as the only one they are willing to exchange for their natural liberty. After this follows the second convention; in which protection and allegiance are mutually promised by sovereign and people; whereby the contracting parties in the first convention become annihilated, and a new factitious person is produced; as appears from hence, that in the first convention the consent of every one is necessary to conclude him; in the second, the majority is sufficient. Now who ever doubted but that this new created body had a right of altering the form of government? For the necessity, which arises from the nature of things, requiring an alteration, and the contracting parties being no longer existent, their survivor must needs be deemed their substitute, on whom all their power is devolved.

P. 162. [N]. N. Bacon, in his Discourse on the English Government, composed by the assistance of Selden's papers, says, The common law ever held "the supreme cognizance of excommunication within "its own power, as upon the writ de quare excommunicato may appear," p. 182. It was a law from the Conquest, and all along insisted on, that none of the king's barons could be excommunicated without his leave: For in the feudal times there was so close a connexion between the sovereign and his feudatories, that it was a maxim in this law, that the Lord owes no less to his vassal, than the vassal owes to the lord.

P. 173. [O]. The reader cannot but be much edified with the admirable reasoning of Dr. HOADLY, Bishop of Bangor, against Dr. HARE, Dean of Worcester: who had quoted this text, and understood it in the sense here given to it." Can such a writer as this "(says his lordship), so warm in a cause touching

"the

"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 06 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

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 well 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.

"Ο

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

66

keeping mankind in order (says the other) it is necessary there should be some religion professed and 66 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 éstablished 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. Tř. 1. § 2. + Wollaston's Religion of Nature Delineated, p. 124. VOL. VII.

R

he