Skip to main content

Full text of "Political Science Of The State"

without being ritualistic or mediaeval, has put him deservedly
in the front rank of writers on ecclesiastical polity in that
country. The political side of his theory tended to form that
of Locke. (Comp. Hallam, Const. Hist., i., 297.)
Among more recent writers on the relations between church
and state, Bishop Warburton only, with two distinguished
men of our own day, Dr. Thomas Arnold and Mr. Gladstone,
can be spoken of here, and of their opinions but a short ac-
count can fall within our limits.
Warburton's treatise " on the alliance between church and
warburton   on  state, or the necessity and equity of an estab-
church and state.    jjshed  reijgtOn  an(j a test-law demonstrated,"
in three books, first published in 1736, deserts the grounds
on which Hooker stood in several very important respects.
He says (ii., 5, p. 221),* that "the Puritans and their incom-
parable adversary . . . divided truth and falsehood pretty
equally between them. The Puritans were right in supposing
church and state to be two independent societies; they were
wrong in supposing the two societies must always continue
so ; but right again in holding that while they did so continue,
the civil magistrate had nothing to do with religion. On the
other hand, Hooker was wrong in thinking church and state
was only one society under two different names. He was
right in asserting the civil magistrate's supremacy in religion,
but wrong again in supposing that this supremacy was by
nature and not by compact. Thus from right premises the
i Puritans drew a wrong conclusion ; and from wrong premises
Hooker drew a right one. But if, from the wrong conclusion
of the former, the supremacy of the magistrate was forever
excluded, yet from the right conclusion of the latter he was
admitted before the time. And all this confusion arose from
common error, admitted on both sides, that if church and
state be distinct and independent societies, they must ever
* I cite vol. vii. of his works, London, 1811.
VOL. II.31