the actions of some of the members yet by outward force a thing cannot be imposed on the conscience For then only is a thing imposed on the conscience when the conscience is convinced that he ought to do or not to do it which must be done by doctrine or some other way insinuating into the conscience the necessity or lawfulness of doing or not doing a thing which outward force cannot perform 2. That it is a greater mistake That the King in the Oath of Supremacy is acknowledged to have power to be a Lord over faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on mens consciences This mistake might have been rectified if they had heeded the Oath Proviso Admonition 37th Article prefixed before my book and the explication of the 5th and 6th Propositions which I gave conformably to the speeches of learned approved men by the Princes that have been and are which I find not yet any persons in authority have disallowed and yet I conceive by their words in the end of their petition they were not ignorant thereof sith they cite the proviso of the Statute 5. Eliz. and the admonition which I presume they found printed in my book By which they might have understood that Kings are acknowledged Governors in spiritual things as well and no otherwise as in temporal things Now in temporal things they have not power to impose any thing on mens consciences by outward force not is the King a Lord over our faith in temporal things so as that if he should tell us we may marry our brothers wife or command us to fight a duel for our honour we may think we are bound in conscience to do it or that we may lawfully do it much less that he is Lord over our faith in the things of God so as to impose on our consciences what we shall believe concerning God Christ the Covenant of grace the doctrine of salvation c. or to form the worship of God by addition or diminution otherwise then is appointed by Gods word but as Dr. Rainold's Confer with Hart chap. 10. cites the words of Augustine which I find in the seventh Tome of his works in the third book against Cresconius the Grammarian chap. 51. more fully then in the fiftieth Epistle For in this kings as it is commanded them by God served God as they are Kings if in their Kingdom they command good things and forbid evil things not only which pertain to humane society but also which pertain to the Religion of God And as they are not to govern in temporal things but according to just Laws of the Commonwealth so neither in the things of God but according to the holy Laws of God and although they have more authority in making and executing Laws in Civil things then in Religious yet in neither to make or execute Laws contrary to Gods Laws nor to usurp that prerogative which belongs to God to dispense with his Laws or to hinder the doing of a duty imposed in the first or second table of the Law or to mould or urge doctrines of faith or worship otherwise then God in Scripture declares or appoints nor do we acknowledge by taking that Oath that we owe them active obedience if they urge us by Laws and Edicts thereto in things reserved to Gods prerogative or such as are contrary to his Laws in force only we are to yield passive obedience by suffering and not resisting the power and authority thus abused Nor is there any thing in the words of Q. Elizabeths Admonition annexed to her injunctions contrary to this explication For the Queen doth not say that She challenged by that Oath such a power as was challenged by her Father King Henry the eighth which was to burn his subjects at the stake for their dissenting from him in religious matters But She saith 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 then was acknowledged to be due to the most Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the eighth Her Majesties Father or King Edward the sixth Her Majesties Brother And again For certainly her Majesty neither doth ne ever will challenge any other authority then that was challenged and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the soverainty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these Her Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be so as no other forrein power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Now if She had challenged power to burn at a stake her subjects for their dissenting from King Henry the eighth in religious matters then she must challenge power to burn all his Protestant subjects at a stake and therefore she must be conceived to challenge only authority over all persons to govern them according to just Laws excluding forrein power Whereto agree both the words of the 37th Article set down in my former book and the word of King James in this That in that Oath only is contained the Kings absolute power to be Judge over all persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrein powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions Nor is it true That by King Henries practice appears that Q. Elizabeth challenged power to burn dissenters from King Henry in matters of Religion For she did not challenge all the power which King Henry practised for then she should have challenged a power to behead her mother which he practised and if the Queen her self exercised the same authority though it be not to be called authority or power truly but an usurpation or abuse of power in putting some to death for their conscience in Religion yet doubtless she challenged no other power then what before had been or might be lawfully exercised or used as the words are in the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 1. a little before the Oath of Supremacy nor doth the Oath acknowledge the King Governor or to have any other power or authority to be assisted defended or actively obeyed then as it is lawful and used or exercised lawfully and therefore in answer to the three Arguments of the Petitioners I say 1. That by the acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy in spirituals as a Magistrate neither is a man bound to change his Religion as the King doth nor to forbear Gods worship which he forbids nor to deny Christ or worship other Gods because he commands it It followes in the Maidston prisoners Petition And now O King that no man as he is a Christian hath power to be a Lord over anothers faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God is as clear 1. Because the
