says: "No one denies that kings in their own order and degree govern ecclesiastical affairs; that is to say, in making laws for the church, according to the tenor of the canons and the judgment of bishops; indeed this is their chief office, for which they are given the power of the sword by God "." Stapleton says, that a prince has the power "of making laws for the peace of the church; of proclaiming, defending, and vindicating doctrines against violation"." Bellarmine proves at length, that magistrates are bound to defend religion, and to do their utmost to cause the faith of the catholic bishops and the Roman pontiff to be held P. The same doctrine was maintained by the puritans. Cartwright said, that the civil magistrate hath to see that the laws of God touching his worship, and touching all matters and orders of the church, be executed and duly observed; and to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly. Fenner, another puritan, acknowledged that "the magistrate may lawfully uphold all truth by his sword," &c. The non-jurors, though little favourable to the regal supremacy, did not deny this power to the magistrate. Leslie says it was not his meaning that "temporal governments. . . should not exercise the civil sword for the good of men's souls"." Hickes approves the doctrine of certain Presbyterians, that "it pertains to

nistr. c. 16.

c. iv.

r

T. C. lib. i. p. 192. cited in

Stapleton, Princip. Doctrin. Hooker's Works, vol. iii.

lib. v. c. 17.

Bellarminus de Membris Eccl. Milit. lib. iii. c. 18. See also Richerius de Eccl. et Polit. Pot. p. 76. ed. 1683; De Marca, De Concord. Sac. et Imp. 1. iv.

ed. Keble.

p. 443.

Fenner's Defence of the godly Ministers. Ibid.

s Leslie, Supplement to the Regale and Pontificate, p. 4. 2d ed.

the office of a christian magistrate to fortify and assist the godly proceedings of the church; to assist and maintain the discipline of it," &c. *

t

In fine, the doctrine and practice of these catholic and apostolic churches, and of our christian sovereigns from the earliest ages, have always been conformable to that universally received. The Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings, as I have said, made laws in defence of religion and ecclesiastical discipline. The church was united to the state, and the christian religion became a part of the law of the land ", and when in the sixteenth century the church of England withdrew the jurisdiction which she had for a time delegated to the bishop of Rome, and, resuming her original liberties, reformed the abuses which had been suffered to increase amongst us, the state lent the benefit of its support to these salutary and catholic proceedings. The doctrine of the church at that time is shown by the "Institution of a Christian Man," approved by the bishops of England in 1538; in which it is declared that christian kings have a special right by God's commandment "to defend the faith of Christ and his religion, to conserve and maintain the true doctrine of Christ . . . and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and idolatries, which be brought in by heretics and evil preachers, and to punish with corporal pains such as of malice be occasioners of the same; and, finally, to oversee and cause that the said

V

priests and bishops do execute their said power, office, and jurisdiction truly, faithfully, and according in all points as it was given and committed unto them by Christ and his apostles: which notwithstanding, we may not think that it doth appertain unto the office of kings and princes to preach and teach, to administer the sacraments, to absolve, to excommunicate, and such other things belonging to the office and administration of bishops and priests," &c. The very same expressions are repeated in the "Necessary Doctrine," approved in 1543 by the bishops of England". It is the doctrine of the church of England at this moment, that "the king's majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that... christian emperors of the primitive church" possessed; the denial of this position involving excommunication ipso facto*. The same doctrine is taught by the thirty-seventh Article, which declares that godly princes have the power to “rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers." the law of England most certainly recognizes this principle, since, by existing acts of parliament, temporal penalties are imposed on any persons who, professing to be members of the church, either establish a worship different from hers, or dare to violate their obligation as her ministers by teaching doctrines contrary to those which she approves. The conclusion which I draw from all these facts is, that christian princes, members of the true church, have a right, and are bound in duty when necessary, to defend the faith and discipline of the

▾ Formularies of Faith, p. 121. Oxford ed.

W

Ibid. p. 287.
Canon ii.

And

true church existing in their dominions, by obliging its professing members to acquiesce in the one and to submit to the other, by means of temporal power.

It is no objection to this conclusion, that several persons of note in modern times have held a contrary opinion. Those who do so are obliged to admit that it was never heard of till the seventeenth century after Christ nor should we regard the authority of Locke and Warburton in this matter; for it is plain that they omitted in the theory of government on which they based their doctrine, the GREAT TRUTH, that this world is subject to the supreme government of God, and that he disposes and determines the fate of nations according to His good pleasure". These writers overlooked a truth, which even the heathens themselves remembered; and framed their theories as to the duty of civil government towards religion, not on an examination of the word of God, or of the universal sentiment and practice of men of all ages, but on merely abstract philosophical reasonings from the laws of nature, of policy, or of expediency.

y See Locke's Letter on Toleration, and Warburton's Alliance of Church and State.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY OF THE CHRISTIAN

SOVEREIGN.

IT has been shown above that christian princes have a right to protect the catholic faith and discipline. Let us now consider more particularly the means and ends of this protection, which will at once develope the doctrine of the regal supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs".

It is necessary to premise, that since the duty of the christian magistrate is to protect and not to subvert the church; to enforce, not to derange the discipline

The regal supremacy and the relation of church and state are treated of by Nowell, Reproof of Mr. Dorman's book, 1565. fol. 123; Hooker, book viii; Whitgift, Defence of Answer to Admonition, tract. xx; Bancroft, Survey of pretended holy discipline; Bilson, True Difference between Christian subjection, &c. 1585; Andrewes Tortura Torti, p. 162, &c.; Mason, De Minister. Anglic.; Field, Of the Church, b. v. c. 53; Bramhall, Schism guarded, &c.; Stillingfleet, Of Eccl. Jurisdiction, Works, vol. iii; Wake, Appeal on the King's

Eccl. Supremacy, 1698. See also De Marca, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii; Edmund. Richerii Tract. De Eccles. et Polit. potest. Colon. 1683; Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. Eccl. Austriaci; Van Espen, Tractatus de Recursu ad Principem, Tract. De Promulgatione Leg. Eccl.; Hooke, Religionis Nat. et Revel. t. iii; De Hontheim, Febronius de Stat. præsenti Ecclesiæ. Taylor, in his Ductor Dubitantium, furnishes considerable information; but his views of the royal prerogative in church and state apparently exceed the truth.