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
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
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
they did or no or the Oath in it self contains the King's just Right or no yet now the constant taking the Oath by Protestants and refusing it by Catholicks and this for so considerable a Tract of Time is become a Distinctive Signe between Catholicks and Protestants and so the Taking it implyes a Renouncing of Faith which consequently must needs be Scandalous and Unlawful I answer Signes are but of two sorts Extrinsecal which appertain not to the Thing at all but are meerly Arbitrary as that of the Jews wearing a Yellow Hat at Rome Or else Intrinsecal which are connected with the very Nature of the Thing And this either as Cause with Effect as the Whiteness of the Ears of Corn is a Signe of Harvest approaching or as Effect with Cause as Smoak is a Signe of Fire Or lastly as one Part seen is a Signe of the Presence of the Whole with which 't is connected One of these Kinds of Signes then the taking this Oath must be or 't is none at all Again it can be but one of them they being contradistinguish't to one another First then if it be only an Extrinsecal Signe of being a Protestant then it must be said that there is no Harm in it at all taking it as in it self nor does it at all relate to Faith which yet is contrary to the Sentiment of all those who oppos'd the Oath hitherto and the Opinion of former Catholicks who refus'd to take it Nay I much fear to the Judgment likewise of our present Objecters however they are pleas'd that they may make something of this Objection to lay it aside Besides the swearing to a Form of Words which have a meaning under them either true or false and express some Tenets either relating or not relating to Faith is a very odd thing to make an Extrinsecal sign of Meer sounds may serve for Extrinsecal marks to distinguish Parrats but words made to express mens Conceptions will necessarily reach their Minds and affect their interiour or have something Intrinsecal in them and so if they judge differently of their meaning will distinguish them Intrinsecally do we all we can Secondly to alledge in this Occasion that the Taking this Oath is any kind of Intrinsecal sign that is either Cause Effect or a Part of Protestant Religion as distinguisht from Catholick is as voyd of reason as the other unless we beg the Question and suppose it granted to our hands that the Oath contains a sence opposit to Catholick Faith without which prov'd or admitted 't is impossible to pretend 't is a sign Intrinsecally distinguishing those two parties Truth is these Objecters should say that 't is only an Extrinsecal Sign if the nature of the Thing would permit them for if it have an Intrinsecal Connexion with any Tenet contrary to the Religion of Catholicks it must necessarily be even in their own opinion malum in se and so the Refusal of it should as all solid reason requires be settled upon it's Opposition to what they judge Catholick Faith and not on it's being a bare Sign of Protestant Religion and this a pittiful one too as never having been constituted such by any Publick Authority but meerly taken up by the ill-grounded Fancies of private men 17. But say they we abstract whether the Oath bear a good or bad sense and affirm that even taking it in this abstractive State 't is a Distinctive Signe I reply 'T is very hard when one takes an Oath to abstract whether it have a good or bad Senseâ— and therefore I much doubt it will not pass current Christianity that an Oath which consists of Words that have a Meaning in them should bear a Consideration which is indifferent to a good or bad Meaning Besides I like this Abstraction worse than any part of the Discourse For it seems to signify thus much Let the Words import only a just Duty to my Prince or how you will yet if our Ancestors have refus'd to pay their Allegiance by taking this Oath when lawfully administred I will prefer their Example before my own Duty 18. And as 't is impossible to rank the taking this Oath under either Head of a Distinctive Signe so 't is most evident it is not held for such For first to omit the Laws and Law-makers of which enough above the most Learned Protestant Authors before cited who interpret the Oath consistently with our Faith and as many as read approve and abet them which includes Princes and the generality of the most Intelligent Men of our Nation cannot hold it to argue a Distinction of one Religion from another Next the Test propos'd heretofore to incapacitate Roman Catholicks from bearing any Offices which imports a renouncing Transubstantiation and other Points plainly shews they did not think the taking this Oath distinguish't them from Protestants Again which of our Neighbours seeing those who take the Oaths live in all other Regards like Catholicks judges them ipso facto upon the taking them to become Protestants Not one It remains then that only our selves fancy to our selves 't is a Distinctive Signe and cry it up for such and are only seconded by some few others who hear how fiercely our weaker Brethren inveigh against those who take it as Hereticks And such Distinctive Signes as these we should have had good store had it not pleas'd God to raise from time to time some few good Men who lov'd Truth so well as to dare to be Honest Had it not been for Widdrington and one or two more the Oath of Allegiance would shortly have got to be a Distinctive Signe too and the Deposing Power an eminent One. No fewer than three Heresies were said to be in that Oath and certainly that which contains three Heresies deserves with far better Right to be made a Distinctive Signe than the Oath of Supremacy which was thought to contain but One at most Now the Pretence of such Distinctive Signes as these is so far from deterring Ingenuous Men from writing against it that it rather induces an obligation in them to oppose with Reason the loud insignificant Noise which stuns so many The Honour of our Catholick Faith and the Duty to our Prince and State being both concern'd that such ill grounded Pretences do not get Head And as for the Scandal which they will needs take when none gives it and raise by their Noise when by using calm Reason they might settle it we refer them to St. Bernard who tells them Melius est ut scandalum ortatar quam at verum non dicatur 'T is better Scandal should arise than Truth not to be told And to St. Thomas of Aquin who sayes Ob nullam scandalum relinquenda est veritatis defensio The Patronage of Truth is not to be left off for any Scandal whatsoever 19. The last Scruple ariseth from the Consideration of all that hath been hitherto said For after all this Dispute it is not absolutely impossible but that the Oath
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