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
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
Preaching or Baptizing by it Have we not seen Peter Martyr and divers others freely Preaching and Administring the Sacraments in this Realm The Arch-Bishop of Spalato ordained here whose Ordinations if the Oath rendred invalid there would be much Confusion in the Church of Englond For those who were ordained by him in likelyhood ordained others These indeed acted with Licence from Authority here But Power is one thing Licence to exercise it another Licence supposes but does not give Power For they could not by any Licence be enabled to exercise what they had not How can it be that Power of this kind should be thought spoken of and meant to be excluded out of England by the Oath which 't is known and by the Practice of all sides confess'd cannot be excluded any where 4. But let us consider the Words themselves Every one of the Words Power Jurisdiction Superiority Preheminence Authority Priviledge doth in its primary proper and most common Acceptation signify something Human or Civil I mean so as Power for example in its primary proper and most common Acceptation signifies as much as these two Words Human Power or Civil Power After the manner that this Word Man signifies as much as these two Living-Man and the word Foot as much as Foot of a Living Creature In a Secondary less proper and less common Sense every one of them signifies the Power our Saviour gave his Apostles and their Successors to preach his Doctrine perswade People to practise it and help them to practise those Parts of it to wit the Sacraments which they cannot practise without their Help some thing after the manner as the Word Man does sometimes denote a Picture or Statue the VVord Foot a Table-Foot or Mountain-Foot And the Reason of it is because those Words had the former Sense before Christianity and the Power belonging to its Preaching and Practice came into the World and so must needs be used in this Case in a Secondary Sense And this though those VVords were us'd before concerning other Religions then on foot from which they might be borrowed and apply'd to Christianity because even at their first Application to Religion they were borrow'd from Families Cities or Kingdoms that were before Religion was settled Next in the former Sense it is apply'd to Fathers in respect of their Children to House-holders in respect of their Families to all sorts of Governours of Parishes Towns Cities Armies and Kingdoms and all Officers under them in respect of those they are over also to the Teachers of all Trades and Arts But in the later Sense to one only Order of Men or Teachers of one only Doctrine and so more commonly or oftner apply'd to them than to these Hence this is also the most proper Sense because this is the same as the first Sense especially if the first be most commonly us'd 5. Again VVere these VVords in a Treatise of Military-Discipline every One would be as much as Two For example Jurisdiction would be as much as Military Jurisdiction and No Jurisdiction as much as No Military-Jurisdiction and No Jurisdiction in a Book concerning Confession would without any more ado be the same as No Jurisdiction to absolve from Sins And for the same Reason these VVords in a Treatise of Civil Matter as Laws are ought to be understood so that No Jurisdiction be as much as No Civil Jurisdiction Insomuch that as it would be ridiculous to think that Jurisdiction in a Military or Confession-Book means not Military or Sacramental Jurisdiction so it would be absurd to think that this VVord Jurisdiction in a Law-Book means any thing but Civil except there be something to determin it to another Sense 6. Out of this may be seen that every one of these VVords Power Jurisdiction c. in the Negative Part of the Oath which is contain'd in a Law-Book and is Part of a Law ought rather to be taken in the former Sense then later So that No Jurisdiction be the same as these three VVords No Civil Jurisdiction in which Sense it is evident that the Pope's or other Forreign Prelates not purely Pastoral or purely Spiritual Ministerial and Supernatural Power of the Keys which only regards the Inner-Court of Conscience but that Ecclesiastical otherwise in its own Nature truly Temporal and Political Authority in the External Court which the Pope either had or usurped or prescribed or challenged here in England is excluded I say in case there be nothing in the Oath or its Acts to determin them to another Sense For if there be nothing to determin them to this later Sense then as I said they must have the former as the VVords No Man at all is at Home signifie no more than No Living Man at all is at Home except they are by some VVord or Circumstance determin'd to signifie No Carv'd or Painted Man 7. That then there is nothing to determin them is the only thing to be prov'd And first that the VVords Spiritual or Ecclesiastical do not determin them we have already seen because these VVords in Law-Language and Law-Books where they at present were found signify what is External Political and Civil and so these Words determin them rather to their Law-Sense than draw them from it Especially since this Negative will not bear a Coherent-Sense with the Affirmative except No Spiritual Jurisdiction be the same as No Civil or Royal Jurisdiction For to say in the Affirmative that the Queen hath all Royal Jurisdiction or Royal Jurisdiction in all Causes which is the very same and in the Negative that no Body else hath any Royal Jurisdiction is Coherent Sense But to say that she hath all Royal Power of the Sword and no Body else hath any purely Spiritual and Supernatural Power of the Keys or Sword or that she is Queen and no Body else is a Preacher is very Incoherent and Ridiculous And yet this must be the Sense in case the Words No Spiritual Jurisdiction be the same as No Sacerdotal or the same as both No Royal and No Pastoral as some do fancy 8. And as the Words Spiritual and Ecclesiastical and the Coherency of Sense which we must admit except we be such wise Commentators as to make our Text speak Non-sense do determin the word Power c. to signify Royal Power so doth the whole Design aim'd at as to be brought about by the holding of the Affirmative and Negative Sense of the Oath For this as appears in the later part of the Oath is Faith and Allegiance to our Prince and the Defence of the Jurisdictions of the Crown which cannot at all be profess'd or assur'd by these words No Power Jurisdiction c. as taken to mean any thing else but No Human Power For if one should deny by them that our Saviour gave the Pope or other Forreign Prelate any Power to preach his Doctrine in England how doth this Denial conduce to my Allegiance Except one should impiously say that the Power
