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
of business is talking of a Material action or consideration He would be thought strangely to rove who should fancy Material there signifyed as among Metaphysicians The frequency of such cases made it necessary that People might understand one another to settle a Rule for the understanding of words and establish this maxime that they be alwayes understood Secundum subjectam Materiam as they phrase it according to the subject of which they speak I cannot tell whether this Rule have alwayes been remembred in the case of this Oath but doubt that who forgets it any where hazards to perplex himself into inextricable confusion Section I. Of the Affirmative Clause of the OATH 1. THis premised I come to the Oath which consists Principally of two Clauses One Affirmative the other Negative according to which the rest which have any shew of difficulty are to be understood The Affirmative acknowledges the King to be the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and the rest of his dominions as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal By this clause it was apprehended not only by Catholicks but others too that the King was invested with Power to do all that a Supreme purely Spiritual Governour could do Preach Confer Orders Administer the Sacraments c. Which as it is evidently false so 't is evident likewise that 't is not the meaning of the Clause 2. For First the Oath being enjoyned by Law for the acknowledgment of what was re-setled by Law in the King it's words must bear the sense they use to do in Law-Language and Law-Books which according to what has been said before is that the King is Supreme Governour of this Realm So that who ever hath any share in the Government of it be he Spiritual or Temporal Man hath it from and under the King 3. Secondly These words being in two Acts of Parliament whose declared sense is to restore what was due to the Crown ought so to be understood as to acknowledg all and no more in the King then those two Acts either in themselves or in those of King Henry the Eighth revived by them restored to him since no more at most and perchance not all of them are ordered to the making and consequently sense of this Oath Now what was restored by these every diligent Reader of them will find to be only what may without injury to Gods Law be possess'd by the King 4. For to begin with King Henry the Eighth in the first of them viz. Stat. 23. H. 8. C. 9. He only claims or exercises the Power of ordering where citations belonging to Spiritual Courts of this Realm shall be made which may be seen to be evidently his due In the Second 24 K. H. 8th C. 12. he takes Power only to order that no appeals in matters of Wills Marriages Divorces Tithes Oblations and Obventions shall be made out of this Realm alleadging for reason that as to the Temporal part of them they belong to the Imperial Crown and as to what in them may concern the Law of God to the Clergy of this Realm as being of parts fit for it to whom he expresly leaves this part not assuming it to himself 5. In the 3d. Stat. 25. C. 20. He uses the Power to restrain the payment of Annats and first-Fruits to Rome to which Temporal Power extends and with his Bishops in Parliament orders how others are to be elected and consecrated by them which Catholick Kings use to do 6. In the 4th 25. C. 9. The Power which he exercises is that no new Canon-Laws shall be made or old ones stand without his approbation Which he may have as a Knowing Man they being things of human institution nay as a Prince he ought to have since 't is known that Canon Laws do often clash with the Laws of the Realm Though if he abuses this Power by hindering good Laws and unprejudicial to the State He is to answer for that though to God alone 7. In the 5th 25. K. H. c. 21. He takes Power to hinder Paying of Money to Rome to hinder the Pope from Dispensing in Human Spiritual Laws to dispense in them Himself by his Bishops and with his Parliament to annul them All which certainly he may do as King And that he intended here to do no more than he might do appears by a Proviso of this Act revived by Q. E. and afterwards to be Cited 8. In the 6th 26. C. 14. He only assigns Suffragans by consent of Bishops in Parliament Which Assignment is a thing of Human Institution and as it depends on the Law of the Land may proceed from him And if it be said by any That since Christ gave his Apostles Power to Preach where they should please and think fit and so that they have from Christ Power independent of any Law of the Land as in times of Heathen Emperors to agree among themselves what Territories every one shall have to do his Duty in which the King cannot take from them as he may seem here to do 'T is reply'd That They may agree among themselves to have what Territories the Law or King shall assign them And thus at least the King may without Injury because with their Consents assign them Diocess's as well as the Legislators in England and in Forreign Countries divide one Parish into two or compound two into one as occasion invites without the least Danger apprehended of violating Faith or to speak more properly transgressing any Divine Institution And that it was done with their Consents is evident because here They did agree to it in Parliament Or it may be said That They themselves in Parliament did this And the Laity agreed with them to make it the Law of the Land 9. In the 7th 28. C. 16. He takes Power to give those Temporal Gifts which the Pope formerly gave to put Bishops into their Bishopricks Curates into their Cures as Catholick Princes now do and to give them leave to do their Duties not as to the purely Spiritual Intrinsical Power in common but as to some Circumstances belonging to the Exercise of it and commodious for the Subject So as they should have it from Parliaments and not from Rome Which he might lawfully do as is just now explicated and also make a Law they should not have it from Rome it being not necessary They should They having Power from Christ to Preach every where till they limited their Territories by their own Consent and here dissent from doing it at the Pope's Pleasure 10. In the 8th He takes Power to make a Civil Law as to Degrees of Marriages And if as he did this he judg'd what was of Faith in the Case he did it not as sent by Christ but as a Schollar Authoriz'd by Law which he may also do or as pre-inform'd by his Bishops In the 9th and last He only makes a Civil Order concerning the Marriage of Doctors of the Civil Law 11. The
