think if they could do it It is only to answer the Sheet which was tendered to the Parliament about two or three Sessions ago for taking away the Subscription and Oxford Oath and which shall be in order therefore by and by repeated We would give all the Money in our Purses with a Tax or without any upon condition that the Parliament would either have such Arguments of ours answered or else repeal their Impositions There are Three things enjoyned in the Act of Uniformity Re-ordination The Declaration The Subscription As we have borrowed thus much already from a late Paper of the Author now intimated So shall we make use of others of the same person in the which follows We begin with the Threshold Re-ordination It must be acknowledg'd by both Parties That Re-ordinvtion is an uncouth thing quite against the Hair of the literate World whether Fathers Councels or Modern Divines Protestants and Papists and put usually into the same Predicament and more especially by Austin with Re-baptization If the present Bishops therefore in the imposing of it would have stood by it and maintained the Lawfulness of it as being neither against the Law of Nature nor positive Institution but as having rather the Examples of the Apostles and of Paul and Barnabas more particularly for it with what else by some is urged against the stream barely of humane Authority this would perhaps have looked handsome and the ingenuity of it would have been notable But when they would generally have it imposed and yet disown it and be ashamed of it in so much as though there be few or none ordained by Presbyters but believed the validity of that Ordination they would have our former Ministry to be null and make us contented in effect to be held but usurpers of holy things Sacrilegious persons and all our Ministerial Acts void as the Acts of meer Laicks before it is really so intollerably vile as no mortal flesh is able to bear It is true there is one Instance from Antiquity out of Athanasius of some persons with Ischyras among them whom they would not allow as these hold to be Ministers because one Coluthus that ordained them was only a Presbyter Unto which may be added the Story of the purblind Bishop 2. Concil Hispal 3. Can. 5. circa An. 656. But we answer with Dr. Field on the Church in his Fifth Book It is one thing what they judged according to their Ecclesiastical Canons and another what they ought to judg according to the Word of God The Scripture makes no difference between Bishop and Presbyter the Superiority and Inferiority arising after in the Church And when we are made Christs Ministers and put in office by him according to his Word how shall that Authority be vacated for something wanting only in the Constitutions of Men Here is a matter of Infinite wrong which the opinion of these Men do us It takes away the Office Christ hath given us and holds it null If it was a grievous thing in the late times to put one of these Ministers out of his place what is it to put so many of us out of our Office There is no Person almost of Spirit but will be ready to part with his life as soon as the Honour he holds from the King and shall not the Ordained Minister maintain the Right which he holds from Christ When so many eminent Predecessors to these Bishops and other Defenders of this Church have maintained Presbyterian Ordination When the Reformed Churches abroad have no other When the Case was such as that there was no other to be had here in the late times When not we alone then are concerned only in the wrong but our Lord and Master whose cause it is and whose business we are to do and the Souls of so many people We cannot but appeal to the Higher Powers in a matter of so great right and wrong as this is For we are contented to have it revised and judged whether the Diocesan Bishop be distinguishedly named in Christs Charter for Ordination as he is in the Canons of Men Or when we have been ordained already as Timothy by the laying on of the hands of Presbytery whether the Lawn be de Essentia to the Ceremony and the Hands avail nothing without the Sleeves on The next thing is the Declaration I A. B. do here declare my unfained assent and consent to all and every thing contain-and prâ—scribed in and by the Book Entituled The Book of Common Prayer and the form of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons That is assent to all and every thing contained in and consent to every thing prescribed by these Books Sirs There was a time when that the Nation had the hopeful overture of a Concord between the sober of two parties and the Hearts of most Men were in preparation to receive it But alas instead of such a Gratious and Blessed Issue as was expected loe here the streight injunction of an Assent and Consent to all Conformity and every thing of it new and old to be approved and obeyed or else one part of the Ministry must be immediately turn'd out How can those now whose Judgments are and have been still for moderation between both opinions in times before as now be able to come over to one side altogether on such terms as these How can they we say make so short a turn as this without the hazard of some sprain to their Conscience if they do it We cannot tell you perhaps nor are willing to declare the Impressions we have upon our Spirits against a going back from that more Spiritual Plain and simply zealous Service of Almighty God in the way we were in and Reformation we sought unto that something we are not used to and fear to wit unto a form of