(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

Full text of "Political Science Of The State"

is hurtful to be retained." That is, what was good in one age
may become hurtful in another and be abrogated, although
enacted by an ecumenical council and binding in its day.
In these teachings there is little to find fault with.
But our concern is chiefly with the eighth book, where the
relations of church and state are discussed. Here Hooker's
principal points are (i) that church and commonwealth are the'
same community, and that the prince or supreme power in
the one stands in a like relation to the other. (2) The right
to such power is by contract, the people being the ultimate
source of power. (Comp. § 61 supr.) He regards it a pre-
sumption in favor of such a theory that the civil chief among
the Jews had ecclesiastical power, as is seen in the instances
of David, Asa, Simon Maccabaeus (i Mace., xvi. 41-44), while
the priests had no power to change the religion. It is true,
as he says, that the changes in public worship among the
Jews came constitutionally from the kings, or needed their
sanction ; but it is true also that they had no power given
them to deviate from the forms or the spirit of the law of
Moses. And so Uzziah, the most powerful, perhaps, of the
later kings (2 Chron., xxvi., 21) when he began to burn in-
cense, a prerogative of the priests by the Mosaic law—was
resisted by the high-priest and eighty of his brethren. " Our
state," Hooker says, "is according to the pattern of God's
elect people." But this does not make it imperative upon a
Christian people to adopt the Jewish system, for we are author-
ized by the words of Christ, where he taxes the Mosaic law
with imperfection (Matth., xix., 8), as deviating from the orig-
inal idea of marriage, to lay it down that neither civilly nor
ecclesiastically the Jewish system was perfect. It was good
for its time, for its part in the progress of mankind, for the
people it had to deal with, but not absolutely good, and
therefore no universal pattern. There are no institutions that
are good absolutely or perfect; they are only good relatively,
and as such, when circumstances change, may be changed for
something better. .
Against the puritans sof the English church, in his day,