Spiritual Government then it would be considered what the spiritual Government is and in what points it doth chiefly remain I find sayes he in the Gospels that when Christ gave to St. Peter the Supreme Government of the Church he said to him Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum c. That is I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth c. Now if you mean to give to the Queen that Authority which our Lord gave to St. Peter if you will say Nos tibi dabimus claves Regni coelorum c. We will give to your Majesty the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven I pray you shew your Commission by which you are authorised to make such a Gift Again for the same purpose Our Lord said to St. Peter Pasce c. Pasce c. Pasce c. Feed my sheep Feed my sheep Feed my lambs As likewise Tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres When thou art converted confirm thy Brethren Now if you mean to say so much to the Queen let us see your Commission and withall consider whether her person being a Woman be in a capacity to receive and execute such an Authority since St. Paul forbids a Woman to teach in the Church Thus argued the said Lord Chancelour proceeding in the same manner upon other branches of spirituall Government and concludes That without a mature consideration of all these premises their honours shall never be able to shew their faces before their Enemies in this matter 23. But notwithstanding all this the Lords c. proceeded to frame an Act without any distinct explication whether it was a Temporal or Spirituall Authority which they gave the Queen Or rather they framed it with such clauses as that the most obvious sence of it imported that it was an Authority purely spiritual that they invested her withall and most certain it is that if she had executed such an Authority she might have justified her so doing by that Act. 24. However after that Parliament was ended but before the first year of her Raign was expired such considerations as the Lord Chancelour had formerly in vain represented had so great an influence upon the Queen that she was obliged by an Admonition prefixed to her Injunctions to declare that which the Parliament would not that it was not her intent by vertue of that Act to challenge Authority and power of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church but only to have Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born within her Realmes of what State either Ecclesiastical or Temporall soever they be Which explication of hers was confirmed four years after by Parliament yet without changing the foregoing Act or any clauses in it 25. And consequently she left ordering of matters purely Spiritual to Bishops c. Expresly renouncing it For as for the power of Excommunication having again taken it from the Pope she did not fear it from any of her Bishops 26. In the times succeeding after her what qualifications were made and declared by three Kings touching spiritual Jurisdiction shall be shewed afterward They had not any such interests nor such fears as the three foregoing Princes had and therefore look'd with a more indifferent eye upon the matter Without repealing lawes or changing the Exteriour Forme of the oath of Supremacy they esteemed it sufficient to qualifie it by moderate interpretations as shall be shewed 27. As for the other Oath of Allegiance the compiler whereof was King James the most sad and horrible occasion of it is but too well known the intention of it is obvious and the sence plain So that it did not stand in need of such a Multiplicity of Acts of Parliament with many clauses to shew the extention of it Excepting one party scarce any except against it and were it not for some few incommodious expressions and phrases nothing pertaining to the substance and design of the Oath it would freely and generally be admitted and taken notwithstanding the foresaid parties condemning it who take that advantage to decry the substance of the Oath from which they have an aversion in as much as Fidelity is promised thereby SECT V. That the Oath of Supremacy as it lies and according to the sence of the first Law giver cannot lawfully and sincerely be taken by any Christian. 28. IT is a truth from the beginning acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church that all Kings are truly Supream Governours over the persons of all their Subjects and in all causes even Ecâ—lesiastical wherein their civil authority is mixed Constitutions of Synods however they may oblige in conscience and be imposed under spirituall censures yet are not lawes in any Kingdom that is they they are not commanded nor the transgression of them punishable in external Courts by outward punishments as Attachments Imprisonment c. further then supream Civil Governours do allow 29. This is a right due to all Kings though Heathens Hereticks c So that Kings by being converted to Christianity or Catholick Religion have not any new Jurisdiction added or their former enlarged thereby They do not thereby become Pastours of Souls but sheep of lawfull pastours And it is not a new Authority but a new duty that by their conversion accrews to them obliging them to promote true Religion by the exercise of their Civil Authority and Sword And subjects are bound to acknowledge and submit to this Authority of theirs that is not alwayes to do what Princes in Ecclesiasticall matters shall command but however not to resist in case their inward Beliefs be contrary to theirs but patiently to suffer whatsoever violence shall be offerâ—d them 30. Such a submission therefore to Kingly authority may when just occasion is be lawfully required by Kings from all their Subjects yea a profession thereof by oaths But such an one was not the Oath of Supremacy when it was first contrived and imposed For there an authority in many causes purely spirituall was by our Princes challenged as hath been shewed Therefore if we consider that Oath as now imposed on Subjects infinitely differing from their Princes beliefe and Judgment both in Point of doctrine and discipline it is not imaginable how it can be taken in such a sense as was first meant by any congregations no not even by that which is of the Kings own Religion 31. The Oath consists of two parts one Affirmative and the other Negative The Affirmative clause obliges all the Kings Subjects though never so much differing in their beliefs to swear an acknowledgment that the King is the only supreme Head and Governour of his Realme as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And the Negative to deny that any forraign Prince Prelate c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realme and to renounce all such 32. These two Recognitions if the
among them 39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have the Testimony of Doctour Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester whose expressions are these The Oath saith he expresseth not the duty of Princes to God but ours to them And as they must be obeyed when they joyne with the truth so must they be endured 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 JESUITES 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 Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdomes 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 represse the broachers and abbettours 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 Realmes no mortal man hath any power from Christ judicially to depose them much lesse to invade them in open field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sence Spiritual Jurisdiction seems by the oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince judge of Faith and 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 pastours of the place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical things and â—auses Princes be neither the devisers nor Directours of them but the Confirmers and establishers of that which is good and displacers and Revengers of that whiâ—h is evill 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 paâ—t of their charge Lastly to explain the Negative clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Princes to be supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of