CRAN

MER,

The moderate part of the cardinals being extremely desirous Abp. Cant. to close with this offer, addressed the pope to depart from the censure, and revive the cause. But though the motion was well received, and the pope not unwilling to disentangle himself, yet upon a farther debate of the matter, the emperor's party prevailed. They pretended the submission came too late, and that the recalling the sentence was wholly impracticable. Thus the sentence was affirmed, and the executing of it put upon the emperor.

Ibid.

Some arguments for the regale considered.

The bishop of Paris, in his return to France, met sir Edward Karne, who was sent to Rome from the king to negociate this affair. But when he understood how the matter had been carried, he thought it to no purpose to travel farther. When the king was informed of the issue and circumstances of this business, he resolved to disengage from the pope without making any farther application.

There had been already some steps taken to lead the way to so great an alteration. Of this kind we may reckon the conditional extinguishing the payment of annates, and prohibiting appeals to Rome by act of parliament. Our learned Church historian observes, there had been many public debates about this matter; that several tracts had been already written upon this subject but this learned prelate is mistaken in the time; for none of the books mentioned by him, were published till after this year. For instance: "The Institution of a Christian Man" was printed in 1537; Gardiner's book "De Vera Obedientia," with Bonner's preface, in 1536; sir Richard Morisin's" Apomaxis," in 1537; "The Erudition of a Christian Man," in 1543; and the book "De Differentia Regiæ et Ecclesiasticæ Potestatis," no sooner than the year 1535.

The learned historian makes a brief report of what was urged upon this occasion. The arguments against the papal supremacy are countenanced by antiquity, drawn from good authorities, and carried up to the point. But on the other hand, the reasons alleged for the extent of the regale, seem either to go upon a wrong supposition, or fail in the proof. They are most of them fetched from mistaken passages in the Old and New Testament, from miscitations of English history, from wrong inferences of law, and misapplications of the power of the Roman emperors. For instance to prove the king's supremacy in ecclesiastical causes, "they reason from the authority

VIII.

Hist. Re

Abiathar not

of the Mosaic institution: but then the instances are foreign HENRY to the case. For example, Aaron is said to have submitted to Moses. To this it may be answered, that Moses acted by immediate direction from heaven, consecrated Aaron, and was a prophet no less than a civil magistrate. Farther, it is said, 'Samuel, though he had been judge, yet acknowledged Saul's authority. But to this it may be easily returned, that Samuel Bp. Burnet, was no high-priest; and if he had been vested with that cha- form. part 1. racter, he ought to have been at the prince's command in all p. 140. temporal concerns. It is likewise urged, that Solomon turned out Abiathar, and that this high-priest acquiesced under the sentence. This instance seeming to carry some force, I shall consider it a little. First, therefore, it may be observed, that The case of Solomon had an extraordinary commission from God: he wrote serviceable to inspired books and consecrated the temple, and therefore the the regale. ordinary jurisdiction of the Jewish kings cannot be measured by his practice. Besides, Abiathar was not deprived by Solomon, properly speaking, as appears by the sentence. And 1 Kings ii. unto Abiathar the priest, said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields, for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.' Here we see Solomon was giving judgment upon several traitors, who had been in a plot against him; and thus the sentence appears altogether civil, and not an ecclesiastical penalty. It was banishment from Jerusalem to Anathoth: it was a reprieve as to his life, which he had forfeited, but not a full pardon: 'I will not,' says he, 'at this time put thee to death;' so that it seems he kept him upon his good behaviour.

"However, it may be urged on the other side, this sentence affected his sacerdotal character, and amounted to a deprivation: for in the 27th verse of the chapter abovementioned, it is said, 'that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord.' To this it is replied, that the incapacity of officiating, was the necessary consequence of his banishment: that the functions of the priesthood were confined to the temple of Jerusalem: from whence it appears, that Abiathar's banishment from that city, must stop the execution of his office. But in case the king had thought fit to remit the sentence of banishment, the powers of the high-priesthood had revived, and

26.

81.

MER,

CRAN- Abiathar been no less qualified for his function than before. Thus we see, notwithstanding the sentence, he was still reckoned a priest.

Abp. Cant.

1 Kings, iv.

4.

35.

1 Chron. xxiv.

to ver. 15,

to 54.

