Church; she regards Christ as her "Head" because He is the founder of the House, whereas she calls the King her "Head” merely as being His chief overseer. Let it be remembered that there are two distinct kinds of Spiritual Government over the Church of Christ; that the one kind is invisible and exercised by Christ Himself, in His own person, in respect of which He is called "Head of the Church," in which sense and meaning, no other creature besides Him can be termed "Head,"-first, because it imports the conduct and government of our souls by the hand of that blessed Spirit, with which we are sealed and marked as being peculiarly His-secondly, because as "Head" He gives satisfaction and life to "His Body, the Church," and that His power as "Head" is spiritual-and thirdly, because it works secretly, inwardly, and invisibly; but that the other kind is outwardly administered by Kings and such as Christ permits to be Rulers and Guides of His Church, and which is external, visible, and perfectly separated in order, extent of power, and in the nature of that power, from the spiritual supremacy and power of Christ. In order, because Christ is Head of the Church Universal, and "far above all principalities and powers, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not in this world only, but also in that which is to come: whereas the headship of the King is subordinate to His; he is said to be only "Head of the Church under Christ." In extent of power, because the headship of Christ confers dominion upon Him from sea to sea, for the ends of the earth are His possession, and all power both in heaven and earth; His Headship confers upon Him such sovereignty, as not only extends over all persons, places, and things, but rests in his own person solely, is not continued by any succession, and in its extent is unequalled by the power either of man or angel. He reigns as a head King, bound by no kind of law, but His own will and wisdom; His power is absolute, the same connectedly over all that it is severally over each. But the headship of the King of England is very different; his power may be exercised only so far as the bounds of his own dominion extend, and even then (as has been already observed) with dependency upon that whole entire body over the several parts of which he has dominion, it is also subservient to the law because held by it, and must be according to it, because the King has no supreme authority or power against those received laws and liberty of the Church, nor can he alter them of his sole authority, nor does his power wholly exclude that power which belongs severally to others, contained as parts in that politic body over which his supremacy is maintained, although that power cannot (as before stated) overrule such supremacy. Thus the power of the King in Ecclesiastical matters is and ought to be limited and restrained, but the power of Christ not only is not, nor ought to be, but indeed * Eph, i. 21. ↑ Art. xxxvii, cannot be limited. In the nature of that power, for Christ is called the "Head" of His Church, because that as the head is more divine than all other parts of the body, has a consequent dominion over all the rest, has none above it, and is always joined to the body, so He is the highest in His Church, has dominion over it, and is always joined to it; that as the Head is the fountain of sense and motion to all the body, so He quickens His Church, and gives it understanding of heavenly things, and strength to walk in them; and as the Head is the throne where the guide of the soul reigns, so Christ, by the secret and inward influence of His grace, communicates spiritual life and spiritual motions to His Church. If we consider these reasons on account of which Christ is called the Head of the Church, and then recollect that He is not sensibly present, nor always visibly joined to His body the Church on earth, inasmuch as his bodily residence is in heaven, and, therefore, that He does not personally administer the external Government of outward actions in the Church, we shall clearly perceive how great a difference there is between that kind of operation which is implied in the headship of Princes, and that of our Saviour's dominion over the Church; for the headship which the Church of England gives to the King is altogether visibly exercised, and orders only the external actions of the Church here amongst us; so that in its very nature it differs from the headship of Christ, for none besides Him can be united to the Church as He is, nor work as He works, either on the whole Church, or upon any particular assembly, or in any one man. It is therefore evident, that the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Sovereign is both lawful, necessary, and Scriptural; and that the Title of "Head of the Church" given to the Kings of England by no means equalises them with Christ, the luvisible" Head" of the Church Universal. Q. 19.-How do you prove that the Kings of England may lawfully exercise the prerogative of advancing Bishops to vacant Sees? As it has been proved that every King in his own kingdom is Supreme Head of the Church as well as of the State, the presentation, therefore, to all Bishoprics in the former as naturally belongs to him, as the presentation to any temporal dignity and promotion in the latter. It must not be forgotten that all the Bishoprics in Eugland were founded and originally endowed by the Kings of England, as well as that the Bishoprics in Wales were founded by the Prince of Wales; the King, therefore, is virtually the private Patron of them. The only well-founded objection against the Regal nomination to Bishoprics is, that the elevation to the Episcopat order ought to be exclusively the act of God imparted by his Ministers. But it is evident that the act of God and that of the King in this respect are perfectly compatible; both of them have their proper object and extent. The office is from God; the place, station, and power, in