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-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
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
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
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-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
the taking the aforesaid Temporal Powers away is very much as I have already prov'd 26. For a Fourth Reason we may reflect that this Act both by its Title and Preamble seems to intend the Exclusion of only what K. H. 8. excluded in his here approv'd and reviv'd Acts only with this Difference that this seems to do at once and in general VVords what his did by Parts and in more particular Terms And he as we have seen by looking into all Particulars excluded not the Pope as Pastor More-over as she did what he did so he did fully what Catholick Kings shew'd him Example to do If one may take his VVord in the Preamble to the Statute 24 King Henry the 8th cap. 12. and the express VVords of his Proviso An. 25. cap. 21. after which he did nothing of Note besides ordering that Bishops should have their Bishopricks and preach without the Pope's Order as they did for a long time among the Brittains and others Also we may gather their Senses are the same from alike way of proceeding and speaking in Law 27. For a Fifth That 't is unreasonable to think that this Parliament should in this Act exclude the Pope's purely Spiritual Power as far as it is held to be a Tenet of Catholick Religion all over the VVorld and in the same Act revive the afore-said Proviso that formerly commanded it should not be excluded Except we should say that it had at the same time a mind it should and should not be kept in Kept in because the Will they had that the Words of the former Statute should not be taken in a Sense contrary to the Religion of the then Catholick Church which believ'd Religiously the said purely Spiritual Power of the Pope which Will these Men express'd by Reviving the Proviso could proceed only from a mind that no such Religious Tenet nor consequently this of the Pope's purely Spiritual Power should be deny'd And Not kept in if in this it denyes or excludes it And that the Proviso commands that is clear for it runs thus 28. Provided alwayes that this Act nor any Thing or Things therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted or expounded that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline or vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any Things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendom or in any other Things declared by Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary for Your and Their Salvation But only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient to repress Vice and for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Unity and Tranquility from Rapine and Spoyl ensuing much the old Antient Customs of this Realm in that Behalf Not minding to seek for any Reliefs Succours or Remedies for any Worldly Things and Human Laws in any Case of Necessity within this Realm but at the Hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successours Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an Imperial Power and Authority in the same and not oblig'd in any Worldly Causes to any other Superior 29. A Sixth Reason is Because a Proviso of the last Act 5 Eliz. cap. 1. sayes thus Provided alwayes that for as much as the Queen's Majesty is otherwise sufficiently assur'd of the Faith and Loyalty of the Temporal Lords of her Highnesses Court of Parliament Therefore this Act nor any Thing therein contained shall not extend to compel any Temporal Person of or above the Degree of a Baron of this Realm to take or pronounce the Oath above-said not to incur any Penalty limited by this Act for not Taking or Refusing the same any thing in this Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Where we see the Queen's being without this Act and Oath sufficiently assur'd of the Temporal Lords Faith and Loyalty is brought as a Reason why neither it nor its Oath belongs to them which would have been no Reason in case it had been also to deny the Pope's being Chief Preacher or such a Preacher as is to have a particular Care that all Christians and English among the rest know and practise Christ's Doctrine and that all Preachers and English amongst the rest Preach and help others under them to Practise the same For the Act and Oath being in this Supposition made upon two Accounts to wit for the Assurance of Allegiance and Denyal of Religion the Act might have belong'd to them and the Oath might have been offer'd them though the Queen had been other-wise assur'd or their Allegiance for Denyal of that Part of Religion which the Queen was so far from being other-wise assur'd that they did deny that she otherwise certainly knew that abundance at least of them did constantly profess it 30. For a Seventh and last Reason I alledge that they could not intend to make People swear in the First and Fifth of her Reign when this Oath was made and enjoyn'd that the Pope had not the Power of a Pastor then in England when as they certainly knew he had and exercised such a Power over Multitudes of Catholicks that then were by the State permitted to Live in and profess an Obedience to him as such Especially if it be found that the greatest Part of this Parliament were Catholicks which would not vote the Forswearing of their Faith And if they did not intend it their VVords do not signify it If it be said they could not intend to make the People swear he had not de facto such a Power since every Body knew this to be evidently False but