commanding Obedience to be given to the Word of God by reforming Religion according to his prescribed Will by assisting the Spiritual Power with the Temporal Sword by reforming Corruptions by procuring due Obedience to the Church by judging and cutting off all frivolous Questions and Schisms as Constantine did and finally by making decorum to be observ'd in every thing and establishing Orders to be observ'd in all indifferent things for that purpose is the ONLY intent of the Oath of Supremacy and whereby as he effectually confuted the Cardinal whose Letter charged the Oath of Supremacy as tending to this end That the Authority of the Head of the Church in England may be transferr'd from the Successor of St. Peter to the Successor of King Henry the 8th and to oppose the Primacy of the Apostolick See so at the end of his Book he shews that his design of Publishing the same was to satisfie all his good and natural Subjects and likewise Strangers about the things therein contain'd and whereby the King's Mind was publickly notify'd that in the right done to the Crown by the Oath of Supremaâ—…y as well as of Allegiance there was no wrong intended to St. Peter or his Successors A. I hope you have now put a Period to the History of the Dispensative Power of the Crown that was exercised in-the interpreting of any parts of the Oath of Supremacy or the 37th Article thereto relating You have named to me so many interpretations of the Oath that according to the wisdom of our State and the Lex Consuetudo Parliamenti making a Bill to be thrice read in each House of Parliament and then receiving the Royal Assent to be thought like Gold seven times purify'd may shew the interpretation of the Law to be so too But tho I will account any good Law to be more precious then Gold yet if like Gold it be too far extended by ductile interpretation it may be drawn to such a thinness as to lose all its weight and estimation and retain only a poor tincture and colour that will signifie little or nothing And as Pliny in his Panegyrick on Trajan said that by reason of the multitudes of sutes upon Penal Laws in Rome there was danger till Trajan's time ne Civitas fundata legibus legibus everteretur so a Law whose Obligatoriness is founded on interpretations may be endanger'd by the multitudes of them to be destroy'd and may like the Papal Laws of New Rome by the infinite interpretations of Casuists in the forum internum which is their Tribunal be brought to signifie nothing in either forum and to be only an Engine to make Perplexities You have given me here such a Genealogy of interpretations that according to the common Story of Arise Daughter c. one may say Arise Interpretation and go to thy Interpretation c. I shall therefore be glad now you have been so largely communicative of your thoughts to me about the assertory part of the Oath you will deal as frankly with me in acquainting me with what may in the Promissory part of the Oath be of importance for me to know in order to the better discharge of my Duty in the Case before me B. I shall therein be most ready to serve you when we meet next for the entire Consideration of what according to the Assertory part of the Oath you are obliged to do will I see be as great a load as both our patiences will at this time bear and therefore according to the Saying of Must is for the King I am to tell you that let our Kings make never so many interpretations one after another of this your Oath you must finding them all Consistent with one another consider them all with all due regarâ—… 〈◊〉 thank God and them when their Consciences being inclined to a tenderness for the doubting of yours they interpose their Dispensative Power of that kind And hereupon I shall tell you that in the year 1628. King Charles the First did cause the 39 Articles to be reprinted and with a Declaration before the same made by him as Supreme Governor of the Church within his Dominions that those Articles contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England and that if any Difference should arise about the external Policy concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever belonging to the Church of England the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them c. he approving their said Ordinances c. that the Bishops and Clergy shall have licence under the Broad Seal to deliberate of and do all such things as being made plain by them and assented to him shall concern the setled Continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England c. and then having respect to the Article wherein the Arminians and Antiarminians were concern'd 't is order'd that no man hereafter shall either Print or Preach to draw the Article aside any way c. But the first Canon that was afterward viz. A. 1640. made was that concerning the Regal Power which begins with taking notice that sundry Laws Ordinances and Constitutions had been formerly made for the acknowledgment and profession of the most lawful and independent Authority of our Dread Sovereign Lord the King over the state Ecclesiastical and Civil and then enjoyns them to be ALL carefully observ'd by all persons whom they Concern upon the Penalties in the said Laws and Constitutions express'd and then decrees that the Clergy shall read the following Explanation of the Regal Power and where the words A Supreme Power is given to this most excellent Order i. e. of Kings by God himself in the Scriptures which is that Kings should rule and Command in their several Dominions all persons of what Rank or Estate soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and that they should restrain and punish with the Temporal Sword all stubborn and wicked doers shew they had then the 37th of the 39 Articles in their eye and some other words viz. for any person or persons to set up maintain or avow respectively under any pretence whatsoever any independent Coactive Power either papal or popular c. is to undermine their great Royal Office shew they had an Eye on that 37th Article and on your Oath and where they did speak out that sense of the Clause The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction c. and of the words in the Oath that no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. that is that the Bishop of Rome had here no independent Coactive Iurisdiction the sense in which all considerate Persons who were Members of the Church of Rome in Harry the 8th's time and of the Church of England in Edward the 6th's time took the old Oath of Supremacy and the Members of the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth's time and ever since took the new one As for Non-conformists who think the Government of Bishops unlawful this Clause that no foreign
the Commissioners be COMPETENT that is if they be spiritual men they may proceed to Sentence of Excommunication which may right well be Certify'd as well as Excommunication before Commissioners Delegates both of these Authorities being under the Great Seal c. And Excommunication certify'd ly Commissioners Del gates hath been allowed as it appeareth in 23. Eliz. Dyer 371. And in many Cases Acts of Parliament have adjudged men Excommunicate ipso facto But if they be meer Lay-men the fault is not in the Statute or in the Law but in the Nomination and upon Certificate made of the Excommunication according to Law a Significavit or Cap. Excom shall be awarded out of the Chancery for the taking and imprisoning the Bodies of such Excommunicate Persons But had his Lordship as I said in the Case of the other Author consider'd how by the Statute of 37. H. 8. it was declared that by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is given to His Majesty and to all such Persons as he shall appoint to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct Uice and Sin whatsoever he would not I believe have thought Lay-men incompetent or incapable Persons so to have acted in the high Commission or Delegacy or have said there was any fault in the Nomination of Lay-men And yet you see my Lord Coke shews you how the Government then acquiesced in such Nomination and assisted the execution of the Sentences given by such as he thought incompetent Nor are we therefore to wonder at what Mr. Bagshaw mentions of the Civilians in the House of Commons not objecting that the King had done contrary to an Act of Parliament in taking from Bishops Chancellors and Officials the Power of exercising Church Censures given them by the Act and which by the Power declared in that Act to be given him by Holy Scriptures he might have either continued to them or abridged or taken away the exercise thereof from them if he had pleas'd And considering that the Lex Scandali doth equally oblige Kings as well as Subjects in Point of Conscience it is not to be wonder'd that that Tender-conscienced King did in that Conjuncture think himself obliged so equitably to make his Interpretation of that Statute as in complaisance with some of his Subjects who had took offence at Lay-Chancellors Power of Excommunicating to disable them to it I told you before how that Pious Prince did in complaisance with the Fathers of our Church think himself obliged to exercise his Regal Power of interpreting or declaring and when in A. 1637. he issued out his Proclamation Declaring that the Bishops holding their Courts and issuing Process in their own Names were not against the Laws of the Realm and that the Iudges resolutions were notify'd therein to that purpose and that the ferment about that Point was setled and the Bishops issuing out their Processes was setled too the which Proclamation too you will find Mr. Bagshaw mentions in his second Argument where p. 40. he tells you of the Bishop's having procured a Proclamation A. 1637. declaring the Opinions of the Iudges that the Statute of 1 o Edw. 6. c. 2. is repeal'd and of no force at this day and that Bishops may keep Courts in their own Names And I shall now tell you that as in the year 1637. the Bishops were in so full and peaceable possession of their Privilege of issuing out of their Processes in their own names by means of what His Majesty had declared pursuant to the Resolutions unanimously given by all the Iudges and the Barons of the Exchequer and of which Sir E. Coke saith Inst. 2. that they are for Matters of Law of highest Authority next to the Court of Parliament so by Iudgment of Parliament the settlement of that Controversie by virtue of His Majesty's Declarative Power so exercised was afterward approved A. That is a thing I would gladly hear of for one would think that the exercise of the Regal Power of Declaring or Interpreting what relates to an Act of Parliament might occasionally heighten a ferment in stead of abating it B. You will find little or no cause if you consult our ancient English Story and there see how the mutual Confidence between King and People hath in several Ages supported the Government to fancy that Declaratory Proclamations relating to Acts of Parliament did make any ferment The Interpretation of the Statutes hath in all Causes between Party and Party and wherein meum and tuum and Property are concern'd been by ancient usage under our Kings still left to the Iudges and the Proclamations of our Princes on great emergent occasions in the State declaring or interpreting their Laws pursuant to the Supreme Power committed to them by God for the good of their People hath still been observ'd to tend both to the good of the People and the Laws too If you will look on all the Declaratory Proclamations in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames of which you have a Collection you will I believe find none but what were acceptable among all their Loyal Subjects But as to this Declaratory Proclamation of King Charles the First before-mention'd you will find it as I told you approved in Parliament And if you will please to consult in your Statute-Book the Act of 13 o Car. 2. c. 12. of which the title is Explanation of a Clause contain'd in an Act of Parliament made in the 17th year of the late King Charles Entituled an Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 1 o Elizabethae Concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical you will there find that this Act of the late King 's loyal long Parliament viz. 13 o Car. 2. hath in it three Proviso's The first is concerning the High Commission-Court the second Proviso is concerning the taking away the Oath ex officio And the third Proviso is to limit and confine the Power of Ecclesiastical Judges in all their Proceedings to what WAS and by Law might be used before the year 1639 which plainly includes allows and approves King Charles the First 's Proclamation in the year 1637. In the time of a former disloyal long Parliament the Regal Power of Interpreting or declaring was by them represented as a Gravamen and while yet they usurp'd that Power themselves If you will look on the Declaration of the Lords and Commons in Husband's Collections p. 686. you will there find they say It is high time for the whole Kingdom now to understand that His Majesty's Authority is more in his Courts without his Person then in his Person without his Courts when the Power of DECLARING Law shall be deny'd to the whole Court of Parliament in particular Causes before them for we have claim'd it we have exercised it no otherwise to be obligatory as a judicial Declaration of the Law and shall be attributed to His Majesty to do it in general by his Proclamation without relation to a particular Case and
ever was who setting his feet on two of Gods Kingdoms the one upon the Sea the other upon the Earth lifting up his hand to Heaven as you are to do this day and so Swearing Rev. 10. c. and consider how he there makes this Oath to be the most effectual means for the ruining Popery and Prelacy and leaves it to be consider'd whether seeing the preservation of Popery hath been by Leagues and Covenants God may not make a League and Covenant to be its Destruction after he had before-mention'd the Associations of the Religious Orders and Fraternities and the Combination by the la Sainte Ligue for the muniting of Popery as incentives to this League and how he doth again go to the Magazine of the Apocalypse for some Weapons for this Covenant and hath other artillery for it from the Iewish State citing the words of the Prophet Let us joyn our selves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten how according to the ratio nominis of Superstition viz. of mens over-importunate Prayers that their Children might out-live them he concludes with a devout Prayer that this Covenant may out-live their Childrens Children and let any one behold in Mr. Henderson's Speech the like flame of Enthusiastick Zeal or of the Superstition quam vulgo bonam intentionem vocant against Superstition and Idolatry in Worship c. and concluding it with his belief that the weight of that Covenant would cast the balance in our English Wars I say let any one consider all this and tell me if ever he saw a more pompous Scene of Superstition and more magnificent Procession bestow'd on it and contrived as Bishop Sanderson's words are in his Lecture De bonâ intentione and having his eye on that Covenant viz. Obtentu gloriae Dei reformandae Religionis propagandi Evangelii extirpandae superstitionis exaltandi regni Domini nostri Iesu Christi and if ever he saw what the Bishop in that Lecture calls The Iesuites Theology viz. Omnia metiri ex Commodo Sanctae matris Ecclesiae more strongly asserted then in the Contexture and Imposition of that Covenant But those two Divines lived to recover their Allegiance and a due sense of their Oaths for it and to see that foetus of their Brain that at its solemn Christning they wish'd immortality to renounced publickly as a spurious Birth and to the Scandal of that Age a race of other Oaths in England as infamously born intercept its inheritance Nay let me tell you that in the Nation of Scotland Loyalty hath been a growing Plant of Renown since the year 1660. and the Idol of their former Covenanted Presbytery been by the Loyal Nobility and Gentry and Populace there generally abhorr'd And tho Sir George Wharton in his Gesta Britannorum relates it as a strange thing that on the 21st of August A. 1663. the Parliament of Scotland Passâ—…d an Act for a National Synod the first that ever was in that Kingdom under the Government of Bishops yet I can tell you of an Act of Parliament that pass'd there afterward that declared the right of the Crown to dispense in the external Government of the Church I shall entertain you with it out of the Scotch Statutes viz. In the first Session of the Second Parliament of King Charles the Second there pass'd an Act asserting His Majesty s Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical Edenburgh November 16 th 1669. THe Estates of Parliament having seriously considered how necessary it is for the Good and Peace of the Church and State That His Majesty's Power and Authority in relation to Matters and Persons Ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an Act of Parliament Have therefore thought fit it be Enacted Asserted and Declared Like as his Majesty with Advice and Consent of his Estates of Parliament doth hereby Enact Assert and Declare That his Majesty hath the Supreme Authority and Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical within this his Kingdom and that by virtue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the External Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong to his Majesty and his Successors as an inherent Right to the Crown And that his Majesty and his Successors may Setle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Administration of the External Government of the Church and the Persons employed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Matters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit Which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the Books of Councel and duly published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Majesty's Subjects any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding Like as his Majesty with Advice and Consent aforesaid doth Rescind and Annul all Laws Acts and Clauses thereof and all Customs and Constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to or inconsistent with his Majesty's Supremacy as it is hereby asserted and declares the same void and null in all time coming A. You told me before how the King dispens'd with the five Articles of Perth setled by Act of Parliament but this Act yields so great a territory to the Dispensative Power that my thoughts cannot suddenly travel through it It acknowledgeth in the Crown a more sublime Power then of dispensing with Presbyterians or Independents or of suspending the Penal Laws against them namely of abolishing Episcopacy and of making Presbytery or Independency the National Church-Government Car tel est notre plaisir now for the external Form of Church-Government is allow'd to make the Pattern in the Mount. And 〈◊〉 accordingly as Mr. Baxter in his Book call'd a Search for the Schismaticks represents Archbishop Bramhal's new way of asserting the Church of England in his Book against him 1. To abhor Popery 2. That we all come under a foreign spiritual Iurisdiction obeying the Pope as the Western Patriarch and also as the Principium Unitatis to the Universal Church governing by the Canons c. may not the King by this Act make the external Government of the Church of Scotland Patriarchal and the Pope Patriarch B. The Act needs no Comment and if you will tell me that the Scots shew'd themselves Erastians or Latitudinarians when they made it I shall acquaint you that that Archbishop in his Schism guarded p. 319. asserts That a Sovereign Prince hath Power within his own Dominions for the Publick good to change any thing in the external Regiment of the Church which is not of divâ—…ne Institution and that he had in p. 4. of that Book allow'd the Pope his Principium unitatis and his Preheminence among Patriarchs as S. Peter had among the Apostles and that in p. 78. of his Iust Vindication of the Church of England he takes notice that by the Statute of Carlisle made in the days of Edward the First it was declared That the Holy Church of England was founded in the
they judged that the Character of that Earl's great Wisdom and Courage and Activity and of universality in his Correspondencies had gain'd such an Ascendant over the Genius of the Irish that if he had continued Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom in his former Power they would not have ventured to rebel A. You have instanced in Uncontroverted Privileges of the Crown that that Parliament did offend and resist by their putting such incessant hardships on their King as your words are and it was folly as well as breach of their Oath for them thus to strike at the Pardoning Power of the Crown that is the Privilege both of King and People Yet let me ask you whether you account that he who in any case shall endeavour that by the Legislative Power any uncontroverted Iurisdiction Privilege Preheminence or Authority granted or belonging to the Crown may be alter'd or restrain'd in its exercise breaks his Oath Did that Parliament do so who made the famous Act for barring the known Privilege of Nullum tempus Occurrit Regi I mean that glorious Act of 21 o of King Iames the First C. 2. of which the Title is Conceald Lands shall not be Recover'd unless it may be proved that the King had title to them within 60 years i. e. 60 years before the 19th of February in the 21st year of King Iames the First which was the day of the beginning of that Parliament and on which Statute my Lord Coke hath an excellent Comment in Instit. 3. C. 87. against Concealors turbidum genus hominum and all pretences of Concealments whatsoever and on occasion of which Act it is yet acknowledg'd in the Book call'd The Court and Character of King James written by Sir A. W. and Printed A. 1650. that that King loved good Laws and had many made in his time and in his lâ—…st Parliament for the good of his Subjects and suppress'd Promoters and Progging Fellows gave way to the Nullum tempus c. to be confined to Sixty years which was more beneficial to the Subjects in respect of their quiets then all that Parliaments had given him during his whole Reign Or did the late Kings Loyal long Parliament do so in their obtaining the Act for the Habeas Corpus and others that might be named B. Having premised it to you that those words in the Oath of assisting and defending ALL Iurisdictions ALL Privileges c. are operative words and of strict Interpretation and whereby we stake our Eternities to assist the King 's Temporal Rights and invoke God so to help or assist us as we shall assist all those Privileges and that the Prince and the Church being look'd on as Minors the breach of an Oath to defend the Privileges of the King must appear to common sense as odious as if any Guardian of a Minor did break an Oath to defend his Person and Interest or did take part with any to destroy the Minor's Rights I shall yet be so fair as to tell you that I do not so account it provided that he who shall do so shall have a moral certainty that the Prince being sensible that the alteration or restraint of such Privilege will be very beneficial to the Subjects both in the present and future times and necessary to the enabling them the better to support the Crown hath signified his desire of the same and doth so desire it or if he knoweth not his Princes so desiring it believes that the Cogency of the Reasons he hath humbly to offer for such alteration being made is such as may Incline others to supplicate the Prince to consent to it and the Prince so to do Yet in this latter case if afterward the Sovereign notifies his desire of the continuance of such known Privilege I am then by my Oath to assist and defend the same and am not to the Cogency of my Reasons to add that of Importunity For there is a par or proportion between importunity and force whence we see that according to the King 's Ecclesiastical Laws in case of a former will a latter gain'd by importunoe preces in the time of the Testator's Sickness is often adjudged void And as I am not by importunity when my Princes Affairs are in a Sickly state or that the Die of War hath ran against him abroad to press and tire him then into a parting with his known Privileges so neither with a Salvo to my Oath which binds me to assist and defend them can I if I find his Judgment or Mind sickly lay Temptations before him to buy him as it were out of a Privilege that is just and adviseable for him to keep I am neither to starve nor pamper my Prince out of such a Privilege Nay more if my Prince did by any Error part with any such Privilege as not knowing the same to be inherent in the Crown as in the Case of an Answer of the Royal Martyr drawn by one of his Ministers not deeply vers'd in the Law to some of the Parliaments Propositions by which Answer he is acknowledg'd to be one of the three Estates I who know that the Privilege and Preheminence inherent in his Crown is to be above them all and have in the Oath of Supremacy Sworn that the King is the only Supream Governour and so none Co-ordinate or equal to him I am to take no advantage of that error but am still to assist and defend such his Preheminence And if ever a Prince did by fear part with such Privilege or Preheminence there being a par between fear and force according to that Law of the Proetor in the Digests Quod vi aut metu factum est ratum non habebo and in which Law as Baldus saith the Proetor was inspired by the Spirit of God I am not only not to take any advantage of such act of the Prince done by fear or force or to upbraid him therewith but am still to assist and defend such Privilege so derelinquish'd by him and am to account the same belonging to him as the word is in my Promissory Oath and to account him still in Law possess'd of the same according to the rule of Possessio etiam animo retinetur and which is justly apply'd in the Case of any one who in a Storm at Sea throws his Goods over-board to lighten the Ship. His late Majesty therefore did but right to himself when in his Declaration of the 25th of October 1660. Concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs he took notice how some had caused to be Printed and Publish'd in England a Declaration before Printed in his Name when he was in Scotland i. e. referring to the Declaration Printed at Edenburgh 1650. and saith thus of it vizâ—… Of which we shall say no more then that the Circumstances by which we were enforced to sign that Declaration are enough known to the World And that the worthiest and greatest part of that Nation did even then detest and abhor the ill usage of us