Worship and Discipline that carrying a countenance of both but being rather only a kind of Idols thereof doth seem to us by the shew pomp and complement of the things it contains not to undermine the Life Power and Efficacy of one and the other We cannot tell you perhaps what moves us so much from within whether fear of Popery returning on us or aliquid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we will produce Two or Three Instances apiece against Assent and against Consent to that which is injoyned that we may approve our selves to the Consciences of all as well as our own in refusing this Declaration For our Assent In the Athanasian Creed we find this passage Which Faith except every one does keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly One of the Articles of this Creed is this The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son In this Article we know the Greek Church hath differed from the Latin and held That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only If we give our Assent then to every thing or passage contained in this Book we must believe the Greek Church undoubtedly damned And what if
some of the Non-conformists as well as of Conformists do believe it not impossible but that some Heathen and professed Socinian may be saved What if they cannot think otherwise in regard to the Goodness of God but that whosoever he was or is that walk'd or walks up to his Light in sincerity with a general Repentance for his unseen Errors must by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam faln and Noah no less than the Jews were by the same confirmed with Abraham be in a state of acceptation with God not conceiving but both alike for ought they see were ignorant of their Redemption by the Blood of Christ or the means how their Peace was made with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have shewn before that Christ is the first begotten of God the Divine Reason Wisdom or Word whereof the whole kind of Men or the whole stock of Mankind do partake and whosoever lives according to reason are Christians though they be accounted Heathen and without God such as Socrates Heraclitus and the like Justine Martyr in his second Apology for the Christians We do not say we receive this nor deny it But we are ready to say what was Luthers saying We hope God will be merciful to such a one as Cicero but our Duty is to abide by the Word And yet cannot this little Candour it self be used if we must be forced to declare that whosoever believes not the Athanasian Creed must undoubtedly perish Not that other Non conformists generally make any scruple in this But what do those sober and learned Doctors of the Church think of it who have a name given them upon this account that though they hold some things that agree not with her Articles or Homilies yet they can conform to them or have a Latitude to do it I A. B. do declare my unfained Assent and Consent to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer and yet I A. B. do declare that I Assent not to that passage in the Athanasian Creed Again I A. B. do profess that a Heathen may be saved and yet I do libenter ex animo subscribe to the Article among the thirty nine that does pronounce him accursed who dares hold such an opinion We are not ignorant indeed how some would blend the two terms Assent and Consent and then interpret them by the words to the use in the Act But this is a shift which will not satisfie all persons and many desire to use no shifts If these words to the use had been put into the Declaration it self it had been better Yet if they had Assent is proper to the Truth and Consent to the Vse And yet moreover how can a Man unfainedly consent to the use of any such Particular which is false and which perhaps he even abhors that the Wise and Ingenious of his particuler perswasion should think he believed Another Instance shall be this In the Service on the Gunpowder-Treason we thank God for preserving the King and the Three Estates of the Realm Assembled It is a difficult Point now in the Politicks of England Whether the Three Estates be the King the House of Lords and the House of Commons Or the Lords-Spiritual Temporal and Commons The late King made no scruple in his Answer to the nineteen Propositions to reckon himself one of the Three Estates Neither was there any we know that durst account the Three Estates of the Land to be dissolved when the Bishops were turned out of the House by an Act. We cannot tell therefore of what Consequence it is to the fundimental liberty constitution and state of the Kingdom to yield unto the insinuation of such a thing as this in our Prayers No Man can give his unfained Assent to any thing he knows not and understands not This is a thing we do not know that the Bishops are indeed one of the Three Estates of this Realm Whether they be or no we dispute not but till we are better satisfied with them and their station we are afraid that any snare should be laid for the people in the Exercise of their Devotions unto God We must mention one Particular more which is our general Exception In the new Book there is inserted several Passages that make the Bishops a distinct Office and Order from the Presbyter We need not name the Words for they are put in more than once de industria They would not be content with a difference in Degree and Eminency but they would have us declare to a jure divino distinction disproved by learned Doctors among the Papists and among the Episcopal Men as well