in that particular when the same tyranny was exercised there by the Power of a few ill men which at that time had spread it self over this Kingdom and therefore we had no reason to expect that we should at this season when we are doing all we can to wipe cut the memor of all that hath been done amiss by other men and we thank God have wiped it out of our own Remembrance have been our self assaulted with those rep oaches which we will likewise forget And it was goodness worthy the great Soul of a King to forget the Outrages of such who did strip their Political Father of his Power and then reproach him with his nakedness I may here likewise tell you and not mal a propos how much the patience and long-suffering of the same Prince was exercised in a late Conjuncture that so much eclipsed his Prerogative in the Case of the Earl of Danby's Pardon and when the Commons did set up against it somewhat in his Father's Answer to the 19 Propositions before mention'd that nothing but the tempest of the Age in the Parliament of 40 could have occasion'd viz. Since therefore the Power legally placed in both Houses of Parliament is more then sufficient to restrain the Power of Tyranny c. But because a Parliament so perpetuated as that was did prove more then sufficient to restrain pretended Tyranny and real just Government will a considerate man say any such thing now when the breath of Prerogative can dissolve them in a moment and in that moment all their thoughts perish and all the high-flying thoughts that would soare above Imperial Power be found dead in the Nest And I may here tell you that in the Answer of some Nonconformists to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon an Answer Printed in London in the year 1680. during the ferment about the Plot and wherein they desire Indulgence I think their attacquing the Service on the Gun-Powder Treason Plot in thanking God for Preserving the King and the Three Estates of the Realm assembled by saying That the late King made no scruple in his Answer to the 19 Propositions to reckon himself one of the three Estates was a thing that on recollection they will judge ought not to have been done But I am here further to tell you that though it may be consistent with our Oath in some such case as was mention'd to endeavour the altering by the Legislative Power some uncontroverted Privileges of the Crown and in such a way as I have mention'd I likewise wish you in your thoughts to make a distinction of those Privileges or Preheminences belonging to the Crown that are absolutely Essential to its Preservation and to that of the whole Realm and which are by God and the Law put as a Depositum into the hands of Kings and the removing of one of which would have the effect of taking a Stone out of an Arched Building and such as no Sovereign Princes can be without and such as our Princes have in their flourishing Reigns to the great content and happiness of their People always exercised and Rights as the late Earl of Shaftsbury said of that of the Flagg that our Princes cannot part with and Privileges that are not such and two of which former sort of Privileges and which are parts of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom I account we are expresly in the Promissory Clause of that Oath Sworn to defend and assist namely of the lineal Succession to the Crown and of the King's Prerogative and of which Prerogative we have this Description in Blount's Law-Dictionary That the Prerogative of the King is generally that Power Preheminence or PRIVILEGE which the King hath over and above other Persons and above the ordinary Course of the Law in the Right of his Crown And then adds Potest Rex ei lege suae dignitatis condonare si velit etiam mortem promeritam LL. Edw. Confess cap. 18. and then saith that Spelman calls it the Lâ—…x Regiae dignitatis The Author of the Law-Dictionary had there his eye on the Law of Edward the Confessor where under the title of Misericordia Regis Pardonatio it is declared that si quispiam forisfactus which the Margin interprets rei Capitalis Reus poposcerit Regiam misericordiam pro forisfacto suo timidus mortis vel membrorum perdendorum potest Rex ei lege suae dignitatis condonare si velit etiam mortem promeritam ipse tamen malefactor rectum faciat in â—…quantumcunque poterit quibus forisfecit tradat fidejussores de pace legalitate tenenda si vero fidejussores defecerint exula bitur à Patria And I remember there is a famous Act relating to the old Privileges and Prerogatives of the Crown and to their resumption by the Crown viz. The Act of 27. H. 8. c. 24. call'd The Recontinuing of certain Liberties taken from the Crown and it begins with saying that whereas divers of the most ancient Prerogatives and Authorities of Iustice appertaining to the Imperial Crown of this Realm have been severed and taken from the same by sundry Gifts of the King 's most Noble Progenitors to the great diminution and detriment of the Royal Estate of the same and to the hinderance and great delay of Iustice and thereupon saith for Reformation whereof be it Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament that no Person or Persons c. shall have any Power or Authority to pardon or remit any Treasons Murders Man-slaughters or any kinds of Felonies nor any Accessaries to any Treasons Murders c. or any Out-laries for any such Offences aforesaid committed perpetrated done or hereafter to be committed done or divulged by or against any Person in any part of this Realm c. but that the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors shall have the whole and sole Power and Authority thereof united and knit to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as of good RIGHT and Equity it appertaineth c. and then orders all Writs in a County Palatine to be made in the King's Name c. That Statute doth give you a Prospect of great variety and use in order to the Settlement of your thoughts about some things in your Oath You there see the Natural recourse of the Royal Rivers of Prerogative to the Ocean from whence they came and when you there find that the Crown could communicate to Subjects the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardoning Murder however restrain'd by ACT of Parliament and all the dreadful Disabilities incurr'd by Out-laries for Felony and Treason you are not to wonder at any ones telling you that the King himself hath the Privilege of Pardoning a Disability incurr'd by Law for Heterodoxy in Religion and especially when you shall see the whole and sole Power of Pardoning the same united and knit to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as of GOOD RIGHT and EQUITT appertaineth And according to those words in your Oath about your defending all the
Fra. Walsingham And what sense the House of Commons had in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames the First of the Disabling of several of the Nonconformist Divines being a Gravamen to the Realm appears by the Petition of that House to the King Anno 1610. as I find it in Mr. Nye's Beams of former Light p. 103. viz. Whereas divers painful and learned Pastors that have long time travell'd in the work of the Ministry with good Fruit and Blessing of their Labour have been removed from Ecclesiastical livings being their free-hold and from all means of maintenance to the great grief of sundry your Majesty's well-affected Subjects we therefore humbly beseech your Majesty would be graciously pleas'd that such deprived and silenced Ministers living quietly and peaceably may be restored c. But in short if you consider that the great Cause that excited the Loyal Zeal express'd in the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth and whereby so many Statutes of Harry the 8th against the Papal â—…pations were revived was that the King and Kingdom might not be disabled by Clergy-mens not being Subjects to the Crown through Papal Exemptions and that the Crown might Cum effectu be restored to its Government over them i. e. of the whole Realm and that our Monarchs should by means of such Exemption be no more disabled from being Governors only IN their Realm and not OF it and as when the Right of two Persons claiming to be Princes of Tuscany was before the Pope's Arbitrage he determin'd that one of them should be A Prince IN Tuscany and the other Oâ—… it you will find that this Supreme Power over all Persons as inherent in the King is the very Lapis Angularis on which your Abjuration of foreign Iurisdiction and on which the whole Promissory part of your Oath are built For when you have first declared in your Oath that the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal and then what followeth upon that viz. That no foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm you say And THEREFORE I do â—…tterly renounce and forsake aâ—…l foreign Iurisdictions c. And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness c. and to my Power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness c. or united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Thus then the Reason why you abjure foreign Jurisdiction for you ABIURE when you swear to quit and forsake as Mr. Nye in his Observations on that Oath tells us and why you promise to assist and defend all Iurisdictions granted or belonging to the King whose Subject you are is resolved into the Kings being the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal I am here further to tell you that when by your Oath you have renounced the Pope's Dispensative Power you have asserted and have obliged your self to defend the Jurisdiction of the King 's Dispensative Power in the room of it and the defence of which was the great design and drift of the entire Statute of 1 o. Eliz. and of your Oath therein and no collateral thing A. I have been and am pleas'd with that Prospect you have given me into the Region of the Dispensative Power used by the Crown in the Interpretation of my Oath a Region that was before to me like the terra Australis Borealis incognita but to deal frankly with you I am yet to seek out the meaning of this notion last â—…rted by you that the drift and design of the Statute of 1 o. Elizabethae and the Oath was to prop up the King 's Dispensative Power I doubt not but you are perfectly sensible that he who speaks to that tender thing call'd Conscience and about an Oath ought to be tender of any point he urgeth to it and not to wyre-draw any thing by forced Consequences that is to be offered to it as Obligatory B. I assure you I go by those very measures in giving you my Judgment of the design and drift of that Statute as I have done and that he must put the Statute on the wrack that will make it speak any other meaning Consider what the Prefatory part as the key of it mentions viz. That divers good Laws and Statutes that were made in Henry the Eighth's time as well for the utter extinguishment and putting away of all Usurped and Foreign Power c. as also for the restoring and uniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the ancient Iurisdictions c. to the same of Right belonging by reason whereof we your most humble and obedient Subjects from the 25th year of the Reign of your said dear Father were continually kept in good order and were disburden'd of divers great and intolerable Charges and Exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted by such Foreign Power and Authority as before that was usurped until such time as all the said good Laws and Statutes by one Act of Parliament made in the first and second years of the Reigns of the late King Philip and Queen Mary c. were repeai'â—… by reason whereof they then further mention how they were then brought under an Usurped Foreign Authority to their intolerable Charges and they thereupon desire the Repealing of that Act. Here we are given to see by their dating the aera of their being well govern'd and disburthen'd of divers great intolerable Charges and Exactions taken and exacted by Foreign Power from the 25th of Henry the 8th and had their eye on the Statute of the 25th of Henry the 8th c. 21. entituled No Imposition shall be paid to the Bishop of Rome which sets forth how the Subjects of this Realm were impoverish'd by intolerable Exactions of great Sums of Money taken out of this Realm by the Bishop of Rome as well in Pensions Censes Suits for Provisions and Expeditions of Bulls c. and also for Dispensations Licences Faculties Grants Relaxations Writs call'd Perinde valere Rehabilitations Abolitions and other infinite sorts of Bulls Breves and Instruments of sundry Natures c. wherein the Bishop of Rome hath been not only to be blamed for his Usurpation in the Premisses but also for his abusing and beguiling your Subjects pretending and persuading them that he hath Power to Dispense with all Humane Laws Uses and Customs of all Realms in all Causes which be call'd Spiritual which matter hath been usurped and practised by him and his Predecessors by many years in great deâ—…gation of your Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to Right and Conscience For where this your Graces Realm recognizing no Superior under God but only your Grace hath been and
of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance our thoughts are obliged to have regard to Matters of Right and Law. We are to our Power to assist and defend all Privileges and Preheminences GRANTED or BELONGING to the King c. and which ARE united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm A. But by this means while you would have men keep up the ease of their Consciences by such assistance and defence will not they be put to it to make their lives uneasy by buying Law-Books and being Students of the Crown-Law and of the extent of the Regal rights a thing never intended by the Makers of the Laws for those Oaths and whereby such who are to assist and defend and Rights of the Crown by Action in Land or Sea-Service would be hinder'd therein by Speculation B. No man need amuse himself about any such matter Nor are our Princes who by their Coronation Oaths oblige themselves to defend all our rightful Laws and Customs bound thereby to study the Report-Books of the Law concerning the Rights and Properties of their Subjects and whereby the time of Princes would be taken up from defending them And I shall tell you that tho all men are morally bound to frame the best Conceptions and make the truest representations of the Divine Nature they can and which by the measures of the Scripture â—…s comprehended under our Duty of glorifying God yet not to study the Controversies between the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants about the absoluteness of the Divine Decrees and Dominion or whether God according to his absolute Dominion can torment an innocent Creature And thus tho we are bound to honour God's Vice gerents and to assist and defend their Rights Privileges and Preheminences we are not to consume our whole lives in the investigation of Truth in the Moot-Points about the same But as to this thing that great Casuist of the Age Bishop Sanderson may help to set us right in his Third Lecture of Oaths Sect. 17 where putting the Case when Subjects are required to take an Oath for Preservation and Defence of Laws and Liberties Privileges Prerogatives and Preheminences of some Superior Power as of a King a Common-wealth or Lord Paramount such as are among us the Oaths of Hâ—…mage of Royal Supremacy c. he saith No man denies these Oaths to be lawful or obligatory but in respect of the frequent incertainty of the Laws whereunto they relate it may very well be doâ—…bted how far they oblige Doubtless the Subject to his Power is obliged to defend all Rights which appear either by Law or Custom Legitimate whether defined by the written Law or in force through long use of time or prescription that is so far as they are known or may morally be known But he is not equally obliged to the observation of all those which are Controverted or doubtful especially since Powerful men are accustomed to stretch their tedders and leap over the Land-marks of their Neighbours not contenting themselves within the bounds of their own Right Nevertheless a Subject ought always to be prepared in Mind so soon as the justness of those things which are doubtful shall appear to a knowledge and defend them It may be hence rationally deduced that such who are call'd to the Helm of State or are Members of Parliament if any Matters relating to any Iurisdictions Privileges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Crown shall come in