posed to yield the rights of the Supremacy? Or have we lost sight of the exceptions made in Spain and elsewhere to the decrees of the Trent council: by which exceptions they chose to renounce the infallible authority of the council on some points, rather than to yield the sovereign privilege of their respective States. That good service to the cause of truth was wrought by a firm adherence to the principles of sovereign right. It is the complaint of some that the same principles wrought more largely for the Reformation in this land: if this were so, it is the best eulogy for the maxims we defend." P. 75.

Having thus justified his own positions, and given to Warburton the praise which is his due, at the same time that he has guarded against the mischievous advantage which may be taken by the adversary of the singularity and novelty of his statements, and the boldness of some of his positions; he does not forget to profit by the masterly and effectual refutation which the Bishop's work contains of the schemes of those, who had opposed that which in substance he maintained, though in a manner peculiar to himself. For this purpose, he refers to the parts of the Alliance in which the notions of the Bishop coincide with those for which he is contending; and where he defeats opponents who have deviated more widely and injuriously from the line of argument before pursued. We regret the impossibility of conveying to our readers any adequate idea of the manner in which this is accomplished; but we should do injury to that cause which he has so meritoriously laboured to serve, did we induce any persons to rest satisfied with the superficial view. of his reasoning which alone we could supply, if we attempted to compress it within our accustomed limits. The main difference however between the views of Warburton, and those who have preceded him, may perhaps be thus shortly stated.

The original independence of the Church as a Society, is maintained by all the best writers on the subject: but Hooker, and those who harmonize with him contend, that, this independence has its natural boundaries, and is not impeached by that subjection, in some respects, which brings all persons and all causes in one state under one supremacy residing in the Sovereign Power. Some, however, especially the Roman Catholic writers assert, that the independence of the Church has no such limits, and that her visible head on earth, the Pope, holds the supremacy in all ecclesiastical causes and spiritual matters: while others again, advance the points of Sovereign right in Princes and States so far, as to exclude

* "See Burnet's Rights of Princes."

all traces of remaining independence in the Church, and either to deny its powers and privileges in point of government, or transfer them to the State. Warburton on the other hand maintains, that the Church has yielded her independence to the State by voluntary compact for a special benefit. While it is not difficult to shew, that the Bishop himself admits all the principles on which Hooker, and the writers who agree with him have built their doctrine of the right of the Supreme Power to interfere with controuling authority in all causes, and over all persons for its own security, and the common purposes of all good government; his arguments may be adduced to demolish entirely the divided sovereignty for which the Roman Catholic pleads, as they maintain, that the original independence of the Church has been surrendered by a voluntary compact. And they are equally adverse to the notions of those who put no limits to the civil power, and speak of it as if it would admit of none; as they take it for granted, as it were, that the two Societies still subsist entire, though in subordination of one to the other; and plead that, on this account, it seems agreeable to natural equity that no alteration should be made in Church Government without the consent of both.

"The Bishop having shewn that our Lord's declaration My kingdom is not of this world,' was calculated to shew the independence of his kingdom in its essential interests upon all civil communities, and its whole distinction from the Kingdom of God in Israel, which was administered with temporal rewards and punishments, adds, the very reason which made it proper for the Mosaic religion to be united to the state, made it fit that the Christian should be left free and independent. But for what end,

6

if not for this, to be at liberty to adapt itself to the many various kinds of civil policies by a suitable union and alliance; whereby the famous prophecy of Isaiah might receive its ultimate completion: thus saith the Lord of Hosts, behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentile, and set up my standard to the people; and kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers.' An alliance then we must conclude the Christian Church to be at liberty to make with the State, notwithstanding the declared nature of Christ's kingdom. So far is indeed true, that it is debarred from entering into any alliance with the State that may admit any legislator into Christ's kingdom but himself, which would make his kingdom of this world: but by our alliance, no such power is granted, and therefore an established religion is no violation of this famous declaration *.'

VOL. XVII. MARCH, 1822.

B. 2. ch. 4. p. 179.
U

It is, as we before observed, but a cold conclusion from these last particulars of the pattern of Israel and the word of prophecy, that they shew that men were left at liberty to form the union we contend for, and the reason which he gives, though partly true, is quite misapplied. It is true that the method of government in Israel was not to oblige others, and that men were left to form their own but it is not true that the sovereign right should not subsist in every government, and this destroys his narrow application. But the peculiarity of the Bishop's notions in some respects would not permit him to adopt the pattern in any way but that of approbation; and yet no one shews more plainly the necessity for this union for the interests both of Church and State.

Enough then has been produced from this able and ingenious work, to shew that its author has not taken the civil supremacy entirely from its old foundations, though he builds after his own fashion. Allowing him his privilege, we find that he is never far from the truth as it subsists in practice, and where he seems to decline acknowledged principles, it is by maxims which have a ground of truth, and may be usefully applied. He abounds with excellent remarks, and has made good in the main a vigorous defence of the establishment against very different kinds of adversaries. What has been said has not been marked, I trust, with disrespect, or any want of deference for superior talents; but has had for its aim to guard against the mischiefs of departing from those solid and consistent principles, the grounds of which the learned Prelate could not but admit. In attempting this I shall not, I hope, be taxed with arrogance or indiscretion when I have kept closely to authorities which even Warburton might have been well satisfied to follow, and which he certainly has not been able to supersede." P. 97.

