separation between these two must for ever be upheld: they hold the necessity of Personal separation, which clean excludeth the power of one man's dealing with both; we of Natural, but that one and the same person may in both bear principal sway.

The causes of common-received errors in this point seem to have been especially two: one, That they who embrace true Religion, living in such Commonwealths as are opposite thereunto; And, in other public affairs, retaining Civil communion with such as [them]; are constrained, for the exercise of their religion, to have a several communion with those who are of the same Religion with them. This was the state of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and Babylon; the state of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this case, because the proper affairs and actions of the Church, as it is the Church, hath no dependance on the Laws, or upon the Government of the Civil State, an opinion hath thereby grown, that even so it should be always. This was it which deceived Allen in the writing of his Apology: "The Apostles (saith he) did govern the Church in Rome, when Nero bare rule, even as at this day in all the Church's dominions: the Church hath a spiritual Regiment without dependance, and so ought she to have amongst Heathens, or with Christians." Another occasion of which misconceit is, That things appertaining to Religion are both distinguished from other affairs, and have always. had in the Church spiritual persons chosen to be exercised about them. By which distinction of Spiritual affairs and persons therein employed, from Temporal, the error of Personal separation always necessary between the Church and Commonwealth hath strengthened itself. For of every politic Society that being true which Aristotle saith, namely, "That the scope thereof is not simply to live, nor the duty Arist. so much to provide for the life, as for means of living lib.iii. well:"* and that even as the soul is the worthier part of cap. 6. Church of Christ is a monstrous anomaly in its economy, and militates against Christ's doctrine to Nicodemus, "a Ruler of the Jews," John iii. 1—7.]

Pol.

[Bishop WARBURTON, in his Alliance between Church and State, Book II. chap. 5. (Works, Vol. IV. 1748. 4to.) says, "Aristotle's words are literally these, that society was instituted first for the sake of living, simply; and then for the sake of living happily: yivoμévn μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῇν ἕνεκεν, οὖσα δὲ τοῦ εὖ ζῇν. (Pol. lib. i. c. 2.) He is extremely concise. But his meaning seems to be this, That the primary end of Civil Society, was to secure men from that mutual violence to which they are exposed in a state of nature: the secondary, to promote those accommodations of life which Civil Society only can bestow. And here I am sorry to observe, that this excellent man, in paraphrasing the words of Aristotle, so as to

vi. 33.]

man, so human Societies are much more to care for that which tendeth properly to the soul's estate, than for such temporal things which the life hath need of: Other proof [Matt. there needeth none to shew that as by all men the Kingdom of God is to be sought first, so in all Commonwealths things spiritual ought above temporal to be sought for; and of things spiritual, the chiefest is Religion. For this cause, persons and things employed peculiarly about the affairs of Religion, are by an excellency termed Spiritual.* The Heathens themselves had their Spiritual laws, and causes, lib. vi. and affairs, always severed from their temporal; neither did this make two independent estates among them. God cap. 20. by revealing true Religion doth make them that receive it

Arist.

Pol.

cap. 7.

Livius,

lib. i.

Three

kinds

proofs

are,

1. Taken

differ

ence of affairs and

offices.

his Church. Unto the Jews he so revealed the truth of Religion, that he gave them in special considerations Laws, not only for the administration of things spiritual, but also temporal. The Lord himself appointing both the one and the other in that Commonwealth, did not thereby distract it into several independent communities, but institute several functions of one and the self-same community: some reasons therefore must there be all ready why it should be otherwise in the Church of Christ.

I shall not need to spend any great store of words in of their answering that which is brought out of the Holy Scripture to shew that Secular and Ecclesiastical affairs and offices from the are distinguished; neither that which hath been borrowed from antiquity, using by phrase of speech to oppose the Commonweal to the Church of Christ; neither yet their reasons which are wont to be brought forth as witnesses, that the Church and Commonweal were always distinct: for whether a Church or Commonweal do differ, is not the question we strive for; but our controversy is concerning the kind of distinction whereby they are severed the one from the other; whether as under Heathen Kings the Church did deal with her own affairs within herself without depending at all upon any in Civil Authority, and the Commonweal in hers, altogether without the privity of the Church, so it ought to continue still even in such Common

give a sense to his purpose (a purpose the Greek philosopher never thought of) has added, nor the duty so much to provide for the life,' meaning this life." This passage in Aristotle is also commented on in Note*, Vol. I. p. 106. The passage in cap. 6 referred to by Hooker is, by Aristotle himself, referred to cap. 2.]