question before them are by virtue of the Oath of Supremacy bound to endeavour to know whether those Jurisdictions Privileges and Authorities are granted or do belong to the Crown that is so far as they are known or may morally be known before they refuse to defend and assist them and much more before they shall do any act of offending or resisting the same and before they shall entertain any hard thoughts of their Prince for claiming this or that Privilege And where the right of any Iurisdictions Privileges granted or belonging to the Crown is not Controverted or doubtful that Oath binds them immediately to assist and defend the same and not so much as to move any thing against them except in some such case as I shall presently mention A. Did ever any Parliament presume to destroy or offend or usurp upon any Privilege or Preheminence or Authority of which the Right as belonging to the Crown was not controverted B. Yes the long Parliament of 40 did so The Power of the Militia was acknowledg'd by the Parliaments Petition at Windsor to be a flower of the Crown And therefore the Royal Martyr's dying Breath might one would think be Thunder to their Consciences when in his Speech on the Scaffold he said I never intended to intrench upon their Privileges They began upon me It is the Militia they began upon They confess'd that the Militia was mine but they thought fit to have it from me No doubt such men intended to entrench on the King's Privileges and Preheminences and they intended to violate their Oath of Supremacy A. Did they offend any other Uncontroverted Rights of the Crown B. Many more then I have now time to name but cannot forget the fatal Consequences of their outraging one of those uncontroverted Rights which was at the King's Pleasure to Prorogue or Dissolve Parliaments by putting such incessant hardships on that Pious King to engage him to pass the Act that that Parliament should continue till both the Houses did consent to the dissolution of it and of which Mr. Hobbs in his Behemoth saith that it amounted to a total Extinction of the King 's Right in case that such a grant were valid which I think it is not unless the Sovereignty it self be in plain terms renounced which it was not And he having said That the King signed that Bill the same day he signed the Warrant for the Execution of the Earl of Strafford and having rais'd the Question Whether the King could not have saved him by a Pardon and said that he would have done it if that could have preserv'd him against the Tumults rais'd and countenanced by the Parliament it self doth mind me of the horror of those days when they who were Sworn to assist and defend the King's Privilege and Preheminence in Pardoning any one tho he knew him justly Condemned to dye did endeavour by Tumults to oppose his Pardoning one whom he thought not to have deserv'd Death That Royal Privilege was in like manner by that Parliament trampled on in the Case of the Pardon of Archbishop Laud. A. I shall here by the way ask you if you did not once tell me that the most profound Observers of the Affairs in Ireland had agreed in it as their firm Judgment that the Irish Rebellion had never happen'd if the Parliament of 40 here had not meddled in the Case of the Earl of Strafford and occasion'd his removal from being chief Governour of Ireland B. I shall by the way answer you that I did tell you so and that
metaphysical universale however they may â—…ansie it to be a real being but what I know cannot exist a part from the particular Rights and Privileges belonging to the Crown being assisted and defended and from a serious endeavour to understand the truth about their belonging to it And my solicitousness to find out which in the shortest way possible and particularly as to the Privilege of discharging incapacity or disability incurr'd by Act of Parliament as I told you at our last meeting engaged me to divert you out of the course of your method and whereupon you told me you would refer my thoughts to the Assertory part of the Oath B. Well what ever damps I may see on English Mens loyalty or degeneracy from its nature by the arts of faction a while perverting them not to assist and defend this or that Privilege of the Crown I shall never despair of their coming again to themselves and that tho as in a vessel of Water and Oyl while any one is shaking it the Water may over-top the Oyl so likewise in their minds while shaken and stirred by Demagogues the Oyl of the Lord 's anointed is not there uppermost yet that through its own nature and through the English good nature and their natural addiction to Religion it will in time naturally appear to be so And now to go on without further prefacing on either side what if I should tell you that it imports you to consider that in in the Assertory part of the Oath of Supremacy you have declared and asserted that authority as due to the King that was challenged and used by king Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th that is that the King under God hath the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these his Realms of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal so ever so as no other foreign Power shall or ought to have any superiority over them A. I would then tell you that you have mentioned some things to be in this Oath that I remember not to be there B. I grant that I mention'd to you somethings that are not express'd in the Oath and in the form of it as it is administred and was enacted 1 Eliz. c. 1. and by which Act the refusers of such Oath are punish'd with DISABILITY to bear Office. But in the same year in which that Act pass'd Queen Elizabeth in an ADMONITION annext to her Injunctions thought fit to exercise her Royal authority of the Interpretation or Declaration of the sense of that Oath enjoyn'd by Act of Parliament and in that Admonition you will find those words that you remember not in the Oath you took as likewise her ACQUITTAL of all Persons from all manner of Penalties and consequently of disability who took the Oath according to the sense of it publish'd in her Interpretation And if you consult the Act you will see that the disabilities inflicted in the Act on the refusers of the Oath are various And thus then you see that as soon as you have done taking the Oath you are immediately call'd on by your Conscience to defend the Privilege and preeminence of your Prince viz. of interpreting his Laws and of discharging the disabilities thereby inflicted A. I now remember that I have read that Admonition of the Queens but I account Proclamations Injunctions and Admonitions of Princes to be but temporary Laws and that therefore this Interpretation of the Queen's and her discharging of Disabilities expired with her Reign B. To obviate such thought I shall tell you that in the Act of the 5th of Queen Elizabeth c. 1. and by which the Refusal of the Oath of Supremacy is punish'd more severely then by the before-mention'd disability viz. by Proemunire for the first Refusal and by making it Treason for some Persons to refuse it a second time but Penalties that none ever doubted but the Crown might by its Pardon discharge there is a Proviso that the Oath viz. of Supremacy expressed in the said Act made in the said first year shall be takeu and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexd to the Queens Majesties Injunctions Publish'd in the first year of her Reign that is to say to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority then was challenged and lately used by the Noble King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth as in the said Admonition may more plainly appear And this too lets you see that the Parliament by thus referring to the Queen's Admonition did approve of her Power therein exercised and of her having acquitted her Subjects from the Punishment of disability A. I must then I see fairly grant you that by that Parliament's having thus perpetuated the interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy contain'd in Queen Elizabeth ' s Admonition I am bound in Conscience to take it in that sense and am perjured if I do not so keep that Oath and must likewise grant that you have shewn how auspicious that Oath by the Queens interpreting the same and the Parliament about five years after approving that Interpretation was to the Assertion of such her Power and that if any taker of the Oath should gain-say such Power you have prepared such a Confutation in the case as was used to the old Philosopher who disputed against Motion and whom his Adversary confuted by removing him from his place But as you are a fair arguer I am to take leave to tell you That that Parliament tho they approved the Queen's Admonition in general did not particularly shew their Approbation of the Queen's Power of dispensing with the Penalties that she exercised in that Admonition B. They did sufficiently shew their Approbation of the whole and therefore you need not question their approving of its parts But because you seem to lay some stress on that Parliament's not expresly approving in terminis the Queen 's Power of discharging the Penalties and one of which by the Act of 1 o Elizabethoe was disability I shall tell you that whereas Queen Elizabeth had thought it expedient for the Supporting of the Consecration of the Bishops of the Church of England to dispense with whatever might cause Disability according to her Supream Authority by her Letters Patents the very same Parliament at their next Session did 8 o Elizabethoe c. 1. in terminis terminantibus declare their Approbations of the Queens dispensing with disability by those Letters Patents for it having been in that Statute mention'd that for the avoiding of all Ambiguities and Questions that might be objected against the lawful Confirmations investings and Consecrations of the said Archbishops and Bishops her Highness in her Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England c. hath used and put in her said Letters Patents divers other general words and Sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority hath DISPENS'D with all Causes or doubts of any Imperfection or DISABILITY
commonly call'd Ecclesiastical Court c. as by the said Councils and Constitutions Provincial appeareth which standing and remaining in their effect not abolish'd by your Grace's Laws did sound to appear to make greatly for the said usurp'd Power of the Bishop of Rome and to be directly repugnant to your Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church and Prerogative royal your GRACE being a LAY-MAN and albeit the said Decrees Ordinances and Constitutions by a Statute made in the 25th year of your Reign be utterly abolish'd c. But forasmuch as your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supreme Head of the Church of England and also of Ireland to whom BY HOLY SCRIPTURE all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct Uice and Sin whatsoever and TO ALL SUCH PERSONS AS YOUR MAIESTY SHALL APPOINT THEREUNED that in Consideration thereof as well for the Instruction of Ignorant Persons c. and setting forth of your Prerogative Royal and Supremacy It may therefore please your Highness that it may be Ordain'd and Enacted that all and singular Persons as well LAY as those that be now Married or hereafter shall be Married c. which shall be made ordain'd constituted and deputed to be any Chancellor Uicar General c. Scribe or Register by your Majesty or any of your Heirs and Successors or by any Archbishop Bishop c. may lawfully execute and execute all manner of Iurisdiction commonly call'd Ecclesiastical c. Here you see the enacting clause founded on the previous solemn acknowledgment of the King's supremacy and on his having the power given him not by Parliaments or People but by SCRIPTURE to appoint such to be ecclesiastical Judges who were by Custom and by the Laws of Councils and Provincial Synods formerly equivalent to Acts of Parliament incapacitated so to be And from whence it is consequently apparent that no positive humane Laws whatsoever inflictive of Penal incapacity could against the Right inherent in him by the positive Law of God oblige him not to dispense with the others by his supreme Power when he found it necessary so to do For 't is on all hands confessedly true that Parliaments can no more then the Bishop of Rome delete such Power as is given by God to the Princes of the Earth A. But because a Parliament declared that such a supreme Power is given by the Scripture to Princes you know it doth not follow that it is so And moreover you know that was a Popish Parliament that so declared it B. But I likewise know that as 't is in my Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan ' s Reports in Hill and Good ' s Case that if a Marriage be declared by Act of Parliament to be against Gods Law we must admit it to be so for by a Law that is an Act of Parliament it is so declared so that Act of Parliament having declared it that by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to the King and to all such Persons as he shall appoint to hear and determine c. tho such Persons were by a lawful Canon incapacitated so to do a Canon that that Iudge in the words immediately following the other makes to be the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament we must admit such Power and Authority inherent in the King's Supremacy by the Word of God thus to supersede incapacity And whether the incapacitating Canons were lawful ones or no it is not tanti to enquire since as we know a Power inherent in Kings by the Word of God cannot be either by lawful Canon or Act of Parliament taken away and much more ought such Power to be construed and admitted as inherent in him by the Scripture while the Act of Parliament continues in being But I shall yet bring the acknowledgment of your Prince's Supremacy in this point as thus founded on Scripture closâ—…r to your Conscience by letting you see that you have not only the Judgment of a Popish Parliament in the Case but of that very Statute of Queen Elizabeth that enjoyns your Oath of Supremacy for it revives that Statute oâ—… Harry the 8th and all and every branches and Articles in it as you will find it in your Statute-book A. You have mention'd one thing in that Statute of Harry the 8th that doth a little startle me and that is that he and the three Estates apply'd there the design of keeping up those Canons of Councils and provincial Constitutions that incapacitated LAYMEN as level'd at the exclusion of the King himself not only from his Prerogative but from being in a capacity to exercise ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as supreme head of the Church as I find by those remarkable words YOUR GRACE BEING A LAY-MAN B. You do well to take notice of that and are therefore not to wonder at it if you should hear your Prince who was a Dissenter to the Church of England and others concern'd for him to have apprehensions of what prejudice might be meant him by some subtle Projectors of Laws to incapacitate all Papists and Presbyterians from acting in any Office in Church or State however many loyal Persons might be far from intending such prejudice thereby his Grace being a Papist or Presbyterian A. I must confess that if the Kings Power of commanding the Services of all his Subjects be inherent in him by the Word of God and as such declared by Parliament any Mens endeavours to take away that Power may well be imputed to great incogitancy B. You say right and I was hence induced to wonder that after the Act and Acknowledgment of his Majesty's Prerogative in the Choice of his Officers of State-Councellors and Iudges had thus passed in the first Parliament of Scotland in the late King's reign viz. The Estates of Parliament considering the great Obligations that lie upon them from the Law of God the Law of Nations the Municipal Laws of the Land and their Oathes of Allegiance to maintain and defend the Soveraign Power and Authority of the King's Majesty and the sad Consequences that do accompany an encrochment upon or diminution thereof do therefore from their sense of humble duty declare that it is an inherent privilege of the Crown and an undoubted part of the Royal Prerogative of the Kings of this Kingdom to have the sole Choice and Appointment of the Officers of States and Privy Councellors and Nomination of the Lords of Session as in former times and that the King 's sacred Majesty and his Heirs and Successors are by virtue of that Royal Power which they hold from God Almighty over this Kingdom to have the full exercise of that Right c. any Men could by a following Act of Parliament there be incapacitated to serve their Prince in those Stations I shall here tell you that the incapacitating a few Papists or Quakers Presbyterians or Anabaptists to serve their Prince may to some seem materia