in that particular when the same tyranny was exercised there by the Power of a few ill men which at that time had spread it self over this Kingdom and therefore we had no reason to expect that we should at this season when we are doing all we can to wipe cut the memor of all that hath been done amiss by other men and we thank God have wiped it out of our own Remembrance have been our self assaulted with those rep oaches which we will likewise forget And it was goodness worthy the great Soul of a King to forget the Outrages of such who did strip their Political Father of his Power and then reproach him with his nakedness I may here likewise tell you and not mal a propos how much the patience and long-suffering of the same Prince was exercised in a late Conjuncture that so much eclipsed his Prerogative in the Case of the Earl of Danby's Pardon and when the Commons did set up against it somewhat in his Father's Answer to the 19 Propositions before mention'd that nothing but the tempest of the Age in the Parliament of 40 could have occasion'd viz. Since therefore the Power legally placed in both Houses of Parliament is more then sufficient to restrain the Power of Tyranny c. But because a Parliament so perpetuated as that was did prove more then sufficient to restrain pretended Tyranny and real just Government will a considerate man say any such thing now when the breath of Prerogative can dissolve them in a moment and in that moment all their thoughts perish and all the high-flying thoughts that would soare above Imperial Power be found dead in the Nest And I may here tell you that in the Answer of some Nonconformists to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon an Answer Printed in London in the year 1680. during the ferment about the Plot and wherein they desire Indulgence I think their attacquing the Service on the Gun-Powder Treason Plot in thanking God for Preserving the King and the Three Estates of the Realm assembled by saying That the late King made no scruple in his Answer to the 19 Propositions to reckon himself one of the three Estates was a thing that on recollection they will judge ought not to have been done But I am here further to tell you that though it may be consistent with our Oath in some such case as was mention'd to endeavour the altering by the Legislative Power some uncontroverted Privileges of the Crown and in such a way as I have mention'd I likewise wish you in your thoughts to make a distinction of those Privileges or Preheminences belonging to the Crown that are absolutely Essential to its Preservation and to that of the whole Realm and which are by God and the Law put as a Depositum into the hands of Kings and the removing of one of which would have the effect of taking a Stone out of an Arched Building and such as no Sovereign Princes can be without and such as our Princes have in their flourishing Reigns to the great content and happiness of their People always exercised and Rights as the late Earl of Shaftsbury said of that of the Flagg that our Princes cannot part with and Privileges that are not such and two of which former sort of Privileges and which are parts of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom I account we are expresly in the Promissory Clause of that Oath Sworn to defend and assist namely of the lineal Succession to the Crown and of the King's Prerogative and of which Prerogative we have this Description in Blount's Law-Dictionary That the Prerogative of the King is generally that Power Preheminence or PRIVILEGE which the King hath over and above other Persons and above the ordinary Course of the Law in the Right of his Crown And then adds Potest Rex ei lege suae dignitatis condonare si velit etiam mortem promeritam LL. Edw. Confess cap. 18. and then saith that Spelman calls it the Lâ—…x Regiae dignitatis The Author of the Law-Dictionary had there his eye on the Law of Edward the Confessor where under the title of Misericordia Regis Pardonatio it is declared that si quispiam forisfactus which the Margin interprets rei Capitalis Reus poposcerit Regiam misericordiam pro forisfacto suo timidus mortis vel membrorum perdendorum potest Rex ei lege suae dignitatis condonare si velit etiam mortem promeritam ipse tamen malefactor rectum faciat in â—…quantumcunque poterit quibus forisfecit tradat fidejussores de pace legalitate tenenda si vero fidejussores defecerint exula bitur à Patria And I remember there is a famous Act relating to the old Privileges and Prerogatives of the Crown and to their resumption by the Crown viz. The Act of 27. H. 8. c. 24. call'd The Recontinuing of certain Liberties taken from the Crown and it begins with saying that whereas divers of the most ancient Prerogatives and Authorities of Iustice appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm have been severed and taken from the same by sundry Gifts of the King 's most Noble Progenitors to the great diminution and detriment of the Royal Estate of the same and to the hinderance and great delay of Iustice and thereupon saith for Reformation whereof be it Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament that no Person or Persons c. shall have any Power or Authority to pardon or remit any Treasons Murders Man-slaughters or any kinds of Felonies nor any Accessaries to any Treasons Murders c. or any Out-laries for any such Offences aforesaid committed perpetrated done or hereafter to be committed done or divulged by or against any Person in any part of this Realm c. but that the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors shall have the whole and sole Power and Authority thereof united and knit to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as of good RIGHT and Equity it appertaineth c. and then orders all Writs in a County Palatine to be made in the King's Name c. That Statute doth give you a Prospect of great variety and use in order to the Settlement of your thoughts about some things in your Oath You there see the Natural recourse of the Royal Rivers of Prerogative to the Ocean from whence they came and when you there find that the Crown could communicate to Subjects the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardoning Murder however restrain'd by ACT of Parliament and all the dreadful Disabilities incurr'd by Out-laries for Felony and Treason you are not to wonder at any ones telling you that the King himself hath the Privilege of Pardoning a Disability incurr'd by Law for Heterodoxy in Religion and especially when you shall see the whole and sole Power of Pardoning the same united and knit to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as of GOOD RIGHT and EQUITT appertaineth And according to those words in your Oath about your defending all the
Fra. Walsingham And what sense the House of Commons had in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames the First of the Disabling of several of the Nonconformist Divines being a Gravamen to the Realm appears by the Petition of that House to the King Anno 1610. as I find it in Mr. Nye's Beams of former Light p. 103. viz. Whereas divers painful and learned Pastors that have long time travell'd in the work of the Ministry with good Fruit and Blessing of their Labour have been removed from Ecclesiastical livings being their free-hold and from all means of maintenance to the great grief of sundry your Majesty's well-affected Subjects we therefore humbly beseech your Majesty would be graciously pleas'd that such deprived and silenced Ministers living quietly and peaceably may be restored c. But in short if you consider that the great Cause that excited the Loyal Zeal express'd in the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth and whereby so many Statutes of Harry the 8th against the Papal â—…pations were revived was that the King and Kingdom might not be disabled by Clergy-mens not being Subjects to the Crown through Papal Exemptions and that the Crown might Cum effectu be restored to its Government over them i. e. of the whole Realm and that our Monarchs should by means of such Exemption be no more disabled from being Governors only IN their Realm and not OF it and as when the Right of two Persons claiming to be Princes of Tuscany was before the Pope's Arbitrage he determin'd that one of them should be A Prince IN Tuscany and the other Oâ—… it you will find that this Supreme Power over all Persons as inherent in the King is the very Lapis Angularis on which your Abjuration of foreign Iurisdiction and on which the whole Promissory part of your Oath are built For when you have first declared in your Oath that the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal and then what followeth upon that viz. That no foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm you say And THEREFORE I do â—…tterly renounce and forsake aâ—…l foreign Iurisdictions c. And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness c. and to my Power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness c. or united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Thus then the Reason why you abjure foreign Jurisdiction for you ABIURE when you swear to quit and forsake as Mr. Nye in his Observations on that Oath tells us and why you promise to assist and defend all Iurisdictions granted or belonging to the King whose Subject you are is resolved into the Kings being the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal I am here further to tell you that when by your Oath you have renounced the Pope's Dispensative Power you have asserted and have obliged your self to defend the Jurisdiction of the King 's Dispensative Power in the room of it and the defence of which was the great design and drift of the entire Statute of 1 o. Eliz. and of your Oath therein and no collateral thing A. I have been and am pleas'd with that Prospect you have given me into the Region of the Dispensative Power used by the Crown in the Interpretation of my Oath a Region that was before to me like the terra Australis Borealis incognita but to deal frankly with you I am yet to seek out the meaning of this notion last â—…rted by you that the drift and design of the Statute of 1 o. Elizabethae and the Oath was to prop up the King 's Dispensative Power I doubt not but you are perfectly sensible that he who speaks to that tender thing call'd Conscience and about an Oath ought to be tender of any point he urgeth to it and not to wyre-draw any thing by forced Consequences that is to be offered to it as Obligatory B. I assure you I go by those very measures in giving you my Judgment of the design and drift of that Statute as I have done and that he must put the Statute on the wrack that will make it speak any other meaning Consider what the Prefatory part as the key of it mentions viz. That divers good Laws and Statutes that were made in Henry the Eighth's time as well for the utter extinguishment and putting away of all Usurped and Foreign Power c. as also for the restoring and uniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the ancient Iurisdictions c. to the same of Right belonging by reason whereof we your most humble and obedient Subjects from the 25th year of the Reign of your said dear Father were continually kept in good order and were disburden'd of divers great and intolerable Charges and Exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted by such Foreign Power and Authority as before that was usurped until such time as all the said good Laws and Statutes by one Act of Parliament made in the first and second years of the Reigns of the late King Philip and Queen Mary c. were repeai'â—… by reason whereof they then further mention how they were then brought under an Usurped Foreign Authority to their intolerable Charges and they thereupon desire the Repealing of that Act. Here we are given to see by their dating the aera of their being well govern'd and disburthen'd of divers great intolerable Charges and Exactions taken and exacted by Foreign Power from the 25th of Henry the 8th and had their eye on the Statute of the 25th of Henry the 8th c. 21. entituled No Imposition shall be paid to the Bishop of Rome which sets forth how the Subjects of this Realm were impoverish'd by intolerable Exactions of great Sums of Money taken out of this Realm by the Bishop of Rome as well in Pensions Censes Suits for Provisions and Expeditions of Bulls c. and also for Dispensations Licences Faculties Grants Relaxations Writs call'd Perinde valere Rehabilitations Abolitions and other infinite sorts of Bulls Breves and Instruments of sundry Natures c. wherein the Bishop of Rome hath been not only to be blamed for his Usurpation in the Premisses but also for his abusing and beguiling your Subjects pretending and persuading them that he hath Power to Dispense with all Humane Laws Uses and Customs of all Realms in all Causes which be call'd Spiritual which matter hath been usurped and practised by him and his Predecessors by many years in great deâ—…gation of your Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to Right and Conscience For where this your Graces Realm recognizing no Superior under God but only your Grace hath been and
commonly call'd Ecclesiastical Court c. as by the said Councils and Constitutions Provincial appeareth which standing and remaining in their effect not abolish'd by your Grace's Laws did sound to appear to make greatly for the said usurp'd Power of the Bishop of Rome and to be directly repugnant to your Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church and Prerogative royal your GRACE being a LAY-MAN and albeit the said Decrees Ordinances and Constitutions by a Statute made in the 25th year of your Reign be utterly abolish'd c. But forasmuch as your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supreme Head of the Church of England and also of Ireland to whom BY HOLY SCRIPTURE all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct Uice and Sin whatsoever and TO ALL SUCH PERSONS AS YOUR MAIESTY SHALL APPOINT THEREUNED that in Consideration thereof as well for the Instruction of Ignorant Persons c. and setting forth of your Prerogative Royal and Supremacy It may therefore please your Highness that it may be Ordain'd and Enacted that all and singular Persons as well LAY as those that be now Married or hereafter shall be Married c. which shall be made ordain'd constituted and deputed to be any Chancellor Uicar General c. Scribe or Register by your Majesty or any of your Heirs and Successors or by any Archbishop Bishop c. may lawfully execute and execute all manner of Iurisdiction commonly call'd Ecclesiastical c. Here you see the enacting clause founded on the previous solemn acknowledgment of the King's supremacy and on his having the power given him not by Parliaments or People but by SCRIPTURE to appoint such to be ecclesiastical Judges who were by Custom and by the Laws of Councils and Provincial Synods formerly equivalent to Acts of Parliament incapacitated so to be And from whence it is consequently apparent that no positive humane Laws whatsoever inflictive of Penal incapacity could against the Right inherent in him by the positive Law of God oblige him not to dispense with the others by his supreme Power when he found it necessary so to do For 't is on all hands confessedly true that Parliaments can no more then the Bishop of Rome delete such Power as is given by God to the Princes of the Earth A. But because a Parliament declared that such a supreme Power is given by the Scripture to Princes you know it doth not follow that it is so And moreover you know that was a Popish Parliament that so declared it B. But I likewise know that as 't is in my Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan ' s Reports in Hill and Good ' s Case that if a Marriage be declared by Act of Parliament to be against Gods Law we must admit it to be so for by a Law that is an Act of Parliament it is so declared so that Act of Parliament having declared it that by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to the King and to all such Persons as he shall appoint to hear and determine c. tho such Persons were by a lawful Canon incapacitated so to do a Canon that that Iudge in the words immediately following the other makes to be the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament we must admit such Power and Authority inherent in the King's Supremacy by the Word of God thus to supersede incapacity And whether the incapacitating Canons were lawful ones or no it is not tanti to enquire since as we know a Power inherent in Kings by the Word of God cannot be either by lawful Canon or Act of Parliament taken away and much more ought such Power to be construed and admitted as inherent in him by the Scripture while the Act of Parliament continues in being But I shall yet bring the acknowledgment of your Prince's Supremacy in this point as thus founded on Scripture closâ—…r to your Conscience by letting you see that you have not only the Judgment of a Popish Parliament in the Case but of that very Statute of Queen Elizabeth that enjoyns your Oath of Supremacy for it revives that Statute oâ—… Harry the 8th and all and every branches and Articles in it as you will find it in your Statute-book A. You have mention'd one thing in that Statute of Harry the 8th that doth a little startle me and that is that he and the three Estates apply'd there the design of keeping up those Canons of Councils and provincial Constitutions that incapacitated LAYMEN as level'd at the exclusion of the King himself not only from his Prerogative but from being in a capacity to exercise ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as supreme head of the Church as I find by those remarkable words YOUR GRACE BEING A LAY-MAN B. You do well to take notice of that and are therefore not to wonder at it if you should hear your Prince who was a Dissenter to the Church of England and others concern'd for him to have apprehensions of what prejudice might be meant him by some subtle Projectors of Laws to incapacitate all Papists and Presbyterians from acting in any Office in Church or State however many loyal Persons might be far from intending such prejudice thereby his Grace being a Papist or Presbyterian A. I must confess that if the Kings Power of commanding the Services of all his Subjects be inherent in him by the Word of God and as such declared by Parliament any Mens endeavours to take away that Power may well be imputed to great incogitancy B. You say right and I was hence induced to wonder that after the Act and Acknowledgment of his Majesty's Prerogative in the Choice of his Officers of State-Councellors and Iudges had thus passed in the first Parliament of Scotland in the late King's reign viz. The Estates of Parliament considering the great Obligations that lie upon them from the Law of God the Law of Nations the Municipal Laws of the Land and their Oathes of Allegiance to maintain and defend the Soveraign Power and Authority of the King's Majesty and the sad Consequences that do accompany an encrochment upon or diminution thereof do therefore from their sense of humble duty declare that it is an inherent privilege of the Crown and an undoubted part of the Royal Prerogative of the Kings of this Kingdom to have the sole Choice and Appointment of the Officers of States and Privy Councellors and Nomination of the Lords of Session as in former times and that the King 's sacred Majesty and his Heirs and Successors are by virtue of that Royal Power which they hold from God Almighty over this Kingdom to have the full exercise of that Right c. any Men could by a following Act of Parliament there be incapacitated to serve their Prince in those Stations I shall here tell you that the incapacitating a few Papists or Quakers Presbyterians or Anabaptists to serve their Prince may to some seem materia
the Statute of 37 o. H. 8. beforemention'd that speaks of Bishops Vicars-General useth only the Style of Vicegerent for Cromwel's Office. And I have observ'd in his Injunctions to the Clergy that he styles himself Lord Privy Seal Uice-gerent to King Henry the 8th for all his Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm c. But the word Vicar being perhaps by the envy of the Monks put on him and his Office in common Discourse the word Vicar in the Proper signification of it signifying a Servant to a Servant according to that in Martial Esse sat est servum jam nolo Vicarius esse the Archbishop speaking Cum vulgo might then call him the King 's Vicar-general and so others since I should before have mention'd what he saith p. 323. speaking of Cromwel Inter hunc Cranmerum summam necessitudinem Evangelium conciliavit ut dum ille Experientiâ hic Doctrinâ câ—…nctos anteâ—…elleret tum utrique Regi intimi chari essent Ex horum Consilio impiis atque odiosis Papoe Wolsoei Cardinalis Actis summum supplicium exitium Romanoe Curioe divinitùs paratum est A. You have enough minded me of the King 's dispensing with the disabiity incurr'd by the Canons both in the C se of Cromwel a Lay-man intermedling in Ecclesiastical Matters and of Câ—…anmer a Clergyman intermedling in secular proving so necessary to the Reformation and accordingly as Queen Elizabeth's dispensing with disability proved so to the Establishment of the present Hierarchy of the Church of England And I shall most seriously consider what the Act of the 37th of H. the 8th hath in such plain and liquid terms declared of the Power given to the King by Scripture and to all such Persons as he shall appoint to exercise Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction however incapacitated so to do by lawful Canons and Constitutions and which were by that Eminent Iustitiary you mention'd held Equivalent to Acts of Parliament and shall grant that iâ—… never so many Acts of Parliament had attempted to deprive the King of a Power inherent in him by Scripture such attempt would be nugatory and the fremuerunt gentes against it would be but the Peoples imagining a vain thing And I shall consider it how far by clear and necessary Consequences and no wire-drawn ones it follows from what is declared by this Act of Parliament as to the King 's being authorized by Scripture to choose some sorts of Officers to serve the Crown in Church and State that he is so authorized to choose others in like manner as you mention'd it to me declared by the Scotch Act of Parliament that the King by virtue of the Royal Power he holds from God All-mighty is to have the SOLE choice and appointment of the Officers of the State c. But I Pray do not many other Acts of Parliament in Harry the 8ths time whereby the Royal Prerogative is so much advanced and particularly that of the 25th of Harry the 8th that sets up the Dispensative Power seem to make it depend on Statute-Law And may it not seem to be more than a flaw in the Diamond of Prerogative and a great depretiating of it in cutting it out as it were into four by making its Establishment depend on the King and three Estates B. I shall therefore here once for all tell you that the occasion of so many mens mistake in thinking so many of those Acts of Parliament in Harry the 8th's time prejudicial to Prerogative as seeming to found it on Statute-Law is their not considering that such Statutes were but declaratory of old Laws and not introductive of new ones My Lord Primate Bramhal in his Schism guarded p. 155. saith I profess clearly I do not see what advantage Henry the 8th could make of his own Laws which he might not have made of the ancient Laws except only a gawdy Title of Head of the English Church which survived him not long and the Tenths and first-fruits of the Clergy c. But you may as fully take notice how Harry the 8th throughout his great Declarative Laws so often declares in effect his Regal Power to be given him by God. My Lord Coke in his Caudry's Case instanceth in the famous Statute of 24 o H. 8. c. 12. and calls it declaratory of the ancient Law and you see how it is declared there That the King is by the goodness of God furnish'd with Prerogative c. And the Statute of 37 o H. 8. begins as I shew'd you with the three Estates DECLARING That the King's Majesty is and hath always justly been Supreme Head in the Earth of the Church of England by the Word of God. You know too how the style runs in another of his Acts of Parliament viz. The Bishop of Rome and See Apostolick contrary to the great and inviolable Grants of Iurisdictions by God immediately to Emperors Kings and Princes c. And thus tho there are various Statutes in his Reign and particularly that of the 25th year of his Reign c. 19. by which it was Enacted That the King's Highness shall have Power and Authority to nominate and assign at his pleasure Two and thirty persons whereof Sixteen to be of the Clergy and Sixteen of the Temporalty of the Upper and Nether House of the Parliament to view search and examine the Canous Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and that such of them as the King's Highness and the said Two and thirty or the Major part of them shall deém and adjudge worthy to be continued kept and obey'd shall beÌ„ from henceforth kept obey'd and executed within this Realm so that the Kings most Royal assent under his Great Seal be first had to the same c. and tho according to the ancient usage of the Realm as well as to those Canons Lay-men were not only incapacitated to make Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Canons but Kings Bishops or Noblemen who believed that the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome may be violated or shall suffer them so to be are in the Canon Law anathematized yet as this enacting Clause was made on the Clergy's Petition to the King as the Preamble of the Act mentions that those Constitutions and Canons may be committed to the Examination and Iudgment of his Highness and of Two and Thirty persons of the King's Subjects whereof sixteen were to be of the Upper and Nether House of the Parliament of the Temporalty and all the said Two and thirty persons to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty c. and be empower'd to do what I mention'd out of the enacting Clause and whereby the King alone was in effect both according to the Clergy's Petition and the enacting Clause vested with the jus vitoe necis of the Canons so in a Memorable Epistle of Harry the 8th Printed before the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum and intended as a draught for a Publication or Promulgation of the King 's new Ecclesiastical Laws after the draught of
