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
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
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
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
s Preamble speaks only of such a Power of the Pope as was by reason of its Opposition to the Prerogatives of the Crown by Catholick Kings taken from him and restor'd to the Crown And of such a one as he exercis'd with great Damage to the Nation in Causes of Appeals in several Cases and for Remedy of this Damage it is enacted That he shall have this Power of being a Judge in those Causes no longer And if it be said that in this Preamble he is spoke of at least once as a Preacher when it is said that the Clergy of this Realm were alwayes able to Judge of God's Law without him I answer This invalidates not the Argument for it is Founded in this that where any Power is deny'd him all there spoken of is Temporal VVhence is infer'd that all deny'd him is Temporal Now it is not there said the Pope cannot or shall not Judge what is God's Law when a Question may rise in England about some Point as a Preacher or one skillful in God's Law But that the Clergy is able to do it without him And thence he seems to infer that 't is needless to appeal out of this Realm to know of him what is the Law of God if there should chance to be any doubt in case of Matrimony or Divorce for Example And it being a needless thing to appeal to him even as a Preacher and inconvenient to appeal to him as a Judge commands this not to be done And thus no Power was deny'd him where he was spoke of as a Preacher but only where he is spoken of as a Judge in those Causes as far as they depend on Human Laws Next the Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 20. speaks of no Power taken away but the Power of exacting Annats and First-Fruits and of Electing of Bishops which having accrew'd to him by time could not be Divine or Supernatural Power that is Power deriv'd to him or confer'd upon him Jure Divino 15. The Statute in the 25 K. H. 8. cap. 19. excludes perchance his as well as our Clergie's Power of continuing old Canon-Laws or making new Ones without the King's Approbation And the Power of making such Laws is grounded only on Human Reason shewing the Things prescribed to be convenient Of which Conveniency our Clergy and also Layity as knowing it best by living here where a thing may be Inconvenient that else-where is Convenient and not the Pope ought to be Judge VVhich is the Reason why Laws even of General Councils do not Oblige except where they are Receiv'd Hence not so much as a Just Human Authority is here taken from the Pope 16. But if it be here upon this Occasion ask'd VVhether the Clergy and Layity could in Reason and good Conscience renounce their Human Power to continue all such old Canons which the King should not approve of when as they being more in Number and more likely to be in the Right than he might judge either an Old or New Canon convenient which he might think to be inconvenient And hence whether the King in Reason and good Conscience could then and now by this Act 's being Revived and giving this same Power to the King take and keep the Power of Repealing all such Canons as he should please And consequently whether we can with a good Conscience Swear as we do in the later part of the Oath to defend this his Power if Conscientiously possest by him I answer That I believe they did according to Reason and Conscience in rather choosing the little Harm that might be in the Repealing of some good Old Canons than the great One that might proceed not only from the King's Displeasure but either from the Continuance of many former bad Canons or the Enacting of as bad New Ones or upon such other account upon which a Man may now after it is made Law upon the same or a better Motive continue to consent to the Continuation of what they did Likewise the King might as reasonably take upon him that a Law may not be continued which he dislikes as that a Bill which both Houses like may not be a Law except he likes it or as that a Law which he likes shall not be discontinu'd though both Houses that are more dislike it And this is for Publick order sake 17. The Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 21. speaks of no Power to be taken away but Power of dispensing in the King's Laws to the Prejudice of the Crown and impoverishing of the Subjects which Power must be of the same Nature as the Laws dispensed with 18. The last reviv'd Statute that takes any thing away is in the 28 K. H. 8. cap. 16. and it takes away only Power of giving Licences in abundance of Human Cases and among the rest the Power of putting Bishops into their Bishopricks and Priests into their Parishes and of giving them leave to do their Divine Offices VVhich though it may at first Sight look like Pastoral Power given him by Christ yet it is not For where-ever an Apostle dyed the People and Clergy of the Place had Power to choose themselves a Bishop and put him into his Bishoprick without the Pope's Consent And this Power they Exercis'd for many hundred Years all over Christendom according to the Antient Canons and Customs till partly under pretence of Respect to St. Peter's Successor but whether truly or only for