truth or right but without superiour on Earth to represse them with violent means and to take their Kingdomes from them Thus Doctour Bâ—lson 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 readily subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctour Carleton in King James his time thus states the matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There is a triple Power in the Bishop of Rome first of Order secondly of internal jurisdiction thirdly of external jurisdiction The first is referd 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 beside excommunication As for spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offendours Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and spiritual Cures c. this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This power hath been practised by the Church without co-active jurisdiction other then 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 or 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 externall and contentious Courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again 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 spirituall censures As it standeth in spirituall 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 civill Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctour Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctour Bramhall Bishop of Derry in our late Kings dayes and now Archbishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative parts of the Oath touching the Kings supream authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Popes Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his book called Schisme guarded c. The summe of which Book is in the Title-page expressed 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 the eighth nor any of his Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the keyes or any part thereof Either the key of order or the key of Jurisdiction I mean Jurisdiction purely spirituall which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such persons as submit willingly Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the key of order or the key of Jurisdiction purely spiritual All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the external Regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it This power the Bishops of Rome never had or could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose Subjects they were And therefore when we meet with these words or the like That no forraign prelate shall exercise any manner of power Jurisdiction c. Ecclesiastical within this Realm it is not to be understood of internal or purely spiritual power in the Court of Conscience or the power of the keyes VVe see the contrary practised every day but of external and Coactive power in Ecclesiasticall causes in Foro contentioso And that it is and might to be so understood I prove clearly by it Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and an Article of the English Church Which act article shall be produced afterward The Bishop continues They that is the Parliament profess their ordinance is meerly Political What hath a Political Ordinance with power purely spiritual They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from rapine c. And then having produced the Article he concludes You see the power is political the sword is political all is Political Our Kings leave the power of the keyes and Jurisdiction purely spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it Nothing can be more express then this so clear a testimony of so judicious a Bishop touching the Kings supremacy in matters Ecclesiasticall acknowledged by Oath Only we must be excused if we assent not to what he affirms touching King Henry the Eighth his not assuming spiritual Jurisdiction 42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds Wheresoever our Lawes do deny all spirituall Jurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sence that we call the exteriour Court of the Church the spirituall Court They do not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the keyes or of any spiritual power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy To conclude omitting a world of other passages to the same effect he saith We have not renounced the substance of the Papacy except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive power 43. Moreover to warrant these explications of three so eminent men of the Protestant Church who write expresly upon the Subject may be added testimonies yet more authentick and irrefragable of our Princes themselves who are to be esteemed unquestionably authoritative interpreters of their own lawes at least in these cases as afore was observed and besides those the publick Articles of the English Clergy yea the Statutes of Parliaments also 44. In an Act of Parliament made in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeths Raign there is an interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy in an express Proviso That the Oath of Supremacy shall be taken and expounded in such forme as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions published in the first year of her Raign The which Admonition was made to take away a scruple raised by some as if the Queen had usurped a Jurisdiction purely spirituall which she renounces professing first that by vertue of that Oath no other Authority is to be acknowledged then what was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth This clause is not to be supposed to be any part of the interpretation of the Oath but it is only intended to signifie that this is no new invented usurpation of a Title but that the same had been allowed to those two Kings before her and the same Authority saith she is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this Realm Neither doth she say that she challenges all that those two Kings did as in effect it is apparent she did not but that what she requires had been formerly granted to them And it is evident that if her meaning had been that the Oath should be taken according to that enormous latitude of power allowed and exercised by them such a way of indefinite explication would have been far more burdensome and entangling to conscices then before For that would signifie that all that swear should be obliged to inform themselves in all the clauses of acts of Parliament made by those two Kings and in all the actions performed by them or else they will swear they know not what Her explication therefore is set down clearly and distinctly in the following words by which she declares what that authority is which she challenges and which must be acknowledge in taking the Oath Viz. That is the Queen under God to have 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 forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them 45. This clause according to the Queens interpretation confirm'd by act of Parliament contains the true sence of the Oath so that if this clause can be sworn to that is all that is signified in the form of the Oath say Protestants Now that by this Clause only civil power over all persons Ecclesiasticall is challenged appears by a wrong interpretation of the Oath which she complains to have been spred abroad Viz. as if by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings and Queens of this Realm possessours of the crown may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine offices in the Church She renounces all medling with any Offices purely Ecclesiasticall in the Church as also Doctor Bilson by her authority declares in the forecited words she pretends not to administer Sacraments conferr Orders inflict Ecclesiastical censures determine controversies of faith c. But she challenges a supream civil Authority over all those that have right to exercise those Offices as being her Subjects as well as the Laity And this Jurisdiction she will have acknowledged so to be her peculiar Right as that no forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them that is no part of this Regal power whatsoever spiritual Jurisdiction which she medles not withall they may challenge That this is the true sence of this