o Eliz. beforemention'd B. I can easily direct you to such a Writer of our Church who hath done the thing to the universal Satisfaction of the Inquisitive as to this Point and that is the Lord Primate Bramhal in his Book of Schism Guarded He saith there in p. 330 and 331. As our Grievances so our Reformation was only of the abuses of the Roman Court. Their bestowing of Prelacies and Dignities in England to the Prejudice of the right Patrons Their Convocating Synods in England without the King's leave Their Prohibiting English Prelates to make their old feudal Oaths to the King and obliging them to take new Oaths of Fidelity to the Pope Their imposing and receiving Tenths and first Fruits and other Arbitrary Pensions upon the English Clergy and lastly their Usurping a Legislative Iudiciary and Dispensative Power in the exterior Court by Political Coaction these are all the branches of Papal Power which we have rejected This Reformation is all the Separation that we have made in point of Discipline And for Doctrine we have no difference with them about the old Essentials of Christian Religion and their new Essentials which they have patch'd to the Creed are but their erroneous or at the best probable Opinions no Articles of Faith. Thus then according to these measures you see how much the hinge of the Reformation turns on the Usurpation of the Papacy in Dispensing for in all these particulars enumerated the Pope dispens'd with the King's Laws And he had before in p. 26. said This Primacy neither the Ancients nor we deny to St. Peter of Order of Place of Preheminence If this first movership would serve his turn the Controversie were at an end for our parts But this Primacy is over-lean the Court of Rome have no gusto to it They thirst after a visible Monarchy on Earth an absolute Ecclesiastical Soveraignty a Power to make Canons to abolish Canons to dispense with Canons to impose Pensions to dispose of Dignities to decide Controversies by a single Authority This was that which made the breach not the Innocent Primacy of St. Peter And afterward in p. 149. he saith But I must contract my Discourse to those Dispensations that are intended in the Laws of Henry the 8th that is the Power to dispense with English Laws in the exterior Court Let him bind or loose inwardly whom he will whether his Key erre or not we are not concern'd Secondly As he is a Prince in his own Territories he that hath Power to bind hath Power to loose He that hath Power to make Laws hath Power to dispense with his own Laws Laws are made of Common Events Those benign Circumstances that happen rarely are left to the Dispensative Grace of the Prince Thirdly As he is a Bishop whatever Dispensative Power the ancient Ecclesiastical Canons or Edicts of Christian Emperors give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories that were subject to his Iurisdiction by Humane right we do not envy him so he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities freed from his Encroachments and Usurpations The Chief ground of the ancient Ecclesiastical Canon was let the old Customs prevail A possession or Prescription of Eleven hundred years is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against an Human Right and much more against a New pretence of Divine Right For Eleven hundred years our Kings and Bishops enjoy'd the sole Dispensative Power with all English Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical In all which time he is not able to give one instance of a Papal Dispensation in England nor any shadow of it when the Church was formed Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legislative Power no Iudiciary Power in the exteriour Court by necessary Consequence they could have no Dispensative Power He then in p. 169. mentions the said Statute of 25. H. 8th and having referr'd to the Proviso there to shew that its intent was not to vary from the Church of Christ in any other things declared by the Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary to Salvation he saith then followeth the scope of our Reformation only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient to repress Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in Peace Unity and Tranquillity from ravine and spoil ensuing much the ancient Customs of this Realm in that behalf not minding to seek for any relief succours or remedies for any worldly things and Humane Laws in any cause of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an Imperial Power and Authority in the same and not obliged in worldly Causes to any other Superior Thus then you see this Prelates sense of how much the taking away the Pope's Dispensative Power here and restoring that Power to the Crown was the Soul of the Reformation and tota in toto of it And this Act you see revived by the First of Elizabeth without garbling it in the least and the Dispensative Power thereby restored to her her Heirs and Successors and a Declaration that no Subjects of the Realm need for any worldly things and Humane Laws in any Cause of Necessity seek for any relief but within this Realm at the hands of our Soveraign as aforesaid And I shall tell you that the Bishop in the next Page refers to the Statute of the First of Eliz. and saith on his view of both Statutes Whatsoever Power our Laws did devest the Pope of they invested the King with it And of this the Power of Rehabilitating any of his Lay or Clerical Subjects is a part as was beforesaid A. You have cited somewhat out of this Great Champion for the King's Supremacy and for the Church of England and reputed to be the most clear Vindicator of it from Schism our Church hath had which hath created more anxiety in my mind about the Assertory part of the Oath then any thing hath done For the words in the Oath are I do utterly testify and declare c that no Foreign Prelate or Person hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction Power Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and you have brought in the Primate granting that the Pope hath Power here to bind or loose inwardly and asserting that he hath here a Spiritual Power B. You judge right of the Bishop's Opinion and which is indeed express'd throughout his whole Book He tells us in p. 25. That St. Cyprian made all the Bishopricks in the World to be but one Masse whereof every Bishop had an entire part And he saith in p. 60 and 61. That neither King Harry the 8th nor any of our Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the Power of the Keys or any part thereof either the Key of Order or the Key of Iurisdiction I mean Iurisdiction purely Spiritual which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such Persons as
submit willingly And in the clearing of which Point he refers to the Proviso aforesaid in the Statute of the 25th of Harry the 8th and the 37th Canon of the Church of England as rendring the Power by both given to the King to be purely Political But in p. 159. he refers by way of Objection to two Statutes of Harry the 8th the one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome the other an Act for Establishing the Succession wherein there is an Oath that the Bishop of Rome OUGHT not to have any Iurisdiction or Authority in this Realm then faith it is declared in the 37th Article of our Church that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in the Kingdom of England and in the Oath ordain'd by Queen Elizabeth that no Foreign Preiate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and he then by way of answer to which says That those two Statutes were long ago repeal'd by Queen Mary and never afterward restored c. and that altho it were supposed that our Ancestors â—…ad over-reach'd themselves and the truth in some Expressions yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the line and level of Apostolical Tradition and saith that our Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do Our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Iurisdiction which we understand of Iurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends â—…o further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Iurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiostical Iurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political And he in p. 161. takes notice of the Apostles Dispensative Power 2 Cor. 2. 10. to whom I forgave any thing for your sakes forgave I in the person of Christ But all this is only in the interior Court of Conscience But the Primate having in p. 73. discours'd of the Act of 1 o Eliz. c. 1. saith here is no new Power created in the Crown but only an ancient Iurisdiction restored here is no foreign Power abolish'd but only that which is repugnant to the ancient Laws of England and the Prerogative Royal. In a word here is no Power ascribed to our Kings but merely Political and Coactive to see that all their Subjects do their Duties in their several Places Coactive Power is one of the Keys of the Kingdom of this World it is none of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven This might have been express'd in words less subject to Excâ—…ption A. The Primate hath shewn an eminent Candour of mind in these Passages of his you have cited and if our Ancestors had but over-reach'd themselves and the truth in some Expressions and in any part of a Statute but that which forms an Oath it had not much concern'd us and as long as they had kept exactly to the line and level of plain Truth in all the words of the Oath but Oaths being stricti juris and being to be taken in truth and in righteousness and in the common sense of the words may I not here to the Assertory Clause of No foreign Prelate or Person hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. apply those other words of the Primate This might have been express'd in words less subject to Exception But according to what he cited out of St. Cyprian it may be said instead of no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. that Every foreign Prelate hath it and not only the Bishop of Rome as claiming a Succession under St. Peter but Thousands of other Bishops in Christendom who as the Primate saith there p. 162. do not at all derive their Holy Orders from S. Peter or any other Roman Bishop either mediately or immediately especially in Asia and Africa but from the other Apostles And suitably to what the Primate observ'd out of S. Cyprian by which we see that as there is but one Universal Church so there is but Episcopatus Unus in that Church and that undivided I find it observ'd in Sir Geffery Palmer's Reports in the Case of Evans Kiffin vers Ascuith Trin. 3. Car. B. R. Whitelock Evesque ad 3 Powers Le Primer est Ordinations and that comes to him by his Consecration and not before By that he can take the resignation of a Church He can give Orders and Consecrate Churches and it belongs not to him as he is a Bishop of one place or other mais il est universel sur tout le monde And therefore the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here could give Orders The Chief Iustice agreed with him herein The second is Potestas Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but tied to certain places as to take an Oath to Excommunicate and Punish offences and this Power he hath by Confirmation The third is Administratio rei Familiaris the Government of his Revenue and this is gain'd by Confirmation By this you see that the Bishop of Rome as every other foreign Bishop may have some Spiritual Power here viz. what the Reporter mention'd as the first And therefore I could wish that the 37th of our 39 Articles to which the Primate refers for the Interpretations of this Clause in the Oath had in those words there the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm express'd such a distinction of his Iurisdiction as the Bishop hath done and otherwise that common and trite Rule of Non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit being here applicable you know what is to be thought of an ambiguous Oath and that as the sagacious Author of the History of the Council of Trent hath told us p. 187 as one Particular makes false the contradictory Universal so one ambiguous Particular makes the Universal to be ambiguous Moreover tho you will suppose that he might lawfully take the Oath in his sense of the Pope's Jurisdiction yet all his great Learning and Reason could not qualifie him to be an Authentical Interpreter of the Oath to me In some parts of the Oath that were obvious to doubt you have already given me satisfaction and particularly in making me by vertue of the Canons of King Iames a participant with the Clergy in his authentical Interpretation of the 37th Article And since as Suarez in his learned Book De Legibus 4. c. de Interpretatione humanarum Legum saith that there may be an interpretation of Law which hath the Authority of Law and that qui in eadem potestate succedit semper potest Praedecessotum leges interpretari I shall account King Iames his Interpretation as good as Queen Elizabeth's and that if he had there declared his mind about the Pope's spiritual Power in foro interno being not renounced by this Clause in the Oath I should then be content with it But 't is otherwise for he there Confirms it in effect as 't is in the Article
clear'd of those doubtful Expressions in them which cause their scruples c. whereby they may to the entire Satisfaction of His Majesty and the Nation fully testifie the Allegiance and Fidelity of faithful Subjects and true Patriots and no longer remain as they generally now do distrusted c. But there was another Book that year Publish'd by a Roman Catholick of which the title was A seasonable Discourse shewing how that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy as our Laws interpret them contain nothing which any good Christian ought to boggle at and where the Saying of Tertullian is quoted Bonae res neminem scandalizant niâ—… malam mentem c. and where having taken notice of the Queen's Admonition and the Proviso of the Statute of 5 o Eliz. and the 37th Article and the Iudgments of the Bishops Bramhal and Carleton as Sir Iohn Winter had done and for the same purpose giveth his Judgment that the taking of those Oaths gives no Scandal and he in p. 38. averrs that Sir John Winter told him many years ago that he had the Iudgment of Sorbouists Secular Priests and Iesuites that he might take the Oath of Supremacy declaring the sense which the Law allows And I shall here by the way take notice that as to the Oath of Allegiance F. Cressy saith in his Epistle Apologetical p. 111. that few Roman Catholicks if any at all would refuse that Oath if that unlucky word heretical were blotted out c. or if they might change heretical into contrary to the Word of God which he saith he verily believes was the sense intended by King James But now after all this said I shall tell you that according to what is observ'd by the generality of Writers oâ—… Princes easing their Subjects by their Dispensative Power of interpreting their Laws viz. That they take occasion then to intermix with such interpretation somewhat else that may advance their Power there were Fears and Iealousies that some of these foremention'd interpretations tho lessening the spiritual Power of the Crown might enlarge its temporal and particularly such as in the Queen's Admonition mention'd the Duty Allegiance and Bond acknowledg'd to be due to Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and as I partly before hinted such as in the Proviso in the Act of the 5th of the Queen that ratifying the Admonition hath in it the additional words of acknowledging in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors the Authority that was challenged and lately used by Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and such as in the 37th Article explain'd the Queen's Power by that given by God himself to all GODLY Princes in Scripture and where notwithstanding the Word Godly being put in there to gild the Pill of the Absolute Power of the Iewish Kings and to make it be the more easily swallow'd the real meaning was the Power given to all the Iewish Kings for the right of their Power depended not on their Godliness and such as in the Canons of King Iames ipso facto Excommunicate all that do not give the King the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical not only that the Godly Kings had among the Iews but what the Christian Emperors had in the Primitive Church And there too notwithstanding the word Christian might be for the like reason put in as that of Godly was and to cause the owning of that absolute Imperial Power which pursuant to the Lex Regia was used by the Christian Emperors as well as their Heathen Predecessors in punishing Heterodoxy ad libitum the meaning of the Canon was not to devest Heathen Emperors of their right of judging about Matters of Religion and as to which Grotius in his Letter to the States Embassador having said neither would Paul have appeal'd to Nero had he judged that no right of Iudging in a Case of Religion belong'd to him addeth Wherefore as Trajan Civilly honest Nero wicked are equal in the Right of Government so Pious Constantine and Impious Nero are equal in the right of judging in aptitude and skill unequal The Canons therefore of Forty enjoyning the Explanation or Interpretation of the Regal Power there inserted to be one Sunday in every Quarter of the Year read by the Clergy to their Flocks did well provide for the cautioning them as against the setting up any independent Coactive Power either Papal or Popular so against Fears and Iealousies relating to their Properties in their Goods and Estates and by that Explanation they shew that Christ came not to Undermine or Disturb but to Confirm the Civil Government of Pagan Princes and that in the first times of Christ's Church Christians were ready to submit their very Lives to the very Laws and Commands of those Princes A. But doth that Explanation of the Regal Power assert any thing in Defence of the Dispensative part of it B. You see how without wyre-drawing any Consequences the very first Paragraph of the Explanation doth both strengthen the foundation of the assertory part of your Oath we have been so long discussing and strike out new lights in the Fabrick of the Oath You see it tells you downright that A Supreme Power is given to the Order of Kings by God himself in the Scriptures which is that Kings should rule and Command in their several Dominions all Persons of what rank or estate soever c. And the Explanation doth effectually enough provide by the second Paragraph that Kings should take care that none in their Dominions but the stubborn and evil doers may be restrain'd with the Temporal Sword for it saith The Care of God's Church is so committed to Kings in the Scripture that they are commended when the Church keeps the right way and taxed when it runs amiss and therefore her Government belongs in chief to Kings For otherwise one man would be Commended for another's Care and taxed but for another's Negligence which is not God's way And this is an Argument taken ab absurdo and the strongest that can be used in Law and not to be set aside but by the alledging something as more absurd against it and amounts to this that it is absurd that Kings who are commended when those who are not stubborn nor evil doers are not under any restraint by the Temporal Sword for the Church runs not the right way when that Sword is a terror to any but evil doers and tax'd on the contrary being done should not be judged to be authorized to exempt those from all restraint thereby And when the People are not liable to blame for Kings erring in their Judgment about the Persons to be so exempted from restraint nor to be commended or rewarded for their not erring therein can any thing be more absurd then for the independent Coactive Power of Kings it self to be restrain'd to the Punishing such as they shall judge Innocent But the two tenderest things in the World are Sovereign Power and Conscience and both of them were made with a
