connected. Take these things together, and the question is more formidable than it may appear to be on partial views, which have a real ground perhaps of truth, and for which cogent arguments are brought. No argument could indeed be very formidable, that had not such a mixtare of truth and reason to commend it." P. 6, 7.

In the judgment of the Archdeacon there are but two methods of preserving peace and security. The first is a change of principle, a change hardly to be expected in a Church professing to be infallible, and admitting the authority of tradition, and the only consolatory ray of hope is seen in the retraction of the temporal dominion of the Pope. The other means is a change of feeling, of which the promise is far more favourable, although it is the unhappy nature of religious division, that the sect remains, when its original character is forgotten.

Without querulous remarks on past offences, without a timid or an angry policy, without indifference to the common interest, and with that personal good will to all men, "which is always possible and always proper," it is the duty of men to stand fast in defence of the main principles of union, whenever accidental combinations or direct attacks may be formed against them.

"The ground of union in this land; under the good care of Providence, derives its chief stability from that well defined and fundamental rule of government, by which in every state and in every country, things sacred and things civil should be subject to one sovereign supremacy. This was the first point, which at the dawn of reformation in this land was rescued from the gradual encroachments which had been made by those who traversed rocks and seas, the natural limits of the states of this world, in order to fix a visionary throne of more than magic power and mystic influence, in the bosoms of far severed empires." P. 10.

The doctrine of the Pope's supremacy has been for ever refuted in the masterly Treatise of Barrow, whose reasoning it would be lost la bour to attemp to strengthen or REMEMBRANCER, No. 38.

improve. The Archdeacon's argument is more simple, and is restricted to the sure grounds upon which the bond of union or single sovereignty in one state subsists among us, and binds all things together in these realms.

"It is of the nature and essence of all

governments, of what kind soever they may be, and whatever societies they may include, to have all things subject in some measure to the sovereign authority. From this subjection nothing is exempted but what belongs indeed to some rule, over which no control of man can be rightfully exerted; such as the privilege of conscience; the duty of self-preservation; the main end of laws and government; the regard to public welfare, as that forms and more especially the things which are prescribed by express and indubitable precepts of divine authority clearly and sufficiently made known. With these restrictions the principles of sovereignty in our own land are applicable to all things and persons. They have been traced accordingly by our best writers to this fourfold ground; to the common right, which I have just named, of sovereignty in all states, and under every dispensation; to the pattern of the Jewish state, particularly sanctioned as that was by the divine appointment; and displayed in a manner

which was neither local nor peculiar; to the plain intimation of the will of God, declared on this head in the page of Scripture, first in the word of prophecy concerning Christian states and rulers, and then in the subsequent directions which the civil power by Christ himself and his were given with immediate reference to

first witnesses; and to the laws of this reign usurpation." P. 13. realm before they were overborne by fo

It is the right and duty of Sovereign Princes to sustain the religious together with the civil interests and obligations of their subjects, for religion is the foundation of the com. mon welfare, and the bond of peace and order in society. The separation of religion from the civil government has no precedent but in America, which is certainly not sufficient to counteract the argument from its connection with every dispensation which has the sanction of divine authority. The chief objections to this doctrine are two: 1st, P

That the civil sovereign can affect no more than the outward action; but can he always affect the outward action without the aid of the religious principle? 2d. It is objected, that power may be abused: but this is an objection which would lead to the rejection of all government civil as well as religious; it would supersede the authority even of the infallible Church; and it would have operated under the government of Jeroboam and the Jewish Princes, whose sovereignty in religious affairs was not therefore annulled.

The Archdeacon confirms his own reasoning by an appeal to the au thority of the judicious Hooker, who shews that although there is a necessary separation perpetual and personal between a Church and commonwealth, and although they be differently defined and distinct in nature, yet are they not in substance perpetually severed, but one and the same person may in both bear perpetual sway. It was thus among the Heathen, and it was thus among the Jews, and some sufficient reason must be assigned why it should be otherwise in the Church of Christ; why Christian Kings should be deprived of the weightiest part of their sovereignty; why infidels should possess power in refigion, which believers should not possess; and why in respect of religion they should be in subjection either to their own subjects or to a foreign power. It is the record of all history from the time of Constantine, that kings have exercised this authority; and "if it be demanded by what right from Constantine downward the Christian emperors did so far intermeddle in the Churches' affairs, we must therein condemn them as being over presumptuously bold, or else judge that they did it by a law which is termed regia, that is to say, regal."

This was the reasoning of Hooker, but Warburton whose character it was, that he would never tread in any man's steps, opposes this rea

soning of Hooker and the best writers, and contends for a voluntary compact, in which the Church resigns her independence upon condition of protection, and of which the supremacy of the king in ecclesiastical causes is the result.

"This is the peculiar feature of his scheme, and constitutes its marked difference from that of Hooker. It lies open to much inconvenience, and is entangled with some inconsistency, when he comes leading principles which he professes to to replace, as he does in every point, the neglect; for whoever will look with attention through the work of Bishop Warburton, will find, that after much shew of variation from preceding writers, and some marks of contempt too for their judgment, he replaces one by one, in remoter parts fesses to cast out from the first foundaof his treatise, every stone, which he protion of his own design. There is this main inconvenience in his scheme, that what rests upon no fixed ground of common right, may be disputed without end."

