sion being an act of supremacy, it must needs be authorized by him with whom the supremacy is now lodged. Besides, did the church retain this power under an establishment, nothing could hinder but that it might extend to the supreme magistrate himself: and how absurd it would be for the body to expel the head, any one may judge. That our ancient constitution thus restrained the exercise of this power appears from the old writ of quare excommunicavit *. · But then it is to be observed, that excommunication for doctrines and matters of opinion, even when authorized by the state, must still (the state having nothing to do with the care of souls, nor the church with the care of bodies) as before the union, be free from civii censures or inconveniencies; other than accidentally befal the expelled person from a Test-law, in those states where the protection of the church, and the peace of the state, requires its assistance. Different in this, from excommunication for immoralities; which, under an establishment, hath reasonably and justly civil censures annexed to it †.

From this account of the supremacy may be deduced

this COROLLARY:

That the conferring on the supreme magistrate, the TITLE OF HEAD OF THE CHURCH, is by no means inconsistent with the nature of our holy religion.

This

sequitur regem nec regios magistratus aut officiales excommunicationibus vel aliis censuris eam ob causam inflictis obnoxios esse. Alioqui majestas imperii minueretur, & a judicum ecclesiasticorum arbitrio penderet. Marca, 1. iv. c. 21. F.T.

* See note [N] at the end of this Book.

↑ Quod autem inter christianos excommunicati, nisi resipiscant, sint infames, & ad quædam vitæ civilis officia inhabiles, ita ex eo ortum est, quod christiani principes, quoad fieri potest, leges suas ad bonos mores atque evangelicam disciplinam aptent; non quod excommunicatio per se ullo temporali jure bonoque privet. Bossuet, l. v. c.22. F. T.

This title hath been misrepresented by the enemies of our happy establishment, as the setting up a LEGISLATOR, in Christ's kingdom, in the place of CHRIST. But it hath been shewn, that no other jurisdiction is given to the civil magistrate by this supremacy than the church, as a mere political body, exercised before the convention. This, with regard to the title of Head of the Church, the famous Act 26 Hen. VIII. c. 1. explicitly declares, "The King, "his heirs and successors, shall be taken and reputed "the only SUPREME HEAD in earth, of the CHURCH

OF ENGLAND. And shall have full power, from "time to time, to visit, reform, correct, and amend, "all such errors, heresies, and enormities whatsoever

66

they be, which BY ANY MANNER OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION ARE OR LAW"FULLY MAY BE REFORMED, ordered, corrected, " or amended." That is, which the church, as a society, or political body, concerned only about SPIRITUAL things, was before empowered to do. From hence it follows, that if the magistrate's jurisdiction be an usurpation on the rights of Christ's kingdom, so likewise was the church's. That the church's was no usurpation, but perfectly consistent with the rights of Christ's kingdom, may be thus proved; judaism was, in every sense, as strictly, at least, and properly the kingdom of God, as christianity is the kingdom of Christ: yet this did not hinder, but that there was, by God's own approbation and allowance, an inferior jurisdiction in the Jewish state. What then shall make the same unlawful in the Christian church? This, both had in common, to be political societies by divine appointment; but different in this, that God, for wise ends, minutely prescribed the whole mode of Jewish policy and Christ, on the contrary, with the same divine

M 2

divine wisdom, only constituted the church a policied society in general; and left the mode of it to human discretion *. But I suspect the matter sticks here: these men will not allow the church, or kingdom of Christ, to be a society in any proper sense. This indeed is the darling notion of the enemies of establishments. It is certain, the argument of usurping in Christ's kingdom hath no force but on the supposition that the church is no proper society. However, this subterfuge we have totally overthrown; having proved at large that the church indeed composes a society.

Thus have I shewn and explained the mutual privileges GIVEN and RECEIVED by church and state, in entering into this famous CONVENTION. The aim of the state being, agreeably to its nature, UTILITY: and the aim of the church, agreeably to her's, TRuth. From whence we may observe, that as these privileges all took their rise, by necessary consequence from the fundamental article of the convention, which was, that the church should serve the state, and the state protect the church; so they receive all possible addition of strength, from their mutual dependency on one another. This we have reason to desire may be received as a certain mark that our plan of alliance is no precarious arbitrary hypothesis, but a theory founded in reason, and the unvariable nature of things. For having, from the real essence of the two societies, and their different natures, collected the necessity of allying, and the freedom of the compact; we have, from the necessity, fairly introduced it; and, from its freedom, consequentially established every mutual term and condition of it. So that now if the reader should ask, "Where this charter, or treaty of convention for the "union of the two societies, on the terms here deli

* See Hooker's Eccl. Pol.

vered,

vered, is to be found?" We are enabled to give him a satisfactory answer. It may be found, we say, in the same archive with the famous ORIGINAL COMPACT between magistrate and people, so much insisted on, in vindication of the common rights of subjects. Now when a sight of this compact hath been required of the defenders of civil liberty, they held it sufficient to say, that it is enough for all the purposes of fact and right, that such original compact is the only legitimate foundation of civil society; that if there were no such thing formally executed, there was virtually; that all differences between magistrate and people ought to be regulated on the supposition of such a compact; and all government reduced to the principles therein laid down; for that the happiness of which civil society is productive, can only be attained by it, when formed on those principles. Now, something like this, we say of our ALLIANCE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. But we say more; for,

CHAP. IV.

THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS, OF ALL OTHER, BEST FITTED FOR SUCH AN ALLIANCE WITH THE STATE AS MAY BE MOST PRODUCTIVE OF THEIR MUTUAL ADVANTAGE: AND THAT OUR OWN IS THE MOST PERFECT OF ALL CHRISTIAN ESTABLISHMENTS.

WE have been the fuller in this account, in order to shew our adversaries, how unreasonable, and even impolític they are, when, in their ill humour with establishments, they chuse to pick a quarrel with their own; where the national religion is on a footing exactly agreeable to the nature of a free convention between

M.3

In

between church and state, on the principles of the laws of nature and nations. A felicity (they should have known,) which scarce any other people on the face of the earth can boast of: for let them look around, and tell us, if they can find another place where the state doth not encroach on the church; or, what is indeed much the commoner, the church on the state. England alone, the original terms of this convention are kept up to so exactly, that this account of the Alliance between Church and State seems rather a copy of the church and state of England, than a theory, as indeed it was, formed solely on the contemplation of nature, and the unvariable reason of things: and had no further regard to our particular establishment, than as some part of it tended to illustrate these abstract reasonings. So that, fortunately for the motive I had in writing, our adversaries are cut off from all subterfuge. For they can neither condemn this theory as a visionary Utopia; nor approve it as reasonable and fit for practice, and yet think themselves at liberty to carry on their opposition against their own country establishment: because these two prove to be one and the If in a few minute things they disagree, this disagreement will perhaps, by some, be ascribed to the unfinished parts of an excellent model, which the misfortunes of Edward VI.'s reign prevented from being carried to perfection. For then it was that this alliance between the protestant church of England and the state was made; on the natural dissolution of the alliance, between the popish church and it. At which time, had not the hypocrisy of some complying churchmen; the domestic quarrels in the administration; the factions which fomented those quarrels, and the immature death of that hopeful prince, intervened, we might have expected, they will say, the completest scheme

same.

20