Majesty his Heirs and Successors in England and which were granted to them with non-obstante's to all Acts of Parliament B. And the Act 22 o Car. 2. entitled Seditious Conventicles prevented and suppressed passing in the Parliament of England in the same Year that the Act against Conventicles did in Scotland and concluding with a Proviso That nothing therein contained shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs but that his Majesty and his heirs and Successors may from time to time c. exercise and enjoy all Power and Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs c. any thing in this Act notwithstanding shewed such a Concordant Sympathy between the two Realms in tenderness for the prerogative of dispensing with the Penal Laws Ecclesiastical as is between the Strings of two distant Lutes on the touching the String but of one of them But I must tell you that tho by this Proviso the benefit of the Dispensative Power hath been sufficiently secured to the Churches of Forreigners here and the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy justify'd in its power of indulging the Conventicles of all sorts of Recusants yet as in the Scotch Act the Crown 's dispensing with Conventicles hath been more express then in the English Act so hath the administration of Prerogative in that kind been more tenderly and signally exercised in Scotland then I have observ'd it to be in England For I find in a Look call'd A Compendious History of the mâ—…st remarkable Passages of the last 14 Years c. printed An. 1680. that in p. 205. the Author referring to the Month of Iuly 1677. saith that upon a Rebellion in that Kingdom being nipt in the Bud his Majesty was pleas'd to publish a Proclamation Commanding the Iudges and all Magistrates to apprehend and punish all such as frequented any Field-Conventicles c. according to the Prescript of the Law as also to prosecute with all Legal Rigour the execrable Murtherers of the late Arch-Bishop of St. Andrews declaring withal that his Majesty being desirous to reclaim all such as had been mis-lead through Ignorance or blind zeal had according to the Power reserved to his Majesty by the 5th Act in the 2d Session of the 2d Parliament suspended the execution of all Laws and Acts against such as frequent house-Conventicles on the south-side of the River Tay excepting the Town of Edenburgh and two Miles round the same c. And the truth is it must likewise be to the honour of that Nation acknowledged that in the worst of Times they after their Covenant did not Contract any such guilt of Perjury by a superfetation of enterfering Oaths as great Numbers of our Land did and that they were exemplary to England in Loyalty and in propping up the hereditary Monarchy while so many here in the Plott-Conjuncture were infatuated with the Project of the EXCLUSION as to give me occasion by a fresher instance and but of yesterdays occurrence to invite you to behold a Spectacle of the divine Iustice in abandoning such Men here to the guilt of Superstition who used unjust means to extirpate it Such among us who had not took notice of that English and Scotch SAINTE LIGUE and its being so generally exploded and who in the late Ferment about Popery would have fortify'd an Exclusion with an Association and again set up Association as of Divine-Off-spring you see how being wild with excessive Fears and Iealousies of the growth of Popery they were guilty of the Superstition of founding Dominion in Grace A. Considering how Men here have laughed at the Obligation of their lawful Oaths and that for unlawful Oaths a Land mourns methinks 't is an adventurous thing for a Prince to take possession of his Inheritance of the Empire of such a Land so encumbred with the guilt of Swearing and Forswearing O when may we see that antient general tenderness in point of Oaths here that flourished among us in the days of our first Reformation nay even in some times of our Roman Catholick Ancestors B. I believe never till after all the living here being resolved to dust and a new Race of Mankind enriching themselves and their Country by the Culture of the Earth and Manufactures men shall be above Temptations from necessity to take God's Name in vain and when the very use of Oaths Assertory or Promissory will be dispens'd with by Nature I am sure the Spectacle of mangled and slaughter'd Bodies covering a Field immediately after a Battle hath not more horror in it then the sight of the Consciences mai'md and wounded by the inobservance of publick Oaths hath been since the Aera of 41. And as our Chronicles mention that they who were born in England the Year after the great Mortality An. 1349. wanted some of their cheek Teeth I may say that generally they who have been born here the Years after 41. wherein the Plague of Perjury by the outraging those Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy was so epidemical have seem'd able only to swallow those Oaths but not to â—…hew upon them in serious and considerate thoughts no not at the very frequent times of their taking them And still tho in speculative Points in England Consulitur de Religione yet conclamatum est as to a general tender regard to the Religion of those Oaths There was I think a want of tenderness in some as to their sworn assisting and defending all the Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Crown during the late Ferment about my Lord Danby's Pardon and I may more sadly reflect on the same Mens want of recollecting their Oath obliging them to the King his Heirs and Successors at the time of the Ferment about the Exclusion A. I think that many who by repentance have been cured of the Epidemical Plague of Perjury that reged here in 41. and of such a Plague and another of Fears and Iealousies since 81 have yet sustain'd more damage thereby then they who were born the Year after 1349 did in wanting some of their Cheek Teeth and that their case is like that of those who were recover'd of the great Plague at Athens that Thucydides hath described and who tells us that after their recovery their Souls had lost the faculty of Memory and were dozed with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about what themselves had done or what had passed in the World during the horror of that very Plague or before or since But after all this said I am to ask you if you will make all those perjured who having took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy promoted the exclusion B. By no means I have more Humanity and Christian Charity then to do so I shall here observe to you that Divines in their measures of Mens sinful Actions do often make use of the distinction of materialiter and formaliter Thus for example Ames in his Cases of Conscience l. 5. c. 53. Si quis falsum dicit putans esse verum mentitur tantum
materialiter Si quis verum dicit putans esse falsum mentitur formaliter And he having before in l. 4 c. 4 viz Of Heresy made pertinacy a requisite to a man's being formally an Heretick and said that Pertinax est qui non est paratus Captivare intellectum rationem suam omnem Sacrae Scripturae adds Haereticus igitur potest esse quis materialiter dum assensum praebet erroâ—…i pernicioso vel ex simplici facilitate out temeritate haereticis or dendi qui sub honestâ aliquâ specie fallunt vel ex ignorantiâ qui â—…ormaliter non est haereticus cum pertinacia obstinatio animi deest atque adeo pro simpliciter haereticâ—… non est babendus Concordant with these measures of Ames have I observ'd those of some ingenuous Roman-Catholick Writers who have declared that they will not pronounce all Protestants to be Hereticks formaliter And it is therefore no wonder that such their Judgment of Charity hath been retaliated by some of the most Renowned Divines of the Church of England viz. the Lord Primate Bramhal Bishop Taylor Dr. Hammond and others who have deny'd to pronounce the worshipping the Host to be formal Idolatry that is to say to be not so at all in reality since we know that according to the trite Rule forma dat esse And thus that Primate in his Schism Guarded saith very well for that purpose p. 57. Every one who is involved materially in a Schism is not a formal Schismatick more then she that Marries after long expectation believing and having reason to believe that hâ—…r former Husband was dead is a formal Adulteress or then he who is drawn to give Divine Worship to a Creature by some misapprehension yet addressing his Devotions to the true God is a formal Idolater And having there cited S. Austin of Heresy He who did not run into his error out of his own over-weening Presumption nor defends it pertinaciously but receiv'd it from his seduced Parents and is careful to search out the truth and ready to be Corrected if he find it cut he is not to be reputed among Hereticks he saith it is much more true of Schism that he who is involv'd in Schism through the error of his Parents or Predecessors who carefully seeketh after truth and is prepared in his mind to embrace it whensoever he finds it he is not to be reputed a Schismatick I know Azorius de Iuramento gives his Judgment well in thesi That when a Law is changed to which a man is bound by Oath tho he is thereby materially discharged yet formally he is bound in respect of his will for if ever he actually assents to the alteration he is really perjured And so leaving it to such who were Men of great Knowledge and Consideration and had took the Oaths and were ready to promo'e a new Law for altering the hereditary Monarchy to think of the danger they incurred of the formal guilt of that Crime I have more Charity then to conclude all the rash and the incogitant and the weak and the seduced by the fantastick Interpretation of the Oath to have been perjured But as about the year 1164. Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury was at a Council held at Northampton accused by the King of Perjury and Condemned as guilty of it because he had not observ'd those English Customs that he was sworn to as I find Francisc. Long. de Concil p. 806. Col. 1. cited for it so if you have taken the Oath of Supremacy and Sworn to defend all the Privileges and Preheminences granted or belonging to the King his Heirs and Successors and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and are of opinion that one of the Privileges of those Heirs and Successors is to succéed to that Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood and by their inherent Birth-right and as the Hereditary Succession juâ—…e Coronae is setled by the Common Law of England I shall tell you that the Pious and profoundâ—…ly Learned Divine Dr. Hicks who hath study'd this Point as much as any man hath in his Writings told you that having taken this Oath you could not honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which would have deprived the next Heir and in him virtually the whole royal Family of the chief Privilege and Preheminence that belong'd to him by the Common Law of this Realm c. Your Curiosity I believe hath led you to read over his learned Iovian and to observe what he there saith in his Preface that some Men did pervert the meaning of the word Heirs in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy from its common and usual acceptation to another more special on purpose to elude the force and Obligation which otherwise they must have had on the Consciences of the Excluders themselves But it is not only the Authority of this single great Divine that I can lay before your thoughts for the rendring the Attempt of the Exclusion contrary to our Oath but I can direct you to the censure of the three Estates of a Loyal Nation and of His late Majâ—…sty in the case For the Oaths in Scotland binding the takers both to the King and his Heirs and Successors as ours do here I can tell you that in the Third Parliament of King Charles the Second Aug. 13. 1681. you will find the Act in these words viz. The Estates of Parliament considering that the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion c. I know that during the late turbid interval of the Nation some Loyal men of the Church of England were so much misguided as to think that because de facto Parliaments have heretofore directed and limited the succession of the Crown in other manner then in course it would otherwise have gone as the words in the Printed Exclusion-Bill were they might therefore of right do so again notwithstanding they knew that after the Parliament of King Iames to prevent the Right of Succession from fluctuating any more had justly recognized and declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm and Rights belonging to the same did by inherent Birth-right and lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to him as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm it did afterward by a New Oath of Obedience or Allegiance oblige mens Consciences both to the Crown and the hereditary lineal Succession and notwithstanding they knew that that Parliament had took care of continuing the Obligation of the Oath of Supremacy for the bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the King his Heirs and lawful Successors and to assist
some mens Minds are involv'd in they can no more alter their beliefs about Transubstantiation then they can transubstantiate themselves into other Creatures and are under a Moral incapacity of preventing another incurred by Law. And therefore as it would be Injustice in a Judge to Punish a man for the Errors of the mind that he knoweth not to be voluntary and for a man 's not putting himself into a Capacity to serve the King by the Professing of the truth in Problematical Points when the King of Kings hath by the not sufficient promulgating of such truth to his understanding render'd him innocent in his disbelief thereof and so long morally uncapable to profess it so by one man's after another appearing thus unable to qualifie himself to serve the King he may be totally unserved I have often heard you complain of the narrow Idea's of the King's Supremacy in some of the Non-Conformists but if you will read the Protestation of the King's Supremacy made by the Nâ—…n-conforming Ministers and Printed A D. 1605. you will find that they have there given in sufficient caution for tâ—…eir Principles not allowing any of the King's Subjects being disabled from serving him For they having said in § 1. We hold and maintain the same Authority and Supremâ—…cy in all Causes and over all Persons Civil and Ecclesiastical granted by Statute to Queen Elizabeth and expressed and declared in the Book of Advertisements and Injunctions and in Mr. Bilson against the Iesuites to be due in full and ample manner without any limitation or qualification to the King and his Heirs and Successors for ever they add in § 2. We are so far from judging the said Supâ—…emacy to be unlawful that we are persâ—… aded that the King should sin highly against God if he should not assume the same to himself and that the Churches within his Dominions should sin damnably if they should deny to yield the same to him yea tho the STATUTES of the Kingdom should deâ—…y it to him And they tell you in Sect. 6. that the height of the King 's Royal Dignity consists in his Supremacy It is thus likewise a kind of familiar or Vulgar Error among Protestants to think that in the â—…ncient times this Fundamental Assertory part of your Oath tâ—…at the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Râ—…alm was not allow'd Long before the Rescript of the University of Oxford to Henry the 8th A. 1534. mention'd that he was next under God their happy and Supreme Moderator and Governor and on which being brought into the Parliament House an Act passed whereby the King was declared Supreme Head and Governor of the Church and long before it was declared by the Parliament 16. R. 2. c. 5. that the Crown â—…t England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other and long before Bracton's writing in the Reign of H. 3. Omnis quidem sub Rege ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub Deo and ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo. c. you will find if you look into Coke's 4th Instit. c. 74. that in the Law before the Conquest the style runs Rex autem quia Uicarius summâ—… Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut Regnum terâ—…enum populum Domini super omnia sanctam veneretuâ—… Ecclesiam ejus regat c. and where he tells you of the style of King Edwin in his Charters viz. of Angâ—…orum Rex totius Britannicae telâ—…uris Gubeâ—…nator Rector And he there refers likewise to several Grants made by Abâ—…ots and Priors to King E. 4. wherein they style him by these very words Supremus Dominus noster But that he might perimere litem as to the point of the ancientness of the King's Supremacy he there referreth to the judgment of Parliament declared in the Statute of 24 o. H. 8. c. 12. viz. That by divers authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governâ—…d by one Supreme Head and King c. unto whom a Body-Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty been bounden and owen to beat next unto God a natural and humble Obedience c. And here I am led to tell you that as it is on this Foundation of the King 's being the Supreme Governor and Ruler of all sorts and degrees of men thus anciently acknowledged by our Roman Catholick forefathers that the Regal Power of Dispensing with the Laws that were Penal by Incapacity and particularly in order to the Crown 's being enabled to command the Obedience and Service of all Estates and Degrees of men was built so it is on the same that the Usurpations of the Papal Dispensative Power of that kind were opposed I shall before we part give you instances hereof A. I thank you but shall here tell you that the Expression you used just now about the King being disabled by his Subjects being so hath overcast my thoughts with some kind of horror B. I cannot help it but if you will have me speak with the frankness of a Philosopher concerning the Nature of things the disabling of the Subjects must have that effect in Nature and of the disabling of their Country too And I think too you gave me a hint for some such thought at our last meeting If you do but consider the Services done to Monarchs by that abject Nation of the Iews and who by Tacitus were call'd the Vilissima pars servientium and how in our Saviour's time they were serviceable to the Roman Empire in the Collection of the Customs and how much they have been since and still are useful to the Grand Signior and to many Christian Princes by gathering in their Imposts you will easily imagine the loss that would redound to Princes by Religionary Heterodoxy disabling any to serve them It is but natural to men of the most inquisitive and penetrating thoughts to differ from many Points of Theology receiv'd by Princes and their People and since such heterodoxy doth difficult their access to Preferment it is but Natural to them by their working Thoughts and Industry to arrive at the excelling the duller Orthodox in whatever course of life they take and by that means to try to push on their way into their Prince's favour and consequently to have very sharp regrets against any Methods that would incapacitate them for it And as if this Civil Death were to Men of great Thoughts the terrible of terribles and what as hindring them from serving their Prince and Country were like Burying them alive I shall shew you how a Man of great Abilities and who had made a great Figure in the Church
