be only Temporal Nay one may probably guess by his Institution of a Christian Man to be seen in the Christian Loyalty a Book lately set forth and that King's Letter to be found in the Cabala to the Clergy of Yorkshire that he took no more even in the Repeal'd Acts concerning his Headship of the English Church Possibly Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor might be the more Jealous of his being Head of the Church because They never saw that Book it being set forth some Years after their Death But that King Henry 8th did not confound Regal and Pastoral Power purely Spiritual appears by his Book of Ordination wherein he declares that Pastoral Authority he means purely Spiritual was by Ordination only committed to Men and also by his Injunctions And therefore could not assume such kind of Pastoral Authority or that which is purely Spiritual to himself nor Queen Elizabeth neither who took no more than he did But besides she farther explains her self in express Words not to take the Power Of Administring Divine Service in the Church but the Soveraignty and Rule over all Persons of what State soever they be And what can be desired clearer than this for her not taking Power to Preach Perswade and Help Christians as Christ bid his Apostles do which is in other words to administer Divine Service in the Church And what is Power over Ecclesiastical Persons without Power in Ecclesiastical Functions but Power Quantum per legem Dei licet with which Addition Bishop Fisher himself agreed to the Title of Supreme Head of the Church added by Act of Parliament in the Confirmation of Queen Elizabeth's Exposition And that the said Words Supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other His Highness's Dominions and Countries taking them all together as they ly as we ought can never signify other than a Civil Governour what-ever Things or Causes his Power is exprest to be in appears farther by this that those Words are a very unsutable and improper title for any purely Spiritual Head For who-ever heard the Arch-Bishop of Roan for example call'd Supreme Governour of all his Province of Normandy in all Things or Causes purely Spiritual Or How would Roman-Catholick Princes take it to have the Pope write himself Supreme Governour of all his Dominions or Countries throughout the whole Catholick Church in purely Spiritual Affairs These Words then will not suffer themselves to be meant of any other Power than that of a Civil Magistrate nor can they without much straining them from their common Use signify that he assumes to Himself any thing properly belonging to any Bishop or Priest and so they have no shew of touching any thing concerv'd to be of Faith Again The King of Spain has and exercises Supreme Spiritual Authority and Spiritual Monarchy in Sicily which are as harsh Words as any in the Oath And yet all Christendom knows and the Pope and Court of Rome it self that that King claims a Governourship or Power call'd Spiritual nay and which is much more Supremely such without any ones Fancying that Faith is prejudic'd by such a Title Nor imports it whether that King have this Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Pope or no We have nothing to do with their Bargains our only Question at present is concerning the meaning of the Word Spiritual when apply'd to Kings which if it signifies a Power purely Spiritual could never have been given him by the Pope himself without Creating him Bishop Now I would ask upon this occasion Whether if the King of Spain had thought fitting to Command his Subjects in Sicily to take an Oath of Supremacy exprest in these Words That he is Supreme Spiritual Monarch or has Supreme Spiritual Authority in that Kingdom whether it could stand with the Duty of his Subjects there to refuse to obey him and to take it upon a Caprichious Conceit grounded on the double Signification which the Words Spiritual Supremacy may possibly bear and thence take shadow that they renounce their Faith or Whether such a whimsy ought to excuse them I conceive no good States-Man though never so good a Christian would think him blameless You 'l say 'T is a different Case I add then this forcible Reason which I am sure is unanswerable If the Words In Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes subjoyn'd to Supreme Governour c. wrong Faith that is if those Words give the King a Power purely Spiritual as is feared and objected then the word ONLY joyn'd to Supreme Governour and ALL to Things or Causes being so Ample and Extensive must either give him the whole Latitude of Power purely Spiritual or None at all but All Power of some Other kind But it must cost us the Forfeiture of Common Sense to imagin that either the Oath makers should intend to Give or the King to Receive the whole Latitude of Power purely Spiritual For then he must have Power to confer Orders consecrate the Eucharist absolve in Confession which no Christian ever attributed to a Secular Magistrate Therefore 't is evident those Words do not give the King any Power or Supremacy purely Spiritual at all nor consequently can they breed the least Scruple in any Person of Loyal Principles that they concern or shock Faith 16. These Things seem evident enough How-ever for a 5th Proof and Explication of many Things that have been said concerning what K. H. 8th took upon him in the Reviv'd Acts that make the same belong to our King and be by us in this Oath acknowledg'd as his due or annext to his Crown let us consider that the Power so proper to a Pastor that we cannot give it to our Prince is nothing else but a Man's being by our Saviour's Appointment Immediate to his Apostles or Mediate to their Successors deputed to Preach his Faith Perswade and in the Sacraments help the Practice of it and by that Deputation enabled to do these Things Whereas a Lay-man out of Charity and Good-will to another or any other Good Motive besides our Saviour's Appointment which he hath not in our Supposition that he is a Lay-man or not Appointed and so would Usurp if he pretended to it may teach him his Catechism or send a Pastor that is his Friend or his Chaplain to do it And out of the same and other Reasonable Motives the King may have a Human Power either to teach a Man if he pleases or send all his Subjects that are Pastors to do their Duties or exercise the Power Christ gave them Nay and to hinder them from exercising of it in case of Wicked Life for example it be unreasonable they should since the Law can prohibit and punish any unreasonable Thing or Vice and since the Pastor himself though he hath the Power ought not then to exercise it And as the King may order them to do their Duties apart so in Counsel And as he may out of those said Motives Teach so he may out of the same as a
the Eighth nor any of his Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the Power of the Keys or any part thereof either the Key of Order or the Key of Jurisdiction I mean Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such Persons as submit willingly Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the Key of Order or the Key of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the External Regiment of the Church by Coactive Power to be exercised by Persons capable of the Respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had or could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose Subjects they were And therefore when we meet with these Words or the like That no Forreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of Power Jurisdiction c. Ecclesiastical with this Realm it is not to be understood of Internal or purely-Spiritual Power in the Court of Conscience or the Power of the Keys we see the contrary practised every day but of External and Coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in Foro contentioso And that it is and ought to be so understood I prove clearly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and an Article of the English Church Which Act and Article have been produced above The Bishop continues They that is the Parliament profess their Ordinance is meerly Political What hath a Political Ordinance with Power purely Spiritual