made Christians by civil penalties sith Religion is not to be inforced but perswaded yet being Christians they may be corrected by civil penalties As the Apostle Paul though he said what have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. yet did not exclude Ecclesiastical penalties on them that are within no more are they that are within freed from civil penalties in some things Ecclesiastical because they are within though perhaps they that are without are not to be compelled to come in And yet it is not proved that a King may not use some civil penalties especially denying of favours and priviledges to them that embrace not the faith or rather it is certain he ought so to put a difference between Christians and infidels godly Christians and profane loose ones that the former may have that encouragement and benefit which others have not according to Davids example Psal 101. which a King ought to follow As for the speech of Christ Luke 9. 54 55 56. it serves much less for the Petitioners purpose For 1. The reason of the disciples desire of calling fire from heaven was not their not receiving them or their doctrine as Christian but as Jews For the Samaritans did not receive Christ because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem ver 53. which shews that their not receiving him was out of the hatred they bare to him as a Jew and to the worship which was at Jerusalem according to what we read of the Samaritans Joh. 4. 9 20. 8. 48. And therefore this is not to the present purpose of Christs denying power to the Civil Magistrate to inflict civil penalties on the non-receivers of his doctrine 2. The fact of the Samaritans was far different from the fact of the Captains that came to take Elijah 2 Kings 1. chap. For they came to take Elijah to destroy him these only did not receive Christ those doubtless were worshippers of Baal and joyned with the King of Israel to uphold idolatry and to persecute the Prophets and Worshippers of the true God which made them more justly objects of wrath and Divine vengeance then the Samaritans were 3. That which the disciples would have had fall on the Samaritans was fire from heaven to destroy them which was too great a punishment for that neglect But this doth not prove that a lesser and proportionable penalty may not be inflicted on some disorderly Christians by a Civil Magistrate 4. The disciples were but private persons and were carried with a private and selfish spirit even the desire of private revenge and therefore Christ rebukes them as not minding with what spirit they were moved which hinders not but that a publique Magistrate ex zelo justitiae with a publique spirit out of zeal of justice may inflict some proportionable civil penalties on Christians who are his subjects for some offences in spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes But say the Petitioners 2. If any men under heaven have had any such power in the dayes of the Gospel the Apostles and Elders in the Primitive times must needs have had it but this they disowned The Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 1. 24. saith thus Not for that we have dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy for by faith you stand yea the Lord Jesus when they strove for Domination forbids it saying ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great do exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so amongst you Mat. 20. 25 26. even so saith Peter speaking to the Elders Feed the flock of God which is amongst you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind neither as being Lords over Gods heritage but being examples to the flock 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. And in truth the Apostles and disciples were not to use any external force to carry on their masters work but only by shewing the terrours of the Lord were to perswade men and in case of resistance to shake the dust from their feet as a witness against their opposers Answ 1. To have dominion over our faith that is to appoint authoritatively what we shall believe what not so as that if we believe not we sin against God and are liable to his wrath is peculiar to Christ the great Prophet of the Church Acts 3. 22 23. To the Apostles themselves Christ said Mat. 23. 10. Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Neither the Pope nor any Council of Bishops or Elders much less Kings and Parliaments who take not upon them to be teachers in the Church can prescribe to us our Creed or form of Worship of God any otherwise then Christ and his Apostles from him have delivered them to us Nor doth the Oath of Supremacy ascribe to them such power and authority but it hath been disclaimed as is before shewed Nevertheless Princes may require those under their Dominions to worship God in Christ according to the plain direction of the Scriptures of the new Testament and if they set up idols blaspheme the God of heaven c. may inflict civil punishment they may forbid and punish the teaching of some doctrines tending to the reproach of Religion destructive of Christianity of Civil Government provided they be very wary that they do not judge by any other then the plain declarations of the holy Scripture and not by the authority of any Councils or Fathers sith as it is in the 21. Article of the Church of England General Councils have erred and may erre in things pertaining to God and the punishment be so proportioned and qualified as may agree with justice equity prudence clemency and other vertues requisite in them that rule over others Nor 〈◊〉 that which is here alledged of validity to disprove it For 1. It is not rightly supposed that Princes have not in the days of the Gospel a power in matters of Religion which the Apostles and Elders in the Primitive times had not The contrary is proved in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of Supremacy in the confirmation of the 4th and 5th Propositions The Apostles and Elders as messengers of Christ and Pastors of the Church had their peculiar authority which Princes are not to usurp and Princes have their peculiar power and authority to which every soul is to be subject neither have dominion over our faith and however Popes claim it our Princes disclaim it 2. The Text Mat. 20. 25 26. is rightly urged by Protestants against the Popes usurpation as I shew in my Romanism discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. but not rightly urged against Christians being civil Magistrates nor against Princes being governors over all persons in their dominions in spiritual things That which is there forbidden is rule in the Apostles over one another after the manner of the Kings of the Nations 3. The Text 1 Pet. 5. 2
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE Serious consideration of the Oath of the KINGS Supremacy Published October 1660. IN First Some consideration OF THE Oath of Allegiance Secondly Vindicating of the consideration of the Oaths of the Kings Supremacy and Allegiance from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher Samuel Hodgkin and some others against them in the points of swearing in some case and the matters of those Oaths By John Tombes B. D. Mat. 22. 21. Render therefore to Caesar the things tbat are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods LONDON Printed by Henry Hills living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock To the Christian Readers I Need not tell you again what may be seen in my Epistle to the Readers before my book of the serious consideration of the oath of the Kings Supremacy how I was induced to compose and publish it conceiving it to be a work of charity to others and a necessary duty to my self as circumstances then concurred I have found not a little fruit of my labor therein by satisfying many that I know and more as I am told whom I know not of the lawfulness of taking such oaths as are therein asserted and thereby preventing the ruine of themselves and families though I find by the opposition of some that it hath proved an offence to others insomuch that I was told that I had thereby given occasion of the alienation of many hundreds from me of whose peace and welfare I was and still am very tender Besides what exceptions have been made in private conference which I have in such conferences endeavoured to remove Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher and some others have in print opposed that writing Richard Hubberthorn intitles his writing Antichristianism reproved as if my book had contained Antichristianism which is a term that affrights many weak Christians and is therefore by those that craftily endeavour to uphold and further divisions put upon those actions doctrines and writings which they would scare less discerning souls from and so separate them from others and fasten them to their party though it be for the most part but a frivolous imputation and a gross calumny Antichristianism according to the Apostle John who only of all the holy Writers useth the term Antichrist being a greater matter then some errors or evil in some points of practice to wit a denial of the father and the son 1 John 2. 22 23. not confessing Jesus Christ come in the flesh 1 John 4. 3 4. 2 John 7. of which sort my defending the lawfulness of some swearing is not And to omit his nonsense in saying the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is justified against swearing meaning my doctrine of swearing where he saith that it is there proved according to the Scriptures that all my six Propositions for the lawfulness of swearing are both against Christ and his Apostles doctrine It must needs be false sith he hath not brought any Scriptures against the three last Propositions As for his Epistle to me that which he insinuates by his expostulations with me of dividing my self from mine own people of teaching people to swear first one way and then another of my being long a hiding my self under so many false covers is the foam and froth of his railing spirit of which he and others of the Quakers seem by their frequent venting reproaches unjust censurings and revilings to have gotten an habit and are more like Antichristianism then any of my doctrines who preach not up that which Christ and his Apostles deny but endeavour to clear their words from mistake Nor was my writing indigested