could not lawfully have enjoyed; we must note, that all this is no more than the ancient kings of that people had, being kings and not priests. By this power David, Asa, Jehosaphat, Josias, and the rest, made those laws and orders which sacred history speaketh of, concerning matters of mere religion, the affairs of the temple, and service of God. Finally, had it not been by the virtue of this power, how should it possibly have come to pass, that the piety or impiety of the kings did always accordingly change the public face of religion, which things the prophets by themselves never did, nor at any time could, hinder from being done? Had the priests alone been possessed of all power in spiritual affairs, how should any thing concerning matter of religion have been made but only by them? In them it had been, and not in the king, to change the face of religion at any time; the altering of religion, the making of ecclesiastical laws, with other the like actions belonging unto the power of dominion, are still termed The deeds of the king; to shew, that in him was placed the supremacy of power in this kind over all, and that unto their priests the same was never committed, saving only at such times as the priests were also kings and princes over them. According to the pattern of which example the like power in causes ecclesiastical is by the laws of this realm annexed unto the crown; and there are which do imagine, that kings being mere lay persons, do by this means exceed the lawful bounds of their callings; which thing to the end that they may persuade, they first make a necessary separation perpetual and personal between the church and the commonwealth. Secondly, they so tie all kind of power ecclesiastical unto the church, as if it were in every degree their only right, who are by proper spiritual functions termed church-governors, and might not unto Christian princes in any wise appertain. To lurk under shifting ambiguities, and equivocations of words in matter of principal weight, is childish. A church and a commonwealth we grant are things in nature one distinguished from the other. A commonwealth is one way, and a church another way, defined. In their opinions the church and commonwealth are corporations, not distinguished only in nature and definition, but in substance perpetually severed; so that they which are of the. one can neither appoint nor execute in whole nor in part the duties which belong to them which are of the other, without open

breach of the law of God which hath divided them, and doth require that so being divided they should distinctly or severally work, as depending both upon God, and not hanging one upon the other's approbation for that which either hath to do. We say that the care of religion being common to all societies politic, such societies as do embrace the true religion have the name of the church given unto every one of them for distinction from the rest; so that every body politic hath some religion, but the church that religion which is only true. Truth of religion is the proper difference whereby a church is distinguished from other politic societies of men; we here mean true religion in gross, and not according to every particular. For they which in some particular points of religion do sever from the truth, may nevertheless truly (if we compare them to men of a heathenish religion) be said to hold and profess that religion which is true. For which cause there being of old so many politic societies established through the world, only the commonwealth of Israel which had the truth of religion was in that respect the church of God: and the church of Jesus Christ is every such politic society of men as doth in religion hold that truth which is proper to Christianity. As a politic society it doth maintain religion, as a church that religion which God hath revealed by Jesus Christ. With us therefore the name of a church importeth only a society of men, first united into some public form of regiment, and secondly distinguished from other societies by the exercise of religion. With them on the other side the name of the church in this present question importeth not only a multitude of men so united and so distinguished, but also farther the same divided necessarily and perpetually from the body of the commonwealth; so that even in such a politic society as consisteth of none but Christians, yet the church and commonwealth are two corporations, independently subsisting by themselves.

We hold, that seeing there is not any man of the church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any member of the commonwealth which is not also of the church of England, therefore as in a figure triangle the base doth differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the selfsame line is both a base and also a side; a side simply, a base if it chance to be the bottom and underlie the rest: so albeit properties and actions of one do cause the

name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of the church to be given to a multitude, yet one and the selfsame multitude may in such sort be both. Nay, it is so with us, that no person appertaining to the one can be denied also to be of the other: contrariwise, unless they against us should hold, that the church and the commonwealth are two, both distinct and separate societies; of which two one comprehendeth always persons not belonging to the other (that which they do), they could not conclude out of the difference between the church and the commonwealth, namely, that the bishops may not meddle with the affairs of the commonwealth, because they are governors of another corporation, which is the church; nor kings, with making laws for the church, because they have government, not of this corporation, but of another divided from it; the commonwealth and the walls of separation between these two must for ever be upheld: they hold the necessity of personal separation, which clean excludeth the power of one man's dealing with both; we of natural, but that one and the same person may in both bear principal sway.

