A TREATISE OF THE OATH OF SUPREMACY Printed in the YEAR 1679. THE Words of the Oath I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Kings Majesty is the only Supream Governor of this Realm and of all other His Highnesses Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ougbt to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith true Allegiance to the Kings Highness His Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Pre-eminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness His Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God and by the Contents of this Book Introduction 1. THe Oath of Supremacy has long been thought by the generality of Catholicks Inconsistent with Faith both for what it affirms of the King and denies of the Pope And truly who considers only the Words as they ly naked there without seeking to inform himself what they mean of any thing but the bare sounds has reason at first sight to check at it I am apt to believe that every body does not look farther at least I my self did not a great while and therefore thought of it as others did 2. Yet it seemed strange that the most Learned of the Church of England should freely take it without scruple and at the same time Irreprehensibly affirm both of the Kings Power and the Popes what Catholicks therefore refuse the Oath because they think it denies I perceived they must of necessity understand it otherwise than We did For to suspect that either of us proceed otherwise than according to our conscience They in Taking and VVe in Refusing is not either for a Charitable or Reasonable Man I would not handsomly unriddle when a mistake there must needs be on one side how the mistake should ly on theirs or which way they should misunderstand an Oath of their own making In short I knew not what to make of it and while I had no Key to the Lock but the bare words could not easily open it For still those words seemed Irreconcilable to Truth and to that Truth which they profess as well as that which I believe 3. Upon farther search things appeared somthing otherwise I found that what those Learned Men mean when they swear and which they think the VVords of the Oath mean is not only sutable to what they believe themselves but likewise to what we believe and I found there is more Reason than I imagined to believe that the words of the Oath do indeed mean as they judge they do and not as VVe thought VVhat occurs to me I thought a seasonable Charity to communicate to others lest by seeking to avoyd one Error we fall into many 4. For as we are on the one side obliged to prefer a good Conscience before all Worldly respects so we are obliged on the other to obey our Soveraign and his Laws where with a good conscience we can No Man can justify the refusal of an Oath tendred by Lawful Authority without a sufficient Reason The Reason why we have refused this Oath is because we apprehended it Inconsistent with Faith And that is undoubtedly a sufficient Reason if the apprehension be true but if it be not we are left in the Lurch If the Oath as some think do not renounce the Faith of all Catholicks but only the Opinions of some and those both false and pernicious to refuse it is not to preserve but to scandalize our Faith with the imputation of obliging us to things by the Wisdom of the Nation judg'd Intolerable It is to confirm the bad opinion which some have of us that our Religion is indeed Inconsistent with the security of the Commonwealth In a word what we took for Religion would prove Faction 5. Before I speak of the Oath it self it will be convenient to observe that divers priviledges have at divers times been granted by the Piety of Princes to the Church and Church-Men when being long used and their origin either forgotten or dissembled have at length been commonly enough lookt upon and claimed as the proper and inherent Right of the Church Among these is the right of holding Judiciary Pleas and Courts proceeding like Secular Courts to Sentence even of Temporal and Corporal Punishments as Fines Imprisonment c. and Executing their Sentences by their own Officers unless in case of Death for which whether for Form or Substance the Prachiam Seculare was usually call'd upon These Courts were settled by little and little and their Power was sometimes more sometimes less which variety remains to this day as the Secular Power in several Nations concurs more or less with them But it became at last the general Practise that Ecclesiastical Persons should appear only in these Courts for all causes and the Laity for some chiefly such as had relation to the Law of God The Judges there being either Ecclesiastical Men themselves or acting by Commission from them the Courts got the Name of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts the matters determinable in them of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual matters or causes and their Power of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Power But 6. When things had gone thus Time out of mind and People saw them constantly act not by renewed Commissions as Subordinate Officers use to do but by a Right of their own a Right charily preserved by them and freely confest by every body els as undoubtedly it was both by a good Title at first and a quiet possession of many Hundred Years it came to be thought at last that this Right of theirs was given them with their Character by God whereas in Truth it proceeded from the condescendence of Pious Men and as all Humane things are subject to change may by the same Power which gave it on just occasion be taken away 7. In the mean time the Notion of Spiritual when applyed in the Law to Power Judge Court Matter Cause or Thing has generally relation to these External Courts The word is ordinarily taken so in our common Language but there seldome otherwise and when we find it in the Law we must expect it should signify as it uses to do in the Law not as it does in Philosophy or Controversy or Ascetics It is so well known that I know not whether it be not idle to mention the different Significations which the same words have in different Occasions For example who thinks of the Theological vertue when he is to swear Faith to his Prince who of a Stone or Tree when he hears of a Body not in Philosophy but Physick and when a Man
