any other. I own that I should assent to this precaution with many scruples. . . . The second case of exclusion, and in which, I think, the measure is more easily vindicated, is that of a country in which some disaffection to the subsisting Government happens to be connected with certain Religious distinctions. The State undoubtedly has a right to refuse its power and its confidence to those who seek its destruction."* Most undoubtedly it will assert the Right, whether it be a just and liberal or an oppressive, a constitutional or an unconstitutional State; and it is the difference of these qualities that makes the difficulty which Paley seems to have felt on the question: for suppose the case, That on one occasion the Church of England sought and effected the destruction of the then State or subsisting Government, namely, of JAMES II.; who will deny the Right of the State to refuse its power and its confidence to that Church; and, who shall now deny that that Church did not do its duty in seeking the destruction of the then State? Where, consequently, is the Necessity and Equity of a Test Law, as Warburton sets forth in his Title? Surely it is "demonstrated" to be neither necessary, because, as is shewn, it is ineffectual so far as it concerns the State; nor equitable, because its design is to be a barrier to Reformation and to natural and Scriptural right; for the individuals forming all Sects being bound, as we have before argued, to render equal obedience, equal protection and impartial rewards are the correlative rights which all are entitled to claim and to enjoy and, in the administration of which, the State will find its best and only rational security.†

The Controversy between the Puritans and the Episcopalians being largely treated of in the succeeding pages; particularly so much of it as most materially concerns the celebrated "malleus episcopalium”‡ THOMAS CARTWRIGHT, Archbishop WHITGIFT, and "judicious" HOOKER; to dilate farther on it and on these distinguished parties, in this Introduction, is inexpedient.

NEAL, in his History of the Puritans,§ has carefully deduced HOOKER's propositions, and arranged them in this order: "1. That though the Holy Scriptures are a perfect standard of Doctrine, they are not a rule of Discipline or Government. 2. Nor is the Practice of the Apostles an invariable rule or law to the Church in succeeding ages, because they acted according to the circumstances of the Church in its infant and persecuted state. 3. Neither are the Scriptures a

* Mor. Phil. Book VI. ch. x.

See on the practical inutility of the Test Act, A Comment on Warburton's Alliance, by Caleb Fleming, D. D. 1748, 8vo. pp. 37, 8.

§ Chap. viii.

Dyer's Privileges of the University of Cambridge. 1824. 8vo. Vol. II. chap. Camb. Frag. p. 9. "The relation of the Controversy by Neal, in his History of the Puritans, is very fair and accurate."-Sir JOHN HAWKINS, in The Antiquarian Repertory, Vol. III. p. 379.

1

rule of Human Actions so far, as that whatsoever we do in matters of Religion without their express direction or warrant is sin, but many things are left indifferent. 4. The Church is a Society like others, invested with powers to make what Laws she apprehends reasonable, decent, or necessary, for her well-being and government; provided they do not interfere with, or contradict the Laws and Commandments of Holy Scripture. 5. Where the Scripture is silent, Human Authority may interpose; we must then have recourse to the reason of things, and the rights of Society: 6. It follows from hence, That the Church is at liberty to appoint Ceremonies, and establish Order within the limits above mentioned; and her Authority ought to determine what is fit and convenient. 7. All who are born within the confines of an Established Church, and are baptized into it, are bound to submit to its Ecclesiastical Laws; they may not disgrace, revile, or reject them at pleasure: the Church is their Mother, and has more than a maternal power over them. 8. The positive Laws of the Church not being of a moral nature, are mutable, and may be changed or removed by the same Powers that made them; but while they are in force they are to be submitted to under such penalties as the Church in her wisdom shall direct."

Having thus deduced the chief propositions, the able Historian proceeds to comment on them. He says, * "The Fourth and Fifth Propositions are the main pillars of Hooker's Fabric, and the foundation of all human Establishments; namely, That the Church, like other Societies, is invested with power to make Laws for its wellbeing; and, That where the Scripture is silent, Human Authority may interpose. All men allow, that human societies may form themselves after any model, and make what Laws they please for their well-being; and, that the Christian Church has some things in common with all Societies as such; as the appointing time and place, and the order of Public Worship, &c.: but it must be remembered, that the Christian Church is not a mere voluntary Society, but a Community formed and constituted by Christ the sole King and Lawgiver of it, who has made sufficient provision for its well-being to the end of the world.