submit willingly And in the clearing of which Point he refers to the Proviso aforesaid in the Statute of the 25th of Harry the 8th and the 37th Canon of the Church of England as rendring the Power by both given to the King to be purely Political But in p. 159. he refers by way of Objection to two Statutes of Harry the 8th the one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome the other an Act for Establishing the Succession wherein there is an Oath that the Bishop of Rome OUGHT not to have any Iurisdiction or Authority in this Realm then faith it is declared in the 37th Article of our Church that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in the Kingdom of England and in the Oath ordain'd by Queen Elizabeth that no Foreign Preiate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and he then by way of answer to which says That those two Statutes were long ago repeal'd by Queen Mary and never afterward restored c. and that altho it were supposed that our Ancestors â—…ad over-reach'd themselves and the truth in some Expressions yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the line and level of Apostolical Tradition and saith that our Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do Our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Iurisdiction which we understand of Iurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends â—…o further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Iurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiostical Iurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political And he in p. 161. takes notice of the Apostles Dispensative Power 2 Cor. 2. 10. to whom I forgave any thing for your sakes forgave I in the person of Christ But all this is only in the interior Court of Conscience But the Primate having in p. 73. discours'd of the Act of 1 o Eliz. c. 1. saith here is no new Power created in the Crown but only an ancient Iurisdiction restored here is no foreign Power abolish'd but only that which is repugnant to the ancient Laws of England and the Prerogative Royal. In a word here is no Power ascribed to our Kings but merely Political and Coactive to see that all their Subjects do their Duties in their several Places Coactive Power is one of the Keys of the Kingdom of this World it is none of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven This might have been express'd in words less subject to Excâ—…ption A. The Primate hath shewn an eminent Candour of mind in these Passages of his you have cited and if our Ancestors had but over-reach'd themselves and the truth in some Expressions and in any part of a Statute but that which forms an Oath it had not much concern'd us and as long as they had kept exactly to the line and level of plain Truth in all the words of the Oath but Oaths being stricti juris and being to be taken in truth and in righteousness and in the common sense of the words may I not here to the Assertory Clause of No foreign Prelate or Person hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. apply those other words of the Primate This might have been express'd in words less subject to Exception But according to what he cited out of St. Cyprian it may be said instead of no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. that Every foreign Prelate hath it and not only the Bishop of Rome as claiming a Succession under St. Peter but Thousands of other Bishops in Christendom who as the Primate saith there p. 162. do not at all derive their Holy Orders from S. Peter or any other Roman Bishop either mediately or immediately especially in Asia and Africa but from the other Apostles And suitably to what the Primate observ'd out of S. Cyprian by which we see that as there is but one Universal Church so there is but Episcopatus Unus in that Church and that undivided I find it observ'd in Sir Geffery Palmer's Reports in the Case of Evans Kiffin vers Ascuith Trin. 3. Car. B. R. Whitelock Evesque ad 3 Powers Le Primer est Ordinations and that comes to him by his Consecration and not before By that he can take the resignation of a Church He can give Orders and Consecrate Churches and it belongs not to him as he is a Bishop of one place or other mais il est universel sur tout le monde And therefore the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here could give Orders The Chief Iustice agreed with him herein The second is Potestas Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but tied to certain places as to take an Oath to Excommunicate and Punish offences and this Power he hath by Confirmation The third is Administratio rei Familiaris the Government of his Revenue and this is gain'd by Confirmation By this you see that the Bishop of Rome as every other foreign Bishop may have some Spiritual Power here viz. what the Reporter mention'd as the first And therefore I could wish that the 37th of our 39 Articles to which the Primate refers for the Interpretations of this Clause in the Oath had in those words there the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm express'd such a distinction of his Iurisdiction as the Bishop hath done and otherwise that common and trite Rule of Non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit being here applicable you know what is to be thought of an ambiguous Oath and that as the sagacious Author of the History of the Council of Trent hath told us p. 187 as one Particular makes false the contradictory Universal so one ambiguous Particular makes the Universal to be ambiguous Moreover tho you will suppose that he might lawfully take the Oath in his sense of the Pope's Jurisdiction yet all his great Learning and Reason could not qualifie him to be an Authentical Interpreter of the Oath to me In some parts of the Oath that were obvious to doubt you have already given me satisfaction and particularly in making me by vertue of the Canons of King Iames a participant with the Clergy in his authentical Interpretation of the 37th Article And since as Suarez in his learned Book De Legibus 4. c. de Interpretatione humanarum Legum saith that there may be an interpretation of Law which hath the Authority of Law and that qui in eadem potestate succedit semper potest Praedecessotum leges interpretari I shall account King Iames his Interpretation as good as Queen Elizabeth's and that if he had there declared his mind about the Pope's spiritual Power in foro interno being not renounced by this Clause in the Oath I should then be content with it But 't is otherwise for he there Confirms it in effect as 't is in the Article
commanding Obedience to be given to the Word of God by reforming Religion according to his prescribed Will by assisting the Spiritual Power with the Temporal Sword by reforming Corruptions by procuring due Obedience to the Church by judging and cutting off all frivolous Questions and Schisms as Constantine did and finally by making decorum to be observ'd in every thing and establishing Orders to be observ'd in all indifferent things for that purpose is the ONLY intent of the Oath of Supremacy and whereby as he effectually confuted the Cardinal whose Letter charged the Oath of Supremacy as tending to this end That the Authority of the Head of the Church in England may be transferr'd from the Successor of St. Peter to the Successor of King Henry the 8th and to oppose the Primacy of the Apostolick See so at the end of his Book he shews that his design of Publishing the same was to satisfie all his good and natural Subjects and likewise Strangers about the things therein contain'd and whereby the King's Mind was publickly notify'd that in the right done to the Crown by the Oath of Supremaâ—…y as well as of Allegiance there was no wrong intended to St. Peter or his Successors A. I hope you have now put a Period to the History of the Dispensative Power of the Crown that was exercised in-the interpreting of any parts of the Oath of Supremacy or the 37th Article thereto relating You have named to me so many interpretations of the Oath that according to the wisdom of our State and the Lex Consuetudo Parliamenti making a Bill to be thrice read in each House of Parliament and then receiving the Royal Assent to be thought like Gold seven times purify'd may shew the interpretation of the Law to be so too But tho I will account any good Law to be more precious then Gold yet if like Gold it be too far extended by ductile interpretation it may be drawn to such a thinness as to lose all its weight and estimation and retain only a poor tincture and colour that will signifie little or nothing And as Pliny in his Panegyrick on Trajan said that by reason of the multitudes of sutes upon Penal Laws in Rome there was danger till Trajan's time ne Civitas fundata legibus legibus everteretur so a Law whose Obligatoriness is founded on interpretations may be endanger'd by the multitudes of them to be destroy'd and may like the Papal Laws of New Rome by the infinite interpretations of Casuists in the forum internum which is their Tribunal be brought to signifie nothing in either forum and to be only an Engine to make Perplexities You have given me here such a Genealogy of interpretations that according to the common Story of Arise Daughter c. one may say Arise Interpretation and go to thy Interpretation c. I shall therefore be glad now you have been so largely communicative of your thoughts to me about the assertory part of the Oath you will deal as frankly with me in acquainting me with what may in the Promissory part of the Oath be of importance for me to know in order to the better discharge of my Duty in the Case before me B. I shall therein be most ready to serve you when we meet next for the entire Consideration of what according to the Assertory part of the Oath you are obliged to do will I see be as great a load as both our patiences will at this time bear and therefore according to the Saying of Must is for the King I am to tell you that let our Kings make never so many interpretations one after another of this your Oath you must finding them all Consistent with one another consider them all with all due regarâ—… 〈◊〉 thank God and them when their Consciences being inclined to a tenderness for the doubting of yours they interpose their Dispensative Power of that kind And hereupon I shall tell you that in the year 1628. King Charles the First did cause the 39 Articles to be reprinted and with a Declaration before the same made by him as Supreme Governor of the Church within his Dominions that those Articles contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England and that if any Difference should arise about the external Policy concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever belonging to the Church of England the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them c. he approving their said Ordinances c. that the Bishops and Clergy shall have licence under the Broad Seal to deliberate of and do all such things as being made plain by them and assented to him shall concern the setled Continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England c. and then having respect to the Article wherein the Arminians and Antiarminians were concern'd 't is order'd that no man hereafter shall either Print or Preach to draw the Article aside any way c. But the first Canon that was afterward viz. A. 1640. made was that concerning the Regal Power which begins with taking notice that sundry Laws Ordinances and Constitutions had been formerly made for the acknowledgment and profession of the most lawful and independent Authority of our Dread Sovereign Lord the King over the state Ecclesiastical and Civil and then enjoyns them to be ALL carefully observ'd by all persons whom they Concern upon the Penalties in the said Laws and Constitutions express'd and then decrees that the Clergy shall read the following Explanation of the Regal Power and where the words A Supreme Power is given to this most excellent Order i. e. of Kings by God himself in the Scriptures which is that Kings should rule and Command in their several Dominions all persons of what Rank or Estate soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and that they should restrain and punish with the Temporal Sword all stubborn and wicked doers shew they had then the 37th of the 39 Articles in their eye and some other words viz. for any person or persons to set up maintain or avow respectively under any pretence whatsoever any independent Coactive Power either papal or popular c. is to undermine their great Royal Office shew they had an Eye on that 37th Article and on your Oath and where they did speak out that sense of the Clause The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction c. and of the words in the Oath that no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. that is that the Bishop of Rome had here no independent Coactive Iurisdiction the sense in which all considerate Persons who were Members of the Church of Rome in Harry the 8th's time and of the Church of England in Edward the 6th's time took the old Oath of Supremacy and the Members of the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth's time and ever since took the new one As for Non-conformists who think the Government of Bishops unlawful this Clause that no foreign
clear'd of those doubtful Expressions in them which cause their scruples c. whereby they may to the entire Satisfaction of His Majesty and the Nation fully testifie the Allegiance and Fidelity of faithful Subjects and true Patriots and no longer remain as they generally now do distrusted c. But there was another Book that year Publish'd by a Roman Catholick of which the title was A seasonable Discourse shewing how that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy as our Laws interpret them contain nothing which any good Christian ought to boggle at and where the Saying of Tertullian is quoted Bonae res neminem scandalizant niâ—… malam mentem c. and where having taken notice of the Queen's Admonition and the Proviso of the Statute of 5 o Eliz. and the 37th Article and the Iudgments of the Bishops Bramhal and Carleton as Sir Iohn Winter had done and for the same purpose giveth his Judgment that the taking of those Oaths gives no Scandal and he in p. 38. averrs that Sir John Winter told him many years ago that he had the Iudgment of Sorbouists Secular Priests and Iesuites that he might take the Oath of Supremacy declaring the sense which the Law allows And I shall here by the way take notice that as to the Oath of Allegiance F. Cressy saith in his Epistle Apologetical p. 111. that few Roman Catholicks if any at all would refuse that Oath if that unlucky word heretical were blotted out c. or if they might change heretical into contrary to the Word of God which he saith he verily believes was the sense intended by King James But now after all this said I shall tell you that according to what is observ'd by the generality of Writers oâ—… Princes easing their Subjects by their Dispensative Power of interpreting their Laws viz. That they take occasion then to intermix with such interpretation somewhat else that may advance their Power there were Fears and Iealousies that some of these foremention'd interpretations tho lessening the spiritual Power of the Crown might enlarge its temporal and particularly such as in the Queen's Admonition mention'd the Duty Allegiance and Bond acknowledg'd to be due to Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and as I partly before hinted such as in the Proviso in the Act of the 5th of the Queen that ratifying the Admonition hath in it the additional words of acknowledging in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors the Authority that was challenged and lately used by Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and such as in the 37th Article explain'd the Queen's Power by that given by God himself to all GODLY Princes in Scripture and where notwithstanding the Word Godly being put in there to gild the Pill of the Absolute Power of the Iewish Kings and to make it be the more easily swallow'd the real meaning was the Power given to all the Iewish Kings for the right of their Power depended not on their Godliness and such as in the Canons of King