be only Temporal Nay one may probably guess by his Institution of a Christian Man to be seen in the Christian Loyalty a Book lately set forth and that King's Letter to be found in the Cabala to the Clergy of Yorkshire that he took no more even in the Repeal'd Acts concerning his Headship of the English Church Possibly Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor might be the more Jealous of his being Head of the Church because They never saw that Book it being set forth some Years after their Death But that King Henry 8th did not confound Regal and Pastoral Power purely Spiritual appears by his Book of Ordination wherein he declares that Pastoral Authority he means purely Spiritual was by Ordination only committed to Men and also by his Injunctions And therefore could not assume such kind of Pastoral Authority or that which is purely Spiritual to himself nor Queen Elizabeth neither who took no more than he did But besides she farther explains her self in express Words not to take the Power Of Administring Divine Service in the Church but the Soveraignty and Rule over all Persons of what State soever they be And what can be desired clearer than this for her not taking Power to Preach Perswade and Help Christians as Christ bid his Apostles do which is in other words to administer Divine Service in the Church And what is Power over Ecclesiastical Persons without Power in Ecclesiastical Functions but Power Quantum per legem Dei licet with which Addition Bishop Fisher himself agreed to the Title of Supreme Head of the Church added by Act of Parliament in the Confirmation of Queen Elizabeth's Exposition And that the said Words Supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other His Highness's Dominions and Countries taking them all together as they ly as we ought can never signify other than a Civil Governour what-ever Things or Causes his Power is exprest to be in appears farther by this that those Words are a very unsutable and improper title for any purely Spiritual Head For who-ever heard the Arch-Bishop of Roan for example call'd Supreme Governour of all his Province of Normandy in all Things or Causes purely Spiritual Or How would Roman-Catholick Princes take it to have the Pope write himself Supreme Governour of all his Dominions or Countries throughout the whole Catholick Church in purely Spiritual Affairs These Words then will not suffer themselves to be meant of any other Power than that of a Civil Magistrate nor can they without much straining them from their common Use signify that he assumes to Himself any thing properly belonging to any Bishop or Priest and so they have no shew of touching any thing concerv'd to be of Faith Again The King of Spain has and exercises Supreme Spiritual Authority and Spiritual Monarchy in Sicily which are as harsh Words as any in the Oath And yet all Christendom knows and the Pope and Court of Rome it self that that King claims a Governourship or Power call'd Spiritual nay and which is much more Supremely such without any ones Fancying that Faith is prejudic'd by such a Title Nor imports it whether that King have this Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Pope or no We have nothing to do with their Bargains our only Question at present is concerning the meaning of the Word Spiritual when apply'd to Kings which if it signifies a Power purely Spiritual could never have been given him by the Pope himself without Creating him Bishop Now I would ask upon this occasion Whether if the King of Spain had thought fitting to Command his Subjects in Sicily to take an Oath of Supremacy exprest in these Words That he is Supreme Spiritual Monarch or has Supreme Spiritual Authority in that Kingdom whether it could stand with the Duty of his Subjects there to refuse to obey him and to take it upon a Caprichious Conceit grounded on the double Signification which the Words Spiritual Supremacy may possibly bear and thence take shadow that they renounce their Faith or Whether such a whimsy ought to excuse them I conceive no good States-Man though never so good a Christian would think him blameless You 'l say 'T is a different Case I add then this forcible Reason which I am sure is unanswerable If the Words In Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes subjoyn'd to Supreme Governour c. wrong Faith that is if those Words give the King a Power purely Spiritual as is feared and objected then the word ONLY joyn'd to Supreme Governour and ALL to Things or Causes being so Ample and Extensive must either give him the whole Latitude of Power purely Spiritual or None at all but All Power of some Other kind But it must cost us the Forfeiture of Common Sense to imagin that either the Oath makers should intend to Give or the King to Receive the whole Latitude of Power purely Spiritual For then he must have Power to confer Orders consecrate the Eucharist absolve in Confession which no Christian ever attributed to a Secular Magistrate Therefore 't is evident those Words do not give the King any Power or Supremacy purely Spiritual at all nor consequently can they breed the least Scruple in any Person of Loyal Principles that they concern or shock Faith 16. These Things seem evident enough How-ever for a 5th Proof and Explication of many Things that have been said concerning what K. H. 8th took upon him in the Reviv'd Acts that make the same belong to our King and be by us in this Oath acknowledg'd as his due or annext to his Crown let us consider that the Power so proper to a Pastor that we cannot give it to our Prince is nothing else but a Man's being by our Saviour's Appointment Immediate to his Apostles or Mediate to their Successors deputed to Preach his Faith Perswade and in the Sacraments help the Practice of it and by that Deputation enabled to do these Things Whereas a Lay-man out of Charity and Good-will to another or any other Good Motive besides our Saviour's Appointment which he hath not in our Supposition that he is a Lay-man or not Appointed and so would Usurp if he pretended to it may teach him his Catechism or send a Pastor that is his Friend or his Chaplain to do it And out of the same and other Reasonable Motives the King may have a Human Power either to teach a Man if he pleases or send all his Subjects that are Pastors to do their Duties or exercise the Power Christ gave them Nay and to hinder them from exercising of it in case of Wicked Life for example it be unreasonable they should since the Law can prohibit and punish any unreasonable Thing or Vice and since the Pastor himself though he hath the Power ought not then to exercise it And as the King may order them to do their Duties apart so in Counsel And as he may out of those said Motives Teach so he may out of the same as a