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
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
or purely Spiritual Power of the Keys not being excluded shew to me far better than any I find them bring to prove the contrary And it is most likely they brought the best Reasons they had as they use to do in other Matters But though they had better than they did produce and also better than these I have produc'd yet since I know not that they had them and also think it most likely they had them not it is all one to me who being able to consider Reasons on both sides may act according to the best Reason I can get it being unreasonable for a Man that can judg of Reason to be guided by other Men's Judgments farther than they have or which is all one produce Reason The Supposal of which in them shewing them the way is the only Reason why others should be guided by them For why should one be guided by another that knows the way no better than he and in our Case worse Moreover the adhering to Predecessors Opinions what ever Reason there be against them is a certain way for the World never to get out of any Error unless our Fore-Fathers be suppos'd to be alwayes Infallible the Contrary to which frequent Experience has shewn So that this Argument of blindly following our Fore-Fathers in Things subject to Reason which seem'd so Plausible at first will be found when well look't into of a most pernicious Consequence 12. Neither is the leaving of their Judgment in this particular the leaving of their Faith For unless we will wrong them by making them hold for Faith what was not Faith they could hold nothing of Faith but what was taught or rather in this case given by Christ And so much we hold as well as they and conceive the Oath does not at all touch it In this indeed we may differ from them who might think it does But whether such words mean so or so is far from a question of Faith T is at most a difference in Opinion about the meaning of a Law such a difference as every body has almost with every body and which if it were not unblamable there would be no living without blame in the world where there always has and always will be as many Opinions as heads If we be in the right as the reasons alledged perswade us we are nothing can be more preposterously alledged against us then their Example For they followed the dictates of their Conscience and we should go against ours They had indeed renounc't their Faith if they had taken the Oath in Case they were perswaded though untruly that it did deny their Faith we cannot renounce Faith by taking the Oath while we are perswaded it meddles not with Faith no though our perswasion should happen to be false but we should plainly refuse to do our duty which we think the Oath only requires In short they did well and we should do ill 13. But perchance they and we may not differ even in this Opinion For it doth not follow They deny'd the Oath therefore they thought the Oath denyed Faith For they might think the Oath deny'd some other truth or Probability which they thought they could not and so would not forswear For Example they might think it true or probable that the Queen was not Temporal Governour in Spiritual or mixt Causes and over Ecclesiastical Persons because they might think it true or probable that these Causes and Persons were exempted Jure Divino from Secular Jurisdiction and did belong to the Pope as many do at this Day and others might think the Pope had a direct or indirect Temporal Power to depose the King either by Divine Right of Quodcumque ligaveris c. or by the Title of King John's Donation c. And hence could not swear they thought no such thing But hence arises 14. A Seventh Scruple How one may lawfully swear these things are false which one doth not know to be so And how can any know them to be so when he sees great Scholars hold the contrary For a full Answer to this I remit the Reader to the Answer to the Jesuits Loyalty and the Second Treatise of it In short I reply That of those who held these Things to be False some think they certainly knew them to be so and these certainly may swear they are so Others hold them to be so but are Conscious to themselves that they hold this upon Reasons only more probable than are brought for the other side and though these may not lawfully swear they are false yet they may swear that they are so in their Judgment or Conscience because that they are so in their Judgment is certainly true And this is all the Oath doth or can reasonably require of the Generality of those unto whom it is offer'd they being able to say and swear what they hold in these Questions and not able to say or swear they certainly know what they hold to be true And this is sufficient for securing Allegiance since People use not to act contrary to what they hold though they hold it upon probable Reasons only On the other side those that are certainly or probably perswaded they are true cannot swear they are so much as in their Judgment or Conscience false and so cannot take this Oath But I judge they may find Reason enough to alter their Judgment if they read late Authors upon this Subject to whom I remit them 15. And in this case we make a Schism as some are pleased to call it to fright Timorous Consciences which are us'd to abhor the horrible Sin which that word most commonly signifies or Division only in Opinion which is certainly known and confessed to be in other Cases lawful And I hope they will not argue that those who leave their Opinions will also leave their Faith there being no Consequence from one to the other All the Schools that is in a manner all the Teaching Part of the Church make Schisms daily and are divided from one another in this Sense and which is more are never likely to leave this kind of Schismatizing and return to an Union or rather 't is impossible they should For how can it be expected that in Things depending on Opinions Men's Fancies Tempers Education c. their Judgment should light to be the same Neither do we condemn our Pious Ancestors as some object but applaud their Fortitude who choose rather to die than to swear a thing which they thought either false or opposite if not to Catholick Faith at least to Truth What we condemn is only their Opinions and this upon better Reasons against them than they brought for them And who can condemn us for this or look upon us the worse for receding from them upon such Terms as every good Man is bound to recede from his former self 16. An Eighth Objection is That be it how it will whether former Catholicks since Queen Elizabeth's Days had reason to do what
