PART III.

2

A. No; they do not derive it from any human source. The Sovereign is supreme over all persons, but not over all causes1. Spiritual persons derive their spiritual power from CHRIST alone; but the authority to exercise it actually and legally upon particular persons, and in particular places,-as dioceses and parishes,-this they derive from laws, ecclesiastical and civil, and from the Sovereign, who, by his royal assent, is the efficient cause of law 3.

1 Bp. BILSON, Christian Subjection, p. 173. We confess princes to be supreme governors of their realms and dominions; in all spiritual things and causes, but not of the things themselves, but of all their subjects.

See above, pt. i. ch. xii., and below, chap. vii.

2 Archbp. LAUD, Speech at the censure of Bastwick. (Remains, vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 68.) Our being Bishops jure divino takes nothing from the King's right or power over us. For though our office be from God and Christ immediately, yet may we not exercise that power, either of Order and Jurisdiction, but as God has appointed us; that is, not in His Majesty's or any Christian King's Kingdoms, but by and under the power of the King given us so to do. 3 Bp. SANDERSON, Prælect. VII. c. v. viii.

Q. May not then the Church of England be called a State Church?

A. No; not unless the Ancient Church might have been so called after the empire became Christian. It would be ingratitude and impiety to suppose that the Church of God is injured by the fulfilment of His promises to her, and that her spiritual constitution is impaired, because, Isa. xlix. 7. according to His gracious prophecy," Kings have become her nursing-fathers, and Queens her nursing-mothers;" and temporal laws have been made in her behalf1.

23.

1 HOOKER, VIII. VI. 10.

Q. You speak of the ancient Church; but is not what is called in England the Oath of Royal Supremacy of modern date?

2

A. The principle of the Royal Supremacy is CHAP. V. coeval with the English monarchy, and, indeed, with all Christian monarchy. And with respect to the declaration of this principle, it is found, not only in the Oath of Supremacy', but in the ancient Statutes of the Realm; and it must be remembered that the assertion of the Royal Supremacy, in this Oath, being a defensive protest against papal usurpations, and being designed to exclude all other Supremacy, became more necessary in proportion as the usurpations, against which it was a safeguard, became more prevalent and dangerous.

1 25, 26, and 28 Henry VIII. c. 7, A.D. 1536. GIBSON'S Codex, p. 22-24.

2 As in 16 Richard II. c. 5, A.D. 1392 (GIBSON'S Codex, p. 74). So the Crown of England, which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God, in all things touching the regality of the same crown, and to no other, should be submitted to the Popes, and the laws and statutes of the realm by him defeated and avoided at his will, in perpetual destruction of the sovereignty of the King our Lord, his crown, his regality, and of all his realm; which God defend !

3 HOOKER, VIII. 11. 3. Supremacy is no otherwise intended or meant, than to exclude partly foreign powers, and partly the power which belongeth in several unto others contained as parts within that politic body over which those kings have supremacy. On the sense in which this oath is imposed, see PHELAN'S Hist. 1543, Append. Note B. This Oath has been often taken by Roman Catholics, ibid. p. 251.

. To what usurpations do you refer?

A. On the one hand to those of the Bishop of Rome, who, if he had his will, would not allow Princes to do any thing in ecclesiastical matters in their own kingdoms unless he gave them leave'; and on the other, to the principles of the Puritanical Discipline, which, in this respect, as in several others, agree with the Popish 2.

1 HOOKER, VIII. II. 14. What persons devoted to the

PART III. Papacy yield that princes may do, it is with secret exception always understood, if the Bishop of Rome give leave. Our own Reformers (i. e. the maintainers of the Puritan Discipline) do the very like. See VIII. IV. 9, and VIII. VI. 12, and Bp. TAYLOR, below, pt. iii. ch. v.

2 Archbp. BANCROFT, Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline. 1593, p. 240-258. The Puritans take from Christian princes, and ascribe to their own pretended regiments, the supreme authority under Christ in causes ecclesiastical; and thus they join with the Papist.

The rest

Bp. SANDERSON on Episcopacy, xvi. p. 41. [i. e. the other Religious Communities, Popish and Puritanical] (not by remote inferences, but) by immediate and natural deduction out of their own acknowledged principles, do someway or other deny the King's supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical; either claiming a power of jurisdiction over him, or pleading a privilege of exemption from under him. The Papists do it both ways; in their several doctrines of the Pope's Supremacy, and of the Exemption of the Clergy. The Puritans of both sorts who think they have sufficiently confuted every thing they have a mind to mislike, (if they have once pronounced it Popish and Anti-christian,) do yet herein (as in very many other things, and some of them of the most dangerous consequence) symbolize with the Papists, and after a sort divide that branch of Anti-christianism wholly between them the Presbyterians claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute Spiritual Jurisdiction over Princes (with power even to excommunicate them, if they shall see cause for it) as the Papists challenge to belong to the Pope: and the Independents exempting their Congregations from all spiritual subjection to them, in as ample manner as the Papists do their Clergy. Whereas the English Protestant Bishops and Regular Clergy, as becometh good Christians and good subjects, do neither pretend to any Jurisdiction over the Kings of England, nor withdraw their subjection from them; but acknowledge them to have Sovereign Power over them as well as over their other subjects. See also Archbp. WAKE'S Appeal, Pref. p. iii.