They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from Rapine c. And then having produced the Article he concludes You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political Our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it Nothing can be more express than this so clear a Testimony of so Judicious a Bishop touching the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical acknowledged by Oath 42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds Wheresoever Ibid. p. 169. our Laws do deny all Spiritual Jurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that Sense that we call the Exterior Court of the Church the Spiritual Court They do not intend at all to deprive him of the Power of the Keys or of any Spiritual Power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy To conclude omitting a World of other Passages to the same effect he saith We have not renounced the Substance Ibid. p. 219. of the Papacy except the Substance of the Papacy do consist in Coactive Power 43. And that we may see this still continues the Sense of the Protestant Church and consequently of the State even to this day Mr. Falkner of Lynn Regis in his Book entituled Christian Loyalty so lately Printed that it was Antedated 1679 and dedicated to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Page 200. gives us the Sense of this Oath in these Words This Oath tending according to the Designe of that Statute by which it was Establish't to restore to the Crown its Antient Jurisdiction that Authority which is chiefly rejected thereby is such as invaded or oppos'd the Royalty of the King and particularly that which claimeth any Supreme Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Affairs as if they were not under the Care of the Temporal Power or that pretendeth to any other Authority above and against the Just Rights of the Crown 44. Now that such Authors especially the Three first so Universally read by all Learned-Men in their respective Times and doubtless amongst others by Thousands learned in the Law should pass without any the least Reprehension for interpreting the Oath and our Laws wrong in case they had in such their Declarations and Expositions declin'd from the true Sense of the Lawgivers nor be discountenanc't by those respective Princes as diminishing the Extent of their Power or by the Protestant Church and State for reserving more to the Pope than was meant by them when they requir'd Roman Catholicks to take the Oath but on the contrary that their Works should pass without the least Controll and Censure nay be Universally receiv'd with the highest Esteem and Applause and that their Persons should be so Caressed and Advanc'd by those Princes is a Riddle past mine or any man's Solving Princes and States use not to be so supine in such Matters as to permit a wrong Sense to be impos'd upon their Laws least of all those who are not in Communion with Rome especially when their own and the Pope's Authority are concern'd And yet we must either say that such Persons in such Matters were thus strangely negligent or else be forc't to acknowledge that in the Sense of all England the Lawyers there and even of our Princes themselves that was the True and Legal Sense of the Oath of Supremacy which those eminent Authors assign'd and declar'd This Argument will have far greater Force if we add that not one Protestant Author amongst so many that have either written expresly or touch't upon that Subject was ever found who contradicted this Explication of theirs or affirm'd any Power purely Spiritual to be given the King or taken from the Pope by this Oath Which the Fancies of Mankind especially those of many several Judgments in other things and all of them averse to the Pope and the Opinions of Writers being naturally so various evidences that this Sentiment of theirs concerning the abovesaid Meaning of the Oath was not only Universally but moreover Firmly and constantly held as an undoubted Truth And let it be noted here that all these four Learned Authors speak of the Oath both as to the Affirmative and Negative Clause in it that is both of what they attribute by it to the King and deny by it to the Pope Out of which Discourse it follows that though these Testimonies taken singly do not amount to a Publick Declaration of the Sense of the Oath yet taking them conjoyntly with all their respective Qualifications and Circumstances they evidently argue that the Sense they and we affix to the Oath is agreed to by all sorts of intelligent People in England to be indeed the True Sense of it Which Universal Consent seems equivalent to any Publick Declaration whatsoever Section III. Objections Answer'd NOtwithstanding the Evidence of what we produc'd above mens Fancies Interests and Humours being various there remain diverse Scruples in the minds of many and I will endeavour to ease them of those that have come to my knowledge and seem any way Material 1. First 'T is Objected that the words of the Oath deny all manner of Power to the Pope But how could they do otherwise Had they gone about to have number'd all the particulars which they intended to Abolish besides that 't would have been extreamly tedious in an Oath especially some perhaps would have escaped their utmost diligence Had they excluded Ordinary
Power Extraordinary or Delegate might still have pretended The Abolishing the Legantine might have left that Ex plenitudine Potestatis Annates had not taken away Appeals nor Appeals Habilitating to Inheritances c. Nor they Expectatives nor Reservatives nor Non Obstantes c. Had they gone that way to work whatsoever had not been expresly named would have been understood not comprehended and then a new Law or a new Oath must have been made for that and then another might have been found out and no end have ever been Wherefore to compass what they intended it was necessary to use a General Expression which they knew was to be understood as all Rules of Law and Language require it should of the matter in hand so that No Power here imports as much as no Civil Power no Power repugnant to the Kings Governing Power in all Causes no such power as Queen Elizabeth and her Ancestor-Princes had of old in this Realm as was largely shown above And hence to take the Oath right one ought to think not of the single words taken in their whole Latitude as devested of Circumstances but as taken in Complexion with them it being but a very Odd Scrupulosity to think the Oath is to be taken in such a manner as if one did not live in the world nor knew any thing of it's Circumstances but were to lay aside all knowledges he had gain'd all his life except onely of the signification of those very Words abstracting from all Subjects of which they may be conceiv'd to speak which amounts in other Terms to this that while they take the Oath they must lay aside all use of common sense nay and swear too they know not what for laying aside the knowledge of all Circumstances every word in the world is ambiguous 2. 