that Reason is another Question it was by several Concordates between some Emperors Kings and Princes and States of Europe of one side and Popes on the other agreed There should be no Bishops allowed in their Territories but whom the Pope or Bishop of Rome should approve of Hence the Power which the Pope had that a Bishop could not or should not be put in without his Consent he got by Human Agreement and only this Power was taken here away For it is not said here that the Pope cannot or shall not perswade People to chuse themselves a Bishop that he sees want one or perswade a Bishop who hath Authority from Christ to do it to go and preach to People that want him which may belong to the Care our Saviour gave him over the Church but that they having a mind to have Bishops will have them of their own choosing and putting in and not of the Pope's as was of former Times practis'd And that this is their Sense is evident out of the History of what the Pope did before that time and of what they themselves did and hinder'd him to do afterwards Or it may be said in short that as they saw it not necessary by God's Law that the Pope should choose and give them a Bishop who were ready to do it themselves so they thought it not convenient he should and thence made a Law that he should not The Law not saying that he could not nor should not send them a Bishop in case of necessity in which case he hath Power from
true Sense given it by Law is evident because if he will take it in that and will not take it in any other he is freed from all Penalties that may force him to take it Add that the Queen's Admonition being allow'd by a Statute-Law made in the Fifth of her Reign the Allowance to take it in that Sense cannot Legally be deny'd any 8. A Fifth Objection arises from our swearing to defend all Jurisdictions c. annexed to the Crown among which is the Power to execute Laws made against what we hold to be Christ's Doctrine And who can speak or fight in defence of such a Power But that part we may well swear For 't is no more than to swear she had all Regal Power and among the rest a Legal Power inherent in her as Queen to execute those Laws which being a Truth we may defend without holding it reasonable for her to use or exercise it As we truly say a Man hath Power or Ability to do both Reasonable and Unreasonable Things but deny that he hath reason or a reasonable power to do these latter and we only swear to defend that she hath a Power or Ablity given her by Law to destroy what is by us not by them esteem'd Christian Faith or certain Truth Or it may be said that they never intended to give the King a Power to destroy Christ's true Faith or any Truth not consequently to destroy our perswasion of the Pope's purely Spiritual Authority in England and other Dominions given by Christ Or that they gave him a Power to destroy ours only in supposition of no such Authority in the Pope which supposition being false they gave no Power to destroy our belief of it and hence we swear not that the King hath such a Power 9. A sixth is because most think that Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher who were such knowing and good Men that it would be very hard to imagin they either misunderstood or acted amiss died for not taking this Oath And all know that our Catholick predecessors from the time it was made till our times constantly refus'd it which they would not have done in case they had not thought it deny'd either some Article of their Faith or at least some Theological or otherwise certain Truth At least the First of those who liv'd and talk'd with those that made this Oath had better Opportunites to know the sense of it than we and so we have more reason to stand to their Judgments than our own As to the First part 't is certain that Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher died long before our Oath was made to wit in King Henry the 8th days when as ours was not made till the first of Queen Elizabeth and so could not die for refusing what was not made till after they were dead Nay they were both dead before either of the two Oaths of Supremacy made in the days of King Henry the 8th were enacted What then they truly died for was for speaking as it was pretended at least against King Henry the Eight's being Head of the Church which is quite different from being Governour of the Realm or at least more apt to bear a false sence and they had reason to fear the King meant to assume by those words an undue Power because he would not be contented with the fair play of the Explication quantum per Legem Dei licet added in the Convocation by Bishop Fisher's means who that explication being added concurred to the Title of Head of the Church with the rest the equivalent whereof we have to ours and that by Act of Parliament But Queen Elizabeth disliking what they dislik't made it Law that the Act that gave her Father that Title should remain repeal'd and left those Words Head of the Church out of the Oath and so our case is neither the same nor like theirs Besides it is not clear that either of them did dye for refusing to acknowledge Henry the 8th's very Headship attributed to him by an Act of Parliament made indeed before their Death but during their Imprisonment For 't is certain they were