though true, is not necessary for our defence, if neither natural right nor the divine law requires that all men should be subject to the dominion of one particular church.

In defending the institutions of our country, it is first proposed to inquire, whence the authority of the church arises; how it is derived; what rules and what limits it has if by these means a firm barrier can be raised round ecclesiastical liberty, the most powerful attacks of our enemies may easily be repelled.

I. It is shown how all ecclesiastical power is delegated by the prince or ruling principle in the state to certain ministers, according to natural right.

II. It is next shown what are the limits which the authority of that ruling power must not overstep.

III. It is also shown that the holy Scriptures, so far from opposing what has been laid down from natural right, appear neither to increase nor diminish the force of any thing so laid down they do not loose Christians or priests from civil government, nor do they bind men to the church more than nature and right reason demand: this enlarged on. If no precepts have been given concerning the form of church government, nevertheless, examples proposed by Christ and his apostles may recommend one particular form above others. But examples, however venerable they may be, can have no effect, unless we are made well acquainted with them. Obscurity of the early forms of church government dilated on; nor, if the first system of church government were thoroughly known to us, could it or ought it to be established among us: this shown. Christ therefore has appointed no laws for governing his church different from those which God and nature sanction. Hence the defence of our own church may be deduced, and also that of the Scottish church. Differences between these two churches pointed out and commented on.

Ecclesiastici regiminis, in Anglia et Scotia constituti, neutra forma aut juri hominum naturali aut verbo Dei repugnat. CUM, per secula aliquot, jam acta, oculos referentes, tam civitatis nostræ quam ecclesiæ regimen contemplemur; utrum nobis præsens reipublicæ status voluptatem majorem, an præteritus admirationem excitare debeat, licebit dubitare. Hanc sane gentem, servitutis semper impatientem, et circumfuso mari munitam, crudeli tamen dominatu, et domesticos et externos tyrannos diu tenuisse, vix possumus satis mirari. Patres autem nostros in integerrimam et firmissimam libertatem se tandem vindicasse, non gaudemus modo, sed etiam plane triumphamus. Ecclesia quidem prior jugum servile dejecit; at, laxata ipsa, onus civitati demere non curavit. Civitas generosior, cum superstitio, solium regale iterum tenens, religioni perniciem mina

batur, indignata, et ad opem ferendam impetu quodam ruens, se ipsam, vix opinantem, e vinculis exemit. Quæ vero improvisa accesserat libertas, benignissimo excepta est hospitio: principia, quibus est fundata, in mentes hominum facillime irrepserunt. De rerumpublicarum origine, de regis auctoritate, de civium jure, nihil fere quæri potest, de quo inter omnes non convenit. At tyrannis ex ecclesia licet jamdiu exulaverit, tenebræ tamen, quas illa templis suis offundere solet, nondum omnes sunt discussæ; vel quod in ipsa caligine sanctum aliquod et religiosum inesse videatur; vel quod lux, ex alia parte orta, animos hominum ab hujus contemplatione avocaverit. Poterat sane argumentis, ex natura regiminis ecclesiastici petitis, libertas nostra abunde confirmari; sed homines, (id quod non raro accidit) ad alia remotiora et difficiliora attenti, hæc propiora et certiora negligunt. Hinc est, quod sint etiam nunc dierum, post ducentos annos, qui separationem nostram ab ecclesia Romana, nulla, nisi necessitatis excusatione, defendi posse existimant; qui, cum schismatis crimen effugere velint, id omni arte atque industria agunt, ut ejus doctrinam erroribus, disciplinam fraudibus, cultum Dei, ab ea institutum, superstitione refertum esse ostendant. At hæc, utcunque vera, in defensione nostra supervacanea sunt; si neque jus naturale neque leges divinæ id requirunt, ut omnes ecclesiæ uni imperio subjiciantur: quæ enim sine nexu conjunctæ sunt, possunt sine violentia secerni.

Liceat itaque mihi, patria instituta defendere volenti, prius quærere, ecclesiæ autoritas unde orta sit, quomodo derivata, quas regulas habeat, quos fines. Si enim, his fundamentis caute positis, firmum libertatis ecclesiasticæ propugnaculum comparetur, ictus hostium validissimi vel inermi manu repelli possunt.

Præcipuæ religionis externæ partes in publico Dei cultu et pia populi institutione continentur. At nec cultus iste sine ritubus, nec ritus sine hominum ministerio, celebrari possunt, Ut loca itaque, tempora, cærimoniæ præscribantur, et, hæc omnia qui curent eligantur, necesse est. Doctrina etiam popularis, nisi certos homines ad hujus curam leges accersant, et accersitos dirigant, vel negligetur, vel corrumpetur; neglecta vero religionem, corrupta civitatem perdet. Auctoritas igitur