as if God did not brook it though I confessed in respect of the composure of it there was want of such accurate digesting that is framing in respect of words method and matter as the thing required by reason of my shortness of time and yet there was no cause for Samuel Fisher to term it a toy as he doth in the margin of his Epistle to the Reader before his impetuous though impotent book intitled the Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies so terming Dr. Owen Mr. Danson Mr. Richard Baxter and my self I confess I had an intention and began to draw up a writing to that purpose to publish a fuller Treatise about swearing having in Catechetical Lectures somewhat largely handled the general nature of an Oath the several forms and rites of swearing the lawfulness of swearing the sorts of Oaths the rules obligation urging dispensation of Oaths But my late continual molestations imprisonment restraint from my Ministery in the place where I was seated thirty years before and the uncertainty of my dwelling have hindred me from prosecuting thereof and other works which I hoped to accomplish for publique good nor am I yet secured from the like molestation and uncertainties and therefore know not what I shall do or resolve to do therein Wherefore I have being requested thereto published this little Supplement whereby my aim is to benefit others though I find as I have always done the cleering of truth in this to have occasioned many hard censures of me and much injury to me which the Lord forgive Yet I hope I shall truly say with the Apostle 2 Cor. 12. 15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you though the more I love you the less I be loved As for those that find any benefit by my labors in this matter or any other I request them that they would return thanks to God for it and that all would in their prayers to God for me help me who am Their brother and servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES London March 6. 1660. The Oath of Obedience in the Act for discovery and repressing Popish Recusants 30. of Jac. c. 4. commonly called the Oath of ALLEGIANCE IAB doe truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King JAMES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the
39 40 41 42. and many more places which I then did not recite but shall now refer the Reader to some of them Mat. 5. 29 30. Mat. 6. 17 19. 25. 34. Mat. 7. 1. Mat. 10. 28. Mat. 23. 3 8 9. Luke 6. 30. John 6. 27. which with many more if they were understood without limitation would cross other Texts of holy Scripture and such truths as are undeniable and introduce such evils as are intolerable And that Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. is to be limited I proved it from the Angels and Pauls swearing and adjuring after that precept which shews they understood it with limitation and so are we to understand it and that it is to be limited as I there set down I proved from the words of the Text there and elsewhere Hereto R. H. speaketh thus Indeed it doth plainly appear that thou must of necessity either disprove Christs words or else deny thy own seeing they are contrary the one to the other so therefore thou saist that it was those oaths above mentioned that was forbidden by Christ and the Apostles and I shall shew it plainly that thou hast no necessity to limit Christs words to vain and prophane swearing but only that thou wouldst have thy words true and his false for Christs words in Mat. 5. do not intend such oaths for he speaks of the true oaths which was used among the Jews and such oaths as Christ told them they were to perform for it was not said in old time that they should perform vain light prophane unnecessary customary and passionate oaths but such as they were to perform betwixt the Lord and them and the solemn Vows and Covenants which they made in old time to their Kings and one to another the Christians now by the command of Christ was not to swear these oaths neither any oath true nor false To which I reply 'T is true Christ spake of true oaths to be performed to the Lord as the occasion of his precept did lead him to speak But it is true also that our Lord Christ forbids not such oaths universally nor as they were used in old time among the Jews and to their kings and one unto another but as the Pharisees and other teachers interpreted what was said to them of old time that what was said to them did bind no further then not to break their oaths but to perform them to the Lord otherwise they might swear as oft as they would and in what manner they pleased But this Christ denied and determines they might not swear frequently unnecessarily with such oaths as they used and conceits of the obligation of some and not others as the Text leads us to conceive and the reasons by me given prove the words are to be limited to which R. H. hath given no answer and therefore my answer and whole dispute stands good notwithstanding the opposition of R. H. and S. F. And for the insinuations of R. H. that this is preaching of the lawfulness of swearing or sinning against Christs command and that such teachers are given to change with every government and that they preach as the false prophets did for handfuls of barley and pieces of bread they are but a further continuation of his revilings it being no teaching against but expounding of Christs command nor have we changed our doctrine or principles with change of government but shewed subjection to the powers that be as Paul injoins Rom. 13. 