thing of that nature but in such a fair and legal way as should satisfie all his loving Subjects The Duplys of the Divines of Aberdene p. 54. and p. 130 131. Whereupon Mr. Ley thus goes on viz. Wherein Wise men who judge of Consultations and Acts by their probable Effects and not unexpected Events cannot but highly commend His Majesty's Mildness and Clemency which we doubt not would condescend to your Requests for a removal of this great aggrievance if you would please to interpose your Mediations to so acceptable a purpose and upon our humble sute which in all submissive manner we tender to your Lordship and by you to the rest of your Reverend Order we hope you will do so since we have it upon his word His Royal Majesty's word which neither in Duty nor Discretion we may distrust that the Prelates were their greatest Friends i. e. of his Scottish Subjects their Councels were always Councels of Peace and their Solicitations vehement and earnest for granting those unexpected Favours which we were pleas'd to bestow upon our People The King 's large Declaration p. 420 Thus then the Royal Dispensation with the five Articles of Perth was at the Intercession of the Bishops tho' they knew the same Establish'd by Act of Parliament graciously afforded to his Scotish Subjects Those Articles of Perth related to various Religionary Matters viz The introducing of Private Baptism Communicating of the Sick Episcopal Confirmation Kneeling at the Communion and the observing such ancient Festivals as belong'd immediately to Christ and of which Doctor Heylin in his History of the Presbyterians having spoken saith That the King 's indulging the Scots in Dispensing with the Penal Laws about them was an Invitation to the Irish Papists to endeavour by armed force to Compass the King's Dispensation But how tenderly the Consciences of the Roman Catholics in Ireland were in the Reign of the Royal Martyr THEN Protected under the Wing of the Dispensative Power contrary to what the Dr. observ'd any one may see who will Consult my Lord Primate Bramhal's Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon where he saith That the Earl of Strafford Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did commit much to my hands the Political Regiment of that Church for the space of Eight years In all that time let him name but one Roman Catholic that suffer'd either Death or Imprisonment or so much as a pecuniary Mulct of Twelve Pence for his Religion upon any Penal Statute if he can as I am sure he cannot c. And such was the acquiescence of the Populace and of the three Estates in the Penal Lawes there against the Roman Catholics being thus dead or asleep that in the Printed Articles of Impeachment against the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland and that Lord Primate thâ—…n Bishop of Derry and others of His Majesty's Publick Ministers of State exhibited by the Commons to the Lords in the year 1640. there is not a syllable of Complaint against those Lawes being so dispens'd with by Connivence Nor yet in the Printed Schedule of Grievances of that Kingdom voted in the House of Lords there to be transmitted to the Committee of the same House then attending in England to pursue Redresses for the same is there any representation of such Indulgence being any Gravamen nor yet of the great Figure the Irish Papists then made in the Government the Majority of the Parliament and of the Iudges and Lawyers then being such And pursuant to that Prince's Indulgence offer'd to the tender Consciences of his Subjects in the year 41. he was graciously pleas'd in the Treaty at Uxbridgâ—… to order his Commissioners who were such renown'd Confessors of the Church of England to make the first Royal offer there that freedom be left to all Persons of what Opinion soever in Matters of Ceremony and that all the Penalties of LAWS and Customs be SUSPENDED And the truth is since the Christian Religion did in its first settlement so rationally provide for its Propagation in the World and its bespeaking the favour of Princes by its enjoyning Subjection and Obedience to their Lawes not only for Wrath but Conscience sake and since that Principle of humane Lawes binding the Conscience which was so often and so publickly avow'd by that Prince and Arch-bishop Laud and Bishop Sanderson and the Divines of the Church of England in General is the surest guard to Princes Thrones and their Tribunals and that therefore 't is the Interest of the Prince and People to be more watchful in preserving that Principle then all the Iewels of the Crown or Walls of the Kingdom that Prince did therefore necessarily take Care to preserve and to perpetuate in some of his tender-Conscienced Subjects a continued Tenderness for his Lawes by his lawful Dispensative Power as particularly in the Case of his Scottish Subjects in taking off the Obligation of Obedience and of Conforming themselves to the Establish'd Lawes for such Dispensation intrinsecally notes the taking off such Obligation from the Persons dispens'd with And it is indeed a Solecism for any one to ask Indulgence from a Prince who owns the Law of the Land binding him in Conscience if he doth not think such Prince perswaded that his Power of granting it is a part of that LAW He was not ignorant of his Father's Aversion against the Penal Lawes in general and on which Account my Lord Bacon celebrating him saith As for Penal Lawes which lie as snares upon the Subjects and which were as a Nemo scit to King Henry 7. it yields a Revenue which will scarce pay for the Parchment of the King's Records at Westminster And religionary Penal Lawes requiring the greatest tenderness as he found when he came to the Government that the two most famous Puritan Divines Mr. Hildersham and Mr. Dod Men of great Probity and Learning had often been in his Father's time Pursuant to the Act for Uniformity disabled from Preaching and been re-inabled to it by particular Indulgence and as likewise Fuller tells us in his Church History that Bishop Williams when he was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England procured a Licence from King Iames under the Great Seal for Mr. Cotton the famous Independent to Preach notwithstanding his Non-Conformity so he in the same manner that his Royal Father did held the Reins of the Law loose in his hands as to those two other Non-Conformists beforemention'd The History of Mr. Hildersham's Life mentions that he was silenced in Iune A 1590 and restored again in Ianuary A. 1591. Again he was deprived and silenced April 24 A. 1605. for refusal of Subscription and Conformity and after some time again restored and was again Silenced in November A. 1611. by the King 's particular Command and on April 23. A. 1613. he was judicially admonished by the High Commission that saving the Catechizing of his own Family only he should not afterward Preach Catechize or use any of the Offices or Function of a Minister
metaphysical universale however they may â—…ansie it to be a real being but what I know cannot exist a part from the particular Rights and Privileges belonging to the Crown being assisted and defended and from a serious endeavour to understand the truth about their belonging to it And my solicitousness to find out which in the shortest way possible and particularly as to the Privilege of discharging incapacity or disability incurr'd by Act of Parliament as I told you at our last meeting engaged me to divert you out of the course of your method and whereupon you told me you would refer my thoughts to the Assertory part of the Oath B. Well what ever damps I may see on English Mens loyalty or degeneracy from its nature by the arts of faction a while perverting them not to assist and defend this or that Privilege of the Crown I shall never despair of their coming again to themselves and that tho as in a vessel of Water and Oyl while any one is shaking it the Water may over-top the Oyl so likewise in their minds while shaken and stirred by Demagogues the Oyl of the Lord 's anointed is not there uppermost yet that through its own nature and through the English good nature and their natural addiction to Religion it will in time naturally appear to be so And now to go on without further prefacing on either side what if I should tell you that it imports you to consider that in in the Assertory part of the Oath of Supremacy you have declared and asserted that authority as due to the King that was challenged and used by king Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th that is that the King under God hath the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these his Realms of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal so ever so as no other foreign Power shall or ought to have any superiority over them A. I would then tell you that you have mentioned some things to be in this Oath that I remember not to be there B. I grant that I mention'd to you somethings that are not express'd in the Oath and in the form of it as it is administred and was enacted 1 Eliz. c. 1. and by which Act the refusers of such Oath are punish'd with DISABILITY to bear Office. But in the same year in which that Act pass'd Queen Elizabeth in an ADMONITION annext to her Injunctions thought fit to exercise her Royal authority of the Interpretation or Declaration of the sense of that Oath enjoyn'd by Act of Parliament and in that Admonition you will find those words that you remember not in the Oath you took as likewise her ACQUITTAL of all Persons from all manner of Penalties and consequently of disability who took the Oath according to the sense of it publish'd in her Interpretation And if you consult the Act you will see that the disabilities inflicted in the Act on the refusers of the Oath are various And thus then you see that as soon as you have done taking the Oath you are immediately call'd on by your Conscience to defend the Privilege and preeminence of your Prince viz. of interpreting his Laws and of discharging the disabilities thereby inflicted A. I now remember that I have read that Admonition of the Queens but I account Proclamations Injunctions and Admonitions of Princes to be but temporary Laws and that therefore this Interpretation of the Queen's and her discharging of Disabilities expired with her Reign B. To obviate such thought I shall tell you that in the Act of the 5th of Queen Elizabeth c. 1. and by which the Refusal of the Oath of Supremacy is punish'd more severely then by the before-mention'd disability viz. by Proemunire for the first Refusal and by making it Treason for some Persons to refuse it a second time but Penalties that none ever doubted but the Crown might by its Pardon discharge there is a Proviso that the Oath viz. of Supremacy expressed in the said Act made in the said first year shall be takeu and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexd to the Queens Majesties Injunctions Publish'd in the first year of her Reign that is to say to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority then was challenged and lately used by the Noble King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth as in the said Admonition may more plainly appear And this too lets you see that the Parliament by thus referring to the Queen's Admonition did approve of her Power therein exercised and of her having acquitted her Subjects from the Punishment of disability A. I must then I see fairly grant you that by that Parliament's having thus perpetuated the interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy contain'd in Queen Elizabeth ' s Admonition I am bound in Conscience to take it in that sense and am perjured if I do not so keep that Oath and must likewise grant that you have shewn how auspicious that Oath by the Queens interpreting the same and the Parliament about five years after approving that Interpretation was to the Assertion of such her Power and that if any taker of the Oath should gain-say such Power you have prepared such a Confutation in the case as was used to the old Philosopher who disputed against Motion and whom his Adversary confuted by removing him from his place But as you are a fair arguer I am to take leave to tell you That that Parliament tho they approved the Queen's Admonition in general did not particularly shew their Approbation of the Queen's Power of dispensing with the Penalties that she exercised in that Admonition B. They did sufficiently shew their Approbation of the whole and therefore you need not question their approving of its parts But because you seem to lay some stress on that Parliament's not expresly approving in terminis the Queen 's Power of discharging the Penalties and one of which by the Act of 1 o Elizabethoe was disability I shall tell you that whereas Queen Elizabeth had thought it expedient for the Supporting of the Consecration of the Bishops of the Church of England to dispense with whatever might cause Disability according to her Supream Authority by her Letters Patents the very same Parliament at their next Session did 8 o Elizabethoe c. 1. in terminis terminantibus declare their Approbations of the Queens dispensing with disability by those Letters Patents for it having been in that Statute mention'd that for the avoiding of all Ambiguities and Questions that might be objected against the lawful Confirmations investings and Consecrations of the said Archbishops and Bishops her Highness in her Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England c. hath used and put in her said Letters Patents divers other general words and Sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority hath DISPENS'D with all Causes or doubts of any Imperfection or DISABILITY
submit willingly And in the clearing of which Point he refers to the Proviso aforesaid in the Statute of the 25th of Harry the 8th and the 37th Canon of the Church of England as rendring the Power by both given to the King to be purely Political But in p. 159. he refers by way of Objection to two Statutes of Harry the 8th the one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome the other an Act for Establishing the Succession wherein there is an Oath that the Bishop of Rome OUGHT not to have any Iurisdiction or Authority in this Realm then faith it is declared in the 37th Article of our Church that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in the Kingdom of England and in the Oath ordain'd by Queen Elizabeth that no Foreign Preiate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and he then by way of answer to which says That those two Statutes were long ago repeal'd by Queen Mary and never afterward restored c. and that altho it were supposed that our Ancestors â—…ad over-reach'd themselves and the truth in some Expressions yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the line and level of Apostolical Tradition and saith that our Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do Our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Iurisdiction which we understand of Iurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends â—…o further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Iurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiostical Iurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political And he in p. 161. takes notice of the Apostles Dispensative Power 2 Cor. 2. 