in the means; so it is for ours, that this universal concurrence in the two societies to unite, shews the sense mankind had of the usefulness of such an union, And lastly, as that writer's speculative principles are not the less true on account of the general deviation from them in the actual forming of civil societies; so may not these plain principles of alliance, though so few states have suffered themselves to be directed by them in practice; nor any one before, that I know of, delivered them in speculation: especially if, as in that case, so in this, we can derive such mistake and degeneracy from their causes. It would draw me too far out of my way to explain distinctly the causes of the mistake; and the intelligent reader, who carefully attends to the whole of this discourse, will not be at a loss to discover the most considerable of them; some of which I have already hinted at; and others, I may possibly, in the sequel, take occasion to mention. As for the degeneracy, it hath been observed, that the alliance is of the nature of the FPERA INÆQUALIA; Now, the common effect of such, Grotius informs us of, in these words: Interim verum est accidere plerumque, ut qui superior est in fædere, SI IS POTENTIA MULȚUM ANTECELLAT, PAULATIM IMPERIUM PROPRIE DICTUM USURPET: PRÆSERTIM SI FŒDUS PERPETUUM SIT *.

CHA P. III.

OF THE RECIPROCAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THIS ALLIANCE.

AS, from the natures of the two societies, we discovered what kind of union only they could enter into;

* De Jure Belli & Pacis, lib. i. cap. ii, § 21.

so from their natures, together with the motives they had in uniting, may be deduced, by necessary consequence, the reciprocal TERMS and CONDITIONS of this union.

From the mutual motives inducing thereunto, it appears, that the great preliminary and fundamental article of ALLIANCE is this, THAT THE CHURCH SHALL

APPLY ITS UTMOST INFLUENCE IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE; AND THE STATE SHALL SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE CHURCH.

1. But, to enable the two parties to perform this agreement, there must needs be a MUTUAL COMMUNICATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS. For the province of each society being naturally distinct and different, each can have to do in the other's, only by mutual concession *.

2. But again, these societies being likewise as naturally independent one on the other, a mutual concession cannot be safely made, unless one of them give up its INDEPENDENCY to the other. From whence arises what Grotius, we see, calls MANENS PRÆLATIO; which, in his Fœdus inæquale, the more powerful society hath over the less, by the cession of its INDEPEN

DENCY.

Now from the two conclusions, which necessarily spring from this fundamental article of union, we de

* Hæ ambæ potestates inter se ut duo apices comparantur. His sua in utraque substantia, terrena scilicet & cœlesti, assignantur officia. Eæ ut principes suoque in ordine suprema sociali tantum fœdere conjunguntur, non altera alteri in suis quidem rebus subditur: & quo jure regi permittitur, ut super animarum salute, sed ex canonum auctoritate, decernat; eodem jure permittitur pontifici, ut delinquentes etiam pœnis temporalibus, sed forensi lege, non innata sibi potestate, coerceat. Bossuet, 1. vi. c. 29. F. T.

duce all the terms, conditions, mutual grants, and concessions*, which complete this alliance.

For, from this obligation on the church to apply its influence to the service of the state, proceed a SETTLED MAINTENANCE FOR THE MINISTERS OF RELIGION, and an ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION with coactive power; which things introduce again, on the other side, the DEPENDENCY OF THE CLERGY ON THE STATE. And from the state's obligation to support and protect the church, proceeds the ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE; which again introduceth, on the other hand, the right of CHURCHMEN TO A SHARE IN THE LEGISLATURE.

Thus are all these rights and privileges closely interwoven, and mutually connected by a necessary dependence on one another. We have here, in a succinct manner, deduced each of them in the order in which they reciprocally arise: but the importance of the subject requiring a more minute examination into the reason and foundation of each GRANT and PRIVILEGE, We shall go over them again in a different order; and put together all that belong to the CHURCH under one head; and all that belong to the STATE under another: the first order being the properest for a general view; the second for a particular; but both necessary, to give a true idea of that mutual connexion with, and necessary dependence on, one another.

* Christianæ politiæ antistites a summo jure recedebant, ut concordiæ litarent. Attamen cum remissio illa nisi certis limitibus concludatur, in abjectionis vitium desciscat, necessariæ sunt regulæ quædam, intra quas prudentia, quæ omnino in his negotiis adhiberi debet, se contineat. Porro regulæ illæ in eorum axiomatum cognitione constitutæ sunt, quæ communi utriusque reipublicæ suffragio sunt recepta; ex æquo & bono unitatis & concordiæ alenda studio, ex utraque parte quamplurima remissa. Marca, in præfatione secunda. F. T.

Let

Let us then examine,

I. What the Church RECEIVES from the State.

II. What the Church GIVES to it.

Which will present us with a new view of the two societies as they appear under an establishment; and leave nothing wanting to enable us to judge perfectly of their natures.

I.

I. What the Church receives from the State by this alliance, is,

I. First, A PUBLIC ENDOWMENT FOR ITS MINISTERS: a separate and certain share of the national property being assigned for the maintenance and support of the clergy; portioned out into distinct benefices; and collated to by the state. The reasons of this endowment are: 1. To render the religious society, whose assistance the state so much wants, more firm and stable. 2. To invite and encourage the clergy's best service to the state, in rendering those committed to their care, virtuous. But, 3, and principally, in order to destroy that mutual dependency, between the clergy and people, which arises from the minister's support by voluntary contribution; the only maintenance that could be claimed or given before the two societies were allied; which dependence, we have shewn to be productive of great mischiefs to the state. Add to all this, that as the clergy are then under the sovereign's direction, and consequently become a public order in the state, it is but fit and decent, that a public maintenance should be provided for them. Which most nations have done by way of TYTHES.

From this account of a public and fixed provision for the clergy, may be deduced these COROLLARIES.

1. That

1. That though the payment of tythes to the Jewish priesthood should give the Christian Clergy no right to them, till bestowed by the sovereign, yet the example of this mode of provision, under the Mosaic Economy, may be fairly and properly urged by Christian ministers in favour of them as a proper civil donation. Under the Mosaic economy, God himself made the union between church and state; as he had before planned the form of civil government. From his very choice of the Hebrew people we may collect, that his dispensation to them was as well relative to the rest of mankind as to themselves. Now as amongst the various ends which he had for erecting that society, we must conclude, one was to teach mankind, by his example in the HOREB CONTRACT, to form civil policies on the principles of natural right and public liberty; so we may be equally assured, that one of his ends in uniting the two societies, was to give them the same general lesson of union and alliance: If an union, in general, then consequently all those fundamental terms of union which arise (not from the peculiar nature of the Jewish church and state, but) from the common nature of a civil and a religious society united, must be intended likewise for our imitation. But a fixed maintenance in the Mosaic economy, for the priests, being one of those fundamental terms which depends not on the frame of that peculiar policy, but, of a church and state in general, we may fairly conclude, that the mode of it by tythes, as a mode in itself equitable, is not improper for our imitation. For though the establishment of this mode of provision in Judea confers no divine right, yet it strongly supports every civil constitutional appointment of them.

2. A Second Corollary is, That it is ABSURD in

any