as the Reformed Churches Now we humbly beseech the Parliament to consider whether the Bishops have dealt candidly with us to get such a Condition imposed on the Presbyterian to the keeping of his Ministry as not only Bishop Davenant and Vsher but such as Dr. Field and Francis Mason must have been turned out for Non-conformists upon the same There are Two Orders Ecclesiastical Presbyteri Diaconi When we say Bishops Priests and Deacons we name but two Orders yet three Degrees Mr. Joseph Mede disc V. For our Consent We will name three things likewise and but name them more indefinitely There is the Hierarchy or Bishop invested with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction There are the Ceremonies in general so often disputed There is the Imposition it self of things not necessary the occasion of stumbling to many good Men and cause of our divisions If we give our unfained consent to all and every thing prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and the form of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons then must we give our approbation we suppose to these things amongst others But if the Two first are disputable we are past doubt in the last that to impose things that are inductive to others to sin and yet not necessary is unlawful What Charter hath Christ given to the Church to bind Men up to more than himself hath done Says Stillingfleet with much more to the purpose in his Epistle to his Iranicum We will not speak so laxly altogether as he does there but when we distinguish the Imposition and Submission this we are fully perswaded of in Conscience that the Submission to the things imposed may perhaps be maintained the Imposition of them is not to be so neither by that Dr. nor by us For if we build again the things we have destroyed we make our selves transgressors It is not Sirs the serving God by a Liturgy or the reading Common Prayer in the ordinary daily Service that makes us Non-conformists though it be this only lyes in the view of the inconsiderate many and though there are some things we except against the occasional Offices which by and by may be named We are sorry if any have given cause for such a scandal which tends to the breaking of the Concord and Charity which ought to be maintained equally between the Brethren of
the Constitution Let us suppose therefore the word Government confined only to the Constitution There is the Constitution of the Government in the State which is a Legal Monarchy and this indeed we are so far bound from endeavouring to alter as that we think it is not alterable by the King himself and Parliament because that Supream Power for the Administration must be supposed in all Communities to be derived from and held by the Constitution But as for Government in the Church we are to know and acknowledge that the Constitution hereof it self is but a Law of the Administration in reference to the State And consequently when all Laws for the Administration are liable to the Regulation of Parliaments the great question will remain how those Men who are Presbyterian or Independent in their Judgment and think Episcopacy against the Scripture can be abridged the Endeavour only afore-mentioned which consists but in choosing Representatives and doing no more than the Consitution allows in order to the prosecution of what they think themselves obliged to in Conscience both by Oath and the Word of God Is not the foundation Liberty of the whole People and our selves with them here in danger Judg ye that are wise And what an anointed Plot have we had here on the Nation that Allegiance in effect should be sworn to the Bishops as well as to the King For the Words then or Form we wonder at this Rigour in the Compiler that a Man must swear not to endeavour any Alteration Had it not been enough to be engaged not to endeavour the Alteration of the Substance of our Government Episcopacy in the Church and Monarchy in the State but must it be not any Alteration It were well we were so absolutely perfect And again must they not at any time endeavour any alteration What if times should turn and we be in as great a confusion as we were or any the like chance or change come Must these Men be bound up that they cannot endeavour to reduce back this Government that we have No not the King and Bishops if the Iniquity of the times should put them out for they have sworn they will not at any time endeavour any alteration in Church or State Sirs The matter of this obligation being against the fundamental Freedom of the Subject and Parliament and the words you see so ensnaring and that against the duty all owe to the publick good We offer it you to consider in the first place whether this last part be according to Righteousness For the middle part of the Oath Here is a position of taking Arms by the Kings authority against any Commissionated by him which must be sworn to as abhord and traiterous There is now a Case in the mouths of all the understanding Refusers of the Oath and Subscription Suppose some Writ sued out and comes to the Sheriffs hands and suppose some to oppose the Execution by the Kings Personal Command or Commission and he thereupon raises the posse Comitatus upon them We will ask here whether the Sheriff acts not herein by the Kings Authority We think it cannot be denyed By the Kings Authority is all one as by the Law or in the Name of the King according to Law And when he can act so against any for all their Commission and the Law will bear him out how is this