sence but according as the admonition aforesaid doth set forth No Officer whatsoever can presse him to swear it any other waies Which being matter of Law the Learned in the Law can best resolve if any doubt be made thereof The next Enquiry shall be if any thing be contained in the said admonition either in words or meaning which a Consciencious person Protestant or Roman Catholike can justly except against The Exceptions generally pretended against the same are First That the said Oath was purposely framed for profession of Religion then newly established Secondly That the Soveraignty and rule claimed by her Majesty in the said admonition is over Ecclesiastical persons and in things and Causes spirituall and Ecclesiastical both which say most of those that except against the same are exempted Jure divino from the power of the temporal Magistrate and consequently the King is in effect declared thereby to be Head of the Church Thirdly That the spiritual power and Jurisdiction left by Christ to his Church and the respective Pastors of the same is likewise absolutely denyed therein These things being part of their Faith and Religion they cannot swear without renouncing the same and giving scandal to others of their profession which therefore shall be the subject of our next Observations 1. The very words of this admonition do express that the said Oath was prescribed and required for recognition of Allegiance 2. The Latitude of meaning which might be contained in the words of the Oath viz. Under God Supreme Governour as well in Spirituall and Ecclesiastical things and Causes as temporal is restrained in this admonition by these words viz. Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other authority then what was challenged and lately used by Henry the Eighth and Edward the sixth which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And then it is particularly specified what that authority was by the words of the said admonition immediatly following viz. THAT IS under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner persons born within those her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what estate either Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soever they be 3. Least by the said Oath her Majesty might seem to deny to the Church the Power and Jurisdiction left by Christ to his Apostles and their Successors being meerly spirituall her Majesty therefore professeth not to challenge authority or power of Ministry of divine Service in the Church And moreover restrains the denial of Spirituall and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Power c. mentioned in the said Oath being in general to such Jurisdiction only as was repugnant to the said Soveraignty and Rule over all her Subjects Which is apparent by these words So as no other forraign power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them which words SO AS denote the rest to be relative to her Majesties Superiority and Rule that immediately before was declared And in further proof thereof Whereas the aforesaid Act in the said first Year of her Reign was entituled All ancient Jurisdictions restored to the Crown and all forreign power abolisht the Statute made in the fifth Year of her Reign Cap. 1. seemed to qualifie or explain the said former Act for it entitled the said former Act to be an Act restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction ever the state Ecclesiastical and spiritual and abolishing all forreign power REPUGNANT to the same The alteration of the Title is very observable in this latter Act for it seemed thereby to denote and explain that which in the heat of the then suddain change of Religion had not been so maturely disgested and established in the former The Articles of the Church of England and of the Clergy expresse the Kings said power and Authority by calling it the civil not spiritual sword Doctor Carleton afterwards Bishop of Chichester in his notable Treatise of * In his Admonition to the Reader The Fathers write for the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church above Princes which thing we never denied Jurisdictions Episcopal Regal and Papal writes most learnedly and clearly upon this Subject He sayes pag. 9. As for spirituall Jurisdiction of the Church standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks Excommunication of notorious and stubborn offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and collation of Benifices and Spiritual Cures c. which Princes cannot give nor take from the Church this power hath been practised by the Church without coactive Jurisdiction other then of Excommunication But when matters handled in the Ecclesiastical Consistory are not matters of Faith and Religion but of a Civill nature which yet are called Ecclesiasticall as being given by Princes and appointed to be within the Cognisance of that Consistory and when the Censures are not spirituall but carnall compulsive coactive here appeareth the power of the Civil Magistrate Page 42 43. 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 Consntories 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 referred to spiritual Censures or as it is with Coaction As it standeth in spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church as 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 Magistrate but was alwayes understood to belong to the Civill Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen e. The Apostles did sometimes take vengeance upon the disobedient but that was not by the Material Sword in the Power whereof we place Coaction but by the Spiritual Sword The Learned Bishop of Derry lately made Bishop of Armagh and honour'd with the Title of Lord Primat of all Ireland speaks most clearly to this Point in his Book Schism Guarded p. 160. But I expect it should be Objected that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church the Legislative the Judiciary the Dispensative Power of Popes There are two other Statutes made by Henry the Eighth The one An Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome The other An Act for establishing the Kings Succession in the Crown wherein there is an Oath That the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any Jurisdiction or Authority in this Realm And that it is declared in the 37th Article of our Church That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Kingdom of England And in the Oath ordained by Queen Elizabeth That no forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm I Answer this Objection three wayes First As to the