request them to consider that a Private Interpretation of a Publick Act can give no satisfaction unless it be either expresly or virtually allow'd by the highest Authority that doth impose it and then it is made Publick c. But the Authority of Interpretation of any doubt in such a Publick Act belongs properly not to private but publick Persons c. For private Men tho Learn'd if they take upon them the Interpretation of publick Dictates may be more like to light on mutual Contradictions of each other then on the true and proper Construction of the Text they interpret So did Vega and Soto Soto and Catherinus who wrote against each other contrary Comments on the Council of Trent In which respect it was a wise advice given to the Pope by the Bishop of Bestice viz. to appoint a Congregation for the expounding of the Councel and well follow'd by him when he forbade all sorts of Persons Clerks or Laicks being private Men to make any Commentaries Glosses Annotations or any Interpretation whatsoever on the Decrees of that Councel Dr. Burgesse indeed made an Interpretation of his own Subscription but there had been no validity in it as we conceive unless it had been allow'd by the Superior Powers And so it was for as he saith It was accepted by King James and the Archbishop of Canterbury affirm'd it to be the true sense and meaning of the Church of England He refers there to Dr. Burgesse in his Answer to a much applauded Pamphlet Praefat. p. 26. A. Your mentioning that of Dr. Burgesse his Interpretation of his Subscription minds me of what I have read at the end of his Book call'd No Sacrilege nor Sin to alienate or purchase Cathedral Lands viz. in his Postscript to Dr. Pearson and his No Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine of the Church of England Printed A. 1660. where he saith As touching the Regal Supremacy we own and will assert it as far as you do or dare Only we had reason to take notice of the improper Expression in the 37th Article that the Queen's Majesty hath the Supreme Power For if the Declaration father'd on the late King and prefix'd to the Articles had so much Power with his Printer that he durst not alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642 and those Articles must be read Verbatim without Alteration or Explanation then we say again there is a Necessity of Reforming that Article in the expression of it and not to talk at random what was indeed the meaning unless we may have leave when we read it Regiâ declaratione non-obstante to declare the sense which the Declaration alloweth us not to do But the truth is that exception of the Doctor to the Articles may well pass for a Scruple or rather a Cavil and at this rate we should be put to it to say O King interpret for ever B. You say right Dr. Pierson in that Judicious Book of his call'd No Necessity of Reforming the Doctrine of the Church of England well observes that the 37th Article hath express reference to the Queen's Injunctions set forth in the year 1559. and those Injunctions take particular care that no other Duty Allegiance or Bond should be required to the Queen then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th her Majesty's Father or King Edward the 6th her Majesty's Brother The words of the Article declare that the Doctrine contained in it concerneth all the Kings as Kings The title in General is of the Civil Magistrates and the words run thus where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government we give not to our Princes c. shewing that what they gave to her they gave to all the Kings of England Which will appear more plainly out of the first Latine Copy Printed in the time of Queen Eliz. in the year 1563. read and approved by the Queen the words whereâ—…f are these Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam Calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem c. Being therefore the Article expresly mentioneth and concerneth the Kings of England as they are the Kings of England the mention of the Queen's Majesty in the Article can make the Doctrine no more doubtful then it doth our Allegiance in that Oath which was made 1 o Eliz. where the Heirs and Successors of the Queen are to appoint who shall accept the Oath the words of which are that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm But I hope the Heirs and Successors of Queen Elizabeth did never appoint that Oath to be taken in the Name of the Queen's Highness but in their own It may be supposed that some such like Cavilling or Scrupling humour possess'd the fancies of some in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames the First and that some occasion was thereby given to that Prince in those his Canons expresly therein maintaining the 39 Articles and the Subscription thereunto and particularly in the 36th Canon there to enjoyn a Subscription to three Articles in such manner and sort as is there appointed and of which the first is That the King's Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions c. and that no foreign Prince Person Prelate HAUE or OUGHT to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual c. and in which the words have or OUGHT to have might possibly be inserted out of a Royal Complaisance with the Desires of some Scruplers in whose behalf the Famous Dr. Rainolds moved the King at the Hampton-Court Conference that to the Position in the 37th Article viz. The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm of England might be added nor OUGHT to have but which motion the King then rejected as a thing superfluous and saying Habemus quod jure habemus You may find an Account of this twoâ—…old Subscription in Coke 4. Inst. c. 74. and where he saith Subscription required by the Clergy is twofold One by force both of an Act of Parliament CONFIRMING and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. 13. Eliz. c. 12. Another by Canens made at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by King James A. I had thought you told me that the 39 Articles owed no Confirmation nor Authority to that Act of the 13th of Eliz. B. I did tell you so and do think that when my Lord Coke used the word Confirming he spake cum vulgo or as the word is taken minus propriè and as it is taken in declarative Acts of Parliament sometime to mean declared and as I and others may in Discourse sometimes use the word But speaking properly to
containing all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering c. It is Enacted c. that all Subscriptions hereafter to be had or made to the said Articles by any Deacon Priest c. or other person whatsoever who by this Act or any OTHER LAW now in force is required to subscribe unto the said Articles shall be construed and taken to extend and shall be applyed for and touching the said 36th Article to the Book containing the form and manner of making ordaining and consecrating of Bishops Priests c. in this Act mentioned in such sort and manner as the same did heretofore extend to the Book set forth in the time of King Edward the 6th mention'd in the said 36th Article any thing in the said Article or in any Statute Act or Canon heretofore had or made to the Contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding It is clear that the Parliament had then their Eye on the Act of 13. Eliz. and on that Canon of King Iames and which you may take as referr'd to by the words or any other Law now in force for so they then knew it to be and as it still is tho with the interpretation extended by the Act to it and afterward by the word Canon But one may guess that by the Authority of some of the Lords the Bishops there was before the making of this Canon of King Iames and after the Act of 13. Eliz. in her Reign some Subscription under disabling Penalties required of Ministers beyond what that Statute required by what the Author of Certain Considerations tending to promote Peace mentions in p. 4. viz. That in the 30th year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the House of Commons presented to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal a Petition containing divers particulars for the redress whereof they desire that no Oath or Subscription might be tender'd to any at their entrance into the Ministry but such as is expresly prescribed by the Statutes of the Realm except the Oath against Corrupt entring that they may not be troubled for the omission of some Rites or Portions prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer that such as had been suspended for no other Offence but only for not subscribing might be restored A. It seems those Bishops then did as your Expression was Dispensare in lege and were as I may say Non-conformists to it by going beyond it For they were obliged sapere ad Regulam and all Conformity is respectu regulae and he who doth over-shoot or who over-does what is enjoyn'd is a Non-conformist B. You here put me in mind how some of our Bishops and Clergy have been thus Non-conformists in over-shooting their mark at the same time that they have with undistinguishing severity executed the rigour of the Laws against all who did shoot short The Royal Martyr in his Declaration to all his Loving Subjects Publish'd with the Advice of his Privy Councel A. 1641. refers to some Ceremonies in our Church which have been used without any legal Warrant or Injunction and which already are or speedily may be abolish'd A. But I a little wonder that a House of Commons should Petition for the Dispensing with some legal Rites and required both by Injunctions and Canons and by Acts of Parliament B. I do not wonder at it at all For Conjunctures having happen'd when some Non-conformists having been tender of the Peace of the Government you need not wonder at any tenderness in it for them For as in the Conjuncture of the Resteration of King Charles the Second very many of the Presbyterians and of other Sects then shewing their Loyalty the Author I lately cited taking notice thus of the Declaration A. 1660. viz. in which his Majesty saith Our present Consideration and work is to gratifie the private Cosciences of those who are grieved with some Ceremonies by indulging to and dispensing with the omitting of those Ceremonies A Member of the House of Commons in an Epistle to His Majesty useth these words viz. which Indulgent Declaration so ravished the hearts of all your Loving Subjects that your whole House of Commons their Representatives then assembled in Parliament immediately after the Publication October 8th 1660 repair'd in a Body to White-hall and there by their Speaker's Oration in the Banquetting-House express'd their extraordinary great Ioy and presented their general Thanks to your Majesty for this your Majesty's most gracious Declaration and Dispensation with their Consciences in Matters not being of the substance or essence of Religion which gave abundant satisfaction to all peaceable sob rminded Men and such as are truly Religious in which return of their Thanks they were all unanimous Nemine Contradicente then Ordering a Bill in Pursuance of your Majesty's Declaration Note that this was that House of Commons which together with the House of Lords brought His Majesty to the Throne so long before namely in the first year of King Charles the First and A. 1625. both Houses presented a Petition to the King wherein they desire that His Majesty would please to advise the Bishops by fatherly entreaty and tender usâ—…ge to reduce to the peaceable and orderly Service of the Church such able Ministers as have been formerly SILENCED c. and which is in effect all one such able Ministers as have been formerly disabled A. I am highly pleas'd with your further bringing any thing to me like Iudgment of Parliament that may strengthen the Regal Power of interpreting or of dispensing with disability We have discours'd of the Subject a pretty while together at this Meeting and I must acknowledge you have entertain'd me with an account of many Statutes that have propp'd up the Regal Power of dispensing with disability and that too tho you observ'd it not to me not only in their Preambles but in their enacting parts the which I account more momentous Nor can I forbear observing it to you that in the late Printed Books of some who asserted this dispensative Power nothing like Iudgment of Parliament hath been cited in the case for it but that out of Rot. Parl. 1. H. 5. 11. 22. out of Rolle Tit. Prerogative le Roy fol. 180. viz. The Commons prayed that the Statutes for voiding of Aliens out of the Kingdom might be executed to which the Kiâ—…g agreed saving his Prerogative that he might dispense with such as he pleas'd And upon this the Commons answer'd that their intention was no other nor ever should be by the help of God. But this was only the judgment of a House of Commons and that is short of the Authority of a House of Lords concurring with them tho but in a Petitionary manner that the Regal Dispensative Power might be exerted and which latter is far short of the Authority of an Act of Parliament And among the many Parliamentary Recognitions of the Dispensative Power you have mentionâ—…d to me that which you told me at our first meeting of the Act of Uniformity 16 o Car. 2.
insignificant as did the old Politicks I shall refer you to in the Sacred Story and when the whole Earth was of one Language and of one Speech and the Vogue was Let us build a City and Tower whose top may reach to Heaven and let us make us a Name least we be scatter'd abroad on the face of the whole Earth But Heaven confounded their Language and their City was call'd Babel and their feared Dissipation was their Punishment They were so diffident of the Divine Promise whose garranty they had that they were resolv'd by their own hands to provide against all Dangers of a future Deluge and having built their Tower with Brick they thought 't would defend them from the Power of Fire concerning which they had heard the Tradition that a general Destruction of the World should proceed from the fury of that Element and they vainly endeavour'd to secure themselves against the anger of Heaven rather by a lofty Pile then by lowly Minds A. That wretched vulgar Error you referr'd to did shew that the line of Confusion was stretch'd forth on Men's understandings as well as on the Realm in that Conjuncture and I have observ'd that that vulgar Error did last to the very time of the ferment about the Exclusion and long before which time as well as then some have talk'd and writ at this rate viz. That the Oath of Supremacy was expresly made as the title of it shews to shut out the Usurpation of foreign Powers and Potentates and was not meant to provide against any popular Usurpations or Diminutions of the King 's Supreme Authority B. O God! But to speak or write at that rate to Conscience is Chicanerie And I have elsewhere mention'd what one whom I cannot too often mention to be as fair a dealer with Conscience as any the Age hath had told us in his sixth Lecture of Oaths about the Oath of Supremacy binding in this Case You know I mean Bishop Sanderson who there shews that tho Popes Usurpations or arrogating to themselves the Supreme Iurisdiction in spiritualibus throughout this Kingdom was the Cause of the Oath of Supremacy yet the Oath is obligatory according to the express words in the Utmost Latitude the reason is that the intention of a Law is general to provide against all future inconveniences of the like kind or nature Moreover the words in Queen Elizabeth's Admonition referring to the Persons call'd to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church as the doubters and the tenour of all the subsequent Interpretations as speaking them principally occasion'd by the doubters in the Church of England do further shew the Vanity of that Objection And if you will more particularly think of the Queen 's Authentick Interpretation of that Oath and approved in Parliament you will find the Oath of Supremacy to be an Oath of Allegiance and that it may be so-likewise properly termed For in the beginning of the Admonition you will thus find it viz. The Queen's Majesty being inform'd that in certain places of this Realm sundry of her native Subjects being call'd to Ministry in the Church be by sinister Perswasion and perverse Construction induced to find some scruple in the form of an Oath which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers Persons for the recognition of their ALLEGIANCE to her Majesty c. A. As one may perceive by what the Queen's Interpretation in the Admonition refers to that there was a great ferment in the Kingdom about the sense of the Oath so suitably to what you mention'd of the Prudence of our Ancestors that caus'd various ferments to go off so insensibly the next Parliament in approving her Interpretation without troubling themselves to question the Authentickness of it doth corroborate your observation of the Excellence of the English understandings B. It doth so The fermentation in the minds of the People you speak of had been Epidemical And tho one might fancy by the Proem of the Admonition that the Interpretation as well as the Dispensing with Disability had an eye but on an inconsiderable number of People there referr'd to in the foremention'd words of sundry of her Majesty's Native Subjects in certain places of this Realm c. yet any one who knoweth the History of those times will find the Interpretation and Dispensation as I may say Calculated for the Meridian of all England and the Interpretation having an eye on all Christendom There was then in the Morning of that Queen's Reign and of the restoration of the Reform'd Religion such a thick mist of causeless Fears and Iealousies that had generally o'erspread the minds of Protestants and Papists shortly after the Birth of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. c. 1 o. that nothing but the Supremacy both of Power and Reason that shone in her authentick Interpretation of that Statute could disperse and that too not suddenly For as Mr. Nye in his Book of Two Acts of Parliament or Observations on that Oath tells us It is mention'd in the Admonition that the Queen 's Ecclesiastical Power is the same that was challenged and used by Henry the 8th c. which is supposed by some to be the same that was in the Pope the Person only and not the Power changed so that our Princes are but secular Popes This Objection was strengthen'd by the subtlety of Gardiner abroad and at home by a Sermon Preach'd at Paul's Cross in the year 1588. by Dr. Bancroft who calls Q. Eliz. a Petty Pope and tells us her Ecclesiastical Authority is the same which the Pope's was formerly and in the Margin opposite to what he had said of the subtlety of Gardiner strengthening the Objection abroad hath these words viz. Whom Calvin terms Imposterille And Mr. Nye afterward goes on to shew how the 37th Article did remove the Objection sufficiently The Author of The true Grounds of Ecclesiastical Regiment Printed in London A. 1641. doth in p. 53. mention some mens objecting it against the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of our Monarchs that it may descend to Infants under Age as it did to King Edward the 6th or to Women as to Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and that whatsoever we may allow to men such as Henry the 8th yet it seems unreasonable to allow it Women and Children The Papists think this Objection of great moment and therefore Bellarmine in great disdain casts it out that in England they had a certain Woman for their Bishop meaning Queen Elizabeth and she knowing what an odium that word would draw on her both among Papists and many Protestants also Consults her Bishops about it and by their advice sets forth a Declaration certifying the World thereby that she claim'd no other Headship in the Church but such as might exclude all dependency on foreign Headships and secure her from all danger of being deposed c. The Bishops in this did as warily provide for their own Claim as the Queen 's And the Roman-Catholick Author
condonare And Bishop Sanderson in his 11th Sermon Ad aulam shewing the inconvenience of rashly judging things to be unlawful observes how thereby mens affections are aliâ—…nated from one another and saith he our own deceitful hearts must needs tell us how hardly we think of those Men who do those things we think unlawful as for example if we think dressing of Meat and using any recreations to be profanatious of the Lord's-Day we must needs judg those men who do so use them to be prophaners of the Lord's-Day and he further observes That Governours thereby come to be robbed of a great deal of that honour that is due to them from their People both in their affections and subjection and saith if we have in our thoughts prejudged any of the things commanded by the Magistrate to be unlawful our hearts will be sowred toward our Governours and Men will directly or indirectly and obliquely speak evil of them c. Mr. Hobb's writing of the passions observes well That the passion whose violence or continuance maketh madness is either great vain glory which is commonly called Pride and Self-conceit or great dejection of Mind and that excessive opinion of a Man 's own self for divine Inspiration for Wisdom Learning Form and the like becomes distraction and giddiness the same joyn'd with Envy Rage vehement opinion of the truth of any thing contradicted by others Rage c. and if the excesses be madness there is no doubt but the Passions themselves when they tend to evil are degrees of the same And therefore when we see so many Mechanical Persons as to the Point of Dispensation in general not allowing their own Rule of Cuilibet in suâ arte credendum so many Men and Women and such whom the Law terms Infants so rude in the knowledge of the Law and yet so transported with Pride and Self-Conceit and such an excessive opinion of themselves for Wisdom and Knowledge and for being inspired with new light in this dark Learning none need wish them greater Punishment then such their Distemper adding thereunto the Pharisaical humour they have been so much abandon'd to namely of their own dispensing with Moral and Eternal Duties and such as I have referr'd to in Ames and Sanderson and things in their own nature indispensable and which are the weightier Matters of the Law while they cry out of the dispensing with Positive Rites and Institutions as illegal A. There is another punishment too that I think we may well agree to leave them to and that is what Grotius cite out of Plato viz. poena errantis est doceri but we must submit that to time and when God pleaseth the heart of the rash shall understand knowledge And in the mean while to the noyse of such People who wilfully shut their eyes we will stop our ears You may well suppose me who have read that Report of Sir I. Vaughan lawyer enough to assert and defend according to my oath the Regal privilege of the Dispensative power in General but as to the modus of it and whether according to the lex terrae the Crown can dispense with incapacity incurred by Act of Parliament I am yet to learn and am so solicitous to find out the truth therein that I shall be glad if at our next meeting you will take the shortest way to my satisfaction therein tho it may perhaps occasion your for a while striking out of the road of the former discourse we were in B. You know we had made some entrance into the consideration of the promissory part of the Oath and of the Dispensative power as promised to be assisted and defended and as a Privilege inherent in the Crown But since you will have me take the shortest way I can out of the words in your Oath to satisfy you about the dispensing with such incapacity as you have mentioned I must in compliance with your desire refer you to the Assertory part of the Oath when we meet again To the Right Honorable the Lord Marquess of Powys one of the Lords of His Majesty's most Honorable Privy-Council MY LORD I Having in p. 57 58 59. of the following Second Part occasionally dilated on the Common Place or Notion of Heaven having so often made so much use of the weight of one man in the balance of Government I esteem'd my dedicating this Part of my Work to your Lordship but common Iustice to your Character who have been the happy Instrument of God and the King in making so many Englishmen happy My Lord It is but natural when the Just are in Authority for the People to rejoice as Solomon tells us and for them likewise to anticipate the Honours of the Prince's affording to a Person heroically just by wishing them And this is most properly applicable to your Lordship and that in your Case may be said what Pliny in his Panegyric mentions of Nerva's adopting Trajan That it was impossible it should have pleas'd all when it was done except it had pleas'd all before it was done My Lord It was Nature that prompted them to presage with Pleasure the Profit that would come to them from the accessions of Honour to you and whereby they knew that the height of your Power would be naturally productive of Blessings to them as the height of Hills and Mountains is of Springs for the benefit of the lower Earth and of those who inhabit it and which are found wanting in Countrys where there are no Hills And the Ancient placing of the Statues of Magistrates by Fountains may be supposed to have been an indication of the Peoples valuing them as the Causers of what did console and refresh them My Lord when I consider how much your Lordship and other just Persons of the Roman-Catholick Communion have in the performance of the moral Offices of Natural Obedience to your Prince obliged so many of his Subjects by your being helpful to them against Oppressions in their Estates and Consciences I hope I shall not appear too sanguine in my Conjecture of any ferment soon naturally ceasing about the exercise of the Dispensative Power being a gravamen to Property My Lord I shall in the former of the two remaining Parts of this my Work and which are both ready for the Press entertain your Lordship with such a farther Assertion of those offices of that Obedience call'd Natural as I believe will give no offence to any Zealot or Patriot and as I have hitherto took care to give none to either For tho I think it not deniable that our Princes may by their Laws limit the exercise of that Allegiance or Obedience with respect to Circumstances yet as no Humane Laws can legitimate the entire withdrawing of any part of the Obedience enjoin'd by the Divine Law natural or positive so how our Lex â—…rrae hath not limited the exercise of the Regal Power from the Dispensing with Disability as in the Case now so much agitated I have shewn and