10. to whom I forgave any thing for your sakes forgave I in the person of Christ But all this is only in the interior Court of Conscience But the Primate having in p. 73. discours'd of the Act of 1 o Eliz. c. 1. saith here is no new Power created in the Crown but only an ancient Iurisdiction restored here is no foreign Power abolish'd but only that which is repugnant to the ancient Laws of England and the Prerogative Royal. In a word here is no Power ascribed to our Kings but merely Political and Coactive to see that all their Subjects do their Duties in their several Places Coactive Power is one of the Keys of the Kingdom of this World it is none of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven This might have been express'd in words less subject to Excâ—…ption A. The Primate hath shewn an eminent Candour of mind in these Passages of his you have cited and if our Ancestors had but over-reach'd themselves and the truth in some Expressions and in any part of a Statute but that which forms an Oath it had not much concern'd us and as long as they had kept exactly to the line and level of plain Truth in all the words of the Oath but Oaths being stricti juris and being to be taken in truth and in righteousness and in the common sense of the words may I not here to the Assertory Clause of No foreign Prelate or Person hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. apply those other words of the Primate This might have been express'd in words less subject to Exception But according to what he cited out of St. Cyprian it may be said instead of no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. that Every foreign Prelate hath it and not only the Bishop of Rome as claiming a Succession under St. Peter but Thousands of other Bishops in Christendom who as the Primate saith there p. 162. do not at all derive their Holy Orders from S. Peter or any other Roman Bishop either mediately or immediately especially in Asia and Africa but from the other Apostles And suitably to what the Primate observ'd out of S. Cyprian by which we see that as there is but one Universal Church so there is but Episcopatus Unus in that Church and that undivided I find it observ'd in Sir Geffery Palmer's Reports in the Case of Evans Kiffin vers Ascuith Trin. 3. Car. B. R. Whitelock Evesque ad 3 Powers Le Primer est Ordinations and that comes to him by his Consecration and not before By that he can take the resignation of a Church He can give Orders and Consecrate Churches and it belongs not to him as he is a Bishop of one place or other mais il est universel sur tout le monde And therefore the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here could give Orders The Chief Iustice agreed with him herein The second is Potestas Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but tied to certain places as to take an Oath to Excommunicate and Punish offences and this Power he hath by Confirmation The third is Administratio rei Familiaris the Government of his Revenue and this is gain'd by Confirmation By this you see that the Bishop of Rome as every other foreign Bishop may have some Spiritual Power here viz. what the Reporter mention'd as the first And therefore I could wish that the 37th of our 39 Articles to which the Primate refers for the Interpretations of this Clause in the Oath had in those words there the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm express'd such a distinction of his Iurisdiction as the Bishop hath done and otherwise that common and trite Rule of Non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit being here applicable you know what is to be thought of an ambiguous Oath and that as the sagacious Author of the History of the Council of Trent hath told us p. 187 as one Particular makes false the contradictory Universal so one ambiguous Particular makes the Universal to be ambiguous Moreover tho you will suppose that he might lawfully take the Oath in his sense of the Pope's Jurisdiction yet all his great Learning and Reason could not qualifie him to be an Authentical Interpreter of the Oath to me In some parts of the Oath that were obvious to doubt you have already given me satisfaction and particularly in making me by vertue of the Canons of King Iames a participant with the Clergy in his authentical Interpretation of the 37th Article And since as Suarez in his learned Book De Legibus 4. c. de Interpretatione humanarum Legum saith that there may be an interpretation of Law which hath the Authority of Law and that qui in eadem potestate succedit semper potest Praedecessotum leges interpretari I shall account King Iames his Interpretation as good as Queen Elizabeth's and that if he had there declared his mind about the Pope's spiritual Power in foro interno being not renounced by this Clause in the Oath I should then be content with it But 't is otherwise for he there Confirms it in effect as 't is in the Article
confirm being firmum facere i. e. what was not so before you are not to think that the Parliament in 13 o Eliz. did so They Enacted what was by the Queen before authorized and as the words there are about the Articles viz. Put forth by the Queen's Authority And you may too for this purpose Consult the style of the Act 23 o Eliz. c. 1. Entituled An Act for retaining the Queen's Subjects in their due Obedience and where 't is made Treason for any to withdraw any Subjects from their Natural Obedience to her Majesty or to withdraw them for that intent from the Religion now by her Highness Authority establishâ—…d within her Dominions Thus too as to the Queen's disabling several of the Roman-Catholick Bishops and Deans by her Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the beginning of her Reign pursuant to the Act of 1 o Eliz. c. 1. for restoring to the Crown the Ancient Iurisdiction the Act of Parliament 35 o Eliz. c. 8. entituled Every Deprivation of any Bishop or Dean made in the beginning of the Queen's Reign shall be good and Archbishops Bishops and Deans made by the Queen shall be adjudged lawful begins with acknowledging that the former were justly deprived and it is therefore Declared and Enacted by Authority of this Parliament that all and every Deprivation c. and all and every Sentence of Deprivation c. had pronounced and given c. shall be adjudged deem'd and taken good and sufficient in Law c. and as to the latter viz. That all such Archbishops Bishops and Deans as were ordain'd or made by the Authority or Licence of the Queen's Majesty c. shall be taken and adjudged to be lawful c. Thâ—…y confirmed not what the Queen did in disabling the former and enabling the latter but only declared and enacted the validity of what the Queen had done And here you have again the Judgment of Parliament for approving the Queen's Power of Enabling and Disabling And here too by the way I am to tell you that you have another judgment of Parliament suitable to that in 8 o Eliz. and for the adjudging and taking to be Lawful the making and ordaining of the Archbishops and Bishops by the Authority or Licence of the Queen's Majesty c. any ambiguity or question in that behalf heretofore made to the contrary notwithstanding and which QUESTION before made in the Case I have before shew'd to be disability A. But I suppose you have read of that TWO-FOLD Subscription my Lord Coke speaks of represented as a Gravamen by some B. I have so and the last Book I read that so represents it is the Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet ' s Sermon by some Non-Conformists c. Printed A. 1680. and where in p. 29. they thus express their desires viz. That all New devised Oaths Subscriptions and Declarations together with the Canonical Oath and the Subscription in the Canons be suspended for the time to come If that be too much we shall consent our selves with a modester motion that whatsoever these Declarations be that are required to be made subscribed or sworn they may be imposed only as to the matter and end leaving the takers but free to the use of their own Expressions And this expedient we gather from the Lord Coke who hath providently as it were against such a Season laid in this Observation The form of the Subscription set down in the Canons ratify'd by King Iames was not express'd in the Act of the 13th of Eliz. 4. Inst. c. 74. And consequently if the Clergy enjoy'd this freedom till then in reference to the particulars therein contain'd what binders why they might not have the same restored in reference also to others It was the second Article enjoyn'd by that Canon to be subscribed viz. That the Book of Common-Prayer c. containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may lawfully be used c. at which they took so much offence and to which the Act of Parliament required not their Subscription A. I perceive then my Lord Coke doth not reflect on the form of Subscription as enjoyn'd by the 36th Canon of King Iames and by his Regal Authority out of Parliament as illegal notwithstanding what had been enacted in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth B. He doth not And he there further faith By the Statute of 13. Eliz. the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto but the Delinquent against the Canon of King James is to be proceeded withall by the Censures of the Church And I heard Wray Chief Iustice in the King's Bench Pasch. 23. El. report That where one Smith subscribed to the said 39 Articles of Religion with this addition so far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word oâ—… God that it was resolv'd by him and aâ—…l the Iudges of England that this Subscription was not according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. because this Statute required an absolute Subscription c. Besides this Subscription when any Clerk is admitted and instituted to any Benefice he is sworn to Canonical Obedience to his Diâ—…cesan But as to his saying that the Delinquent against this Canon is to be proceeded withall by the Censures of the Church I shall observe that the beginning of the Canon doth incapacitate any to be receiv'd into the Ministry who doth not subscribe the three Articles in it and that the Canon doth afterward put some temporary Disabilities on Bishops who shall Ordain Admit or License any one except he first have subscribed in manner and form there appointed and it is the Universities if offending that the Canon leaves to the Danger of the Law and His Majesty's Censure Here then you see King Iames the First did out of Parliament add a new Subscription to what was required by the Act of Parliament and did likewise out of Parliament make incapacity to be the Punishment of refusing such new Subscription And I need not tell you that that Power so exercised by that Prince out of Parliament hath been approved not only by all the Bishops of the Church of England as putting the Form of Subscription required by that Canon in execution ever since and to this day in lieu of the form required by the 13th of Eliz. but as I may say virtually and tacitly by all our Kings and Parliaments ever since who have acquiesced in the same But what if I should tell you that the Authority of the King in thus making that Canon about Subscription hath been since expresly approved in Parliament A. I should be most ready to hear it B. You may therefore please to consult the Act for Uniformity 16 o Car. 2. and in the latter end of it you will see that in a Proviso referring to the 39 Articles as agreed on by the Archbishops c. A. 1562. and particularly to the 36th therein about the Book of Consecration of Archbishops c. set forth in the time of Edward the 6th as
publickly or privately 〈◊〉 he should be lawfully restored and releas'd of his said Suspension But shortly after the beginning of the Reign of the Royal Martyr he was again restored and was afterward again silenced and so continued till August 2. A. 1631. and then he was again restored And Mr. Dod's Life represents his Case as parallel with this before-mention'd He was in King Iames his time suspended and restored and again by the King 's particular Command disabled from Preaching and was by King Charles the First re-ennabled or restored Thus as fortis fortem amat one tender Conscienced man too loves another such and the Executive Power of the Law in re-ennabling after temporary Disability was tenderly administred by these our Princes to these Conscientious Men with respect to their real Capacity of Favour to be shew'd them A. You have here given me a taste en passant of part of the Dispensative Power as exercised in the three Realms during some Conjunctures in the Reign of King Charles the First and for which I thank you and particularly for what you told me of the Act of Parliament dispens'd with in Scotland of which I never heard before and am apt to suppose a thing of that Nature was never done before in that Realm B. I can assure you to those who know the Publick Transactions of that Kingdom the thing will not in the least seem new I can tell you that on the 26th of November A. 1593. King Iames the 6th of Scotland made an Act of State in favour of three Roman-Catholick Earls Huntly Arroll and Angus by which Act he allow'd them several Priviledges contrary to Acts of Parliament made against Roman-Catholicks And His Majesty in his Act of State expresly dispenseth with those Acts of Parliament and which Dispensation tho Queen Elizabeth importuned him to revoke and for that purpose sent the Lord Zouch as her Embassador to him he still adhered to the Act of State he had made and continued his Dispensation A. Have you this Matter of Fact out of any of the Records in England or Scotland B. I have it out of the Original Papers under the hand of Queen Elizabeth and her great Minister Burghly and the Original Instructions of the Lord Zouch when sent by her to expostulate with the King about it that were lately in my Custody and by me sent to our gracious Sovereign and I shall some other time give you a more particular account of that Dispensation A. But I beseech you did not the Protestant Divines of the Church of Scotland then cry out of the unlawfulness or inexpedience of that Dispensation B. I have read it in a learned Book of Dr. Maxwell a Scotch-man Printed A. 1644. and who was then Bishop of Killally in Ireland and had formerly been Bishop of Rosse that Mr. Robert Bruce one of the Ministers of Edenburgh and who had a great sway in the Church of Scotland was pleas'd with the King 's extending his Favour to Angus and Arroll but out of a factious Complyance with the Earl of Arguile was displeas'd at its being shewn to Huntly But that Loyal Bishop there acquiesceth in the reason of State that inclined the King to Pardon the three Earls and his thereby hindering the growth of Faction in Scotland and providing for his more easie and secure access to the Throne of England on the Death of Queen Elizabeth And so you may easily guess what sort of men in Scotland look'd with an evil eye on that Act of the Royal goodness and who did not The Bishop there had applauded the great depth of the King's Wisdom and his transcendent Goodness in the Pardoning the three Earls and mention'd that there was nothing of Religion in the Case of Bruce's Aversion against the Pardon of Huntly for that Angus and Arroll were as bigot Papists if not more then Huntly I can likewise direct you to my Lord Primate Bramhal's celebrated Book call'd A Fair warning to take heed of the Scotish Discipline where in Chap. 6. thus entituled viz. That it robs the Magistrate of his Dispensative Power he saith by way of instance When the Popish Earls of Angus Huntly and Arroll were excommunicated by the Church and forfeited for Treasonable Practices against the King it is admirable to read with what Wisdom Charity and Sweetness his Majesty did seek from time to time to reclaim them from their Errors c. and on the other side to see with what bitterness and radicated Malice they were prosecuted by the Presbyteries and their Commissioners c. sometimes threatning that they were resolv'd to pursue them to the uttermost tho it should be with the loss of all their Lives in one day c. sometimes pressing to have their Estates confiscated c. He refers there in his Margin to Ass. Edinb 1594. But any one who shall consult D'Ossat's Letters and there in the Second Book carefully read over the 37th Letter that was writ to Villeroy in the year 1596 and three years after the Date of King Iames his Act of State and observe what that great Sagacious Cardinal there refers to concerning the Circumstances of those three Earls and how all the Prudence that could be shewn by man was but little enough for the Conduct of that King in that Conjuncture in order to his removing what Impediments either from Rome or Spain or his Native Country might obstruct his Succession to the Crown of England will not wonder at his having dispens'd and continued his Dispensation as aforesaid A. I have not yet ask'd you whether the Divines of the Church of England did not lift up their voices like a Trumpet against the Dispensative Power thus exercised by their Prince as you have mention'd B. They discharged their Duties in Preaching occasionally against all growing Errors but they wanted none to mind them of the Saying Impium esse qui Regi dixerit Inique agis The Pious and Learned Author of Certain Considerations tending to Peace c. mentions how the Bishop of St. Davids in King Iames's Reign A. 1604. did in a set Speech in Convocation shew that Ministers were not in the late Archbishop's time disabled from their Ministry on the Account of Non-conformity to the Ceremonies by Law enjoyn'd and concluded his Speech with the motion of Petitioning the King That if the removal of some of the Ceremonies enjoyn'd could not be obtain'd nor yet a Coleration for them of more stay'd and temperate Carriage yet at least there might be procured a mitigation of the Penalty c. And as the Suspension or Disabling of Hildersham and Dod from their Ministerial Functions so the Restoring of them to the same without all such things done by them as the strictness of the Lawes required was in both those Princes Reigns executed by the Bishops Nor do I remember to have read of any Divine of the Church of England to have in the least look'd with an evil eye on the goodness of the
