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
to hold or profess what the Acts deny'd the Pope But it was neither Prmunire nor Treason for a Lord or other in those dayes to profess himself a Catholick though it was punishable not to be at Common-Prayer which includes the holding and professing the Pope's Pastorall Power de jure as well as de facto Therefore it evidently was not this Pastorall Power de jure that was there deny'd 32. Having thus seen that neither the Words of the Oath nor the Acts to the Profession of whose Sense only the Oath is ordain'd deny the Pope's Pastorall Power let us in the last Place see whether the Explication given it by Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. cap. 1 denyes it For if this doth not nothing doth that concerns it and us Now this Act makes that to be the Sense of the Oath which the Queen gives it in her Admonition And sums up the Sense of the Admonition in short to be To confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority than that was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear Now since the whole Design here spoken of which is to be suppos'd all of it is the confessing of Power in the Queen the Negative Part is to be taken to signify no farther than to deny to another what is confess'd to be in the Queen else the whole Business of the Oath would not be Confessing of Power in her Whence evidently follows that they are not to be taken in a Sense exclusive of the Pope's Pastorall Power The Admonition it self is as follows An Admonition to Simple Men deceived by Malicious 33. The Queens Majesty being inform'd that in certain places of the Realm sundry of her Native Subjects being call'd to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church be by sinister Perswasion and perverse Construction induced to find some scruple in the form of an Oath which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be requir'd of divers Persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty which certainly never was ever meant nor by any Equity of words or good sense can be thereof gather'd would that all her loving Subjects should understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other duty Allegiance or bond required by the same Oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous Memory K. Henry the 8th Her Majesties Father or K. Edward the 6th Her Majesties Brother And farther her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her Subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving Subjects how by words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm Possessors of the Crown may challenge Authority and Power of Ministry of Divine service in the Church wherein her said Subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons for certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that was challeng'd and lately us'd by the said noble Kings of famous Memory K. Henry the 8th and K. Edward the 6th which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm That is under God to have the the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be SO AS no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of Penalties contain'd in the said Act against such as shall Peremptorily or Obstinately refuse to take the same Oath 34. That the Popes Pastoral or purely Spiritual Power is not deny'd in this Admonition may be collected from her saying there that the Oath was requir'd of certain Persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance and such as was in Ancient and so Catholick times due to the Crown For the Recognition of which no Exclusion need or ought to be made of that Power of the Pope which is no way Repugnant to it but so he use his Power as he ought and if he do not he is not to be obey'd a Commander of it Next from the words so as no forreign power c. shall or ought to have any Superiority over them First because the proper and common that is first sense of the words Power and Superiority is Temporal Next because Superiority is not joynd here to the Pope as Prelate but as forreign Power or Prince And therefore is by being apply'd to it determin'd to a civil sense and so are both of them determin'd to the same by being us'd in an explication of a Law and in in a matter of Allegiance and Soveraignty over all Persons 35. Lastly because the words SO AS must either retain their most proper sense and be an answer to the Great Question that caus'd this Admonition which was how she pretended to be Supream Governour in all causes Spiritual whether as a Queen or as an Administer of divine service in the Church which therefore seems to be a sense of those words directly belonging to her Purpose And then 't is evident that the following words can signify only Temporal Authority For if it be ask'd after what manner is the Queen Supream Governess whether after a Civil or Spiritual manner and it be answer'd after such a manner as no forreign power hath or ought to have any Superiority which is the same as if it had been answer'd after a civil manner since it was then known to all that no forreign power had a Superiority after a civil manner and as certainly known that the Pope had one de facto at least after a Spiritual manner It follows out of this Answer that she hath the Supreme Government after a Civil manner because 't is the same thing to say she hath the Supreme Rule after that manner as no Forreigner hath any as to say she hath it after a Civil Manner Of which Truth she endeavour'd to perswade simple deluded People 36. Or the words SO AS must mean the same as SO THAT And then we must either say the Pope's Pastoral power is not excluded by the words following or elss that no Coherent sense is in them For in case it be excluded the sense must be The Queen hath the whole Temporal rule over all persons so that no Forreigner hath power to Preach Christ's Doctrine or she is Queen so that no Forreigner is a Preacher or Pastor might not she as pertinently say she is Queen so that no French
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