1 2. Nor do we look at wages any otherwise then we are allowe nor conceive we are bound by any law of Christ or his Apostles to refuse or neglect more liberal maintenance be it by tithes or other pay assigned by law then that which is by meer alms or voluntary contribution which in most places is so scant that persons of worth are necessitated to live in a sordid manner or people are necessitated to take persons of little worth and thereby the Ministry is debased the people untaught or ill taught such ignorant and corrupt men as R. H. seems to be by his writing creep in among men and pervert them That which R. H. saith the Jews sware by the living God but the Apostates by the book insinuates as if such were apostates as swear thus and that they swear by the book and not by the living God But neither doth he prove that they who teach the lawfulness of some swearing are apostates from Christianity any more then holy Paul who hath left upon record in holy Scripture his oaths after he was an Apostle nor is this form of swearing So help me God and by the Contents of this book any other then swearing by the living God made known in that book and pawning our interest in his help according to the doctrine and promises in that book expressed by laying the hand on the book as formerly by coming before the altar 1 Kings 8. 31. 2 Chron. 6. 22. as a sign of our abandoning our interest in Gods help made known in that book if we speak not truth I find in an humble petition of some prisoners in Maidston dated January 25. that they cannot acknowledge any authority that God hath given the King in spiritual things or causes and they thus argue If thou hast any power to be a Lord over our faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on our consciences it is given unto thee as thou art a Magistrate or as thou art a Christian but thou hast no such power given unto thee of God as thou art a Magistrate appears 1. Because if Magistrates as such have such an authority then all Magistrates in all Nations have the same power In Turky I must be a Mahometan in Spain a Papist and for ever as the authority changes Religion I must do the same 2. Because the Apostles refused to be obedient to their rulers when they were commanded to forbear that which they judged part of the worship of God Acts 4. 19. Acts 5. 29. 3. All the Scriptures of the new Testament that injoyns obedience unto Magistrutes were written when the Romans had the Empire of the world whose Emperours were for the most part if not all heathenish idolaters for the first 300 years until Constantine 's time it therefore cannot be supposed that any of these Texts of Scripture that calls for obedience to Magistrates intends an obedience in matters of faith or worship for then the Christians that lived under those Emperours must needs have denied Christ and worshipped the Roman gods as some of the Emperours commanded Answ Though in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy there is that said which might have prevented this objection yet being willing to clear the truth more fully I say 1. That it is not rightly supposed That by outward force any thing in the worship of God may be imposed on mens consciences For though by outward force things may be imposed on the outward man and
Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples would never by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine for when the disciples of Christ supposing they might use violence as under the law would have commanded fire to come from heaven as Elias did to consume them that would not receive them Christ turned and rebuked saying ye know not what spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Answ To be Governor in things and causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical is ascribed to the King as King and not as a Christian for a Christian as a Christian hath not the Government of any others besides himself in any causes and he is Governor in Ecclesiastical causes as well as temporal But he is not governor in temporal things as a Christian but as a King although it is true that a Christian is better fitted to govern in both causes in that he is a Christian his Christianity by framing his spirit to wisedom justice clemency c. producing more aptitude to govern though not more authority and therefore were there not in this part of the Petition sundry mistakes by which those Petitioners incommodate and harm themselves and others and there seems to be some reflection on my book of the Serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy I should let this pass But for these reasons I shall a little examine what is said 1. The mistake is continued as if by acknowledging the King supreme Governor in spiritual things he had a power given him to be Lord over anothers faith which were indeed to ascribe that to the King which the Pope takes on him to determine what a Christian is to believe which Hart the Jesuite imagined was given to the King by that Oath but was rectified therein by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 10. 