'T is objected Secondly that the Church of England which may be presumed to understand this Oath best says in the latter part of the 37th Article in which it seems to relate to the Negative part of this Oath that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England 'T is answered the proper and primary sense of the word Jurisdiction is the Powers of a Magistrate giving Sentence according to Right or Law with Authority in External Courts to make it be Executed from whence in a secundary signification 't is transferr'd to the inward Court of Conscience But it carries it's notion in it's Terms Dictio Juris or Jus dicere importing in it's first and obvious sense to determin with Authority which may force Obedience to what is Sentenced This it seems is all which the Church of England understands deny'd to the Pope by the Oath which Bishop Charleton cited above in terms acknowledges by saying that There is no question between us concerning Carleton Of Jurisdiction c. 1. p. 8 9. the Internal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome but only the External And this plainly relates to the Judiciary Power spoken of Especially since the Church of England here speaks of No Jurisdiction of the Pope immediately after she had spoke what was due to the King and consequently in the same Sense here as she did there that so by saying the Pope had No Civil Jurisdiction she might signify that the King had not only Civil Power but also all of it since the Pope hath now none who had some formerly else we must come to the before-noted Inconsequent way of speaking He is King here and the Pope is not a Preacher or Pastor here That I may not omit that she speaks here in reference to our Laws which speak of Jurisdiction in this Sense only and which took from the Pope only this kind of Jurisdiction 3. And this is fully and clearly affirmed by the foresaid Dr. Bramhal Schism Garded p. 308. as above cited And again p. 340. Our Laws do not intend at all to deprive the Pope of the Power of the Keys in relation to England it self Our Parliaments did never pretend to any Power to change or abridge Divine Right c. for the VVhole is too long to be Transcrib'd and yet 't is fit it should be read Again p. 337. Our Ancestors cast out External Coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the Power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual No more do we We have a second or at least a Confirmation of this Answer in Franciscus a St. Clara 's Paraphrastical Explication of the 39. Articles of the Church of England pag. 412. where he sayes on the above-said Negative Passage of the 37. Articles That peradventure it meant only to deny England to be held in Fee from the Pope by virtue of King John's Donation Submission to and Reception of his Crown again from Innocent the Third and his Promise of paying Tribute to the Pope for it This vain ridiculous empty Title as Sir Thomas More himself called it Inanem Titulum was that peradventure sayes the fore-said à St. Clara which that Negative Passage of the 37. Article rejected For the Lawful Rejection of which he brings Proofs sufficiently convincing in the Page now quoted But whether or no he ghesses aright at the Meaning of that Passage it matters not much since the Objection has been otherwise already and sufficiently answered 4. A Third Objection proceeds from King James's saying That the Oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a Difference between Papists and them of our Profession And Bishop Andrews that the Oath of Supremacy was made to discover those who acknowledg'd the Pope's Primacy and deny the King 's Whence it seems to follow that what ever Sense this Oath might have had in Q. Elizabeth's Dayes yet King James gave it another opposite to a Tenet held generally by Catholicks else how could it distinguish them in case there was no Sense opposit to such a Tenet For in this case they might take it as well as the rest and not be distinguished from them by taking it And the Sense K. James gave it seems to continue still since no Body since ever took it out of the Oath I answer It doth not follow For in Supposition that neither Q. Elizabeth gave it that Sense nor K. James nor he so much as apprehended it to be given by her yet since he saw that all Catholicks did apprehend it in a Sense opposit either to some Religious Tenet of theirs or at least some other Position which they judg'd True and upon that account did as constantly refuse it as if it had really deny'd such a Tenet or Position he might if he pleas'd make use of their Refusal as a way though needless as Bishop Andrews observes to know they were Catholicks And as this Argument doth not prove that he did give it a New Sense different from what Q. Elizabeth gave it so 't is evident he did not For that Sense must have been either opposit to the Queen's and this he did not give it since
might have been intended by the Makers of it to deny the Pope's purely Spiritual Power of the Keys even in any Case or Contingency in England and other his Majesties Dominions though we have shewn this to be altogether improbable and hence peradventure they do actually deny it who take this Oath But I answer That notwithstanding what Possibility of Truth soever there be in the Antecedent there is no danger at all of the Consequent For I am as certain as that I live and know my own Thoughts that I understand the Words in a Sense not opposite either to Catholick Faith or to any Truth whatsoever Next I am certain I take the Oath in that Sense only in which I understand it And hence I am certain likewise that I deny not my Christian Faith or any other Truth Only I may perchance have some small Doubt as I may have of the Words of many Publick Oaths in the World which are notwithstanding generally held to be lawfully taken whether the Sense I take them in be meant by Law But however this Matter be or whether I doubt or not doubt in any manner at all sure I am I do not swear this doubtful thing to wit than my Sense of them is given by Law but only acknowledge upon Oath that the Sense I have of them is in or according to my judgment True 20. And hence I am induc'd to believe if these Reasons should help to effect a general Perswasion that the Oath means not to exclude the Pope's or other Forreign Prelates Pastoral Power in all Contingencies that then after such a general Perswasion the Oath may be lawfully and freely taken In the mean time because no tenderness can be too great in such matters to avoid giving Offence to any whether of our own or of a different Communion who if they understand the Oath otherwise will be apt to judge according to their own Apprehension that to take the Oath is to renounce the Religion which the Taker professeth I conceive it advisable that who takes it declare plainly before-hand in what Sense he understands it viz. that he takes it not in the most large Sense of the Words which might seem to some to deny his Religion but only in that Sense which to the best of his Judgment is assign'd it by Law or in that Sense in which Learned Protestants allow'd and approv'd by Publick Authority have expounded it and understood it to be the Law-Sense of it or that he understands the Power meant by the Law to be acknowledg'd in the King is the Power of the Sword not of the Keys Likewise that the Keys are not deny'd to the Pope or other Forreign Prelate but the Sword Or rather because the Power of the Keys has been stretch't by some to Temporals to the disposing even of Kingdoms and such like Exorbitancies which have not only been claim'd but practis'd and the Power to do them all the while call'd the Power of the Keys it were fit to make this Declaration in words not liable to Exception For which I know none more proper than those before mention'd of the Arch Bishop of Armagh that the King only has the Supreme External Coactive Jurisdiction or Power of the Sword within his Dominions over all Persons and in all Things or Causes and that no Forreign Prelate either has or ought to have any Part thereof and that he understands the Oath so and no otherwise and so takes it By this means he will deal uprightly and candidly and unblameably before God and Man and without any Shadow of Offence or Scandal whether to Protestants or Catholicks Conclusion 1. HAving been longer than I intended I conceive it not amiss to take a short view of what has been said at parting The whole in Truth lies in a narrow compass who refuses the Oath for what concerns the Pope must either think that his Pastoral Power is deny'd by it or that what without question is deny'd viz That External Coercive Judiciary Power which he has in some other Princes Dominions and heretofore had here is so his right that it can by no Humane Power be taken away There is no more in the Case For as to what relates to the King I take it to be very clear 2. As for the First the expressions of the Oath are so general that who looks upon them as they lie there and judges according to their bare sound has reason to except against them so much reason that were they taken out and digested into Propositions to be considered and judged of purely by the import of the Terms perhaps there is not a Catholick in the World at least I believe there are but very few who would approve them In likelihood our Ancestors who refus'd the Oath lookt upon them no otherwise which I the rather believe because