our Prince the Ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself That is That they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers 26. I could add here divers other Eminent and publickly approved Authors who are very full in expressing the same Sense of the Oath as Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in Queen Elizabeth dayes Doctor Carlton Bishop of Chichester in King James's Time both cited at large by Mr. Cressy in his Reflections upon the Oaths Sect. 6. and others But I conceive enough is said to the clearing the Affirmative Clause of the Oath and perhaps they may be more proper here-after to explain the Negative Part of it to which we now address Section II. Of the Negative Clause of the OATH THe Negative Clause runs thus That no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm Now though there want not some who think that taking the Words of the Oath in a Law-Sense and allowing Common Reason to scan the whole not Fancy to catch suddainly at single Words the Oath even as it lyes may lawfully be taken by those who are able to penetrate throughly into it Yet the Generality whom chiefly I must endeavour to satisfy are more apt to judge that if those Words be taken in the full Latitude of what they seem first to sound they cannot be sworn by any Catholick And they have Reason For it is plain that no Human Authority can take away what is given by Christ It is plain in Scripture that Christ did give to his Apostles and in them their Successors Power to Teach and Feed to Bind and Lose c. and this over all the World The Exercise of this Power may be and is restrained by Human Constitutions because it being to Edification not Destruction 't is against its Nature to be us'd where 't would do harm as if every Pastor should promiscuously Feed every Flock there would happen so much Confusion and Disorder that a good part of the Sheep would be not Fed but Starv'd 'T is this which truly binds up the Power Human Laws shew and that Authoritatively and Obligingly where the Harm is but have their obliging Vertue from that Harm Should They under pretence of Destruction forbid what Truths were to Edification They would indeed expose the Contraveners to Penalties but induce no Obligation to Obedience upon the Conscience So we see the Apostles the great Masters of Submission and Obedience to Authority when they were commanded to forbear Preaching the Doctrine of Christ declared plainly it was their Duty in that case to prefer God before Man But where Edification requires the Power should be exercis'd no Power of Man can hinder the Ordinance of God nor shelter those who do not Evangelize from the Wo with which they are threatned As any Bishop and any Priest might perform the Functions of a Bishop and Priest in any Part of the World before Canons were made to limit them to Places and Persons so They may still where Necessity or what-ever Circumstance takes off the Restraint and leaves the Power to its own Original Liberty Now the VVords of the Oath saying That no Forreign Prelate has any Spiritual Power in England do in the utmost Latitude of their Sound deny that the properly Spiritual Power given and commanded to be us'd by Christ in all the VVorld can even on any occasion be exercis'd by any Forreign Prelate in England And this being contrary to the Appointment and Grant of Christ cannot I think be sworn by any who believes in Christ For a Forreign Prelate being a Prelate cannot be without the Power of a Prelate nor that Power excluded from any Part of the VVorld where Edification requires it 2. I purposely abstain from speaking particularly of the Pope because the Oath speaks not particularly of him though it comprehends him under the General Term Prelate And because I conceive his Power concerns us not at present since the Case would be the same though there were no such thing as a Pope in the World For our Question is not What Power forreign Prelates have but What they have not If the Oath be meant of the Power given by Christ it is opposite to the Power given by him to all Prelates and so not Takeable for their sakes If it be not meant of that Power it is not opposite to what was given by Christ to any and so not Refusable for the Pope's sake Our Business at present is to inquire What Power the Oath means not what Christ gave If we find the Oath leaves it untouch't 't is best for us to leave it so too For to do otherwise is to stray into a different and unconcerning Question and amuse our selves unprofitably with what is not spoken of 3. That the Oath does not speak of that Power at all there are many Reasons to perswade me They who fram'd the Oath were Christians and knew and acknowledged the uncontroulable Power of Christ I cannot imagin they either would go about to take away any thing which he gave or think they could though they would They knew that notwithstanding the Confinement of Pastors to their own Flocks as firmly establisht as Human Laws both Ecclesiastical and Civil can establish any thing nothing is more apparent in Ecclesiastical History than that Prelates thought themselves at liberty to exercise the Power of Prelates upon occasion any where As Lucifer Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia made them a Bishop at Antioch St. Gregory of Nazianzen took care of Constantinople and a hundred such Examples there are England to its great Advantage has had Experience of the same as when Germanus and Lupus came hither out of France and preserved us from Arianism At this day if a Bishop of the Church of England happen to go beyond Sea as I think some did when His Majesty was there himself though they carry not with them that External Power which they have in their own Dioceses I suppose they do not think themselves bard from Preaching or Ordaining or Exercising any Episcopal Function where they think it necessary or expedient because they are in the Diocess of another Man And so though the Priests which are Ordained in the Church of Rome are liable in their Persons to the Penalty of the Laws in England no Body thinks their Acts invalid None will Re-baptize one whom they have Baptized or think they live in Adultery who pursuant to the Doctrine of that Church receive the Sacrament of Marriage from them Every Forreign Person is as much excluded by the Oath as Forreign Prelates Had Luther or Calvin come hither would They have been bard from
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
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
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