Consciences and who might thereby think that according to the Rule of ejus est interpretari cujus est condere that the Oath of Supremacy enjoyn'd by Parliament 1 o Elizabethoe could not receive an Interpretation but from the Queen in Parliament and that that Consideration might therefore be supposed to be the cause of the Queens interpreting being approved or declared good by the Parliament in the Fifth year of her Reign B. I shall tell you that as to the sufficiency of the Queen's Power to interpret the Oath by her sole Authority it appears not that the Proviso in the Statute of 5 Eliz. did in the least arise from any such scruple and so De non apparentibus c. And here without troubling you with the Notions of the Royal assent creating the Soul of the Law and by the words of le Roy le veult after the Body of it hath been prepared by the three Estates and that the three Estates have nothing to do to interpret a Law that is once made and accordingly as Sir C. Hatton formerly Lord Chancellor of England in his Treatise of Acts of Parliament and their Exposition tells us That the Assembly of Parliament being ended functi sunt officio and speaking particularly of those of the Lower House saith their Authority is return'd to the Electors so clearly that if they were all together assembled again for interpretation by a voluntary meeting eorum non esset interpretari c. I shall once for all observe to you that our Monarchs when in the exercise of the Prerogative inherent in them and inseparable from them relating to Matters of Peace and War the Coining of Money or the Dispensing in Matters Civil or Ecclesiastical they condescend to have the same in particular â—…ases approved or strengthâ—…n'd by Parliament are no more deprived of their Sole Supremacy therein then the Body of the Sun is devested of its Heat and Light by diffusing the same through the Air. But I have before observ'd to you that the apparent Cause in the Proviso of 5 o Elizabethoe whereby the Queens Interpretation is Enacted is the better to transmit the obligatoriness of the Interpretation in point of Conscience beyond her Life and to the Reigns of her Heirs and Successors and to bind us who live now to acknowledge such Power due to our present King over the Persons of all his Subjects as was in her interpretation challenged to be due to Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth I shall not trouble you with my Judgment about Moot-points of Law relating to the Regal Power of interpreting Acts of Parliament and particularly such wherein Oaths are founded My Lord Coke Inst. 3. c. 74. tells us That an Oath cannot be ministred to any unless the same be allow'd by the Common Law or by some Act of Parliament neither can any Oath allow'd by the Common-Law or by Act of Parliament be alter'd but by Act of Parliament and saith in the Margin So resolv'd An. 26. El. in the Case of the Under-Sheriff And then saith the Oath of the King 's Privy Councel the Iustices the Sheriffs c. was thought fit to be alter'd and enlarged but that was done by Authority of Parliament For further proof whereof see the Statutes here quoted i. e. those referr'd to in his Margin and it shall evidently appear that no old Oath can be alter'd or new Oath rais'd without an Act of Parliament I have only here referr'd you to Matters of Fact in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth a Reign that the Royal Martyr in p. 3. of his Declaration to all his Loving Subjects of Aug. 12. 1642. refers to with so much honour by saying We declared our Resolution c. and desired that whatsoever mistaking had grown in the Government either of Church or State might be removed and all things reduced to the order of the time the memory whereof is justly precious to this Nation of Queen Elizabeth c. and do leave it to you to consider how Great the Power of Interpretation of Laws is in it self a Power almost infinitely greater then the discharging either the Obligations of some Penal Laws or their Penalties Pro hic nu c and as to some particular Persons as any one will grant who hath seen the extent of the Power of interpreting in the Canon Law where the Glossa ad Cap. Statuimus 4. Distinct. 4. gives us this Interpretation of Statuimus STATUIMUS i. e. ABROGAMUS And I can for this purpose tâ—…ll you that Bartolâ—…s in his Tractatus testimoniorum speaking of the Imperial Power concedendi veniam oetatis saith Carolus quarâ—…us sanctissimus nebilissimus Imperator inter 〈◊〉 multâ—… concessit ut ego meique descendentes quos legibús dâ—…los esse contigerit per un versum imperium oetatis venâ—…am concedere valeâ—…mus servataÌ„ formaÌ„ quoe legibus reperitur insâ—…rta and whereby you see that a Power of dispensing with incapaciâ—…y was by the Prince given as an inheritance But none can imagine that the Power of interpreting Laws can be so conferr'd So that therefore according to the Rule of Law Non debet cui plus licet quoÌ„d minus est non licere you neâ—…d not wâ—…nder at the Prince's dispensing with incapacity in particular cases whom you have seen interpreting Laws And you may consider that if the Queen did contrary to the measures of Law referr'd to in my Lord Coke by her sole Supream Ecclesiastical Authority seem to alter the interpretation of a Stature Oath for the better what she did found afterward its approbation in Parliament and in fine I leave it to you to consider how much the Power of dispensing with any Law may be thought Coincident with interpreting since as I shall some other time shew you at large that the dispensing with Laws is in effect the equitable interpreting that in such and such cases and circumstances they were not intended and ought not to bind but ought to be relax'd And now I must take the occasion offer'd me to give you a prospect of the Queens Dispensative Power both of the Interpretation of this Oath and of the acquittal from Disabilities that is not bounded by the Statutes of 5 o or 8 o Elizabethoe beforemention'd and wherein she again stood on the single basis of her own Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical without having recourse then to a Parliaments approbation Mr. Ney in his learned Observations on the Oath of Sâ—…premacy having spoke of the Queens Interpretation of the Oath in her Admonition and of the Parliamentary Proviso 5 o Eliz. doth thus go on There is something of Explication further meaning of the Oath in the Artiâ—…les of Religion concluded in the year 1562 and then recites the 37th Article as followeth viz. The Queens Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of 〈◊〉 Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes
doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction Where we attribute to her Majesty the Chief Government by which Title we understand the minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in the Realm of England The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian Men with death for hâ—…inous and grievous Offences It is lawful for Christian Men at the Commandment of the Magistrate to wear Weapons and serve in the Wars Now after the Oath of Supremacy had been enjoyn'd in the first year of her Reign and the Admonition annexed to her Injunctions was then likewise publish'd viz. A. D. 1559. and after the Parliament had by proviso 〈◊〉 the interpretation of the Oath which Parliament began the 12th of Ianuary in the 5th year of her reign and from which day all things dâ—…ne in that Session are to bear date the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the 5th year of her reign and A. D. 1562. were by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces subscribed the 29th of Ianuary in that year and by the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation on the 5th of February following and to all which the Queen gave her Royal Assent And in the Articles there was by the Queens Royal Prerogative an additional Interpretation probably at the instance of the Clergy given to the interpretation in the Admonition and in the Parliaments Proviso and the which additional interpretation had in it no respect to nor mention of what being in several places of the former one might amuse the Clergy with some Fears and Iealousies namely the Duty Allegiance and Bond that were acknowledged due to Harry the 8th and Edward the 6th and the Authority that was challenged and lately used by those Princes however yet that latter Clause is qualify'd in the Admonition But for the 37th Article before-mentioned allowing the measures of the Royal Supremacy from the Prerogatives given by God in Scripture to holy Princes whereby our Clergy might seem to have brought the Prerogative into its own proper Element and theirs too the knowledge of the Scriptures being their profession our Clergy no doubt were always thankful to the Crowns Dispensative power and so exercised out of Parliament and whereby they were secured from penal disabilities either by suspension or deprivation for not taking the Oath in the sense of the Admonition Thus as things in their proper place are at rest the Queens Dispensative power and the Consciences of the Clergy by this interpretation of the Oath were so much at rest that about eight or nine years afterward the same 39 Articles that had been by the Archbishops and Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces agreed on in the year 1562. were by the said Archbishops Bishops and Clergy again agreed upon and again ratify'd by the Queen in the year 1571. the 13th year of her reign and when care was taken by the Government that that interpretation being incorporated in the body of the 39 Articles should be deem'd good in Parliament by the Statute of 13 o Eliz. c. 12. as the other interpretation in the Admonition had been by the proviso in the Act of the 5th of that Queen and probably for the same reason and as her dispensing with disability expresly in the 8th year of her reign was In the Act of the 13th of Eliz. reference was made to those Articles as agreed on by the Archbishops and Clergy and set forth by the Queens authority Anno 1562. and the Act is entituled Reformation of Disorders in the Ministers of the Church and in which it was enacted That all such as were to be ordained or permitted to preach or to be instituted into any Benefice with cure of Souls should publickly subscribe to the said Articles which shews if you mind it that tho the Parliament did well allow and approve of the said Articles yet the said Book oweth neither Confâ—…rmation nor Authority to the Act of Parliament And that Act concerning only Clergy-men tho the interpretation in the 37th Article is left to oblige the Clergy yet that in the Admonition might concern you to stick to if nothing had since happen'd whereby the dispensative power inherent in the Crown may have given your Conscience the benefit of the interpretation thus afforded to the Clergy But therefore I shall here tell you that the Canons of King Iames the â—…st Anno 1603 being confirmed for him and his Heirs and Successors are binding now however it hath been objected as the unhappiness of Queen Elizabeths Canonâ—… viz. A. 1571. A. 1584. A. 1597. wanting those formal words of Heirs and Successors to expire with her And as those words are in King Iames's Canons so are the words of enjoyning their being observ'd fuâ—…fill'd and kept not only by the Clergy but by all other Persons within this Realm as far as lawfully being Members of the Church it may concern them and tho in the first Canon there entituled The King's Supremacy over the Church of England in Causes Ecclesiastical to be maintain'd 't is order'd That all Ecclesiastical Persons shall keep and observe and as much as in them lyeth all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom its ancient Iurisdiction over the state Ecclâ—…siastical yet in the next Canon entitled Impugners of the King's Supremacy censurâ—…d the measures of the King 's ecclesiastical Authority being taken from the Godly Kings among the Iews according to the 37th of the 39 Articles was an extending to the Layety the ben fit of the Interpretation obtain'd by the Clergy the which was in effect a judgment of the Convocations that the pursuance of that Interpretation of the King 's Ecclesiastical Power and the avoiding of the punishment of Disability by the use of that Power was not agaâ—…st the Law of the Land but the 5th Canon viz. Impugners of the Artiâ—…les of Religion establish'd in the Church of England censured and in which the establishment of the 39 Articles is solely referr'd to them as agreed on in Convocation in the year 1562. without any notice of the Parliament of the 13th of Eliz. having done any thing about them doth more clearly secure to you the benefit of the Interpretation the Clergy had A. You have mention'd so many things to me relating to the interpretation
some mens Minds are involv'd in they can no more alter their beliefs about Transubstantiation then they can transubstantiate themselves into other Creatures and are under a Moral incapacity of preventing another incurred by Law. And therefore as it would be Injustice in a Judge to Punish a man for the Errors of the mind that he knoweth not to be voluntary and for a man 's not putting himself into a Capacity to serve the King by the Professing of the truth in Problematical Points when the King of Kings hath by the not sufficient promulgating of such truth to his understanding render'd him innocent in his disbelief thereof and so long morally uncapable to profess it so by one man's after another appearing thus unable to qualifie himself to serve the King he may be totally unserved I have often heard you complain of the narrow Idea's of the King's Supremacy in some of the Non-Conformists but if you will read the Protestation of the King's Supremacy made by the Nâ—…n-conforming Ministers and Printed A D. 1605. you will find that they have there given in sufficient caution for tâ—…eir Principles not allowing any of the King's Subjects being disabled from serving him For they having said in § 1. We hold and maintain the same Authority and Supremâ—…cy in all Causes and over all Persons Civil and Ecclesiastical granted by Statute to Queen Elizabeth and expressed and declared in the Book of Advertisements and Injunctions and in Mr. Bilson against the Iesuites to be due in full and ample manner without any limitation or qualification to the King and his Heirs and Successors for ever they add in § 2. We are so far from judging the said Supâ—…emacy to be unlawful that we are persâ—… aded that the King should sin highly against God if he should not assume the same to himself and that the Churches within his Dominions should sin damnably if they should deny to yield the same to him yea tho the STATUTES of the Kingdom should deâ—…y it to him And they tell you in Sect. 6. that the height of the King 's Royal Dignity consists in his Supremacy It is thus likewise a kind of familiar or Vulgar Error among Protestants to think that in the â—…ncient times this Fundamental Assertory part of your Oath tâ—…at the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Râ—…alm was not allow'd Long before the Rescript of the University of Oxford to Henry the 8th A. 1534. mention'd that he was next under God their happy and Supreme Moderator and Governor and on which being brought into the Parliament House an Act passed whereby the King was declared Supreme Head and Governor of the Church and long before it was declared by the Parliament 16. R. 2. c. 5. that the Crown â—…t England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other and long before Bracton's writing in the Reign of H. 3. Omnis quidem sub Rege ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub Deo and ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo. c. you will find if you look into Coke's 4th Instit. c. 74. that in the Law before the Conquest the style runs Rex autem quia Uicarius summâ—… Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut Regnum terâ—…enum populum Domini super omnia sanctam veneretuâ—… Ecclesiam ejus regat c. and where he tells you of the style of King Edwin in his Charters viz. of Angâ—…orum Rex totius Britannicae telâ—…uris Gubeâ—…nator Rector And he there refers likewise to several Grants made by Abâ—…ots and Priors to King E. 4. wherein they style him by these very words Supremus Dominus noster But that he might perimere litem as to the point of the ancientness of the King's Supremacy he there referreth to the judgment of Parliament declared in the Statute of 24 o. H. 8. c. 12. viz. That by divers authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governâ—…d by one Supreme Head and King c. unto whom a Body-Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty been bounden and owen to beat next unto God a natural and humble Obedience c. And here I am led to tell you that as it is on this Foundation of the King 's being the Supreme Governor and Ruler of all sorts and degrees of men thus anciently acknowledged by our Roman Catholick forefathers that the Regal Power of Dispensing with the Laws that were Penal by Incapacity and particularly in order to the Crown 's being enabled to command the Obedience and Service of all Estates and Degrees of men was built so it is on the same that the Usurpations of the Papal Dispensative Power of that kind were opposed I shall before we part give you instances hereof A. I thank you but shall here tell you that the Expression you used just now about the King being disabled by his Subjects being so hath overcast my thoughts with some kind of horror B. I cannot help it but if you will have me speak with the frankness of a Philosopher concerning the Nature of things the disabling of the Subjects must have that effect in Nature and of the disabling of their Country too And I think too you gave me a hint for some such thought at our last meeting If you do but consider the Services done to Monarchs by that abject Nation of the Iews and who by Tacitus were call'd the Vilissima pars servientium and how in our Saviour's time they were serviceable to the Roman Empire in the Collection of the Customs and how much they have been since and still are useful to the Grand Signior and to many Christian Princes by gathering in their Imposts you will easily imagine the loss that would redound to Princes by Religionary Heterodoxy disabling any to serve them It is but natural to men of the most inquisitive and penetrating thoughts to differ from many Points of Theology receiv'd by Princes and their People and since such heterodoxy doth difficult their access to Preferment it is but Natural to them by their working Thoughts and Industry to arrive at the excelling the duller Orthodox in whatever course of life they take and by that means to try to push on their way into their Prince's favour and consequently to have very sharp regrets against any Methods that would incapacitate them for it And as if this Civil Death were to Men of great Thoughts the terrible of terribles and what as hindring them from serving their Prince and Country were like Burying them alive I shall shew you how a Man of great Abilities and who had made a great Figure in the Church
is free from Subjection to any mans Laws but only to such as have been devised made and obtained within this Realm for the Wealth of the same or to such other as by SUFFERANCE of your GRACE and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own Consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the Customes and ancient Laws of this Realm originally establish d Laws of the same by the same Sufferance Consents and Custom and none otherwise it standeth therefore with natural equity and good reason that in all and every such Laws HUMANE made within this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance Consents and Custom your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. have full Power and Authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect Person or Persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm and with every one of them as the quality of the Persons and Matter shall require And the Act afterward mentions the impoverishment of the People of this Realm by the Imposts for Papal Dispensations and refers twice to the Charges of the taxa Camerae calling them expresly in one place Impositions taken to the use of the Pope and his Chambers and in another the old Tax And at the removal of these intolerable Charges as they are call'd in that of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. or intolerable Exactions as they are call'd in the 25th of Henry the 8th that of the First of Elizabeth as I said had an eye in the revival of this of Henry the 8th and the Consideration of which Statute will be of importance to us as to that part of our Promissory Oath that refers to our defending the Iurisdictions c. united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that Statute of Henry the 8th having in its Prefatory part express'd the Pope's dispensing here to be in derogation of the King 's Imperial Crown and Authority Royal and there afterwards mentions how the Imperial Crown of this Realm suffer'd by those Papal Exactions And the Preface of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. refers in general to divers good Statutes made in Henry the 8th's time for the Restoring and uniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Iurisdictions Authorities to the same of Right belonging and which ushers in the reference to the Statute of the 25th of Henry the 8th and then in the following Clause 't is said that for the repressing of the usurped Foreign Power and the restoring the Rights Iurisdictions and Preheminences belonging to the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. Thus then you see that I have fairly shew'd you out of this Statute of Queen Elizabeth where your Oath is situated that the Restoration of the Ancient Jurisdiction of the Crown in dispensing was restored to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the which the Pope had formerly usurped on in Matters both Ecclesiastical and Civil and which you are obliged to defend against any Papal or Popular Usurpations whatsoever I was enforced for your clearer understanding of this Statute to conduct you to the 25th of Henry the 8th and where you find several Expressions that make it the right of the Imperial Crown of this Realm to dispense with the disability or incapacity incurr'd by Law. You have there the word REHABILITATION and what is called there the Writ of Perinde valere which Blount tells you in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Dispensation granted to a Clerk who being defective in his title to a Benefice or other Ecclefiastical Function is de facto admitted to it And it takes Appellation from the words which make the faculty as Effectual to the party DISPENS'D WITH as if he had been actually CAPABLE of the thing for which he is dispens'd with at the time of his Admission A. 25. H. the 8th it is call'd a Writ You have in your Oath acknowledg'd the Crown of this Realm to be a Crown Imperial and if you had not by the Comparing the two Statutes together found that the Power of Rehabilitation of Persons disabled was restored and united to the Crown as what was anciently due to it and used by it yet on the Consideration of the Crown here being call'd Imperial and of its being a res judicata among all that write of the Power of such Crowns that a Dispensation with Persons in this kind is allow'd them as one of the jura Majestatis you ought by virtue of your Oath to be very careful how you deny this mark of Soveraignty to the Imperial Crown of this Realm which you see wants none of the other I think I have now let you see that I have here put no forced or wyre-drawn Consequences on you and would hate to do any thing of that Nature in common Discourse and about a common or trivial matter and much more in the concern of an Oath You know I have often prais'd that Letter in D'Ossal where he reflects on some Men thus viz. Le sont gens d'esprit de scavoir de labeur qui â—…ont forgè mais de fort maâ—…vaise foy ne faiÌ„sans Conscience n' ayans honte de traitter un cas de Conscience si important a la Religion Catholique a toute la Chrestiente en chichaneurs sophistes But further yet to let you see that in minding you in point of Conscience and by virtue of this your Oath duly to prop up the Regal Power of Dispensing with Incapacity I put no wyre-drawn Consequences upon you and do with the simplicity that becomes a Christian speak to you ex animo I shall again give you the Iudgment of Parliament in the Case and to that end shall first direct you to the Statute of 37 o. H. 8. c. 17. that begins In most humble wise shew and declare to your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects that where your most Royal Majesty is and hath always justly been by THE WORD OF God supreme head in the Earth of the Church of England and hath full Power and Authority to correct punish and repress all manner of Heresies Errors Uices c. and to exercise all other manner of Iurisdictions commonly call'd Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his adherents minding utterly as much as in him lay to abolish obscure and delete such Power given by God to the Princes of the Earth whereby they might gather and get to themselves the Government and Rule of the World have in their Councils and Synods Provincial made divers Ordinances and Constitutions that no LAY or Married man should or might exercise any Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical nor should be any Iudge or Register in any Court
