too frequently actuates mankind, they evidently attempted to gratify the dreadful ambition of king Henry, without making an exprefs renunciation of any article of their own religious belief. For if the quære proposed by the king related only to any right, power, authority, or jurifdiction, the exercise of which could produce a civil effect in this country, it is evident, that as fuch civil effect could not have been produced without the affent or permiffion of this community, fo the right to any power, that could produce it, could neither exift in the bishop of Rome, nor in any other bishop of christendom, independently of the community, which was to fubmit to the civil effects of that power or jurifdiction.

If therefore thefe divines, under a refervation or falvo to their confciences, expreffed their opinion only of the fupremacy or headfhip of the civil eftablishment of religion in this country, it cannot be said, that their anfwer deviated from any principle of the faith and doctrine, which they then profeffed; but they were called upon in candor fo clearly to exprefs the difference betwixt the real fpiritual jurifdiction of the church, and the jurifdiction and authority of the civil establishment of religion in this country,

that

moft acts relat

premacy mif

that the expofition of the real state of the question to the nation would completely do away the infidious and captious purport of the question put by the king. For it cannot Thereafon why be denied, that as for nearly a thousand ing to the fuyears the headship or fupremacy of the civil reprefented. establishment of religion in this country had been vefted by the act of the nation principally in the bishop of Rome, in whom they alfo admitted the real spiritual fupremacy of their church to fubfift, it was not eafy for the community at large to diftinguish between these two capacities in the fame perfon; and thus I account for the purport and tendency of all the acts of parliament upon this fubject being, particularly in those times of heat and animofity, mifconceived and mifrepresented.

That the civil establishment of religion is merely acceffary to the religion itself, will not, I prefume, be denied; for were it effential to a religion, that religion could no where exift, where a civil establishment was wanting. This is emphatically exemplified in our own country at this hour; for the Roman catholic religion, which the divines, of whofe opinion I am now fpeaking profeffed, is ftill alfo profeffed and kept up by fome individuals in this country, without the counte

A civil estabeffential to reli

lifhment not

gion.

Exemplified by

the ftate of the Roman catho

lics in this

country at pre

feat.

nance or fupport of any civil fanction or establishment whatever. And if the present Roman catholics of England fhould pretend, that the religion, which they now profefs, differs in any one effential point from that religion, which their ancestors professed whilst the Roman catholic religion was countenanced and established by the law of this country, they will immediately give up their distinctive characteristic, and boasted glory of unity, univerfality, and irreformability. At this day they fubmit, as they formerly did, to the spiritual fupremacy of the bishop of Rome; but they cannot admit him to be the fupreme head of the civil establishment of religion in this country, because their religion has neither civil fanction nor establishment in it. They fubmit to the Spiritual power and jurisdiction of their own bishops, who are not now recognized by the state, as fully as they did, when they were in poffeffion of the temporalities, and other civil advantages of English bishopricks. They receive their facrament of matrimony from their own priests as fully at present, as they formerly did, though no civil effect be produced by the administration of it. In a word, their bishops and priefts are now endowed with the same spiritual powers of preaching, teach,

ing, and adminiftering the word of God to their flocks, as they formerly were, when the constitution acknowledged them as a distinct part of the community, and invested them with political and other civil capacities and advantages.

In virtue of this spiritual headship or fupremacy of the king over the civil eftablifhment of religion, which the conftitution now gives him, he has authority

"to con

vene, prorogue, reftrain, regulate, and diffolve all ecclefiaftical fynods or conventions; he has the right of nomination to vacant bifhopricks, and certain other ecclefiaftical preferments, and is the dernier resort in all ecclefiaftical causes, an appeal lying ultimately to him in chancery from the sentence of every ecclefiaftical judge."

It may be urged, that if the king be enabled to appoint to vacant bifhopricks, he must neceffarily be legally authorized and impowered to confer a fpiritual power or divine miffion; for the fpiritual power of a Christian bishop can only be limited in its extent of jurifdiction by a power, that can controul him in his spiritual capacity; but if the king can controul or limit the Spiritual

Black, Com. b. i. c. 7. fect. 5.

jurifdiction of a bishop, the bishop is fubject to the king in his real fpiritual character; and therefore by the conftitution of our laws, the king is more than merely the fupreme head of the civil eftablishment of religion. In answer to this it may be faid, that the king's appointment to a bishoprick operates in a fimilar manner, as does the presentation of a lay patron to a living; the clerk appointed cannot acquire any cure of fouls or fpiritual charge, if he be not properly ordained; and his jurifdiction no more exceeds the limits of his parish, than that of a bishop does thofe of his diocefe; yet from the alliance between church and state, where there is a civil eftablishment of religion, the civil and the fpiritual power fo far accommodate themselves to each other, as to Original diftri- avoid any confufion from their respective jurifdictions; and this has been always attended to in all Chriftian countries, where the Christian religion had acquired a civil establishment, as it is clearly and constitutionally explained in a book published in the year 1701, commonly attributed to bishop Fleetwood.

bution of dio

cefes.

"The apoftle's commiffion reaching to

Account of Church Government and Governors,

P. 39. & feq.

all