Dispensative Power in the Reign of King Charles the First being extended to particular Persons but the hated Sibthorpe who in his Sermon of Apostolick Obedience as he call'd it doth speak of Mens being bound to observe the Lawes of the Land where they live except they will suffer as busie bodies or except they will have that inconvenience granted that the general Lawes or Government of a Nation must be dispens's withal according to the particular Conceit and Apprehension of every private Person whereout what Coleration of Heresy what Connivence at Errors what danger of Schisms in the Church and Factions in the State must necessarily follow c. and having mentioned the Liberty of a few erroneous Consciences bringing the Bondage of many regulated Commands he saith We must prefer the general before the particular and not let every one be loose to their List and Affection but all must be kept within the Lists of their Duty and Subjection And I but just now told you of that Prince's avowing that the Bishops advised him to the tenderness he shewed in dispensing with his Lawes to gratifie the pretended tenderness of the Consciences of some of his Scotish Subjects in that Conjunctâ—… â—…eand by which Dispensing one would have thought they might have been sufficiently antidoted against the strong Delusions of entring into War for Religion Oh that such thoughts had been then impress'd on their Minds as are contain'd in the General Demands of the Ministers and Professors of Aberdene p. 29. as I find them cited in the Book of Mr. Ley before-mention'd viz. There be other means more effectual for holding out of Popery and so of any unlawful innovation in which we ought to Confide more then in all the Vowes and Promises of Men yea also more then in all the United Forces of all the Subjects of this Land to wit diligent Preaching and Teaching of the Word frequent Prayer to God humbling of our selves before him and Amendment of our Lives and Conversations and Arming our selves against our Adversaries by diligent searching of the Scriptures whereby we may encrease in the knowledge of the Truth and in ability to defend it against the Enemies of it Oh that the Demagogues of those times had caus'd such words then to have been writ in our Churches or I might rather wish that those Heads of Parties had had themselves then hearts of flesh and that such tender words had been like a Law written there But the Urgentia imperii fata were upon us and that delicate use of Conscience that is in 2. Cor. 13. 5. call'd examen vel probatio nostrum ipsorum and whereby it resembled the best property of a beam in Scales namely its tenderness and turning with the least part of a grain was among the great Actors in that Rebellion quite laid aside and all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the weightier Matters of the Law did not stir their Consciences and the great Obligation of their Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy signify'd no more then the dust of the balance Tho they pretended to so nice a Tenderness about any thing that look'd like an Oath in familiar discourse and was not one as at the Saying in faith or in troth and so would seem to come under Solomon's Character of him that feareth an Oath but as to which words of in faith or by my faith our Judicious Sanderson de Iuramento makes them amount to no more then a meer Asseveration or at the most an Obtestation and saith that the genuine interpretation of the words by my faith whether in an assertory or promissory matter is this I speak from my heart I pawn my faith to you that the thing is so yet they at the same time would ridicule or seize on any one who had told them of what they were Sworn to in the Oath of Allegiance and of the recognition they made there as the words of that Oath are heartily willingly and truly upon the true faith of a Christian. A. There was a Solemn League and Covenant afterward took by those who had so apparently outraged the Oath of Allegiance and it was taken generally by all the Layety and Clergy of the Parliaments Party and was there not a general Tenderness of Conscience express'd then in the observance of that Covenant B. In the course of my Observation of Men and Things some things have more particularly occurred to me to shew you that the great Takers and imposers of that Covenant did as plainly and without any seeming remorfe outrage their Oath in that Covenant as they did their Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy For after they had first sworn to endeavour to preserve the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and then sworn to endeavour to reform Religion in these Kingdoms of England and Ireland in all Points according to the Examples of the best Reformed Churches and so were bound to reform us according to the Pattern of Scotland for that Church must necessarily pass for the best Reform'd Church that stands in need of no Resormation being to be preserv'd by them in the State it was the Parliament instead of setling in England the Presbyterian Government which then in Scotland had within its Verge four Judicatories and all pretended to be founded on Divine Right 1. A Parochial Session 2. A Presbyterian Consistory 3. A Provincial Synod 4. A General Assembly as they were bound to did in effect settle ERASTIANISM a Tenet or hypothesis of Church-Government that the Scotch and English Presbyterian Divines avowed as great an hatred of as of Popery it self Erastianism giving the Supreme Power in Ecclesiasticals to the Civil Magistrate and in their Printed Votes and Orders reproved the Presbyterian Divines for challenging an Arbitrary Power and which they would not grant nor set up ten Thousand Iudicatories within the Kingdom as the Parliaments words were referring to the Scots Parechial Session where a competent number of Lay-Elders whom they call Presbyteri non docentes and Deacons proportionable to the Precinct and Extent of the Parish are conjoyn'd and which associate Body thus compacted is the Spiritual Parochial Sanhedrim But this very first Point of that Church-Government the Parliament hinder'd Presbytery from gaining here and opposed its moving in that lowest Sphere of the Parochial Session of setling so many Thousand Ecclesiastical Courts of Pye-Powder in England and whereby it could never hope to climb up to the Primum mobile of a General Assembly which in reality was the Sphere the Parliament it self moved in Mr. Prynne who was one of the greatest Champions for that Covenant was yet an Eminent profess'd Erastian and Mr. Coleman a Member of the Assembly of Divines another of those Champions for the Covenant was likewise a declared Erastian and a great Favourite of the Parliaments and whose frequent Sermons before them for Erastianism were Printed by their Order and which Sermons of his and likewise his Books
writ for it were with great heat impugned in Print by Mr. Gillespy a Divine of Scotland and one of the Commissioners in England for that Kingdom and who in a Printed Sermon of his Preach'd before the House of Lords doth call Erastus the great Adversary and in one of his Pamphlets against Mr. Coleman call'd Nihil Respondes mentions how the Presbyterians and Independents were both equally interessed against the Erastian Principles And as to the greatness of the number of the Covenanters out of Parliament that rejected the Iure-divinity of the Scots ruling Elders Mr. Coleman gives us his Judgment in p. 12. of his Reply to Nihil Respondes viz. that 9 10 of the Assembly and 900 1000 of the Kingdom denyed a Ruling Elder to be an instituted Officer jure divino But Heylin having told us in his History of Presbytery That Presbytery did never setle its Lay-Eldership in any one Parish in England we may easily thence suppose the National Violation of that National Covenant without any apparent regret of Conscience on that account How all the Independent Clergy and Layety who had took the Covenant did in a manner simul semel most notoriously violate it in setting up the model of their Church-Government is not unknown But indeed as the very sagacious Author of the Book call'd The main Points of Church-Government c. Printed in London A. 1649. hath observ'd The known sense of the Scotish Nation which framed the Covenant and for whose Satisfaction the Covenant was here taken doth include Independency under the name of Schism or at least under those words contrary to sound Doctrine and our Independent Divines could not but know this to be their sense of it and yet we know of none that did protest against it or explain themselves otherwise at the first taking of the Covenant if they have done it since And I might further tell you that after the Engagement was set up of being true and faithful to the Common-wealth of England as it is now Establish'd without a King or House of Lords tho several of the Presbyterian Divines out of a sense of their Oaths and Allegiance and their Covenant were so Loyal as to refuse it I have not heard of any of those Independent ones who did But such was the Inundation of Practical Atheism in the Kingdom that our Civil Wars had caus'd that when the Engagement was set up almost the whole Body of the Lawyers in England took it rather then they would lose their Practice These men knew the meaning of the Acts of Parliament containing the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and yet were abandon'd by a disloyal Sophistical Principle of the want of Power in a lawful Sovereign to protect them absolving them from their Obedience to cancel their Oaths in the Court of Conscience And in a word further to shew you how the tender Regard of publick Promises was here grown one of Pancirol's lost things I shall tell you that tho in the Parliament of Richard Cromwell none was allowed to sit but he who had first took a Recognition of engaging to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector c. and not to propose or give any Consent to alter the Government as 't is setled in one single Person and a Parliament yet the Republicans in that Parliament were not in the least diverted by that Recognition from endeavouring there to alter the Government and it was there avowed by them that a Promise or Oath took without Doors did not bind within And at last to bring up the Rear of mens Perjury after all the Oaths legal and illegal had been so much confounded when the late King's Restauration was almost in sight on the then General Monk with his Army coming to London a new Oath of Abjuration of the Royal Line was at that time set on foot in Councel and which some there would have had imposed on the General himself A. Good God! What a Concatenation of Perjuries was our Land so long enslaved with you have referr'd to the Solemn League and Covenant for extirpating Popery and Superstition and while a General Assembly and Parliaments were planting here the Doctrine of the Council of Lateran namely the Absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance B. And while they were planting a Discipline that Archbishop Whitgift in his Reply to T. C. p. 299. 559. and Bishop Hall in his Book of Episcopacy Part 3. p. 34. and Bishop Downham in his Defence of his Sermon l. 1. c. 8. p. 139. And Archbishop Bramhal in his Fair warning to take heed of the Scotish Discipline almost throughout do charge with POPERY and where the last Archbishop doth represent the Covenant with the terms of Baal Baal berith and Baalims and saith It were worth the enquiring whether the marks of Anti-Christ do not agree as eminently to the Assembly general of Scotland as either to the Pope or to the Turk This we see plainly that they spring out of the Ruines of the Civil Magistrate they sit upon the Temple of God and they advance themselves above those whom the Scripture calls Gods. A. That Archbishop's saying It were worth the enquiring thus concerning that general Assembly as then used is the only thing wherein I differ from him for I think there is no doubt in the case B. To this you may add the thoughts of their being associated against Superstition while they were planting the grossest Superstition that any Age hath known if we may take our measures of Superstition from that definition of it in the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum viz. Superstitio cultus est ad Deum relatus immenso quodam proficiscens humano Studio vel animi certâ propensione quam vulgò bonam intentionem vocant c. Let any one consider how after the beginning of the Parliament of Forty they had obtain'd in the very Act that took away the Ship-money that all the Particulars prayed or desired in the Petition of Right should be enacted one whereof was That no Oath should be imposed on the Subjects that was not establish'd by Act of Parliament and how in despite of that Law they without any such Act out of a blind Zeal for Religion imposed this dreadful Oath on the People Let any one but read over The Covenant with a Narrative and the Speeches of Mr. Nye and Mr. Hendersham at the time of the Solemn Reading Swearing and Subscribing of the Covenant by the House of Commons and Assembly of Divines in St. Margaret's Church and observe in Mr. Nye's Speech his Saying that ASSOCIATION is of Divine offspring and his resembling of this Covenant to the Covenant of Grace and the matter of it there represented by him as worthy to be sworn by all the Kingdoms of the World as a giving up of all those Kingdoms to Christ and where it followeth yea we find this very thing in the utmost accomplishment of it to have been the Oath of the greatest Angel that
Rights and Privileges united and annexâ—…d to the Imperial Crown of this Realm you are to defend that great Royal Power of Pardoning and which our Ancestors in Harry the 8th's time thought so essential to Publick Justice And therefore you will still do well to remember that your sworn defence and assistance of all the Privileges and Preheminences of the Crown doth more particularly bind you in the Case of these fundamental ones to put no hardship on our Princes nor yet to use any softness of Allurements to tempt them to renounce them The Countryman who being by his Physician prescribed some Grains of Laudanum and desiring a greater quantity of the Apothecary and saying Shall I have no more for my Money and whereby he would have been Poyson'd was not less Sagacious then such Senators who by Subsidies would engage any Prince to part with so much of his Prerogative as would destroy the Body politick Alas as for several uncontroverted Rights of the Crown of an inferiour Nature as our Princes have been ready enough in all Ages to part with them for the good of their People and their own promoted thereby and have had grateful returns from their Parliaments by Subsidies on such an account so none need fear but that in all future times succeeding Monarchs will that way be as indulgent as the former ones were and that as Solomon saith the King himself is served by the Field and the Plough having here variously supported the Throne and particularly by the robust Infantry it hath yielded to serve the Crown in Arms the keeping up of the Spirits of our Yeomen and likewise of those who Plough'd the Sea by the Liberty our Laws allow'd them and the Crowns being no gravamen to the Body of the People and only to the Royal Heads that wore it was and will be always necessary in order to the keeping up the being of the Nation There is therefore scope and encouragement enough in England for a man who is a Candidate for a Patriot's place to carry it by being a Consessor of unmercenary Loyalty and arriving at honour or the consentiens laus bonorum by being a Loyal Patriot and there is as good popular air for any one to feed on who will assert the just Liberties and Privileges of the English Subjects as any Greece or Rome afforded and there was no need for any one to move for a Statue for the Hero who promoted that old act against old Concealments in King Iames the First 's time or the late one for the Habeas Corpus for such an one must find his Monument in the Hearts of all the Subjects of England Nor was there ever Prince more Cordially and Passionately concern'd for the Liberties of the People of England then the Royal Martyr and who fell reverâ as their Martyr according to his words on the Scaffold and where he said If I would have given way to an Arbitrary Power to have all Laws changed according to the Power of the Sword I needed not to have come here His style could not there recede from that of his Printed Declarations and in one of which for Example that in 41. he thus mentions his hopes viz. That God will yet make us a great and a glorious King over a free and a happy People A. If you had not thus coupled the LOYAL Man and the PATRIOT together in your Discourse I should have ask'd you whether you would have Men throw up the many good Laws that the Parliament of 40 obtain'd for the ease of the People by partly importuning the King B. I assure you I shall never give you or any one else cause to think that I have not a high value for some of those Laws and do now shew you my value of them by telling you that I do not look on them as the off-spring of any factious importunity but as the just and natural issue of the goodness of our Prince and you will find they were so if you consult the Declaration I last cited and where his never to be forgotten words are viz. That as We have not refused to pass any Bill presented to Us by Our Parliament for redress of those Grievances mentioned in the Remonstrance so We have not had a greater Motive for the passing those Laws then Our own resolution grounded upon our Observation and understanding the State of Our Kingdom to have freed Our Subjects for the future from those Pressures which were grievous to them if those Laws had not been propounded which therefore We shall as inviolably maintain as We look to have Our own Rights preserved c. And in his Declaration of August 12. 1642. he saith Would men enjoy the Laws they were born to the Liberty and Property which makes the Subjection of this Nation famous and honourable with all Neighbouring Kingdoms We have done Our part to make a Wall of Brass for the perpetual defence of them while these ill Men usurp a Power to undermine that Wall and to shake Foundations which cannot be pulled down but to the Confusion of Law Liberty Property and the very life and being of Our Subjects A. You have named then two fundamental Privileges or Rights of the Crown which by the Oath of Supremacy we are bound always to assist and defend And I am to tell you frankly and without going to hide my Transgression as did Adam that though I have often and in several Capacities took that Oath yet on the very day I last took it and while the very echo of those words so help me God was audible in the air of my mind and before the Ink was quite dry that recorded my Oath I without considering that as 't is the Privilege of our Prince that his Heirs by the Right of the Crown should succeed him so it is the great Privilege of those Heirs to succeed I was yet so far from assisting and defending that Privilege that I immediately endeavoured to subvert the same and tho my Prince's Mind was notify'd to me for my not so doing Nay further to make you my Confessor I was so far gone in a Lethargick carelessness of my Oath that when I saw the excluding the title of the Lawful Successor was not likely to pass into a Law I was tempted to endeavour by Expedients as if I had took an Oath and no Oath to make him a King and no King. And God having given me space to repent of my past incogitancy in relation to that Oath it being now brought before me in the Course of Providence to assist and defend another of the Preheminences which my Prince tells me is granted and belonging to the Crown and which you have mention'd as his Prerogative above the ordinary Course of the Law in the Right of his Crown and that he first made use of an emergent Necessity I will through the Divine assistance use all the means I can both of serious sedate and unprejudicate Consideration and of the