I see that many I think the most go no farther at this day And then 't is no wonder that They refus'd and These condemn it All Catholicks generally would refuse and condemn it too if they lookt upon it in the same manner 3. But who look upon the same expressions as part of an Oath contained in an Act and reflect that the Oath is declared to be for the better Observation and maintenance of that Act and therefore and in force of the general Rule of understanding words according to the matter spoken of ought to be understood only of what the Act speaks That all the Power of which the Act speaks is Power repugnant to the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown Power both Forreign and Usurped Power burthensome and intolerably chargeable to the Subject That this Limitation is not only in the Title and Preamble but in the very Branch which abolishes the Popes Power where the intent is particularly exprest to be that All usurped and forraign power be forever extinguish't That the Popes Pastoral Power if it may be called Forreign cannot be thought Usurped by a Christian who reads the Scripture and sees S. Peter and in him his Successor ' empower'd there and commanded by Christ to feed his Sheep That where a Law declares it's own intent 't is not for others to think it intended more or otherwise then as it declares That no more was extinguisht then was intended to be extinguisht with what else is said in the foregoing Papers may find reason to judge that the Meaning of the Words of the Oath is not altogether so large as their Sound and that all the Power deny'd there signifies no more than all the Power spoken of in the Act and therefore that Pastoral Power is not renounc't that which is renounc't being limited by the Act to Oppressive and Usurped and to Soveraignty-repugnant Power 4. Again who considers that the Oath Actually is understood in this manner by those of greatest note in the Church of England That Arch-Bishop Bramhall tells us Schism Guarded p. 311. That by this Act there is no forreign Power abolished but only
of business is talking of a Material action or consideration He would be thought strangely to rove who should fancy Material there signifyed as among Metaphysicians The frequency of such cases made it necessary that People might understand one another to settle a Rule for the understanding of words and establish this maxime that they be alwayes understood Secundum subjectam Materiam as they phrase it according to the subject of which they speak I cannot tell whether this Rule have alwayes been remembred in the case of this Oath but doubt that who forgets it any where hazards to perplex himself into inextricable confusion Section I. Of the Affirmative Clause of the OATH 1. THis premised I come to the Oath which consists Principally of two Clauses One Affirmative the other Negative according to which the rest which have any shew of difficulty are to be understood The Affirmative acknowledges the King to be the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and the rest of his dominions as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal By this clause it was apprehended not only by Catholicks but others too that the King was invested with Power to do all that a Supreme purely Spiritual Governour could do Preach Confer Orders Administer the Sacraments c. Which as it is evidently false so 't is evident likewise that 't is not the meaning of the Clause 2. For First the Oath being enjoyned by Law for the acknowledgment of what was re-setled by Law in the King it's words must bear the sense they use to do in Law-Language and Law-Books which according to what has been said before is that the King is Supreme Governour of this Realm So that who ever hath any share in the Government of it be he Spiritual or Temporal Man hath it from and under the King 3. Secondly These words being in two Acts of Parliament whose declared sense is to restore what was due to the Crown ought so to be understood as to acknowledg all and no more in the King then those two Acts either in themselves or in those of King Henry the Eighth revived by them restored to him since no more at most and perchance not all of them are ordered to the making and consequently sense of this Oath Now what was restored by these every diligent Reader of them will find to be only what may without injury to Gods Law be possess'd by the King 4. For to begin with King Henry the Eighth in the first of them viz. Stat. 23. H. 8. C. 9. He only claims or exercises the Power of ordering where citations belonging to Spiritual Courts of this Realm shall be made which may be seen to be evidently his due In the Second 24 K. H. 8th C. 12. he takes Power only to order that no appeals in matters of Wills Marriages Divorces Tithes Oblations and Obventions shall be made out of this Realm alleadging for reason that as to the Temporal part of them they belong to the Imperial Crown and as to what in them may concern the Law of God to the Clergy of this Realm as being of parts fit for it to whom he expresly leaves this part not assuming it to himself 5. In the 3d. Stat. 25. C. 20. He uses the Power to restrain the payment of Annats and first-Fruits to Rome to which Temporal Power extends and with his Bishops in Parliament orders how others are to be elected and consecrated by them which Catholick Kings use to do 6. In the 4th 25. C. 9. The Power which he exercises is that no new Canon-Laws shall be made or old ones stand without his approbation Which he may have as a Knowing Man they being things of human institution nay as a Prince he ought to have since 't is known that Canon Laws do often clash with the Laws of the Realm Though if he abuses this Power by hindering good Laws and unprejudicial to the State He is to answer for that though to God alone 7. In the 5th 25. K. H. c. 21. He takes Power to hinder Paying of Money to Rome to hinder the Pope from Dispensing in Human Spiritual Laws to dispense in them Himself by his Bishops and with his Parliament to annul them All which certainly he may do as King And that he intended here to do no more than he might do appears by a Proviso of this Act revived by Q. E. and afterwards to be Cited 8. In the 6th 26. C. 14. He only assigns Suffragans by consent of Bishops in Parliament Which Assignment is a thing of Human Institution and as it depends on the Law of the Land may proceed from him And if it be said by any That since Christ gave his Apostles Power to Preach where they should please and think fit and so that they have from Christ Power independent of any Law of the Land as in times of Heathen Emperors to agree among themselves what Territories every one shall have to do his Duty in which the King cannot take from them as he may seem here to do 'T is reply'd That They may agree among themselves to have what Territories the Law or King shall assign them And thus at least the King may without Injury because with their Consents assign them Diocess's as well as the Legislators in England and in Forreign Countries divide one Parish into two or compound two into one as occasion invites without the least Danger apprehended of violating Faith or to speak more properly transgressing any Divine Institution And that it was done with their Consents is evident because here They did agree to it in Parliament Or it may be said That They themselves in Parliament did this And the Laity agreed with them to make it the Law of the Land 9. In the 7th 28. C. 16. He takes Power to give those Temporal Gifts which the Pope formerly gave to put Bishops into their Bishopricks Curates into their Cures as Catholick Princes now do and to give them leave to do their Duties not as to the purely Spiritual Intrinsical Power in common but as to some Circumstances belonging to the Exercise of it and commodious for the Subject So as they should have it from Parliaments and not from Rome Which he might lawfully do as is just now explicated and also make a Law they should not have it from Rome it being not necessary They should They having Power from Christ to Preach every where till they limited their Territories by their own Consent and here dissent from doing it at the Pope's Pleasure 10. In the 8th He takes Power to make a Civil Law as to Degrees of Marriages And if as he did this he judg'd what was of Faith in the Case he did it not as sent by Christ but as a Schollar Authoriz'd by Law which he may also do or as pre-inform'd by his Bishops In the 9th and last He only makes a Civil Order concerning the Marriage of Doctors of the Civil Law 11. The
