"the authority of the church, forget that the church

66

66

of Christ is not the CHILD of Kings and Queens becoming christians, but the MOTHER; that the "business of a mother is to nurse and feed her chil"dren, and not to be fed by them: and that the church "is thus represented even by those who are perpetually quoting this text? Nay the dean ought to be put in mind, that Christian kings and queens are a part of "this very church to which they are here represented

66

66

as nurses: and that if this text relates to Christ's "church, then Christian kings and queens are to nurse "themselves."-Dean of Worcester still the same, &c. p. 71. To all this, I will only suppose the dean to reply, "Can such a writer as this, so warm "in a cause touching the supremacy of the civil "magistrate, forget that a Christian king, is not the

66

HEAD, but a MEMBER of the church: that the "business of every member in a body is to minister to "the wants of every other, for we are members one of another [Eph. iv. v. 25.]; not to rule and domi

neer over all. Nay the bishop ought to be put in "mind, that as kings and queens are parts and mem"bers of this very church of which they are repre"sented as heads, their headship, instead of being

66

employed to govern others, must be exercised in governing themselves."-But, the force of this ingenious reasoning is more fully seen in the next Chapter, where we speak of natural and fictitious personality.

P. 175. [P]. Bishop Burnet, in his History of Charles II. p. 538. tells us, that Algernon Sidney's notion of Christianity was, that it was like a divine philosophy in the mind, without public worship, or any thing that looked like a church. That an igno

rant

rant Monk who had seen no further than his cell, or a mad fanatic who had looked beside his reason, should talk in this manner, would be nothing strange. But that a man so supremely skilled in the science of human nature and civil policy, and who knew so weli what religion was able to do for the state, should fall into this error, is indeed surprising. The view of those monstrous abuses which Christianity had done and suffered, in its application to the state's service, through a long age of ignorance, by a bloody and debauched clergy, and all for want of being guided by the principles here laid down, was, I suppose, the thing which struck him with horror, and inclined him to espouse this strange novelty; instead of recurring to that natural remedy, which another great man, embarked in the same cause, points out, where he describes the malady:Primo homines ut tutò ac liberè sine vi atque injuriis vitam agerent convenere in CIVITATEM; ut sanctè et religiosè, in ECCLESIAM: illa leges, hæc disciplinam habet suam, planè DIVERSAM. Hinc toto orbe Christiano per tot annos bellum ex bello seritur, quod MAGISTRATUS et ECCLESIA inter se OFFICIA CONFUNDUNT. Miltoni Defens. Pref.

End of NOTES to Book II.

THE

ALLIANCE

BETWEEN

CHURCH AND STATE.

BOOK III.

OF A TEST-LAW.

CHAP. I.

OF THE ORIGIN AND USE OF A TEST-LAW.

"MAGNA VIS VERITATIS, quæ contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, sollertiam, contraque fictas omnium insidias, facile se, per se, ipsa defendat *!" Thus breaks out the illustrious Roman, transported by a fit of philosophical enthusiasm. This force of truth never shone with greater lustre than on the present occasion: where, by the assistance of a few plain and simple principles, taken from the nature of man, and the ends of political society, we have cleared up a chaos of controversy; proved the justice and necessity of an ALLIANCE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE; deduced the mutual conditions on which it was formed; and shewn them to have an amazing agreement with our own happy Establishment. What remains is to vindicate the equity of what our constitution calls a * Cicer. Orat. pro Cœlio.

TEST

TEST-LAW; which we are now enabled to do on the very principles of our adversaries themselves.

The necessity of a NATIONAL RELIGION was, till of late, one of the most uncontested principles in politics. The practice of all nations and the opinion of all sages concurred to give it credit. To collect what the best and wisest authors of antiquity (where the consent was universal) have said in favour of a national religion, would be endless. We shall content ourselves with the opinion of two modern writers in its favour: who, being professed advocates for the common rights of mankind, will, we suppose, be favourably heard. "This (says one of them) was an"cient policy [viz. the union of the civil and religious "interests] and hence it is necessary that the people "should have a public leading in religion. For to deny the magistrate a worship, or take away a NATIONAL CHURCH, is as mere enthusiasm as the "notion which sets up persecution *." "Toward

keeping mankind in order (says the other) it is necessary there should be some religion professed and even ESTABLISHED †." Indeed not many, even now, will directly deny this necessity; though, by employing such arguments against a Test as would destroy an establishment, they open a way, though a little more obliquely, to this conclusion. But it is that unavoidable consequence springing from an established church in every place where there are diversities of religions, a TEST-LAW, which makes the judgment of so many revolt; and chuse rather to give up an establishment than receive it with this tyrannical attendant. Although it appears at first view, so evident that, when a church and state are in UNION, Shaftesbury's Characteristics, Vol. I. Tr. 1. § 2.

+ Wollaston's Religion of Nature Delineated, p. 124. D-VOL. VII.

R

he

he who cannot give security for his behaviour to both, may-with as much reason be deprived of some civil advantages, as he, who, before the UNION, could not give security to the state alone.

The matter, therefore, of greatest concern remains to be enquired into; namely, how the equity of a testlaw can be deduced from those principles of the law of nature and nations, by which we have so clearly proved the justice of an Established Religion. But here, as before, in the case of an establishment, it is. not to my purpose to defend this or that national form or mode of test; for it may so happen (I wish I could say it has not happened) that the very worst may be employed, where the dangers are pressing, or the passions of men inflamed; but to defend a TEST-LAW in general. By which I understand some sufficient proof or evidence required from those admitted into the administration of public affairs, that they are members of the religion established by law.

And, in shewing the justice, equity, and necessity of a test-law, I shall proceed in the manner in which I set out, and have hitherto observed, of deducing all my conclusions, in a continued chain of reasoning, from the simple principles at first laid down.

Hitherto I have considered that alliance, between church and state, which produces an establishment, only under its more simple form, i. e. where there is but one religion in the state. But it may so happen, that either at the time of convention, or afterwards, there may be more than one.

I. If there be more than one at the time of convention, the state allies itself with the LARGEST of these religious societies. It is fit the state should do so, because the larger the religious society is, where there

is