supremely gives them the Later Much more the Jurisdiction they have to make Temporal Laws to judge those that do against them and execute their Sentence And in this we have seen how the King as a Christian may be Judge and Teacher of Faith and that Authorized by the Law of the Land How as a King he may and ought to be Supreme Civil Judge of what Faith ought to be establish't by Law and the Supreme of those that Preach or cause People to Believe and Practice by establishing Faith its Preachers sent by Christ and their Directive Laws by Law and by giving them the Jurisdiction they may have from Law to do what Christ bid them lastly how he is the Supreme Giver of Power to make Civil Laws to Judge by them and Execute them 21. Thirdly There is in Truth more Assumed in the Objection than there is warrant for in the Act mentioned It does not appear there that the King is impower'd to judge of the Repugnance of Canons to the Law of God On the contrary it seems meant that that Matter should be left to the Clergy For why else should Sixteen of them be put into Commission Neither are the Words on which the Objection is grounded viz. That such Canons shall be retained as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c. the Words of the Parliament but of the Clergy themselves who cannot be thought to mean by them that the Laity should be Judges of the Law of God They are only recited by the Parliament which when it comes to do its own part uses other Expressions There are other Reasons why the King should interpose The Reason of the Act is assigned to be because Divers Constitutions c. be thought not only to be much Prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal and Repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness and his Subjects Of those things who can Judge so well as the King with the Assistance of some of the Laity best versed in the Laws of the Land Again the King was to add his Authority to those Canons to make them Binding and therefore must needs know what he should Authorize and see why he should do it And this is all the Power in him which can be Collected from this Statute As for Appeals the Act indeed orders they should for lack of Justice in other Courts be made in Chancery but not determined there but by Commission to be granted by the King that all Differences of his Subjects be finally determin'd by his Authority But 't is not said nor is to be supposed that those Commissions shall be granted to the Laity where the Case concerns the Law of God For Appeals are ordered by this Act to be as was directed by a former Act of the same Parliament An. 24 H. 8. By which Act where any Cause of the Law-Divine or Spiritual Learning hapned to come in question the Body-Spiritual of the Realm is declared to be Qualifyed and to have Power to determin it and therefore to them it must needs be meant to be left To return to our Matter again Since those Parliaments evidently knew their King was neither Bishop nor Priest which even in their Thoughts was the same as not to have Power to Act in Spiritual Things by our Saviour's immediate or mediate Supernatural Mission or which is the same thing by the Power of the Keys They evidently saw he neither had nor could have any Pastoral Power purely Spiritual much less the Supreme Power of that kind what-ever the Supremacy of that kind consists in Hence they could never intend to give him what they saw he could not have given to him nor signify any such Gift or Sense by their Words in the Act or Oath But only a Gift of the above-explicated Power arising from Nature and Reason A Legal Power to exercise which as a Governor they knew he might have from them and to say that they intended to flatter him with the Acknowledgment of a Power in him which they knew was not in him is a Fault that they cannot be prov'd Guilty of especially when we remember their Proviso And so according to the Axiom Every one is to be presumed Good till he be prov'd to be Bad they ought to be acquitted 23. Wherefore upon the whole it is many wayes evident that the Words in the Affirmative Part of the Oath cannot mean any thing but Supremacy of the Sword which whether in Temporal or Spiritual Things cannot be exercis'd but by Authority deriv'd from the King And this Supremacy is so evidently His that He needed not this Act for it He has it from God and Nature and as it is inseparable from the Crown alwayes had it even when Ecclesiastical Authority was at the Highest For though the Bishops claim'd an Independent Power of their own yet as Things do not cease to be by not being acknowledged They truly acted under him and in vertue of his Allowance and subject to his Controll When-ever he pleased to interpose as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisions Premunire and the rest made in Catholick Times shew he often did His Pleasure and Laws carry'd it notwithstanding their Pretences 24. That they did mean only thus is beyond all doubt apparent by all manner of wayes by which any thing can appear And though what hath been already said out of the Oath it self and all the Acts which are any way ordered to Establish the Duties to be acknowledg'd by it seem to force a Perswasion that only Royal Power is required to be own'd by the Affirmative Clause I cannot leave this Part till I put the Reader in mind lest he should suspect these Reasons Fallacious as seeming good Ones only to my self how both Learned Protestants and the Protestant-Church understand this to be the Sense of it I alledge then that all Protestant Authors not one I think excepted agree That 't is not the Power of the Keys but of the Sword which is in the King I could name several but chuse to mention only Doctor Bramhal late Arch-Bishop of Armagh because no Body speaks or I think can speak plainer And what he sayes I take to be the Sense of the Church of England his Works being very lately Reprinted in one Volume Dedicated by the Bishop of Limric to the Arch-Bishop of Dublin In his Schism Garded p. 311 312. speaking of this Act he sayes thus In a Word there is no Power ascribed to our King but meerly 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 exprest in Words less subject to Exception but the Case is clear 25. Next The 37. Article of the Church of England Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the Chief Government We give not to