supremely gives them the Later Much more the Jurisdiction they have to make Temporal Laws to judge those that do against them and execute their Sentence And in this we have seen how the King as a Christian may be Judge and Teacher of Faith and that Authorized by the Law of the Land How as a King he may and ought to be Supreme Civil Judge of what Faith ought to be establish't by Law and the Supreme of those that Preach or cause People to Believe and Practice by establishing Faith its Preachers sent by Christ and their Directive Laws by Law and by giving them the Jurisdiction they may have from Law to do what Christ bid them lastly how he is the Supreme Giver of Power to make Civil Laws to Judge by them and Execute them 21. Thirdly There is in Truth more Assumed in the Objection than there is warrant for in the Act mentioned It does not appear there that the King is impower'd to judge of the Repugnance of Canons to the Law of God On the contrary it seems meant that that Matter should be left to the Clergy For why else should Sixteen of them be put into Commission Neither are the Words on which the Objection is grounded viz. That such Canons shall be retained as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c. the Words of the Parliament but of the Clergy themselves who cannot be thought to mean by them that the Laity should be Judges of the Law of God They are only recited by the Parliament which when it comes to do its own part uses other Expressions There are other Reasons why the King should interpose The Reason of the Act is assigned to be because Divers Constitutions c. be thought not only to be much Prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal and Repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness and his Subjects Of those things who can Judge so well as the King with the Assistance of some of the Laity best versed in the Laws of the Land Again the King was to add his Authority to those Canons to make them Binding and therefore must needs know what he should Authorize and see why he should do it And this is all the Power in him which can be Collected from this Statute As for Appeals the Act indeed orders they should for lack of Justice in other Courts be made in Chancery but not determined there but by Commission to be granted by the King that all Differences of his Subjects be finally determin'd by his Authority But 't is not said nor is to be supposed that those Commissions shall be granted to the Laity where the Case concerns the Law of God For Appeals are ordered by this Act to be as was directed by a former Act of the same Parliament An. 24 H. 8. By which Act where any Cause of the Law-Divine or Spiritual Learning hapned to come in question the Body-Spiritual of the Realm is declared to be Qualifyed and to have Power to determin it and therefore to them it must needs be meant to be left To return to our Matter again Since those Parliaments evidently knew their King was neither Bishop nor Priest which even in their Thoughts was the same as not to have Power to Act in Spiritual Things by our Saviour's immediate or mediate Supernatural Mission or which is the same thing by the Power of the Keys They evidently saw he neither had nor could have any Pastoral Power purely Spiritual much less the Supreme Power of that kind what-ever the Supremacy of that kind consists in Hence they could never intend to give him what they saw he could not have given to him nor signify any such Gift or Sense by their Words in the Act or Oath But only a Gift of the above-explicated Power arising from Nature and Reason A Legal Power to exercise which as a Governor they knew he might have from them and to say that they intended to flatter him with the Acknowledgment of a Power in him which they knew was not in him is a Fault that they cannot be prov'd Guilty of especially when we remember their Proviso And so according to the Axiom Every one is to be presumed Good till he be prov'd to be Bad they ought to be acquitted 23. Wherefore upon the whole it is many wayes evident that the Words in the Affirmative Part of the Oath cannot mean any thing but Supremacy of the Sword which whether in Temporal or Spiritual Things cannot be exercis'd but by Authority deriv'd from the King And this Supremacy is so evidently His that He needed not this Act for it He has it from God and Nature and as it is inseparable from the Crown alwayes had it even when Ecclesiastical Authority was at the Highest For though the Bishops claim'd an Independent Power of their own yet as Things do not cease to be by not being acknowledged They truly acted under him and in vertue of his Allowance and subject to his Controll When-ever he pleased to interpose as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisions Premunire and the rest made in Catholick Times shew he often did His Pleasure and Laws carry'd it notwithstanding their Pretences 24. That they did mean only thus is beyond all doubt apparent by all manner of wayes by which any thing can appear And though what hath been already said out of the Oath it self and all the Acts which are any way ordered to Establish the Duties to be acknowledg'd by it seem to force a Perswasion that only Royal Power is required to be own'd by the Affirmative Clause I cannot leave this Part till I put the Reader in mind lest he should suspect these Reasons Fallacious as seeming good Ones only to my self how both Learned Protestants and the Protestant-Church understand this to be the Sense of it I alledge then that all Protestant Authors not one I think excepted agree That 't is not the Power of the Keys but of the Sword which is in the King I could name several but chuse to mention only Doctor Bramhal late Arch-Bishop of Armagh because no Body speaks or I think can speak plainer And what he sayes I take to be the Sense of the Church of England his Works being very lately Reprinted in one Volume Dedicated by the Bishop of Limric to the Arch-Bishop of Dublin In his Schism Garded p. 311 312. speaking of this Act he sayes thus In a Word there is no Power ascribed to our King but meerly 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 exprest in Words less subject to Exception but the Case is clear 25. Next The 37. Article of the Church of England Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the Chief Government We give not to
our Prince the Ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself That is That they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers 26. I could add here divers other Eminent and publickly approved Authors who are very full in expressing the same Sense of the Oath as Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in Queen Elizabeth dayes Doctor Carlton Bishop of Chichester in King James's Time both cited at large by Mr. Cressy in his Reflections upon the Oaths Sect. 6. and others But I conceive enough is said to the clearing the Affirmative Clause of the Oath and perhaps they may be more proper here-after to explain the Negative Part of it to which we now address Section II. Of the Negative Clause of the OATH THe Negative Clause runs thus That no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm Now though there want not some who think that taking the Words of the Oath in a Law-Sense and allowing Common Reason to scan the whole not Fancy to catch suddainly at single Words the Oath even as it lyes may lawfully be taken by those who are able to penetrate throughly into it Yet the Generality whom chiefly I must endeavour to satisfy are more apt to judge that if those Words be taken in the full Latitude of what they seem first to sound they cannot be sworn by any Catholick And they have Reason For it is plain that no Human Authority can take away what is given by Christ It is plain in Scripture that Christ did give to