Iames ipso facto Excommunicate all that do not give the King the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical not only that the Godly Kings had among the Iews but what the Christian Emperors had in the Primitive Church And there too notwithstanding the word Christian might be for the like reason put in as that of Godly was and to cause the owning of that absolute Imperial Power which pursuant to the Lex Regia was used by the Christian Emperors as well as their Heathen Predecessors in punishing Heterodoxy ad libitum the meaning of the Canon was not to devest Heathen Emperors of their right of judging about Matters of Religion and as to which Grotius in his Letter to the States Embassador having said neither would Paul have appeal'd to Nero had he judged that no right of Iudging in a Case of Religion belong'd to him addeth Wherefore as Trajan Civilly honest Nero wicked are equal in the Right of Government so Pious Constantine and Impious Nero are equal in the right of judging in aptitude and skill unequal The Canons therefore of Forty enjoyning the Explanation or Interpretation of the Regal Power there inserted to be one Sunday in every Quarter of the Year read by the Clergy to their Flocks did well provide for the cautioning them as against the setting up any independent Coactive Power either Papal or Popular so against Fears and Iealousies relating to their Properties in their Goods and Estates and by that Explanation they shew that Christ came not to Undermine or Disturb but to Confirm the Civil Government of Pagan Princes and that in the first times of Christ's Church Christians were ready to submit their very Lives to the very Laws and Commands of those Princes A. But doth that Explanation of the Regal Power assert any thing in Defence of the Dispensative part of it B. You see how without wyre-drawing any Consequences the very first Paragraph of the Explanation doth both strengthen the foundation of the assertory part of your Oath we have been so long discussing and strike out new lights in the Fabrick of the Oath You see it tells you downright that A Supreme Power is given to the Order of Kings by God himself in the Scriptures which is that Kings should rule and Command in their several Dominions all Persons of what rank or estate soever c. And the Explanation doth effectually enough provide by the second Paragraph that Kings should take care that none in their Dominions but the stubborn and evil doers may be restrain'd with the Temporal Sword for it saith The Care of God's Church is so committed to Kings in the Scripture that they are commended when the Church keeps the right way and taxed when it runs amiss and therefore her Government belongs in chief to Kings For otherwise one man would be Commended for another's Care and taxed but for another's Negligence which is not God's way And this is an Argument taken ab absurdo and the strongest that can be used in Law and not to be set aside but by the alledging something as more absurd against it and amounts to this that it is absurd that Kings who are commended when those who are not stubborn nor evil doers are not under any restraint by the Temporal Sword for the Church runs not the right way when that Sword is a terror to any but evil doers and tax'd on the contrary being done should not be judged to be authorized to exempt those from all restraint thereby And when the People are not liable to blame for Kings erring in their Judgment about the Persons to be so exempted from restraint nor to be commended or rewarded for their not erring therein can any thing be more absurd then for the independent Coactive Power of Kings it self to be restrain'd to the Punishing such as they shall judge Innocent But the two tenderest things in the World are Sovereign Power and Conscience and both of them were made with a
all his Subjects it might have sufficiently satisfy'd you therein and if at our next meeting you will have me dilate more on what our Lawyers have said about the Point of the debt of our Natural allegiance I shall do it A. Our great Lawyers Judgments in that Point being known may be variously useful and directive to the many illiterate and presumptuous Reflecters on the exercise of Prerogative and especially if so learned and so popular a Lawyer as Sir Edward Coke shall be by you further cited in such a Case And so what you shall acquaint me with as from any such one of them shall be kindly welcome B. What you have now said brings it into my mind how that Great popular Man Sir Edward Coke was cited for this purpose by that great popular Man Sir William Iones in his learned Argument in Thomas Dorcel's Case and where he did so much right to the DISPENSATIVE Power A. What Did Sir William Iones maintain the King's Power of Dispensing with Acts of Parliament B. Yes and I believe was never censured for so doing by any one A. I pray tell me what was said by him in his Argument B. Then according to the very Learned and Judicious and Candid Manuscript Report I have of the Case thus it was Among the three Points made the first being if the Non-obstante in the Patent of King James was good against the Statute of Edw. 6. Jones agreed that the King may by Non-obstante dispense with a thing Prohibited by Statute if the thing were lawful before the Statute were made And he afterward said that a Dispensation to one and his Heirs was never good but only in that of a Sheriff 2. H. 7. 6. Grant of a Shrievalty in fee Non-obstante the Statute But Coke 7. R. 14. Calvin's Case the Reason of that is because the King hath interest to have the Service of all his Subjects by the Law of Nature And the truth is that on this noble and great Consideration it is that our Divines who have treated of the OATH of SUPREMACY have fix'd the reasonableness and intent of that Oath and of the King 's having a right to Command the Obedience of all his Subjects upon the basis of the Law of Nature as well as on the Divine Law Positive And thus too the style of the Acts of Parliament about the Oath of Allegiance runs and which Acts you may Consult if you want any more Iudgments of Parliament about the indissolubility of the King 's right to Command the Obedience of the Subject and of the Subjects duty to obey before we meet again The reasonableness of the words in that Oath contain'd in the Statute of 3 tio Iacobi viz. Of declaring that the Pope hath no Power to discharge any of his Majesty's Subjects of their Obedience appears from its being call'd in that Statute their Natural Obedience And the putting in Practice the perswading or withdrawing any of the King's Subjects from their Natural Obedience to his Majesty or to reconcile them to the Pope or See of Rome is there made Treason We will speak more of other Statutes of this nature at our next meeting And in the mean time let me observe to you how as in the Conjuncture of the Exclusion so many were infatuated as for fear of Popery to come to run upon the very Court of Rome-Popery at present namely that of Dominium fundatur in Gratiâ so likewise many mens fear of the belief of perhaps some Religionary Tenets of Popery gaining ground for the future hath hunted them upon the Popery of thinking that Subjects CAN in part or in whole be discharged from their Natural Obedience to their Prince A. I thank you Sir for suggesting that to me for the truth is the tenet of thinking it lawful so to discharge Subjects from such their Natural Obedience is the very odiosa materia charged by so many on the Councel of Lateran B. You say right But however let me occasionally advise you not to charge the odious matter in that Councel on the Communion of the Church of Rome For I shall tell you that the great Writers of our Church did after the real Plot of the Gun-Powder-Treason pursue such noble Methods of Christian Charity as with an intent of improving the Principles of Loyalty and Allegiance among all our Roman-Catholick Countrymen to endeavour to prove with all their Learning that the Decrees of that Councel obliged no Papist in point of Conscience King Iames in his Works calls it but a Pretended Councel and Dr. Donne in his Pseudo-Martyr endeavours to prove it no Councel Moreover Bishop Bilson in his learned Works for maintaining the Oath of Supremacy saith that Nothing was Concluded in the Councel of Lateran I have here on the Table his Book call'd The Difference between Christian Subjection and Un-christian Rebellion Printed A. 1586 in which his Learned and Iudicious Assertions and Explications of the Regal Supremacy and of our Moral Offices to defend the same are comprised and there in Part 3. p. 6. you will find what he saith of the Lateran Councel A. I have not the Book and shall be glad I may borrow it from you that thereby I may have the better prospect of the Measures of our Divines in their Sense of the Assertory part of the Oath of Supremacy as making the Rights of our Kings to Command the Services of all their Subjects to be indissoluble B. I pray take it along with you And I am the rather desirous you should do it because in this Crooked and Perverse Generation many who strain their Consciences by the inobservance of the Oath may be so vain as to fancy that others strain the Oath who endeavour as I have done to build the Right of our Kings to Command the Services of their Subjects on its so firm Foundation He was trusted by the Government to write on the Subject of the Oath and so his Authority is of the more weight and I shall here at parting read to you what he saith in Part 2. p. 183. where he so well insinuates it that the Prince can freely permit safely defend generally restrain and externally punish within the Realm but in p. 328. having spoke of the true Supremacy of Princes he saith This is the Supremacy which we attribute to Princes that all Men within their Territories should obey their Laws or abide their Pleasures and that no man on Earth hath Authority to take their Swords from them by Iudicial Sentence or Martial Violence And he there had before said in his Margin the Sword of Princes is Supreme in that it is not Subject to the Pope and must be obey'd of all in things that are good What he saith likewise in p. 346. there is worth your reading where he makes the word Supreme to be a plain and manifest deduction out of the 13th of the Romans Let every Soul be subject to the Superior Powers If all Men must be subject to them ergo they are Superior to all and Superior to all is Supreme He then thus goeth on in his Dialogue-way Phil S. Paul maketh them Superiors over all Persons but not over all things Theop. That Distinction is ours meaning Protestants not yours we did ever interpret Supreme for Superior to all men within their Dominions Phil. And so we grant them to be but not in all things For in Temporal things they are Superior to all men in Spiritual they are not Theop. That restraint comes too late the Holy Ghost charging you to be subject to them simply without addition It passeth your reach to limit in what things you will and in what things you will not be subject And he there saith Out of all Question where Princes may by God's Law Command all men must obey them not only for fear of wrath but for Conscience sake To this purpose too he asserts the Supremacy in the following Page All men are bound to be subject to the Sword in all things be they Temporal or Spiritual not only by Suffering but also by Obeying but with this Caution that in things that are good and agreeable to the Law of God the Sword must be obey'd in things that are otherwise it must be endured At the same rate you will find him writing in his Third Part p. 7. The Word of God bindeth you to obey Princes the words of men cannot loose you But if you will there take notice of the fire of his Zeal breaking into a flame at the thoughts of the displacing of Princes from their Thrones and of the discharging of the People from the Oath and Obedience toward Princes he saith that they who will go to that turn Religion into Rebellion Patience into Violence Words into Weapons Preaching into Fighting Fidelity into Perjury Subjection into Sedition and instead of the Servants of God which they might be by enduring they become the Soldiers of Satan by resisting the Powers which God hath ordain'd A. I thank God I am a Member of the Church of England that may value it self not only on its Doctrine of NON-RESISTANCE but on its DOCTRINE of Positive ASSISTANCE and DEFENCE of all Iurisdictions Privileges Pre-eminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King c. or united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm B. And how from this great Promissory part of our Oath our Obligation to assist and defend the Iurisdiction Privilege Pre-eminence and Authority of the Dispensative Power in particular granted or belonging to the King and united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm doth arise we will at our next meeting consider and when I will likewise shew you that the Prerogative royal is a part of the Lex terrae The End of the Second PART 1370. Ex Rot. Parl. in turr Lâ—…nd in 45. Ed. tertii Iustifiables in the French originals Quaere Whether not able todo justice or not to be juststify'd in their Employment as improper for it
Consciences and who might thereby think that according to the Rule of ejus est interpretari cujus est condere that the Oath of Supremacy enjoyn'd by Parliament 1 o Elizabethoe could not receive an Interpretation but from the Queen in Parliament and that that Consideration might therefore be supposed to be the cause of the Queens interpreting being approved or declared good by the Parliament in the Fifth year of her Reign B. I shall tell you that as to the sufficiency of the Queen's Power to interpret the Oath by her sole Authority it appears not that the Proviso in the Statute of 5 Eliz. did in the least arise from any such scruple and so De non apparentibus c. And here without troubling you with the Notions of the Royal assent creating the Soul of the Law and by the words of le Roy le veult after the Body of it hath been prepared by the three Estates and that the three Estates have nothing to do to interpret a Law that is once made and accordingly as Sir C. Hatton formerly Lord Chancellor of England in his Treatise of Acts of Parliament and their Exposition tells us That the Assembly of Parliament being ended functi sunt officio and speaking particularly of those of the Lower House saith their Authority is return'd to the Electors so clearly that if they were all together assembled again for interpretation by a voluntary meeting eorum non esset interpretari c. I shall once for all observe to you that our Monarchs when in the exercise of the Prerogative inherent in them and inseparable from them relating to Matters of Peace and War the Coining of Money or the Dispensing in Matters Civil or Ecclesiastical they condescend to have the same in particular â—…ases approved or strengthâ—…n'd by Parliament are no more deprived of their Sole Supremacy therein then the Body of the Sun is devested of its Heat and Light by diffusing the same through the Air. But I have before observ'd to you that the apparent Cause in the Proviso of 5 o Elizabethoe whereby the Queens Interpretation is Enacted is the better to transmit the obligatoriness of the Interpretation in point of Conscience beyond her Life and to the Reigns of her Heirs and Successors and to bind us who live now to acknowledge such Power due to our present King over the Persons of all his Subjects as was in her interpretation challenged to be due to Harry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth I shall not trouble you with my Judgment about Moot-points of Law relating to the Regal Power of interpreting Acts of Parliament and particularly such wherein Oaths are founded My Lord Coke Inst. 3. c. 74. tells us That an Oath cannot be ministred to any unless the same be allow'd by the Common Law or by some Act of Parliament neither can any Oath allow'd by the Common-Law or by Act of Parliament be alter'd but by Act of Parliament and saith in the Margin So resolv'd An. 26. El. in the Case of the Under-Sheriff And then saith the Oath of the King 's Privy Councel the Iustices the Sheriffs c. was thought fit to be alter'd and enlarged but that was done by Authority of Parliament For further proof whereof see the Statutes here quoted i. e. those referr'd to in his Margin and it shall evidently appear that no old Oath can be alter'd or new Oath rais'd without an Act of Parliament I have only here referr'd you to Matters of Fact in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth a Reign that the Royal Martyr in p. 3. of his Declaration to all his Loving Subjects of Aug. 12. 