the Eighth nor any of his 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 Jurisdiction I mean Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such Persons as submit willingly Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the Key of Order or the Key of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the External Regiment of the Church by Coactive Power to be exercised by Persons capable of the Respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had or could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose Subjects they were And therefore when we meet with these Words or the like That no Forreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of Power Jurisdiction c. Ecclesiastical with this Realm it is not to be understood of Internal or purely-Spiritual Power in the Court of Conscience or the Power of the Keys we see the contrary practised every day but of External and Coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in Foro contentioso And that it is and ought to be so understood I prove clearly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and an Article of the English Church Which Act and Article have been produced above The Bishop continues They that is the Parliament profess their Ordinance is meerly Political What hath a Political Ordinance with Power purely Spiritual They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from Rapine c. And then having produced the Article he concludes You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political Our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it Nothing can be more express than this so clear a Testimony of so Judicious a Bishop touching the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical acknowledged by Oath 42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds Wheresoever Ibid. p. 169. our Laws do deny all Spiritual Jurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that Sense that we call the Exterior Court of the Church the Spiritual Court They do not intend at all to deprive him of the Power of the Keys or of any Spiritual Power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy To conclude omitting a World of other Passages to the same effect he saith We have not renounced the Substance Ibid. p. 219. of the Papacy except the Substance of the Papacy do consist in Coactive Power 43. And that we may see this still continues the Sense of the Protestant Church and consequently of the State even to this day Mr. Falkner of Lynn Regis in his Book entituled Christian Loyalty so lately Printed that it was Antedated 1679 and dedicated to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Page 200. gives us the Sense of this Oath in these Words This Oath tending according to the Designe of that Statute by which it was Establish't to restore to the Crown its Antient Jurisdiction that Authority which is chiefly rejected thereby is such as invaded or oppos'd the Royalty of the King and particularly that which claimeth any Supreme Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Affairs as if they were not under the Care of the Temporal Power or that pretendeth to any other Authority above and against the Just Rights of the Crown 44. Now that such Authors especially the Three first so Universally read by all Learned-Men in their respective Times and doubtless amongst others by Thousands learned in the Law should pass without any the least Reprehension for interpreting the Oath and our Laws wrong in case they had in such their Declarations and Expositions declin'd from the true Sense of the Lawgivers nor be discountenanc't by those respective Princes as diminishing the Extent of their Power or by the Protestant Church and State for reserving more to the Pope than was meant by them when they requir'd Roman Catholicks to take the Oath but on the contrary that their Works should pass without the least Controll and Censure nay be Universally receiv'd with the highest Esteem and Applause and that their Persons should be so Caressed and Advanc'd by those Princes is a Riddle past mine or any man's Solving Princes and States use not to be so supine in such Matters as to permit a wrong Sense to be impos'd upon their Laws least of all those who are not in Communion with Rome especially when their own and the Pope's Authority are concern'd And yet we must either say that such Persons in such Matters were thus strangely negligent or else be forc't to acknowledge that in the Sense of all England the Lawyers there and even of our Princes themselves that was the True and Legal Sense of the Oath of Supremacy which those eminent Authors assign'd and declar'd This Argument will have far greater Force if we add that not one Protestant Author amongst so many that have either written expresly or touch't upon that Subject was ever found who contradicted this Explication of theirs or affirm'd any Power purely Spiritual to be given the King or taken from the Pope by this Oath Which the Fancies of Mankind especially those of many several Judgments in other things and all of them averse to the Pope and the Opinions of Writers being naturally so various evidences that this Sentiment of theirs concerning the abovesaid Meaning of the Oath was not only Universally but moreover Firmly and constantly held as an undoubted Truth And let it be noted here that all these four Learned Authors speak of the Oath both as to the Affirmative and Negative Clause in it that is both of what they attribute by it to the King and deny by it to the Pope Out of which Discourse it follows that though these Testimonies taken singly do not amount to a Publick Declaration of the Sense of the Oath yet taking them conjoyntly with all their respective Qualifications and Circumstances they evidently argue that the Sense they and we affix to the Oath is agreed to by all sorts of intelligent People in England to be indeed the True Sense of it Which Universal Consent seems equivalent to any Publick Declaration whatsoever Section III. Objections Answer'd NOtwithstanding the Evidence of what we produc'd above mens Fancies Interests and Humours being various there remain diverse Scruples in the minds of many and I will endeavour to ease them of those that have come to my knowledge and seem any way Material 1. First 'T is Objected that the words of the Oath deny all manner of Power to the Pope But how could they do otherwise Had they gone about to have number'd all the particulars which they intended to Abolish besides that 't would have been extreamly tedious in an Oath especially some perhaps would have escaped their utmost diligence Had they excluded Ordinary