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
Man is or ought to be a Dancing Master Indeed if she had taken upon her to have the whole power to Preach she might have said she is Preacher so that no Forreigner hath or ought to have any power to preach here for her having the whole power hinders any body from having any of it except under or from her but not now she renounces that For the being a Queen is not at all inconsistent with another's being a Preacher Hence the sense can be no other than either this she hath the Rule here and no body hath any part of it which is the same as she hath the Rule and all the Rule or elss this she hath all the Rule whence it follows that no Forreigner hath any part of it as he pretended 37. Lastly from the Queens saying that She will accept of those that take the Oath in the above said Sense as her good and obedient Subjects which seems to signify that this Oath was intended not to know of what Religion People were but to know who were Good and Obedient Subjects which they may be as well without denying the Pope's preaching Power as with it Hence it is extreamly more probable at least that the Admonition doth not exclude the Pastoral Power than that it doth and so 't is a sufficient Ground for any one to say to a Justice of Peace I intend to take this Oath in the Sense which to the best of my Judgment is given it by Act of Parliament Which as it is sufficient for the Satisfaction of my Conscience in case there be no Scandal for I in my Conscience judge that the King hath the Rule of this Kingdom and that the Pope hath no part of it and this only I acknowledge upon Oath Next I truly say that this Sense and no other is to the best of my Judgment though this may possibly be misinform'd the Sense given it by Law and in this and no other I take it So he can require no more of me who being to understand it and take it in the Sense of the Law do my best to do both right And more over agree with almost all as far as I can learn all Protestant Authors in holding this to be the Sense of the Law and Oath And consequently am not to be deny'd Leave to take it in this Sense upon pretence that the Sense I take it in is not allowable since 't is allow'd Publickly 38. Since then as we shall find if we reflect back upon the whole the Pope's Pastoral Power if excluded must be excluded by not taking the Words of the Oath in their most Common and Proper Sense to which also they are determin'd by being in Law-Books by all other words of the Oath by its Design and the words of all Acts concerning it Since it must be excluded by speaking without being spoke of since it must be excluded by Reason of some dislike without expressing that Dislike when as it is the Custom of these Laws to express the Reason that mov'd the Parliament to do what it did Since it must be excluded by the Parliament's doing a thing even in their own Thoughts nothing conducing to the End they design'd viz. to Allegiance Freedom from Charges c. which a Power purely Spiritual in the Pope no way prejudices Since it must be excluded by following the Example of Catholick Kings as to manner of Proceeding Words Things and All except some few Particulars which look'd into seem no more to exclude his Pastorship than what they did Since it cannot be excluded without the Parliament's willing that like Words of a former Act should not be taken in a Sense exclusive of it which could proceed only from a Will to have it not-excluded And willing at the same time that the Words of this Act be taken in a Sense exclusive of it which could proceed only from a Will to have it excluded Since it cannot be excluded without their bringing a Reason for the Lords not taking of it which was no Reason without having a mind to swear that the Pope had not what they certainly saw he had or at least to swear he had not a Power in words that did not signify the Exclusion of it more than of that they did not exclude Since it could not be excluded except it was Treason to profess what was excluded and not Treason to profess what was excluded since if it be suppos'd that the Pope's properly Pastoral Power was excluded it was Treason according to the Act to profess it and otherwise we know it was not Treason to profess it all Catholicks being not then esteem'd and punish'd as Traitors Since it could not be excluded except the Negative Clause be put so as not to conduce at all to bring about the only Designe of the Oath which was acknowledging Power in the Queen professing Allegiance and Knowledge of who were good Subjects Nor except the words of the Admonition be taken improperly and the later part of it be constru'd into Non-sense Since these Things are so as likewise that almost all Words especially if not consider'd in their proper Circumstances as these use not to be but as they ly in a single Paper separated from all that belongs to them are liable to have a wrong Sense forc'd into them 't is I think as evident as any thing of this Nature can well be that this which I have endeavour'd to prove to be the Sense of the Oath is indeed the true Sense of it And so as evident when these Things are publickly known as we need desire for our Swearing that the Pope's Power as of Faith is not excluded nor abjur'd what ever may be said of his other Powers that were in process of Time added to this Neither am I alone in this Thought Protestant Divines of the greatest Note and very learned in the Law which alone seems able to give solid Satisfaction in this Point bear me company or rather I bear them They may be seen at large cited by Mr. Cressy in his Reflexions upon the Oaths pag. 27. to 33. and in the Seasonable Discourse about the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy very lately Printed from p. 27. to p. 32. The Sum of their Sense is this That they clear both the Affirmative and Negative Clause in the Oath from intending either to exclude the Pope's Pastoral Supernatural purely Spiritual or Ministerial Power of the Keys or to give as I have shewn any such Power to the King and this in as express Words as can be invented Which lest this Treatise should be any way defective I shall here repeat 39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have the Testimony Dr. Bilson Of Subject 2. Par. p. 218. of Doctor Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester whose expressions are these The Oath saith he expresseth not the duty of Princes to God but ours to them And as they must be obey'd when they joyn with the Truth so must they be endured