that he had not de jure or ought not to have such a Power I answer 1st That the Words are And that no Forreign Prince c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction c. within this Realm And unless one will say that Hath and Ought to have are just the same and that Hath has not its Signification as well as Ought to have which is not very likely the Meaning must be that he hath not de facto the Power they there speak of Which infers that they there speak not of Pastorall Power 31. Next I answer That this Argument evidently concludes what it endeavour'd to wit that they could not intend that the Words of the Oath should signify that the Pope had not any Pastorall Power in England de facto And hence I argue that they could not intend to take them in the whole Latitude of their Sound and also that they intend to exclude no Pastorall Power de jure First Because their Words speak no more of this than they do of that of which they speak not at all Next Because 't is not likely that they should intend to make his Pastorall Power de jure be abjur'd by some as prejudicial to the Jurisdictions of the Crown for example and that others should not abjure it but be irreprehensibly permitted to believe and profess it Lastly Because it was Premunire and Treason
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
true Sense given it by Law is evident because if he will take it in that and will not take it in any other he is freed from all Penalties that may force him to take it Add that the Queen's Admonition being allow'd by a Statute-Law made in the Fifth of her Reign the Allowance to take it in that Sense cannot Legally be deny'd any 8. A Fifth Objection arises from our swearing to defend all Jurisdictions c. annexed to the Crown among which is the Power to execute Laws made against what we hold to be Christ's Doctrine And who can speak or fight in defence of such a Power But that part we may well swear For 't is no more than to swear she had all Regal Power and among the rest a Legal Power inherent in her as Queen to execute those Laws which being a Truth we may defend without holding it reasonable for her to use or exercise it As we truly say a Man hath Power or Ability to do both Reasonable and Unreasonable Things but deny that he hath reason or a reasonable power to do these latter and we only swear to defend that she hath a Power or Ablity given her by Law to destroy what is by us not by them esteem'd Christian Faith or certain Truth Or it may be said that they never intended to give the King a Power to destroy Christ's true Faith or any Truth not consequently to destroy our perswasion of the Pope's purely Spiritual Authority in England and other Dominions given by Christ Or that they gave him a Power to destroy ours only in supposition of no such Authority in the Pope which supposition being false they gave no Power to destroy our belief of it and hence we swear not that the King hath such a Power 9. A sixth is because most think that Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher who were such knowing and good Men that it would be very hard to imagin they either misunderstood or acted amiss died for not taking this Oath And all know that our Catholick predecessors from the time it was made till our times constantly refus'd it which they would not have done in case they had not thought it deny'd either some Article of their Faith or at least some Theological or otherwise certain Truth At least the First of those who liv'd and talk'd with those that made this Oath had better Opportunites to know the sense of it than we and so we have more reason to stand to their Judgments than our own As to the First part 't is certain that Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher died long before our Oath was made to wit in King Henry the 8th days when as ours was not made till the first of Queen Elizabeth and so could not die for refusing what was not made till after they were dead Nay they were both dead before either of the two Oaths of Supremacy made in the days of King Henry the 8th were enacted What then they truly died for was for speaking as it was pretended at least against King Henry the Eight's being Head of the Church which is quite different from being Governour of the Realm or at least more apt to bear a false sence and they had reason to fear the King meant to assume by those words an undue Power because he would not be contented with the fair play of the Explication quantum per Legem Dei licet added in the Convocation by Bishop Fisher's means who that explication being added concurred to the Title of Head of the Church with the rest the equivalent whereof we have to ours and that by Act of Parliament But Queen Elizabeth disliking what they dislik't made it Law that the Act that gave her Father that Title should remain repeal'd and left those Words Head of the Church out of the Oath and so our case is neither the same nor like theirs Besides it is not clear that either of them did dye for refusing to acknowledge Henry the 8th's very Headship attributed to him by an Act of Parliament made indeed before their Death but during their Imprisonment For 't is certain they were both Imprison'd on that very day wherein Elizabeth Barton called the Holy Maid of Kent was Executed and that the cause of their Imprisonment was for refusing then the Oath lately before enacted for acknowledging the King's Marriage with Queen Ann lawful and her Issue the Princess Elizabeth then born lawfully begotten or true Heir of the Crown vid. Sanderum dep Schis Anglicano l. 1. p. 86. edit Ingolstad Moreover it is known that very great Saints dy'd in material Errors And that