1642. refers to with so much honour by saying We declared our Resolution c. and desired that whatsoever mistaking had grown in the Government either of Church or State might be removed and all things reduced to the order of the time the memory whereof is justly precious to this Nation of Queen Elizabeth c. and do leave it to you to consider how Great the Power of Interpretation of Laws is in it self a Power almost infinitely greater then the discharging either the Obligations of some Penal Laws or their Penalties Pro hic nu c and as to some particular Persons as any one will grant who hath seen the extent of the Power of interpreting in the Canon Law where the Glossa ad Cap. Statuimus 4. Distinct. 4. gives us this Interpretation of Statuimus STATUIMUS i. e. ABROGAMUS And I can for this purpose tâ—…ll you that Bartolâ—…s in his Tractatus testimoniorum speaking of the Imperial Power concedendi veniam oetatis saith Carolus quarâ—…us sanctissimus nebilissimus Imperator inter 〈◊〉 multâ—… concessit ut ego meique descendentes quos legibús dâ—…los esse contigerit per un versum imperium oetatis venâ—…am concedere valeâ—…mus servataÌ„ formaÌ„ quoe legibus reperitur insâ—…rta and whereby you see that a Power of dispensing with incapaciâ—…y was by the Prince given as an inheritance But none can imagine that the Power of interpreting Laws can be so conferr'd So that therefore according to the Rule of Law Non debet cui plus licet quoÌ„d minus est non licere you neâ—…d not wâ—…nder at the Prince's dispensing with incapacity in particular cases whom you have seen interpreting Laws And you may consider that if the Queen did contrary to the measures of Law referr'd to in my Lord Coke by her sole Supream Ecclesiastical Authority seem to alter the interpretation of a Stature Oath for the better what she did found afterward its approbation in Parliament and in fine I leave it to you to consider how much the Power of dispensing with any Law may be thought Coincident with interpreting since as I shall some other time shew you at large that the dispensing with Laws is in effect the equitable interpreting that in such and such cases and circumstances they were not intended and ought not to bind but ought to be relax'd And now I must take the occasion offer'd me to give you a prospect of the Queens Dispensative Power both of the Interpretation of this Oath and of the acquittal from Disabilities that is not bounded by the Statutes of 5 o or 8 o Elizabethoe beforemention'd and wherein she again stood on the single basis of her own Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical without having recourse then to a Parliaments approbation Mr. Ney in his learned Observations on the Oath of Sâ—…premacy having spoke of the Queens Interpretation of the Oath in her Admonition and of the Parliamentary Proviso 5 o Eliz. doth thus go on There is something of Explication further meaning of the Oath in the Artiâ—…les of Religion concluded in the year 1562 and then recites the 37th Article as followeth viz. The Queens Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of 〈◊〉 Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes
doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction Where we attribute to her Majesty the Chief Government by which Title we understand the minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in the Realm of England The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian Men with death for hâ—…inous and grievous Offences It is lawful for Christian Men at the Commandment of the Magistrate to wear Weapons and serve in the Wars Now after the Oath of Supremacy had been enjoyn'd in the first year of her Reign and the Admonition annexed to her Injunctions was then likewise publish'd viz. A. D. 1559. and after the Parliament had by proviso 〈◊〉 the interpretation of the Oath which Parliament began the 12th of Ianuary in the 5th year of her reign and from which day all things dâ—…ne in that Session are to bear date the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the 5th year of her reign and A. D. 1562. were by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces subscribed the 29th of Ianuary in that year and by the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation on the 5th of February following and to all which the Queen gave her Royal Assent And in the Articles there was by the Queens Royal Prerogative an additional Interpretation probably at the instance of the Clergy given to the interpretation in the Admonition and in the Parliaments Proviso and the which additional interpretation had in it no respect to nor mention of what being in several places of the former one might amuse the Clergy with some Fears and Iealousies namely the Duty Allegiance and Bond that were acknowledged due to Harry the 8th and Edward the 6th and the Authority that was challenged and lately used by those Princes however yet that latter Clause is qualify'd in the Admonition But for the 37th Article before-mentioned allowing the measures of the Royal Supremacy from the Prerogatives given by God in Scripture to holy Princes whereby our Clergy might seem to have brought the Prerogative into its own proper Element and theirs too the knowledge of the Scriptures being their profession our Clergy no doubt were always thankful to the Crowns Dispensative power and so exercised out of Parliament and whereby they were secured from penal disabilities either by suspension or deprivation for not taking the Oath in the sense of the Admonition Thus as things in their proper place are at rest the Queens Dispensative power and the Consciences of the Clergy by this interpretation of the Oath were so much at rest that about eight or nine years afterward the same 39 Articles that had been by the Archbishops and Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces agreed on in the year 1562. were by the said Archbishops Bishops and Clergy again agreed upon and again ratify'd by the Queen in the year 1571. the 13th year of her reign and when care was taken by the Government that that interpretation being incorporated in the body of the 39 Articles should be deem'd good in Parliament by the Statute of 13 o Eliz. c. 12. as the other interpretation in the Admonition had been by the proviso in the Act of the 5th of that Queen and probably for the same reason and as her dispensing with disability expresly in the 8th year of her reign was In the Act of the 13th of Eliz. reference was made to those Articles as agreed on by the Archbishops and Clergy and set forth by the Queens authority Anno 1562. and the Act is entituled Reformation of Disorders in the Ministers of the Church and in which it was enacted That all such as were to be ordained or permitted to preach or to be instituted into any Benefice with cure of Souls should publickly subscribe to the said Articles which shews if you mind it that tho the Parliament did well allow and approve of the said Articles yet the said Book oweth neither Confâ—…rmation nor Authority to the Act of Parliament And that Act concerning only Clergy-men tho the interpretation in the 37th Article is left to oblige the Clergy yet that in the Admonition might concern you to stick to if nothing had since happen'd whereby the dispensative power inherent in the Crown may have given your Conscience the benefit of the interpretation thus afforded to the Clergy But therefore I shall here tell you that the Canons of King Iames the â—…st Anno 1603 being confirmed for him and his Heirs and Successors are binding now however it hath been objected as the unhappiness of Queen Elizabeths Canonâ—… viz. A. 1571. A. 1584. A. 1597. wanting those formal words of Heirs and Successors to expire with her And as those words are in King Iames's Canons so are the words of enjoyning their being observ'd fuâ—…fill'd and kept not only by the Clergy but by all other Persons within this Realm as far as lawfully being Members of the Church it may concern them and tho in the first Canon there entituled The King's Supremacy over the Church of England in Causes Ecclesiastical to be maintain'd 't is order'd That all Ecclesiastical Persons shall keep and observe and as much as in them lyeth all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom its ancient Iurisdiction over the state Ecclâ—…siastical yet in the next Canon entitled Impugners of the King's Supremacy censurâ—…d the measures of the King 's ecclesiastical Authority being taken from the Godly Kings among the Iews according to the 37th of the 39 Articles was an extending to the Layety the ben fit of the Interpretation obtain'd by the Clergy the which was in effect a judgment of the Convocations that the pursuance of that Interpretation of the King 's Ecclesiastical Power and the avoiding of the punishment of Disability by the use of that Power was not agaâ—…st the Law of the Land but the 5th Canon viz. Impugners of the Artiâ—…les of Religion establish'd in the Church of England censured and in which the establishment of the 39 Articles is solely referr'd to them as agreed on in Convocation in the year 1562. without any notice of the Parliament of the 13th of Eliz. having done any thing about them doth more clearly secure to you the benefit of the Interpretation the Clergy had A. You have mention'd so many things to me relating to the interpretation
is free from Subjection to any mans Laws but only to such as have been devised made and obtained within this Realm for the Wealth of the same or to such other as by SUFFERANCE of your GRACE and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own Consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the Customes and ancient Laws of this Realm originally establish d Laws of the same by the same Sufferance Consents and Custom and none otherwise it standeth therefore with natural equity and good reason that in all and every such Laws HUMANE made within this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance Consents and Custom your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. have full Power and Authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect Person or Persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm and with every one of them as the quality of the Persons and Matter shall require And the Act afterward mentions the impoverishment of the People of this Realm by the Imposts for Papal Dispensations and refers twice to the Charges of the taxa Camerae calling them expresly in one place Impositions taken to the use of the Pope and his Chambers and in another the old Tax And at the removal of these intolerable Charges as they are call'd in that of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. or intolerable Exactions as they are call'd in the 25th of Henry the 8th that of the First of Elizabeth as I said had an eye in the revival of this of Henry the 8th and the Consideration of which Statute will be of importance to us as to that part of our Promissory Oath that refers to our defending the Iurisdictions c. united and annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that Statute of Henry the 8th having in its Prefatory part express'd the Pope's dispensing here to be in derogation of the King 's Imperial Crown and Authority Royal and there afterwards mentions how the Imperial Crown of this Realm suffer'd by those Papal Exactions And the Preface of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. refers in general to divers good Statutes made in Henry the 8th's time for the Restoring and uniting to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the Iurisdictions Authorities to the same of Right belonging and which ushers in the reference to the Statute of the 25th of Henry the 8th and then in the following Clause 't is said that for the repressing of the usurped Foreign Power and the restoring the Rights Iurisdictions and Preheminences belonging to the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. Thus then you see that I have fairly shew'd you out of this Statute of Queen Elizabeth where your Oath is situated that the Restoration of the Ancient Jurisdiction of the Crown in dispensing was restored to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the which the Pope had formerly usurped on in Matters both Ecclesiastical and Civil and which you are obliged to defend against any Papal or Popular Usurpations whatsoever I was enforced for your clearer understanding of this Statute to conduct you to the 25th of Henry the 8th and where you find several Expressions that make it the right of the Imperial Crown of this Realm to dispense with the disability or incapacity incurr'd by Law. You have there the word REHABILITATION and what is called there the Writ of Perinde valere which Blount tells you in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Dispensation granted to a Clerk who being defective in his title to a Benefice or other Ecclefiastical Function is de facto admitted to it And it takes Appellation from the words which make the faculty as Effectual to the party DISPENS'D WITH as if he had been actually CAPABLE of the thing for which he is dispens'd with at the time of his Admission A. 25. H. the 8th it is call'd a Writ You have in your Oath acknowledg'd the Crown of this Realm to be a Crown Imperial and if you had not by the Comparing the two Statutes together found that the Power of Rehabilitation of Persons disabled was restored and united to the Crown as what was anciently due to it and used by it yet on the Consideration of the Crown here being call'd Imperial and of its being a res judicata among all that write of the Power of such Crowns that a Dispensation with Persons in this kind is allow'd them as one of the jura Majestatis you ought by virtue of your Oath to be very careful how you deny this mark of Soveraignty to the Imperial Crown of this Realm which you see wants none of the other I think I have now let you see that I have here put no forced or wyre-drawn Consequences on you and would hate to do any thing of that Nature in common Discourse and about a common or trivial matter and much more in the concern of an Oath You know I have often prais'd that Letter in D'Ossal where he reflects on some Men thus viz. Le sont gens d'esprit de scavoir de labeur qui â—…ont forgè mais de fort maâ—…vaise foy ne faiÌ„sans Conscience n' ayans honte de traitter un cas de Conscience si important a la Religion Catholique a toute la Chrestiente en chichaneurs sophistes But further yet to let you see that in minding you in point of Conscience and by virtue of this your Oath duly to prop up the Regal Power of Dispensing with Incapacity I put no wyre-drawn Consequences upon you and do with the simplicity that becomes a Christian speak to you ex animo I shall again give you the Iudgment of Parliament in the Case and to that end shall first direct you to the Statute of 37 o. H. 8. c. 17. that begins In most humble wise shew and declare to your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects that where your most Royal Majesty is and hath always justly been by THE WORD OF God supreme head in the Earth of the Church of England and hath full Power and Authority to correct punish and repress all manner of Heresies Errors Uices c. and to exercise all other manner of Iurisdictions commonly call'd Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his adherents minding utterly as much as in him lay to abolish obscure and delete such Power given by God to the Princes of the Earth whereby they might gather and get to themselves the Government and Rule of the World have in their Councils and Synods Provincial made divers Ordinances and Constitutions that no LAY or Married man should or might exercise any Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical nor should be any Iudge or Register in any Court