position in this Case traiterus and to be abhord for our parts we do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath or the Subscription as to the Major part we may be bold to advance the personal Will or Commission of the King above Law which were to make his power despotical and not Royal. Non est Rex says Bracton ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex He is no King that governs by his will and not by the Law And how this position indefinitely without exception of this Case at least must be sworn to as altogether traiterous we are to learn What if any should come with a Commission under the Seal to raise Money without an Act of Parliament and by vertue of such Commission shall seize our Goods rifle our Houses and ravish our Wives May not the People or our inferiour Magistrates or the Sheriff for the County withstand such violence May not the Constable alone by a Warrant from the Justice to keep the Peace raise the Neighbourhood and do it If he may or the Sheriff may it must be in the Name of the King or by Authority of the Law and then is there some Case or Cases where Arms or Force may be raised by the Authority of the King against such as are Commissionated by him though never against his own Sacred Person Suppose again that Papists or Fanaticks should either by Power or Surprize at any time get the King into their hands as the Duke of Guise once dealt with the French King and prevail with him for fear of his life to grant Commissions under His Hand and Seal destructive to the Church and State must the Nation be remediless in this Case and so the King and Kingdom ruin'd by these Commissions Nay what security hath the Nation that a Lord Keeper may not prove Traytor to his King and Countrey If we may suppose such a thing possible what if such a Lord Keeper should under the Broad Seal grant Commissions to disband His Majesties Life Guard deliver up the Navy or Sea-port Towns seize the Tower or places of strength in what a Condition were the King and Kingdom brought if the Subjects hands be bound up by an Oath not to resist or take Arms against the execution of such Commissions Suppose but so long as till they understand his design for by that time the whole Nation may be past recovery We are offended at the sense and stand amazed at the horrour of those sad Consequences into which the Imposition of such like Tests or Injunctions as these if not timely retrenched may lead our Posterity The Courts of Law can avoid the Kings Charters or Commissions which are passed against Law for the King is subject to the Law and Sworn to maintain it says Judg Jenkins in his Works p. 48. As for the form then of the words I abhor this Traiterous Position they are harsh the word abhor especially is a word of interest and passion a cooler word as I disown or disallow might have served Some of the more Grave as Calamy particularly were much offended at that word A Man may say a thing is unlawful in his Conscience when he cannot say according to truth I abhor it There is never a Gentleman in the Land but may swear truly that he believes it unlawful to company with any other Woman as his own Wife but if each one was put to swear he abhors it we suppose some very good Sons of the Church as well as our Brethren would be found willing to be Non-conformists to such an Oath Well
Sirs when these words Abhor and Traiterous are so harsh in the Composure and when such Cases as above mentioned may be put as to the position in the matter of it wherein it seems justifiable and without offence We offer it in the next place to consideration whether this middle part of the Oath and Subscription be according to Truth For the first part We have a large Assertion roundly sworn The Oath and Subscription runs not only that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King or that it is not lawful on any pretence but on any pretence or cause what soever The Grammatical literal construction of that word seems to intimate no less than that this Proposition must be held without restraint or limitation Amongst the most emment of Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes and establish'd it against Resistance in their writings on this Subject we suppose there are sew or none to be valued above these Three Bareley Grotius Arnisaeus And we shall und that they have all their restrictions or cases of Exceptions in the maintenance of this Tenet And how shall any be over earnest here in punishing the Refuser when if the matter be well scan'd the reason perhaps why he refuses will be sound only because he hath read more then some others that yield their submission We begin with Barcley that is William Barcley a Scot and Counceller to the French King who writes against Buchanan Boucher and other Monarchomachists as he calls them This learned Man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People that consequently no Arms can be taken against him Nevertheless when he comes to put some pressing Cases he thus limits himself Quid ergo nulli ne Casus incidere possunt quibus populo in Rigem arma capere jure suo liceat nulli certe quanidiu Rex manet What then Can there no Cafes happen wherein it is lawful for the people to take Arms against the King by Right None certainly so long as he remains a King There are Cases indeed he accounts in which a King doth Exuere personam Regis or Dominatu se exuere Put off the Person of a King And particularly l. 3. c. 16. he mentions Two Si regnum alienet si Rempublicam evertere conatur If