* [See Vol. II. p. 417.]

weals as have now publicly embraced the truth of Christian Religion; whether they ought evermore to be two Societies in such sort, several and distinct. I ask therefore, what Society was that in Rome, whereunto the Apostle did give the name of the Church of Rome in his time? If they answer (as needs they must) that the Church of Rome in those days was that whole Society of men which in Rome professed the name of Christ, and not that Religion which the Laws of the Commonweal did then authorize; we say as much, and therefore grant that the Commonweal of Rome was one Society, and the Church of Rome another, in such sort that there was between them no mutual dependence. But when whole Rome became Christian, where they all embraced the Gospel, and made Laws in defence thereof, if it be held that the Church and Commonweal of Rome did then remain as before, there is no way how this could be possible, save only one, and that is, they must restrain the name of a Church in a Christian Commonweal to the Clergy, excluding all the rest of believers, both Prince and people. For, if all that believe be contained in the name of the Church, how should the Church remain by personal subsistence divided from the Commonweal, when the whole Commonweal doth believe? The Church and the Commonweal are in this case therefore personally one Society, which Society being termed a Commonweal as it liveth under whatsoever Form of secular Law and Regiment, a Church as it liveth under the spiritual Law of Christ; forsomuch as these two Laws contain so many and different Offices, there must of necessity be appointed in it some to one charge, and some to another, yet without dividing the whole and making it two several impaled Societies.* The difference therefore either of affairs or offices Ecclesiastical 1 Chron. from Secular, is no argument that the Church and Com- Heb.v.1.

xiv. 8,11.

* [In this paragraph the word "Church" has two meanings. Without stopping to inquire what apostle, and where does any apostle name "the church of Rome?" it is granted by Hooker, that that church and the commonweal had " no mutual dependence." But it must indeed be seriously inquired, When did all Rome embrace the Gospel," and all become "believers, both Prince and people?" It may be safely answered, Never did they become that " peculiar people," mentioned Tit. ii. 14. Again: the words "embraced" and "believed" must here be understood in a far different sense from Rom. x. 8-10, the majority of no city or province having ever united the sincerity of confession and belief laid down by the Apostle. A Church, then, not made up principally of those who thus confess and believe; which is the case when the secular power places all indiscriminately within the same enclosure, is not that kind of Church which Christ and his apostles instituted and approved; Eph. ii. 20.]

lib.xxxi.

p. 151.

monweal are always separate and independent the one on Allen, the other: which thing even Allen himself considering somewhat better, doth in this point a little correct his former judgment beforementioned, and confesseth in his Defence of English Catholics, that the Power political hath her Princes, Laws, Tribunals; the spiritual, her Prelates, Canons, Councils, Judgments; and those (when the temporal Princes are Pagans) wholly separate; but in Christian Commonweals joined though not confounded. Howbeit afterwards his former sting appeareth again; for in a Commonwealth he holdeth, that the Church ought not to depend at all upon the Authority of any Civil person whatsoever, as in England he saith it doth.

2. Taken

from the

It will be objected, That the Fathers do oftentimes menspeeches tion the Commonweal and the Church of God by way of Fathers opposition.* Can the same thing be opposed to itself? sing the If one and the same Society be both Church and Com

of the

oppo

one to

the other.

monwealth, what sense can there be in that speech, “That they suffer and flourish together?" What sense is that which maketh one thing to be adjudged to the Church, and another to the Commonwealth? Finally, in that which putteth a difference between the causes of the Province and the Church, doth it not hereby appear that the Church and the Commonweal are things evermore personally separate? No, it doth not hereby appear that there is perpetually any such separation; we speak of them as two, we may sever the rights and the causes of the one well enough from the other, in regard of that difference which we grant is between them, albeit we make no personal difference. For the truth is, that the Church and the Commonwealth are Names which import things really different; but those things are accidents, and such accidents as may, and always should, lovingly dwell together in one subject. Wherefore the real difference between the accidents signified by these Names, doth not prove different subjects for them always to reside in. For albeit the subjects wherein they be resident be sometimes different, as when the people of God have their residence among Infidels; yet the nature of them is not such but that their subject may be one, and therefore it is but a changeable accident, in

* Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. iii. Aug. Ep. 167.

those accidents they are to be divers. There can be no error in our conceit concerning this point, if we remember still what accident that is for which a Society hath the name of a Commonwealth, and what accident that which doth cause it to be termed a Church: a Commonwealth we name it simply in regard of some Regiment of Policy under which men live; a Church for the truth of that Religion which they profess. Now Names betokening accidents inabstracted, betoken not only the accidents themselves, but also together with them subjects whereunto they cleave. As when we name a Schoolmaster and a Physician, those names do not only betoken two accidents, teaching and curing, but also some person or persons in whom those accidents are. For there is no impediment but both may be in one man, as well as they are for the most part [in] divers. The Commonweal and the Church therefore being such names, they do not only betoken these accidents of Civil Government and Christian Religion which we have mentioned, but also together with them such multitudes as are the subjects of those accidents. Again, their Nature being such as they may well enough dwell together in one subject, it followeth that their Names, though always implying that difference of accidents that hath been set down, yet do not always imply different subjects also. When we oppose therefore the Church and the Commonwealth in Christian Society, we mean by the Commonwealth that Society with relation to all the public affairs thereof, only the matter of true Religion excepted; by the Church, the same Society with only reference unto the matter of true Religion, without any affairs: besides, when that Society which is both a Church and a Commonwealth doth flourish in those things which belong to it as a Commonwealth, we then say, the Commonwealth doth flourish; when in both them, we then say, the Church and Commonwealth do flourish together. The Prophet Esay to note corruptions Isai. i. in the Commonwealth complaineth, "That where justice and judgment had lodged now were murtherers: Princes were become companions of thieves; every one loved gifts and rewards; but the fatherless was not judged, neither did the widow's cause come before them." To shew abuses in the Church, Malachy doth make his complaint: "Ye offer Mal. i. unclean bread upon mine altar: if ye offer the blind for

21, 23.