Consciences and who might thereby think that according to the Rule of ejus est interpretari cujus est condere that the Oath of Supremacy enjoyn'd by Parliament 1 o Elizabethoe could not receive an Interpretation but from the Queen in Parliament and that that Consideration might therefore be supposed to be the cause of the Queens interpreting being approved or declared good by the Parliament in the Fifth year of her Reign B. I shall tell you that as to the sufficiency of the Queen's Power to interpret the Oath by her sole Authority it appears not that the Proviso in the Statute of 5 Eliz. did in the least arise from any such scruple and so De non apparentibus c. And here without troubling you with the Notions of the Royal assent creating the Soul of the Law and by the words of le Roy le veult after the Body of it hath been prepared by the three Estates and that the three Estates have nothing to do to interpret a Law that is once made and accordingly as Sir C. Hatton formerly Lord Chancellor of England in his Treatise of Acts of Parliament and their Exposition tells us That the Assembly of Parliament being ended functi sunt officio and speaking particularly of those of the Lower House saith their Authority is return'd to the Electors so clearly that if they were all together assembled again for interpretation by a voluntary meeting eorum non esset interpretari c. I shall once for all observe to you that our Monarchs when in the exercise of the Prerogative inherent in them and inseparable from them relating to Matters of Peace and War the Coining of Money or the Dispensing in Matters Civil or Ecclesiastical they condescend to have the same in particular â—…ases approved or strengthâ—…n'd by Parliament are no more deprived of their Sole Supremacy therein then the Body of the Sun is devested of its Heat and Light by diffusing the same through the Air. But I have before observ'd to you that the apparent Cause in the Proviso of 5 o Elizabethoe whereby the Queens Interpretation is Enacted is the better to transmit the obligatoriness of the Interpretation in point of Conscience beyond her Life and to the Reigns of her Heirs and Successors and to bind us who live now to acknowledge such Power due to our present King over the Persons of all his Subjects as was in her interpretation challenged to be due to Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth I shall not trouble you with my Judgment about Moot-points of Law relating to the Regal Power of interpreting Acts of Parliament and particularly such wherein Oaths are founded My Lord Coke Inst. 3. c. 74. tells us That an Oath cannot be ministred to any unless the same be allow'd by the Common Law or by some Act of Parliament neither can any Oath allow'd by the Common-Law or by Act of Parliament be alter'd but by Act of Parliament and saith in the Margin So resolv'd An. 26. El. in the Case of the Under-Sheriff And then saith the Oath of the King 's Privy Councel the Iustices the Sheriffs c. was thought fit to be alter'd and enlarged but that was done by Authority of Parliament For further proof whereof see the Statutes here quoted i. e. those referr'd to in his Margin and it shall evidently appear that no old Oath can be alter'd or new Oath rais'd without an Act of Parliament I have only here referr'd you to Matters of Fact in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth a Reign that the Royal Martyr in p. 3. of his Declaration to all his Loving Subjects of Aug. 12. 1642. refers to with so much honour by saying We declared our Resolution c. and desired that whatsoever mistaking had grown in the Government either of Church or State might be removed and all things reduced to the order of the time the memory whereof is justly precious to this Nation of Queen Elizabeth c. and do leave it to you to consider how Great the Power of Interpretation of Laws is in it self a Power almost infinitely greater then the discharging either the Obligations of some Penal Laws or their Penalties Pro hic nu c and as to some particular Persons as any one will grant who hath seen the extent of the Power of interpreting in the Canon Law where the Glossa ad Cap. Statuimus 4. Distinct. 4. gives us this Interpretation of Statuimus STATUIMUS i. e. ABROGAMUS And I can for this purpose tâ—…ll you that Bartolâ—…s in his Tractatus testimoniorum speaking of the Imperial Power concedendi veniam oetatis saith Carolus quarâ—…us sanctissimus nebilissimus Imperator inter 〈◊〉 multâ—… concessit ut ego meique descendentes quos legibús dâ—…los esse contigerit per un versum imperium oetatis venâ—…am concedere valeâ—…mus servataÌ„ formaÌ„ quoe legibus reperitur insâ—…rta and whereby you see that a Power of dispensing with incapaciâ—…y was by the Prince given as an inheritance But none can imagine that the Power of interpreting Laws can be so conferr'd So that therefore according to the Rule of Law Non debet cui plus licet quoÌ„d minus est non licere you neâ—…d not wâ—…nder at the Prince's dispensing with incapacity in particular cases whom you have seen interpreting Laws And you may consider that if the Queen did contrary to the measures of Law referr'd to in my Lord Coke by her sole Supream Ecclesiastical Authority seem to alter the interpretation of a Stature Oath for the better what she did found afterward its approbation in Parliament and in fine I leave it to you to consider how much the Power of dispensing with any Law may be thought Coincident with interpreting since as I shall some other time shew you at large that the dispensing with Laws is in effect the equitable interpreting that in such and such cases and circumstances they were not intended and ought not to bind but ought to be relax'd And now I must take the occasion offer'd me to give you a prospect of the Queens Dispensative Power both of the Interpretation of this Oath and of the acquittal from Disabilities that is not bounded by the Statutes of 5 o or 8 o Elizabethoe beforemention'd and wherein she again stood on the single basis of her own Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical without having recourse then to a Parliaments approbation Mr. Ney in his learned Observations on the Oath of Sâ—…premacy having spoke of the Queens Interpretation of the Oath in her Admonition and of the Parliamentary Proviso 5 o Eliz. doth thus go on There is something of Explication further meaning of the Oath in the Artiâ—…les of Religion concluded in the year 1562 and then recites the 37th Article as followeth viz. The Queens Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of 〈◊〉 Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes
doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction Where we attribute to her Majesty the Chief Government by which Title we understand the minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always 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 The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in the Realm of England The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian Men with death for hâ—…inous and grievous Offences It is lawful for Christian Men at the Commandment of the Magistrate to wear Weapons and serve in the Wars Now after the Oath of Supremacy had been enjoyn'd in the first year of her Reign and the Admonition annexed to her Injunctions was then likewise publish'd viz. A. D. 1559. and after the Parliament had by proviso 〈◊〉 the interpretation of the Oath which Parliament began the 12th of Ianuary in the 5th year of her reign and from which day all things dâ—…ne in that Session are to bear date the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the 5th year of her reign and A. D. 1562. were by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces subscribed the 29th of Ianuary in that year and by the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation on the 5th of February following and to all which the Queen gave her Royal Assent And in the Articles there was by the Queens Royal Prerogative an additional Interpretation probably at the instance of the Clergy given to the interpretation in the Admonition and in the Parliaments Proviso and the which additional interpretation had in it no respect to nor mention of what being in several places of the former one might amuse the Clergy with some Fears and Iealousies namely the Duty Allegiance and Bond that were acknowledged due to Harry the 8th and Edward the 6th and the Authority that was challenged and lately used by those Princes however yet that latter Clause is qualify'd in the Admonition But for the 37th Article before-mentioned allowing the measures of the Royal Supremacy from the Prerogatives given by God in Scripture to holy Princes whereby our Clergy might seem to have brought the Prerogative into its own proper Element and theirs too the knowledge of the Scriptures being their profession our Clergy no doubt were always thankful to the Crowns Dispensative power and so exercised out of Parliament and whereby they were secured from penal disabilities either by suspension or deprivation for not taking the Oath in the sense of the Admonition Thus as things in their proper place are at rest the Queens Dispensative power and the Consciences of the Clergy by this interpretation of the Oath were so much at rest that about eight or nine years afterward the same 39 Articles that had been by the Archbishops and Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces agreed on in the year 1562. were by the said Archbishops Bishops and Clergy again agreed upon and again ratify'd by the Queen in the year 1571. the 13th year of her reign and when care was taken by the Government that that interpretation being incorporated in the body of the 39 Articles should be deem'd good in Parliament by the Statute of 13 o Eliz. c. 12. as the other interpretation in the Admonition had been by the proviso in the Act of the 5th of that Queen and probably for the same reason and as her dispensing with disability expresly in the 8th year of her reign was In the Act of the 13th of Eliz. reference was made to those Articles as agreed on by the Archbishops and Clergy and set forth by the Queens authority Anno 1562. and the Act is entituled Reformation of Disorders in the Ministers of the Church and in which it was enacted That all such as were to be ordained or permitted to preach or to be instituted into any Benefice with cure of Souls should publickly subscribe to the said Articles which shews if you mind it that tho the Parliament did well allow and approve of the said Articles yet the said Book oweth neither Confâ—…rmation nor Authority to the Act of Parliament And that Act concerning only Clergy-men tho the interpretation in the 37th Article is left to oblige the Clergy yet that in the Admonition might concern you to stick to if nothing had since happen'd whereby the dispensative power inherent in the Crown may have given your Conscience the benefit of the interpretation thus afforded to the Clergy But therefore I shall here tell you that the Canons of King Iames the â—…st Anno 1603 being confirmed for him and his Heirs and Successors are binding now however it hath been objected as the unhappiness of Queen Elizabeths Canonâ—… viz. A. 1571. A. 1584. A. 1597. wanting those formal words of Heirs and Successors to expire with her And as those words are in King Iames's Canons so are the words of enjoyning their being observ'd fuâ—…fill'd and kept not only by the Clergy but by all other Persons within this Realm as far as lawfully being Members of the Church it may concern them and tho in the first Canon there entituled The King's Supremacy over the Church of England in Causes Ecclesiastical to be maintain'd 't is order'd That all Ecclesiastical Persons shall keep and observe and as much as in them lyeth all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom its ancient Iurisdiction over the state Ecclâ—…siastical yet in the next Canon entitled Impugners of the King's Supremacy censurâ—…d the measures of the King 's ecclesiastical Authority being taken from the Godly Kings among the Iews according to the 37th of the 39 Articles was an extending to the Layety the ben fit of the Interpretation obtain'd by the Clergy the which was in effect a judgment of the Convocations that the pursuance of that Interpretation of the King 's Ecclesiastical Power and the avoiding of the punishment of Disability by the use of that Power was not agaâ—…st the Law of the Land but the 5th Canon viz. Impugners of the Artiâ—…les of Religion establish'd in the Church of England censured and in which the establishment of the 39 Articles is solely referr'd to them as agreed on in Convocation in the year 1562. without any notice of the Parliament of the 13th of Eliz. having done any thing about them doth more clearly secure to you the benefit of the Interpretation the Clergy had A. You have mention'd so many things to me relating to the interpretation
reason that lyes in this Assertory part of the Oath that so many Writers of the Common Law have founded their Assertion of the King's Power oâ—… Commanding the Service of all his Subjects as essential to the keeping up the Monarchy or the Rule of all Estates committed to him by God that I lately spoke of and inseparable from it noâ—… alienable by any Humane Laws It is the Supreme Power of our Princes as Governors of the Realm that hath always entitled them to Press men for the Service of the Crown by Land or Sea and to recall both Soldiers and Mariners from the Service of Foreign Princes upon emergent Occasions to serve their natural Liege Lord. And the Book writ by a Learned Common Lawyer against the Exclusion call'd A Letter from a Gentleman of Quality in the Country c. and Printed A. 1679. and so deservedly extoll'd by the Iudicious loyal tells you in p. 7. and 8. that If it should be enacted by Parliament that No man should honour the King or love his Parents or Children c. such an Act would be ipso facto void because contrary to the express Divine Command c. The Statute of 23 H. 6. c. 8. and several other Statutes Enact that no Man shall be Sheriff of any County above one year and that any Patent of the King to any Person for a longer term tho with an express Clause of Non-obstante shall be void and of none Effect and the Patentee perpetually disabled to bear the Office. And yet notwithstanding it is Resolv'd by all the Iudges of England that these Acts of Parliament are void and that the King may by Non-obstante Constitute a Sheriff for Years Life or Inheritance And what is the Reason which the Iudges give of this Resolution Why because say they in express words this Act of Parliament cannot bar the King of the Service of his Subject which the immutable Law of Nature doth give to him For Obedience and Ligeance of the Subject add they is due to the Soveraign by the Law of Nature See 2 Hen. 7. 6. v. Calvin's Case 14. a. in Coke's 7th Rep. We know that by the Statute of 4 o. H. 4. c. 5. 