Case or to the quite contrary in More 542. Armiger's Case I shall most consult the ease of your thoughts by directing them to what interpretation my Lord Coke in Cawdrys Case gives as to the words of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. and where he saith that that Act doth not annex any Iurisdiction to the Crown but what was of right or ought to be by the Ancient Laws of this Realm parcel of the King's Iurisdiction c. and which lawfully had been or might be exercised within the Realm The end of which Iurisdiction and of all the Proceedings thereupon that all things might be done in Causes Ecclesiastical to the Pleasure of Almighty God encrease of Vertue and the Conservation of the Peace and Unity of the Realm as by divers places of the Act appears And therefore by this Act no pretended Iurisdiction exercised within this Realm being ungodly or repugnant to the ancient Law of the Crown was or could be restored to the Crown according to the ancient Right and Law of the same And here I may tell you that as the Pope did often dispense with incapacity incurr'd by his Positive Laws and that even in the use of the Power of the Keys as by his delegating the Power of Excommunication to Lay-men and to Abbesses as aforesaid so our Kings d d anciently by their Letters Patents and Charters grant Power to those who were no Bishops Ordinaries or Ecclesiastical Iudges or Officers to inflict Ecclesiastical Censures of the greater Excommunication on Offenders and that for Causes not merely Spiritual or Ecclesiastical with Power to Certify them into Chancery and thereupon to obtain Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo as Mr. Prynne tells us in his Animadversions on the Fourth part of the Institutes and there cites the President of Edward the Third thus empow'ring the Chancellor of the University of Oxford tho a Lay-man so to do and so to Punish Breakers of the Peace Offenders against the Statutes Privileges and Customs of the University and all Forestallers and Regraters and Sellers of corrupt Meat and Wine and to Excommunicate such who refused to cleanse the Streets from filth and to Pave them before their Doors and this he saith was confirm'd by sundry succeeding Statutes of our Princes In what particulars it is by this Statute of the 25. of H. the 8th warranted that the King his Heirs and Successors may dispense with Persons and in Causes that the Papacy was never accustomed to dispense in I shall not trouble you or my self to enquire but shall tell you that Mr. Nye in his Book call'd Two Acts of Parliament and wherein are contain'd his Observations on the Oath of Supremacy doth in p. 164. cite this Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 21. and thereupon say the King's Majesty may dispense with any of those Canons or Ecclesiastical Laws meaning the King 's Ecclesiastical Laws indulge the Omission of what is enjoyn'd by them make void the Crime and remove the Penalty incurred by breach of them yea and give faculty to do and practice otherwise any Synodal Establishment or long usage to the Contrary notwithstanding in what offends not the Holy Scripture and Laws of GOD. And therefore when our Soveraign in the course of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy doth only dispense with incapacity we are sure he goes not to the height of the Dispensative Power justify'd in him by that Statute nothing having been more customary to the Papacy then rehabilitation It was upon the Revival of this Statute of Harry the 8th by that first of Queen Eliz. c. 1. that she according to the Papal custom of dispensing with the Commutation of Penance did in her Articles in the Synod began at London A. D. 1548. establish one De moderandâ solennis Poenitentioe Commutatione whereby she orders that such Commutation shall be but seldom and for weighty Causes and when it shall appear to the Bishop that that way is the safer to reform the guilty Person and that the Commutation-Money be employ'd to Pious uses And then follows the Title De Moderandis quibusdam Indulgentus pro Celebratione Matrimonii absque trinundinâ denunciatione quam bannos vocant Matrimoniales where you will find she makes Faculties and Indulgences all one And as I have shew'd you how she thought it necessary for the safety of her Subjects Consciences to exercise her Dispensative Power of interpreting and of relaxing disabilities occasion'd by the very first Statute of her Reign and how soon she put the Dispensative Power of those kinds in practice which by that Statute were restored and united to her Imperial Crown so I may observe to you that shortly after the making of the Second Statute in her Reign viz. That for Uniformity of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments which punisheth with Premunire Sequestration and Deprivation and Excommunication which while it is depending is so variously inclusive of disability the not using the Book of Common-Prayer as Publish'd in English she by her Letters Patents dated the 6th of April in the Second year of her Reign and A. 1560. alloweth the use of Latine Prayers to the Colleges of both Universities and to Eaton and Winchester Colleges with a particular Non-obstante to that Statute a Copy of which Letters Patents may be seen in Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles c. And I have before acquainted you in general how in her Letters Patents for the Consecrating new Bishops she expresly dispens'd with incapacity But what may perhaps seem to you as a new Indication of her being the better able to dispense with it is an Instance I shall give you of her making incapacity by her Supreme Ecclesiastical Power The instance of her thus making incapacity is a thing that Mr. Nye in his Beams of former Light reflects on as strange for he there in p. 201. referring to Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions A. 1559. Injunct 29. viz. It is thought very necessary that no manner of Priest or Deacon shall hereafter take to his Wife any manner of Woman without the Advice and Allowance first had by the Bishop of the Diocese and two Iustices of the Peace next to the place of her abode c. and if any shall do otherwise they shall not be permitted to Preach the Word or give Sacraments nor be Capable of any Ecclesiastical Benefice saith then Doth this seem strange now It seem'd very necessary in the judgment of our Governors then A. I must acknowledge that you have spoke that which is very much for my Satisfaction concerning the Dispensative Power and the Oath thus supporting one another But I wonder that I have not in any of our celebrated Writers of the Church of England read that the Contents of the Assertory and Promissory parts of this Oath and our abjuring foreign Iurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities in the Oath i. e. those of the Papacy were intended in order to the statuminating our Prince's Dispensative Power pursuant to the Statutes of 25. H. 8th and 1
o Eliz. beforemention'd B. I can easily direct you to such a Writer of our Church who hath done the thing to the universal Satisfaction of the Inquisitive as to this Point and that is the Lord Primate Bramhal in his Book of Schism Guarded He saith there in p. 330 and 331. As our Grievances so our Reformation was only of the abuses of the Roman Court. Their bestowing of Prelacies and Dignities in England to the Prejudice of the right Patrons Their Convocating Synods in England without the King's leave Their Prohibiting English Prelates to make their old feudal Oaths to the King and obliging them to take new Oaths of Fidelity to the Pope Their imposing and receiving Tenths and first Fruits and other Arbitrary Pensions upon the English Clergy and lastly their Usurping a Legislative Iudiciary and Dispensative Power in the exterior Court by Political Coaction these are all the branches of Papal Power which we have rejected This Reformation is all the Separation that we have made in point of Discipline And for Doctrine we have no difference with them about the old Essentials of Christian Religion and their new Essentials which they have patch'd to the Creed are but their erroneous or at the best probable Opinions no Articles of Faith. Thus then according to these measures you see how much the hinge of the Reformation turns on the Usurpation of the Papacy in Dispensing for in all these particulars enumerated the Pope dispens'd with the King's Laws And he had before in p. 26. said This Primacy neither the Ancients nor we deny to St. Peter of Order of Place of Preheminence If this first movership would serve his turn the Controversie were at an end for our parts But this Primacy is over-lean the Court of Rome have no gusto to it They thirst after a visible Monarchy on Earth an absolute Ecclesiastical Soveraignty a Power to make Canons to abolish Canons to dispense with Canons to impose Pensions to dispose of Dignities to decide Controversies by a single Authority This was that which made the breach not the Innocent Primacy of St. Peter And afterward in p. 149. he saith But I must contract my Discourse to those Dispensations that are intended in the Laws of Henry the 8th that is the Power to dispense with English Laws in the exterior Court Let him bind or loose inwardly whom he will whether his Key erre or not we are not concern'd Secondly As he is a Prince in his own Territories he that hath Power to bind hath Power to loose He that hath Power to make Laws hath Power to dispense with his own Laws Laws are made of Common Events Those benign Circumstances that happen rarely are left to the Dispensative Grace of the Prince Thirdly As he is a Bishop whatever Dispensative Power the ancient Ecclesiastical Canons or Edicts of Christian Emperors give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories that were subject to his Iurisdiction by Humane right we do not envy him so he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities freed from his Encroachments and Usurpations The Chief ground of the ancient Ecclesiastical Canon was let the old Customs prevail A possession or Prescription of Eleven hundred years is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against an Human Right and much more against a New pretence of Divine Right For Eleven hundred years our Kings and Bishops enjoy'd the sole Dispensative Power with all English Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical In all which time he is not able to give one instance of a Papal Dispensation in England nor any shadow of it when the Church was formed Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legislative Power no Iudiciary Power in the exteriour Court by necessary Consequence they could have no Dispensative Power He then in p. 169. mentions the said Statute of 25. H. 8th and having referr'd to the Proviso there to shew that its intent was not to vary from the Church of Christ in any other things declared by the Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary to Salvation he saith then followeth the scope of our Reformation only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient to repress Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in Peace Unity and Tranquillity from ravine and spoil ensuing much the ancient Customs of this Realm in that behalf not minding to seek for any relief succours or remedies for any worldly things and Humane Laws in any cause of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an Imperial Power and Authority in the same and not obliged in worldly Causes to any other Superior Thus then you see this Prelates sense of how much the taking away the Pope's Dispensative Power here and restoring that Power to the Crown was the Soul of the Reformation and tota in toto of it And this Act you see revived by the First of Elizabeth without garbling it in the least and the Dispensative Power thereby restored to her her Heirs and Successors and a Declaration that no Subjects of the Realm need for any worldly things and Humane Laws in any Cause of Necessity seek for any relief but within this Realm at the hands of our Soveraign as aforesaid And I shall tell you that the Bishop in the next Page refers to the Statute of the First of Eliz. and saith on his view of both Statutes Whatsoever Power our Laws did devest the Pope of they invested the King with it And of this the Power of Rehabilitating any of his Lay or Clerical Subjects is a part as was beforesaid A. You have cited somewhat out of this Great Champion for the King's Supremacy and for the Church of England and reputed to be the most clear Vindicator of it from Schism our Church hath had which hath created more anxiety in my mind about the Assertory part of the Oath then any thing hath done For the words in the Oath are I do utterly testify and declare c that no Foreign Prelate or Person hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction Power Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and you have brought in the Primate granting that the Pope hath Power here to bind or loose inwardly and asserting that he hath here a Spiritual Power B. You judge right of the Bishop's Opinion and which is indeed express'd throughout his whole Book He tells us in p. 25. That St. Cyprian made all the Bishopricks in the World to be but one Masse whereof every Bishop had an entire part And he saith in p. 60 and 61. That neither King Harry the 8th nor any of our Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the Power of the Keys or any part thereof either the Key of Order or the Key of Iurisdiction I mean Iurisdiction purely Spiritual which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such Persons as
Now you know how much Simplicity becomes an Oath and how requisite it is that it should be conceiv'd in plain and liquid terms and taken in the Imposer's sense and without mental reservations and that you should Swear therein to no dogmatical Assertion and as to which Mr. Nye saith well in his Observations on that Oath to swear positively to any dogmatical Assertion is not required It would be a taking the Name of God in vain for if it be a certain and undoubted truth in it self and to others as are Principles of Reason and Articles of Faith an Oath is vain for it ends no strife If doubtful and a question whether true or not tho such an Oath puts it out of question that I believe so yet not that it is a truth My belief tho never so much evidenced and confirm'd doth not make a doubtful matter in it self more credible nor is one man's believing an Assertion just ground for another man to believe the same Such an Oath therefore is in vain and not a fit Medium to end such a Controversy Now how far your declaring in your Oath that no foreign Prelaâ—…e hath nor ought to have any Iurisdiction Spiritual within this Realm and the Interpretation of it pursuant to the 37th Article delivering the Plain words The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction c. may bring you within the Verge of swearing what is dogmatical I leave you to judge but shall take the liberty to tell you that when I see some of our Laws and particularly this about our Oath girdled with so many Interpretations like new tender-sided Ships I shall be apt to take little pleasure in embarquing my Conscience in such an Oath and am apt to call to mind the Censure which Mr. Milton's Character of the Long Parliament of 40. fulminates against his Countrymen and by which he so much disables our understandings as to Political Government and saith that the Sun which we want ripens Wits as well as Fruits and as Wine and Oyl are imported to us from abroad so must ripe understanding c. B. But however tho our Wine and Oyl are imported to us from abroad our Dispensations are not and we have no Occasion to send Gold to Rome for Lead And I assure you he who shall consider that the English Virtuosi were the last that did receive the yokes of the old Imperial and later Papal Power of Rome and the first that threw them off will tho we are Crasso sub aëre nati have no cause to vilifie our understandings but rather to envy their triumphs over Infallibility so call'd And perhaps when I shall have told you of another passage of the Bishop P. 59. in his Schism guarded you will think the Eyes of our Ancestors understandings did look out sharp when the two Statutes of the 25th of H. 8. and 1 o Eliz. were made and there he saith Suppose any of our Reformers have run into any Excesses or Extremes either in their Expressions or perhaps in their Actions it is a difficult thing in great changes to observe a just mean it may be out of Humane Frailty as Lycurgus out of hatred to Drunkenness cut down all the Vines about Sparta or it may be out of Policy as men use to bend a Crooked rod as much the contrary way or as expert Masters of Musick do sometimes draw up their Scholars a Note too high to bring them to a just tone what is that to us as long as we practice the Mean and maintain the Mean and guide our selves by the certain line and level of Apostolical and Primitive Tradition There is no doubt but in the framing of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. and the Oath therein regard was had