was then SUPPRESSED, not transferred to the King. The Kings of England did not at any time pretend to succeed to the authority of the Popes, but to that of their own Royal Predecessors. »

Palm. I. 465.

D.

A «Headship» of protection, rule, or governance in the Sovereign, with reference to the Church, as distinguished from a «Headship» of ministerial authority, or of power of exercising or conferring, as from a source, any executive ministerial or spiritual function, is maintained clearly in the following passages; from some of the most learned and distinguished Divines, chiefly of the Church of England.

1. «The second part, wherein consisteth the juris"diction committed unto Priests and Bishops, by the authority of God's law, is to approve and admit such persons as {being nominated, elected, and presented unto them to exercise the office and room of preaching the Gospel, and of ministering the Sacraments, and to have the cure of jurisdiction over these certain people within this parish or within this Diocese) shall be thought unto them meet and worthy to exercise the same; and to reject and repel from the said room such as they shall judge to be unmeet therefore. And in this part we must know and understand,

う

that the said presentatiou and nomination is of man's ordinance, and appertaineth unto the founders and patrons, or other persons, according to the laws and ordinances of men provided for the same. As, for an example, within this realm, the presentation and nomination of the Bishopricks appertaineth unto the Kings of this realm; and of other lesser cures and personages, some unto the King's Highness, some unto other noble men, some unto Bishops, and some unto other persons, whom we call patrons of the benefices, according as it is provided by the order of the laws and ordinances of this realm. And unto the Priests and Bishops belongeth, by the authority of the Gospel, to approve and confirm the person which shall be, by the King's Highness, or the other patrons, so nominated elected and presented unto them to have the cure of these certain people, within this certain parish or diocese," or else to reject him, as was said before, from the same, for his demerits or unworthiness. >>

Arch. CRANMER'S Instit. of a Christian Man'. publ.d A. D. 1536, and amended and approved by King Henry VII.th.

2. « We attribute nothing more to our Princes». observes Bishop JEWELL (Apol. part VI. sect. 9), « than what is allowed them by the Word of God, and approved by the examples of the best Governments. For besides

that, the care of both tables is committed by God to a faithful Prince, that he may thereby understand, that not only civil affairs, but also sacred, belong to his office. And besides this, God hath often expressly commanded Princes to cut down the groves, and overthrow the statues and altars of idols, to transcribe for himself a book of the Law;

and Isaiah saith, Chap. XLIX, 23, That Kings should be nursing fathers to the Church, and their Queens her (It is remarkable that the bishop nursing mothers'. does not quote the next part of the verse). «Besides all these things. I say, we see by histories, and the examples of the best times, that pious Princes never thought the administration of ecclesiastical affairs a thing that was foreign to their duty.»

And the Bishop proceeds to cite the examples of Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon (especially in that he removed Abiathar, the Highpriest, and substituted, Zadok in his place»), Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Joash, and Jehu from Scripture, in proof of his position in the preceding section (8), that Kings and Civil Authorities have a ruling coactive power to restrain, the luxury of the priests, and compel them to do their duty and keep them to it. »

3

It must however be remarked, that all these cases are confessedly those of Monarchs or others, acting under express Divine command, or as Moses, David, and Solomon, under the immediate inspiration of God. And also it is to be noted, that the main scope of the Bishop's argument is to prove the right of Princes to summon or attend General Councils; against the Ultra-montane Roman theory, or dogina that the Pope alone can summon or preside at such. ot be? vd

1

3. «Christ is the only head of the Church, if by the head head you understand that which giveth the body life, sense, and motion: for Christ only by his Spirit doth give life and nutriment to his body. He only doth pour spiritual blessings in o it, and doth inwardly direct and govern it.

Likewise he is only the head of the whole Church, for that title cannot agree to any other. But if by the head you understand an external ruler and governor of any particular nation or church, (in which signification head is usually taken) then I do not perceive why the magistrate may not as well be called the head of the church, i. e. the chief governor of it in the external policy, as he is called the head of the people, and of the commonwealth. And as it is no absurdity to say, that the civil magistrate is head of the commonwealth, next and immediately under God, (for it is most true), so is it none to say, that under God also he is head of the church, i. e. chief governor, as I have before said. »

Archb. Whitgift, Def. 300, 301, quoted in Keble's Hooker vol. iii. 386.

4. LIMITATION OF THE SOVEREIGN'S SUPREMACY.

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.

Hook. Ecc. Pol. VIII. ii. 3. Keble's Ed. iii. 343.

Touching that which is now in hand, we are on all sides fully agreed; ...... that some kinds of actions conversant about such affairs are denied unto kings; as, namely, actions of the power of order, and of that power of jurisdiction, which is with it unseparably joined; power to administer the word and sacraments, power to ordain, to judge as an

ordinary, to bind and loose, to excommunicate, and such like thirdly, that even in these very actions which are proper unto dominion, there must be some certain rule, whereunto kings in all their proceedings ought to be strictly tied. >>

Ibid. VIII. ii. 16. Vol. iii. 356.

<«<Wherefore in regard of ecclesiastical laws, we willingly embrace that of Ambrose, Imperator bonus intra ecclesiam, non supra ecclesiam est'; 'kings have dominion to exercise in ecclesiastical causes, but according to the laws of the Church'. Whether it be therefore the nature of courts or the form of pleas, or the kind of governors, or the order of proceedings in whatsoever spiritual businesses; for the received laws and liberties of the Church the king hath supreme authority and power, but against them, none.

What such positive laws have appointed to be done by others than the king, or by others with the king, and in what form they have appointed the doing of it, the same of necessity must be kept, neither is the king's sole authority to alter it.

Yea, even as it were a thing unreasonable, if in civil affairs the king (albeit the whole universal body did join with him) should do any thing by their absolute supreme power for the ordering of their state at home, in prejudice of any of those ancient laws of nations which are of force throughout the world, because the necessary commerce of kingdoms dependeth on them; so in principal matters belonging to Christian religion, a thing very scandalous and offensive it must needs be thought, if either kings or laws

1