P. 20.

The benefit, and even the indis. pensable necessity of this civil protection of the Church by the civil government, are admitted by Warburton, at the same time that he denies its divine origin and appointment: and although its practical influence has been restricted at one time, and not restored at another, and although the uncontrolled passions of men will lead them to oppose the ends of government, the principle nevertheless retains its pristine force, uninjured and unimpaired; and it is of chief moment to defend this principle, and to regulate the points of favour and indulgence by this standard. Mr. Hooker does not deny that there are peculiar laws of divine appointment for the government of the Church, and powers, which the spiritual pastor alone can exercise; and he lays down the just distinction, that it is the province of the Sovereign to maintain, and not to counteract these laws and institutions of the Church.

"He draws this conclusion, that for the received laws and liherties of the

Church, the King hath supreme authority, but against them, none.'

"In a word, the personal union of the Church and Commonwealth, where the same individuals compose both, cannot be denied: but this does not destroy the natural distinction of societies, or cancel those rights which belong essentially to each. The spiritual pastor retains his privilege of which he cannot be divested, and the sovereign power keeps its supremacy within those limits which the word of God and the known ends of government must always put. It is impossible to deny that this supremacy may be exercised in things relating to religion by the sovereign power in Christian states, unless we will take one of these opinions, either that the Christian character itself includes all such dominion, or restrains it to a fancied reign of Christ on earth, distinct from his universal rule; or confines it to his ministers alone, or vests it in some supposed vicegerent, to whom it is thought to be derived. All these notions have had their turn in the world, and are most opposite to Scripture, reason, and the judgment (conformable to both) upon which the model of our own happy and well settled government in Church and State, hath been established.

"Thus by defending the capacity and privileges of Sovereign powers to bear sway in all causes, that are left free to discretion, and by shewing at the same time the perpetual exception as to things determined and provided by divine authority, Mr. Hooker has for ever overthrown both the wild suggestions of Erastian theorists, and the groundless claim of a perpetual empire the Church, independent

even in Chris n countries on the Sovereign power." P. 24.

The Arcdeacon makes his last appeal to the testimony of Archbishop Wake, in establishment of the doctrine for which he contends, and concludes his charge with that judicious moderation and true candour, which distinguishes his cha

racter.

"Whatever may be the wish of any man to grant indulgences, for which no man feels more heartily inclined than I do, even to the utmost point beyond which it may be impossible to go further, and at the same time to preserve the limits which have been so bardly won from inroad and encroachment, yet let us look well to

fixed and laid principles, for if they should be weakened and conceded, it may

cost a bitter strife for their recovery. The value of things once yielded is ill learned by the loss itself which takes place, and by the consequences which ensue." P. 27.

It will naturally be conceived, that the charge occupies a small and disproportionate part of the volume, and is followed by a consi. derable bulk of supplemental matter; an arrangement for which the just apology on the present occa sion is its unavoidable necessity.

"A prejudice arises at the first view, and operates unfavourably, when a short discourse is coupled with a considerable bulk of supplemental matter. The porch and the building, in such cases, have no natural proportion, and the first impression is not advantageous. But, in the present instance, this inconvenience conld not be avoided, since the Dissertations and Collections, which are now subjoined, could not make part of à discourse confined to narrow limits; whilst the suggestions which were furnished in the Charge itself made it necessary to produce some proof of what had been intimated. Thus a longer investigation of the subject has succeeded to the first address. It will be found, however, that these additions, althoughthey assume the form of an Appendix, contain a connected prosecution of the chief objects of consideration." Preface. P. v. vi.

The Collections and Dissertations which are subjoined to the Charge are exhibited in seven sections, and comprise a faithful abstract of the most distinguished treatises on civil and ecclesiastical government, interspersed with appropriate obser vations, as these treatises corroborate or impair the argument, which it is the purpose of the Archdeacon to maintain. These collections are highly valuable, not only in guiding the researches of the inquisitive student, but in presenting to the general reader the substance of large volumes, which could not be collected without considerable expence, nor studied without uninterrupted leisure. From their nature, however, they do not admit of analysis, and it is hot in our power to do more, than to specify the materials of which they consist,

In the first section, the doctrine of sole supremacy, for which the Archdeacon contends, is sustained upon the authority of Whitgift, Bancroft, Jewell, Bilson, Andrews, Carleton, Bramhall, J. Taylor, Falkner, Barrow, Usher, King Charles I. and Mason. These are the Fathers of our Church, and we owe them reverence: to their testimonies are subjoined those of others of our own country, unhappily divided from us in communion, but bearing a like suffrage in this respect, namely, the London ministers in 1647, Baxter, Prynne, Nye, Marshall, and Firmin.

His first collection is concluded with the testimonies of the distinguished laymen, Sir R. Twysden and Lord Clarendon.