his Apostles and in them their Successors Power to Teach and Feed to Bind and Lose c. and this over all the World The Exercise of this Power may be and is restrained by Human Constitutions because it being to Edification not Destruction 't is against its Nature to be us'd where 't would do harm as if every Pastor should promiscuously Feed every Flock there would happen so much Confusion and Disorder that a good part of the Sheep would be not Fed but Starv'd 'T is this which truly binds up the Power Human Laws shew and that Authoritatively and Obligingly where the Harm is but have their obliging Vertue from that Harm Should They under pretence of Destruction forbid what Truths were to Edification They would indeed expose the Contraveners to Penalties but induce no Obligation to Obedience upon the Conscience So we see the Apostles the great Masters of Submission and Obedience to Authority when they were commanded to forbear Preaching the Doctrine of Christ declared plainly it was their Duty in that case to prefer God before Man But where Edification requires the Power should be exercis'd no Power of Man can hinder the Ordinance of God nor shelter those who do not Evangelize from the Wo with which they are threatned As any Bishop and any Priest might perform the Functions of a Bishop and Priest in any Part of the World before Canons were made to limit them to Places and Persons so They may still where Necessity or what-ever Circumstance takes off the Restraint and leaves the Power to its own Original Liberty Now the VVords of the Oath saying That no Forreign Prelate has any Spiritual Power in England do in the utmost Latitude of their Sound deny that the properly Spiritual Power given and commanded to be us'd by Christ in all the VVorld can even on any occasion be exercis'd by any Forreign Prelate in England And this being contrary to the Appointment and Grant of Christ cannot I think be sworn by any who believes in Christ For a Forreign Prelate being a Prelate cannot be without the Power of a Prelate nor that Power excluded from any Part of the VVorld where Edification requires it 2. I purposely abstain from speaking particularly of the Pope because the Oath speaks not particularly of him though it comprehends him under the General Term Prelate And because I conceive his Power concerns us not at present since the Case would be the same though there were no such thing as a Pope in the World For our Question is not What Power forreign Prelates have but What they have not If the Oath be meant of the Power given by Christ it is opposite to the Power given by him to all Prelates and so not Takeable for their sakes If it be not meant of that Power it is not opposite to what was given by Christ to any and so not Refusable for the Pope's sake Our Business at present is to inquire What Power the Oath means not what Christ gave If we find the Oath leaves it untouch't 't is best for us to leave it so too For to do otherwise is to stray into a different and unconcerning Question and amuse our selves unprofitably with what is not spoken of 3. That the Oath does not speak of that Power at all there are many Reasons to perswade me They who fram'd the Oath were Christians and knew and acknowledged the uncontroulable Power of Christ I cannot imagin they either would go about to take away any thing which he gave or think they could though they would They knew that notwithstanding the Confinement of Pastors to their own Flocks as firmly establisht as Human Laws both Ecclesiastical and Civil can establish any thing nothing is more apparent in Ecclesiastical History than that Prelates thought themselves at liberty to exercise the Power of Prelates upon occasion any where As Lucifer Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia made them a Bishop at Antioch St. Gregory of Nazianzen took care of Constantinople and a hundred such Examples there are England to its great Advantage has had Experience of the same as when Germanus and Lupus came hither out of France and preserved us from Arianism At this day if a Bishop of the Church of England happen to go beyond Sea as I think some did when His Majesty was there himself though they carry not with them that External Power which they have in their own Dioceses I suppose they do not think themselves bard from Preaching or Ordaining or Exercising any Episcopal Function where they think it necessary or expedient because they are in the Diocess of another Man And so though the Priests which are Ordained in the Church of Rome are liable in their Persons to the Penalty of the Laws in England no Body thinks their Acts invalid None will Re-baptize one whom they have Baptized or think they live in Adultery who pursuant to the Doctrine of that Church receive the Sacrament of Marriage from them Every Forreign Person is as much excluded by the Oath as Forreign Prelates Had Luther or Calvin come hither would They have been bard from
our Saviour gave to preach his Doctrine was repugnant to Allegiance and to the Jurisdictions of any Crown And hence to say the Makers of the Oath intended that People by those Words should deny that Power is to say they intended People should deny a thing in order to bring about their Allegiance which hath no order towards the bringing is about And which they saw had none For being Christians they could not think any Power our Saviour gave the Apostles and their Successors which only is of Faith and which only we contend they never intended to exclude was contrary to Allegiance or if they thought he gave any such and yet deny'd it they left off being Christians What then they apprehended in him was some Power not given by Christ but usurp'd from our Crown hurtful to it as they expresly say and this and only this they could deny him in order to secure Allegiance which was their Design 9. Next that the word Prelate which is the only remaining Word that hath any shew of Difficulty doth not determin them appears from this that the Prelate there intended as all suppose is one by whom Temporal Power as well as Power to Preach was in many particulars here usurped and as to the rest or all other Branches of it challenged and that not only on the pretext of Divine but even of Human Right viz. of the famed Donation or Submission of King John And so the word Prelate is sometimes by its being apply'd to him determin'd to Temporal and sometimes to Preaching Power And since he is in our Law and in this Oath look'd upon as opposite to Allegiance and the Jurisdictions of our Crown and so rather as a Prince than a Preacher he here determins it to a Temporal Sense even as it is apply'd to him For as it is apply'd to all the rest as Prince Person State or Potentate it is evidently made to suppose for Human Power and these Words being more it ought if it have but one Sense rather to have their Sense than the Sense of Prelate But some guess all those other Words are according to the Redundance of our Law-Language put to signify only one thing to wit the Pope who only as far as I can learn had any Power in England to be turn'd out as he is look'd upon in our Law as Prince Person State or Potentate 10. The words of the Oath then do not determin the word No Power to be No Preaching-Power And as for the Acts who reads them will find that there is not so much as one word of him as a Preacher Perswader or Administerer of Sacraments And consequently not so much as one word to determin these Words to such a Sense But on the contrary all the Discourse of him is as of a Getter of Power by Sufferance of Princes and Consent of People and Usurpation from the Crown in detriment of it As of a User of this Power in making human Ecclesiastical Laws as Judging by those Laws in Cases of Marriage Divorces Wills Tythes Oblations Obventions and as Dispensing in these and the like Laws In Getting great and Intolerable Sums of Money for these Dispensations In Giving of Benefices Receiving Annats and First-Fruits Giving Leave to Bishops and others to do their Duties which needed not except in case of Human Law they having from Christ this Power and in Doing such like Things as these And since the Actor of these Things is a Temporal Actor or an Actor by