both Imprison'd on that very day wherein Elizabeth Barton called the Holy Maid of Kent was Executed and that the cause of their Imprisonment was for refusing then the Oath lately before enacted for acknowledging the King's Marriage with Queen Ann lawful and her Issue the Princess Elizabeth then born lawfully begotten or true Heir of the Crown vid. Sanderum dep Schis Anglicano l. 1. p. 86. edit Ingolstad Moreover it is known that very great Saints dy'd in material Errors And that such Errors did not prejudice their Sanctity nor Martyrdom either Witness S. Cyprian of Affrick c. 10. As to the Second I confess those who liv'd in the Parliament's Dayes which enacted the Oath might have understood the Sense of the Oath as well or better than I For who am I that I should pretend to have as good or better Understanding than any of them had Next I say that the first of them at least had something a better Opportunity by discoursing with that Part of the Parliament that worded the Oath and Act which perhaps only knew the Meaning of both better than other Folks Yet whether they or at least more than a few of them went this way to work is not a thing that we have any knowledg of and if they did not use this Means we are upon equal Terms with them or rather better For we have the Oath and all Statutes concerning it as well as they had And besides this have several Treatises writ on both sides which they had not But as many have better Judgments and better Opportunities to understand Divinity Philosophy or Law than others and yet fall short of Understanding so well as they either by not looking at all looking slightly the wrong way or not hap'ning to think of so good Reasons as others do so it may happen in our Case as well as it hap'ned in the Case of the Oath of Allegiance which neither as to the Sense of the Words nor the Truth of that Sense seem'd to be nigh so well understood formerly by those that liv'd with its Makers as by us that live now Nay some fancy'd no less than Three Heresies in it which Ghosts have since disappeared and more than one is not now so much as pretended to be in that Oath And the Excellent Answer of the Three Treatises of the Jesuits writ against that Oath shews plainly there is neither Heresie nor Error in it but honest and just Duty to our Sovereign 11. This being so the Question ought to be Whether of us do actually see best into this Matter And since neither We nor They could see into it but by the Reasons brought on both sides those of us must be judg'd to see best into the Sense of the VVords who bring the best Reasons Now those I have here brought for the Pope's Pastoral
our Saviour to provide for the Flock and so have other Bishops too in such case besides him but only that he should not in this case of no-Necessity Which is to take from him not the Power but the unnecessary Use of that Power which last was certainly not given by God 19. Likewise Bishops and Priests had from our Saviour Power to preach and that all the World over as they should think fit without its being necessary to have this Power from St. Peter's Successor But after some time they thought fit to agree that each one should not do his Duty every where nor at his own Discretion but only in the Place allotted to him and at the Discretion chiefly of the Pope at least within his Patriarchate And the Power that was by this Agreement given the Pope was here by the Disagreement of this Nation in Parliament taken away So that now they should have their Places allotted by it and at the Discretion of it exercise the Power they had from Christ 20. Having thus seen that when any Power of the Pope was in the Reviv'd Statutes turn'd out none but Human was spoken of Let us now see of what kind Q. Elizabeth speaks in her Acts. 21. In the Title of her First Act 1 Eliz. cap. 1. none is spoken of but Power Repugnant to the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown Now one Human Power is often Repugnant to another and in our Case the Pope's having Power to Judge some Causes here without having it as from or under her is Repugnant to her Imperial Power of having all Judges in the External-Court proceed under and from her But not the Ministerial Power our Saviour gave to preach his Doctrine and feed his Sheep a part whereof is to render to Caesar what is Caesar's In the Preamble we hear only of Usurp'd Power taken from the Pope by K. H. 8th And who can think that it here calls the Power our Saviour gave to preach Usurp'd But least one should think they meant not to call the Power which our Saviour gave Usurp'd but to call his pretence of being Chief Preacher so let him consider how the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown restor'd is put both here and every where as relative to it So that where-ever there is mention made of Power taken from the Pope there is also mention made of Power restor'd to the Crown and where ever of Power restor'd to the Crown also of Power taken from the Pope Which gives one reason to think that none was taken away from Him but what was given to the Crown nor any thing given to the Crown but what was taken from Him And this is render'd more evident by Bishop Bramhal's Words Schism Garded p. 340. Whatsoever Power our Laws did devest the Pope of they invested