confirm being firmum facere i. e. what was not so before you are not to think that the Parliament in 13 o Eliz. did so They Enacted what was by the Queen before authorized and as the words there are about the Articles viz. Put forth by the Queen's Authority And you may too for this purpose Consult the style of the Act 23 o Eliz. c. 1. Entituled An Act for retaining the Queen's Subjects in their due Obedience and where 't is made Treason for any to withdraw any Subjects from their Natural Obedience to her Majesty or to withdraw them for that intent from the Religion now by her Highness Authority establishâ—…d within her Dominions Thus too as to the Queen's disabling several of the Roman-Catholick Bishops and Deans by her Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the beginning of her Reign pursuant to the Act of 1 o Eliz. c. 1. for restoring to the Crown the Ancient Iurisdiction the Act of Parliament 35 o Eliz. c. 8. entituled Every Deprivation of any Bishop or Dean made in the beginning of the Queen's Reign shall be good and Archbishops Bishops and Deans made by the Queen shall be adjudged lawful begins with acknowledging that the former were justly deprived and it is therefore Declared and Enacted by Authority of this Parliament that all and every Deprivation c. and all and every Sentence of Deprivation c. had pronounced and given c. shall be adjudged deem'd and taken good and sufficient in Law c. and as to the latter viz. That all such Archbishops Bishops and Deans as were ordain'd or made by the Authority or Licence of the Queen's Majesty c. shall be taken and adjudged to be lawful c. Thâ—…y confirmed not what the Queen did in disabling the former and enabling the latter but only declared and enacted the validity of what the Queen had done And here you have again the Judgment of Parliament for approving the Queen's Power of Enabling and Disabling And here too by the way I am to tell you that you have another judgment of Parliament suitable to that in 8 o Eliz. and for the adjudging and taking to be Lawful the making and ordaining of the Archbishops and Bishops by the Authority or Licence of the Queen's Majesty c. any ambiguity or question in that behalf heretofore made to the contrary notwithstanding and which QUESTION before made in the Case I have before shew'd to be disability A. But I suppose you have read of that TWO-FOLD Subscription my Lord Coke speaks of represented as a Gravamen by some B. I have so and the last Book I read that so represents it is the Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet ' s Sermon by some Non-Conformists c. Printed A. 1680. and where in p. 29. they thus express their desires viz. That all New devised Oaths Subscriptions and Declarations together with the Canonical Oath and the Subscription in the Canons be suspended for the time to come If that be too much we shall consent our selves with a modester motion that whatsoever these Declarations be that are required to be made subscribed or sworn they may be imposed only as to the matter and end leaving the takers but free to the use of their own Expressions And this expedient we gather from the Lord Coke who hath providently as it were against such a Season laid in this Observation The form of the Subscription set down in the Canons ratify'd by King Iames was not express'd in the Act of the 13th of Eliz. 4. Inst. c. 74. And consequently if the Clergy enjoy'd this freedom till then in reference to the particulars therein contain'd what binders why they might not have the same restored in reference also to others It was the second Article enjoyn'd by that Canon to be subscribed viz. That the Book of Common-Prayer c. containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may lawfully be used c. at which they took so much offence and to which the Act of Parliament required not their Subscription A. I perceive then my Lord Coke doth not reflect on the form of Subscription as enjoyn'd by the 36th Canon of King Iames and by his Regal Authority out of Parliament as illegal notwithstanding what had been enacted in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth B. He doth not And he there further faith By the Statute of 13. Eliz. the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto but the Delinquent against the Canon of King James is to be proceeded withall by the Censures of the Church And I heard Wray Chief Iustice in the King's Bench Pasch. 23. El. report That where one Smith subscribed to the said 39 Articles of Religion with this addition so far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word oâ—… God that it was resolv'd by him and aâ—…l the Iudges of England that this Subscription was not according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. because this Statute required an absolute Subscription c. Besides this Subscription when any Clerk is admitted and instituted to any Benefice he is sworn to Canonical Obedience to his Diâ—…cesan But as to his saying that the Delinquent against this Canon is to be proceeded withall by the Censures of the Church I shall observe that the beginning of the Canon doth incapacitate any to be receiv'd into the Ministry who doth not subscribe the three Articles in it and that the Canon doth afterward put some temporary Disabilities on Bishops who shall Ordain Admit or License any one except he first have subscribed in manner and form there appointed and it is the Universities if offending that the Canon leaves to the Danger of the Law and His Majesty's Censure Here then you see King Iames the First did out of Parliament add a new Subscription to what was required by the Act of Parliament and did likewise out of Parliament make incapacity to be the Punishment of refusing such new Subscription And I need not tell you that that Power so exercised by that Prince out of Parliament hath been approved not only by all the Bishops of the Church of England as putting the Form of Subscription required by that Canon in execution ever since and to this day in lieu of the form required by the 13th of Eliz. but as I may say virtually and tacitly by all our Kings and Parliaments ever since who have acquiesced in the same But what if I should tell you that the Authority of the King in thus making that Canon about Subscription hath been since expresly approved in Parliament A. I should be most ready to hear it B. You may therefore please to consult the Act for Uniformity 16 o Car. 2. and in the latter end of it you will see that in a Proviso referring to the 39 Articles as agreed on by the Archbishops c. A. 1562. and particularly to the 36th therein about the Book of Consecration of Archbishops c. set forth in the time of Edward the 6th as
Roman Catholick Physicians and Lawyers had incurr'd by his Acts of Parliament I have told you But what if I should now tell you how afterwards he did take care as it were unâ liturâ to delete the Execution of â—…ll the Penal Laws disabling ones and others against the Roman Catholicks and that as to what he did therein the most zealous Protestants among his Bishops and the Lords Temporal and others of his Privy Council did concur with him in so doing A. I think you would tell me of that which was very strange B. As in the Happy future State of England it was with an intent to detect the Degeneracy and Vanity of the Politick and Protestant-would-be's of the Age who pretended to Advance Religion by Excluding the next Heir in p. 219. shewn that one of the general and publick Articles sent by King James the First to his Embassador in Spain in Order to the Match with the Infanta was that the Children of this Marriage shall no way be compell'd or constrain'd in point of Conscience or Religion wherefore there is no doubt that their title shall be prejudiced in case it should please God that they turn'd Catholicks and that it was afterward sent as an additional Article offer'd from England that the King of Great Britain and Prince of Wales should bind themselves by Oath for the Observance of the Articles and that the Privy Council should sign the same under their Hands and that accordingly the Articles were sign'd by Archbishop Abbot John Bishop of Lincoln Keeper of the Great Seal Lionel Earl of Middlesex Lord high Treasurer of England Henry Viscount Mandevile Lord President of the Council Edward Earl of Worcester Lord Privy Seal Lewis Duke of Richmond and Lennox Lord high Steward of the Houshold James Marquess of Hamilton James Earl of Carlisle Lancelot Bishop of Winchester Oliver Viscount Grandison Arthur Baron Chichester of Belfast Lord Treasurer of Ireland Sir Thomas Edmonds Knight Treasurer of the Houshold Sir John Suckling Comptroller of the Houshold Sir George Calvert and Sir Edward Conway Principal Secretaries of State Sir Richard Weston Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Julius Caesar Mr. of the Rolls and for the truth of which Facts reference is there made to Mr. Prynne's Introduction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Trial p. 43 so you may there read it in p. 44. that some private Articles were agreed on and probably were Sworn to by the same Persons that the other general ones were and of which private ones the first was in short That none of the Penal Laws against Roman Catholicks should at any time hereafter be put in Execution But you may thus see it at large viz. That particular Laws made against Roman Catholicks under which other Subjects of our Realms are not comprehended and to whose Observation all generally are not obliged as likewise general Laws under which all are equally Comprised if so be they are such as are repugnant to the Romish Religion shall not at any time hereafter by any means or chance whatsoever directly or indirectly be commanded to be put in Execution against the said Roman-Catholicks And we will cause that our Councel shall take the same Oath as far as it pertains to them and belongs to the Execution which by the hands of them and their Ministers is to be exercised The 2d was That no other Laws shall hereafter be made anew against the said Roman Catholicks but that there shall be a perpetual Toleration of the Roman Catholick Religion within Private Houses throughout all our Realms and Dominions which we will have to be understood as well of our Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland as in England c. And the 4th was That we will interpose our Authority and will do as much as in us shall lie that the Parliament shall approve confirm and ratifie all and singular Articles in favour of the Roman-Catholicks capitulated between the most renowned Kings by reason of this Marriage and that the said Parliament shall revoke and abrogate the particular Laws made against the said Roman-Catholicks c. And the Conclusion there is viz. That we will interpose our Authority and will do as much as in us shall lie that the Parliament shall approve confirm and ratifie all and singular Articles in favour of the Roman-Catholicks capitulated between the most renowned Kings by reason of this Marriage and that the said Parliament shall revoke and abrogate the particular Laws made against the said Roman-Catholicks to whose observance also the rest of our Subjects and Vassals are not obliged as likewise the general Laws under which all are equally comprehended to wit â—…s to the Roman-Catholicks if they be such as is aforesaid which are repugnant to the Roman-Catholick Religion and that hereafter we will not consent that the said Parliament should ever at any time Enact or Write any other new Laws against Roman-Catholicks We accounting all and singular the preceding Articles ratified and accepted out of certain Knowledge as far as they concern us our Heirs or Successors approve ratifie applaud and promise bonâ—… fide and in the word of a King by these Presents inviolably firmly well and faithfully to keep observe and fulfill the same and to cause them to be kept observed and fulfilled without any Exception or Contradiction and do confirm the same by Oath upon the holy Evangelists notwithstanding any Opinions Sentences or Laws whatsoever to the contrary In the presence of the most Illustrious Don John de Mendoza Marquess of Inojosa and Don Charles Coloma Extraordinary Ambassadors of the Catholick King of George Calvert Knight one of our Chief Secretaries of Edward Conway Knight another of our Chief Secretaries of Francis Cottington Baronet of the Privy Councel to our Son the Prince of Francis de Corondelet Apostolical or the Pope's Prothonotary and Arch-Deacon of Cambray Dated at our Palace at Westminster the 20 day of July 1623. in the English style Jacobus Rex A Compared and true Copy George Calvert Chief Secretary The Form of the Oath which the Lords of the Councel took to the former Articles is this which followeth found among the Lord Cottington's Papers Formula Juramenti à Consiliariis Praestandi Ego N. Iuro me debitè plenéque observaturum quantum ad me spectat omnes singulos Articulos qui in tractatu Matrimonii inter Serenissimum Carolum Walliae Principem Serenissimam Dominam Doâ—…nam Mariam Hispaniarum Iâ—…fantem continentur IURO ETIAM Quod neque per me nec per Ministrum aliquem inferiorem mihi inservientem legem ullam contra quemcunque Catholicum Romanum conscriptum executioni mandabo aut mandari faciam Poenamve ullam ab earum aliqua irrogatam exigam Sed in omnibus quae ad me pertinent Ordines à Majestate sua ex ea parte constitutos fideliter observabo Thus far Mr. Prynne who verifies the Facts above-mention'd not only from my Lord Cottington's Papers but from the Mercure Francois Tom. 9. A.
of the Royal Martyr and I shall be glad to know if the dispensing with the Penal Laws and particularly such as are inclusive of disability made any part of the fermentation B. No doubt if the Dispensative Power of the Crown as to any Penal religionary â—…aws had then appear'd any considerable gravamen to any of the three Estates they would then have cry'd out of it But which they did not Yet I shall tell you that they had a fair occasâ—…on then given them to do it if they had thought it tanti For in the first year of his Reign there was a ferment in Parliament about the Penal Laws against the Papists and particularly the disabling ones but which soon went off as I may say by insensible Perspiration It sâ—…ems that Mr. Prynne in p. 74. and 77. saith both Houses that year having presented a Petition to that Prince wherein they took notice that his Majesty had in his Princely Wisdom taken order that none of his natural born Subjects not professing the true Religion and by Law establish'd shall be admitted into the Service of his Royal Coâ—…sort and having further desired that his Majesty would be pleas'd to remove from all Places of Authority all such Persons as are either Popish Recusants or according to direction of former Acts of State to be justly suspected and that his Majesty said he would give order for it yet that that Parliament being unhappily dissolv'd in discontent his Majesty thought not fit to shew such severity to Recusants as he intended And in p. 76. Mr. Prynne had mentioned that Sir Iohn Winter Mr. Walter Mountague Sir Maurice Drummond and other Papists were admitted in her Majesty's Service But by what appears from Mr. Prynne in p. 80. in the following Parliament in the Second year of that King the House of Commons took divers Examinations concerning Recusants that were in Office and at last agreed on a Petition against Recusants in Office and to present their Names therewith to the King to the end they might be removed and He then saith that Martis 6. Iunii 2. Car. Regis The Petition against Recusants in Authority was engrossed read and allow'd to be presented to his Majesty and this to be done by the Privy-Councel of the House and Sir John Fâ—…llerton which was done accordingly but with what real success I can give no exact account But that the disabling and other Laws against the Papists had been dispens'd with by the Royal Martyr as well as his Father any one will conclude who reads what there followeth viz. In this Parliament these ensuing Articles against Popish Recusants were Consulted of in the House of Commons with an Intent to draw them into an Act and of which the 9th is No Recusant to bear Office of Iustice of Peace or otherwise or any man whose Wife shall be a Recusant or practice Law Common or Civil or Physick nor have Command in War c. And I should first have told you that the Third was A New Oath with more Additions to be taken concerning the Supremacy A. Good God! A new Oath with more Additions about the Supremacy B. You may suppose it would have been seemingly a New Oath by that Parliament's approving all the Authentick Regal Interpretations of the old one as Queen Elizabeth's Interpretation was approved by her Parliament But you may here observe that tho the Disabling and other Penal Laws were by this Pious Prince tacitly and often dispens'd with and the time of the doing of it caus'd some temporary ferments to arise in the Minds of his Subjects in Parliament yet their animosities have soon tacitly evaporated and the Regal Power of Dispensing then came to no question The Puritan Dissenters and scruplers of Ceremonies knew they wanted the benefit of that Power as well as the Papists and the exercise of that Power was in the Petition of both Houses before mention'd implored as to the disabled or silenced Ministers And therefore you will not wonder at it when I tell you that during all the great Patriotly efforts that were made for the removing all Grievances by the Petition of Right there was no offence taken at the Right of the Dispensative Power A. I thank you for that observation B. The thought is too obvious to deserve thanks and I assure you it is a kind of Proverbial Saying in the Canon Law that Dispensationum modus nulli Sapientum displicuit But even in the Conjuncture of the Petition of Right to shew you that the Dispensative Power did not in the least contribute to the ferment I shall let you see out of Rushworth how Mr. Glanvile who made so great a figure of a Patriot then in Parliament did with the greatest popular applause appear as an Assertor of that Power and when in his Speech in a full Committee of both Houses May 23. A. 1628. he inter alia said There is a Trust inseparably reposed in the Persons of the Kings of England but that Trust is regulated by Law For example when Statutes are made to Prohibit things not mala in se but only mala quia Prohibita under certain Forfeitures and Penalties to accrue to the King and to the Informers that shall sue for the breach of them the Commons must and ever will acknowledge a Regal and Soveraign Prerogative in the King touching such Statutes that it is in his Majesty's absolute and undoubted Power to grant Dispensations to particular Persons with the Clauses of Non-obstante to do as they might have done before those Statutes wherein his Majesty conferring Grace and Favour upon some doth not do wrong to others But there is a difference between those Statutes and the Laws and Statutes whereon the Petition is grounded By those Statutes the Subject hath no interest in the Penalties which are all the fruit such Statutes can produce until by Sute or Information he become entituled to the particular Forfeitures whereas the Laws and Statutes mention'd in our Petition are of another Nature There shall your Lordships find us to rely upon the good old Statute called Magna Charta which declareth and confirmeth the ancient Common Laws of the Liberties of England and there he speaks afterward of other Statute Laws not inflicting Penalties upon Offenders in malis prohibitis but Laws declarative or positive conferring or confirming ipso facto an inherent Right and Interest of liberty and freedom in the Subjects of this Realm as their Birth-rights and Inheritances descendable to their Heirs and Posterities the Statutes incorporate into the Body of the Common Law over which with reverence be it spoken there is no Trust reposed in the King 's Soveraign Power or Prerogative Royal to enable him to dispense with them or to take from his Subjects the Birthright which they have in their Liberties by virtue of the Common Law. So then according to the sense of this loyal Patriot if the King shall by his Prerogative dispense with the Disabilities or Premunires or
say right The King may thus according to his Lordship's Opinion suspend all Penal Disabilities as well as other Penalties incurr'd by Acts of Parliament and particularly by the Test-Act of 25 o Car. 2. and hereby to the Great figure he made in the framing of that Act any who are displeas'd with the Act may apply the Una eademque manus c. A. But I suppose his Lordship there has nothing that may favour the repealing of the Test or any of the Penal Laws against the Papists B. None would expect from him anything to be moved for the repealing of the Test however he allow'd Prerogative to suspend it But at that time that all People of narrow Souls and ignoble Thoughts were with so much clamour hunting down all Roman-Catholicks without distinction and when the most devout among them by being as it were ad bestias damnati and devoured by Informers appear'd as a spectacle of delight to many inhumane Protestants his Lordship's humanity was so great as to incline him in p. 6. there to give them somewhat like a Quietus from all Pecuniary Laws And the truth is when I consider how little Wool the fleecing of Roman Catholicks and Quakers or any Heterodox Religionaries at home or abroad hath brought to the Exchequer of any Prince or State and only to Informers and that the Consciences of peaceable Men have been burden'd by Men of no Conscience and by the turba gravis paci who are indeed burthens of the Earth I tremble to think what occasion may have been taken by Male-contents to say in their Hearts as to any such Prince or State according to those words of the Psalmist Thou sellest thy People for nought and dost not encrease thy Wealth by their Price or and takest no Money for them I shall at some other time of our meeting give you some account cut of the Records of the Exchequer of the inconsiderable Sums of Money that have for several years been brought to it by the severe Prosecutions of Roman-Catholicks and Quakers But there is another thing very well worth your reading in that Book and which is the more proper for our Consideration as suiting some great Points we have been discoursing that concern our Oath and that is this Hâ—…s â—…ate Majesty's Ministers in that year 1675. having brought in a Bill in Parliament for a TEST extending to Protestants and which as the Book saith was call'd by one of His Majesty's Ministers A moderate Security to the Church and Crown you will there in p. 15. see it mentioned how as to the Assertory Parts of the Oath in that Test It was worthy the Consideration of the Bishops whether Assertory Oaths which were properly appointed to give Testimony of a Matter of Fact wâ—…ereof a man is capable to be fully assured by the evidence of his Senses be lawfully to be made use of to confirm or invalidate Docâ—…inal Propositions and whether that Legislative Power which imposeth such an Oath doth not necessarily assume to it seif an Infallibility And as for promissory Oaths it was desired that those learned Prelates would consider the Opinion of Grotius De Jure Belli Pacis l. 2. c. 13. who seems to make it plain that those kind of Oaths are forbidden by our Saviour Christ Matth. 5. 34 37. and whether it would not become the Fathers of the Church when they have well weiâ—…h'd that and other places of the New Testament to be more tender in multiplying Oaths then hitherto the great Men of the Church have been It is there toward the end of the page mentioned how some of the Lords dâ—…sired that it might be clearly known whether it were meant all for an Oath or some of it a Declaration and some an Oath If the latter then it was desired it might be distinctly parted and that the declaratory part should be subscribed by it self and not sworn There was no small pains taken by the Lord Keeper and the Bishops to prove that it was brought in the two first Parts were only a Declaration and not an Oath and tho it was reply'd that to declare upon ones Oath or to abhor upon ones Oath is the same thing with I do Swear yet there was some difficulty to obtain the dividing of them and that the declaratory part should be only Subscribed and the reâ—…t sworn to A. But have you mention'd these things as if you would incline me to concur in opinion with that Lord as to the King's Power of suspending the Penalties incurr'd by Acts of Parliament and to agree with the Measures of some other Lords then about Oaths assertory and promissory as referr'd to B. If I were of the same opinion about the King's Power in that Matter as that Lord and Sir William Ellis were I would however forbear troubling you with it at this time while we are considering the Obligation of our Oath of Supremacy in order to our assistance and defence of the Preheminence of the Dispensative Power And therefore I shall not in the least endeavour to incline you now to imbibe the perswasion of any nice Controverted point of Law or Theology and wherein there seems probab lis causa litigandi And if when we are parted you on your recollection of our Discourse at this or our first meeting should have the least trouble by calling to mind any thing I have occasionally mention'd that is matter of Controversie you may with all my heart put it off with a temporary transeat from your thoughts But one of my aims in referring to that Opinion of his Lordship was That knowing you to be much concern'd for the ease and quiet of your Prince and Country I might Console you with an Instance of a great ferment about the Regal Power suddenly going off and as that Book too shew'd you that another did in the Government that was occasion'd by the new Test-Bill then introduced And I must tell you that another of my aims in my pointing you to his Lordship's Observation of the Suspensions of the Penal Statutes in the late Reigns was occasionally to direct you to a tenderness for the Regal Rights in general and for the undoubted Right of the Dispensative Power in Particular The same thing likewise hath been my aim in the several Presidents I have given you of the Ecclesiastical Power by Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles the First exercised in suspending Penal Laws The expression of tenderness for the Rights of our Princes hath been much used by the loyal Patriot'y Writers in the late Reigns And here I shall à propos apply it as the Resuscitatio Part. 1. p. 37. mentions it as used by my Lord Bacon in a Speech in the House of Commons in the Reign of King Iames the First to the Question now before us in the Reign of King Iames the Second His Lordships words are Since therefore we have a Prince of so excellent Wisdom and Moderation of whose Authority we ought to