a Temporal Power he being constantly consider'd and spoke of in these Laws as an Actor of these Things must constantly determin the VVords of the same Laws Power Jurisdiction c. to import Temporal Power and consequently in this Oath which is made to deny all and only that which these Acts deny'd him 11. In truth the words Power Authority and the rest have not the same Notion when apply'd to Church-Men as when they are apply'd to Secular Superiors Power in this case signifies Power to Constrain in the other to Perswade A Bishop invites a Man to obey him that is to Believe and Live as he from Christ instructs him by the Hopes and Assurances of the greatest Goods and frights him from disobeying by the Fears of the greatest Mischiefs which he will certainly bring upon himself who will not be directed by him If any remain Obstinate he with-draws from him those Helps to Salvation which Christ has left in the Church and which his Perversness now renders useless to him that by considering the Danger of his Case besides the Shame and what else attends Excommunication he may be Reclaimed and Spiritus salvus sit in die Domini Farther than this a Church-Man cannot go by the Nature of his Power abstracting from supervening Laws He cannot take away Meat from the Glutton nor VVine from the Drunkard nor lay out the Covetous Man's Money in Alms nor by Violence force any Sinner to Virtue But the Prince if any Man disobeys his Commands lays hold of him and by Force constrains him to obey Now let us consider which of these two Notions is in Common Language generally understood by the VVords in question We do not say a Friend a Lawyer a Physician c. have Power or Authority though by not following their Directions we miscarry in our Affairs or lose our Estates or Health But a Magistrate a Father or Master we say have Power over their Subjects Children and Servants because they can force them to do what they command Plainly therefore Power in Common Language means Compulsive Power VVhich if it be so who understands the words Power Authority and the rest in the Oath of purely Pastoral or purely Spiritual or properly Church-Power of the Keys understands them otherwise than as they properly and usually and alwayes signify unless they be determin'd to that less proper Signification otherwise which here we have seen they are not 12. Another evident Argument may be form'd thus In the Act 1 Eliz. c. 1. it is expressly said that this Oath is made for the Observation of that Act. Hence there is no more deny'd the Pope by this Oath than by that Act VVhat is otherways deny'd by the Queen or her Divines in their Religion or in Controversie-Books being not a Denyal to be acknowledg'd by Oath else it would be to deny all other Things of Faith in which we differ as well as this which no Body dreams of Now only Temporal Power is deny'd by the Act therefore none but Temporal is deny'd by the Oath Only the Second Proposition wants Proof 13. For its first Proof it is sufficient to read over this Act and all Acts revived by it and consider the Pope's Power there spoken of and whether all of it there spoken of be Temporal For if all spoken of be Temporal all deny'd him must needs be so The first of the Revived Statutes which taketh any thing from the Pope is in the 24 K. H. 8. c. 12. It
s Preamble speaks only of such a Power of the Pope as was by reason of its Opposition to the Prerogatives of the Crown by Catholick Kings taken from him and restor'd to the Crown And of such a one as he exercis'd with great Damage to the Nation in Causes of Appeals in several Cases and for Remedy of this Damage it is enacted That he shall have this Power of being a Judge in those Causes no longer And if it be said that in this Preamble he is spoke of at least once as a Preacher when it is said that the Clergy of this Realm were alwayes able to Judge of God's Law without him I answer This invalidates not the Argument for it is Founded in this that where any Power is deny'd him all there spoken of is Temporal VVhence is infer'd that all deny'd him is Temporal Now it is not there said the Pope cannot or shall not Judge what is God's Law when a Question may rise in England about some Point as a Preacher or one skillful in God's Law But that the Clergy is able to do it without him And thence he seems to infer that 't is needless to appeal out of this Realm to know of him what is the Law of God if there should chance to be any doubt in case of Matrimony or Divorce for Example And it being a needless thing to appeal to him even as a Preacher and inconvenient to appeal to him as a Judge commands this not to be done And thus no Power was deny'd him where he was spoke of as a Preacher but only where he is spoken of as a Judge in those Causes as far as they depend on Human Laws Next the Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 20. speaks of no Power taken away but the Power of exacting Annats and First-Fruits and of Electing of Bishops which having accrew'd to him by time could not be Divine or Supernatural Power that is Power deriv'd to him or confer'd upon him Jure Divino 15. The Statute in the 25 K. H. 8. cap. 19. excludes perchance his as well as our Clergie's Power of continuing old Canon-Laws or making new Ones without the King's Approbation And the Power of making such Laws is grounded only on Human Reason shewing the Things prescribed to be convenient Of which Conveniency our Clergy and also Layity as knowing it best by living here where a thing may be Inconvenient that else-where is Convenient and not the Pope ought to be Judge VVhich is the Reason why Laws even of General Councils do not Oblige except where they are Receiv'd Hence not so much as a Just Human Authority is here taken from the Pope 16. But if it be here upon this Occasion ask'd VVhether the Clergy and Layity could in Reason and good Conscience renounce their Human Power to continue all such old Canons which the King should not approve of when as they being more in Number and more likely to be in the Right than he might judge either an Old or New Canon convenient which he might think to be inconvenient And hence whether the King in Reason and good Conscience could then and now by this Act 's being Revived and giving this same Power to the King take and keep the Power of Repealing all such Canons as he should please And consequently whether we can with a good Conscience Swear as we do in the later part of the Oath to defend this his Power if Conscientiously possest by him I answer That I believe they did according to Reason and Conscience in rather choosing the little Harm that might be in the Repealing of some good Old Canons than the great One that might proceed not only from the King's Displeasure but either from the Continuance of many former bad Canons or the Enacting of as bad New Ones or upon such other account upon which a Man may now after it is made Law upon the same or a better Motive continue to consent to the Continuation of what they did Likewise the King might as reasonably take upon him that a Law may not be continued which he dislikes as that a Bill which both Houses like may not be a Law except he likes it or as that a Law which he likes shall not be discontinu'd though both Houses that are more dislike it And this is for Publick order sake 17. The Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 21. speaks of no Power to be taken away but Power of dispensing in the King's Laws to the Prejudice of the Crown and impoverishing of the Subjects which Power must be of the same Nature as the Laws dispensed with 18. The last reviv'd Statute that takes any thing away is in the 28 K. H. 8. cap. 16. and it takes away only Power of giving Licences in abundance of Human Cases and among the rest the Power of putting Bishops into their Bishopricks and Priests into their Parishes and of giving them leave to do their Divine Offices VVhich though it may at first Sight look like Pastoral Power given him by Christ yet it is not For where-ever an Apostle dyed the People and Clergy of the Place had Power to choose themselves a Bishop and put him into his Bishoprick without the Pope's Consent And this Power they Exercis'd for many hundred