the taking the aforesaid Temporal Powers away is very much as I have already prov'd 26. For a Fourth Reason we may reflect that this Act both by its Title and Preamble seems to intend the Exclusion of only what K. H. 8. excluded in his here approv'd and reviv'd Acts only with this Difference that this seems to do at once and in general VVords what his did by Parts and in more particular Terms And he as we have seen by looking into all Particulars excluded not the Pope as Pastor More-over as she did what he did so he did fully what Catholick Kings shew'd him Example to do If one may take his VVord in the Preamble to the Statute 24 King Henry the 8th cap. 12. and the express VVords of his Proviso An. 25. cap. 21. after which he did nothing of Note besides ordering that Bishops should have their Bishopricks and preach without the Pope's Order as they did for a long time among the Brittains and others Also we may gather their Senses are the same from alike way of proceeding and speaking in Law 27. For a Fifth That 't is unreasonable to think that this Parliament should in this Act exclude the Pope's purely Spiritual Power as far as it is held to be a Tenet of Catholick Religion all over the VVorld and in the same Act revive the afore-said Proviso that formerly commanded it should not be excluded Except we should say that it had at the same time a mind it should and should not be kept in Kept in because the Will they had that the Words of the former Statute should not be taken in a Sense contrary to the Religion of the then Catholick Church which believ'd Religiously the said purely Spiritual Power of the Pope which Will these Men express'd by Reviving the Proviso could proceed only from a mind that no such Religious Tenet nor consequently this of the Pope's purely Spiritual Power should be deny'd And Not kept in if in this it denyes or excludes it And that the Proviso commands that is clear for it runs thus 28. Provided alwayes that this Act nor any Thing or Things therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted or expounded that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline or vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any Things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendom or in any other Things declared by Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary for Your and Their Salvation But only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient to repress Vice and for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Unity and Tranquility from Rapine and Spoyl ensuing much the old Antient Customs of this Realm in that Behalf Not minding to seek for any Reliefs Succours or Remedies for any Worldly Things and Human Laws in any Case of Necessity within this Realm but at the Hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successours Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an Imperial Power and Authority in the same and not oblig'd in any Worldly Causes to any other Superior 29. A Sixth Reason is Because a Proviso of the last Act 5 Eliz. cap. 1. sayes thus Provided alwayes that for as much as the Queen's Majesty is otherwise sufficiently assur'd of the Faith and Loyalty of the Temporal Lords of her Highnesses Court of Parliament Therefore this Act nor any Thing therein contained shall not extend to compel any Temporal Person of or above the Degree of a Baron of this Realm to take or pronounce the Oath above-said not to incur any Penalty limited by this Act for not Taking or Refusing the same any thing in this Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Where we see the Queen's being without this Act and Oath sufficiently assur'd of the Temporal Lords Faith and Loyalty is brought as a Reason why neither it nor its Oath belongs to them which would have been no Reason in case it had been also to deny the Pope's being Chief Preacher or such a Preacher as is to have a particular Care that all Christians and English among the rest know and practise Christ's Doctrine and that all Preachers and English amongst the rest Preach and help others under them to Practise the same For the Act and Oath being in this Supposition made upon two Accounts to wit for the Assurance of Allegiance and Denyal of Religion the Act might have belong'd to them and the Oath might have been offer'd them though the Queen had been other-wise assur'd or their Allegiance for Denyal of that Part of Religion which the Queen was so far from being other-wise assur'd that they did deny that she otherwise certainly knew that abundance at least of them did constantly profess it 30. For a Seventh and last Reason I alledge that they could not intend to make People swear in the First and Fifth of her Reign when this Oath was made and enjoyn'd that the Pope had not the Power of a Pastor then in England when as they certainly knew he had and exercised such a Power over Multitudes of Catholicks that then were by the State permitted to Live in and profess an Obedience to him as such Especially if it be found that the greatest Part of this Parliament were Catholicks which would not vote the Forswearing of their Faith And if they did not intend it their VVords do not signify it If it be said they could not intend to make the People swear he had not de facto such a Power since every Body knew this to be evidently False but that he had not de jure or ought not to have such a Power I answer 1st That the Words are And that no Forreign Prince c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction c. within this Realm And unless one will say that Hath and Ought to have are just the same and that Hath has not its Signification as well as Ought to have which is not very likely the Meaning must be that he hath not de facto the Power they there speak of Which infers that they there speak not of Pastorall Power 31. Next I answer That this Argument evidently concludes what it endeavour'd to wit that they could not intend that the Words of the Oath should signify that the Pope had not any Pastorall Power in England de facto And hence I argue that they could not intend to take them in the whole Latitude of their Sound and also that they intend to exclude no Pastorall Power de jure First Because their Words speak no more of this than they do of that of which they speak not at all Next Because 't is not likely that they should intend to make his Pastorall Power de jure be abjur'd by some as prejudicial to the Jurisdictions of the Crown for example and that others should not abjure it but be irreprehensibly permitted to believe and profess it Lastly Because it was Premunire and Treason