't is ordain'd That every Sheriff of England shall abide in proper Person within his Bailywick for the time that he shall be such Officer But this Act hath never been construed to hinder the King as Supreme Governor and Ruler of all Persons in the Realm from Commanding any Sheriffs to serve him elsewhere during their Shrievalties nor on such case to oblige the Sheriffs in Conscience to observe the Statute by such Personal residence Baker in the reign of King Charles the first tells us of an Information A. 1629. in the Star-chamber against Mr. Long for that he being high Sheriff of the County of Wilts had the Charge and Custody thereof committed to him and had taken his Oath according to the Law to abide within his Bailys-wick all the time of his Sheriff-wick and his Trust and Employment requiring his personal attendance therein did contrary thereto suffer himself to be chosen a Citizen for the City of Bath to serve in the last Parliament and did attend at Westminster in Parliament WITHOUT HIS MAIESTIES LICENCE he being Sheriff at that time and that for the foremention'd Offences and Breach of his Oath and neglect of his Trust and Contempt of his Majesty the Decree was That he should be Committed to the Tower during his Majesties Pleasure and pay a Fine of 2000 Marks to the King. Hereby you see that his Majesties LICENCE or Dispensing with that Statute had indemnify'd him from it in the Court of Law and that the potestas Superioris being necessarily imply'd in a promissory Oath the King as supreme Governour of all Persons in his Realms commanding or allowing such Officers service to the publick elsewhere had secured him in either forum The known Custom of the Speaker of the House of Commons DISABLING himself when presented to the King but of entring on his Charge on the King's approbation and pleasure signify'd according to that saying of Cuâ—… me posse negem quod tu posse putes may pass for some representation to our thoughts of Disability to serve the publick then evaporating when the King as Governor of the Realm doth give the Subject a Call so to do You may find this practice of the Speaker's disabling himself set down in Coke 4. Inst. c. 1. And I shall here by the way take notice that he there likewise mentions it that one of the Principal ends of Calling of Parliaments is for the redress of the Mischiefs and Grievances that dayly happen And he had there before said Now forasmuch as divers Laws and Statutes have been enacted and provided for these ends aforesaid and that divers Mischiefs in particular and divers Grievances in general concerning the Honour and Safety of the King the State and Defence of the Kingdom and of the Church of England might be prevented an excellent Law was made Anno 36. E. 3. which being applied to the said Writs of Parliament doth in few and effectual words set down the true subject of a Parliament in these words For the maintenance of the said Articles and Statutes and redress of divers Mischiefs and Grievances which daily happen a Parliament shall be holden every year as another time was Ordain'd by a Statute Before the Conquest Parliaments were to be holden twice every year c. But accordingly as my Lord Coke there takes notice of the style of the Statute of 36. E. 3. viz. to the Honour of God and of holy Church and quietness of the People and according to the style of the Statute of 10. E. 3. Because our Sovereign Lord the King Edw. 3. which Soverainly desireth the maintenance of the Peace and Safeguard of his People c. hath Ordain'd c. for the Quietness and Peace of his People c. and suitably to the style of the Statute of 14 o E. 3. 1. To the honour of God c. The King for Peace and Quietness of his People as well great as small doth Grant and Establish the things under-written c. and to that of 20. E. 3. and for this Cause desiring as much for the Pleasure of God and Ease and Quietness of our Subjects and according to that style in the Register Nos oppressiones duritias damna excessus praedicta gravamina volentes relinquere impunita volentesque salvationi QUIETI populi nostri in hac parte prospicere ut tenemut c. and according to the Trust committed to Princes by God to endeavour that their Subjects may under them lead QUIET and Peaceable lives in all Godliness and Honesty and which is the great Fundamental reason of the Moral Obligation of Princes to relax the Summum jus of their Laws by sometimes DISPENSING therein since we may easily imagine by our thinking of a late Conjuncture how possible it was that the
and State resented it in the Conjuncture of A. 1640. I mean Archbishop Williams who in his famous Speech in Parliament that year against the Bill that afterward passed into a Law to Disable Persons in Holy Orders from exercising any Temporal Jurisdiction doth thereupon represent it that under a CAIN ' s mark an eternal kind of disability or incapacity is laid on them from enjoying hereafter any of those Rights Favours or Charters of former Princes and which is the heaviest Point of all without killing of Abel or any Crime laid to their charge more then that in the beginning of the Bill 't is said roundly and in the style of Lacedaemon that they ought not to intermeddle c. And what his thoughts were of the Injustice of such incapacity put on the Clergy and of the odiousness of that Punishment of incapacity appears by what he afterward saith viz. I come to the 4th part of this Bill which is the manner of the inhibition every way heavy in the Penalty heavier a great deal in the incapacity In the weighing the Penalty will you consider the small wyers that is poor Causes that are to induce the same and then the heavy load that hangs upon these wyers It is thus If a Natural Subject of England interessed in the Magna Charta and Petition of Right as well as any other yet being a Person in Holy Orders shall happen unfortunately to Vote in Parliament to obey his Prince by way of Councel or by way of a Commissioner be required thereunto then is he presently to lose and forfeit for his first offence all his Means and Livelyhood c. This Peradventure may move others most but it doth not me It is not the Penalty but the Incapacity aâ—…d as the Philosophers would call it the Natural impotency imposed by this Bill on men in holy Orders to SERVE the KING or the STATE in this kind be they otherwise never so able or never so willing or never so vertuous which makes me draw a kind of Timanthe ' s veil over this Point and leave it without any amplification at all to your Lordships wise and inward Thoughts and Considerations But if with so much thunder of Passion as well as lightning of reason that learned Speech from the Bishops Bench did so much resent the punishing the Clergy with disability to execute secular Offices and to have the honour of serving their Prince and Country therein and for the imposing of which disability that known place of Scripture 2 Tim. 2. 4. No man that wars entangles himself with the Affairs of this life was alledged in the House as thus disabling them by the Law Divine and as to which the Bishop in his Speech gives a learned Answer we may well imagine how Lay-men of good Births and Educations and whose Diligence employ'd in Courts and Cities and Camps abroad may have qualify'd them here to stand before Kings must necessarily aggravate in their thoughts the dishonour of incapacity to serve their Prince in secular Employments A. Was that Speech of the Archbishop ever printed B. You will find it in the Apology for the Bishops to sit and Vote in Parliament printed in London A. 1661. And he hath in that Speech some other Expressions which corroborate that obvious natural notion of the King and Kingdom being disabled by disabling of Clergy-men from secular Employments For having reflected on the Bill for disabling them from sitting in the Star-chamber and at the Council-table sitting in Commissions of the Peace and other Commâ—…ssions of secular Affairs he afterward saith But my noble Lords this is the Case Our King hath by the Statute restored to him the Headship of the Church of England And by the word of God he is custos utriusque tabulae And will your Lordships allow this ecclesiastical Head no ecclesiastical Senses No Ecclesiastical Persons to be censulted with at all No not in any Circumstances of time and place If Cramner had been thus dealt with in the Minority of our young Jâ—…sias King Edward the 6th what had become of that great work of our Reformation in this flourishing Church of England A. The truth is it being a kind of a Rule that all Men of Parts who have been liberally educated and even those excelling in mechanical professions do naturally desire to serve the King and standing before Kings having been annext in Scripture as a reward to diligence in ones calling a Mark of disability put on Lay-men to serve their Prince cannot but tempt them to passion on that account more then it ought to have troubled the Bishop when he call'd it a Caiâ—…'s Mark in regard you have mention'd it that Clergy-men to some did seem by the Law-Divine disabled from secular Employments B. According to the Opinion of Iudge Vaughan in his Reports who in Hill and Good 's Case there makes a lawful Canon to be the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament and whatever is the Law is as much the Law as any thing else that is so for what is Law doth not suscipere magis aut minus they were by the Canon Law disabled from intermedling in secular Affairs And according to his description of malum prohibitum in Thomas Sorreâ—…'s case p. 358. you may say they were by the Statute so disabled from intermedling For he there saith malum prohibitum is that which is prohibited per le statute Per le statute is not intended only an Act of Parliament but any obliging Law or Constitution as appears by the Case for it is said the King may dispense with a Bastard to take Holy Orders or with a Clerk to have two Benefices with Cure which were mala prohibita by the Canon-Law and by the Council of Lateran not by Act of Parliament The Lateran Council his Lordship there means is that held under Alexander the 3d A. 1180 and which Council hath it in these words viz. neque servi neque spurii sunt ordinandi And uni plura ecclesiastica beneficia non sunt committenda And therefore the Bishop in that Speech saith That this Doctrine of debarring Persons in Holy Orders from secular Employments is the Doctrine of the Popish Church and first brought into this Kingdom by the Popâ—…s of Rome and Lanfrank Anselm Stephen Langthon and Othobone and with an intent to withdraw the Clergy from tâ—…eir receiving Obligations from either King or Lords and make them wholly dependants on the Popacy But Bishop Iewel tells us in his Apology p. 122. that Veteres Canones Apostolorum illum Episcopum qui simul Civilem magistratum ecclesiasticam functionem obire velit jubent ab officio summoveri A. Yet notwithstanding their being disabled by the antient Canons and the Nemo militans c. 2 Tim. 2. as often alledged against them by the Canons and Canonists I think they were frequently employ'd by our Princes in the greatest Offices of the State. B. They were so and the
the Statute of 37 o. H. 8. beforemention'd that speaks of Bishops Vicars-General useth only the Style of Vicegerent for Cromwel's Office. And I have observ'd in his Injunctions to the Clergy that he styles himself Lord Privy Seal Uice-gerent to King Henry the 8th for all his Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm c. But the word Vicar being perhaps by the envy of the Monks put on him and his Office in common Discourse the word Vicar in the Proper signification of it signifying a Servant to a Servant according to that in Martial Esse sat est servum jam nolo Vicarius esse the Archbishop speaking Cum vulgo might then call him the King 's Vicar-general and so others since I should before have mention'd what he saith p. 323. speaking of Cromwel Inter hunc Cranmerum summam necessitudinem Evangelium conciliavit ut dum ille Experientiâ hic Doctrinâ câ—…nctos anteâ—…elleret tum utrique Regi intimi chari essent Ex horum Consilio impiis atque odiosis Papoe Wolsoei Cardinalis Actis summum supplicium exitium Romanoe Curioe divinitùs paratum est A. You have enough minded me of the King 's dispensing with the disabiity incurr'd by the Canons both in the C se of Cromwel a Lay-man intermedling in Ecclesiastical Matters and of Câ—…anmer a Clergyman intermedling in secular proving so necessary to the Reformation and accordingly as Queen Elizabeth's dispensing with disability proved so to the Establishment of the present Hierarchy of the Church of England And I shall most seriously consider what the Act of the 37th of H. the 8th hath in such plain and liquid terms declared of the Power given to the King by Scripture and to all such Persons as he shall appoint to exercise Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction however incapacitated so to do by lawful Canons and Constitutions and which were by that Eminent Iustitiary you mention'd held Equivalent to Acts of Parliament and shall grant that iâ—… never so many Acts of Parliament had attempted to deprive the King of a Power inherent in him by Scripture such attempt would be nugatory and the fremuerunt gentes against it would be but the Peoples imagining a vain thing And I shall consider it how far by clear and necessary Consequences and no wire-drawn ones it follows from what is declared by this Act of Parliament as to the King 's being authorized by Scripture to choose some sorts of Officers to serve the Crown in Church and State that he is so authorized to choose others in like manner as you mention'd it to me declared by the Scotch Act of Parliament that the King by virtue of the Royal Power he holds from God All-mighty is to have the SOLE choice and appointment of the Officers of the State c. But I Pray do not many other Acts of Parliament in Harry the 8ths time whereby the Royal Prerogative is so much advanced and particularly that of the 25th of Harry the 8th that sets up the Dispensative Power seem to make it depend on Statute-Law And may it not seem to be more than a flaw in the Diamond of Prerogative and a great depretiating of it in cutting it out as it were into four by making its Establishment depend on the King and three Estates B. I shall therefore here once for all tell you that the occasion of so many mens mistake in thinking so many of those Acts of Parliament in Harry the 8th's time prejudicial to Prerogative as seeming to found it on Statute-Law is their not considering that such Statutes were but declaratory of old Laws and not introductive of new ones My Lord Primate Bramhal in his Schism guarded p. 155. saith I profess clearly I do not see what advantage Henry the 8th could make of his own Laws which he might not have made of the ancient Laws except only a gawdy Title of Head of the English Church which survived him not long and the Tenths and first-fruits of the Clergy c. But you may as fully take notice how Harry the 8th throughout his great Declarative Laws so often declares in effect his Regal Power to be given him by God. My Lord Coke in his Caudry's Case instanceth in the famous Statute of 24 o H. 8. c. 12. and calls it declaratory of the ancient Law and you see how it is declared there That the King is by the goodness of God furnish'd with Prerogative c. And the Statute of 37 o H. 8. begins as I shew'd you with the three Estates DECLARING That the King's Majesty is and hath always justly been Supreme Head in the Earth of the Church of England by the Word of God. You know too how the style runs in another of his Acts of Parliament viz. The Bishop of Rome and See Apostolick contrary to the great and inviolable Grants of Iurisdictions by God immediately to Emperors Kings and Princes c. And thus tho there are various Statutes in his Reign and particularly that of the 25th year of his Reign c. 19. by which it was Enacted That the King's Highness shall have Power and Authority to nominate and assign at his pleasure Two and thirty persons whereof Sixteen to be of the Clergy and Sixteen of the Temporalty of the Upper and Nether House of the Parliament to view search and examine the Canous Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and that such of them as the King's Highness and the said Two and thirty or the Major part of them shall deém and adjudge worthy to be continued kept and obey'd shall beÌ„ from henceforth kept obey'd and executed within this Realm so that the Kings most Royal assent under his Great Seal be first had to the same c. and tho according to the ancient usage of the Realm as well as to those Canons Lay-men were not only incapacitated to make Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Canons but Kings Bishops or Noblemen who believed that the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome may be violated or shall suffer them so to be are in the Canon Law anathematized yet as this enacting Clause was made on the Clergy's Petition to the King as the Preamble of the Act mentions that those Constitutions and Canons may be committed to the Examination and Iudgment of his Highness and of Two and Thirty persons of the King's Subjects whereof sixteen were to be of the Upper and Nether House of the Parliament of the Temporalty and all the said Two and thirty persons to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty c. and be empower'd to do what I mention'd out of the enacting Clause and whereby the King alone was in effect both according to the Clergy's Petition and the enacting Clause vested with the jus vitoe necis of the Canons so in a Memorable Epistle of Harry the 8th Printed before the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum and intended as a draught for a Publication or Promulgation of the King 's new Ecclesiastical Laws after the draught of