to the Oath in the 35th of H. 8. c. 1. viz. I having now the veil of Darkness of the Usurped Power Authority and Iurisdiction of the See and Bishops of Rome clearly taken away from mine Eyes do utterly testify and declare in my Conscience that neither the See nor the Bishop of Rome nor any foreign Potentate hath nor ought to have any Iurisdiction Power or Authority within this Realm neither by God's Law nor any other just Law or means c. and that I shall never consent nor agree that the aforesaid See or Bishop of Rome or their Successors shall exercise or have any manner of Authority Iurisdiction or Power within this Realm c. And this Oath remain'd the same all the rest of his Reign and all Edward the 6th's time and as to which Queen Elizabeth changed the Expression of Supreme Head and both Harry the 8th and She having their Eyes on the effect of Papal Excommunications and concern'd to have the nullity of them believed by their Subjects might seem according to the Primate's Expression to bend the crooked rod of the Papal Iurisdiction overmuch the contrary way in their Oaths that so it might come to that just straitness referr'd to according to the Primate's measures of it But after all I shall tell you that I think no Political respects can justifie the putting doubtful Expressions into an Oath or the taking of one with mental reservations of a sense different from the Common one of the words and I do therefore joyn issue with you in the Point that the Clause in the Oath That no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. being the very same in the 37th Article and in the Interpretation of which Article King Iames his Canons have as you said made you a sharer with the Clergy you and all others who take the Oath may be thankful for the benefit of that King having further exercised the Dispensative Power of his interpreting the whole intent of that Oath And that Interpretation of it which hath made the Coast of the Oath clear to you in this Point you will find agreeing to what he hath in our Language Publish'd to the World and dedicated to eternity For he having in his Premonition to all Christian Monarchs mention'd how he caus'd the House of Commons to Reform a Clause they had put into the Oath of Allegiance derogatory to the Pope's spiritual Power viz. That the Pope had no Power to Excommunicate him and that he was ready to consent that the Bishop of Rome should have the first Seat and be Patriarch of the West and be Primus Episcopus inter omnes Episcopos princeps Episcoporum so it be no otherwise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum takes occasion in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance to let the World know his Royal judgment of the intent of the OATH of SUPREMACT and there in Confutation of the Pope's Breves and Bellarmine's Letter he saith in p. 108. that the rendring Christian Kings within their own Dominions Governors of their Church as well as of the rest of their People in being Custodes utriusque tabulae not by making new Articles of Faith c. but by
Bishop hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction in the forum internum wanted no relief in their Case from the Dispensative Power of interpretation Nor did those of the Church of England who convers'd with the Statute-Book want the Crown 's interpretation of this Clause in the Oath for the scope of the Statute of the 35th of H. the 8th that enjoyn'd the old Oath of Supremacy and from whence this Clause in the New one had its rise was not to break the Measures of St. Cyprian about the Unity of Episcopal Power but in effect to repress the Usurp'd independent Coactive Power of the Bishop of Rome and which several of the following words in that Oath sufficiently evince and which did bind the Swearer to defend and maintain all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made within this Realm for the Extirpation and Extinguishment of the ururped and pretended Authority Power and Iurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome c. And Queen Elizabeth finding the Oath thus at her coming to the Throne she like a wise Reformer would not make any breach in the World wider then necessity required and probably supposing that mens Allegiance having been used to the yoke of several words in that Oath that related to the renouncing and farsaking of foreign Iurisdiction would draw more quietly in the same and that according to the Rule of quod necessario subintelligitur non deest there being no solutio continui imagin'd by any to be design'd in the Unity of the Episcopal Power when the Clause of utterly testifying and declaring that neither the See nor Bishop of Rome hath nor ought to have any Iurisdiction Power or Authority within this Realm c. was inserted in the old Oath it ought to be judged that nothing derogatory to the order of Bishops could be intended in the Clause of the new Oath by her introduced And according to the Rule of Analogum perse positum c. Jurisdiction being to be taken for Coactive Jurisdiction the Clause relating to any foreign Prelates having here no Iurisdiction hath been still meant of none Coactive Mr. Rogers therefore writing on the 39 Articles hath thus fairly commented on that Clause in the 37th The Pope hath no Iurisdiction c. His Iurisdiction hath been and is justly renounced and banish'd out of England by many Kings and Parliaments as by King Edward 1st 3d and 6th by King Richard the 2d Harry the 4th 6th 8th and by Queen Elizabeth and by our most noble King James But that the Church of England intended no War against the Unity of Episcopacy by the Canons of 1640. which yet have the words of Popery's being a gross kind of Superstition and of the Mass being Idolatry and do ininflict a temporary disability namely that of Excommunication on Popish Recusants may appear by the tenderness there used to the Church of Rome in sparing to impute the Superstition of Popery to that whole Church by name And the 6th Canon having mention'd the Convocation's being desirous to declare their sincerity and constancy in the profession of the Doctrine and Discipline Establish'd in the Church of England i. e. the Doctrine of the 39 Articles and to secure all men against any suspicion of revolt to Popery or any other Superstition and enjoyn'd a new Oath against all innovation of Doctrine or Discipline to be taken by the Clergy the assertory part whereof hath in it an Approbation of the Doctrine and Discipline or Government established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary for Salvation and the Promissory part a Promise not to endeavour to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that which is so establish'd c. and not to give consent ever to subject it to the Usurpations and Superstitions of the See of Rome Mr. Bagshaw in his Argument in Parliament concerning those Canons took occasion to criticise on the not subjecting out Church to the Usurpation and Superstitions of the See of Rome and to call it a Negative Pregnant that is to say as his words are you may not subject the Church of England to the See of Rome but to the Church of Rome you may Now there is as much difference between the See of Rome and the Church of Rome as betwixt Treason and Trespass and this appears plainly by the Statute of 23. Eliz. c. 1. where it is said that to be reconciled to the See of Rome is Treason but to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is not Treason for then every Papist would be a Traytor being a Member of the Church and therefore reconciled to it Now the See of Rome is nothing else but the Papacy or Supremacy of the Pope whereby by virtue of the Canon unam Sanctam made by Pope Boniface the 8th he challengeth a Superiority of Iurisdiction and Correction over all Kings and Princes upon Earth and those Persons which take the juramentum fidei contain'd in the end of the Council of Trent which acknowledgeth this Supremacy are said to be reconciled to this See. The Church of Rome is nothing else but a number of Men within the Pope's Dominions and elsewhere professing the Religion of Poperty and that the Clergy had an ill meaning in leaving this Clause in the Oath thus loose I have some reason to imagine when I find it in their late Books that they say the Church of Rome is a true Church and Salvation is to be had in it And if it were tanti after having said so much to say yet any thing more to prop up the safety of your taking the Oath of Supremacy with the Clause whose sense hath been propp'd up by so many Acts of the Dispensative Power of interpreting I could tell you that in Sir Iohn Winter's Observations on the Oath of Supremacy Printed A. 1679. he having there consider'd Queen Elizabeths interpretation in the Admonition and the Confirmation of that Admonition by her Majesty in Parliament by the Proviso in the Statute of 5 o Eliz. c. 1. and the whole drift of the Statute 1 o Eliz. by which the Oath was enacted and what Bishop Carleton and the Primate Bramhal writ of the ancient Jurisdiction restored to the Crown by that Statute and that on the whole Matter the design of the Oath was not to invest her with the exercise of the spiritual Jurisdiction left by Christ to his Apostles and their Successors but to leave that entire to them saith at the end of his Book that it is not the true meaning of the Oath explain'd in manner as abovesaid which makes many of the Roman-Catholicks refuse to take it c. and then makes the Explanations not being known to all and their intricacy and the constant tendring of the Oath for so many years without the aforesaid Explanation likely to give just Cause of Scandal and thereupon he wishes that that Oath and the other of Allegiance which are required of them under so great Penalties may be
containing all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering c. It is Enacted c. that all Subscriptions hereafter to be had or made to the said Articles by any Deacon Priest c. or other person whatsoever who by this Act or any OTHER LAW now in force is required to subscribe unto the said Articles shall be construed and taken to extend and shall be applyed for and touching the said 36th Article to the Book containing the form and manner of making ordaining and consecrating of Bishops Priests c. in this Act mentioned in such sort and manner as the same did heretofore extend to the Book set forth in the time of King Edward the 6th mention'd in the said 36th Article any thing in the said Article or in any Statute Act or Canon heretofore had or made to the Contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding It is clear that the Parliament had then their Eye on the Act of 13. Eliz. and on that Canon of King Iames and which you may take as referr'd to by the words or any other Law now in force for so they then knew it to be and as it still is tho with the interpretation extended by the Act to it and afterward by the word Canon But one may guess that by the Authority of some of the Lords the Bishops there was before the making of this Canon of King Iames and after the Act of 13. Eliz. in her Reign some Subscription under disabling Penalties required of Ministers beyond what that Statute required by what the Author of Certain Considerations tending to promote Peace mentions in p. 4. viz. That in the 30th year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the House of Commons presented to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal a Petition containing divers particulars for the redress whereof they desire that no Oath or Subscription might be tender'd to any at their entrance into the Ministry but such as is expresly prescribed by the Statutes of the Realm except the Oath against Corrupt entring that they may not be troubled for the omission of some Rites or Portions prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer that such as had been suspended for no other Offence but only for not subscribing might be restored A. It seems those Bishops then did as your Expression was Dispensare in lege and were as I may say Non-conformists to it by going beyond it For they were obliged sapere ad Regulam and all Conformity is respectu regulae and he who doth over-shoot or who over-does what is enjoyn'd is a Non-conformist B. You here put me in mind how some of our Bishops and Clergy have been thus Non-conformists in over-shooting their mark at the same time that they have with undistinguishing severity executed the rigour of the Laws against all who did shoot short The Royal Martyr in his Declaration to all his Loving Subjects Publish'd with the Advice of his Privy Councel A. 1641. refers to some Ceremonies in our Church which have been used without any legal Warrant or Injunction and which already are or speedily may be abolish'd A. But I a little wonder that a House of Commons should Petition for the Dispensing with some legal Rites and required both by Injunctions and Canons and by Acts of Parliament B. I do not wonder at it at all For Conjunctures having happen'd when some Non-conformists having been tender of the Peace of the Government you need not wonder at any tenderness in it for them For as in the Conjuncture of the Resteration of King Charles the Second very many of the Presbyterians and of other Sects then shewing their Loyalty the Author I lately cited taking notice thus of the Declaration A. 1660. viz. in which his Majesty saith Our present Consideration and work is to gratifie the private Cosciences of those who are grieved with some Ceremonies by indulging to and dispensing with the omitting of those Ceremonies A Member of the House of Commons in an Epistle to His Majesty useth these words viz. which Indulgent Declaration so ravished the hearts of all your Loving Subjects that your whole House of Commons their Representatives then assembled in Parliament immediately after the Publication October 8th 1660 repair'd in a Body to White-hall and there by their Speaker's Oration in the Banquetting-House express'd their extraordinary great Ioy and presented their general Thanks to your Majesty for this your Majesty's most gracious Declaration and Dispensation with their Consciences in Matters not being of the substance or essence of Religion which gave abundant satisfaction to all peaceable sob rminded Men and such as are truly Religious in which return of their Thanks they were all unanimous Nemine Contradicente then Ordering a Bill in Pursuance of your Majesty's Declaration Note that this was that House of Commons which together with the House of Lords brought His Majesty to the Throne so long before namely in the first year of King Charles the First and A. 1625. both Houses presented a Petition to the King wherein they desire that His Majesty would please to advise the Bishops by fatherly entreaty and tender usâ—…ge to reduce to the peaceable and orderly Service of the Church such able Ministers as have been formerly SILENCED c. and which is in effect all one such able Ministers as have been formerly disabled A. I am highly pleas'd with your further bringing any thing to me like Iudgment of Parliament that may strengthen the Regal Power of interpreting or of dispensing with disability We have discours'd of the Subject a pretty while together at this Meeting and I must acknowledge you have entertain'd me with an account of many Statutes that have propp'd up the Regal Power of dispensing with disability and that too tho you observ'd it not to me not only in their Preambles but in their enacting parts the which I account more momentous Nor can I forbear observing it to you that in the late Printed Books of some who asserted this dispensative Power nothing like Iudgment of Parliament hath been cited in the case for it but that out of Rot. Parl. 1. H. 5. 11. 22. out of Rolle Tit. Prerogative le Roy fol. 180. viz. The Commons prayed that the Statutes for voiding of Aliens out of the Kingdom might be executed to which the Kiâ—…g agreed saving his Prerogative that he might dispense with such as he pleas'd And upon this the Commons answer'd that their intention was no other nor ever should be by the help of God. But this was only the judgment of a House of Commons and that is short of the Authority of a House of Lords concurring with them tho but in a Petitionary manner that the Regal Dispensative Power might be exerted and which latter is far short of the Authority of an Act of Parliament And among the many Parliamentary Recognitions of the Dispensative Power you have mentionâ—…d to me that which you told me at our first meeting of the Act of Uniformity 16 o Car. 2.