to hold or profess what the Acts deny'd the Pope But it was neither Prmunire nor Treason for a Lord or other in those dayes to profess himself a Catholick though it was punishable not to be at Common-Prayer which includes the holding and professing the Pope's Pastorall Power de jure as well as de facto Therefore it evidently was not this Pastorall Power de jure that was there deny'd 32. Having thus seen that neither the Words of the Oath nor the Acts to the Profession of whose Sense only the Oath is ordain'd deny the Pope's Pastorall Power let us in the last Place see whether the Explication given it by Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. cap. 1 denyes it For if this doth not nothing doth that concerns it and us Now this Act makes that to be the Sense of the Oath which the Queen gives it in her Admonition And sums up the Sense of the Admonition in short to be To confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority than that was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear Now since the whole Design here spoken of which is to be suppos'd all of it is the confessing of Power in the Queen the Negative Part is to be taken to signify no farther than to deny to another what is confess'd to be in the Queen else the whole Business of the Oath would not be Confessing of Power in her Whence evidently follows that they are not to be taken in a Sense exclusive of the Pope's Pastorall Power The Admonition it self is as follows An Admonition to Simple Men deceived by Malicious 33. The Queens Majesty being inform'd that in certain places of the Realm sundry of her Native Subjects being call'd to Ecclesiastical 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 requir'd of divers Persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty which certainly never was ever meant nor by any Equity of words or good sense can be thereof gather'd would that all her loving Subjects should understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other duty Allegiance or bond required by the same Oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous Memory K. Henry the 8th Her Majesties Father or K. Edward the 6th Her Majesties Brother And farther her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her Subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving Subjects how by words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm Possessors of the Crown may challenge Authority and Power of Ministry of Divine service in the Church wherein her said Subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons for certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that was challeng'd and lately us'd by the said noble Kings of famous Memory K. Henry the 8th and K. Edward the 6th which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm That is under God to have the the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be SO AS no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of Penalties contain'd in the said Act against such as shall Peremptorily or Obstinately refuse to take the same Oath 34. That the Popes Pastoral or purely Spiritual Power is not deny'd in this Admonition may be collected from her saying there that the Oath was requir'd of certain Persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance and such as was in Ancient and so Catholick times due to the Crown For the Recognition of which no Exclusion need or ought to be made of that Power of the Pope which is no way Repugnant to it but so he use his Power as he ought and if he do not he is not to be obey'd a Commander of it Next from the words so as no forreign power c. shall or ought to have any Superiority over them First because the proper and common that is first sense of the words Power and Superiority is Temporal Next because Superiority is not joynd here to the Pope as Prelate but as forreign Power or Prince And therefore is by being apply'd to it determin'd to a civil sense and so are both of them determin'd to the same by being us'd in an explication of a Law and in in a matter of Allegiance and Soveraignty over all Persons 35. Lastly because the words SO AS must either retain their most proper sense and be an answer to the Great Question that caus'd this Admonition which was how she pretended to be Supream Governour in all causes Spiritual whether as a Queen or as an Administer of divine service in the Church which therefore seems to be a sense of those words directly belonging to her Purpose And then 't is evident that the following words can signify only Temporal Authority For if it be ask'd after what manner is the Queen Supream Governess whether after a Civil or Spiritual manner and it be answer'd after such a manner as no forreign power hath or ought to have any Superiority which is the same as if it had been answer'd after a civil manner since it was then known to all that no forreign power had a Superiority after a civil manner and as certainly known that the Pope had one de facto at least after a Spiritual manner It follows out of this Answer that she hath the Supreme Government after a Civil manner because 't is the same thing to say she hath the Supreme Rule after that manner as no Forreigner hath any as to say she hath it after a Civil Manner Of which Truth she endeavour'd to perswade simple deluded People 36. Or the words SO AS must mean the same as SO THAT And then we must either say the Pope's Pastoral power is not excluded by the words following or elss that no Coherent sense is in them For in case it be excluded the sense must be The Queen hath the whole Temporal rule over all persons so that no Forreigner hath power to Preach Christ's Doctrine or she is Queen so that no Forreigner is a Preacher or Pastor might not she as pertinently say she is Queen so that no French
