munication the prelates could not pronounce without warrant by authority of parliament, because it concerned temporal causes." And I beg leave to add, upon the fame principle, that no fentence of excommunication that does produce a civil or temporal effect can be paffed, or receive any force in this country, but by the authority or permiffion of parliament. Upon this principle alfo, by one of the laws or conftitutions of Clarendon, was the king's, or in his absence his judge's confent, made a previous requifite, before any bishop could excommunicate a tenant of the king holding in capite; because as the municipal civil law of this country annexed certain civil penal and difabling effects to fuch an excommunication, fo as to exclude the excommunicated perfon from the civil community, it was effentially neceffary, that the community fhould be confenting to the lofs of its own member; and then volenti non fit injuria; he who confents is not injured.

It may not be unacceptable to fome of my readers, if I defcribe what a real fpiritual court is, that by the comparison of it with those courts, that have improperly obtained the appellation of Spiritual courts both in this nation and elsewhere, their difference may Spiritual ordi- be more clearly ascertained. I write only for such persons as admit, that the spiritual ordi

nation neceffary for the miniftery of the gofpel.

nation

nation of priests can alone qualify them for the miniftry of the gofpel, and entitle them to that spiritual power and jurisdiction, which are requifite for their facerdotal functions, and which are not even claimed by the laity*, and I have before said, that the real spiritual power and jurifdiction left by Christ upon earth, had for their object the advancement of the faithful towards falvation, which could only be pursued by the means of the spiritual weapons of inftruction, example, and punish"This is unexceptionably admitted by all, who believe that chriftianity is a revealed religion." "For that no king nor state can believe any religion, that depends upon their authority; because then they must know, that the original of it is not divine.. At least, they can never believe christianity, which only is a revealed religion, and therefore must come directly from heaven. And that, if they believe Chrift did inftitute a church upon earth, and gave

ment.

I believe few of our countrymen (except quakers, baptifts, and independents) hold at prefent with Luther, that all people are priests, and capable of all spiritual functions, both men and women. Vid. Luther. de Abrog, Miffa, & de cap. Bab.

+ Cafe of the Regale and the Pontifical. p. 122.

What a real spiritual court

15.

her any commiffion, they muft believe fuch commiffion to be divine; which they cannot believe, if they think it in their power to limit it at their pleasure, and make it dependent upon them. They cannot think, that Chrift gave any fuch fpiritual commiffion, unless they believe it to be fuperior to them in fpirituals."

A real fpiritual court then must consist of fuch perfons only, as are within this spiritual commiffion, in right and by virtue of which they fit, judge, or determine. Such a court can only have for objects of its decifions, the faith, morals, inftructions, and punishment of thofe, who fubmit voluntarily to the authority and jurifdiction of the court, or rather, who profefs the religion, upon the principles of which the court is established; for St.. Paul, fpeaking of the idolatrous gentiles of his time, who did not fubmit to or profess the christian religion, and writing thereupon to the lay Corinthians, who had embraced christianity, fays, "For what have I to do to judge them alfo that are without? Do not you judge them that are within. But them that are without, God judgeth." And the only punishment, by which they can en

1 Cor. v. ver. 12, 13.

force

force their decifions, is the purely fpiritual punishment of what I call fpiritual excommunication, or delivery over to Satan, or deprivation of the communion of the faithful in the participation of the fpiritual rites of the church. Such courts are what the Roman catholics call their ecumenical councils; they confift of bishops, who fit as judges affifted by priests as their theologians from all catholic countries; they are bounden to act independently, and without the controul or influence of any civil power whatsoever. When they pronounce and decide upon any point of faith and morals, their decifions are pofitively binding and conclufive upon all those, that are within their jurisdiction, and they are usually enforced by the denunciation of anathema against thofe, who shall deny or refift them. But when they direct, recommend, or enjoin matter of ecclefiaftical discipline, they know, that their judgments or decrees can only obtain force and take effect by the confent of the civil power of different ftates, and therefore they enforce them not by anathema; other means they have not. Thus it is notorious, that the discipline of the council of Trent was never admitted by France, and fome other Roman catholic ftates of Europe; and in those ftates,

S

Spiritual anathema produces

ftates, into which it was admitted, it acquired its force and efficacy from the adoption of it by the civil power, without whose consent it could not have been adopted at all. The anathema of the most numerous, learned, no civil effect. complete council, that ever did or ever can be convened, produces not of itself the fmallest degree of civil effect in the perfon, who is anathematized, or thus fpiritually excommunicated. It abridges as little the rights of an Englishman, as it incapacitated of old Hymeneus or Alexander to enjoy the civil benefits of their refpective laws and constitutions.

As I am endeavouring to ascertain what that ecclefiaftical fupremacy is, which our conftitution now vefts in the king, and it is evident, that the inveftiture was made by act. of parliament, I fhall premise fome general obfervations upon the nature of fuch acts of parliament; for to my prefent purpose it is immaterial, whether the act of parliament, which vefted the headship or fupremacy over the civil establishment of religion wholly in king Henry the Eighth were declaratory of the old law, as Sir Edward Coke labours (I think in vain) to prove, or whether it were. conflitutive of a new law.

<< An