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
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
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
s Preamble speaks only of such a Power of the Pope as was by reason of its Opposition to the Prerogatives of the Crown by Catholick Kings taken from him and restor'd to the Crown And of such a one as he exercis'd with great Damage to the Nation in Causes of Appeals in several Cases and for Remedy of this Damage it is enacted That he shall have this Power of being a Judge in those Causes no longer And if it be said that in this Preamble he is spoke of at least once as a Preacher when it is said that the Clergy of this Realm were alwayes able to Judge of God's Law without him I answer This invalidates not the Argument for it is Founded in this that where any Power is deny'd him all there spoken of is Temporal VVhence is infer'd that all deny'd him is Temporal Now it is not there said the Pope cannot or shall not Judge what is God's Law when a Question may rise in England about some Point as a Preacher or one skillful in God's Law But that the Clergy is able to do it without him And thence he seems to infer that 't is needless to appeal out of this Realm to know of him what is the Law of God if there should chance to be any doubt in case of Matrimony or Divorce for Example And it being a needless thing to appeal to him even as a Preacher and inconvenient to appeal to him as a Judge commands this not to be done And thus no Power was deny'd him where he was spoke of as a Preacher but only where he is spoken of as a Judge in those Causes as far as they depend on Human Laws Next the Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 20. speaks of no Power taken away but the Power of exacting Annats and First-Fruits and of Electing of Bishops which having accrew'd to him by time could not be Divine or Supernatural Power that is Power deriv'd to him or confer'd upon him Jure Divino 15. The Statute in the 25 K. H. 8. cap. 19. excludes perchance his as well as our Clergie's Power of continuing old Canon-Laws or making new Ones without the King's Approbation And the Power of making such Laws is grounded only on Human Reason shewing the Things prescribed to be convenient Of which Conveniency our Clergy and also Layity as knowing it best by living here where a thing may be Inconvenient that else-where is Convenient and not the Pope ought to be Judge VVhich is the Reason why Laws even of General Councils do not Oblige except where they are Receiv'd Hence not so much as a Just Human Authority is here taken from the Pope 16. But if it be here upon this Occasion ask'd VVhether the Clergy and Layity could in Reason and good Conscience renounce their Human Power to continue all such old Canons which the King should not approve of when as they being more in Number and more likely to be in the Right than he might judge either an Old or New Canon convenient which he might think to be inconvenient And hence whether the King in Reason and good Conscience could then and now by this Act 's being Revived and giving this same Power to the King take and keep the Power of Repealing all such Canons as he should please And consequently whether we can with a good Conscience Swear as we do in the later part of the Oath to defend this his Power if Conscientiously possest by him I answer That I believe they did according to Reason and Conscience in rather choosing the little Harm that might be in the Repealing of some good Old Canons than the great One that might proceed not only from the King's Displeasure but either from the Continuance of many former bad Canons or the Enacting of as bad New Ones or upon such other account upon which a Man may now after it is made Law upon the same or a better Motive continue to consent to the Continuation of what they did Likewise the King might as reasonably take upon him that a Law may not be continued which he dislikes as that a Bill which both Houses like may not be a Law except he likes it or as that a Law which he likes shall not be discontinu'd though both Houses that are more dislike it And this is for Publick order sake 17. The Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 21. speaks of no Power to be taken away but Power of dispensing in the King's Laws to the Prejudice of the Crown and impoverishing of the Subjects which Power must be of the same Nature as the Laws dispensed with 18. The last reviv'd Statute that takes any thing away is in the 28 K. H. 8. cap. 16. and it takes away only Power of giving Licences in abundance of Human Cases and among the rest the Power of putting Bishops into their Bishopricks and Priests into their Parishes and of giving them leave to do their Divine Offices VVhich though it may at first Sight look like Pastoral Power given him by Christ yet it is not For where-ever an Apostle dyed the People and Clergy of the Place had Power to choose themselves a Bishop and put him into his Bishoprick without the Pope's Consent And this Power they Exercis'd for many hundred Years all over Christendom according to the Antient Canons and Customs till partly under pretence of Respect to St. Peter's Successor but whether truly or only for that Reason is another Question it was by several Concordates between some Emperors Kings and Princes and States of Europe of one side and Popes on the other agreed There should be no Bishops allowed in their Territories but whom the Pope or Bishop of Rome should approve of Hence the Power which the Pope had that a Bishop could not or should not be put in without his Consent he got by Human Agreement and only this Power was taken here away For it is not said here that the Pope cannot or shall not perswade People to chuse themselves a Bishop that he sees want one or perswade a Bishop who hath Authority from Christ to do it to go and preach to People that want him which may belong to the Care our Saviour gave him over the Church but that they having a mind to have Bishops will have them of their own choosing and putting in and not of the Pope's as was of former Times practis'd And that this is their Sense is evident out of the History of what the Pope did before that time and of what they themselves did and hinder'd him to do afterwards Or it may be said in short that as they saw it not necessary by God's Law that the Pope should choose and give them a Bishop who were ready to do it themselves so they thought it not convenient he should and thence made a Law that he should not The Law not saying that he could not nor should not send them a Bishop in case of necessity in which case he hath Power from
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