Bishop hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction in the forum internum wanted no relief in their Case from the Dispensative Power of interpretation Nor did those of the Church of England who convers'd with the Statute-Book want the Crown 's interpretation of this Clause in the Oath for the scope of the Statute of the 35th of H. the 8th that enjoyn'd the old Oath of Supremacy and from whence this Clause in the New one had its rise was not to break the Measures of St. Cyprian about the Unity of Episcopal Power but in effect to repress the Usurp'd independent Coactive Power of the Bishop of Rome and which several of the following words in that Oath sufficiently evince and which did bind the Swearer to defend and maintain all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made within this Realm for the Extirpation and Extinguishment of the ururped and pretended Authority Power and Iurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome c. And Queen Elizabeth finding the Oath thus at her coming to the Throne she like a wise Reformer would not make any breach in the World wider then necessity required and probably supposing that mens Allegiance having been used to the yoke of several words in that Oath that related to the renouncing and farsaking of foreign Iurisdiction would draw more quietly in the same and that according to the Rule of quod necessario subintelligitur non deest there being no solutio continui imagin'd by any to be design'd in the Unity of the Episcopal Power when the Clause of utterly testifying and declaring that neither the See nor Bishop of Rome hath nor ought to have any Iurisdiction Power or Authority within this Realm c. was inserted in the old Oath it ought to be judged that nothing derogatory to the order of Bishops could be intended in the Clause of the new Oath by her introduced And according to the Rule of Analogum perse positum c. Jurisdiction being to be taken for Coactive Jurisdiction the Clause relating to any foreign Prelates having here no Iurisdiction hath been still meant of none Coactive Mr. Rogers therefore writing on the 39 Articles hath thus fairly commented on that Clause in the 37th The Pope hath no Iurisdiction c. His Iurisdiction hath been and is justly renounced and banish'd out of England by many Kings and Parliaments as by King Edward 1st 3d and 6th by King Richard the 2d Harry the 4th 6th 8th and by Queen Elizabeth and by our most noble King James But that the Church of England intended no War against the Unity of Episcopacy by the Canons of 1640. which yet have the words of Popery's being a gross kind of Superstition and of the Mass being Idolatry and do ininflict a temporary disability namely that of Excommunication on Popish Recusants may appear by the tenderness there used to the Church of Rome in sparing to impute the Superstition of Popery to that whole Church by name And the 6th Canon having mention'd the Convocation's being desirous to declare their sincerity and constancy in the profession of the Doctrine and Discipline Establish'd in the Church of England i. e. the Doctrine of the 39 Articles and to secure all men against any suspicion of revolt to Popery or any other Superstition and enjoyn'd a new Oath against all innovation of Doctrine or Discipline to be taken by the Clergy the assertory part whereof hath in it an Approbation of the Doctrine and Discipline or Government established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary for Salvation and the Promissory part a Promise not to endeavour to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that which is so establish'd c. and not to give consent ever to subject it to the Usurpations and Superstitions of the See of Rome Mr. Bagshaw in his Argument in Parliament concerning those Canons took occasion to criticise on the not subjecting out Church to the Usurpation and Superstitions of the See of Rome and to call it a Negative Pregnant that is to say as his words are you may not subject the Church of England to the See of Rome but to the Church of Rome you may Now there is as much difference between the See of Rome and the Church of Rome as betwixt Treason and Trespass and this appears plainly by the Statute of 23. Eliz. c. 1. where it is said that to be reconciled to the See of Rome is Treason but to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is not Treason for then every Papist would be a Traytor being a Member of the Church and therefore reconciled to it Now the See of Rome is nothing else but the Papacy or Supremacy of the Pope whereby by virtue of the Canon unam Sanctam made by Pope Boniface the 8th he challengeth a Superiority of Iurisdiction and Correction over all Kings and Princes upon Earth and those Persons which take the juramentum fidei contain'd in the end of the Council of Trent which acknowledgeth this Supremacy are said to be reconciled to this See. The Church of Rome is nothing else but a number of Men within the Pope's Dominions and elsewhere professing the Religion of Poperty and that the Clergy had an ill meaning in leaving this Clause in the Oath thus loose I have some reason to imagine when I find it in their late Books that they say the Church of Rome is a true Church and Salvation is to be had in it And if it were tanti after having said so much to say yet any thing more to prop up the safety of your taking the Oath of Supremacy with the Clause whose sense hath been propp'd up by so many Acts of the Dispensative Power of interpreting I could tell you that in Sir Iohn Winter's Observations on the Oath of Supremacy Printed A. 1679. he having there consider'd Queen Elizabeths interpretation in the Admonition and the Confirmation of that Admonition by her Majesty in Parliament by the Proviso in the Statute of 5 o Eliz. c. 1. and the whole drift of the Statute 1 o Eliz. by which the Oath was enacted and what Bishop Carleton and the Primate Bramhal writ of the ancient Jurisdiction restored to the Crown by that Statute and that on the whole Matter the design of the Oath was not to invest her with the exercise of the spiritual Jurisdiction left by Christ to his Apostles and their Successors but to leave that entire to them saith at the end of his Book that it is not the true meaning of the Oath explain'd in manner as abovesaid which makes many of the Roman-Catholicks refuse to take it c. and then makes the Explanations not being known to all and their intricacy and the constant tendring of the Oath for so many years without the aforesaid Explanation likely to give just Cause of Scandal and thereupon he wishes that that Oath and the other of Allegiance which are required of them under so great Penalties may be
request them to consider that a Private Interpretation of a Publick Act can give no satisfaction unless it be either expresly or virtually allow'd by the highest Authority that doth impose it and then it is made Publick c. But the Authority of Interpretation of any doubt in such a Publick Act belongs properly not to private but publick Persons c. For private Men tho Learn'd if they take upon them the Interpretation of publick Dictates may be more like to light on mutual Contradictions of each other then on the true and proper Construction of the Text they interpret So did Vega and Soto Soto and Catherinus who wrote against each other contrary Comments on the Council of Trent In which respect it was a wise advice given to the Pope by the Bishop of Bestice viz. to appoint a Congregation for the expounding of the Councel and well follow'd by him when he forbade all sorts of Persons Clerks or Laicks being private Men to make any Commentaries Glosses Annotations or any Interpretation whatsoever on the Decrees of that Councel Dr. Burgesse indeed made an Interpretation of his own Subscription but there had been no validity in it as we conceive unless it had been allow'd by the Superior Powers And so it was for as he saith It was accepted by King James and the Archbishop of Canterbury affirm'd it to be the true sense and meaning of the Church of England He refers there to Dr. Burgesse in his Answer to a much applauded Pamphlet Praefat. p. 26. A. Your mentioning that of Dr. Burgesse his Interpretation of his Subscription minds me of what I have read at the end of his Book call'd No Sacrilege nor Sin to alienate or purchase Cathedral Lands viz. in his Postscript to Dr. Pearson and his No Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine of the Church of England Printed A. 1660. where he saith As touching the Regal Supremacy we own and will assert it as far as you do or dare Only we had reason to take notice of the improper Expression in the 37th Article that the Queen's Majesty hath the Supreme Power For if the Declaration father'd on the late King and prefix'd to the Articles had so much Power with his Printer that he durst not alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642 and those Articles must be read Verbatim without Alteration or Explanation then we say again there is a Necessity of Reforming that Article in the expression of it and not to talk at random what was indeed the meaning unless we may have leave when we read it Regiâ declaratione non-obstante to declare the sense which the Declaration alloweth us not to do But the truth is that exception of the Doctor to the Articles may well pass for a Scruple or rather a Cavil and at this rate we should be put to it to say O King interpret for ever B. You say right Dr. Pierson in that Judicious Book of his call'd No Necessity of Reforming the Doctrine of the Church of England well observes that the 37th Article hath express reference to the Queen's Injunctions set forth in the year 1559. and those Injunctions take particular care that no other Duty Allegiance or Bond should be required to the Queen then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th her Majesty's Father or King Edward the 6th her Majesty's Brother The words of the Article declare that the Doctrine contained in it concerneth all the Kings as Kings The title in General is of the Civil Magistrates and the words run thus where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government we give not to our Princes c. shewing that what they gave to her they gave to all the Kings of England Which will appear more plainly out of the first Latine Copy Printed in the time of Queen Eliz. in the year 1563. read and approved by the Queen the words whereâ—…f are these Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam Calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem c. Being therefore the Article expresly mentioneth and concerneth the Kings of England as they are the Kings of England the mention of the Queen's Majesty in the Article can make the Doctrine no more doubtful then it doth our Allegiance in that Oath which was made 1 o Eliz. where the Heirs and Successors of the Queen are to appoint who shall accept the Oath the words of which are that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm But I hope the Heirs and Successors of Queen Elizabeth did never appoint that Oath to be taken in the Name of the Queen's Highness but in their own It may be supposed that some such like Cavilling or Scrupling humour possess'd the fancies of some in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames the First and that some occasion was thereby given to that Prince in those his Canons expresly therein maintaining the 39 Articles and the Subscription thereunto and particularly in the 36th Canon there to enjoyn a Subscription to three Articles in such manner and sort as is there appointed and of which the first is That the King's Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions c. and that no foreign Prince Person Prelate HAUE or OUGHT to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual c. and in which the words have or OUGHT to have might possibly be inserted out of a Royal Complaisance with the Desires of some Scruplers in whose behalf the Famous Dr. Rainolds moved the King at the Hampton-Court Conference that to the Position in the 37th Article viz. The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm of England might be added nor OUGHT to have but which motion the King then rejected as a thing superfluous and saying Habemus quod jure habemus You may find an Account of this twoâ—…old Subscription in Coke 4. Inst. c. 74. and where he saith Subscription required by the Clergy is twofold One by force both of an Act of Parliament CONFIRMING and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. 13. Eliz. c. 12. Another by Canens made at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by King James A. I had thought you told me that the 39 Articles owed no Confirmation nor Authority to that Act of the 13th of Eliz. B. I did tell you so and do think that when my Lord Coke used the word Confirming he spake cum vulgo or as the word is taken minus propriè and as it is taken in declarative Acts of Parliament sometime to mean declared and as I and others may in Discourse sometimes use the word But speaking properly to
Roman Catholick Physicians and Lawyers had incurr'd by his Acts of Parliament I have told you But what if I should now tell you how afterwards he did take care as it were unâ liturâ to delete the Execution of â—…ll the Penal Laws disabling ones and others against the Roman Catholicks and that as to what he did therein the most zealous Protestants among his Bishops and the Lords Temporal and others of his Privy Council did concur with him in so doing A. I think you would tell me of that which was very strange B. As in the Happy future State of England it was with an intent to detect the Degeneracy and Vanity of the Politick and Protestant-would-be's of the Age who pretended to Advance Religion by Excluding the next Heir in p. 219. shewn that one of the general and publick Articles sent by King James the First to his Embassador in Spain in Order to the Match with the Infanta was that the Children of this Marriage shall no way be compell'd or constrain'd in point of Conscience or Religion wherefore there is no doubt that their title shall be prejudiced in case it should please God that they turn'd Catholicks and that it was afterward sent as an additional Article offer'd from England that the King of Great Britain and Prince of Wales should bind themselves by Oath for the Observance of the Articles and that the Privy Council should sign the same under their Hands and that accordingly the Articles were sign'd by Archbishop Abbot John Bishop of Lincoln Keeper of the Great Seal Lionel Earl of Middlesex Lord high Treasurer of England Henry Viscount Mandevile Lord President of the Council Edward Earl of Worcester Lord Privy Seal Lewis Duke of Richmond and Lennox Lord high Steward of the Houshold James Marquess of Hamilton James Earl of Carlisle Lancelot Bishop of Winchester Oliver Viscount Grandison Arthur Baron Chichester of Belfast Lord Treasurer of Ireland Sir Thomas Edmonds Knight Treasurer of the Houshold Sir John Suckling Comptroller of the Houshold Sir George Calvert and Sir Edward Conway Principal Secretaries of State Sir Richard Weston Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Julius Caesar Mr. of the Rolls and for the truth of which Facts reference is there made to Mr. Prynne's Introduction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Trial p. 43 so you may there read it in p. 44. that some private Articles were agreed on and probably were Sworn to by the same Persons that the other general ones were and of which private ones the first was in short That none of the Penal Laws against Roman Catholicks should at any time hereafter be put in Execution But you may thus see it at large viz. That particular Laws made against Roman Catholicks under which other Subjects of our Realms are not comprehended and to whose Observation all generally are not obliged as likewise general Laws under which all are equally Comprised if so be they are such as are repugnant to the Romish Religion shall not at any time hereafter by any means or chance whatsoever directly or indirectly be commanded to be put in Execution against the said Roman-Catholicks And we will cause that our Councel shall take the same Oath as far as it pertains to them and belongs to the Execution which by the hands of them and their Ministers is to be exercised The 2d was That no other Laws shall hereafter be made anew against the said Roman Catholicks but that there shall be a perpetual Toleration of the Roman Catholick Religion within Private Houses throughout all our Realms and Dominions which we will have to be understood as well of our Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland as in England c. And the 4th was That we will interpose our Authority and will do as much as in us shall lie that the Parliament shall approve confirm and ratifie all and singular Articles in favour of the Roman-Catholicks capitulated between the most renowned Kings by reason of this Marriage and that the said Parliament shall revoke and abrogate the particular Laws made against the said Roman-Catholicks c. And the Conclusion there is viz. That we will interpose our Authority and will do as much as in us shall lie that the Parliament shall approve confirm and ratifie all and singular Articles in favour of the Roman-Catholicks capitulated between the most renowned Kings by reason of this Marriage and that the said Parliament shall revoke and abrogate the particular Laws made against the said Roman-Catholicks to whose observance also the rest of our Subjects and Vassals are not obliged as likewise the general Laws under which all are equally comprehended to wit â—…s to the Roman-Catholicks if they be such as is aforesaid which are repugnant to the Roman-Catholick Religion and that hereafter we will not consent that the said Parliament should ever at any time Enact or Write any other new Laws against Roman-Catholicks We accounting all and singular the preceding Articles ratified and accepted out of certain Knowledge as far as they concern us our Heirs or Successors approve ratifie applaud and promise bonâ—… fide and in the word of a King by these Presents inviolably firmly well and faithfully to keep observe and fulfill the same and to cause them to be kept observed and fulfilled without any Exception or Contradiction and do confirm the same by Oath upon the holy Evangelists notwithstanding any Opinions Sentences or Laws whatsoever to the contrary In the presence of the most Illustrious Don John de Mendoza Marquess of Inojosa and Don Charles Coloma Extraordinary Ambassadors of the Catholick King of George Calvert Knight one of our Chief Secretaries of Edward Conway Knight another of our Chief Secretaries of Francis Cottington Baronet of the Privy Councel to our Son the Prince of Francis de Corondelet Apostolical or the Pope's Prothonotary and Arch-Deacon of Cambray Dated at our Palace at Westminster the 20 day of July 1623. in the English style Jacobus Rex A Compared and true Copy George Calvert Chief Secretary The Form of the Oath which the Lords of the Councel took to the former Articles is this which followeth found among the Lord Cottington's Papers Formula Juramenti à Consiliariis Praestandi Ego N. Iuro me debitè plenéque observaturum quantum ad me spectat omnes singulos Articulos qui in tractatu Matrimonii inter Serenissimum Carolum Walliae Principem Serenissimam Dominam Doâ—…nam Mariam Hispaniarum Iâ—…fantem continentur IURO ETIAM Quod neque per me nec per Ministrum aliquem inferiorem mihi inservientem legem ullam contra quemcunque Catholicum Romanum conscriptum executioni mandabo aut mandari faciam Poenamve ullam ab earum aliqua irrogatam exigam Sed in omnibus quae ad me pertinent Ordines à Majestate sua ex ea parte constitutos fideliter observabo Thus far Mr. Prynne who verifies the Facts above-mention'd not only from my Lord Cottington's Papers but from the Mercure Francois Tom. 9. A.