might have been intended by the Makers of it to deny the Pope's purely Spiritual Power of the Keys even in any Case or Contingency in England and other his Majesties Dominions though we have shewn this to be altogether improbable and hence peradventure they do actually deny it who take this Oath But I answer That notwithstanding what Possibility of Truth soever there be in the Antecedent there is no danger at all of the Consequent For I am as certain as that I live and know my own Thoughts that I understand the Words in a Sense not opposite either to Catholick Faith or to any Truth whatsoever Next I am certain I take the Oath in that Sense only in which I understand it And hence I am certain likewise that I deny not my Christian Faith or any other Truth Only I may perchance have some small Doubt as I may have of the Words of many Publick Oaths in the World which are notwithstanding generally held to be lawfully taken whether the Sense I take them in be meant by Law But however this Matter be or whether I doubt or not doubt in any manner at all sure I am I do not swear this doubtful thing to wit than my Sense of them is given by Law but only acknowledge upon Oath that the Sense I have of them is in or according to my judgment True 20. And hence I am induc'd to believe if these Reasons should help to effect a general Perswasion that the Oath means not to exclude the Pope's or other Forreign Prelates Pastoral Power in all Contingencies that then after such a general Perswasion the Oath may be lawfully and freely taken In the mean time because no tenderness can be too great in such matters to avoid giving Offence to any whether of our own or of a different Communion who if they understand the Oath otherwise will be apt to judge according to their own Apprehension that to take the Oath is to renounce the Religion which the Taker professeth I conceive it advisable that who takes it declare plainly before-hand in what Sense he understands it viz. that he takes it not in the most large Sense of the Words which might seem to some to deny his Religion but only in that Sense which to the best of his Judgment is assign'd it by Law or in that Sense in which Learned Protestants allow'd and approv'd by Publick Authority have expounded it and understood it to be the Law-Sense of it or that he understands the Power meant by the Law to be acknowledg'd in the King is the Power of the Sword not of the Keys Likewise that the Keys are not deny'd to the Pope or other Forreign Prelate but the Sword Or rather because the Power of the Keys has been stretch't by some to Temporals to the disposing even of Kingdoms and such like Exorbitancies which have not only been claim'd but practis'd and the Power to do them all the while call'd the Power of the Keys it were fit to make this Declaration in words not liable to Exception For which I know none more proper than those before mention'd of the Arch Bishop of Armagh that the King only has the Supreme External Coactive Jurisdiction or Power of the Sword within his Dominions over all Persons and in all Things or Causes and that no Forreign Prelate either has or ought to have any Part thereof and that he understands the Oath so and no otherwise and so takes it By this means he will deal uprightly and candidly and unblameably before God and Man and without any Shadow of Offence or Scandal whether to Protestants or Catholicks Conclusion 1. HAving been longer than I intended I conceive it not amiss to take a short view of what has been said at parting The whole in Truth lies in a narrow compass who refuses the Oath for what concerns the Pope must either think that his Pastoral Power is deny'd by it or that what without question is deny'd viz That External Coercive Judiciary Power which he has in some other Princes Dominions and heretofore had here is so his right that it can by no Humane Power be taken away There is no more in the Case For as to what relates to the King I take it to be very clear 2. As for the First the expressions of the Oath are so general that who looks upon them as they lie there and judges according to their bare sound has reason to except against them so much reason that were they taken out and digested into Propositions to be considered and judged of purely by the import of the Terms perhaps there is not a Catholick in the World at least I believe there are but very few who would approve them In likelihood our Ancestors who refus'd the Oath lookt upon them no otherwise which I the rather believe because I see that many I think the most go no farther at this day And then 't is no wonder that They refus'd and These condemn it All Catholicks generally would refuse and condemn it too if they lookt upon it in the same manner 3. But who look upon the same expressions as part of an Oath contained in an Act and reflect that the Oath is declared to be for the better Observation and maintenance of that Act and therefore and in force of the general Rule of understanding words according to the matter spoken of ought to be understood only of what the Act speaks That all the Power of which the Act speaks is Power repugnant to the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown Power both Forreign and Usurped Power burthensome and intolerably chargeable to the Subject That this Limitation is not only in the Title and Preamble but in the very Branch which abolishes the Popes Power where the intent is particularly exprest to be that All usurped and forraign power be forever extinguish't That the Popes Pastoral Power if it may be called Forreign cannot be thought Usurped by a Christian who reads the Scripture and sees S. Peter and in him his Successor ' empower'd there and commanded by Christ to feed his Sheep That where a Law declares it's own intent 't is not for others to think it intended more or otherwise then as it declares That no more was extinguisht then was intended to be extinguisht with what else is said in the foregoing Papers may find reason to judge that the Meaning of the Words of the Oath is not altogether so large as their Sound and that all the Power deny'd there signifies no more than all the Power spoken of in the Act and therefore that Pastoral Power is not renounc't that which is renounc't being limited by the Act to Oppressive and Usurped and to Soveraignty-repugnant Power 4. Again who considers that the Oath Actually is understood in this manner by those of greatest note in the Church of England That Arch-Bishop Bramhall tells us Schism Guarded p. 311. That by this Act there is no forreign Power abolished but only