In the course of his examination of Bishop Warburton's positions and reasoning, the author has been led also to make many references to the opinions and arguments of Mr. Plowden.

He concedes to this writer the praise of ingenuity, considerable talent, and great candour in several parts of his work; but he convicts him of having adopted the chief particulars in which Warburton unhappily differs from preceding writers of the best name; and of exceeding him in the measure of his misconceptions. He proves also that, even while he deals severely with Warburton for many of his positions, he is induced by the necessity of maintaining his own system, to overlook the very point to which his arguments against the Bishop would seem to lead him; and to evade the force of inferences fairly to be drawn from his own reasoning, by using the erroneous conclusions of the very author whom it is the object of that reasoning to condemn. The question,

how far the commands of the civil power are binding upon the conscience of the subject, falls under the consideration of the Archdeacon as he pursues his investigation; and his attention is thus called to some positions laid down by Blackstone in his introductory chapter which seem, as he says, to "put very narrow limits to the ties of conscience in these respects." Blackstone remarks, that "in regard to natural duties, and such offences as are mala in se, here we are bound in conscience, because we are bound by superior laws, before those human laws were in being, to perform the one and abstain from the other." P. 103. But, in relation to those laws which enjoin only positive duties, and forbid only such things as are not mala in se, but mala prohibita, merely annexing a penalty to non-compliance; here, says he, I apprehend conscience is no further exercised, than by directing a submission to the penalty in case of a breach of these laws." P. 104. Against this position the Archdeacon argues, as it appears to us, very conclusively, that if a law be known, and there be any general bond of conscience between the civil ruler and the subject, which is admitted to be the case, it is not easy then to see how the guilt is excluded in such instances of wilful trespass.

We are commanded to fear God and honour the King ; but as the author well puts his question,

"What is honouring the King, but keeping his laws: or to what would our reverence amount, if we should dispense with that circumstance? With respect also to the notion of civil laws binding only to penalty, if it be levied, surely it is obedience to the law, and not submission to the penalty, which forms the primary object of all laws, and the aim of all who have a competent authority to command. When the penitent young man in the parable, is made to say, Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee,' does the latter circumstance go for nothing? Grotius grants an accumulative power to bind the conscience in all such cases." P. 106.

We must refer our reader to the section itself for many other useful remarks upon Mr. Plowden's reasoning; and many passages of considerable value which the Archdeacon has produced from his volume. The following observations on the principle of test laws, and the extent to which they may be justly applied, will show that Mr. Plowden can at times be as candid, as he always is ingenious. Perhaps, when he wrote the concluding paragraph of the extract, he did not clearly see how forcibly the argument it contains may be urged by the Church of England against the claims of the

Roman Catholics. But, the rule he there lays down is too just to be controverted; it is built upon the natural and unalienable right of all societies to defend themselves; and its application never can be questioned, where reasonable ground of apprehending the evil against which it is to guard can be produced.

"No nonconformist with the established religion, can admit that a test law is the necessary consequence of a civil establishment of religion; or that a test law does not operate as positive hardship and punishment upon those whom it excludes from the advantages of the State: but the nonconformist does not therefore question the right and duty of the Legislature, to impose, in certain circumstances, this hardship and punishment upon some for the general good of the whole. The judgment of the Civil Magistrate upon the exigency of these circumstances must be regulated by his own discretion and conviction, which will generally therefore differ from the judgment and feeling of the sufferers, who will of course be the minority of the Community. Although the judgment of the excluded Dissenter will probably differ from that of the majority upon the expediency or necessity of applying the principle, yet will he not therefore deny the principle itself."

He remarks as fairly, that "if the parties excluded by a test law be reasonably presumed by the State to be obnoxious, mischievous, or dangerous to be admitted into the common participation of its advantages, than as long as such reasonable presumption or conviction lasts, so long, and no longer, is it the duty of a Civil Magistrate to keep on footing a test law t." P. 135.

We pass over the author's observations on some statements made by the celebrated Leslie in his case of the Regale, and avail ourselves of the little room yet left us to introduce the following passage which appears to sum up the contents of the section, and to place the position for which the Archdeacon contends on a firm, intelligible, and satisfactory basis.

"The principles before detailed, but more especially from the view which Hooker gives of them, neither suppose the whole management of spiritual concerns to be arbitrary in the body of Christians, which appears to be the sense of some; nor to be so determined in all points that there is nothing left free to discretion; nor do they constitute two several impaled societies in one Christian Community, so as to establish two independent estates in one realm: they vindicate to the Civil Ruler that care and jurisdiction which belong to him of right, which bears an inseparable relation to religion as the great foundation of society, in recognising which,