be TENDER as he is likewise of our Liberty let us enter into a true and indifferent Consideration how far forth the Case in question may touch his Authority and how far forth our Liberty And to speak clearly in my opinion it concerns his Authority much and our Liberty nothing at all That Expression concerning tenderness for the Regal Rights was very acceptable to the House of Commons when his late Majesty in his Letter to them from Bredagh April 14. 1660 thus made use of it viz. We have not the least doubt but you will be as TENDER in and jealous of any thing that may infringe our Honour and Authority as of your own Liberty and Property which is best preserv'd by preserving the other Remember therefore that your tenderness for Property is best preserv'd by your tenderness for the Regal Authority and if you would have your thoughts adorn'd by a constant Idea of true English Loyalty like a noble Picture retain'd there let me direct you to a Saying which like an Original drawn by a great Master may be fit for you to Copy after viz. that Saying of the Lord Keeper Coventry in a Speech in the House of Lords viz. Some would have the King's Prerogative rather tall then great others è contra But none can be truly loyal but he that is a good Patriot and none can be a good Patriot but he that is truly loyal Nor need it be further insinuated to you that without your keeping up a tenderness for the Regal Rights you cannot maintain your tenderness for Oaths And here I must take occasion to tell you that one of my aims in entertaining you with the Queries relating to Oaths out of that Book was to lay before your thoughts a tenderness as to Oaths in general both in keeping the lawful ones you have taken and in not imposing unlawful doubtful unnecessary or inexpedient ones on others and on such as our Prince considering the several Constitutions of their minds both as to firmness and infirmness hath thought fit to exempt from taking such strong Physick Moreover if you will think that another of my aims was to mind you that the same Queries might have been as ingeniously and ingenuously put in the year 1673. before the passing of the Test-Act as they were in debating the Test-Bill in the year 1675 I shall allow you so to do You may too if you will here occasionally consider how soon God in the course of his Providence doth sometimes turn the Tables and make such who were lately so active in imposing on others Oaths that seem'd doubtful and oppressive to them to be in danger of suffering by the like Impositions Mr. Burrough's a Pious Independent Divine who lived in the late times referring in his Irenicum to the Impositions and Persecution design'd by the Presbyterians against those of his Perswasion saith there but the Tables may turn one day wherein the Sufferers shall have the greatest Ease and the Inflicters the sorest Burthen But God forbid that their Brethren should lay it upon them tho it were put into their Power to do it And you may take notice that the Book we before spoke of owns the Activity of the Roman-Catholick Lords then in hindering that Test's being brought on Protestants the Consideration whereof may I think justly incline all who account it their Happiness to have been freed from that design'd Oath not to grudge at the favour that hath been extended by the Diâ—…pensative Power to particular Roman-Catholicks excused from taking other Oaths or at any just favour if ever happening to be afforded them by the Authentick Interpretation of what in the Statute-Oaths seems doubtful to them So tender was the Government in the time of Edward the 6th about the not making the Consciences of the People uneasie by Oaths that you will find it in the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws begun in Harry the 8th's Reign and carry'd on in his that the Magna nomina who were employ'd to make a New Body of Laws did in Compassion to the Consciences of those who took the usual Promissory Oaths for the observance of the Statutes of Universities Collegiate Churches and such like Societies and Corporations order this Clause to be added to the Oaths viz. Haec omnibus partibus servabo â—…uibus cum sacrâ Scripturâ cum legibus civilibus Ecclesiasticis hujus Regni consentient quantum vires meae patientur The School-men saith one would be thought most tender and most curious in the point of Oaths They mince them out so fine that a wholâ—… Million of Oaths may stand as some speak of Angels on the point of a sharp needâ—…e I have therefore not wonder'd at it when I have seen men standing on this sharp point of Oaths so often inconsistent with themselves Notwithstanding what I told you out of my Lord Coke that an Oath cannot be ministred to any unless the same be allow'd by the Common Law or by some Act of Parliament neither can any Oath allow'd by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament be alter'd but by Act of Parliament yet as you know that the House of Commons in the 30th year of Queen Elizabeth desiring that no Oath or Subscription might be tendred to any at their entrance into the Ministry but such as is expresly prescribed by the Statutes of this Realm except the Oath against Corrupt entring did thereby however approve of the tendring of that Oath so my Lord Coke likewise Inst. 3. c. 71. viz. Of Simony seems to approve of that Oath in saying that Simony is the more odious because it is accompany'd with Perjury for the Presentee c. is Sworn to commit no Simony referring there to Lynwood and had before in that Chapter referr'd to Canon 40. 1 Iacobi 1603. The Oath against Simony You may too remember what I so lately told you of my Lord Coke's having with some approbation or fair respect mention'd the Clergy's Oath of Canonical obedience And I can tell you that I lately looking on the Charter of the Corporation of Shipwrights granted by King Iames the First in the Tenth year of his Reign observed therein that Thomas Lord Ellesmere Lord Chancellor of England Sir Thomas Flemming Lord Chief Justice of England Sir Edward Coke Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas did pursuant to the Statute in the 19th year of Henry the 7th allow and approve under their Ha ds and Seals divers Articles Acts and Ordinances for the better Order Rule and Government of the Art or Mystery of Shipwrights exhibited to them by the Corporation and did moreover oâ—…in the form of three new Oaths to be taken by the Officers and Freemen of that Corporation and did DISABLE the Refusers of such Oath to be Members of the Corporation But I may here occasionally by the way tell you what you will find in Croke 3d. Sir Edward Coke Sheriff of Buckingham's Case viz. That upon several Exceptions there mention'd as by him
Numb 35. 33. A. But by the way do you think then that Sovereign Princes offend the Law of God in Pardoning Murther B. I do observe that many presume to censure Kings for so doing and are superstitiously misguided by thinking that those two places of Scripture referr'd to by my Lord Coke do necessarily make it a sin in Princes to Pardon Murther But I shall when we meet again shew you the mistake of such therein and shall shew you that David at that time when the Law of God and the lex terrae was the same thing and who had Sworn and would perform it that he would keep God's righteous Iudgments was not to be censured to have sinned either in the reprieve of Ioab who had murthered Amasa and Abner and in delaying the Execution of the Law and leaving it to Solomon his Son or in the Pardon of Absolon who had slain his Brother Ammon and that when the Law faith in Numb 35. The Murtherer shall surely be put to death our best Commentators and out of the Rabbins say that this is spoken to the Iudges before whom such Causes regularly came and under the Supreme Power and by authority thereof judged those Causes and that tho the Iudges who were subordinate to the Supreme Power were to take no Satisfaction for the life of a Murtherer but were by that Law to Condemn him yet that it followeth not that the Supreme Power who made them Iudges might not in some Cases Reprieve and Pardon some whom they had Condemned A. I shall be glad to hear you discourse of this and the rather for that 't is so Customary to many when they find the Prince exercising this Prerogative of Pardoning to be apt too much to busy their heads with those two places in the Old Testament to their neglect of others there viz. Exod. 22. 28. Prov. 24. 21. Eccles. 10. 20. and of Acts 23. 5. in the New and likewise there of Rom. 13. 2. 5. 1. St. Peter 2. 17. and from whence they might Collect their moral offices of not doing or speaking or thinking dishonourably of the Lord 's annointed and of paying honour and obedience to his Sovereign Power and that for Conscience sake But in the mean time give me leave à propos to ask you if ever you heard of any one of the Iudges of the Realm in the Reign of our former Princes that gave his judgment for the allowance of the King's Pardon of disability Shew me but that and I shall not be affrighted with my Lord Ch. Justice Vaughan's Simoniacal Dead man. B. I shall tell you of a Case that was well enough known to him and which you may find in Croke 3d p. 55. Sir Iohn Bennet v. Dr. Easedale where you may see that Sir Iohn Bennet being fined 20000 l. for Bribery by the Star-Chamber and Censured to be Imprison'd and made uncapable of any Office of Iudicature and that he having a Pardon from the King reciting the Bribery and Offences mention'd in the Decree and all Penalties and Punishments by reason thereof and all Disabilities and Incapacities and all things concerning the said Sentence except the Fine of 20000 l. and the Court of Star-Chamber having the advice of all the Iudges relating to the Decree and Pardon it was resolv'd by them all that this Pardon hath taken away all force of the Sentence in the Star-Chamber except for the Fine of 20000 l. and all Disabilities are discharged thereby That Lord Chief Iustice knew that as it was set down in that Chapter of Pardons Inst. 3. the King's Pardon extends to all Suits in the Star-Chamber and he knew of what was mention'd Inst. 4. Chap. 1. Of the High Court of Parliament viz. Of a Pardon to the Lord Latimer of a Iudgment in Parliament and he knew that by his own and other Iustices of Assize going into their own Countrys in the Execution of their Offices by vertue of the King 's Non-obstante to the Statutes of 8. R. 2. c. 2. 3. H. 8. c. 24. himself and as many as went Iudges of Assize so into their own Countrys gave Judgment by so doing for the Prerogative of dispensing with such Acts of Parliament and he likewise knew that as it is well express'd in Theâ—… Answer of King Charles the First to the Declaration of both Houses of Parliament concerning the Commission of array A. 1642. An Act of Parliament in any Matter tho mistaken being assented to by the King and his two Houses is equally binding as having equal Authority with an Act introductive of a new Law and that therefore Acts of Parliament having so particularly declared the justness of the Prerogative's dispensing with disability no magna nomina of any particular Sages of the Law in otherwise opining can expect any deference And if you will consider what my Lord Coke in that Chapter of Pardons hath mention'd of the operation of Prerogative over the dead in Law and consider the President he refers to viz. Pasch. 22. E. 3. tit Cor. 239. Coram Rege Quidam indictatus de Felonia inde Culp dicit quod Rex eum Conduxit inde producit Chartam quod Rex eum Conduxit in Vasc. in exercitu dicta Charta allocata fuit per Curiam and there see his opinion grounded on it that if a man be Indicted of Felony and found Guilty and being in Prison the King may under the Great Seal reciting the Offence c. retain him to serve in his Wars on this side or beyond the Seas this Charter he may Plead and the Court ought to allow it I believe you will be of Opinion that any one who will desire any more Presidents for the Commanding the services of dead men ought to be sent for one to the REHEARSAL viz. that of Arise you dead Men and get ye about your business A. Well Sir As for this objected Dead-man requiescat in Pace I have done with him and since from some things you have said I gather that the dispensing with disability by Roman Emperors and Popes of Rome did never by any ferment disturb their Governments and moreover since no men of sense here have ever troubled themselves or the Government with any vexatious Question about the King's Power in discharging a man from a Praemunire but not from a Penal disability incurr'd whereas by a Praemunire as my Lord Coke shews us Inst. 3. c. 54. men are put out of the Protection of the King and DISABLED to have any Action or Remedy by the King's Law or the Kings Writs and exposed to many other dreadful Punishments I do now begin to wonder whence it is that the mistake in some mens Minds hath come about a Penal disability being so unremoveable And thus I think too one might wonder how such as will allow the King's Pardon to discharge one from an Excommunicatio minor or major do look on disability as such an anathematizing thing as is not to be touch'd or that cannot be
For put the Case that the Clergy make Canons to which I never assented and I break these Canons whereupon I am Excommunicated and upon a Significavit by the Bishop my Body is taken and imprison'd by a Writ de excommunicato Capiendo now shall I lie in Prison all the days of my life and shall never be deliver'd by a Cautione admittenda unless I will come in and parere mandatis Ecclesiae which are point blank against my Conscience And he had before said A Comparatis by an Argument à minori ad majus if Property of Goods cannot be taken from me without my assent in Parliament which is the fundamental Law of the Land and so declared in the Petition of Right why then Property and Liberty of Conscience which is much greater as much as bona animi are above bona fortunae cannot be taken from me without my assent This it seems pass'd as Currant Coin for Iudgment of Parliament in behalf of Liberty of Conscience in the Conjuncture of 41 the year in which his Book was Printed and if it were so then allowable you may well think that a Prince's owning the Religion that flourish'd here in the time of Magna charta and which inspired the Virtue that produced Magna Charta and indulging some others of the same Religion to profess it without Punishment is not likely to occasion any durable ferment And what I have here referr'd to concerning the Petition of Right minds me of the great effort of Pious zeal in our famous Bishop Hall and his laudably making use of the Popularity he had among the Protestants in sending a Letter to the House of Commons April the 28th 1628. during the great ferment about that Petition and in which he gives so much fatherly and Prudent advice to the great Agonists for Property that they should consider when they were at the end of their race and then to sit down and rest He hath in it these tender Expressions Gentlemen For God's sake be wise in your well-meant zeal and our Liberties and Proprieties are sufficiently declared to be sure and legal c. let us not in suspicion of Evils that may be cast our selves into present confusion If you love your selves and your Country remit something of your own terms And since the Substance is yielded by your noble Patriots stand not too rigorously upon Points of Circumstance Pear not to trust a good King who after the strict Laws made must be trusted with the Execution c. relent or farewel welfare You may hence easily imagine how passionately that good Bishop would have been concerned if he had then seen among the Patriots any unquenchable heats about the not trusting the King with the Executive Power of Penal Laws and Laws in terrorem and such Laws as Mr. Glanvil in the ' Month after the Date of the Bishop's Letter said in a full Committee of both Houses That the Commons must and ever will acknowledge that it is in His Majesty's ABSOLUTE and undoubted Power to grant Dispensations in as I told you In God's Name often think of that great Patriotly saying of Tully so often with just Applause cited by Sir E. Coke Major haereditas venit unicuique nostrum à jure legibus quam à parentibus and you may account him a Prophane Person who despiseth his Birth-right given him by the Law. And pity any one who speaking of his Property doth not know this to be the meaning of it namely that it is the highest Right he hath or can have to any thing and which is no way depending upon another man's Courtâ—…e And consider that as you have a Property in your Chattels and Hereditaments so you have in your Religion Think often with honour of our Ancestors who by so many Acts of Parliament and lawful Canons and Constitutions since the Refoâ—…mation provided for the securing your Property in your Religion and remember how binding the very declarative Laws about it are Cast your Eye with Pleasure about the Realm and see if you can find any one who fears that any one will ever move in Parliament for leave to bring in any Bill to take away the least part of your Property in your Religion But then consider how Savage a thing it is in any to take excessive delight in the Execution of Penal Laws Ferus est qui fruitur paenâ and remember too that your Prince hath a Property in the Executive part of the Law and in distributive Justice and in shewing Mercy And when you hear any one telling you of a Snake in the grass of the Prince's dispensing with Penal Laws and that therefore there may be danger of your Prince's dispensing in Laws that are leneficial you may tell him of the notorious Non-sequitur and that you have a Property in not being punish'd and in having the benefit of the Rule as to favourable Statutes being made more so by interpretation Favores sunt â—…mpliandi and on the contrary as to Penal ones that odiosa restringi convenit And so to any such impertinent Objecter you may say that the voice or sound of his Snake and the Goose are all one But consider that since you have so much cause to depend on the glorious and consummate justice inherent in the nature of our great Monarch for his defending you in the security of all the Declaratory Acts of Parliament that maintain your very Property in your Religion both Iustice and Common Ingenuity call upon you to own his Power of Dispensing and even with disability for which I have shewn you so many clear and incontestable declarative Iudgments of Parliament and shall direct you to more when we meet again And let me tell you that you ought to have the greater tenderness for this Prerogative of our Prince for that in his Administration of it he hath in some Points shewn a greater tenderness to his Laws and People then our Princes since the Reformation have done You may remember I shew'd you how Queen Elizabeth and King Iames did by their Authority out of Parliament MAKE things Penal by Disability that were not so by any Law in being and therefore you may the less wonder when you see your Prince dispensing with it and thereby preventing the Punishment of it and sometimes and in some Cases pardoning it A. I shall carefully take notice of all these Matters wherein you have caution'd me but am here occasionally on the account of some things you said about the Interpretation and the Acquittal from Penalties in the Queen's Admonition being perpetuated by their being declared good in Parliament to ask you if you do not account that Dispensations or such Interpretations of the Prince by his own single Authority may be made to continue good in following Reigns B. I do not in the least doubt but they may and I shall hereafter evince the thing to you but shall at present out of a Manuscript Report I have of the great Case of
Thomas and Sorrell tell you that by one of the great Councel who argued in it it was asserted with great Learning That the Non-obstante in that Case remain'd good after the King's death That tho Acts the King doth in his Natural Capacity determine by his death as making of Iudges c. for those referr to his Natural Will yet things done in his Royal Capacity as King do not determine by his death as a License to alien in Mortmâ—…in in one King's time serves in anothers and the Reason is when the Subject is once exempt out of the Restraint of the Act he is ever exempt unless the Exemption be limited Coke 1. Inst. 52. 6. If the Lessor licence his Lessee that is restrain'd by Condition not to Alien tho the Lessor die the licence shall serve the Lessee to alien and is not determin'd by the Lessor's death And in this Point he cited Trin. 2. Jac. C. B. Rot. 2835. Wright versùs Radcliffe and Trin. 2. Jac. Norris v. Mason C. B. as Cases adjudged in this point And I shall then shew you how the same thing was then by others asserted but you may now for this purpose remember how the instances I have given you of Queen Elizabeth's Parliaments approving and declaring to be good what she did of this kind and the instances of what others of our Princes did by their own Authority and out of Parliament being valid and being afterward approved in Parliament have supported the extent of the Regal Authority of this kind as to point of time But because according to the Rule of Unumquodque dissolvitur eo modo quo colligatur many Indulgences and Injunctions and Dispensations being revocable by Kings themselves and by their Successors and because declaratory Acts of Parliament cannot be repeal'd but by other Acts common Prudence doth suggest it to all to endeavour the perpetuating to themselves by the Legislative Power what they account beneficial And if you will you may use the term of having it confirm'd by that Power that is if you will allow it to have been firm before you may call it confirm'd by the Prince and the three Estates afterward enacting it and making its firmness perpetual And this is the thing I aim'd at in what you might take for a Criticism when I said that the 39 Articles owed no Confirmation nor Authority to the Act of the 13th of Eliz. A. I know the reason of your cautious speaking here about a tender Point You accounting even every Declaratory Judgment of Parliament for our Religion to be a Treasure and having often said that you would allow some Roman-Catholicks to mock on in calling our Religion a Parliamentary Religion did I judge design to do honour to our Religion as well as to our Prince's in shewing that it was here orderly establish'd by God's Vicegerents before it was by the Deputies of the People or the Magnates Regni B. You guess right at my meaning in this way to salve Phaenomena And if you will look on a Book Printed in Oxford A. 1645. entituled Parliaments Power in Laws for Religion or an Answer to that old and groundless Calumny of the Papists nick-naming the Religion of the Church of England by the name of a Parliamentary Religion c. you will find the Fact in this Point clearly deduced through the course of our Laws and Constitutions in a long series temporum from the Reign of Harry the 8th downward and for the honour of our Kings and of the Church and the Reformation and the measures I have taken in our discourse have been suitable to those of the judicious and learned Author of that Book A. Well Sir we have had a great deal of frank Discourse and I will now take the freedom to put one Question more to you You have entertain'd me with the several Interpretations of our Oath and have shew'd me how the obligatoriness of them all hath been perpetuated and you have likewise salved the Phaenomena in the Iustice of the Government as to the Laws in terrorem But you know the Story of one who being Lord of a place did leave a Pit long open too near the High-way and who at Night erected Lights about it to prevent its being mischievous and he afterward hearing that sometimes poor Blind men who were Travellers fell into it and that at other times by various accidents the Lights were not helpful to other Passengers as being took away or going out too soon and he therefore at last very fairly removed both his Nuisance and Lights together And now may it hot be wish'd that the Prince and the three Estates would remove the Laws about our Oaths and the Interpretations too and so likewise all the Laws in terrorem among which I suppose you reckon the Test-Acts at which so many have taken offence B. You may easily guess that till we have both of us at another meeting discours'd of the Obligation resulting from the Promissory part of the Oath I will not engage your thoughts in any matter of Controverfie that may in the least perplex them But as soon as we have fully discours'd that I shall frankly give you my thoughts at large relating to the question about Repealing of the Test-Acts in a Parliamentary manner but do at present wholly forbear to mention what I think thereof And I have before told you my judgment of the likelihood of the continuance of our great Oath as a great luminary that may perhaps enlighten our English World in the measures of Loyalty to the end of time and as I have told you the Oath giveth no offence to the Considerate so I will hope none will be taken at it But I must here tell you that I have a greater veneration for the Oath because I look on the serious Consideration of the assertory part of it as likely to be very Instrumental in allaying the ferment we have been speaking of A. God grant it may be so B. You remember what I hinted to you about the Clause whereby you testify'd and declared that the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal and from whence it follow'd by way of natural Consequence that no foreign Prince c. hath any Iurisdiction within this Realm being the Corner-stone on which the great And therefore I mean your forsaking foreign Iurisdiction was built And I assure you that the same first Declaration doth bind you to the like AND THEREFORE to renounce the belief of any Power on Earth being able to dissolve your King 's right of Commanding your Obedience and your Obligation to obey him And indeed if I had produced to you no Iudgment of Parliament for the purpose I have done but that which is contain'd in the assertory part of the Oath and which is unanimously interpreted by Divines and Lawyers as expressive of the King 's right jure naturae to Command the Obedience of