he go to alienate his Kingdom if he go to overthrew the Common-wealth We cannot tell how to approve this Doctrine the Papists use the same we know in another Case we may not fight against our King but if the Pope Excommunicate him he shall be no King with them Let us come to Grotius and first quote him in his Judgment of Barcley lest you may think else we mistake him Barclaius says he Regii impariilicet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit ut populo insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiam Barcley though the most assertor of Kingly Government does come to this that he grants a Right to the People or the most eminent part of them of defending themselves against intollerable oppression For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet Summum impurium tenentibus jure resisti non posse That the higher Powers may not lawfully be resisted from Scripture Antiquity Authority and Example to as much purpose perhaps as any he descends to put seven Cases wherein he does Lectorem monere ne putet in bane legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquunt Warn his Reader lest he mistake some for delinquents that are not For Arnisaeus he hath wrote Three learned Books of Politicks De Jure Majestatis De Doctrina Politica De Authoritate principum in populum semper Inviolabile seu quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere That the Authority of Princes over the People ought to be inviolable or that it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince Here then we have our Tenet in the state whereof he comes in the issue to dinguish between Rex and Tyrannus a King and a Tyrant Tyrannus in Titulo Tyrannus in Exercitio A Tyrant in Title and in Practise And Tyrannus in Exercitio A Tyrant in Practise he accounts does Excidere de Jure etsi Haereditario Fall from his Right though Hereditary Traditur Respublica Principi in eum finem says he ut illi praesit in salutem omnium a quo si prorsus desciverit etiam de potestate cadit quum non alto fine sibi commissum habebat The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince that he should rule over it for the common safety from which if he depart altogether he falls even from the Power it self which was committed to him only for this end We do not give our consent to not pass our censure upon the words we cite but by such Testimonies as these without naming others we would convince those persons who were the Compilers of these Declarations to be subscribed or sworn with some resentment and shame that when the temperate sense and meaning of them is such as we were not like to boggle at they should be yet composed so in terminis as to be obnoxious to so grand Exception For the form then yet of the Words I A. B. do swear that it is not lawful c. Here is an Oath to the matter of a Proposition questioned to the determination of a Point of Conscience and that diversly decided An Oath should be to a matter of fact and cannot be taken but to that whereof we are certain To require of Men therefore to swear to the verity of a Doctrinal Proposition is not according to Judgment being a thing impossible because no Man is insellible Now then Sirs When here is such an Erratum in the Composure as the want of the words I believe or the like I swear that I held or believe that it is not lawful c. and so material an Exception as the Judgment of the most learned in general comes to against the Substance in Terminis of the first part of this Oath which yet gods down ordinarily without chewing we humbly oder it in the third place to be considered how this Oath can be taken either in Truth or Judgment An Oath must be taken in Judgment in Truth and in Righteousness The first part we argue is not according to Judgment The second not according to Truth The third not according to Righteousness We speak it humbly by way only of Argumentation as we have said craving pardon if it offend for the manner of the Expression We proceed to the Subscription conjoyned which hath we count Two Parts The one is the purport wholly of the Oath whereof therefore we shall adde no more but this That when the matter of the one and the other in the former part is such as enters the foundation of Politicks in general and the Laws and State of the Land in particular
Subscription set down in the Câ—nons ratisâ—â—â— by King James was not expressed in the Act of the thirteenth of Elizabeth Inst part 4. c. 74. And consequently if the Clergy enjoyed this freedom until then in reference to the Particular therein contained what hinders why they might not have the same restored in reference also to others It is true that it may seem hard to many in the Parliament to undo any thing themselves have done But though this be no rule for Christians who are sometimes to repent as well as to believe If they be loath to Repeal any thing what if they shall only interpret or explain Let us suppose then some Clause in this Bill or some new Act for Explanations If any Non-conformist cannot come up to the full meaning and intent of these Injunctions rightly explained let him remain in Statu quo under the state only of Indulgence without benefit of Comprehension for so long as those who are comprehended may yet enjoy that Case as to be indulged in some equal measure answerable to His Majesties late Declaration whether Comprehension be large or narrow such terms as we obtain are pure advantage and such as we obtain not are no loss But if any does and can honestly agree to the whole