Having supported his principal position of a single supremacy by a host of witnesses, the Archdeacon proceeds in his second section to examine the arguments of those who have advocated the opposite doctrine, or drawn the same conclusion from different and less stable premises. In this investigation a cursory notice is taken of the remarks of Blackstone, but the author's principal attempt is to expose the inconsistencies of Warburton, in upholding upon one argument; what he professes to destroy by another; and to refute the reasoning of Mr. Plowden, in opposition to the ecclesiastical supremacy of the civil sovereign, and in defence of the full indefeasible authority, in all religious matters, of the spiritual pastor. This important and elaborate investigation is conducted by the Archdeacon with a singular discretion, and with exemplary temper and liberality, taking advantage of the ingenuity of his adversaries, to strengthen the cause for which he pleads, at the same time that he refutes the sophistry by which that cause is opposed.

"Enough then has been produced from this able and ingenious work, (the Alliance between Church and State,) to show

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 when he seems to decline acknowledged principles, it is by means which have a ground of truth, and inay be usefully applied. He abounds with excellent remarks, and has made good, in the main, a vigorous defence of the establishment against many 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. Iu 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 fol

low, and which he certainly has not been able to supersede." P.99.

To the testimonies of British, the Archdeacon adds the testimony of foreign divines, which he introduces with the arguments of Grotius on the plenitude of the sovereign power, its universality and necessity, under proper restrictions, in conjunction with his refutation of the pretence of the Romanist, that the emperor is within, not above the Church. The low opinions which Grotius entertained, or rather his total denial of ecclesiastical authority, are, with the usual discrimination of the Archdeacon, placed in a strong con. trast with his irrefragable argument in defence of Episcopacy.

Grotius is supported in the following section by Puffendorf, whose argument is abundantly sufficient to establish the civil supremacy on the grounds which our writers have maintained, and who gives his testimony, as what could not be denied or avoided, and whose suffrage is therefore the more valuable. Puffendorf is followed by Burlamaqui, than whom few writers have expressed themselves with more clearness and simplicity, although, in the conclusion of his argument, he has neglected to mark the true and

necessary distinction between a civil jurisdiction, and the spiritual authority which has its foundation and limitation in the word of God.

The circumstances under which De Marca wrote in defence of the liberties of the Gallican Church, were peculiar, and it was a point of no ordinary difficulty to secure his own interest in the Bishopric of Conserans, and to conciliate the favour of the Pope, without forfeiting the favour of his rightful sovereign. His great work was the bulwark of the liberties of the Gallican Church, and was but partially weakened by the concessions and retractions which he was required to make in accommodation to the will and in obedience to the authority of the See of Rome.

"Yet notwithstanding this embarrassment, which De Marca felt on every side, and which might almost discourage us from wading through a large folio written under such impressions, and with such provisions made for stifling or dissembling,

what was stubborn and intractable, we shall find him establishing, with sufficient clearness, many grounds of truth upon this subject. He affirmed enough, indeed, to draw him into great difficulties,from which be could not extricate himself without some sacrifices, of no advantage to his own name, or to the cause which he had undertaken." P.212.

The substance of his treatise is drawn out at considerable length in the fifth section, and the reader will not only "excuse," but be thankful for the pains taken in tracing the opinions of so eminent a person, and will not neglect to improve the obvious and important lessons which he teaches, nor refuse to subscribe the powerful conviction which is the result of his dis!course.

"I have reserved for this" (sixth) "section some connected extracts from the treatise of the learned, accurate, and judicious Barrow. It had not his last band, but, together with the piece by which it is attended, the Discourse on the Unity of the Church, was published after his death. They display the powers of an eminent

and very able writer, and deserve the character which Archbishop Tillotson has given, as having exhausted the subject, and said enough to silence the controversy concerning the Pope's supremacy for ever, and to deter all wise men, on both sides, from meddling any further with it.' I shall leave that branch of the subject, therefore, to the reference of those who may find in it such complete and copious information; but it may not be unacceptthe chief design of these collections, to able to the reader, nor inconsistent with produce some testimonies, which lie scattered in the treatise and discourse, and to subjoin them to what has been already furnished on the subject of Church government and the civil sovereignty, in doing which, it will appear sufficiently that this

acute and excellent divine did not leave the Church without its rightful powers, and just authority, when he exposed and utterly destroyed the false pretensions of the Papal Sovereignty." P. 251.

The extracts from Barrow are il lustrated and confirmed by the authority and arguments of Archbishop Usher and Dr. Hammond, in which is incidentally contained a view of the origin and primitive independence of British Episcopacy, a point which has been recently argued by Dr. Hales and the Bishop of St. David's, and which it is not more important than interesting to sustain.

The last section exhibits the sentiments of Mr. Charles Leslie, a view of the antient form of episco. pal government retained in the reformed Churches of the Continent, and of the acknowledged right of the civil sovereignty in those Churches, extracted from the Oxford Papers, a collection now not easy to be met with; and the arguments of Bishops Bull and Stillingfleet.

"The labour has not been light to trace this subject. Its application to the circumstances of our day is no otherwise material than as the want of right conceptions of the principles, at any time under discussion, may lead to very mischievous determinations, and to consequences no less injurious in their influences

and effects." P. 336.

The doctrine of the king's supre