the King with it Now this being so how is it possible they should apprehend the Pretence of being Chief Preacher or Pastor though false so usurp'd as to belong of Antient Time to our Crown and to be now restor'd to it 22. Next by the Fruit let him know the Tree And what is all the Good Fruit there mention'd as proceeding from what was taken away from the Pope and restor'd to the Crown Being kept in good Order and freed from intolerable Charges which are Temporal Fruits And what is all the bad Fruit there mention'd as proceeding from the Pope's having got all his Old Power again by Queen Mary's Act of Repeal Bondage under an Usurp'd-Forreign Power to the intolerable Charges of the Subjects If this be all the Fruit that grew upon all the Stocks of Power he had formerly taken from him could any of them be any other than the Temporal Stock of Power opposit to that by which the King kept them in good Order or of Power to get Money And lastly since this Preamble desires nothing but Freedom from these Evils who can imagin that this Act speaks of any other Roots but these to be pluck'd up Especially since in that Part of the Act in which this Power is taken away it is still all call'd Usurp'd all call'd Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Which Words as being in our Law must determin the word Power to import Temporal 23. Lastly The Title of the Act 5 Q. Eliz. cap. 1. being An Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Majesties Royal Power over all States and Subjects within her Dominions the word Power as often as 't is us'd in the Act must be understood in a Sense conducing to the Assurance of Royal Power except one should think the Law-makers to be so Imprudent as to use it in a Sense no ways conducing to effect their Design and what only Sense conduces to that end we have already seen Moreover the Preamble declaring no Design but the Preservation of the Queen and the Dignities of her Crown and the avoyding of Mischiefs that have befallen Her her Crown and Subjects by reason of the Usurp'd Power of the See of Rome all the VVords of the Act are to be understood of no other Power than that which is the Reason or Cause of those Mischiefs and of that only which being taken away the Ends aim'd at will be compass'd and this for the same Reason alledg'd before And now being come to the end of our View of every Particular deny'd by the Acts And being conscious that every particular Power deny'd to the Pope is Temporal we may solidly conclude that all deny'd him is such 24. For a Second Proof of the said Second Proposition let us reflect how it is altogether unreasonable to think that these Acts take away any Power from the Pope of which they express no dislike nor make any Complaint of its being in him and how our Eyes testify that they signify no dislike of his Preaching Power But only of his Power which was a Diminution of the King's Power as being Part of it and so Repugnant to its being intirely in him and of his Power to exact Mony for Dispensations Licences c. which was chargeable to the Nation and which was far different from that other which Christ gave him 25. For a Third Reason 't is incredible they would have done a thing in these Acts no wayes conducing to the Design they express themselves to have in them which only we ought to judge they had For they only speak of restoring what was Usurp'd from the Crown and abolishing what was Repugnant to its being Restor'd of freeing the Subjects from inconvenient Laws Judicatures and great Charges of securing the Queens Person her Royal Authority over her Subjects and their Allegiance to her To the compassing of which End the taking away the Pope's Power to preach Christ's Doctrine which enjoyns the giving the Crown its due and is no Power to oppress People by Inconvenient Laws or Exactions of Money in the Cases complain'd of nor to prejudice the Queen or her Soveraignty over her Subjects or their Allegiance to her is no way conducing VVhen as
might have been intended by the Makers of it to deny the Pope's purely Spiritual Power of the Keys even in any Case or Contingency in England and other his Majesties Dominions though we have shewn this to be altogether improbable and hence peradventure they do actually deny it who take this Oath But I answer That notwithstanding what Possibility of Truth soever there be in the Antecedent there is no danger at all of the Consequent For I am as certain as that I live and know my own Thoughts that I understand the Words in a Sense not opposite either to Catholick Faith or to any Truth whatsoever Next I am certain I take the Oath in that Sense only in which I understand it And hence I am certain likewise that I deny not my Christian Faith or any other Truth Only I may perchance have some small Doubt as I may have of the Words of many Publick Oaths in the World which are notwithstanding generally held to be lawfully taken whether the Sense I take them in be meant by Law But however this Matter be or whether I doubt or not doubt in any manner at all sure I am I do not swear this doubtful thing to wit than my Sense of them is given by Law but only acknowledge upon Oath that the Sense I have of them is in or according to my judgment True 20. And hence I am induc'd to believe if these Reasons