It is evident then, that the whole separation or schism was originated and effected by the Roman pontiffs and their adherents, not by the churches among us. I repeat it, as a fact which ought never to be forgotten, that WE DID NOT GO OUT FROM THEM; but, as the apostle says, THEY WENT OUT FROM Us; thus bearing what is, as Bossuet well observes, the invariable mark of schism and heresy in every age: "Non enim nos ab illis, sed illi a nobis recesserunt."P

Hence it follows that the Romish communities in England are not churches of Christ; and we have an additional proof of this in the fact, that they are unable to show any succession of the episcopacy in their conventicles. The pope indeed sent a titular bishop to them in 1625, whose successor went to France in 1629, and returned no more; and up to the present time the Romish community has not had any bishops, for although the vicars apostolic (as they call themselves) pretend to the episcopal character, this character is by no means essential to their office; their successors may be priests or monks, and they have no ordinary power over the English Romanists, being merely deputies of the Roman pontiff, who may revoke their commissions, without any trial, at his own will and pleasure.

1 John ii. 19.

• First Pastoral Instruction on the promises to the church. › Cyprianus de Unitate.

See Dodd's Church History.

Benedict XIV. de Synodo Diocesana, lib. ii. c. 10, where he says they are "interdum quidem sine Episcopali charactere interdum autem hujusmodi charactere insigniti, cum titulo tamen alicujus Ecclesiæ in partibus infidelium sitæ, ut spirituale regimen gerant alicujus regionis, cujus episcopus et pastor proprius non existat."

• The Vicar Apostolic (so called) in Sweden is a priest.-Parliamentary Report on Roman Catholic Subjects, 1816, p. 452.

In 1817 the papists of the London district petitioned the Roman pontiff most earnestly not to remove Dr. Poynter from the situation of Vicar Apostolic; to which he was pleased to reply, that he had no intention of doing so.-See Roman Cath. Magazine for 1817, p. 243.

Consequently as vicars apostolic they have no episcopal jurisdiction in England; and as titular bishops, in partibus infidelium,' they have no jurisdiction any where. Therefore they are not, properly speaking, bishops; and the Romanists of England are devoid of any apostolical succession of bishops, not to speak of some serious difficulties which affect the validity of their orders in these countries, and which will be considered elsewhere."

"See Part VI. chapter on Romish Ordinations.

VOL. 1.-54

CHAPTER III.

ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY AND ACTS OF THE CIVIL POWER DURING THE REIGNS OF HENRY VIII. AND

EDWARD VI.

IN considering the title of supreme head of the church of England, given to Henry VIII. by the clergy of England, we must be careful to distinguish the sense in which they allowed it the king, from any exaggerated and unsound meaning which may have been affixed to it by courtiers or lawyers for the former only is the church of England responsible; the latter she is not concerned with.

I. When it was proposed to the clergy of the Convocation of Canterbury, to acknowledge the king supreme head of the church and clergy of England, they absolutely refused to pass this title simply and unconditionally; and, after much discussion, the king was at last obliged to accept it with a proviso, introduced by the clergy, to the following effect: "Ecclesiæ et cleri Anglicani singularem protectorem et unicum et supremum dominum, et (quantum per Christi legem licet) etiam supremum caput, ipsius majestatem recognoscimus."a

To recognize the king as supreme head of the English church, "as far as it is allowable by the law of Christ," certainly was not to admit his right to interfere with the spiritual jurisdiction of bishops, or with any of the laws, liberties, doctrines, or rites of the church, established either directly or indirectly by the law of Christ. The clergy of England were entitled to believe that they had saved all the spiritual rights of

a

Burnet, Hist. Refor. vol. iii. p. 90-92, and vol. i. p. 205; Collier, vol. ii. p. 62. This account is drawn up from the authentic records of the proceedings of convocation. The author of the Antiquitates Britanniæ (attributed to Parker) incorrectly states that the proposed qualification, "quantum per Christi legem licet," was left out finally.

