ftatutes of this realm of England, as many papal conftitutions. were in the former ages; which statute I defire you to take notice of, because it is the rule and measure of the church's power in making canons, constitutions, or whatsoever elfe you fhall please to call them, in their convocations.

"The third and final act, conducing to the pope's ejection, was an act of parliament, 28 Hen. VIII. c. 10. intituled, An act extinguishing the authority of the bishop of Rome; by which it was enacted, that if any perfon fhould extol the authority of the bishop of Rome, he fhould incur the penalty of a pramunire; that every officer, both ecclefiaftical and lay, Should be worn to renounce the faid bishop and bis authority, and to refift it to his power, and to repute any oath formerly taken in maintenance of the faid bishop, or his authority, to be void; and finally, that the refufal of the faid oath fhould be judged high treason: but this was also ushered in by the determination first, and after by the practice of all the clergy; for in the year 1534, which was two years before the paffing of this act, the king had sent this propofition to be agitated in both universities, and in the greatest and most famous monafteries of the kingdom; that is to fay, An aliquid authoritatis in hoc regno Angliæ U pontifici

The queftion propofed was captions.

pontifici Romano, de jure competat, plufquam alii cuicunque epifcopo extero? By whom it was determined negatively, that the bishop of Rome had no more power of right in the kingdom. of England; than any other foreign bishop. Which being teftified and returned under the hands and feals refpectively (the originals whereof are ftill remaining in the library of Sir Robert Cotton) was a good preamble to the bishops and the reft of the clergy affembled in their convocation to conclude the like; and fo accordingly they did, and made an inftrument thereof fubfcribed by the hands of all the bishops, and others of the clergy, and afterwards confirmed the fame by their corporal oaths.”

It must be obferved, that the question, which this learned divine informs us was agitated and refolved by both universities, and the greatest and most famous monafteries of the kingdom, was captious upon the face of it, and might have been understood to relate to or concern the civil establishment of religion in England, and not that real fpiritual primacy or vicegerency of Chrift over the chriftian church, which, as Roman catholics, they acknowledged in the pope. For when it is asked, whether the pope of Rome bath of right any more authority within the kingdom of Eng

land,

land, than any other foreign bishop? I answer, that this neceffarily involves the idea of the civil establishment of the church of England, which alone could affect the civil or temporal power of the state; for the pope of Rome, or any other foreign bishop, can only be reprefented as foreign, in as much as he receives an authority from fome other nation or community, than that of England; but whatever authority can be given by a nation or a lay community, can be no other than temporal or civil, as I have before fhewn; therefore this question in ftrictness ought not to be understood of mere fpiritual authority, or in fact of that authority or jurifdiction, which the Roman catholic church allows to the pope of Rome, as to her fpiritual fupreme head. I fhould therefore think this queftion politically, legally, philofophically, and theologically refolved by the following answer: The kingdom of England acknowledges no independent right, either in the pope or any other bishop, to exercise any authority whatever, that can produce, proprio vigore, a civil effect upon the fubjects of this realm. I have before fhewn, or endeavoured to fhew, that all power or jurifdiction, which produces civil effects, cannot be purely fpiritual; and therefore I conclude, that the negative anfwer

་

U 2

fwer to this question, if rightly and fairly understood, though it were a renunciation of the pope's power, authority, or jurisdiction over the civil establishment of the church of England, against the consent of the community, or without an act of parliament, yet it left untouched that real spiritual primacy over the church of Chrift, which the Roman catholics of all ages, and of all countries, have made the bond of their communion with the fee of Rome. For according to their doctrine, the church, which they maintain to be catholic or univerfal, cannot by poffibility be diffected into political or geographical divifions; the term foreign therefore is not applicable in a spiritual or ecclefiaftical sense, by one member of their church to another; much lefs is it applicable to the head of their church, whom they look upon as the common father of all in Chrift, whofe facred functions and character of spiritual primate, according to them, exclude all diversity of nations, and unite all the members of the church in one family or communion*. As

St.

* I have faid thus much upon this fubject, to fhew how greatly owing to misapprehenfion and mifreprefentation are all the heated controverfies between the church of England and the church of Rome, about the fpiritual fupremacy of the king of England. Perhaps

few

St. Peter at Rome could not in the primitive church have been called a foreign bifhop, either by a Grecian, Idumean, or Roman christian. I have fpoken more largely upon this doctrine, because it was the belief of the universities and monafteries, to whom this queftion was propofed; and therefore the anfwer to it will be the more fairly understood by the expofition of the doctrine of those, who gave it.

The true conof the oath of

ftitutional fenfe

fupremacy.

In order to form a perfectly unbiaffed and true judgment of the opinion given by these divines upon this question of king Henry's, we must fully enter into the fpirit, influence, and even prejudices of the perfons, who gave it. As Roman catholics they were from principle tenacioufly anxious to avoid any innovation in their doctrine or faith, particularly at a time when a spirit of innovation seemed to have pervaded most countries in Europe. The clergy were even more than Temporizing the laity in awe and dread of the arbitrary pliancy of the and defpotic difpofition of their fovereign; king Henry and from a mean felf-interested policy, which

few Roman catholics would refufe to fwear to it, in the true constitutional fenfe of its actual existence, were it unequivocally expreffed, that the king is the fupreme head of the civil establishment of the church of England.

VIII.