The most effectual method of obtaining this security is, To vest the supreme power, civil and ecclesiastical, in the same person. The Church, as we have seen, is under no necessity of acting collectively; but may appoint at discretion, either single men or bodies of men, to frame and execute its laws. There is nothing in the nature of temporal power that renders it unfit to be united with spiritual; but, on the contrary, much mischief and danger in keeping these two branches of power separate from each other. Why then may not the magistrate possess BOTH? Why should not the interests of church and state (which are often connected, never opposite) be watched by the same eye, and guarded by the same hand?

There are indeed good reasons why the offices of religion ought not to be administered by the magistrate. Both the education of his youth, and the attention of his riper years, have been employed on very different objects; and, amidst the numberless toils and cares of government, it is impossible he should find leisure for any inferior profession; but, to superintend all professions, and all ranks

of men for the common good, is itself a part of his office; and by assuming the particular care of Religion, and the supremacy in religious matters, he is enabled to promote the interests both of church and state in the most effectual manner.

From this supremacy of the civil magistrate is derived the provision of a legal maintenance for the Ministers of Religion. This provision is of great importance both to them and the public, as we may easily judge from the wretched and precarious condition of those who want it, a condition which seldom fails to produce a slavish dependency, highly unbecoming a public teacher, and, in some measure, disqualifying him for the discharge of his office.

And will not the same reason serve peculiarly to recommend those forms of government, in which the Clergy as well as the Laity are distributed into different ranks, and enabled to support those ranks in a becoming manner, that both the lower orders may avoid contempt, and the higher obtain distinction and regard? Were ALL the Ministers of Re

ligion placed in low stations of life, it is easy to see with what neglect they would be treated, and with what prejudice their doctrine would be received. Poverty, and aukwardness, and ignorance of what is called THE WORLD, are disadvantages for which the highest attainments in learning and virtue could never atone.

But to obtain completely the benefits proposed from this union of civil and ecclesiastical authority, all the members of the same commonwealth should be members also of the same church: variety of sects having a natural tendency both to weaken the influence of public religion, and to give distur bance to public peace. Where this is impracticable, not the best, but the largest sect, will naturally demand the protection of the magistrate; and every sect, whose principles are not evidently inconsistent with good government, will justly call for toleration. Protection is due to the first, that the advan

* See these benefits deduced at large, and in a very superior manner, by the excellent author of " The Alliance ❝ between Church and State,” particularly in b. ii. ch. 2.

tages arising from the magistrate's care and favour may be extended as wide as possible : Toleration to the last, because the magistrate is equally unqualified and uncommissioned to persecute for conscience-sake.

It is scarce needful to observe, That these are only the outlines of Church Policy, to be filled up in different ways, suited to the infinite varieties of human affairs; but it may not be improper to obviate an objection, which may seem to strike at the very foundation of the doctrine here advanced. It will be urged, perhaps, that I have considered a Church as an institution merely human; whereas the Christian church derives its authority from God. This will be readily admitted; but the Divinity of its origin is a cir cumstance of no moment in the present enquiry; for there is not the least reason to presume that the Founders of our holy Religion intended it to be governed by any rules, or on any principles, opposite to those which Nature and Reason prescribe. They appointed indeed ministers and offices of religion; it was scarce possible for any religion to subsist without them: they established a form of

church-government; for the Church must be governed in some form, or there could be no government; but their directions to us are, for the most part, very general. Even their example must be cautiously urged, in different circumstances. In this one point they are clear and explicit, That authority once established must be obeyed.

It follows from what has been said, that all such ministers as accept a public maintenance, and yet refuse to submit to public authority, are guilty of injustice to the civil magistrate. Either they ought to acknowledge his power, or to relinquish his favour: they can have no claim to legal advantages without obedience to law; and as ministers, while employed by public authority, are not at liberty to depart from established forms, or to assemble separate congregations, so neither are the people at liberty, while they remain in society, to desert at pleasure their lawful pastors, and flock in crowds to receive instruction from those who have no authority to give it. If they cannot lawfully comply with the terms of communion, let them make an open separation; let them not profess to