two Laws of Henry the eigth They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary and never were restored by any succeeding Prince If there were any thing blame-worthy in them let it dye with them I confesse I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another nor the swearing before-hand to Statutes made or to be made But de mortuis nil nisi bonum Secondly I Answer according to the equity of my second ground that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over-reached themselves and the truth in some expression yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the line and level of Apostolical Tradition Thirdly and principally I answer That our Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of authority and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extendeth no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical authority and Jurisdiction in the Exteriour Court which in truth is partly Spiri-tual partly Political So our Ancestors cast out External Ecclesiastical 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 And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were alwayes esteemed the proper Judges of the Cannons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this Caution that to make them Laws the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them the Princes Grant or Concession was needfull And p. 170. Whatsoever Power our Laws did divest the Pope of they invested the King with it But they never invested the King with any Spiritual Power or Jurisdiction witnesse the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth the Articles of the Church King James our Statutes c. * K James Triplict nodo triplâ—â—â— cuncus p. 47. In that Oath ONLY is conteined the Kings absolute Power to be Judge over all Persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrain Powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions And generally all English-Protestant Writers who maintain the 39. Articles with the Discipline and Canons of the Church of England do constantly affirm That the Kings said Supreme Government and Rule is intended no other wayes but to exercise under God the Supreme coactive Jurisdiction and Power over all his Subjects within his Realms and Dominions of what estate soever they be whether Ecclesiasticall or Temporal to take cognisance in his externall Tribunals of offenders for the punishing of them with civil and corporal punishments according to the nature and quality of their respective offences And that Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things and Causes the transgressors wherein are lyable to his cognisance and punishment as aforesaid are not meant of things and causes that are meerly spiritual as of Faith and Religion but of such as in their own nature are either civil or mixed with something that is temporal which according to vulgar acceptation are called neverthelesse Spirituall or Ecclesiastical for the reasons noted by Doctor Carleton as aforesaid This Supreme external Coactive power and Jurisdiction as aforesaid cannot be acknowledged to be due to the King but by necessary consequence all Power Prerogative Jurisdiction Superiority or Authority repugnant to the same must be denied and disclaimed in any Prelate Person State or Potentate forreign or domestick whatsoever other then by or under his Majesties permission or Authority But it is also observable that what Power or Jurisdiction soever that is but meerly Spiritual and consequently not belonging to the King is not meant or intended to be denied or renounced to the Church or to any Person Prelate c. whatsoever as the aforesaid Bishop of Derry most expresly declares in very many places of his Book aforesaid which for brevities sake are omitted excepting these few hereunder mentioned which may abundantly satisfie Pag. 62. And therefore when we meet with these words or the like That No forreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of power Jurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or priviledge Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm It is not to be understood of Internal or purely Spirituall power in the Court of Conscience or the power of the Keys We see the contrary practised every day but of external coactive power in Ecclesiastical causes in foro contentioso c. And in his Epistle to the Reader having set down all or the most considerable Points of difference and question upon this Subject concludes his said Epistle with these words viz. The true controversie is Whether the Bishop of Rome ought by Divine Right to have the external regiment of the English Church and Coactive Jurisdiction in English Courts against the will of the King and Laws of the Kingdome And p. 218. No difference between Romane Catholicks and our selves about the Papacy but only about the extent of Papal power c. To these may be added that the Bishop of Spalato that came into England after his being consecrated Bishop by the Pope or by authority from the See of Rome did not renue his Character after he came over yet as is well known ordained divers Priests here which was never disputed but allowed by the Church of England to have been validly done All which confirms what is said before That Jurisdiction purely spirituall is not denied by the now intendiment of the said Oath and that it is not an Oath of Religion but of Allegiance as is expresly said in Queen Elizabeths Admonition aforesaid and obliges the takers to no more but to assist and defend all the ancient Jurisdictions of the Crown and to renounce and impugn all forreign Jurisdictions and Powers repugnant to the same What those ancient Jurisdictions of the Crown were esteemed to be may be observed by the Statutes of Clarendon the Statute of Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statute of Provisors and other the Laws of our Norman Kings and in the times of Henry the Third Edward the First Edward the Third Richard the Second Henry the Fourth which Statutes and Laws had not so publickly passed without a greater clamour of other Nations professing the same Religion if the Popes pretended power in those respective mixed cases had been thought to have been Jure divino or so undeniably his right as some Divines do chalenge in his behalf But forasmuch as many Learned and Large Treatises have been written upon this Subject of mixed Causes as aforesaid both by Romane Catholicks and by Professors of the Reformed Religion of several Nations and of each side some holding that they belong to the Kings Supreme Authority and civil sword others that they belong only to the Church without any Concession from the temporal Magistrate For allay to the Scruples that may hereupon arise in the mindes of any his Majesties Loyal Subjects it may be
