may plead the same in disabling of such plaintiff, as if he or she were excommunicated by sentence in this ecclesiastical court."

These statutes the Romanists are vehement in urging against us, as importing that all kind of spiritual or ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction are united to the crown of these realms.

And the Romanists are not the only objectors in this point. We have persons in England who profess to be Protestants, and very zealous ones, who yet agree with the Church of Rome, in alledging that these statutes fully prove the crown to be entitled, by law, to all kind of ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction.

But these Protestant objectors would do well to consider, whether our laws, if taken in this sensé which they contend for, may not be found to affirm things false in themselves, and to vest powers in the crown repugnant to the institutions of the Christian religion. If this should appear to be the case, the civil sanction of these laws would not be sufficient to vindicate them. They will, notwithstanding that sanction, lie equally open to the objections of the Romanists, and be condemned even by many serious Protestants, who, upon their account, may become disaffected to our whole establishment, and be liable to be drawn off from it by the Romanists; who indeed, upon that view chiefly, are so earnest in fixing this sense upon these laws. Every one, therefore, who is a true friend to our constitution, before he agrees with the Romanists in fixing this

sense upon them, ought seriously to consider the consequences of it; viz. whether our laws, if understood in this sense, will not affirm things false and wrong; and, if this will be the consequence, he ought from thence to be put upon considering, whether this be the necessary sense of them or not; or whether they may not fairly bear a different one. Not that one ought from these considerations to put a forced or unnatural sense upon the expressions in our laws; for that would neither take off the objections of the Romanists, nor serve to any other good purpose: but these considerations may be of some weight, à priori, if the expressions of our laws be doubtful, to induce us to think it probable, that the legislature could not mean them in such a sense; because it is not supposable that they should have been mistaken in such important matters; and much less is it supposable that they would, knowingly, pretend to vest such powers in the crown, as they were sensible Jesus Christ had granted to his clergy only.

Whether these considerations have occurred to our Protestant objectors I do not know: but that they may have a proper weight with you, added to those which have been above-mentioned, in order to make you form a right judgment of the sense of our laws in this point, I must desire you to recollect what has been said in the first section of these papers, about liberty of profession and practice in matters of religion. I have there shewn, that every religious society, whose doctrine and practice are alto

L

gether inoffensive to the civil state, and which hath no establishment for it, hath a right to be exempted from any interposals of the civil governor, with regard to its doctrine, worship, or ecclesiastic govern

ment.

From whence it follows, that if the civil government in England has any such right of interposing, as our Protestant objectors suppose, in regulating the government and discipline, &c. of our church, it must be derived from the consent and concessions supposed to have been made by our church to the state, on account of the temporal advantages she enjoys from it.

And there is reason, indeed, to suppose that the church has made divers such concessions.

She has consented, that the king's judges should send writs of prohibition to stop the exercise of her discipline in many cases, and mandates to absolve persons excommunicated in others; and that they should be appealed to from her sentences.

She has consented that our kings should exempt some persons and places from her jurisdiction.

That they nominate persons to be chosen bishops, and order their consecration: and that they and others of the laity should present persons to many spiritual cures.

That her bishops and clergy should not at any time meet or make any canons without the king's licence, and subsequent confirmation.

In these, and perhaps in some other points, the

church of this nation has made concessions to the

civil government.

And it might lawfully do so, for as long a time as the civil governors should make a right use of these concessions; viz. to the benefit of the state without hurting religion or the church. For that this they may do is evident for instance, they may not use the power of issuing prohibitions to stop the exercise of the church's discipline, nor require any persons to be absolved in any cases, but when it is expedient so to do. They may not exempt any places from episcopal jurisdiction, but for weighty reasons; and in such cases it may be lawful for the church to forbear, for a time, the exercise of her discipline and jurisdiction; for though she has it by divine right, yet she is not obliged to exercise it at all times. It may sometimes be expedient to forbear the exercise of it, in view to obtain greater advantages to religion by forbearing it.

In like manner, though the church has a right to nominate her own officers, as bishops, &c. yet as the civil government may also nominate fit persons for those trusts, the church may lawfully consent to receive them upon the state's nomination, as long as they nominate persons against whom there lies no important objection.

Again, though the church has a right to make any proper regulations concerning her own spiritual affairs, inoffensive to the civil state, yet, as the making such regulations is not at all times necessary,

the church may consent that her clergy shall not meet, nor make any canons without the licence of the civil governor, nor that any of them shall be valid without his subsequent confirmation; for, as the making canons is not at all times necessary, it may at some times be forborn for a considerable space of time, or subjected to the will of the civil governor, upon supposition that he will suffer it to. be done when it is really expedient for the church.

As the giving up their power to the civil governor may be very expedient to the state, in order to its preserving a proper influence on the people, and hindering any undue practices from the clergy, if they should at any time be factious and seditious to its disadvantage; so, on the other hand, there may be a real and great expediency to the church, that they should be given up, in order to gain or preserve the continuance of that protection and favour, and support those revenues, dignities, temporal powers, and other emoluments, which the church receives from the state, and which may be made very conducive to the maintenance and promotion of true religion. Upon this common expediency, I say, to the church, as well as to the civil government, the church may be lawfully warranted to make these concessions. But these ought not to be, as they often are, used as arguments of the civil state's having naturally and originally a right in church matters; because, as I have shewn, the state's right in these points is not original, but derived only from