Power Extraordinary or Delegate might still have pretended The Abolishing the Legantine might have left that Ex plenitudine Potestatis Annates had not taken away Appeals nor Appeals Habilitating to Inheritances c. Nor they Expectatives nor Reservatives nor Non Obstantes c. Had they gone that way to work whatsoever had not been expresly named would have been understood not comprehended and then a new Law or a new Oath must have been made for that and then another might have been found out and no end have ever been Wherefore to compass what they intended it was necessary to use a General Expression which they knew was to be understood as all Rules of Law and Language require it should of the matter in hand so that No Power here imports as much as no Civil Power no Power repugnant to the Kings Governing Power in all Causes no such power as Queen Elizabeth and her Ancestor-Princes had of old in this Realm as was largely shown above And hence to take the Oath right one ought to think not of the single words taken in their whole Latitude as devested of Circumstances but as taken in Complexion with them it being but a very Odd Scrupulosity to think the Oath is to be taken in such a manner as if one did not live in the world nor knew any thing of it's Circumstances but were to lay aside all knowledges he had gain'd all his life except onely of the signification of those very Words abstracting from all Subjects of which they may be conceiv'd to speak which amounts in other Terms to this that while they take the Oath they must lay aside all use of common sense nay and swear too they know not what for laying aside the knowledge of all Circumstances every word in the world is ambiguous 2. 'T is objected Secondly that the Church of England which may be presumed to understand this Oath best says in the latter part of the 37th Article in which it seems to relate to the Negative part of this Oath that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England 'T is answered the proper and primary sense of the word Jurisdiction is the Powers of a Magistrate giving Sentence according to Right or Law with Authority in External Courts to make it be Executed from whence in a secundary signification 't is transferr'd to the inward Court of Conscience But it carries it's notion in it's Terms Dictio Juris or Jus dicere importing in it's first and obvious sense to determin with Authority which may force Obedience to what is Sentenced This it seems is all which the Church of England understands deny'd to the Pope by the Oath which Bishop Charleton cited above in terms acknowledges by saying that There is no question between us concerning Carleton Of Jurisdiction c. 1. p. 8 9. the Internal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome but only the External And this plainly relates to the Judiciary Power spoken of Especially since the Church of England here speaks of No Jurisdiction of the Pope immediately after she had spoke what was due to the King and consequently in the same Sense here as she did there that so by saying the Pope had No Civil Jurisdiction she might signify that the King had not only Civil Power but also all of it since the Pope hath now none who had some formerly else we must come to the before-noted Inconsequent way of speaking He is King here and the Pope is not a Preacher or Pastor here That I may not omit that she speaks here in reference to our Laws which speak of Jurisdiction in this Sense only and which took from the Pope only this kind of Jurisdiction 3. And this is fully and clearly affirmed by the foresaid Dr. Bramhal Schism Garded p. 308. as above cited And again p. 340. Our Laws do not intend at all to deprive the Pope of the Power of the Keys in relation to England it self Our Parliaments did never pretend to any Power to change or abridge Divine Right c. for the VVhole is too long to be Transcrib'd and yet 't is fit it should be read Again p. 337. Our Ancestors cast out External Coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the Power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual No more do we We have a second or at least a Confirmation of this Answer in Franciscus a St. Clara 's Paraphrastical Explication of the 39. Articles of the Church of England pag. 412. where he sayes on the above-said Negative Passage of the 37. Articles That peradventure it meant only to deny England to be held in Fee from the Pope by virtue of King John's Donation Submission to and Reception of his Crown again from Innocent the Third and his Promise of paying Tribute to the Pope for it This vain ridiculous empty Title as Sir Thomas More himself called it Inanem Titulum was that peradventure sayes the fore-said à St. Clara which that Negative Passage of the 37. Article rejected For the Lawful Rejection of which he brings Proofs sufficiently convincing in the Page now quoted But whether or no he ghesses aright at the Meaning of that Passage it matters not much since the Objection has been otherwise already and sufficiently answered 4. A Third Objection proceeds from King James's saying That the Oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a Difference between Papists and them of our Profession And Bishop Andrews that the Oath of Supremacy was made to discover those who acknowledg'd the Pope's Primacy and deny the King 's Whence it seems to follow that what ever Sense this Oath might have had in Q. Elizabeth's Dayes yet King James gave it another opposite to a Tenet held generally by Catholicks else how could it distinguish them in case there was no Sense opposit to such a Tenet For in this case they might take it as well as the rest and not be distinguished from them by taking it And the Sense K. James gave it seems to continue still since no Body since ever took it out of the Oath I answer It doth not follow For in Supposition that neither Q. Elizabeth gave it that Sense nor K. James nor he so much as apprehended it to be given by her yet since he saw that all Catholicks did apprehend it in a Sense opposit either to some Religious Tenet of theirs or at least some other Position which they judg'd True and upon that account did as constantly refuse it as if it had really deny'd such a Tenet or Position he might if he pleas'd make use of their Refusal as a way though needless as Bishop Andrews observes to know they were Catholicks And as this Argument doth not prove that he did give it a New Sense different from what Q. Elizabeth gave it so 't is evident he did not For that Sense must have been either opposit to the Queen's and this he did not give it since
