259

CHAP. XXIII.

THE CLERGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND PROVED TO BE CREATURES OF THE STATE.

In the last chapter, it was shewn what is meant by the supremacy of the crown of England, by virtue of which, our kings, sometimes with, and sometimes without, the Parliaments, have governed and modelled the ecclesiastical state ever since the Reformation. Bishops, as well as inferior clergymen, have been often suspended and deprived by the king's authority; and, in the instance of Archbishop Abbot, during his pleasure. The popish bishops were all deprived by Queen Elizabeth; some thousands of the parochial clergy were rejected by the Act of Uniformity; and many, also, of all orders, were deprived at the Revolution.

I shall now proceed to shew what have been the opinions and practice of the whole body of the ecclesiastics, since the making of these laws; in doing which, I shall take notice only of their

public and authentic acts; for as to the caprice and whims of private doctors, I think them of so little weight, that I should be ashamed to quote them on either side of the question.

Upon the clergy's acknowledging the king as Supreme Head of the Church, at the Reformation, all the bishops took out commissions for exercising their ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which were again renewed upon his son's coming to the throne. In these commissions, all ecclesiastical jurisdiction is owned to proceed from the crown, as from a supreme head, and fountain, and as the spring of all magistracy in the kingdom. They acknowledge that they executed their jurisdiction formerly only ex precario, and that now, with grateful minds, they accepted the favour from the king's liberality and indulgence, and would be always ready to yield it up again, when his Majesty pleased to require it.

These commissions recited, among other particulars of spiritual power, that of ordaining presbyters, and of ecclesiastical correction.

The 2nd canon excommunicates every one who shall endeavour to hurt or extenuate the king's authority in ecclesiastical cases, as it is settled by the laws of the kingdom; and declares he shall not be restored till he has publicly recanted such impious errors.

The 37th canon obliges all persons, to their utmost, to keep and observe all and every one of the statutes and laws made for restoring to the

crown the ancient jurisdiction it had over the ecclesiastical state.

The 12th of King James's canons declares, that whoever shall affirm that it is lawful for the order either of ministers or laics to make canons, decrees, or constitutions in ecclesiastical matters, without the king's authority, and submits himself to be governed by them, is, ipso facto, excommunicated, and is not to be absolved before he has publicly repented and renounced these anabaptistical errors.

Archbishop Bancroft, when at the head of all the bishops of England, delivered articles to King James, for increasing the ecclesiastical courts, and for annexing all ecclesiastical, as well as civil power, to the crown. This may be seen at large in Lord Coke's third institute, which I would recommend to the perusal of every one, as a specimen of the difference held to exist between ecclesiastics and laymen.

I think it necessary here only to add, that the clergy have never presumed, by any public act, directly to controvert this prerogative, or indeed, even to nibble at it, unless in one instance during the reign of Queen Anne, which she highly resented, and made the convocation know, by a letter to the Archbishop, that, "she was resolved to maintain her supremacy, as a fundamental part of the constitution of the church of England." This, then,

is the supremacy of the crown; these are the genuine principles of the Church of Great Britain, which, whoever denies, may be a papist, a presbyterian, a dissenter, or any thing but a member of the Church of England. This doctrine and these opinions have been acknowledged and sworn to by every ecclesiastic since the Reformation; and we daily see that they are all ready to swear them over again, upon any fresh motives of advantage. Surely, no man will suggest, that the whole clergy of England have lived in a state of perjury for nearly three hundred years. I am sure, if this be the case, it is not their interest to let us know it.

We have it here upon oath, that all jurisdiction, power, and authority, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of what kind or sort soever it be, flows from, and is derived from, the king's majesty. The clergy have been always delighted at distinctions and discoveries if they can find out any power or authority, which is of no kind or sort whatever, I think they ought to have it for their pains. I wish them much joy with it, and shall own it always to be sacrilege in any one who shall attempt to take it from them. But if there be any such thing, it is plain that it belongs to them as governors of the invisible church, and is of a nature of which we know nothing.

It is certain, then, that archbishops and bishops are creatures of the civil power, and derive their

being and existence from it. They are chosen by the direction of one Act of parliament, and ordained and consecrated according to a model prescribed by another. Those who officiate in the service, act only ministerially, and all other methods of choosing them which the clergy can devise, are declared to be void and ineffectual. They have no spiritual power to induce any clergyman to pay submission to the choice, should he not like the man; or if he did, provided he thought he should lose any thing by his choice. If the bishops have no power but what they derive from the crown, they can convey none, but of the same sort, to the inferior clergy.

I durst not have incurred the imputation of calumny, in charging any of the present clergy with principles or practices directly in defiance of their notorious and frequently repeated oaths and subscriptions, if I had not authority to bear me out. In an appeal of Dr. Wake, then, Archbishop of Canterbury, he says, a new sort of disciplinarians are arisen up from among ourselves, who seem to comply with the government of the church, much upon the same account as others do with that of the state; not out of conscience to their duty, or any love they have for it, but because it is the established church, and they cannot keep their preferments without it. They hate our constitution, and all who stand up in good earnest for it; but