true Sense given it by Law is evident because if he will take it in that and will not take it in any other he is freed from all Penalties that may force him to take it Add that the Queen's Admonition being allow'd by a Statute-Law made in the Fifth of her Reign the Allowance to take it in that Sense cannot Legally be deny'd any 8. A Fifth Objection arises from our swearing to defend all Jurisdictions c. annexed to the Crown among which is the Power to execute Laws made against what we hold to be Christ's Doctrine And who can speak or fight in defence of such a Power But that part we may well swear For 't is no more than to swear she had all Regal Power and among the rest a Legal Power inherent in her as Queen to execute those Laws which being a Truth we may defend without holding it reasonable for her to use or exercise it As we truly say a Man hath Power or Ability to do both Reasonable and Unreasonable Things but deny that he hath reason or a reasonable power to do these latter and we only swear to defend that she hath a Power or Ablity given her by Law to destroy what is by us not by them esteem'd Christian Faith or certain Truth Or it may be said that they never intended to give the King a Power to destroy Christ's true Faith or any Truth not consequently to destroy our perswasion of the Pope's purely Spiritual Authority in England and other Dominions given by Christ Or that they gave him a Power to destroy ours only in supposition of no such Authority in the Pope which supposition being false they gave no Power to destroy our belief of it and hence we swear not that the King hath such a Power 9. A sixth is because most think that Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher who were such knowing and good Men that it would be very hard to imagin they either misunderstood or acted amiss died for not taking this Oath And all know that our Catholick predecessors from the time it was made till our times constantly refus'd it which they would not have done in case they had not thought it deny'd either some Article of their Faith or at least some Theological or otherwise certain Truth At least the First of those who liv'd and talk'd with those that made this Oath had better Opportunites to know the sense of it than we and so we have more reason to stand to their Judgments than our own As to the First part 't is certain that Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher died long before our Oath was made to wit in King Henry the 8th days when as ours was not made till the first of Queen Elizabeth and so could not die for refusing what was not made till after they were dead Nay they were both dead before either of the two Oaths of Supremacy made in the days of King Henry the 8th were enacted What then they truly died for was for speaking as it was pretended at least against King Henry the Eight's being Head of the Church which is quite different from being Governour of the Realm or at least more apt to bear a false sence and they had reason to fear the King meant to assume by those words an undue Power because he would not be contented with the fair play of the Explication quantum per Legem Dei licet added in the Convocation by Bishop Fisher's means who that explication being added concurred to the Title of Head of the Church with the rest the equivalent whereof we have to ours and that by Act of Parliament But Queen Elizabeth disliking what they dislik't made it Law that the Act that gave her Father that Title should remain repeal'd and left those Words Head of the Church out of the Oath and so our case is neither the same nor like theirs Besides it is not clear that either of them did dye for refusing to acknowledge Henry the 8th's very Headship attributed to him by an Act of Parliament made indeed before their Death but during their Imprisonment For 't is certain they were both Imprison'd on that very day wherein Elizabeth Barton called the Holy Maid of Kent was Executed and that the cause of their Imprisonment was for refusing then the Oath lately before enacted for acknowledging the King's Marriage with Queen Ann lawful and her Issue the Princess Elizabeth then born lawfully begotten or true Heir of the Crown vid. Sanderum dep Schis Anglicano l. 1. p. 86. edit Ingolstad Moreover it is known that very great Saints dy'd in material Errors And that such Errors did not prejudice their Sanctity nor Martyrdom either Witness S. Cyprian of Affrick c. 10. As to the Second I confess those who liv'd in the Parliament's Dayes which enacted the Oath might have understood the Sense of the Oath as well or better than I For who am I that I should pretend to have as good or better Understanding than any of them had Next I say that the first of them at least had something a better Opportunity by discoursing with that Part of the Parliament that worded the Oath and Act which perhaps only knew the Meaning of both better than other Folks Yet whether they or at least more than a few of them went this way to work is not a thing that we have any knowledg of and if they did not use this Means we are upon equal Terms with them or rather better For we have the Oath and all Statutes concerning it as well as they had And besides this have several Treatises writ on both sides which they had not But as many have better Judgments and better Opportunities to understand Divinity Philosophy or Law than others and yet fall short of Understanding so well as they either by not looking at all looking slightly the wrong way or not hap'ning to think of so good Reasons as others do so it may happen in our Case as well as it hap'ned in the Case of the Oath of Allegiance which neither as to the Sense of the Words nor the Truth of that Sense seem'd to be nigh so well understood formerly by those that liv'd with its Makers as by us that live now Nay some fancy'd no less than Three Heresies in it which Ghosts have since disappeared and more than one is not now so much as pretended to be in that Oath And the Excellent Answer of the Three Treatises of the Jesuits writ against that Oath shews plainly there is neither Heresie nor Error in it but honest and just Duty to our Sovereign 11. This being so the Question ought to be Whether of us do actually see best into this Matter And since neither We nor They could see into it but by the Reasons brought on both sides those of us must be judg'd to see best into the Sense of the VVords who bring the best Reasons Now those I have here brought for the Pope's Pastoral