:

. But is not the Sovereign of England sometimes styled Head of the Church?

A. No; not by those who speak properly. That title was laid aside by Queen Elizabeth, and exchanged for that of "Supreme Governor over all persons, in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil," and it has not been borne by any English monarch since that time1.

1 HOOKER, VIII. IV. 8. Archbp. BRAMHALL. i. p. 29, CHAP. V. and the notes of the learned Editor. Bp. GIBSON'S Codex, p. 45, note.

66

Q. In what does this supremacy consist?

A. To speak generally, and reserving the particular modes of its exercise for future consideration (below, chap. vi.) the sovereign's office as supreme Governor over all persons in all causes” in the Church, is "to maintain it in the unity of true religion';" not to suffer "any unnecessary questions to be raised;" "to have a princely care," that Churchmen may do the work which is proper to them; to "contain within their duty all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God;" and to restrain the stubborn and evil-doers with the power of the civil sword."

1 K. CHARLES I. Declaration prefixed to XXXIX Articles; and see Art. xxxvii. CANONS of 1603, Canons i. ii. CANONS of 1640, Canon i.

OFFICE for the QUEEN'S ACCESSION, Book of Common Prayer."Blessed Lord, Who hast called Christian princes to the defence of Thy Faith, and hast made it their duty to promote the spiritual welfare, together with the temporal interest of their people; We acknowledge with humble and thankful hearts Thy great goodness to us, in setting Thy servant our most gracious QUEEN over this Church and Nation; give her, we beseech Thee, all those heavenly graces that are requisite for so high a trust; let the work of Thee, her God, prosper in her hands; let her eyes behold the success of her designs for the service of Thy true religion established amongst us; and make her a blessed instrument of protecting and advancing Thy truth."

To show that the Principles here stated are consistent with the doctrine of other branches of the Catholic Church, it may be observed, that Archbp. PLATON, Metropolitan of Moscow, in his 'Oplódoĝos Aidασkaλía, authorized by common use in the Eastern Church, (Koray's Greek version, Athens, 1836, p. 135,) thus speaks on this subject:"Christian kings are the prime guardians and champions of the Church, and are bound to provide (Xpewσtoûσi và Opovri(wol) for the welfare of the Church, as for that of the State. The Christian Churcn demands of princes, first that they be learned in God's law (Deut. xvii. 18);

PART III. secondly, that they be examples of piety and virtue to all men; thirdly, that they take care that the Church be well governed (evтákтws), and that they encourage faithful ministers and governors; fourthly, that they repress schism, and defend the Church from persecutors and scoffers; fifthly, that they propagate true religion, and provide suitable maintenance for its teachers. Hence every one may see clearly how closely the body politic is united with the Church (βλέπει πᾶς ἕνας πόσον εἶναι σφικτὰ ἡνωμέναι ἡ πολιτικὴ κοινωνία καὶ Ἐκκλησία). And since the sovereign of a Christian state has no superior upon earth, and no one in this world can recompense him for these his labours, he lives on the faithful assurance of attaining hereafter an unfailing and inestimable reward."

To this may be added the following testimony of the Greek presbyter, CONSTANTINUS ECONOMUS, TEρì TŴV τριῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βαθμῶν : Nauplia, 1835, p. 318. We honour princes as pastors of their people, according to God's ordinance; we honour the king; we make prayers for all men, for kings and all in authority. To the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, and all other Churches in which the sovereign is reverenced as the supreme governor, we say, Let this your custom prevail, as seems to you good; and may all your Christian people be blessed by God, and your sovereign reign and prosper for evermore!

Among Roman Catholic writers also one of the most learned, the Abbé FLEURY, Disc. sur l'Hist. Ecclés., Dissert. ix., says: "Le titre de chef de l'Eglise que les Anglicans ont donné à leur Roi, ne doit pas être pris à la rigueur. En lui donnant cette qualité, ils ne pretendent point qu'il puisse exercer les fonctions Ecclésiastiques, donner la mission aux Evêques et aux Prêtres, administrer les sacremens, en un mot, qu'il soit le principe de la puissance spirituelle. Il ne lui donne point d'autre autorité dans les matières de la Réligion, que celle de faire des Lois pour maintenir le bon ordre de l'Eglise, de soutenir et appuyer celles qui sont faites par les Evêques, d'assembler des conciles, de contenir les Ecclésiastiques comme les Laïques dans la soumission due au Prince, à l'exclusion de toute puissance étrangère.”

Q. But does not the ascription of these powers in Ecclesiastical matters to the Civil Magistrate lead to what is termed Erastianism?

A. Erastianism (so called from Erastus, a physician of Heidelberg, whose work on Church government appeared in 1589, after the author's death) appears to have owed its rise and influence