all his Subjects it might have sufficiently satisfy'd you therein and if at our next meeting you will have me dilate more on what our Lawyers have said about the Point of the debt of our Natural allegiance I shall do it A. Our great Lawyers Judgments in that Point being known may be variously useful and directive to the many illiterate and presumptuous Reflecters on the exercise of Prerogative and especially if so learned and so popular a Lawyer as Sir Edward Coke shall be by you further cited in such a Case And so what you shall acquaint me with as from any such one of them shall be kindly welcome B. What you have now said brings it into my mind how that Great popular Man Sir Edward Coke was cited for this purpose by that great popular Man Sir William Iones in his learned Argument in Thomas Dorcel's Case and where he did so much right to the DISPENSATIVE Power A. What Did Sir William Iones maintain the King's Power of Dispensing with Acts of Parliament B. Yes and I believe was never censured for so doing by any one A. I pray tell me what was said by him in his Argument B. Then according to the very Learned and Judicious and Candid Manuscript Report I have of the Case thus it was Among the three Points made the first being if the Non-obstante in the Patent of King James was good against the Statute of Edw. 6. Jones agreed that the King may by Non-obstante dispense with a thing Prohibited by Statute if the thing were lawful before the Statute were made And he afterward said that a Dispensation to one and his Heirs was never good but only in that of a Sheriff 2. H. 7. 6. Grant of a Shrievalty in fee Non-obstante the Statute But Coke 7. R. 14. Calvin's Case the Reason of that is because the King hath interest to have the Service of all his Subjects by the Law of Nature And the truth is that on this noble and great Consideration it is that our Divines who have treated of the OATH of SUPREMACY have fix'd the reasonableness and intent of that Oath and of the King 's having a right to Command the Obedience of all his Subjects upon the basis of the Law of Nature as well as on the Divine Law Positive And thus too the style of the Acts of Parliament about the Oath of Allegiance runs and which Acts you may Consult if you want any more Iudgments of Parliament about the indissolubility of the King 's right to Command the Obedience of the Subject and of the Subjects duty to obey before we meet again The reasonableness of the words in that Oath contain'd in the Statute of 3 tio Iacobi viz. Of declaring that the Pope hath no Power to discharge any of his Majesty's Subjects of their Obedience appears from its being call'd in that Statute their Natural Obedience And the putting in Practice the perswading or withdrawing any of the King's Subjects from their Natural Obedience to his Majesty or to reconcile them to the Pope or See of Rome is there made Treason We will speak more of other Statutes of this nature at our next meeting And in the mean time let me observe to you how as in the Conjuncture of the Exclusion so many were infatuated as for fear of Popery to come to run upon the very Court of Rome-Popery at present namely that of Dominium fundatur in Gratiâ so likewise many mens fear of the belief of perhaps some Religionary Tenets of Popery gaining ground for the future hath hunted them upon the Popery of thinking that Subjects CAN in part or in whole be discharged from their Natural Obedience to their Prince A. I thank you Sir for suggesting that to me for the truth is the tenet of thinking it lawful so to discharge Subjects from such their Natural Obedience is the very odiosa materia charged by so many on the Councel of Lateran B. You say right But however let me occasionally advise you not to charge the odious matter in that Councel on the Communion of the Church of Rome For I shall tell you that the great Writers of our Church did after the real Plot of the Gun-Powder-Treason pursue such noble Methods of Christian Charity as with an intent of improving the Principles of Loyalty and Allegiance among all our Roman-Catholick Countrymen to endeavour to prove with all their Learning that the Decrees of that Councel obliged no Papist in point of Conscience King Iames in his Works calls it but a Pretended Councel and Dr. Donne in his Pseudo-Martyr endeavours to prove it no Councel Moreover Bishop Bilson in his learned Works for maintaining the Oath of Supremacy saith that Nothing was Concluded in the Councel of Lateran I have here on the Table his Book call'd The Difference between Christian Subjection and Un-christian Rebellion Printed A. 1586 in which his Learned and Iudicious Assertions and Explications of the Regal Supremacy and of our Moral Offices to defend the same are comprised and there in Part 3. p. 6. you will find what he saith of the Lateran Councel A. I have not the Book and shall be glad I may borrow it from you that thereby I may have the better prospect of the Measures of our Divines in their Sense of the Assertory part of the Oath of Supremacy as making the Rights of our Kings to Command the Services of all their Subjects to be indissoluble B. I pray take it along with you And I am the rather desirous you should do it because in this Crooked and Perverse Generation many who strain their Consciences by the inobservance of the Oath may be so vain as to fancy that others strain the Oath who endeavour as I have done to build the Right of our Kings to Command the Services of their Subjects on its so firm Foundation He was trusted by the Government to write on the Subject of the Oath and so his Authority is of the more weight and I shall here at parting read to you what he saith in Part 2. p. 183. where he so well insinuates it that the Prince can freely permit safely defend generally restrain and externally punish within the Realm but in p. 328. having spoke of the true Supremacy of Princes he saith This is the Supremacy which we attribute to Princes that all Men within their Territories should obey their Laws or abide their Pleasures and that no man on Earth hath Authority to take their Swords from them by Iudicial Sentence or Martial Violence And he there had before said in his Margin the Sword of Princes is Supreme in that it is not Subject to the Pope and must be obey'd of all in things that are good What he saith likewise in p. 346. there is worth your reading where he makes the word Supreme to be a plain and manifest deduction out of the 13th of the Romans Let every Soul be subject to the Superior Powers If all Men must be subject to them ergo they are Superior to all and Superior to all is Supreme He then thus goeth on in his Dialogue-way Phil S. Paul maketh them Superiors over all Persons but not over all things Theop. That Distinction is ours meaning Protestants not yours we did ever interpret Supreme for Superior to all men within their Dominions Phil. And so we grant them to be but not in all things For in Temporal things they are Superior to all men in Spiritual they are not Theop. That restraint comes too late the Holy Ghost charging you to be subject to them simply without addition It passeth your reach to limit in what things you will and in what things you will not be subject And he there saith Out of all Question where Princes may by God's Law Command all men must obey them not only for fear of wrath but for Conscience sake To this purpose too he asserts the Supremacy in the following Page All men are bound to be subject to the Sword in all things be they Temporal or Spiritual not only by Suffering but also by Obeying but with this Caution that in things that are good and agreeable to the Law of God the Sword must be obey'd in things that are otherwise it must be endured At the same rate you will find him writing in his Third Part p. 7. The Word of God bindeth you to obey Princes the words of men cannot loose you But if you will there take notice of the fire of his Zeal breaking into a flame at the thoughts of the displacing of Princes from their Thrones and of the discharging of the People from the Oath and Obedience toward Princes he saith that they who will go to that turn Religion into Rebellion Patience into Violence Words into Weapons Preaching into Fighting Fidelity into Perjury Subjection into Sedition and instead of the Servants of God which they might be by enduring they become the Soldiers of Satan by resisting the Powers which God hath ordain'd A. I thank God I am a Member of the Church of England that may value it self not only on its Doctrine of NON-RESISTANCE but on its DOCTRINE of Positive ASSISTANCE and DEFENCE of all Iurisdictions Privileges Pre-eminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King c. or united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm B. And how from this great Promissory part of our Oath our Obligation to assist and defend the Iurisdiction Privilege Pre-eminence and Authority of the Dispensative Power in particular granted or belonging to the King and united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm doth arise we will at our next meeting consider and when I will likewise shew you that the Prerogative royal is a part of the Lex terrae The End of the Second PART 1370. Ex Rot. Parl. in turr Lâ—…nd in 45. Ed. tertii Iustifiables in the French originals Quaere Whether not able todo justice or not to be juststify'd in their Employment as improper for it
materialiter Si quis verum dicit putans esse falsum mentitur formaliter And he having before in l. 4 c. 4 viz Of Heresy made pertinacy a requisite to a man's being formally an Heretick and said that Pertinax est qui non est paratus Captivare intellectum rationem suam omnem Sacrae Scripturae adds Haereticus igitur potest esse quis materialiter dum assensum praebet erroâ—…i pernicioso vel ex simplici facilitate out temeritate haereticis or dendi qui sub honestâ aliquâ specie fallunt vel ex ignorantiâ qui â—…ormaliter non est haereticus cum pertinacia obstinatio animi deest atque adeo pro simpliciter haereticâ—… non est babendus Concordant with these measures of Ames have I observ'd those of some ingenuous Roman-Catholick Writers who have declared that they will not pronounce all Protestants to be Hereticks formaliter And it is therefore no wonder that such their Judgment of Charity hath been retaliated by some of the most Renowned Divines of the Church of England viz. the Lord Primate Bramhal Bishop Taylor Dr. Hammond and others who have deny'd to pronounce the worshipping the Host to be formal Idolatry that is to say to be not so at all in reality since we know that according to the trite Rule forma dat esse And thus that Primate in his Schism Guarded saith very well for that purpose p. 57. Every one who is involved materially in a Schism is not a formal Schismatick more then she that Marries after long expectation believing and having reason to believe that hâ—…r former Husband was dead is a formal Adulteress or then he who is drawn to give Divine Worship to a Creature by some misapprehension yet addressing his Devotions to the true God is a formal Idolater And having there cited S. Austin of Heresy He who did not run into his error out of his own over-weening Presumption nor defends it pertinaciously but receiv'd it from his seduced Parents and is careful to search out the truth and ready to be Corrected if he find it cut he is not to be reputed among Hereticks he saith it is much more true of Schism that he who is involv'd in Schism through the error of his Parents or Predecessors who carefully seeketh after truth and is prepared in his mind to embrace it whensoever he finds it he is not to be reputed a Schismatick I know Azorius de Iuramento gives his Judgment well in thesi That when a Law is changed to which a man is bound by Oath tho he is thereby materially discharged yet formally he is bound in respect of his will for if ever he actually assents to the alteration he is really perjured And so leaving it to such who were Men of great Knowledge and Consideration and had took the Oaths and were ready to promo'e a new Law for altering the hereditary Monarchy to think of the danger they incurred of the formal guilt of that Crime I have more Charity then to conclude all the rash and the incogitant and the weak and the seduced by the fantastick Interpretation of the Oath to have been perjured But as about the year 1164. Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury was at a Council held at Northampton accused by the King of Perjury and Condemned as guilty of it because he had not observ'd those English Customs that he was sworn to as I find Francisc. Long. de Concil p. 806. Col. 1. cited for it so if you have taken the Oath of Supremacy and Sworn to defend all the Privileges and Preheminences granted or belonging to the King his Heirs and Successors and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and are of opinion that one of the Privileges of those Heirs and Successors is to succéed to that Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood and by their inherent Birth-right and as the Hereditary Succession juâ—…e Coronae is setled by the Common Law of England I shall tell you that the Pious and profoundâ—…ly Learned Divine Dr. Hicks who hath study'd this Point as much as any man hath in his Writings told you that having taken this Oath you could not honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which would have deprived the next Heir and in him virtually the whole royal Family of the chief Privilege and Preheminence that belong'd to him by the Common Law of this Realm c. Your Curiosity I believe hath led you to read over his learned Iovian and to observe what he there saith in his Preface that some Men did pervert the meaning of the word Heirs in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy from its common and usual acceptation to another more special on purpose to elude the force and Obligation which otherwise they must have had on the Consciences of the Excluders themselves But it is not only the Authority of this single great Divine that I can lay before your thoughts for the rendring the Attempt of the Exclusion contrary to our Oath but I can direct you to the censure of the three Estates of a Loyal Nation and of His late Majâ—…sty in the case For the Oaths in Scotland binding the takers both to the King and his Heirs and Successors as ours do here I can tell you that in the Third Parliament of King Charles the Second Aug. 13. 1681. you will find the Act in these words viz. The Estates of Parliament considering that the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion c. I know that during the late turbid interval of the Nation some Loyal men of the Church of England were so much misguided as to think that because de facto Parliaments have heretofore directed and limited the succession of the Crown in other manner then in course it would otherwise have gone as the words in the Printed Exclusion-Bill were they might therefore of right do so again notwithstanding they knew that after the Parliament of King Iames to prevent the Right of Succession from fluctuating any more had justly recognized and declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm and Rights belonging to the same did by inherent Birth-right and lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to him as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm it did afterward by a New Oath of Obedience or Allegiance oblige mens Consciences both to the Crown and the hereditary lineal Succession and notwithstanding they knew that that Parliament had took care of continuing the Obligation of the Oath of Supremacy for the bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the King his Heirs and lawful Successors and to assist
and defend all Privileges and Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King his Heirs and Successors c. But I doubt not but the Consciences of the Considerate Loyal now expostulating with them in the cool of the day whether they did then well in being angry with the Imposers sense of their Oaths and in not penetrating into the Obligations thereby incurred and particularly in not weighing whether such who had taken those Oaths and yet by Projects and Expedients would have banish'd the Heir even after he should come to be Actual Successor from the effects of their Sworn Allegiance and of their Sworn Assistance and Defence of all Privileges and Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging c. had not visibly out-ran their Oaths they will recollect the late dreadful want of tenderness for the observance of the same It will be hard for many men on a serious Self-examination to reflect otherwise on themselves after that Sir W. I. himself as the Printed Speeches in the Oxford-Parliament have it call'd an Expedient of that kind Iesuite's Powder and mentioned that on the Heirs coming to the title of King the learned Lawyers say that by 1. H. 7. all Incapacity is taken away by the Possession of the Crown and after that another learned Lawyer had there said I owe the Duke Obedience if he be King but if he be King and have no Power to Govern he is the King and no King and had before said That an Act of Parliament against Common sense is void To make a man King and not suffer him to exercise Kingly Power is a Contradiction And I am sure 't is a Contradiction to nothing more then our Oaths I desire not by referring to the breach of those Oaths to touch the tenderness of any man's sore place or to reproach him as to what he hath done for the time past but to promote the tenderness of his Conscience and that his Conscience may not reproach him for the time to come for not assisting and defending all Privileges and Preheminences belonging to the Crown When I consider the noble and vigorous Loyalty that your self and others who were mistaken in the Point of the Exclusion have since shewn in the Service of His gracious Majesty and the great Care that you and they in the Post where you were took in the Settlement of his Revenue and of avoiding the Character of those of Israel who brought their newly anointed King no Presents and your readâ—…ness at his call to venture your life for the support of his Crown and do observe in you and them a fix'd Preparation of mind for the defence of every Privilege that is made to appear to you as belonging to the Crown and that your Loyalty like a bone well sett is the firmer for having been broken I account that the Si non eâ—…rasset fecerat ille minùs may be apply'd to you and that after His Majesty's Pardon and the Series of your Heroical Actions of Loyalty in his Service you ought by all equal Judges according to the Instance I mention'd before to be absolv'd as who in all things have approved your selves to be clear in this Matter And I believe you being one of the Church of England the Adherents to which do now as generally call themselves The Loyal as the Independents did once vocifeâ—…ate themselves to be The Saints and the Principles of which Church do enjoyn Remorse and Penitence and rending of the heart and as much tenderness to any who have disrobed the Crown of any of its Rights and Privileges as was in David when his heart smote him because he had cut off the skirt of Saul ' s Garment and whose Divines do not only Preach the Doctrine of Non-resistance but whose Oaths bind to it and that of Supremacy binding to a positive Assistance of all Privileges c. your â—…nlighten'd Conscience will be your constant Remembrancer against any relapse A. I thank you for thus gently leading me by the hand to such a height of Noble thoughts relating to that Oath as from whence I am able to look back with grief on my past aberrations through inadvertence from what my Oath obliged me to in relation to the Support of the hereditary Monarchy and concerning which Obligation the Casuistical Discussion you sent me did sufficiently illuminate me and to take a prospect into my duty that lies before me to assist and defend to my Power all Iurisdictions Privileges c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness c. or united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm I am sensible that as some vain Swearers in common Discourse will upon their being occasionally reproved for it be apt to swear that they did not swear and that as there are Fools that say in their Souls that there is no God and that there is no Soul so there is a sort of careless men who having taken this great Promissory Oath will yet by their Actions deny their having sworn to assist and defend some of those Privileges and likewise be apt to say in their hearts they have not invoked God as Witness and Revenger in the case of that Oath and that they are not absolutely bound by it or but only by their reserved sense or as if a man representing his Country he were only to take a kind of formal Oath in animam Domini and not to venture his own Soul. But for my part I account it as vile to be perjured in a solemn Promissory Oath as in a judicial Assertory one and shall hereafter think my self as much bound to use all exactness and tenderness in the recollection oâ—… my thoughts after a Promissory Oath as every Man of Honour doth before an assertory Oath when he is a witness in a Court of Law. And I think that it is only the multitudo peccantium about solemn promissroy Oaths as for example about the promised assistance and defence of the Privileges of the Crown in the Oath of Supremacy that diminisheth the Shame and â—…gnominy of mens being either through corrupt affections or incogitancy and the crassa negligentia which the Law makes to be dolus malus Vacillant or Contradictory in the Series of their actings promised or through lachesse or subdolcus pretences withholding their performance of part of what they obliged themselves to do and that keeps the populace from a nauseous looking on them as falsarii and as much as on Witnesses produced in Courts who in the things asserted by their Testimony are for want of precaution of thought varii vacillantes and contradictory to themselves and minglers of Falshood with truth and who conceal part of the whole truth they were to depose B. There is another thing that makes the Moral offices required in an Oath Promissory call for some kind of Consideration that an Oath Assertory doth not for we are not to depose oâ—… Matter of Law but only of Fact but in the Promissory parts