2. If by imposing by outward force any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing on the conscience the same mistake is continued which I have before discovered But if by outward force imposing any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing by civil penalties on the outward man something in Gods worship there is need of much caution to determine of their power Civil penalties are greater as death banishment mutilation imprisonment spoiling of estate liberty of trade c. Or less as some small diminution of priviledges office c. The things imposed on men may be either the commands or plain institutions of Christ or some things devised by men as Councils Fathers Prelates c. And these impositions may be either in circumstances of time place order which are undetermined by Christ or in such points of doctrine or worship as are of greater moment and determined by Christ The impositions may be such as are termed by the Apostle hay and stubble or such as overthrow the foundation which is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. such as are impositions tending to Idolatry Superstition Profaneness heresies of perdition blasphemy The imposition may be on Teachers or Learners stronger or weaker Christians to be subscribed to or taught or to be conformed to or professed and this to be done either by bare presence which infers no consent or by some act which shews consent It cannot be denied but that Kings by reason of their errour and rigour have very sadly miscarried in their impositions on Christian brethren in matters of faith and worship there having been many mistakes in the best Councils Fathers Prelates and learned men since the Apostles days who have seldome been so equal as to permit those they have been prejudiced against to debate freely and fully what they hold nor are they heard with that equanimity which were requisite And therefore Princes Parliaments Republiques have made many hard Laws and done innumerable unrighteous executions to shedding of much innocent blood and most heavy oppressions of men either guiltless or not deserving such severe penalties as they have indured I think Kings and Parliaments who see not much with their own eyes but are fain to use the judgements of Learned men and Prelates who are often partial through prejudice or interest or not studied in the points about which they advice do often stand in a very slippery place and that Law-makers and Officers of justice have need of very much circumspection and tenderness ere they make penal Laws in matter of Religion that they should not make heresie by the determinations of any Councils since the Apostles days nor urge subscriptions and conformity under civil penalties but in things plainly set down in holy Scripture that so much liberty to dissents and different usages should be given as may stand with peace Yet that Kings should use no civil penalties on men for any disorders or errours in any matters of saith or worship of God I am not yet convinced by any thing I have read much less by the Arguments of these Petitioners Not by the first For a King may do that which our Lord Christ in his state of humiliation would not do He would not divide an inheritance among brethren Luke 12. 13 14. and yet a king may do it For though Christ was King in right yet he refused at that time to take upon him or to execute the office of a King but took upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2. 7. And therefore a King on his throne is not debarred from doing that which Christ would not do in his debasement And yet even then the Lord Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple and overthrew the tables of the money-changers John 2. 15 16. Mat. 21. 12. I will not now dispute whether Christ did this jure zelotarum by the right that Zelots of the Law among the Jews claimed to themselves or jure Regio by the right of a King under which notion acclamation was made to him when he rode on an Ass into Jerusalem Luke 19. 38. after which he did expel the buyers and sellers out of the Temple ver 45. nor whether this be a good proof for Magistrates to intermeddle in matters of Religion as it hath been argued by Mr. Cobbet of New England It is sufficient for my present purpose that the alledging of Christs example by these Petitioners is so far from making against the Kings power in Ecclesiastical causes that it rather makes for it Nor is it against the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical that the Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples never would by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine For besides what is already said of Christs example there is a great difference to be made between professed infidels and disorderly Christians between planting of the Gospel at first and resorming Christians who have in shew received it there may be reason to do the latter by civil penalties though not the former though men are not to be
said King his heirs or successors or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his heirs and successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his heirs and successors all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministred unto me and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And I do make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily willingly and truly upon the true faith of a Christian So help me God The words of King JAMES in his Apology for the Oath of ALLEGIANCE p. 46 c. in his answer to Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter AS the Oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a difference between Papists and them of our profession so was this Oath of Allegiance which Bellarmine would seem to impugn ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and the perverse disciples of the Powder-treason In King Henry the eighths time was the Oath of Supremacy first made by him were Thomas Moor and Roffensis put to death partly for refusing of it From his time till now have all the Princes of this Land professing this Religion successively in effect maintained the same and