the general landed property of the nation was endowed. But the ftate ftill retained its general power or controul over it, even after it had arrived into the dead poffeffion of the church; for although aliens might be, and were often, in fact, bishops, abbots, and other fpiritual corporations in this country, yet the law never permitted them to hold, enjoy, and defend the lands belonging or appropriated to them, even in their corporate capacity, in the fame manner as natural-born fubjects *; which could not be, if the property fo given to, or vefted in thefe fpiritual corporations, were from that moment taken out of the controul of the civil power.

The pious difpofitions of our ancestors rendered them often lavish in their donations to the church; whether to procure their fupplications during life, or, according to their religious belief, to infure their interceffions with God after their death, to fhorten or alleviate their sufferings in purgatory, is immaterial to confider; for if this fort of property could be given to, and be enjoyed by these fpiritual corporations independently of the ftate, then could not the ftate any more prevent the donation or inveftiture of the property, than new-model, alter, or alienate it,

* Vide the cafe of the Prior of Chelfey and other cafes In the year books.

when once made; but we have repeated in stances of both in this country; therefore it will be generally admitted, that all church livings, benefices, poffeffions, or temporalities, are but appendages of the civil establishment of religion, and confequently fubject to the controul of that power of the ftate, which could alone inftitute fuch an establishment. Having already faid fo much of the nature of real fpiritual powers, which of themselves cannot produce any civil effect, confequently cannot give the legal dominion of any landed property, it will be ufelefs to fay, that the Bishop of Rome, even whilft our ancestors acknowledged his fpiritual fupremacy, could not difpofe of, nor poffefs one inch of land within the kingdom of England; for it is a matter of notoriety, that although in former times the Popes appointed fometimes even foreigners, and generally confirmed the appointments made by the king to bishoprics, yet the admiffion to, and enjoyment of their temporalities or landed poffeffions depended entirely upon the civil ufages and fanctions of the ftate. Church lands have at all times been looked upon as a trust-fund for the edification and benefit of the country, where they were fituated; and as the benefit and advantages of each country must effentially be the objects of the care and duty of

the

the fovereign power of the ftate; fo the appropriation of fuch trust-funds must ultimately reft with the state.

Although every act of the reprefentatives of a community be uncontroulable by any fuperior human power, yet it does not follow, that every act, which they pass, is neceffarily acceptable in the fight of God, or strictly confonant with the principles of justice or morality: thus, for example fake, fuppofe the legislature had, under a very unwarrantable influence of a prince, diverted a part of fome public fund from the laudable intention of the donor or founder, to the unmerited reward of a court favourite, the act would be binding upon all mankind; nor would individuals be warranted in queftioning its validity, for want of purity or uprightnefs of intention in the perfons, who paffed it. If this principle were once admitted, the obedience of the fubject would be fquared only by his arbitrary judgment of the confcientious obligations of his fovereign. The confequent confufion in a ftate would be unlimited. Hence appears the difference between the free power and the juft right of acting. It may often be unjust in a fovereign to enjoin, what it will be the duty of a subject to perform. Yet no power whatever on earth can enact what is contrary

to

to the law of God and reafon, or what is commonly called malum in fe.

As early as in the thirteenth century, our ancestors, judging that any further increase of opulence to the church would be prejudicial to the state, paffed the ftatute of mortmain (18 Ed. I. c. 3.) to prevent any further donation of lands to a fpiritual corporation, In the year 1307, (35 Ed. I.) the reprefentatives of the nation gave the most unequivocal proof of their controul over the poffeffions of the church by enacting, that no religious houfe nor community fhould fend any part of their revenue to their foreign fuperiors; though the very fame act authorized fuch foreign fuperiors of the different religious orders to vifit their monafteries and convents in England, and to examine and regulate thofe thifigs only, that belong to regular obfervation and the difcipline of their order. The line of difference could not be more ftrongly marked between the fpiritual and the civil power. For if the fpiritual fuperiors of thefe religious houfes had any right, power, or jurifdiction over their revenues or poffeffions, the parliament could not have prevented them from receiving them. And if thefe abbots, priors, or other fuperiors, had the free, full, uncontrouled power or right over the temporalities or revenues of

their convents, they could not have been prevented by parliament from difpofing of them, as they might think proper; for the only full teft of perfect dominion in property is the abfolute freedom of difpofing of it. Moreover, if thefe church lands were not then looked upon as a part of the national trustfund, parliament would not have enacted, that they should be forfeited to the ftate by fuch convents, as permitted their alien fpiritual fuperiors to interfere with or take away any part of their revenues or poffeffions.

The church lands and revenues, which in the reign of king Henry VIII. were given to or vested in lay perfons by parliament, were confirmed to the lay proprietors by the first and fecond Phil. & Mary, c. 8. Now if the act of divesting them out of the fpiritual corporations, and vefting them in lay perfons, were facrilegious and against the law of God, or malum in fe, then was it out of the power of parliament to enact it, and the act was of itfelf invalid, and an invalid act can receive no confirmation, for confirmare eft id, quod eft, firmum facere. No length of time could induce an obligation of complying with an act of parliament, that enacted malum in se; but in this cafe, barely twenty years had intervened between the paffing of the acts and their Confirmation. It appears evident, that the parliament