which that office is exercised, is from the King: It is the King that gives the Bishopric; it is God that makes the Bishop. The King of England does not claim the power of ordaining those Bishops; this is derived from none but Spiritual hands: on the other hand, it is very certain that from time immemorial, the right to erect and dispose of Episcopal Sees belongs to Princes, within their own dominions. It is with a King and a. Bishop, as with a Patron and his Incumbent: The Patron gives. the benefice to the Clergyman, but pretends not to give him Orders; that the latter is a Clergyman he has from his Diocesan; that he is beneficed he has from his Patron; whilst he acknowledges his. Orders from the reverend hands of his Bishop, does he derogate from the bounty of a Patron's free presentation? Thus a Bishop advanced to that exalted dignity, holds it at once from God and the King; its calling from God; its place and exercise of Jurisdiction from the King. Q. 20-Wherein does it appear that Kings have lawfully the prerogative of calling, prorogueng, and dissolving the Convocation of the Church of England? We find that no other than the supreme Regal authority in the Jewish Government could, or did call an assembly, whether civil or Ecclesiastical. David gathered all Israel together unto Jerusalen, and when the Ark was to be removed, he assembled the sons of Aarou and the Levites. Solomon did the same when the Temple was to be dedicated; Aša in his time did the same, when the Church was to be reformed; Joash, Hezekias, Isaiah, and others, did the same upon similar occasions. And we read that amongst the different prerogatives of Simon's Government over the Jews, there was enumerated, as not the least, "that no man might gather any great assembly in the land without him." After the Christian Religion was established, because it seemed no less an act of supreme authority to call an assembly for religious, than for secular affairs, (for the affairs of the Church and of the Christian Religion are public affairs, for the ordering of which more solemn assemblies are sometimes of as great importance and use, as they are for secular affairs,) therefore, it was seen fit to annex this prerogative to the Crown. For it must be remembered that before Emperors became. Christians, the Church had never any general Synod, because their greatest meeting consisted of Bishops, and other dignified Ecclesiastics in cach Province. It is impossible, therefore, to decide what right a Christian King had to call Ecclesiastical Assemblies, until we arrive at a later period, because prior to that period the authority of the civil Governor permitted those assemblies only as things not, regarded, or not accounted of, at such times as it did permit them; but we are certain that the ancient Imperial law prohibited all 1 such Assemblies as the Authority of the Emperor had not convoked.* Constantine was not only the first that ever did call any General Council together, but even the first that devised the calling of them for consultation upon spiritual matters, because he was the first Christian Emperor. But we are certain that after he had once set the example, his Successors followed it for a long period, insomuch that St. Jerome, to disprove the authority of a Synod, which was pretended to be genuine, employs this as a forcible argument: "Dic, quis Imperator hanc synodum jusserit convocari?" Thus it appears that the convocation, prorogning, and dissolution of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, is the lawful prerogative of Christian Kings, INFERENCES FROM THE PRECEDING ARGUMENT. Because it has been proved that Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters is Scripturally and lawfully annexed to the crown of England, therefore he who unlawfully denies the exercise of that authority, or repiningly obeys its lawful injunctions, resists God Himself; according to the precepts of the Apostle, "Honour the King as supreme," and "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God: Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power," (be it civil or Ecclesiastical) "resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."—(Rom. xiii. 1, 2.) *Lib I. de Coll. Illicit. et de Conventiculis, cap. de Episc. et Presbyt. CHAP. III. DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. "Let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory; that if any thing in the Church's regiment, surely the first Institution of Bishops was from Heaven, was even of God; the Holy Ghost was the Author of it. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. B. VII. "I am, for my part, so confident of the Divine Institution of the majority of Bishops above Presbyters, that I dare boldly say, there are weighty points of Faith (even the blessed Sacraments themselves) which have not so strong evidence in Holy Scriptures." Bp. Hall's Works, Vol. ix. p. 562. "We can no more lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian Priesthood, than we can alter the terms of Salvation, and yet be in covenant with God." OBJ.-"Secondly, I object to the character and authority of certain Officers appointed in the Church of England; for she has three orders of Clergy, viz. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, besides Metropolitan and Provincial Archbishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, and other Church Officers not mentioned in Scripture, unheard of in the Primitive Church for many centuries, and to be found only in her own and the Romish Communion, to which she was indebted for them. Now I consider Diocesan Episcopacy to be an anti-christian, iniquitous, and tyrannical usurpation; for I believe the Order of Bishop to have been unknown in the Apostolical age, and to have had its rise in the subsequent corruption of Christianity; because it appears to me to be evident either that the Bishop and Presbyter, (or Elder,) mentioned in the New Testament, were the same Order, |