in that Oath only is contained the Kings absolute power to be judge over all persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrein powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions Whereas this last made Oath containeth no such matter only medling with the civil obedience of subjects to their Soveraign in meer temporal causes And that the injustice as well as the errour of Bellarmine's gross mistaking in this point may yet be more clearly discovered I have also thought good to insert here immediately after the Oath of Supremacy the contrary conclusions to all the Points and Articles whereof this other late Oath doth consist whereby it may appear what unreasonable and rebellious points he would drive my subjects unto by refusing the whole body of that Oath as it is conceived For he that shall refuse to take this Oath must of necessity hold all or some of these Propositions following 1. That I King James am not the lawful King of this Kingdom and of all other my Dominions 2. That the Pope by his own authority may depose me If not by his own authority yet by some other authority of the Church or of the See of Rome If not by some other authority of the Church and See of Rome yet by other means with others help he may depose me 3. That the Pope may dispose of my Kingdoms and Dominions 4. That the Pope may give authority to some forrein Prince to invade my Dominions 5. That the Pope may discharge my subjects of their obedience and allegiance to me 6. That the Pope may give licence to one or more of my subjects to bear arms against me 7. That the Pope may give leave to my subjects to offer violence to my person or to my Government or to some of my subjects 8. That if the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose me my subjects are not to bear faith and allegiance to me 9. If the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose me my subjects are not bound to defend with all their power my Person and Crown 10. If the Pope shall give out any sentence of excommunication or deprivation against me my subjects by reason of that sentence are not bound to reveal all conspiracies and treasons against me which shall come to their hearing and knowledge 11. That it is not heretical and detestable to hold that Princes being excommunicated by the Pope may be either deposed or killed by their subjects or any other 12. That the Pope hath power to absolve my subjects from this Oath or from some part thereof 13. That this Oath is not administred to my subjects by a full and lawful authority 14. That this Oath is to be taken with equivocation mental evasion or secret reservation and not with the heart and good will sincerely in the faith of a Christian man These are the true and natural branches of the body of this Oath In the book intitled God and the King imprinted at London 1615. by King James his special priviledge and command p. 27. is thus said The matter or main subject of this Oath which is the principal thing whereof I conceive you desire to have a more distinct and full understanding may to this purpose be resolved into these ensuing assertions 1. Our Soveraign Lord King James is the lawful King of this Kingdom and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries 2. The Pope neither by his own authority nor by any other authority of the Church or of the See of Rome nor by any other means with any others help can depose his Majesty 3. The Pope cannot dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdoms and Dominions 4. The Pope cannot give authority to any forraign Prince to invade his Dominions 5. The Pope cannot discharge his subjects of their allegiance unto his majesty 6. The Pope cannot give licence to one or more of his subjects to bear arms against him 7. The Pope cannot give leave to any of his subjects to offer violence unto his Royal person or to his Government or to any of his Majesties subjects 8. Although the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose his Majesty or absolve his subjects from their obedience notwithstanding they are to bear faith and true allegiance unto his Majesty 9. If the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose his Majesty nevertheless his subjects are bound to defend his Person and Crown against all attempts and conspiracies whatsoever 10. If the Pope shall give out any sentence of excommunication or deprivation against his Majesty notwithstanding his subjects are bound to reveal all conspiracies and treasons against his Majesty which shall come to
their hearing and knowledge 11. It is heretical and detestable to hold That Princes being excommunicate by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other 12. The Pope hath not power to absolve his Majesties subjects from their oath of allegiance or any part thereof When Cardinal Bellarmine disguised under the name of Matthaeus Tortus as his Chaplain took upon him to reply to King James his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance and would have it believed that by that Oath was intended the denying the Popes Ecclesiastical power which he claims and is with Papists an Article of their Faith Lancelot Andrews then Bishop of Chichester after of Ely and Winchester then very eminent for his learning and repute at Court answers him in his book intitled Tortura Torti in words in Latin which I have Englished thus Art thou well in thy wits who babblest these things That thou an Italian ignorant of our language shouldst understand the Oath that the Author who is skilled in the language as being his own native proper