earnestly demanded of him to grant them. The prophet declar'd to God in the tabernacle, where he us'd to meet him, the humour the people were in, and God commanded him accordingly to indulge their fond defire, and to anoint Saul king over all Ifrael. The prophet obey'd, and after the ceremony of Saul's installation was over, the chief priest took off his mitre, and calling all the people together, declar'd, that if any one had been injur'd during his adminiftration, he fhould bear record of him before the Lord and his anointed; for he was ready to answer all accufations, and to undergo the punishment due to his guilt. God has been pleas'd to leave us this eminent example in the holy fcriptures, as a plain evidence of the obligation that the clergy are under to submit to the lawful authority of the fecular prince, when their tranfgreffions come under his cognizance. Nevertheless, I freely own that this propofition, as general as it appears, is liable to many exceptions, and the facred fcriptures, from whence I fetch all my proofs, favour the opinion of those who affert that the clergy are not responsible to the lay tribunals for every offence; for those which they commit in the functions of the priesthood, are immediately punifh'd by God himself, as happen'd to thofe of old, who, for making ufe of ftrange fire, were punish'd with fudden death; or if God does not punish them upon the fpot, he referves them for the terrible day

of his vengeance. Therefore, I would be understood in this fenfe, that the clergy are accountable to the tribunal of their temporal prince, for all the faults they commit, foreign to their priestly functions; every one knows that the order itself does not make the clergy wifer or better than other men, and that the prieft is as much under the dominion of the fentes as the layman, and as much fubjected to the violence of all the paffions; fo that he always appears to be as frail as other, men : Would to God their crimes were nothing but the effect of mere human frailty, and that they did not fometimes outftrip the moft diffolute debauchees in wickednefs! fuch ecclefiaftics are not exempted from the judgment of temporal courts by their character, fince this is what they have highly difhonour'd, by ftriving to blafpheme the law of God; and if a prince had not authority to pafs judgment on fuch crimes, which are, as we may fay, only fecular, how would it be poffible for the fovereign to keep his fubjects in obedience, when notorious, wilful criminals,fhould plead the privilege of being exempted from the obligation of fubmitting to punishment the only way an ecclefiaftic has to keep out of the verge of the fecular tribunal, is not to fall into thofe crimes which it belongs to that tribunal to punish. Then he would have no other punishment to fear than the brotherly correction of the prelate, his fuperior; but those who pretend that the facra

ment

ment of ordination does fcreen a finner from the punishment he deferves, which is, in fome fort, to make it no less than the fomenter of fin, fhew, that they have not the least notion of the doctrine of Jefus Chrift, who has no greater enemy than fin, and who hates it more than he does the devil himself, whom he hates on no other account but that of his finfulness.

The gentlemen of the court of Rome will tell me, without question, that they are not fo abfurd as to imagine, that an ecclefiaftical criminal ought not to be punifh'd, but that all they difpute about, is the competency of the tribunal; for they hold that fuch a man is cenfurable by none but his bishop, the metropolitan, or legate, who being constituted the prime dignitaries in the ecclefiaftical state, are the only perfons that can judge canonically of his crime. I always faid, and do ftill fay the fame; but then we must fuppofe the crime, or offence, of fuch clergyman, to be in a matter merely ecclefiaftical. I have given divers inftances of this in a former chapter; as, when he does not administer the facraments rightly, when he changes the form, or matter of confecration; and in a word, when he introduces any the like culpable innovation in the exercise of his ministry, he ought to be try'd, and punish'd for it by the prelate, because crimes of this fort are not taken notice of in the civil law. The fecular prince is alfo ig0 4

1

norant

norant of these matters, for they are foreign to his administration, and he ought to fay in this refpect with St. Paul, what have I to do with these things? Nay, I dare go farther than those gentlemen, and affirm, that every layman who is guilty of a crime in a matter ecclefiaftical, which has relation either to doctrine or the facraments, ought to be punish'd by the ecclefiaftical court, because the fovereign cannot be fuppos'd to have an adequate knowledge of the nature of the crime, and therefore knows not fo well how to proportion the punishment. But let it be remember'd that I fpeak this of fuch crimes only as have fome relation to doctrine or the facraments; for, if a layman commits a robbery in a Church, tho' his crime be no less than facrilege, and feems at firft view to be a crime in a matter that is properly ecclefiaftical, yet he is fubject to the temporal prince, and 'tis the province of temporal courts to try the offender, because 'tis poffible for the fovereign to have a fufficient knowledge of the cafe and circumstances of the matter of fact. But, on the other hand, if a layman be accus'd of witchcraft, forafmuch as this crime concerns ecclefiaftical liberty, it. does not come within the jurifdiction of the temporal courts. For the fame reason, if a clergyman be accus'd of adultery, robbery, or the like crimes, which are offences point blank against the laws of the ftate, 'tis the prince's bufinefs to try and punish them, because 'tis

he

he who makes the laws, and appoints the punishment due to the tranfgreffors: Tell me not that the criminal might be as well punish'd by the ecclefiaftical judge, for, I fay, the of fender would become the more bold and infolent, if he gets but the leaft hopes of retarding, tho' not of alleviating the punishment. 'Tis well known, that the shortest term, which the Council has fet for the decifion of an appeal from the fentences of the ordinaries, is two years. Now, if a temporal prince, who is injur'd by the crime of an ecclefiaftic, has not a right to punish him, the latter will appeal from the fentence, and fo the fovereign will be oblig'd to go a begging to the ecclefiaftical courts for reparation of the injury done him. The clergy ought to fhew no examples to encourage the diffoluteness of the laity, yet nothing lefs can be the confequence, as often as the laity fee an ecclefiaftical criminal not punish'd in due time and manner, and by the proper court. Befides, it ought to be remember'd that the authority of a fecular prince is prior, in point of time, to that of the clergy and bishop's court: 'Tis faid, Touch not my Chrifts or anointed. This is true indeed, as far as they are anointed and confecrated, which is the fignification of the word Chriftos; but St. Peter did not make this exception when he commands obedience to princes, even thofe call'd Difcoli, that is to fay, fuch as are unjust, impertinent, and whimsical.

I am