such Errors did not prejudice their Sanctity nor Martyrdom either Witness S. Cyprian of Affrick c. 10. As to the Second I confess those who liv'd in the Parliament's Dayes which enacted the Oath might have understood the Sense of the Oath as well or better than I For who am I that I should pretend to have as good or better Understanding than any of them had Next I say that the first of them at least had something a better Opportunity by discoursing with that Part of the Parliament that worded the Oath and Act which perhaps only knew the Meaning of both better than other Folks Yet whether they or at least more than a few of them went this way to work is not a thing that we have any knowledg of and if they did not use this Means we are upon equal Terms with them or rather better For we have the Oath and all Statutes concerning it as well as they had And besides this have several Treatises writ on both sides which they had not But as many have better Judgments and better Opportunities to understand Divinity Philosophy or Law than others and yet fall short of Understanding so well as they either by not looking at all looking slightly the wrong way or not hap'ning to think of so good Reasons as others do so it may happen in our Case as well as it hap'ned in the Case of the Oath of Allegiance which neither as to the Sense of the Words nor the Truth of that Sense seem'd to be nigh so well understood formerly by those that liv'd with its Makers as by us that live now Nay some fancy'd no less than Three Heresies in it which Ghosts have since disappeared and more than one is not now so much as pretended to be in that Oath And the Excellent Answer of the Three Treatises of the Jesuits writ against that Oath shews plainly there is neither Heresie nor Error in it but honest and just Duty to our Sovereign 11. This being so the Question ought to be Whether of us do actually see best into this Matter And since neither We nor They could see into it but by the Reasons brought on both sides those of us must be judg'd to see best into the Sense of the VVords who bring the best Reasons Now those I have here brought for the Pope's Pastoral
A TREATISE OF THE OATH OF SUPREMACY Printed in the YEAR 1679. THE Words of the Oath I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Kings Majesty is the only Supream Governor of this Realm and of all other His Highnesses Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ougbt to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith true Allegiance to the Kings Highness His Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Pre-eminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness His Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God and by the Contents of this Book Introduction 1. THe Oath of Supremacy has long been thought by the generality of Catholicks Inconsistent with Faith both for what it affirms of the King and denies of the Pope And truly who considers only the Words as they ly naked there without seeking to inform himself what they mean of any thing but the bare sounds has reason at first sight to check at it I am apt to believe that every body does not look farther at least I my self did not a great while and therefore thought of it as others did 2. Yet it seemed strange that the most Learned of the Church of England should freely take it without scruple and at the same time Irreprehensibly affirm both of the Kings Power and the Popes what Catholicks therefore refuse the Oath because they think it denies I perceived they must of necessity understand it otherwise than We did For to suspect that either of us proceed otherwise than according to our conscience They in Taking and VVe in Refusing is not either for a Charitable or Reasonable Man I would not handsomly unriddle when a mistake there must needs be on one side how the mistake should ly on theirs or which way they should misunderstand an Oath of their own making In short I knew not what to make of it and while I had no Key to the Lock but the bare words could not easily open it For still those words seemed Irreconcilable to Truth and to that Truth which they profess as well as that which I believe 3. Upon farther search things appeared somthing otherwise I found that what those Learned Men mean when they swear and which they think the VVords of the Oath mean is not only sutable to what they believe themselves but likewise to what we believe and I found there is more Reason than I imagined to believe that the words of the Oath do indeed mean as they judge they do and not as VVe thought VVhat occurs to me I thought a seasonable Charity to communicate to others lest by seeking to avoyd one Error we fall into many 4. For as we are on the one side obliged to prefer a good Conscience before all Worldly respects so we are obliged on the other to obey our Soveraign and his Laws where with a good conscience we can No Man can justify the refusal of an Oath tendred by Lawful Authority without a sufficient Reason The Reason why we have refused this Oath is because we apprehended it Inconsistent with Faith And that is undoubtedly a sufficient Reason if the apprehension be true but if it be not we are left in the Lurch If the Oath as some think do not renounce the Faith of all Catholicks but only the Opinions of some and those both false and pernicious to refuse it is not to preserve but to scandalize our Faith with the imputation of obliging us to things by the Wisdom of the Nation judg'd Intolerable It is to confirm the bad opinion which some have of us that our Religion is indeed Inconsistent with the security of the Commonwealth In a word what we took for Religion would prove