subsequent ministry of men sent from Rome among the Saxons.

4thly. It cannot be derived from patriarchal authority. For that authority which the See of Rome had once over a great part of the Roman empire arose merely from its peculiar constitution, and as this is now dissolved into many different sovereignties the new princes are not bound to have any regard to that authority.

From these considerations it plainly follows that "the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

II. The Article asserts that our Sovereign has an authority over his subjects in ecclesiastical mat

ters.

The truth of this assertion will appear, 1. from Scripture; 2. from the practice of antiquity; and 3. from reason.

1. From Scripture. (1.) In the Old Testament, the kings of Israel interfered in all matters of religion. Samuel acknowledged Saul's authority, and said that "he was made the head of the tribes of Israel; (1 Sam. xv. 17;) one of which was the tribe of Levi. Abimelech, too, the High Priest, when called before him, appeared, and answered some charges that were brought against him, relating to the service of God. (xxii. 14.) (2.) David made several laws about sacred things, such as the orders of the courses of the priests, and the time of their attendance at public wor

ship; (1 Chr. xxiii. 6 ;) and when, at his death, he informed Solomon of the extent of his authority, he told him that "the courses of the priests and "Levites should be with him for all the service "of the house of God, and the princes and all "the people should be wholly at his command

ment." (xxviii. 21.) Accordingly we find Solomon appointed them their charges in the service of God, and "they departed not from "the commandment of the king unto the priests "and Levites concerning any matter." (2 Chron. viii. 14, 15.) He deprived Abiathar of the High Priest's office, and no complaint was made, as if he had assumed an unwarrantable authority. It is true, that David and Solomon were inspired persons. But these were merely acts of regal power, in which they do not appear to have been guided by any such inspiration. (3) In like manner the subsequent kings, Jehosephat, Hezekiah and Josiah made many rules in ecclesiastical matters. (2 Chr. xvii. 8.) And though the priests opposed Uzziah when he was going to offer incense at the Holy Place, still they never claimed to be exempted from obedience to the orders of their kings. (xxvi. 16.) (4.) In the same way, Mordecai appointed the feast of Purim, by virtue of the authority that king Ahaseurus gave him, and both Ezra and Nehemiah, by their commission from the kings of Persia, made several regulations in sacred things, (5.) In the

New Testament the same doctrine is inculcated. Our Saviour desired the Jews to "render unto "Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and un"to God the things which are God's," (Matt. xxii. 21,) thus showing that the laws of his dispensation were not intended to lessen the temporal authority. The Apostles desired the Churches to "obey magistrates, to submit to them, and to pay tribute;" and charged "every soul to be subject to the higher powers." (Rom. xiii. 1, 6, and 1 Pet. ii. 13.)

2. The truth of our assertion appears from the practice of antiquity. (1.) The early writers interpret the passages of Scripture which we have quoted as including the clergy as well as others. (2.) Previous to the time of Constantine this question was not attended to, for before him the emperors looked on the Christians scarcely in any other light than as enemies; and though the case of Paul of Samosata is an exception, in which they obtained a favourable answer to their address from the Emperor Aurelian, yet it was not till the reign of Constantine that any legislative enactments were made regarding reli

* Paul had been degraded from the See of Antioch by a council held in that city A. D. 270. He however still continued to keep possession of the office for four years after the decree had passed, when, to put an end to the schism, the case was referred to the Emperor Aurelian, who confirmed the decision of the synod.-See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. vii. c. 30.

с

gion. He, however, and his successors, made many laws in ecclesiastical matters concerning the age, the qualifications, and the duties of the clergy, which may be found in Theodosius' and Justinian's code. Appeals were made to the emperors against the injustice of synods, which they received and tried by means of bishops, whom they appointed to sit for that purpose." In the council of Nice many complaints were given to the emperor by the bishops against each other. The emperors called general councils, and presided there, and confirmed their decisions, and afterwards, when the Church was scattered, under several small sovereignties, the princes still continued to make whatever laws in ecclesiastical matters appeared necessary to them. (3.) When Charlemagne was correcting the abuses which had accumulated in a course of some ignorant ages, he published many capitulars, several of which related to ecclesiastical affairs. And in the synods which were held at that time, the spiritualty and temporalty sat together, and decided in common on

a See Mosheim's Hist. cent. iv. par. 2. c. 2.

An instance of this occurred in the case of the Donatists, who referred their cause to Constantine the Great; in consequence of which he appointed Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, assisted by three. bishops of Gaul, to examine into the appeal. See Mosheim's Hist. cent. 4. par. 2. c. 5.

S See Art. 21. p. 317,

all questions that came before them, like the Sanhedrim among the Jews in our Saviour's days. (4.) In England our kings began early, and continued long to maintain this part of their authority. The letters that are said to have passed between King Lucius and Pope Eleutherius are very probably forgeries, but they are at least ancient, and were for many ages received as true. Now a forgery is generally calculated to the sense of the time in which it is made; and in the pope's letter the king is called "God's Vicar in his kingdoms," and it is said "to belong to his office to bring his subjects to the holy Church, and to maintain, pro"tect, and govern them in it." Subsequently we find the Saxon and Danish kings making several rules in ecclesiastical matters, and after the conquest, when the constitution became more settled, many laws were passed, particularly in opposition to the practices which favoured the views of the Pope, such as appeals to Rome, and bishops leaving the Kingdom without the king's permission. Alfred's laws, too, which were held in such high esteem, contain many regulations relating to this subject.b The

Thus William the conqueror would not allow Lanfranc to jeave the kingdom, though Gregory VII. had sent several letters to him desiring him to come to Rome.-See Greg. Ep. 1. 9. Ep.

See Henry's Hist. of England. v. 2. p. 158. Ed. Dublin, 1789