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
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
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
that which is repugnant to the Ancient Laws of England and to the Prerogative Royal p. 340. That Jurisdiction purely Spiritual the same which I call Pastoral doth neither disinherit the Prince nor the Pâ—ers nor destroy and Annul the Laws and Prerogative Royal nor vex the Kings Liege people nor impoverish the Subject nor drain the Kingdom of its Treasures c. infint is not guilty of any of the grievances of which our Laws complain It is the external Regiment of the Church by new Roman Laws c. that are apparently guilty of all these evils These Papal Innovations we have taken away indeed more than these Innovations we have taken nothing away that I know of page 353. We have not renoanced the Substance of the Papacy except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive Power who considers besides that these things are not whisper'd in Corners but own'd in the face of the World nor the private fancies of a single man his Book being lately Reprinted after the Authors Death with the countenance of more considerable Authority than Books usually have and the same may be said of the other Protestant Authors above-cited will find himself put to it if he be urged to make out how he comes to pretend to understand the meaning of Protestant Laws better than Protestants themselves 5. It may very well be that a Protestant may be willing to swear what a Catholick cannot because one may think true what the other does not But where they both agree in the thing and what the Protestant means when he swears the Catholick thinks true as well as he and yet will not swear the same truth in the same words looks like a Riddle If the words All Power signify All Usurped Power to a Protestant I see not but they may signify the same to a Catholick too And if it be known that he means by them as the Protestant does 't is plain They cannot signify otherwise For the signification of words is nothing but the known meaning of those who use them And though they should signify otherwise elsewhere they can signify no more but so where 't is known no more but so is meant by them 6. This difficulty then in two words is only this Whether All Power in the Oath means absolutely All or All the Power mentioned and intended by the Act for the observation whereof the Oath was made That General words are ordinarily I had almost said always confin'd by Circumstances is a thing so known that 't is impertinent perhaps to mention at least to bring examples of it Whether Those words are confin'd in This Case is all we have to consider and to every mans Judgment and Conscience I leave it Only who is not satisfy'd with what has been said has still I conceive a safe way of proceeding by declaring before hand if he take the Oath that he takes it in the sense of the Law as understood by all Protestant Writers none excepted particularly Arch-Bishop Bramhal which as was shown seems to amount to a Consent of the Nation After which I for my part see no cause of Scruple remaining for the first Point 7. For the second who is perswaded that the Power Renounc'd by the Oath does indeed belong to the Pope by Divine Right For what is settled by Human may by Human Authority be unsettled undoubtedly cannot take the Oath But he should do well to consider how he comes to be so perswaded This is no place to treat the Question I shall only say that if any one take that Perswasion for Faith he is certainly mistaken and that many of the most Learned among Catholicks are mistaken too if it be true It is a Power which heretofore has drawn perpetual complaints from our Catholick Ancestors and many Laws for Redress of the Inconveniencies they suffer'd by it It is a Power for whose sake our Religion is at this day aspers'd with the imputation of Inconsistence with the Ease of Subjects and Security of the Common-wealth Who will maintain it engages himself to clear it from these Objections For if he do not he will not clear himself from doing his part to bring his Country again into what the Law calls Bondage and his Religion into the Scandalous shame of being indeed guilty of what is laid to her Charge No man can go about it without maintaining in the first place that our Catholick Ancestors complained always without cause and felt nothing when they cry'd out of the burthen If They had reason to complain Protestants have none to endure what they complained of nor can Catholicks of all men expect they should 8. In short there is nothing does more harm in the world then mistaken Zeal which under a mistaken pretence of Religion we see transports Men to things the most contrary to Religion that can be 'T is not to be thought that in our Communion there is no Humane Frailty Opinions have been broacht concerning the Pope and are to this day maintained prejudicial to say no more both to the Soveraignty of Princes and Hierarchy of the Church Whether the Power in question to exercise an independent Soveraign Coactive Judiciary Authority in all Princes Dominions and all Bishops Diocesses upon the matter to govern the Church and World alone be not of the number They should do well to consider who refuse the Oath for it's sake For if it be their Zeal is plainly a mistaken Zeal which as it uses to do deceives and carries them just contrary to what they mean the Scandal and to their Power ruine of Religion which they think to preserve For my part I beg of God the grace rather to suffer the loss of my own life than deny the Pope or any man any just right and I beg the same grace to preserve me from abetting unjust things even in the Pope Time has been when England has seen three Hundred Forreigners sent over at once by the Power in question to be provided of the first Vacant Benefices I should think my self neither good English-man nor good Christian if I should obstinately stand for a Power to commit such Exorbitancies FINIS