Faction 5. Before I speak of the Oath it self it will be convenient to observe that divers priviledges have at divers times been granted by the Piety of Princes to the Church and Church-Men when being long used and their origin either forgotten or dissembled have at length been commonly enough lookt upon and claimed as the proper and inherent Right of the Church Among these is the right of holding Judiciary Pleas and Courts proceeding like Secular Courts to Sentence even of Temporal and Corporal Punishments as Fines Imprisonment c. and Executing their Sentences by their own Officers unless in case of Death for which whether for Form or Substance the Prachiam Seculare was usually call'd upon These Courts were settled by little and little and their Power was sometimes more sometimes less which variety remains to this day as the Secular Power in several Nations concurs more or less with them But it became at last the general Practise that Ecclesiastical Persons should appear only in these Courts for all causes and the Laity for some chiefly such as had relation to the Law of God The Judges there being either Ecclesiastical Men themselves or acting by Commission from them the Courts got the Name of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts the matters determinable in them of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual matters or causes and their Power of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Power But 6. When things had gone thus Time out of mind and People saw them constantly act not by renewed Commissions as Subordinate Officers use to do but by a Right of their own a Right charily preserved by them and freely confest by every body els as undoubtedly it was both by a good Title at first and a quiet possession of many Hundred Years it came to be thought at last that this Right of theirs was given them with their Character by God whereas in Truth it proceeded from the condescendence of Pious Men and as all Humane things are subject to change may by the same Power which gave it on just occasion be taken away 7. In the mean time the Notion of Spiritual when applyed in the Law to Power Judge Court Matter Cause or Thing has generally relation to these External Courts The word is ordinarily taken so in our common Language but there seldome otherwise and when we find it in the Law we must expect it should signify as it uses to do in the Law not as it does in Philosophy or Controversy or Ascetics It is so well known that I know not whether it be not idle to mention the different Significations which the same words have in different Occasions For example who thinks of the Theological vertue when he is to swear Faith to his Prince who of a Stone or Tree when he hears of a Body not in Philosophy but Physick and when a Man
Title of Q. E's first Act made 1. El. c. 1. being an Act restoring to the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual and abolishing all Forreign Power repugnant to the same evidently denotes that what she took was in Catholick-Times due to the Crown And Possest by Gift or Usurpation from it till she took it back For she could not call what might be due only since the 22th Year of her Father's Reign Antient Jurisdiction And since purely Spiritual Jurisdiction was not then in the Crown it could not be in her Time restored to it The Preamble also speaks of K. H. 8's restoring Antient to wit in respect of his Times Jurisdictions of Right belonging c. which could be only those of Catholick Times More-over By this Preamble which contains the Design of the whole Act praising K. H. 8th for taking away from the Pope what Power he had Usurped and restoring it to the Crown dispraising Queen Mary for un-doing what he had done in this and desiring a Remedy or that Things be brought into the state in which K. H. put them as also by this Acts reviving the afore-said Nine Statutes it seems evident that this Act intended to give the Queen no more than the Revived Acts gave him giving her here in general Words and the same is to be said of taking away from the Pope and at once what those several Acts gave by parts Now that they gave him only Natural Temporal Earthly or Civil Power and not any Super-natural derived from the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven we have seen by numbring up all Particulars given and finding ever one of them to be but Temporal and we may also find by reflecting that he declares in the Preamble to the Second of them That he intended to do more fully what several Catholick Kings had done in part And this is clearly confirm'd by seeing in particular what it was which this Act when it comes to Establish doth Establish in her For we see the Particulars mentioned are only Power for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons to wit to the end that she might know their Faults and for the Punishment of all such Faults And as for giving Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power 't is already seen to be in our Law-Books but Human. 