Ezra vii. to

"It may be urged farther, that Solomon did not only thrust out Abiathar, but substituted another in his place. For the 1 Kings ii. text tells us expressly, 'Zadoc the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar.' To this it is answered, that Abiathar was chief, or high-priest of the second sacerdotal order: and under this distinction the eight families of the house of Ithamar, second son to Aaron, were ranged. Now Abiathar was descended from this branch. On the other hand, Zadoc, of the line of Eleazar, was chief, or supreme metropolitan over the sixteen families within this division. The distribution of the courses is mentioned in the Chronicles. For this reason Zadoc is all along, even in David's time, set before Abiathar, wherever they are named together: and the succession of the high-priesthood, properly so called, was reckoned only in the 1 Chron. vi. sons of Eleazar, as we may learn from the Chronicles and and ver. 50 Ezra: in which places none of the family of Ithamar are mentioned. To this we may add, that where the chiefs of the twelve tribes are set down in David's reign, Zadoc, and not Abiathar, is reckoned prince or ruler of the Aaronites. And Zadoc only, and not Abiathar, was anointed with Solomon, when king David was living. He was anointed, I say, to be priest; that is, chief or supreme high-priest, or as Josephus expresses it, high-priest of all the people.' Thus when Abiathar was banished, and disabled from the execution of his office, the eight families of the house of Ithamar were all put under the jurisdiction of Zadoc. And thus the putting Zadoc in the room of Abiathar was not giving him any new superiority over Abiathar, for he was always above him: it was no more therefore than enlarging the extent of his jurisdiction, and giving him, as it were, a new province during the banishment. of Abiathar. From whence it follows, that Abiathar suffered no farther than a civil incapacity: there was no destruction of his character: for he is still reckoned second high-priest after Zadoc, in the list of Solomon's court, notwithstanding the sen

ver. 6.

1 Chron. xxvii. 17. 1 Chron.

xxix. 22.

Antiquit.

lib. vii. c. 11.

1 Kings iv. tence of banishment passed against him.

4.

"Farther, after the new establishment of the temple service, the succession of the high-priesthood was reckoned from Zadoc, as formerly it was from Aaron: and instead of the

VIII.

Ezek. xliii. 19. xliv. 15.

2 Chron.

xxxi. 10.

sons of Aaron, the priests were afterwards called the sons of HENRY Zadoc; and instead of the house of Aaron, the style ran, the house of Zadoc. "It is likewise observable, the temple economy was wholly xlviii. 11. divine, expressly ordered by God himself, and not left to the discretion of any human authority. From whence it follows, that though the sentence of Solomon against Abiathar had been of an ecclesiastical nature; though it had amounted not only to deprivation, but degradation, it could not however have been urged as a precedent for the prerogative of succeeding princes. For this ought to be looked on as an exempt and privileged case: it ought to have been reckoned a principal part of the new regulation of the courses of the priests; which distribution was particularly commanded by God to David: and accordingly the Scripture informs us that Solomon put this order in execution. The words run thus: 'And he appointed, according to the order of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service: for so had David the man of God commanded.'

66

2 Chron. viii.

14.

lib. 8. cap. 1.

Lastly, If Abiathar, or Eli before him, of the house of Ithamar, had usurped the supreme high-priesthood from Zadoc, and his predecessors, of the house of Eleazar, as Josephus seems to suppose; if the case stood thus, Solomon's Antiquit. removing Abiathar, and putting Zadoc in his place, was no more than restoring the right line. Now this being only a civil controversy, the case was to be determined by examining records, and inspecting genealogies: all which belongs to a court of justice, and lies within the ordinary jurisdiction of princes.

New Testa

"To proceed: there are several texts in the New Testament The authorialleged in proof of the regale. For instance, Christ himself ties from the was obedient to civil government, paid taxes, declared he pre- ment and the tended to no earthly kingdom, charged the people to render inconclusive. to Cæsar the things that were Cæsar's,' and forbad his disciples the affecting temporal dominion. Thus the apostles wrote to the Churches to obey magistrates: and though the government was then Pagan, they call the king supreme, pronounce him God's minister, and charge every soul to be subject to the higher powers. And to this purpose several of the Fathers are cited."

But these texts and authorities prove no farther than the

MER,

Abp. Cant.

CRAN king's supremacy over all persons: now this, as has been already observed, the English clergy did not deny. Besides, those who argue in this manner, seem to consider the Church only as a sect, and not as a society. They suppose it a member of the State, and as it were absorbed in it. Whereas by divine appointment, the Church and State are two bodies perfectly distinct. They are raised upon different charters: they have powers independent of each other: the government is conveyed through different channels, and the views in the institution are not the same.

Matt. xvi.

19.

John xx.

22, 23.

17.

King Henry seemed to be apprehensive of the hierarchy's Acts xx. 28. being independent in matters purely spiritual. He was someHeb. xiii. 7. what sensible the twentieth of the Acts, and the thirteenth to the Hebrews, lay heavy upon the regale; and therefore he desired, if it were possible, to be disentangled from those texts. But what satisfaction he met with, I could not discover.

Libr. Cotton.

Hist. Re

As to the precedents taken from the Roman emperors, and particularly from the Justinian code, I shall speak to that Dr. Burnet, point afterwards. To conclude: the articles of Clarendon, the form. pt. 1. contests between king Henry II. and archbishop Becket, the royal exemptions of abbeys from episcopal jurisdiction, and the laws of the Saxon princes, fall short of the purpose for which they are brought'.

p. 141.

See my Eccles. Hist. pt. 1.

In reference to the ecclesiastical power of our monarchs, I would again recommend the eighth book of Hooker's "Polity" as an invaluable guide.