when they fall into errour Which side soever they take either obedience to their Wills or submission to their swords is their due by Gods Law And that is all which our Oath exacteth Again This is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and which you Id. ibid p. 256. JESUITS so bitterly detest That Princes be Gods Ministers in their own Dominions bearing the Sword freely to permit and publickly to defend that which God commandeth in Faith and good Manners and in Ecclesiastical Discipline to receive and establish such Rules and Orders as the Scriptures and Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdoms And as they may lawfully command that which is Good in all Things and Causes be they Temporal Spiritual or Ecclesiastical So may they with just Force remove whatsoever is Erroneous Vitious or Superstitious within their Lands and with External Losses and Corporal Pains repress the Broachers and Abettours of Heresies and all Impieties From which Subjection unto Princes no Man within their Realms Monk Priest Preacher nor Prelate is exempted And without their Realms no Mortal Man hath any Power from Christ judicially to depose them much less to invade them in open Field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sense Spiritual Ibid. p. 173. in marg Jurisdiction seems by the Oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince Judge of Faith And Ibid p. 252. then more particularly To devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church is not the Princes Vocation But to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the Place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical Things and Causes Princes be neither the Devisers nor Directers of them but the Confirmers and Establishers of that which is Good and Displacers and Revengers of that which is Evil. Which Power we say they have in all Things and Causes be they Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal Hereto his Adversary is brought in replying And what for Excommunications and Absolutions be they in the Princes Power also To this he answers The Abuse of Excommunication in the Priest and Contempt of it in the People Princes may punish Excommunicate they may not for so much as the Keys are no part of their Charge Lastly to explain the Negative Clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Ibid. p. 218. Princes to be Supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of Truth or Right But without Superior on Earth to repress them with violent Means and to take their Kingdoms from them Thus Doctor Bilson whose Testimony may be interpreted to be the Queens own Interpretation of the Oath since as appears by the Title page of his Book what he wrote was perused and approved by Publick Authority And to such a Sense of the Oath as this there is not a Catholick Clergy Man in France Germany Venice or Flanders but would reatdly subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctor Carleton in King James his time thus states the Matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There Carleton of Jurisdict c. 1. p. 8 9. is a Triple Power in the Bishop of Rome First of Order secondly of Internal Jurisdiction Thirdly of External Jurisdiction The First is refer'd to the Sacraments the Second to Inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience the Third to that External Government which is practised in External Courts And confesseth that of the First and Second there is no question between us but only of the Third Then of this saith Carleton we are agreed that the Question between us and them is only of Jurisdiction coactive in External Courts binding and compelling by Force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments besides Excommunication As for Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious Offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures c. this we reserve intire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This Power hath been practised by the Church without Coactive Jurisdiction other than of Excommunication But when Matters handled in the Ecclesiastical Consistory are not Matters of Faith and Religion but of a Civil Nature which yet are called Ecclesiastical as being given by Princes and appointed to be within the Cognisance of that Consistory And when the Censures are not Spiritual but Carnal Compulsive Coactive here appeareth the Power of the Civil Magistrate This Power we yield to the Magistrate and here is the Question Whether the Magistrate hath right to this Power or Jurisdiction c This then is the thing that we are to prove That Ecclesiastical coactive Power by force of Law and corporal Punishments by which Christian People are to be governed in external and contentious Courts is a Power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again Id. ibid. p. 42. afterward he sayes Concerning the Extention of the Churches Jurisdiction it cannot be denyed but that there is a Power in the Church not only Internal but also of External Jurisdiction Of Internal Power there is no question made External Jurisdiction being understood all that is practised in External Courts or Consistories is either Definitive or Mulctative Authority Definitive in Matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative Power may be understood either as it is with Coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But Coactive Jurisdiction was never practised by the Church when the Church was without Christian Magistrates But was alwayes understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctor Bramhal Bishop of Derry in our late King's dayes and now Arch-Bishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative Parts of the Oath touching the King 's Supreme Authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Pope's Schisme guarded Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his Book called Schism Guarded c. The sum of which Book is in the Title-page exprest to consist in shewing That the great Controversie about Papal Power is not a question of Faith but of Interest and Profit not with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome c. This Learned and Judicious Writer thus at once states the Point in both these Respects My last Ground sayes he is That neither King Henry