12. Presently after this the Act tells us That the End design'd to be brought about by the Oath is the Maintenance of the Act or the acknowledging what is in it Established And hence except we are so unreasonable as to think that the Oath was design'd for the Maintenance of this and some thing else not spoken of and for want of its Knowledg that way not to be maintained or acknowledged since no Man can maintain or acknowledg a Position he doth not know of we must say That the Words of the Oath signify nothing at all more in the King than the Acts give him Since then 't is by the Consideration of all Particulars given evident that the Act neither by its self nor by the Acts revived in it gives the King any Power as from Christ to preach Christ's Doctrine perswade People and help them by giving them the Sacraments to practise those Parts of it 'T is also evident that the Words of the Oath signify no such thing in him 13. It only remains to see whether the one other Act made 5. E. cap. 1. concerning this Matter and Oath gives her any more than this former What represents it self first to our View is its Title which runs thus An Act for the Assurance of the Queens Majesties Royal Power over all States and Subjects within her Dominions Now that Royal is no more than Human every Body that understands both these Words knows Next comes the Act it self in all its Particulars doing what the Title speaks and no more For first For Conservation of the Queen and the Dignities of the Crown and to avoid several Mischiefs proceeding from the usurped Jurisdiction of the See of Rome it makes the Maintaining of this Premunire and Treason and to hinder the Maintenance of this because it did those Human Mischiefs for those Human Good 's sake What is it else but assuring her Royall Power Secondly It makes a Law that the Sense which the Queens Admonition gives the Oath shall be its Sense And that this gives her only a Regal Power we shall here after clearly see Thirdly and as to our purpose Lastly It makes a Proviso to exempt the Temporal Lords from this Oath and any thing contain'd in this Act. And why doth it do this It sayes expresly Because her Majesty was otherwise assured of their Faith and Allegiance Which would have been no good Reason in case she had required more than Faith and Allegiance to be given her For though she had been assured of these yet for the Assurance of that other thing which she requires to be given her she might have caus'd them to take the Oath and not have exempted them from it 14. Thirdly Our Assertion may be confirmed by considering that the Oath sayes not barely That she is the Supreme Governour in all Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical where Supreme Governour might possibly be in Sense the same as Supreme Preacher but expresly that she is the Supreme Governour of the Realm in all such causes And since Supreme Governour of a Realm is in common and indeed all speech the same exactly as Temporal Governour the Oath only sayes That she is the Supreme Temporal Governour in all Spiritual Things Which it would be Treason to deny her not only in all those Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Things of which only we have shew'd the Oath to speak in the Common Sense of those Words as they are us'd in Law But also in the most Spiritual Thing that can be imagin'd as in the Faith of the Trinity Incarnation and the like For she is by her Office the Temporal Rewarder of this Vertue and Punisher of iâ—s contrary Vice which is to be a Temporal Governour as to this Vertue and Vice 15. Fourthly Because she sayes expresly in her Admonition in which she calls it an Oath of Allegiance and not Religion and Allegiance thereby shewing that she required no more than Allegiance by it except we will say It is an Oath of more than she said it was who best understood it that she took only what K. H. 8th and K. Ed. 6th took to wit in the Acts which she liked and reviv'd and not in Acts which she dislik'd with what was taken in them and therefore repeal'd as is most reasonable to understand her Especially since she adds lest we should mistake her to take any thing that in them might seem Uncatholick And what was of Antient which is the same as Catholick time due to the Crown Now what K. H. 8th took which only is to our purpose all that K. Ed. 6th might do remaining by her Repealed we have largely and I think fully seen to
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
knowing Christian Man judge what he ought to Teach or judge what is Faith what is Heresie likewise what is or is not a convenient Canon-Law or a fit Prayer to be used in his Churches and the like And more than these we do not find that the Acts ever gave K. H. 8th I believe it will be found that Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple and the Kings of Judah did as much or more as in reforming Abuses in God's Worship pulling down Superstition and Idolatry and the like and yet none imagined they in so doing usurp't the Office of the High-Priest as sacredly reserved to him then by the Law of Moses as the Pope's or that of Bishops is now to them 17. To these Examples I know it is commonly reply'd That these Kings did not do these Things without usurping the Priest's Office in case they did more than Execute what the Priests judg'd to be the Law of God and its Convenient Practice It being not the King's but Priest's Office to judge what was the Law of God to Teach it to the People and perswade them to Practise it And hence that they reach not King Henry's Case who was impower'd with Sixteen of the Clergy and Sixteen of the Laity to judge what Canons were not repugnant to the Law of God as in 25 H. 8. C. 19. and in his Court of Chancery to judge of Appeals from Spiritual Courts Nor Queen Elizabeth's Case who took upon her to order a New Form of Prayer and a New Manner of Consecrating Priests and Bishops 18. But this Reply invalidates not the Application of these Examples First Because in the Preamble of the Statute 24. C. 12. the Judgment of Things concerning the Law of God and Divinity is left to the Clergy as a thing of their and not the Laity's Office By which it appears that the King no more acted out of such an Office in himself than the Jewish Kings did And the same Office Queen Elizabeth denyes to her