directly nor indirectly, under any pretence, aught be enacted or executed against ecclesiastical persons or goods, or against their liberty-any privilege or immemorial exemption to the contrary notwithstanding.

Such was the famous bill of rights (if I may so express myself) of the clergy of Christendom in the sixteenth century, on which I shall beg leave to make a few remarks. In the first place, it is evident, that these articles imply a total independence of the ecclesiastic on the secular powers, inasmuch as the latter could, on this plan, use no coercive measures, either for preventing the commission of crimes by the former, or for punishing them when committed; could not, even for the eviction of civil debts, or discharge of lawful obligations, affect the clergy either in person or in property, moveable or immoveable; could exact from them no aid for the exigencies of the state, however urgent. Now, allowing that the independence were equal on both sides, it might admit a question, whether it be possible that two such independent states, whereof the subjects of each live together as members of the same community, and are blended in all the ordinary duties and concerns of life, could subsist any time on that footing. I observe, secondly, that the independence was solely on the side of the clergy. The laity could not, by their civil sanctions, affect the clergy without their own concurrence; but the clergy, both by their civil and by their religious sanctions, could affect the laity, and, in spite of their opposition, whilst the people had any religion, bring the most obstinate to their terms. The civil judge could not compel a clergyman to appear before his tribunal; the ecclesiastic judge could compel a layman, and did daily compel such to appear before him. And in all the interferings and disputes between individuals of the different orders, the clerical only could decide. The ecclesiastic powers could command the aid of the secular; the secular could not that of the ecclesiastical. I observe, thirdly, that though the kinds of power, in the different orders, were commonly distinguished into spiritual and temporal, the much greater part of the power of ecclesiastics was strictly temporal. Matters spiritual are those only of faith and manners, and the latter only as

manners, that is, as influencing opinion, wounding charity, or raising scandal: whereas, under the general term spiritual, they had got included the more important part of civil matters also, affairs matrimonial and testamentary, questions of legitimacy and succession, covenants and conventions, and wherever the interposition of an oath was customary. Add to these, that they were the sole arbiters of the rights avowedly civil of the church and churchmen, and in every thing wherein these had, in common with laymen, any share or concern. Though these privileges (weakly called immunities, since they imply dominion) had, for centuries, been claimed by the clerical order, many of them in most countries actually obtained, and the rest made matter of incessant broils and contentions; yet all of them were never any-where acquiesced in by the secular powers. Had they, indeed, admitted them in their full extent, the abolition of the secular authority would have quickly ensued; the priesthood would have engrossed every thing. Christendom would have then become in a sense very different from that of the apostle, a royal priesthood, or, as some like to render his words, a kingdom of priests. In scripture the church is so denominated, in the same sense wherein it is said of all Christians without exception, that they are made kings and priests to God, because all have free access to him through the blood of his Son; not because our instructors in holy things, men specially called to be ensamples to the flock, in faith and patience, in resignation and humility, were constituted lords with plenary power, both temporal and spiritual, over God's heritage. I observe, in the last place, that an ordinary reader, who has not entered thoroughly into the spirit of those times, cannot fail to be exceedingly surprised (as I acknowledge I was myself) on the first perusal of the aforesaid overtures. They are ushered in as pious resolutions to be adopted by the council, for the reformation of princes and secular persons. One is naturally led to expect, that in such a writing, calculated purely to reform the great, their faults will, with Christian freedom, but in the spirit of meekness, be animadverted on; that one shall find a just censure on the pride, the luxury, the impiety, the extortion, the envy, the

revenge, and the other vices which so often abound among those in high rank and authority; or that one shall see branded with proper severity, that unchristian ambition which leads sovereigns so often, though fellow-Christians in profession, to make war on one another on the most trivial pretences, to the destruction of one moiety of their subjects, the oppression of the other, and dishonour of the Christian name. But not a syllable of these. Was there nothing of this kind, then, among the powers of Europe? Never, perhaps, was there more. Yet this venerable body seemed to think, that there was nothing in their earthly potentates which would need correction, were they sufficiently submissive to their ghostly fathers, the bishops and the priests; that is, in effect, would they but resign to them their whole authority, and consent to become their humble slaves-a virtue, it seems, more successful, in the eyes of their reverences, than charity itself in covering sins.