observed that since the Learned Doctors of both sides do respectively declare upon mature consideration of several Texts of holy Writ Acts of Councils and other reasons alledged to have different Sentiments therein some of each side holding the contrary to what others of the same profession do strongly maintain but never determined by the Church The probability of their said opinions may respectively warrant if not oblige all his Majesties Subjects especially being so enjoyned by Law to acknowledge submission to that external coactive Power and Authority of his Majesty for the punishment of Offenders with civil and corporal punishments in such mixed cases as aforesaid which their respective Teachers doe affirm to be justly derived from natural Reason and clear places of Scripture and assert them as part of his Royal Jurisdiction Our ancient Histories Statutes and most authentick Records of former times long before Henry 8th do testifie as aforesaid That our Kings did challenge a sovereign external coactive Jurisdiction over all their Subjects as aforesaid in those cases sometimes indulging them to the Ecclesiastical Courts and See of Rome sometimes restraining them again of their own Authority without recourse to the Pope or See of Rome more or lesse according to their zeal or devotion towards the Church and Church-men and the respective occasions in those times according as was then thought fit by our Kings and Parliaments Read the Statutes of Provisors 25. of Ed. 3. The practice in France sufficiently declares what that Kings Power is in the cases aforesaid For although spiritual offences that are meerly such are punishable in the Ecclesiastical Courts onely by spiritual Censures as Excommunication Suspension c. Yet if the cause be mixed in any sort with what is civil or temporal as aforesaid or if never so little pecuniary Mulct be imposed upon the offenders for damages by the Ecclesiastical Judges the whole matter may be brought to the cognizance of the civil Court upon appeal and the former sentence reversed if it be thought fit Nor does any Ecclesiastical Promotion or Dignity how great soever priviledge any person from civil and corporal punishments there if he offend against the the now Arch-bishop of Paris under the most Christian Kings who is known to be most zealously devoted to the Church and See of Rome And many other Presidents of the same nature have been in Hungary Germany and other Countreys that hold communion with that Church The King of Spain exercises the like Authority in several places of his Dominions and so amply in his Kingdome of Sicily that it is there called Supream Spiritual Authority and spiritual Monarchy as is acknowledged by the Catholick Divine in in his Answer to the fifth part of Sr Edward Cookes Reports pag. 102. which words Supream spiritual Authority and Spiritual Monarchy sound as harsh and require a favourable explanation no lesse than any the words in Queen Elizabeths Oath aforesaid He sayes indeed That Pope Urbane granted the same long time since to that Kings Predecessours as Pope Nicolas somewhat of the like nature to St. Edward King of England But meer spiritual Jurisdiction as is conceived could not be granted to a Lay person And our Question being of the original right of our Princes to supream external coactive Jurisdiction over their Subjects to take cognizance of offenders in such mixed cases as aforesaid for punishing them with civil and corporal punishments according to the respective quality of their offences which indeed is no other but a civil and temporal power though the said cases be vulgarly called Spiritual for the reasons declared as abovesaid he ought to have told us how the Pope came to be invested with such coactive power by force of Law and corporall punishments which he so granted away unto others Christ said His Kingdome was not of this world The Apostles claimed no such coactive power by force of Law and corporal punishments as aforesaid nor any the aforesaid exemption of their persons or goods from the temporal Magistrate and his Tribunals The Church as the said Catholike Divine confesses had no such power for several Ages the Emperour Constantine was the first that granted it who did it to use his words voluntarily And other Kings and Princes upon their singular devotion and in imitation of that good Emperour And doth not all this plainly signifie that the External Coactive power such as aforesaid was originally in the Supreme temporal Magistrate whose said Supreme power as most Learned men do affirm cannot binde and conclude it self in a Law so as not to be able to revoke or alter the same when there is just cause for preservation of its being and generall good of the Common-wealth otherways in imminent danger And consequently howsoever Cannon Laws and Decretals have been sometimes received by permission or concession of our Kings alone or Parliaments of our Nation and in vertue of such reception and not otherwise matriculated among our Laws yet according to the President of many of our Kings and Parliaments long before King Henry the Eighth the same might be validly restrained or made void to this Nation so farre as to the nature of a Law if our said Kings and Parliaments conceived it necessary for those reasons as above said Whether the same was well or ill done by them or whether the causes were sufficient or not in the respective occasions the doers were answerable in conscience not their Subjects who were bound to yeeld obedience to their Soveraign power in what things soever were not purely Spirituall or repugnant unto the Law of God Since therefore it is most apparant that Spiritual Authority it self is not denied by the intendment of this Oath explained by the Admonition and declared as aforesaid which is otherwise then the abovesaid Catholick Divine did understand it to be but only the enlargement of Spirituall Authority to temporal coaction such as aforesaid which in reality alters its nature and is repugnant to the prerogative Royall of this Crowne and which indeed the Court of Rome not the Church of Rome and some Divines most especially depending upon the same would extend the said spirituall power unto bâ—â— Jure Divino but was not so ab initio as manifestly appears by what is abovesaid Why should any his Majesties Loyall Subjects Romane Catholikes especially deny to acknowledge their dutifull submission to his Majesties said Soveraignty and Rule over all his Subjects and their like obedience to maintain Laws established so farre as they relate to his said Authority in such manner as above declared Whereas not only the Opinions of many of the most Learned Writers of their own Religion doe maintain That Externall Coaction by force of Law and civil and corporall punishment upon offenders of what quality soever and for what matter or cause soever so deserving as abovesaid is of naturall right belonging to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate But also the practise of our Kings and Parliaments in former Ages time