the church by this proviso; and, indeed, we learn from Burnet, that "those who adhered to their former notions," i. e. the church generally, "understood this headship to be only a temporal authority in temporal matters." I shall not here enter on the general question of the authority of the king in ecclesiastical affairs, which will be discussed elsewhere; but it is admitted by the theologians and canonists of the Roman obedience, that Christian kings have generally a supreme power of external direction in such matters. It has been shown by our writers

b Burnet, iii. 92. Archbishop Bramhall terms our kings "political heads” of the English church.-Works, p. 25.

c See Part V.

a Stapleton, Princip. Doctr. lib. v. c. 17; Champney, De Vocat. Ministr. c. 16; Thomassin. Eccl. Discipl. tom. ii. lib. 3. c. 92. sect. 12, &c.; Rechberger (chancellor of the diocese of Lintz) maintains the regal power of superintendence and vigilance over the transactions and decrees of the church, of enacting laws on disciplinary matters for the church, of correcting abuses, limiting religious rites, enjoining silence in controversies of faith, establishing uniformity in divine service, abolishing festivals, &c.— See Report of Committee on Rom. Cath. subjects (1816), pp. 80-114. De Marca, archbishop of Paris, informs us that Molinæus, Fauchetius, Pithæus, Hotmannus, Servinus, &c.; who were all eminent writers of the Roman communion, teach "that the R. pontiff exercised no authority in Gaul before the sixth century; that in all that interval, of almost 600 years, the king alone presided over the Gallican church as head."—Proleg. ad lib. de Concord. Sacerd. et Imp. p. 71. The Answer of the Prince de Kaunitz, chancellor of the empire, to the papal nuncio Garampi, A. D. 1781, and which is referred to as of high authority in Austria, claims for the prince a most extensive supremacy over the church. It asserts that "the reform of abuses which do not concern dogmatical or merely spiritual points . . . belongs exclusively to the sovereign, who alone commands, and alone has the right to command in the state. That to this authority belongs, without any exception, whatever relates to the external discipline of the clergy;" and that the power of the state "comprises without any exception, whatever is of human institution in the Christian church."-See the Report above referred to, p. 144, 145. The government of Napoleon, it will be recollected, declared that the French sovereigns regarded themselves as "les évêques du dehors," and always exercised power over the clergy in matters of dis

that the kings of England always were the supreme political governors or heads of our national church. The most learned lawyers, Fitzherbert and Coke, affirm, that the law confirming the royal supremacy was only declaratory of the ancient laws of England; and Bossuet himself only condemns this supremacy on the erroneous supposition that it was admitted to affect fundamentally the validity of all ecclesiastical acts, not if it were understood to relate to a merely external direction and execution.

Now, it is incredible that the clergy, in acknowledging the supremacy "as far as it is allowable by the law of Christ," could have designed to admit that all their ecclesiastical acts emanated from, or were fundamentally affected as to their validity by the royal power. They could not at once in a body have relinquished the notions which had always hitherto prevailed; and there is evidence that they did not, as we shall see in discussing the royal commissions for bishoprics. Indeed, king Henry himself, in a letter to Tunstall, bishop of Durham, who thought the title of "Head" could not with propriety be given to man, unless it were limited to temporals, seems to restrain his own ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to such things as were of a temporal or of a mixed nature, such as the assembling of convocations and confirming their laws, the appointment of bishops

cipline, worship, &c.—Mém. Eccl. de France, tom. i. p. 71. [Above, p. 327, note; this "external Episcopate," claimed, and used with such effect, by Lewis XIV. was based, both name and thing on that of Constantine and his successors.]

h Thomassin observes that the Gallican convocations or assemblies of the clergy, were summoned by the king, that they exercised no acts of jurisdiction, deliberated and concluded on nothing without the king's permission; that the bishops sought in vain permission to hold synods, &c.-De Eccl. Discipl. l. ii. c. 56, 57. In fact, during the whole of last century the French bishops were petitioning the king ineffectually to be permitted to hold provincial synods. See also Fleury, Droit Eccl. ii. c. 2, and 25; Van Espen says a royal minister was always present in the synods of Belgium, which