should not understand it Whence art thou to us a new interpreter of Laws yea whence art thou an interpreter of our Laws which thou didst not make It belongs verily to them to interpret to whom it belongs to make Laws yet I say not that only but this also Is there for this reason any mortal man that understands the intention of the Law and the Law-maker himself for the same person was author of the Law and of the book nor wast thou ignorant of this the Law-maker I say himself should not understand his intention concerning his Law Thou wilt never bring it to pass that he should be ignorant of that which he himself would to himself when he made the Law when he made the Oath He is best privy to his own intention But his intention was that he might be secure of the fidelity and constancy of his own subjects yea this was his only intention no other man knows this for the hearts of men he knows not only he who hath known the Law knows what he requires in his Law King James in his Catalogue of Tortus lies at the end of his premonition to all Christian Princes saith The Puritans do not decline the Oath of Supremacy but do daily take it neither ever refused it And the same Supremacy is defended by Calvin himself Instit lib. 4. cap. 20. Bishop Andrews in the book forenamed p. 110. The Puritans of their own accord take the Oath of Supremacy and have often professed and that in books published by themselves that this is a meer calumny that they abhor the Oath of Supremacy neither did they ever decline that Oath But if there were at any time any scraple in them it was about the term it was not about the thing The head of the Church sith it is said of Christ seemed to them a higher title then that it might be given to any mortal man so for a while they stuck at the giving that title now they stick not Concerning the thing it self concerning the Kingly authority they have always fully professed Quakers do inveigh against my book intitled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy because it defends the lawfulness of some swearing yet Samuel Fisher in his book intitled The Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies Exercit. 1. chap. 3. p. 48. saith I should God knows please my self much more to sit down in silence p. 61. I affirm here before God and all men and the humble petition of some called Anabaptists prisoners in Maidstone dated January 25. saith thus Yet God is our witness who is the searcher of all hearts we deny not this Oath because we would not yield due subjection and obedience unto thee and thy authority for this we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and the dead we do without any deceit promise to live peaceably under thy Government and in case any thing should be by thee commanded in spiritual matters wherein we cannot obey we shall not then take up any carnal or temporal weapon against thee or thy authority but patiently suffer such punishment as shall be inflicted on us for our consciences But the using of these speeches God knowes I affirm before God God is our witness this we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and dead as an appeal to Gods contestation is plain swearing So that while these men and more of the same mind do speak against all swearing they indeed practice some swearing And those of Maidstone who offer an engagement taken before some Justice of the Peace in a solemn manner with calling God to witness of the truth of what they say do offer to swear or take an oath The lawfulness of which and particularly the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and my writing about the former I shall now endeavour to vindicate from the writings and sayings against them which have occurred to me Richard Hubberthorn having recited my first Argument for my first Proposition thus That is not wholly evil about the use of which some directions are given by God but God giveth directions about the use of swearing Jer. 4. 2. Ergo Answers By the same argument may it as well be proved that the Christians and believers in Christ may be circumcised offer incense burnt offerings and sacrifices because for the use of it God gave some directions and therefore it is lawful But as circumcision incense burnt offerings and sacrifices of the law is ended in Christ so is the oath which was among the Jews in him ended also to the believers and by him forbidden for as it was said in old time thou shalt swear and shalt perform thy oath to the Lord but Christ in the 5. of Mat. making mention of the Jews oath which God gave once direction for yet saith Swear not at all Here Christ puts an end not only to frivolous vain oaths but to the true oaths which the Jews was once commanded of God to swear for these oaths are they which Christs words hath relation to for he came to end the Jews worships and oaths who is the oath of God Christ the truth and righteousness of God saith Swear not at all which ends the Jewes which was to swear in truth and righteousness To which I reply Had not Samuel Fisher told me in the place forementioned that my book is answered by Richard Hubberthorn I should not have thought it worth while to reply to it there being in it so much defect of sense and reason as makes it inconsiderable But sith he mentions my book as scarce worth any further answer then that of Hubberthorn it seems he esteems it of some moment And therefore I say that 1. Richard Hubberthorn leaves out of the proof of my minor as in the third Commandment which is undoubtedly moral which words shew that I mean my major proposition of moral actions 2. He