self in her Admonition and so leaves it and its Exercises to the Clergy And this is also evident because no Power is given to either of them by Act which only concerns us to order concerning the Law of God or its Practice without the Clergy's ordering it with them For in the First Sixteen Clergy-Men are mentioned In the Second the Spiritual Court if the Matter belonged to it Judged First And though an Appeal lay to the Chancery 't was not the Chancery but Commissioners who were to judge of that Appeal which Commissioners if the Case concern'd the Law of God 't is to be presumed were to be Clergy-Men as we shall see by and by Likewise Queen Elizabeth left the making of the Common-Prayer and Form of Consecration to Clergy-Men And hence they were never hindred from doing their Office that Christ gave them Power to do Neither did our Princes by these Laws pretend to do it but do what they did by the Clergies Directions as far as they judg'd them to direct right 19. Hence I Reply Secondly according to what has been said already That though no Lay-Man can be a Judge of what is Faith or a Preacher of it to which are reduced an Excommunicator or Denouncer of him that doth contrary to it or its Practice as of a Man to be avoyded and a Maker of Laws or Directions for its best Practice without any other Force than that of Excommunication in the most common or most proper Sense of these VVords which is the same as a Judge or Preacher authoriz'd or made by Christ's Immediate or Mediate Appointment Yet if the Word Judge be used to signify no more than one that knows or judges what is true Faith or its best Practice by Natural Reason not Authoritative Mission in this Sense every Lay-Man is and ought to be Judge of Faith and of its Preachers too because every Man has and ought to use his Reason in Faith as well as every thing else And he seeing many sorts of Faith pretended to be Christ's and many sorts of Preachers pretending to be True Ones is this way to judge of both these by the Reasons they bring for themselves and their Faith And hence the King as a Christian Man is in this Sense a Judge of Faith Nay in a particular Manner as he is King For as King he ought to use the Power he hath to see that Christ's true Faith be believ'd and practiz'd by his People And how can he see that Laws be made and executed for this without he knows or judges which it is Or how can he put in True and put out False Preachers without he knows by more than their own Words which are so And how can he establish right Laws for its Practice and abolish wrong Ones except he judge which are Good Ones which not Neither do I by this Power given to Princes of Judging in Matters of Faith give them that Power of Judgment which is proper to the Church Christ delivered his Doctrine not to Princes but Pastors and commanded Them not Princes to Teach the Flock and all the Flock Princes as well as private Men to hear their Voice Yet Faith being one of the many Things which fall under a Princes Care and about which he must needs Act one way or other I conceive he cannot Act in any thing without Judgment and so must of Necessity judge his way of Faith if he Act about Faith But the Church judges in order to Teach the Faithful the Prince in order to Govern his Subjects and appoint Rewards or Punishments We hold the Church Infallible and therefore She can oblige People to Interior Assent The Prince may happen to judge wrong which if he do we are not bound to Believe as he Judges Though we are bound to submit and patiently suffer the Penalties to which that wrong Judgment may expose us Other Differences there are which it is to no purpose to mention 20. Likewise If the Word Preacher signify no more than one that Teaches another what he knows of Christ's Doctrine and it 's right Practice then a Lay-Man may without Injury to the Clergy be a Preacher witness Apollo in the Acts Sir Thomas Moor in his proving Faith and disproving Heresies and writing Devout Treatises Parents in respect of their Children and God-Fathers in respect of their God-Children More-over What Injury would it have been if Sir Thomas More had been made such a Writer or Preacher by Act of Parliament And the same may be said of a King or Queen who either by Themselves or Counsel may be Learn'd enough Nay though every King be not a Preacher by Writing or Speaking yet he is a Supreme Authoritative Preacher in his kind since he by establishing one Faith and its Practice before another both Teaches and perswades to Practise it and in this way he hath none above him And since all properly call'd Preachers here have Leave or Jurisdiction from Christ and from our Law he
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
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
to hold or profess what the Acts deny'd the Pope But it was neither Prmunire nor Treason for a Lord or other in those dayes to profess himself a Catholick though it was punishable not to be at Common-Prayer which includes the holding and professing the Pope's Pastorall Power de jure as well as de facto Therefore it evidently was not this Pastorall Power de jure that was there deny'd 32. Having thus seen that neither the Words of the Oath nor the Acts to the Profession of whose Sense only the Oath is ordain'd deny the Pope's Pastorall Power let us in the last Place see whether the Explication given it by Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. cap. 1 denyes it For if this doth not nothing doth that concerns it and us Now this Act makes that to be the Sense of the Oath which the Queen gives it in her Admonition And sums up the Sense of the Admonition in short to be To confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority than that was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear Now since the whole Design here spoken of which is to be suppos'd all of it is the confessing of Power in the Queen the Negative Part is to be taken to signify no farther than to deny to another what is confess'd to be in the Queen else the whole Business of the Oath would not be Confessing of Power in her Whence evidently follows that they are not to be taken in a Sense exclusive of the Pope's Pastorall Power The Admonition it self is as follows An Admonition to Simple Men deceived by Malicious 33. The Queens Majesty being inform'd that in certain places of the Realm sundry of her Native Subjects being call'd to Ecclesiastical 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 requir'd of divers Persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty which certainly never was ever meant nor by any Equity of words or good sense can be thereof gather'd would that all her loving Subjects should understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other duty Allegiance or bond required by the same Oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous Memory K. Henry the 8th Her Majesties Father or K. Edward the 6th Her Majesties Brother And farther her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her Subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving Subjects how by words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm Possessors of the Crown may challenge Authority and Power of Ministry of Divine service in the Church wherein her said Subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons for certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that was challeng'd and lately us'd by the said noble Kings of famous Memory K. Henry the 8th and K. Edward the 6th which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm That is under God to have the the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be SO AS no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of Penalties contain'd in the said Act against such as shall Peremptorily or Obstinately refuse to take the same Oath 34. That the Popes Pastoral or purely Spiritual Power is not deny'd in this Admonition may be collected from her saying there that the Oath was requir'd of certain Persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance and such as was in Ancient and so Catholick times due to the Crown For the Recognition of which no Exclusion need or ought to be made of that Power of the Pope which is no way Repugnant to it but so he use his Power as he ought and if he do not he is not to be obey'd a Commander of it Next from the words so as no forreign power c. shall or ought to have any Superiority over them First because the proper and common that is first sense of the words Power and Superiority is Temporal Next because Superiority is not joynd here to the Pope as Prelate but as forreign Power or Prince And therefore is by being apply'd to it determin'd to a civil sense and so are both of them determin'd to the same by being us'd in an explication of a Law and in in a matter of Allegiance and Soveraignty over all Persons 35. Lastly because the words SO AS must either retain their most proper sense and be an answer to the Great Question that caus'd this Admonition which was how she pretended to be Supream Governour in all causes Spiritual whether as a Queen or as an Administer of divine service in the Church which therefore seems to be a sense of those words directly belonging to her Purpose And then 't is evident that the following words can signify only Temporal Authority For if it be ask'd after what manner is the Queen Supream Governess whether after a Civil or Spiritual manner and it be answer'd after such a manner as no forreign power hath or ought to have any Superiority which is the same as if it had been answer'd after a civil manner since it was then known to all that no forreign power had a Superiority after a civil manner and as certainly known that the Pope had one de facto at least after a Spiritual manner It follows out of this Answer that she hath the Supreme Government after a Civil manner because 't is the same thing to say she hath the Supreme Rule after that manner as no Forreigner hath any as to say she hath it after a Civil Manner Of which Truth she endeavour'd to perswade simple deluded People 36. Or the words SO AS must mean the same as SO THAT And then we must either say the Pope's Pastoral power is not excluded by the words following or elss that no Coherent sense is in them For in case it be excluded the sense must be The Queen hath the whole Temporal rule over all persons so that no Forreigner hath power to Preach Christ's Doctrine or she is Queen so that no Forreigner is a Preacher or Pastor might not she as pertinently say she is Queen so that no French