In the same spirit, the seventeenth canon of general reformation, passed in the last session of that council, has these words: "Against those bishops who, in church or out of it, behave themselves meanly towards the ministers of kings, persons of quality and barons, and, with too much indignity, not only give place to them, but do them personal service, the synod, detesting this conduct, and renewing the canons concerning the decorum of episcopal dignity, commands bishops to beware of such practices, and every-where to challenge due respect to their degree, remembering they are pastors; and also commands princes and all others to bear them the honour and reverence due to fathers." How high their claims went, we learn from a canon of the council of Troyes, in the ninth century, which orders, that no man shall presume to sit in the presence of a bishop, unless he command it. We know who they were in ancient times that sought honour one of another, who affected the principal seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts, who loved greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi: We know also who it was that expressly prohibited amongst his disciples such unbecoming emulation and worldly vanity; who enjoined them not to seek honour from men, or to con

tend who, in the judgment of men, should be greatest; but to seek that honour only which cometh from God: We know also who it was that made usefulness the standard of greatness, and pronounced him to be possessed of the highest dignity, who is most humble and most serviceable; who, instead of courting, is solicitous to avoid such enviable distinctions. On which of these models the convention at Trent, and other preceding councils, were formed, I shall leave to the candid and impartial to determine.-I shall conclude this lecture with a story, homely indeed, but apposite: An English country parson was bragging, in a large company, of the success he had had in reforming his parishioners, on whom his labours, he said, had produced a wonderful change to the better. Being asked in what respect, he replied, that when he came first among them, they were a set of unmannerly clowns, who paid him no more deference than they did to one another; did not so much as pull off their hat when they spoke to him, but bawled out as roughly and familiarly as though he were their equal; whereas, now, they never presumed to address him but cap in hand, and in a submissive voice, made him their best bow when they were at ten yards' distance, and styled him your reverence at every word. A Quaker, who had heard the whole patiently, made answer: “And so; friend, the upshot of this reformation, of which thou hast so much carnal glorying, is, that thou hast taught thy people to worship thyself." So much for clerical and papal claims. But, in order to know more exactly the state of those times, we must be acquainted with the sentiments of both sides on every principal question: I shall, therefore, in my next lecture, take notice of the reception which those articles of reformation I have read to you met with from the secular powers.

Ꮓ

LECTURE XXII.

In my two last prelections I laid before you, in their utmost extent, the papal claims of jurisdiction over the clergy, and the clerical claims, not only of independence, but of authority over the secular powers. I promised to take notice, in the present lecture, of the reception which the last mentioned claims over the secular powers met with from those against whom they were aimed.

Copies of those articles, for the reformation of princes and magistrates, having been sent by the ambassadors to their respective courts, they were instructed to give them all the opposition in their power. In this resolution none were more determined than the emperor, and the king of France. The former wrote to Cardinal Moron, that neither as emperor nor as archduke would he ever consent that they should speak in council of reforming the jurisdiction of princes, or of divesting them of their right to draw contributions from the clergy; that he considered all their past evils as having sprung from the oppressions attempted by ecclesiastics, both on the people and on the princes. The French ambassadors prepared a protestation, which they were commanded to make, if there should be occasion for it.

In one of the meetings called congregations, one of the fathers, in a long speech, advanced, that the cause of all their corruptions proceeded from the princes, who, of all men, had the greatest need of reformation; adding, that the heads of a scheme for this purpose were already digested, meaning that which I gave you in a preceding lecture, and that it was now time to propose them, and not to suffer so important a design to come to nothing through their dilatoriness. As here the rights of sovereigns were touched, the ambassador Ferrier, of whose vehemence as well as freedom in speaking I have already given you a specimen, interposed, and, in a very resolute tone, supported the rights of the secular powers in general, and of his master the king of France in particular. Though he was by no means destitute of eloquence, his eloquence was not always adapted to time and place.