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
that which is repugnant to the Ancient Laws of England and to the Prerogative Royal p. 340. That Jurisdiction purely Spiritual the same which I call Pastoral doth neither disinherit the Prince nor the Pâ—ers nor destroy and Annul the Laws and Prerogative Royal nor vex the Kings Liege people nor impoverish the Subject nor drain the Kingdom of its Treasures c. infint is not guilty of any of the grievances of which our Laws complain It is the external Regiment of the Church by new Roman Laws c. that are apparently guilty of all these evils These Papal Innovations we have taken away indeed more than these Innovations we have taken nothing away that I know of page 353. We have not renoanced the Substance of the Papacy except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive Power who considers besides that these things are not whisper'd in Corners but own'd in the face of the World nor the private fancies of a single man his Book being lately Reprinted after the Authors Death with the countenance of more considerable Authority than Books usually have and the same may be said of the other Protestant Authors above-cited will find himself put to it if he be urged to make out how he comes to pretend to understand the meaning of Protestant Laws better than Protestants themselves 5. It may very well be that a Protestant may be willing to swear what a Catholick cannot because one may think true what the other does not But where they both agree in the thing and what the Protestant means when he swears the Catholick thinks true as well as he and yet will not swear the same truth in the same words looks like a Riddle If the words All Power signify All Usurped Power to a Protestant I see not but they may signify the same to a Catholick too And if it be known that he means by them as the Protestant does 't is plain They cannot signify otherwise For the signification of words is nothing but the known meaning of those who use them And though they should signify otherwise elsewhere they can signify no more but so where 't is known no more but so is meant by them 6. This difficulty then in two words is only this Whether All Power in the Oath means absolutely All or All the Power mentioned and intended by the Act for the observation whereof the Oath was made That General words are ordinarily I had almost said always confin'd by Circumstances is a thing so known that 't is impertinent perhaps to mention at least to bring examples of it Whether Those words are confin'd in This Case is all we have to consider and to every mans Judgment and Conscience I leave it Only who is not satisfy'd with what has been said has still I conceive a safe way of proceeding by declaring before hand if he take the Oath that he takes it in the sense of the Law as understood by all Protestant Writers none excepted particularly Arch-Bishop Bramhal which as was shown seems to amount to a Consent of the Nation After which I for my part see no cause of Scruple remaining for the first Point 7. For the second who is perswaded that the Power Renounc'd by the Oath does indeed belong to the Pope by Divine Right For what is settled by Human may by Human Authority be unsettled undoubtedly cannot take the Oath But he should do well to consider how he comes to be so perswaded This is no place to treat the Question I shall only say that if any one take that Perswasion for Faith he is certainly mistaken and that many of the most Learned among Catholicks are mistaken too if it be true It is a Power which heretofore has drawn perpetual complaints from our Catholick Ancestors and many Laws for Redress of the Inconveniencies they suffer'd by it It is a Power for whose sake our Religion is at this day aspers'd with the imputation of Inconsistence with the Ease of Subjects and Security of the Common-wealth Who will maintain it engages himself to clear it from these Objections For if he do not he will not clear himself from doing his part to bring his Country again into what the Law calls Bondage and his Religion into the Scandalous shame of being indeed guilty of what is laid to her Charge No man can go about it without maintaining in the first place that our Catholick Ancestors complained always without cause and felt nothing when they cry'd out of the burthen If They had reason to complain Protestants have none to endure what they complained of nor can Catholicks of all men expect they should 8. In short there is nothing does more harm in the world then mistaken Zeal which under a mistaken pretence of Religion we see transports Men to things the most contrary to Religion that can be 'T is not to be thought that in our Communion there is no Humane Frailty Opinions have been broacht concerning the Pope and are to this day maintained prejudicial to say no more both to the Soveraignty of Princes and Hierarchy of the Church Whether the Power in question to exercise an independent Soveraign Coactive Judiciary Authority in all Princes Dominions and all Bishops Diocesses upon the matter to govern the Church and World alone be not of the number They should do well to consider who refuse the Oath for it's sake For if it be their Zeal is plainly a mistaken Zeal which as it uses to do deceives and carries them just contrary to what they mean the Scandal and to their Power ruine of Religion which they think to preserve For my part I beg of God the grace rather to suffer the loss of my own life than deny the Pope or any man any just right and I beg the same grace to preserve me from abetting unjust things even in the Pope Time has been when England has seen three Hundred Forreigners sent over at once by the Power in question to be provided of the first Vacant Benefices I should think my self neither good English-man nor good Christian if I should obstinately stand for a Power to commit such Exorbitancies FINIS