Years all over Christendom according to the Antient Canons and Customs till partly under pretence of Respect to St. Peter's Successor but whether truly or only for that Reason is another Question it was by several Concordates between some Emperors Kings and Princes and States of Europe of one side and Popes on the other agreed There should be no Bishops allowed in their Territories but whom the Pope or Bishop of Rome should approve of Hence the Power which the Pope had that a Bishop could not or should not be put in without his Consent he got by Human Agreement and only this Power was taken here away For it is not said here that the Pope cannot or shall not perswade People to chuse themselves a Bishop that he sees want one or perswade a Bishop who hath Authority from Christ to do it to go and preach to People that want him which may belong to the Care our Saviour gave him over the Church but that they having a mind to have Bishops will have them of their own choosing and putting in and not of the Pope's as was of former Times practis'd And that this is their Sense is evident out of the History of what the Pope did before that time and of what they themselves did and hinder'd him to do afterwards Or it may be said in short that as they saw it not necessary by God's Law that the Pope should choose and give them a Bishop who were ready to do it themselves so they thought it not convenient he should and thence made a Law that he should not The Law not saying that he could not nor should not send them a Bishop in case of necessity in which case he hath Power from
our Saviour to provide for the Flock and so have other Bishops too in such case besides him but only that he should not in this case of no-Necessity Which is to take from him not the Power but the unnecessary Use of that Power which last was certainly not given by God 19. Likewise Bishops and Priests had from our Saviour Power to preach and that all the World over as they should think fit without its being necessary to have this Power from St. Peter's Successor But after some time they thought fit to agree that each one should not do his Duty every where nor at his own Discretion but only in the Place allotted to him and at the Discretion chiefly of the Pope at least within his Patriarchate And the Power that was by this Agreement given the Pope was here by the Disagreement of this Nation in Parliament taken away So that now they should have their Places allotted by it and at the Discretion of it exercise the Power they had from Christ 20. Having thus seen that when any Power of the Pope was in the Reviv'd Statutes turn'd out none but Human was spoken of Let us now see of what kind Q. Elizabeth speaks in her Acts. 21. In the Title of her First Act 1 Eliz. cap. 1. none is spoken of but Power Repugnant to the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown Now one Human Power is often Repugnant to another and in our Case the Pope's having Power to Judge some Causes here without having it as from or under her is Repugnant to her Imperial Power of having all Judges in the External-Court proceed under and from her But not the Ministerial Power our Saviour gave to preach his Doctrine and feed his Sheep a part whereof is to render to Caesar what is Caesar's In the Preamble we hear only of Usurp'd Power taken from the Pope by K. H. 8th And who can think that it here calls the Power our Saviour gave to preach Usurp'd But least one should think they meant not to call the Power which our Saviour gave Usurp'd but to call his pretence of being Chief Preacher so let him consider how the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown restor'd is put both here and every where as relative to it So that where-ever there is mention made of Power taken from the Pope there is also mention made of Power restor'd to the Crown and where ever of Power restor'd to the Crown also of Power taken from the Pope Which gives one reason to think that none was taken away from Him but what was given to the Crown nor any thing given to the Crown but what was taken from Him And this is render'd more evident by Bishop Bramhal's Words Schism Garded p. 340. Whatsoever Power our Laws did devest the Pope of they invested the King with it Now this being so how is it possible they should apprehend the Pretence of being Chief Preacher or Pastor though false so usurp'd as to belong of Antient Time to our Crown and to be now restor'd to it 22. Next by the Fruit let him know the Tree And what is all the Good Fruit there mention'd as proceeding from what was taken away from the Pope and restor'd to the Crown Being kept in good Order and freed from intolerable Charges which are Temporal Fruits And what is all the bad Fruit there mention'd as proceeding from the Pope's having got all his Old Power again by Queen Mary's Act of Repeal Bondage under an Usurp'd-Forreign Power to the intolerable Charges of the Subjects If this be all the Fruit that grew upon all the Stocks of Power he had formerly taken from him could any of them be any other than the Temporal Stock of Power opposit to that by which the King kept them in good Order or of Power to get Money And lastly since this Preamble desires nothing but Freedom from these Evils who can imagin that this Act speaks of any other Roots but these to be pluck'd up Especially since in that Part of the Act in which this Power is taken away it is still all call'd Usurp'd all call'd Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Which Words as being in our Law must determin the word Power to import Temporal 23. Lastly The Title of the Act 5 Q. Eliz. cap. 1. being An Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Majesties Royal Power over all States and Subjects within her Dominions the word Power as often as 't is us'd in the Act must be understood in a Sense conducing to the Assurance of Royal Power except one should think the Law-makers to be so Imprudent as to use it in a Sense no ways conducing to effect their Design and what only Sense conduces to that end we have already seen Moreover the Preamble declaring no Design but the Preservation of the Queen and the Dignities of her Crown and the avoyding of Mischiefs that have befallen Her her Crown and Subjects by reason of the Usurp'd Power of the See of Rome all the VVords of the Act are to be understood of no other Power than that which is the Reason or Cause of those Mischiefs and of that only which being taken away the Ends aim'd at will be compass'd and this for the same Reason alledg'd before And now being come to the end of our View of every Particular deny'd by the Acts And being conscious that every particular Power deny'd to the Pope is Temporal we may solidly conclude that all deny'd him is such 24. For a Second Proof of the said Second Proposition let us reflect how it is altogether unreasonable to think that these Acts take away any Power from the Pope of which they express no dislike nor make any Complaint of its being in him and how our Eyes testify that they signify no dislike of his Preaching Power But only of his Power which was a Diminution of the King's Power as being Part of it and so Repugnant to its being intirely in him and of his Power to exact Mony for Dispensations Licences c. which was chargeable to the Nation and which was far different from that other which Christ gave him 25. For a Third Reason 't is incredible they would have done a thing in these Acts no wayes conducing to the Design they express themselves to have in them which only we ought to judge they had For they only speak of restoring what was Usurp'd from the Crown and abolishing what was Repugnant to its being Restor'd of freeing the Subjects from inconvenient Laws Judicatures and great Charges of securing the Queens Person her Royal Authority over her Subjects and their Allegiance to her To the compassing of which End the taking away the Pope's Power to preach Christ's Doctrine which enjoyns the giving the Crown its due and is no Power to oppress People by Inconvenient Laws or Exactions of Money in the Cases complain'd of nor to prejudice the Queen or her Soveraignty over her Subjects or their Allegiance to her is no way conducing VVhen as