The causes of common-received errors in this point seem to have been especially two: one, that they who embrace true religion living in such commonwealths as are opposite thereunto; and in other public affairs, retaining civil communion with such as are constrained for the exercise of their religion, to have a several communion with those who are of the same religion with them. This was the state of the Jewish church both in Egypt and Babylon, the state of Christian churches a long time after Christ. And in this case, because the proper affairs and actions of the church, as it is the church, hath no dependance on the laws, or upon the government of the civil state; an opinion hath thereby grown, that even so it should be always. This was it which deceived Allen in the writing of his Apology: "The apostles (saith he) did govern the church in Rome, when Nero bare rule, even as at this day in all the church's dominions. The church hath a spiritual regiment without dependance, and so ought she to have amongst heathens, or with Christians." Another occasion of which misconceit is, that things appertaining to religion are both distinguished from other affairs, and have always had in the church spiritual persons chosen to be exercised about them. By which distinction of spi

Arist. Pol. lib. iii. cap. 16.

vii.

ritual affairs, and persons therein employed from temporal, the error of personal separation always necessary between the church and commonwealth hath strengthened itself. For of every politic society that being true which Aristotle saith, namely, "That the scope thereof is not simply to live, nor the duty so much to provide for the life, as for the means of Maccab. living well:" and that even as the soul is the worthier part of man, so human societies are much more to care for that which tendeth properly to the soul's estate, than for such temporal things which the life hath need of. Other proof there needeth none to shew that as by all men the kingdom of God is to be sought first, so in all commonwealths things spiritual ought above temporal to be sought for; and of things spiritual, the chiefest is religion. For this cause, persons and things employed peculiarly about the affairs of religion, are by an excellency termed spiritual. The heathens themselves had their spiritual laws, and causes, and affairs, always Arist. Pol. severed from their temporal; neither did this make two independent estates among them. God by revealing true reliLiv. lib. i. gion doth make them that receive it his church. Unto the Jews he so revealed the truth of religion, that he gave them in special considerations laws, not only for the administration of things spiritual, but also temporal. The Lord himself appointing both the one and the other in that 'commonwealth, did not thereby distract it into several independent communities, but institute several functions of one and the selfsame community. Some reasons therefore must there be alleged why it should be otherwise in the church of Christ.

lib. iii.

cap. 20.

Three kinds

of their proofs are taken from the difference of

offices.

I shall not need to spend any great store of words in answering that which is brought out of the Holy Scripture to shew that secular and ecclesiastical affairs and offices are distinguished; neither that which hath been borrowed from anaffairs and tiquity, using by phrase of speech to oppose the commonweal to the church of Christ; neither yet their reasons which are wont to be brought forth as witnesses, that the church and commonweal were always distinct. For whether a church or commonweal do differ, is not the question we strive for; but our controversy is concerning the kind of distinction whereby they are severed the one from the other; whether as under heathen kings the church did deal with her own affairs within herself without depending at all upon any in civil authority; and the commonweal in hers, altogether without

the privity of the church, so it ought to continue still even in such commonweals as have now publicly embraced the truth of Christian religion; whether they ought evermore to be two societies in such sort, several and distinct. I ask therefore, what society was that in Rome, whereunto the apostle did give the name of the church of Rome in his time? If they answer (as needs they must), that the church of Rome in those days was that whole society of men which in Rome professed the name of Christ, and not that religion which the laws of the commonweal did then authorize; we say as much, and therefore grant that the commonweal of Rome was one society, and the church of Rome another, in such sort that there was between them no natural dependance. But when whole Rome became Christian, when they all embraced the gospel, and made laws in defence thereof, if it be held that the church and commonweal of Rome did then remain as before; there is no way how this could be possible, save only one, and that is, they must restrain the name of a church in a Christian commonweal to the clergy, excluding all the rest of believers, both prince and people. For if all that believe be contained in the name of the church, how should the church remain by personal subsistence divided from the commonweal, when the whole commonweal doth believe? The church and the commonweal are in this case therefore personally one society, which society being termed commonweal as it liveth under whatsoever form of secular law and regiment, a church as it liveth under the spiritual law of Christ; forsomuch as these two laws contain so many and different offices, there must of necessity be appointed in it some to one charge, and some to another, yet without dividing the whole and making it two several impaled societies.

Heb.

The difference therefore either of affairs or offices ecclesi- 1 Chron. astical from secular, is no argument that the church and com- xiv. 8. 11. monweal are always separate and independent the one on the v. 1 other which thing even Allen himself considering some- Allen, lib. xxxi. p. what better, doth in this point a little correct his former judg-15 ment beforementioned, and confesseth in his Defence of English Catholics, that the power political hath her princes, laws, tribunals; the spiritual, her prelates, canons, councils, judgments, and those (when the temporal princes were pagans) wholly separate; but in Christian commonweals joined though not confounded. Howbeit afterward his former