should help to effect a general Perswasion that the Oath means not to exclude the Pope's or other Forreign Prelates Pastoral Power in all Contingencies that then after such a general Perswasion the Oath may be lawfully and freely taken In the mean time because no tenderness can be too great in such matters to avoid giving Offence to any whether of our own or of a different Communion who if they understand the Oath otherwise will be apt to judge according to their own Apprehension that to take the Oath is to renounce the Religion which the Taker professeth I conceive it advisable that who takes it declare plainly before-hand in what Sense he understands it viz. that he takes it not in the most large Sense of the Words which might seem to some to deny his Religion but only in that Sense which to the best of his Judgment is assign'd it by Law or in that Sense in which Learned Protestants allow'd and approv'd by Publick Authority have expounded it and understood it to be the Law-Sense of it or that he understands the Power meant by the Law to be acknowledg'd in the King is the Power of the Sword not of the Keys Likewise that the Keys are not deny'd to the Pope or other Forreign Prelate but the Sword Or rather because the Power of the Keys has been stretch't by some to Temporals to the disposing even of Kingdoms and such like Exorbitancies which have not only been claim'd but practis'd and the Power to do them all the while call'd the Power of the Keys it were fit to make this Declaration in words not liable to Exception For which I know none more proper than those before mention'd of the Arch Bishop of Armagh that the King only has the Supreme External Coactive Jurisdiction or Power of the Sword within his Dominions over all Persons and in all Things or Causes and that no Forreign Prelate either has or ought to have any Part thereof and that he understands the Oath so and no otherwise and so takes it By this means he will deal uprightly and candidly and unblameably before God and Man and without any Shadow of Offence or Scandal whether to Protestants or Catholicks Conclusion 1. HAving been longer than I intended I conceive it not amiss to take a short view of what has been said at parting The whole in Truth lies in a narrow compass who refuses the Oath for what concerns the Pope must either think that his Pastoral Power is deny'd by it or that what without question is deny'd viz That External Coercive Judiciary Power which he has in some other Princes Dominions and heretofore had here is so his right that it can by no Humane Power be taken away There is no more in the Case For as to what relates to the King I take it to be very clear 2. As for the First the expressions of the Oath are so general that who looks upon them as they lie there and judges according to their bare sound has reason to except against them so much reason that were they taken out and digested into Propositions to be considered and judged of purely by the import of the Terms perhaps there is not a Catholick in the World at least I believe there are but very few who would approve them In likelihood our Ancestors who refus'd the Oath lookt upon them no otherwise which I the rather believe because I see that many I think the most go no farther at this day And then 't is no wonder that They refus'd and These condemn it All Catholicks generally would refuse and condemn it too if they lookt upon it in the same manner 3. But who look upon the same expressions as part of an Oath contained in an Act and reflect that the Oath is declared to be for the better Observation and maintenance of that Act and therefore and in force of the general Rule of understanding words according to the matter spoken of ought to be understood only of what the Act speaks That all the Power of which the Act speaks is Power repugnant to the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown Power both Forreign and Usurped Power burthensome and intolerably chargeable to the Subject That this Limitation is not only in the Title and Preamble but in the very Branch which abolishes the Popes Power where the intent is particularly exprest to be that All usurped and forraign power be forever extinguish't That the Popes Pastoral Power if it may be called Forreign cannot be thought Usurped by a Christian who reads the Scripture and sees S. Peter and in him his Successor ' empower'd there and commanded by Christ to feed his Sheep That where a Law declares it's own intent 't is not for others to think it intended more or otherwise then as it declares That no more was extinguisht then was intended to be extinguisht with what else is said in the foregoing Papers may find reason to judge that the Meaning of the Words of the Oath is not altogether so large as their Sound and that all the Power deny'd there signifies no more than all the Power spoken of in the Act and therefore that Pastoral Power is not renounc't that which is renounc't being limited by the Act to Oppressive and Usurped and to Soveraignty-repugnant Power 4. Again who considers that the Oath Actually is understood in this manner by those of greatest note in the Church of England That Arch-Bishop Bramhall tells us Schism Guarded p. 311. That by this Act there is no forreign Power abolished but only