... 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 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 in all ages, but on merely abstract philosophical reasonings from the laws of nature, of policy, or of expediency. * 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 a The regal supremacy and the relations 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. established in it by Jesus Christ; it follows that he is not entitled to intrude on the duties of the christian ministry. He has no right to make definitions in faith or morals, to administer the sacraments, to excommunicate or absolve, or to perform any act whatever reserved to the christian ministry by scripture or by the universal and immemorial ecclesiastical discipline, because this would be in violation of the very principle of protecting the church. 1. The first immediate end of this protection is to preserve unchangeably the existing catholic faith and discipline of the church. Hence the prince has the right to repress heresies and schisms contrary to this doctrine and discipline. And in consequence he is entitled to convene synods for the determination of controversies, to confirm and execute their decrees, to make injunctions or ecclesiastical laws derived from the canons and decrees of councils; and in fine, to repress the attempts even of clergy or of particular synods, to alter the orthodox doctrine and discipline. Accordingly, christian emperors and kings have always exercised the right of convening national synods. The genuine œcumenical councils even were all assembled by command of the christian emperors". The kings of France assembled national synods. The canons of the churches of England and Ireland acknowledge the right of the king to call national synods". Christian kings have also confirmed synods. The general synods were confirmed by the emperors. The See Part IV. chapter ix. c E. g. the synod of Frankfort convened by Charlemagne. See Part IV. chapter x. section iv. Also those of Tours, Cabilon, and others, assembled by that prince. See Bramhall, Works, p. 318, 319. d Synod 1603-4, Canon 139; Synod of Dublin, 1634, Canon 100. Spanish synods were confirmed by the Gothic kings of Spain. The decree of the Gallican synod of 1682 was confirmed by Louis XIV. Those of the English synod in 1562 and 1571 were confirmed by queen Elizabeth : the synod in 1603-4 by James the first: the synods of Ireland in 1634 and 1711 by Charles the first, and queen Anne. And this power of princes may also be exercised in rejecting the decrees of a synod if it be injurious to the catholic discipline, to the privileges of the church, or to the laws of the state. Accordingly the kings of France, Spain, Germany, &c. refused to permit the publication of the decrees even of general synods in their realms, except with such qualifications as were necessary to secure the liberties of the church and state. The right of making ecclesiastical laws I shall presently notice further. The power of repressing innovations was exercised by the great queen Elizabeth when some of the clergy, sanctioned by some of the prelates, established irregular meetings called "prophecyings;" and when certain persons attempted to publish articles of doctrine on predestinarian points. 2. Another end of the state's protection of the church, is the preservation of unity and subordination in the church. Hence it is reasonable that the prince should have a right to command superfluous controversies to cease, a power which was abused by the emperors Heraclius and Constans in issuing the Ecthesis and Typus; and which the emperor Charles V. exercised at This privilege, which is exercised by all the princes of the Roman Obedience is called the royal Placet. See Rechberger, Enchir. Jur. Eccl. Austr. § 271; Van Espen, De Promulg. Legum |