"It does not appear in the New Testament, that the Church is empowered to mend or alter the Constitution of Christ, by creating new Offices, or making new Laws, though the Christian world has ventured upon it. Christ gave his Church Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, and edifying

"In one part of these Remarks he appears not to have understood Hooker; in another, he draws consequences which do not follow from Hooker's premises; and in the third, he argues against Church power from the abuse of it."-WARBURTON. Notes on Neal: Works, 1788. 4to. Vol. VII. p. 898. With this notice the reader will necessarily be on his guard. But he has in his own hand the best possible means of coming to a correct opinion on the validity of Neal's Remarks.

his body; but the successors of the Apostles in the government of the Church, apprehending these not sufficient, have added Patriarchs, Cardinals, Deans, Archdeacons, Canons, and other officials. The Church is represented in Scripture as a Spiritual body; † her Ordinances, Privileges, and Censures, being purely such; but later ages have wrought the Civil Powers into her Constitution, and kept men within her Pale by all the terrors of this world, as Fineș, Imprisonments, Banishments, Fire, and Sword. It is the peculiar excellence of the Gospel Worship to be plain and simple, free from the yoke of Jewish Ceremonies; but the Anti-christian Powers, thinking this a defect, have loaded it with numberless Ceremonies of their own invention, and though there are Laws in Scripture sufficient for the direction of the Church, as constituted by Christ and his Apostles, they have thought fit to add so many volumes of Ecclesiastical Laws, Canons, and Injunctions, as have confounded, if not subverted, the Laws of Christ. Whereas if men considered the Church a Spiritual body, constituted by Christ its sole Lawgiver for Spiritual purposes, they would then see that it had no concern with their Civil rights, properties, and estates, nor any power to force men to be of its Communion, by the pains and penalties of this world. The Laws of the New Testament would appear sufficient for the well-being of such a Society; and, in cases where there are no particular rules or injunctions, that it is the will of Christ and his Apostles, there should be liberty and mutual forbearance; there would then be no occasion for Spiritual Courts (as they are called), nor for the interposition of Human Authority, any farther than to keep the peace. Upon the whole, as far as any Church is governed by the Laws and Precepts of the New Testament, so far is it a Church of Christ; but when it sets its own By-laws as terms of Communion, or works the policy of the Civil Magistrate into its Constitution, it is so far a creature of the State.

up

“HOOKER's last two propositions are inconsistent with the first principles of the Reformation; namely, That all who are born within the confines of an Established Church, and are baptized into it, are bound to submit to its Ecclesiastical Laws under such Penalties as the Church in her wisdom shall direct. Must I then be of the religion of the country where I am born? that is, at Rome a Papist, in Saxony a Lutheran, in Scotland a Presbyterian, and in England a Diocesan Prelatist; and this under such Penalties as the Church in her wisdom shall think fit? Must I believe as the Church believes, and submit

+1 Pet. ii. 5.

Eph. iv. 11, 12. "He either mistakes or misrepresents Hooker. What that great author affirms is this, That whoever is born in a Church where the true doctrine of Christ is taught and professed, is obliged to submit to those Laws of the Society, without which, no Society can subsist. Just as he who is born in a Civil Society, founded on the principles of

to her Laws right or wrong? Have I no right, as a man and a Christian, to judge and act for myself, as long as I continue a loyal and faithful subject to my Prince? Surely religious principles and Churchcommunion should be the effect of examination and a deliberate choice, or they lose their name, and degenerate into hypocrisy or atheism. From general principles HOOKER proceeds to vindicate the particular Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, and to clear them from the exceptions of the Puritans; which may easily be done when he has proved, that the Church has a discretionary power to appoint what Ceremonies and establish what Order she thinks fit; he may then vindicate not only the Ceremonies of the Church of England, but all those of Rome,* for no doubt that Church alleges all their Ceremonies conducive to her well-being, and not inconsistent with the Laws of Christ."