OBSERVATIONS UPON THE OATH Enacted 1. Eliz. Commonly called The OATH of SVPREMACY For the better satisfaction of those that may finde themselves concerned therein Observations upon the Oath Enacted 1. Eliz. commonly called The Oath of SVPREMACY BY the Oath of Supremacy Enacted by Henry the Eighth the said King was sworn to be Supreme Head of the Church of England Which title was of so great offence and scandal even to some of those that then professed the Reformed Religion that they writ Invectives against the same as Romane Catholicks also did and sundry persons lost their lives in those daies for denial thereof as is written of Sir Thomas More and others But that Oath was afterwards abolisht by Parliament with some other statutes relating thereunto and in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth the ensuing Oath was enjoyned by an Act then entitled All ancient Jurisdiction restored to the Crown and all forreign power abolished the words of which Oath are as followeth I A B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queens Highnesse is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm of all other her Highnesses Dominions and Countreys as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal c. That no forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence 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 and true Allegiance to the Queens Highness her Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highnesse her 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 Although the words of this Oath are not the same as in the former and Supreme Head of the Church of England not particularly mentioned therein yet according to the common acceptation of the words in the said Oath it seemed to attribute to her said Majesty in effect and substance no less spiritual Jurisdiction and power nay more then what the said former Oath did or might import Wherefore this Oath was also excepted at by divers In which consideration and for the clearing of doubts that might be conceived thereupon her Majesty by an Admonition in her Injunctions published afterwards in the said first year of her Reign did explain and interpret the sence and meaning of the words of the said Oath in which the same should from thenceforth be accepted and taken The Admonition and Title is as followeth An Admonition to Simple men deceived by malicious The Queens Majesty being informed that in certain places of the Realm sundry of her native Subjects being called to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church be by sinister perswasion and perverse construction induced to finde some scruple in the form of an Oath which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty which certainly never was ne ever meant nor by any equity of words or good sence can be thereof gathered 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 then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous memory K. Henry the 8. her Majesties Father or K. Edward the 6. her Majesties Brother And further 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 notifie to her loving Subjects how by words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queeus of this Realm possssors 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 then that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memory K. Henry the Eighth and K. Edward the sixth which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crown of this Realm THAT IS under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner persons born within these Realms Dominions and Countreys 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 sence of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sence 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 penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath It is observable that the Queen did thus explain and interpret the words of this Oath by her own authority But whereas some might then object as others have done since upon the same occasion that the words of an Oath could not be warrantably interpreted from their ordinary sence and usual acceptation by any authority less then that of the Law-maker Therefore the said Admonition was confirmed by her said Majesty in Parliament by the Satute 5 Eliz. cap. 1. wherein is this Proviso as followeth Provided also that the Oath expressed in the said Act made in the said first Year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Majesties Injunctions published in the first Year of her Majesties Reign That is to say to confesse and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other authority then that was challenged and lately used by the Noble K. Henry the 8. and K. Edward the 6. as in the said admonition more plainly may appear It is observable that in vertue of this Provisoe in the said Statute the aforesaid admonition acquired the force of a Law as much as the Provisoe it self had which referres to the said admonition and consequently makes void in law whatsoever was formerly Enacted contrary to the same So that from and after the said Act 5. Eliz. the said Oath though pronounced in the form of words verbatim as is expressed in the Act 1. Eliz. yet the effect and tenour of the said words must be construed and understood in the form and according to the Interpretation sence and meaning as appeareth in the aforesaid admonition And whosoever upon tender of the said Oath unto him if when he shall have read or pronounced the words thereof he do professe that he intends in swearing the same to mean those said words in no other