sense the Parliament intends in such Impositionr why should there be any obstruction for such a Man though he deliver himself in his own words to be received into the establish'd order with others unless Men will look on these Injunctions only to be continued for Engines of Battery to destroy the Nonconformists and not as Instruments of unity to edifie the Church of God We will not leave our Congregational Brethren neither so long that we have something more as may be said for them not ordinarily considered by any It is this That though indeed they are not and cannot seek to be of our Churches as they are Parochial under the Diocess or Super-intendency of the Bishops Yet do they not refuse but seek to be comprehended within the Church as national under His Majesty We will explain our selves The Church may be considered as universal and so Christ alone is the Head of it and we receive our Laws from him Or as particular and so the Pastors are Heads Guides or Bishops over their respective Flocks who are commanded therefore to obey them in the Lord Or as national which is an accidental and external respect to the Church of God wherein the King is to be acknowledged the Supream Head of it and as we judge no otherwise For thus also runs the Statute That our Sovereign Lord shall be taken and reputed the only Supream Head in Farth of the Church of England called Ecclesia Anglicana Now if it should please the King and Parliament to allow and approve those separate Meetings and stated places for Worship by a Law as His Majesty did by His Declaration we must Profess that as such Assemblies by this means must be constituted immediately in â—egral parts of the Church as national no less than our Parish Congregations So would the Congregate Churches at least those that understand themselves own the King for Head over them in the same sence as we own him Head over ours that is as much as to say for the Supreme Coercive Governour of all in this accidental regard both to keep every several Congregation to that Gospel-order themselves profess and to supervise their Constitutions in things indifferent that nothing be done but in subordination to the Peace of the Kingdom Well let us suppose then a liberty for these separate Assemblies under the visitation of His Majesty and His Justices and not the Bishops We would fain know what were the evil you can find in them If it lie in any thing it must be in that you call Schisme Separation then let us know in it self simply considered is nothing neither good nor evil There may be reason to divide or separate some Christians from others out of prudence as the Catechumeni of old from the fully instructed for their greater edification and as a Chappel or two is added to a Parish Church when the people else were too big a Congregation It is not all division then or separation is Schisme but sinful division Now the Supream Authority as national Head having appointed the Parochial Meetings and required all the Subjects of the Land to frequent them and them alone for the acknowledging glorifying or national serving and worshiping the one only True God and His Son whom we have generally received and this Worship or Service in the nature of it being intrinsically good and the External order such as that of time and place and the like Circumstances being properly under his Jurisdiction it hath seemed to us hitherto that unless there was something in that order and way prescribed which is sinful and that required too as a condition of that Communion there is no man could refuse his attendance on these Parochial Assemblies without the sin of disobedience And consequently his separation thereby becoming sinful proves Schism But if the Scene be alter'd and those separate Assemblies made legal the Schism in reference to the national upon the same account does vanish Schism is a separation from that Church whereof we ought or are bound to be Members If the Supream Authority then loose our obligation to the Parish Meeting so that we are bound no longer the iniquity we say upon this account is not to be found and the Schism gone Loe here a way â—pâ—ned for the Parliament if they please to rid the trouble and scruple of Schism at once out of the Land If they please not yet is there something to be thought on for the Separatist in a way of forbearance that the innocent Christian at least as it was in the time of Trajan may not be sought out unto punishment Especially when such a Tolleration only is desired as is consistant with the Articles of Faith a good life and the Government of the Nation But what shall we say then to the Papists which is the Objection hit still in their Teeth that plead for moderation Why we will not baulk the delivery of our opinion There are Two parts we profess of that favour or condescension we seek from the Higher Powers The one consisting of a Composition with those whose Principles are fit and capable of it And the other consisting of forbearance towards those whose Principles will allow them no more The Papist in our account is but one sort of Recusants and the conscientions and peaceable among them must be held in the same Predicament with those among our selves that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer It is true we have Laws very severe against the Jesuite and Seminary Priest But this we suppose to be upon the ground of State Interest The Supremacy of the Pope and the Authority of the King are inconsistent in this Land The Priest and Jesuite are taken by Law as