To these powerful strictures of Neal, his Editor subjoins, in a Note, "To Mr. Neal's remarks on the principles of the ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, it may be added, That how just and conclusive soever those principles are in themselves, they do not, they cannot apply to the vindication of our Religious Establishment, till it be proved that its Ceremonies and Laws were fixed by the Church. In whatever sense the word Church is used; this is not the fact. Whether you understand by ita Congregation of faithful men,' or all Ecclesiastical persons,' or 'an Order of men who are set apart by Christianity, and dedicated to this very purpose of public instruction,' in neither sense were the forms and opinions of our Established Religion settled by the Church! They originated with Royal pleasure: they have changed as the will of our Princes hath changed; they have been settled by Acts of Parliaments, formed illegally, corrupted by pensions, and overawed by prerogative, and they constitute part of the Statute Law of the Land.‡

Natural Liberty, is bound to submit to those Laws of Natural Society, without which Civil Society cannot subsist."-WARB. p. 898. ubi sup. We leave the reader to draw his own inference from this Note; only reminding him that the question reverts, who is to be the judge that any particular Church teaches and professes the true doctrine of Christ? and also reminding him that contrary to what Hooker is here stated to affirm, and in which Warburton coincides, the great Mr. Locke affirms that "No man is born a member of any Church; ... nothing can be imagined more absurd."-Let. I. conc. Tol. p. 38. "How so? Does it follow that, because I have a right to the use of a power, I have a right to the abuse of it? The Church of Rome, that of England, and every other Christian Church of one denomination may, as a Society, make Laws of Order and Discipline. The Church of Rome abuses this right; therefore the Church of England shall not use it!"-WARB. p. 893. ut sup. Here the Bishop assumes the very matter in debate: the "right" is that assumption: and he artfully drops the word "Ceremonies," on which Neal lays the greatest stress. But more than this, he explains the word "Order" by Discipline, though Neal might intend it to relate to the Priesthood.

Dr. Toulmin.

"The Earl of Peterborough declared, That though he was for a parliamentary King, yet he did not desire to have a parliamentary God, or a parliamentary Religion; and, should the House declare for one of this kind, he would go to Rome, and endeavour to be chosen a Cardinal; for he had rather sit in the Conclave, than with their Lordships upon those terms."-SMOLLETT's Hist. Geo. I. An. 1721.

Convinced, but of their own opinion still, there is a description of persons disposed to yield, that Establishments are most objectionable: happy, they are ready to say, had it been for the world had they never been known; but they do exist, and therefore our relative duty towards them is altered. It would be more honest and more consistent, if those persons, who call themselves Christians, would openly avow the principle on which they act, It may be right to do wrong! We shall meet such persons with the language of an eloquent writer, of whose assistance we have already availed ourselves.*

"Establishments are either good, and then should be supported upon this conviction; or bad, and then should be opposed with equal firmness; or indifferent, and then we must admit that men may remodel the Church at pleasure, and that a thousand other innovations upon the New Testament archetype may be as feasible and legitimate as this.

"Panic is favourable to sophistry. How! (exclaim both the timorous and the self-interested) is a Fabric, hoary with age, massive in strength, vast of dimensions, to be subverted? What convulsions must precede the downfall; what direful consequences must follow it!

Occiderit ferro Priamus? Troja arserit igni?†

"These are but the chimeras of Fear, and these dangers only exist in imagination. ‡

Happy would it be could a warning voice resound through the Established Church; if the warning might ring between the porch and the altar-Learn to respect yourself! Why crouch to Power and Greatness? Why will you suffer corrupt and wicked men to dictate to you? Why must you have your highest Dignitaries thrust upon you? Why must you be the tool of Party, and hang upon a Senate's will and a Monarch's nod? Rise to your native dignity; show yourself a Church of Christ; and let not a royal priesthood' grovel to earth and kiss the dust! Why not at once declare that no Temporal Power shall interfere with your high interests? Why not at once hurl back any intimation of Legislated Measures for your internal government? Take a bolder attitude; break the yoke from your neck; let the sun-light of Heaven sparkle from your brow; walk through the Land in natural majesty! Burst the shackles

† Virg. Æn. Lib. ii. v. 581.

* Rev. R. W. Hamilton. "What hath made some men apprehend sad consequences from the Church's being left without the guard of coercive power (of the Civil kind, Excommunication being the sole coercive power of a Religious Society), is their seeing it stand possessed of some advantages, by them supposed essential to a Church, which (Civil) coercive power only can secure. But these may be eased of their apprehensions by being told, that those advantages are only adventitious, and bestowed upon it by the State, in consequence of an UNION; and as the State granted these (advantages), it granted coercive power likewise to defend them; and that when the Union is dissolved, they both (the adventitious advantages, and the granted coercive power) fall together, without any essential damage to the Church as a Religious Society."-WARB. All. Book I. chap. v. p. 60. d

VOL. I.