when they fall into errour Which side soever they take either obedience to their Wills or submission to their swords is their due by Gods Law And that is all which our Oath exacteth Again This is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and which you Id. ibid p. 256. JESUITS so bitterly detest That Princes be Gods Ministers in their own Dominions bearing the Sword freely to permit and publickly to defend that which God commandeth in Faith and good Manners and in Ecclesiastical Discipline to receive and establish such Rules and Orders as the Scriptures and Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdoms And as they may lawfully command that which is Good in all Things and Causes be they Temporal Spiritual or Ecclesiastical So may they with just Force remove whatsoever is Erroneous Vitious or Superstitious within their Lands and with External Losses and Corporal Pains repress the Broachers and Abettours of Heresies and all Impieties From which Subjection unto Princes no Man within their Realms Monk Priest Preacher nor Prelate is exempted And without their Realms no Mortal Man hath any Power from Christ judicially to depose them much less to invade them in open Field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sense Spiritual Ibid. p. 173. in marg Jurisdiction seems by the Oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince Judge of Faith And Ibid p. 252. then more particularly To devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church is not the Princes Vocation But to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the Place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical Things and Causes Princes be neither the Devisers nor Directers of them but the Confirmers and Establishers of that which is Good and Displacers and Revengers of that which is Evil. Which Power we say they have in all Things and Causes be they Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal Hereto his Adversary is brought in replying And what for Excommunications and Absolutions be they in the Princes Power also To this he answers The Abuse of Excommunication in the Priest and Contempt of it in the People Princes may punish Excommunicate they may not for so much as the Keys are no part of their Charge Lastly to explain the Negative Clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Ibid. p. 218. Princes to be Supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of Truth or Right But without Superior on Earth to repress them with violent Means and to take their Kingdoms from them Thus Doctor Bilson whose Testimony may be interpreted to be the Queens own Interpretation of the Oath since as appears by the Title page of his Book what he wrote was perused and approved by Publick Authority And to such a Sense of the Oath as this there is not a Catholick Clergy Man in France Germany Venice or Flanders but would reatdly subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctor Carleton in King James his time thus states the Matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There Carleton of Jurisdict c. 1. p. 8 9. is a Triple Power in the Bishop of Rome First of Order secondly of Internal Jurisdiction Thirdly of External Jurisdiction The First is refer'd to the Sacraments the Second to Inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience the Third to that External Government which is practised in External Courts And confesseth that of the First and Second there is no question between us but only of the Third Then of this saith Carleton we are agreed that the Question between us and them is only of Jurisdiction coactive in External Courts binding and compelling by Force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments besides Excommunication As for Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious Offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures c. this we reserve intire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This Power hath been practised by the Church without Coactive Jurisdiction other than of Excommunication But when Matters handled in the Ecclesiastical Consistory are not Matters of Faith and Religion but of a Civil Nature which yet are called Ecclesiastical as being given by Princes and appointed to be within the Cognisance of that Consistory And when the Censures are not Spiritual but Carnal Compulsive Coactive here appeareth the Power of the Civil Magistrate This Power we yield to the Magistrate and here is the Question Whether the Magistrate hath right to this Power or Jurisdiction c This then is the thing that we are to prove That Ecclesiastical coactive Power by force of Law and corporal Punishments by which Christian People are to be governed in external and contentious Courts is a Power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again Id. ibid. p. 42. afterward he sayes Concerning the Extention of the Churches Jurisdiction it cannot be denyed but that there is a Power in the Church not only Internal but also of External Jurisdiction Of Internal Power there is no question made External Jurisdiction being understood all that is practised in External Courts or Consistories is either Definitive or Mulctative Authority Definitive in Matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative Power may be understood either as it is with Coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But Coactive Jurisdiction was never practised by the Church when the Church was without Christian Magistrates But was alwayes understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctor Bramhal Bishop of Derry in our late King's dayes and now Arch-Bishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative Parts of the Oath touching the King 's Supreme Authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Pope's Schisme guarded Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his Book called Schism Guarded c. The sum of which Book is in the Title-page exprest to consist in shewing That the great Controversie about Papal Power is not a question of Faith but of Interest and Profit not with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome c. This Learned and Judicious Writer thus at once states the Point in both these Respects My last Ground sayes he is That neither King Henry
the Eighth nor any of his Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the Power of the 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