to perform the Conditions and that the King his Father should do the like Secondly That the Promises of Marriage should be presently made c. but that the Consummation of the Marriage should not at all be executed till the Month of May in the following year 1624. to the end that they might experimentâ—…lly see if the aforesaid Conditions required by his Holiness should be faithfully accomplish'd c. As to the first the Prince of Wales took an Oath to His Majesty to observe the foresaid Conditions and sign'd them with his Hand and he likewise swore and sign'd this by way of Over-plus to permit at all times that Any should freely propose to him the Arguments of the Catholick-Religion without giving any impediment and that he would never directly nor indirectly permit any to speak to the Infanta against the same But I shall here en passant observe to you out of the general Articles namely that in the 16th Article notwithstanding my Lord Coke's Opinion before-mention'd that a new Oath cannot be introduced nor an old one alter'd but by Act of Parliament there is a new Oath of fealty agreed to by the King to be tender'd both to Foreigners and Subjects of England who were to serve the Infanta and care taken that no Clause or word therein shall contradict the Roman Religion or Consciences of the Roman-Catholicks and that by the 24th Article for the Security that every thing that was agreed to should be fulfill'd the King and Prince were to be bound by Oath that all the Privy Councellors should sign the Agreement And I need not tell you that their being sworn to the private Articles was a new Oath A. Was nothing of the King's mind about the Suspending ALL the Penal Laws both the disabling ones and others against the Papists notify'd to his Privy Councel before the year 1623 B. Mr. Prynne there in p. 30. saith that for the hastening the Pope's Dispensation for the Match King James as the French Mercure Tom. 9. records it and as he had CREDIBLY been inform'd of from others assembling his Privy Councel together Febr. 25. 1622. made a long Oration to them which he recites at large the sum whereof was this That the Roman-Catholicks in England had sustain'd great and intolerable surcharges imposed on their Goods Bodies Consciences during Queen Elizabeth's Reign of which they hoped to be relieved in his c. That now he had maturely consider'd the Penury and Calamities of the Roman-Catholicks who were in the number of his faithful Subjects and was resolv'd to relieve them and therefore did from thenceforth take all his Roman-Catholick Subjects into his Protection permitting them the Liberty and entire Exercise of their Religion c. without any Inquisition Process or Molestation from that day forward and likewise will and ordain that they shall be restored to all their Estates Lands Fees and Seignories and re-establish'd in them Commanding all his Magistrates Iustices and other Officers whatsoever in this behalf to hold their hands and for what Cause soever it be not to attempt hereafter to grieve or molest the said Catholicks neither in publick nor private in the liberty of the exercise of their Religion upon pain of being reputed Guilty of High Treason and Disturbers of the Kingdoms peace and repose this being his will and definitive Sentence A. But still I cannot forbear wondring about what Considerations made our Divines and our Great Champions of the Church of England-Protestancy in the State as well as Church afterward thus inclinable to act their Parts about Toleration as Mr. Prynne hath mention'd B. They had cause enough to apprehend that the Hierarchy of England could not be supported without the Monarchy and that by reason of the various growth of the Potency of foreign Princes and States and of intestine Factions the Monarchy could not be then sufficiently secure without a foreign Alliance by inter-marriage and that where such Alliance was to be with the Familiâ—…s of Roman-Catholick Princes there could be no expectation of the Pope's relaxing his Laws by dispensing without our Princes doing something of that kind as to theirs I might here observe to you that we are told in The Regal Apology that the Oxford Antiquities mention'd to have been writ by Dr. Bate that A particular Toleration had a former President even in Queen Elizabeth in those Articles of Marriage which were consented to with the Duke of Anjou and if it were true that an Universal Toleration was agreed on by King James it was intuitu majoris boni The Palatinate was to be restored again and the Protestants of Germany to be re-enstated in their Possessions on that Condition But to punish being a kind of Punishment and it being irreligious to punish Men for Religion and the highest tide of Anger being naturally succeeded by the lowest ebbe of it and the thoughts of rigorous Severity in Princes toward their Subjects being like such in the Head toward the Members of the same Body and King Iames having found that the general abhorrence of the Gun-Powder-Treason had blown up the credit of those fiery Doctrines that produced it and he being then within Prospect of his end and being unwilling that the Sun of his Life should go down in his wrath and finding as appears by his long Proclamation of four sheets of Paper declaring his Pleasure concerning the Dissolving of the Parliament A. 16â—…1 that they were not the Papists who made his later breath so uneasie to him and he being of opinion that the reason of the severe Laws was much abated it may abate of our wonder that in that Conjuncture he put a Period to their Execution Mr. Prynne for this purpose in p. 14. of that Book Prints a Letter of the Lord Keeper Williams to the Iâ—…dges in the year following to acquaint them that His Majesty having resolv'd out of deep Reasons of State and in expectation of like Correspondence from foreign Princes to the Professors of our Religion to grant some Grace and Conveniency to the imprison'd Papists of this Kingdom had Commanded him to pass some Writs under the Broad Seal for that purpose and that he had accordingly done so and tells them that 't is His Majesty's Pleasure that they shall make no niceness or difficulty to extend that his Princely favour to all Papists imprison'd for any Church Recusancy whatsoever or refusing the Oath of Supremacy or hearing of Mass or any other point of Recusancy which doth touch or concern Religion only and not matters of State which shall appear to you to be totally Civil and Political A. You lately mentâ—…on'd to me that the Earl of Bristol hinted it that there was afterward somewhat of Compliance with the Pope in the Match with France of that nature as was in the Spanish Wâ—…at account doth Mr. Prynne give of that B. He tells you there p. 69. that the French Maâ—…ch was soon Concluded in the life of King James the Articles concerning
insignificant as did the old Politicks I shall refer you to in the Sacred Story and when the whole Earth was of one Language and of one Speech and the Vogue was Let us build a City and Tower whose top may reach to Heaven and let us make us a Name least we be scatter'd abroad on the face of the whole Earth But Heaven confounded their Language and their City was call'd Babel and their feared Dissipation was their Punishment They were so diffident of the Divine Promise whose garranty they had that they were resolv'd by their own hands to provide against all Dangers of a future Deluge and having built their Tower with Brick they thought 't would defend them from the Power of Fire concerning which they had heard the Tradition that a general Destruction of the World should proceed from the fury of that Element and they vainly endeavour'd to secure themselves against the anger of Heaven rather by a lofty Pile then by lowly Minds A. That wretched vulgar Error you referr'd to did shew that the line of Confusion was stretch'd forth on Men's understandings as well as on the Realm in that Conjuncture and I have observ'd that that vulgar Error did last to the very time of the ferment about the Exclusion and long before which time as well as then some have talk'd and writ at this rate viz. That the Oath of Supremacy was expresly made as the title of it shews to shut out the Usurpation of foreign Powers and Potentates and was not meant to provide against any popular Usurpations or Diminutions of the King 's Supreme Authority B. O God! But to speak or write at that rate to Conscience is Chicanerie And I have elsewhere mention'd what one whom I cannot too often mention to be as fair a dealer with Conscience as any the Age hath had told us in his sixth Lecture of Oaths about the Oath of Supremacy binding in this Case You know I mean Bishop Sanderson who there shews that tho Popes Usurpations or arrogating to themselves the Supreme Iurisdiction in spiritualibus throughout this Kingdom was the Cause of the Oath of Supremacy yet the Oath is obligatory according to the express words in the Utmost Latitude the reason is that the intention of a Law is general to provide against all future inconveniences of the like kind or nature Moreover the words in Queen Elizabeth's Admonition referring to the Persons call'd to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church as the doubters and the tenour of all the subsequent Interpretations as speaking them principally occasion'd by the doubters in the Church of England do further shew the Vanity of that Objection And if you will more particularly think of the Queen 's Authentick Interpretation of that Oath and approved in Parliament you will find the Oath of Supremacy to be an Oath of Allegiance and that it may be so-likewise properly termed For in the beginning of the Admonition you will thus find it viz. The Queen's Majesty being inform'd that in certain places of this Realm sundry of her native Subjects being call'd to 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 required of divers Persons for the recognition of their ALLEGIANCE to her Majesty c. A. As one may perceive by what the Queen's Interpretation in the Admonition refers to that there was a great ferment in the Kingdom about the sense of the Oath so suitably to what you mention'd of the Prudence of our Ancestors that caus'd various ferments to go off so insensibly the next Parliament in approving her Interpretation without troubling themselves to question the Authentickness of it doth corroborate your observation of the Excellence of the English understandings B. It doth so The fermentation in the minds of the People you speak of had been Epidemical And tho one might fancy by the Proem of the Admonition that the Interpretation as well as the Dispensing with Disability had an eye but on an inconsiderable number of People there referr'd to in the foremention'd words of sundry of her Majesty's Native Subjects in certain places of this Realm c. yet any one who knoweth the History of those times will find the Interpretation and Dispensation as I may say Calculated for the Meridian of all England and the Interpretation having an eye on all Christendom There was then in the Morning of that Queen's Reign and of the restoration of the Reform'd Religion such a thick mist of causeless Fears and Iealousies that had generally o'erspread the minds of Protestants and Papists shortly after the Birth of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. c. 1 o. that nothing but the Supremacy both of Power and Reason that shone in her authentick Interpretation of that Statute could disperse and that too not suddenly For as Mr. Nye in his Book of Two Acts of Parliament or Observations on that Oath tells us It is mention'd in the Admonition that the Queen 's Ecclesiastical Power is the same that was challenged and used by Henry the 8th c. which is supposed by some to be the same that was in the Pope the Person only and not the Power changed so that our Princes are but secular Popes This Objection was strengthen'd by the subtlety of Gardiner abroad and at home by a Sermon Preach'd at Paul's Cross in the year 1588. by Dr. Bancroft who calls Q. Eliz. a Petty Pope and tells us her Ecclesiastical Authority is the same which the Pope's was formerly and in the Margin opposite to what he had said of the subtlety of Gardiner strengthening the Objection abroad hath these words viz. Whom Calvin terms Imposterille And Mr. Nye afterward goes on to shew how the 37th Article did remove the Objection sufficiently The Author of The true Grounds of Ecclesiastical Regiment Printed in London A. 1641. doth in p. 53. mention some mens objecting it against the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of our Monarchs that it may descend to Infants under Age as it did to King Edward the 6th or to Women as to Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and that whatsoever we may allow to men such as Henry the 8th yet it seems unreasonable to allow it Women and Children The Papists think this Objection of great moment and therefore Bellarmine in great disdain casts it out that in England they had a certain Woman for their Bishop meaning Queen Elizabeth and she knowing what an odium that word would draw on her both among Papists and many Protestants also Consults her Bishops about it and by their advice sets forth a Declaration certifying the World thereby that she claim'd no other Headship in the Church but such as might exclude all dependency on foreign Headships and secure her from all danger of being deposed c. The Bishops in this did as warily provide for their own Claim as the Queen 's And the Roman-Catholick Author