insignificant as did the old Politicks I shall refer you to in the Sacred Story and when the whole Earth was of one Language and of one Speech and the Vogue was Let us build a City and Tower whose top may reach to Heaven and let us make us a Name least we be scatter'd abroad on the face of the whole Earth But Heaven confounded their Language and their City was call'd Babel and their feared Dissipation was their Punishment They were so diffident of the Divine Promise whose garranty they had that they were resolv'd by their own hands to provide against all Dangers of a future Deluge and having built their Tower with Brick they thought 't would defend them from the Power of Fire concerning which they had heard the Tradition that a general Destruction of the World should proceed from the fury of that Element and they vainly endeavour'd to secure themselves against the anger of Heaven rather by a lofty Pile then by lowly Minds A. That wretched vulgar Error you referr'd to did shew that the line of Confusion was stretch'd forth on Men's understandings as well as on the Realm in that Conjuncture and I have observ'd that that vulgar Error did last to the very time of the ferment about the Exclusion and long before which time as well as then some have talk'd and writ at this rate viz. That the Oath of Supremacy was expresly made as the title of it shews to shut out the Usurpation of foreign Powers and Potentates and was not meant to provide against any popular Usurpations or Diminutions of the King 's Supreme Authority B. O God! But to speak or write at that rate to Conscience is Chicanerie And I have elsewhere mention'd what one whom I cannot too often mention to be as fair a dealer with Conscience as any the Age hath had told us in his sixth Lecture of Oaths about the Oath of Supremacy binding in this Case You know I mean Bishop Sanderson who there shews that tho Popes Usurpations or arrogating to themselves the Supreme Iurisdiction in spiritualibus throughout this Kingdom was the Cause of the Oath of Supremacy yet the Oath is obligatory according to the express words in the Utmost Latitude the reason is that the intention of a Law is general to provide against all future inconveniences of the like kind or nature Moreover the words in Queen Elizabeth's Admonition referring to the Persons call'd to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church as the doubters and the tenour of all the subsequent Interpretations as speaking them principally occasion'd by the doubters in the Church of England do further shew the Vanity of that Objection And if you will more particularly think of the Queen 's Authentick Interpretation of that Oath and approved in Parliament you will find the Oath of Supremacy to be an Oath of Allegiance and that it may be so-likewise properly termed For in the beginning of the Admonition you will thus find it viz. The Queen's Majesty being inform'd that in certain places of this Realm sundry of her native Subjects being call'd to 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 required of divers Persons for the recognition of their ALLEGIANCE to her Majesty c. A. As one may perceive by what the Queen's Interpretation in the Admonition refers to that there was a great ferment in the Kingdom about the sense of the Oath so suitably to what you mention'd of the Prudence of our Ancestors that caus'd various ferments to go off so insensibly the next Parliament in approving her Interpretation without troubling themselves to question the Authentickness of it doth corroborate your observation of the Excellence of the English understandings B. It doth so The fermentation in the minds of the People you speak of had been Epidemical And tho one might fancy by the Proem of the Admonition that the Interpretation as well as the Dispensing with Disability had an eye but on an inconsiderable number of People there referr'd to in the foremention'd words of sundry of her Majesty's Native Subjects in certain places of this Realm c. yet any one who knoweth the History of those times will find the Interpretation and Dispensation as I may say Calculated for the Meridian of all England and the Interpretation having an eye on all Christendom There was then in the Morning of that Queen's Reign and of the restoration of the Reform'd Religion such a thick mist of causeless Fears and Iealousies that had generally o'erspread the minds of Protestants and Papists shortly after the Birth of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. c. 1 o. that nothing but the Supremacy both of Power and Reason that shone in her authentick Interpretation of that Statute could disperse and that too not suddenly For as Mr. Nye in his Book of Two Acts of Parliament or Observations on that Oath tells us It is mention'd in the Admonition that the Queen 's Ecclesiastical Power is the same that was challenged and used by Henry the 8th c. which is supposed by some to be the same that was in the Pope the Person only and not the Power changed so that our Princes are but secular Popes This Objection was strengthen'd by the subtlety of Gardiner abroad and at home by a Sermon Preach'd at Paul's Cross in the year 1588. by Dr. Bancroft who calls Q. Eliz. a Petty Pope and tells us her Ecclesiastical Authority is the same which the Pope's was formerly and in the Margin opposite to what he had said of the subtlety of Gardiner strengthening the Objection abroad hath these words viz. Whom Calvin terms Imposterille And Mr. Nye afterward goes on to shew how the 37th Article did remove the Objection sufficiently The Author of The true Grounds of Ecclesiastical Regiment Printed in London A. 1641. doth in p. 53. mention some mens objecting it against the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of our Monarchs that it may descend to Infants under Age as it did to King Edward the 6th or to Women as to Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and that whatsoever we may allow to men such as Henry the 8th yet it seems unreasonable to allow it Women and Children The Papists think this Objection of great moment and therefore Bellarmine in great disdain casts it out that in England they had a certain Woman for their Bishop meaning Queen Elizabeth and she knowing what an odium that word would draw on her both among Papists and many Protestants also Consults her Bishops about it and by their advice sets forth a Declaration certifying the World thereby that she claim'd no other Headship in the Church but such as might exclude all dependency on foreign Headships and secure her from all danger of being deposed c. The Bishops in this did as warily provide for their own Claim as the Queen 's And the Roman-Catholick Author
of the Advocate for Conscience Liberty discoursing of the Oath of Supremacy in p. 181. seq saith That Luther Calvin Knox Gilby disliked it and mentions that a Iurisdiction purely spiritual was communicated to H. the 8th by his Supremacy and assumed by him and that he wanted his Spiritual By-title of Supremacy to justifie his Divorce aâ—…d his taking the Church Revenue into his hands and that the Protectorship in E the 6th's time by virtue of the Oath of Supremacy continued to make new Church-Laws Institutions c. and that Queen Elizabeth reassumed this Iurisdiction having a greater necessity for it then her Brother because her Marriage was declared null by the Pope So then the state of Protestancy abroad and at home call'd on the Queen to distribute or dispense her Supreme Power in her Law by her Interpretation making a change not of it but in the body of it and which had it been changed by a repeal in Parliament for another would have seem'd to blemish her figure of semper Eadem and have reflected on the Understandings and Consciences of those who had before took the Oath There was then in that Conjuncture an universal outcry of Conscience that Sin lies at the door a thing worse then Hannibal ad Portas a burthen that hath caus'd all the Groans of the Creation that ever happen'd And where there is Periculum animae there is always Periculum in morâ and which the Queen 's authentick Interpretation did remove and which was approved by the next Parliament and no noise made or complaining heard in our streets about any seeming Alteration made in the Law or Oath it self by the Prerogative of interpretation or acquittal from the disabling Punishments then exercised And it is but congruous to humane Nature and common Policy in men when they see any thing not ill in it self done that hath eminently conduced to make the World easie not to embarass such thing with litigious scruples about the fieri non debuit nor to adventure to trouble the World again when it is inclined to and resolv'd upon its rest Some thoughts of this Nature probably inclined my Lord Coke to shew the Complaisance he did not only to King Iames his incapacitating Canon about the double Subscription but as to the Oath against Simony that of Canonical obedience and which inclined Judge Croke to be pleas'd with the Canons of 1640. tho containing the Oath with an Et caetera and which made the Iudges so apt to over-rule some of Sir E. Coke's Exceptions to the Sheriffs Oath as I have mention'd You may indeed find that some among the Puritans in some Conjunctures in Queen Elizabeth's time did presume to reproach the Government of the Church with her having dispens'd with the disability of some Persons incurr'd by Act of Parliament The Author of the famous Book publish'd in her Reign call'd An Abstract of certain Acts of Parliament hath in the Conclusion these two factious Queries viz. Whether a mere Lay-man no Doctor of the Civil Law may be a Bishop's Chancellor and so may Excommunicate Whether a mere Lay-man no Doctor of the Civil Law may be a Bishop's Register contrary to an Act of Parliament The Author intendeth there to referr to the Statute of 37 o. H. 8. c. 17. and as he had before expresly done in p. 196. Seq and of which Statute we have so much discours'd and he in p. 201. instanceth in many Lay-men who were not Doctors of the Civil Law and yet then exercised Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction He had too in p. 196. took notice that as that Statute establish'd and confirm'd to the King and his Successors and so unto our most Gracious Soveraign the Queen's Majesty that now is lawful Preheminence Power Superiority and Lordship over all Persons within her Dominions of what state or Condition soever touching Punishments for any Heresies Errors Vices Schisms Abuses Idolatries Hypocrisies and Superstitions springing or growing by means of any her disobedient and disloyal Subjects so hath her Majesty by her Injunctions publish'd that her Highness did never pretend any Title or challenge any Authority to punish any of her Subjects for any of the said Offences by Censure Ecclesiastical in right belonging to her Royal Person but that her Highness meaning and intent is and always hath been to commit the execution thereof always to the Ecclesiastical State of her time and he then sets down her Interpretation in the Admonition But had that Author consider'd how it was declared by that Statute that by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is given to His Majesty and all such Persons as His Majesty shall appoint to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct Uice and Sin whatsoever and that this Statute was revived by the 1st of Eliz. he would not have wonder'd at the Queen's allowing that Statute to be dispens'd with as it was Nor would any one therefore wonder at the Royal Martyr in the 12th and 13th Canons of A. 1640. Condescending to humour the Complaints of the Puritans by an equal Interpretation of that Statute of 37 o H. 8. and by dispensing with it as he did and that so far as to the disabling Lay-Chancellors to proceed in such Censures as they were enabled by that Statute to do Mr. Bagshaw in his first Argument in Parliament concerning the Canons thus reflects on the Clergy for those two Canons viz. Concerning the 12th and 13th Canons touching the freeing and discharging of Chancellors and Officials from executing any Excommunication in their own Person or any Censure against the Clergy because they are Lay-men I say that in doing and enacting this they have done quite contrary to an Act of Parliament still in force in taking from them this Power of exercising the Censures of the Church which that Statute gives them which I did look when some Civilians now in the House should have maintain'd And altho it were to be wish'd that only Clergymen should have this Power of Excommunication and other Censures of the Church yet seeing an Act of Parliament hath given this Power to Lay-men it is high Presumption to make Canons against it But he well knew that after the stamp of the Royal Authority put on these Canons as well as before Lay-men in the Court of Delegates did Excommunicate and as they did in the high Commission And you may observe it that in the Commission granted Primo Elizabethae to her Commissioners pursuant to the Statute of that year there were but two Clergy-men and those Bishops and 17 Lay-men My Lord Coke Inst. 4. c. 74. writing of the High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical saith There is no question but the Commissioners for such Causes as are committed to them by force of this Act may if the Commissioners be Competent proceed to deprivation of the Popish Clergy which was the main object of the Act or to punish them by Ecclesiastical Censures c. And without question if
the Commissioners be COMPETENT that is if they be spiritual men they may proceed to Sentence of Excommunication which may right well be Certify'd as well as Excommunication before Commissioners Delegates both of these Authorities being under the Great Seal c. And Excommunication certify'd ly Commissioners Del gates hath been allowed as it appeareth in 23. Eliz. Dyer 371. And in many Cases Acts of Parliament have adjudged men Excommunicate ipso facto But if they be meer Lay-men the fault is not in the Statute or in the Law but in the Nomination and upon Certificate made of the Excommunication according to Law a Significavit or Cap. Excom shall be awarded out of the Chancery for the taking and imprisoning the Bodies of such Excommunicate Persons But had his Lordship as I said in the Case of the other Author consider'd how by the Statute of 37. H. 8. it was declared that by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is given to His Majesty and to all such Persons as he shall appoint to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct Uice and Sin whatsoever he would not I believe have thought Lay-men incompetent or incapable Persons so to have acted in the high Commission or Delegacy or have said there was any fault in the Nomination of Lay-men And yet you see my Lord Coke shews you how the Government then acquiesced in such Nomination and assisted the execution of the Sentences given by such as he thought incompetent Nor are we therefore to wonder at what Mr. Bagshaw mentions of the Civilians in the House of Commons not objecting that the King had done contrary to an Act of Parliament in taking from Bishops Chancellors and Officials the Power of exercising Church Censures given them by the Act and which by the Power declared in that Act to be given him by Holy Scriptures he might have either continued to them or abridged or taken away the exercise thereof from them if he had pleas'd And considering that the Lex Scandali doth equally oblige Kings as well as Subjects in Point of Conscience it is not to be wonder'd that that Tender-conscienced King did in that Conjuncture think himself obliged so equitably to make his Interpretation of that Statute as in complaisance with some of his Subjects who had took offence at Lay-Chancellors Power of Excommunicating to disable them to it I told you before how that Pious Prince did in complaisance with the Fathers of our Church think himself obliged to exercise his Regal Power of interpreting or declaring and when in A. 1637. he issued out his Proclamation Declaring that the Bishops holding their Courts and issuing Process in their own Names were not against the Laws of the Realm and that the Iudges resolutions were notify'd therein to that purpose and that the ferment about that Point was setled and the Bishops issuing out their Processes was setled too the which Proclamation too you will find Mr. Bagshaw mentions in his second Argument where p. 40. he tells you of the Bishop's having procured a Proclamation A. 1637. declaring the Opinions of the Iudges that the Statute of 1 o Edw. 6. c. 2. is repeal'd and of no force at this day and that Bishops may keep Courts in their own Names And I shall now tell you that as in the year 1637. the Bishops were in so full and peaceable possession of their Privilege of issuing out of their Processes in their own names by means of what His Majesty had declared pursuant to the Resolutions unanimously given by all the Iudges and the Barons of the Exchequer and of which Sir E. Coke saith Inst. 2. that they are for Matters of Law of highest Authority next to the Court of Parliament so by Iudgment of Parliament the settlement of that Controversie by virtue of His Majesty's Declarative Power so exercised was afterward approved A. That is a thing I would gladly hear of for one would think that the exercise of the Regal Power of Declaring or Interpreting what relates to an Act of Parliament might occasionally heighten a ferment in stead of abating it B. You will find little or no cause if you consult our ancient English Story and there see how the mutual Confidence between King and People hath in several Ages supported the Government to fancy that Declaratory Proclamations relating to Acts of Parliament did make any ferment The Interpretation of the Statutes hath in all Causes between Party and Party and wherein meum and tuum and Property are concern'd been by ancient usage under our Kings still left to the Iudges and the Proclamations of our Princes on great emergent occasions in the State declaring or interpreting their Laws pursuant to the Supreme Power committed to them by God for the good of their People hath still been observ'd to tend both to the good of the People and the Laws too If you will look on all the Declaratory Proclamations in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames of which you have a Collection you will I believe find none but what were acceptable among all their Loyal Subjects But as to this Declaratory Proclamation of King Charles the First before-mention'd you will find it as I told you approved in Parliament And if you will please to consult in your Statute-Book the Act of 13 o Car. 2. c. 12. of which the title is Explanation of a Clause contain'd in an Act of Parliament made in the 17th year of the late King Charles Entituled an Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 1 o Elizabethae Concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical you will there find that this Act of the late King 's loyal long Parliament viz. 13 o Car. 2. hath in it three Proviso's The first is concerning the High Commission-Court the second Proviso is concerning the taking away the Oath ex officio And the third Proviso is to limit and confine the Power of Ecclesiastical Judges in all their Proceedings to what WAS and by Law might be used before the year 1639 which plainly includes allows and approves King Charles the First 's Proclamation in the year 1637. In the time of a former disloyal long Parliament the Regal Power of Interpreting or declaring was by them represented as a Gravamen and while yet they usurp'd that Power themselves If you will look on the Declaration of the Lords and Commons in Husband's Collections p. 686. you will there find they say It is high time for the whole Kingdom now to understand that His Majesty's Authority is more in his Courts without his Person then in his Person without his Courts when the Power of DECLARING Law shall be deny'd to the whole Court of Parliament in particular Causes before them for we have claim'd it we have exercised it no otherwise to be obligatory as a judicial Declaration of the Law and shall be attributed to His Majesty to do it in general by his Proclamation without relation to a particular Case and
Numb 35. 33. A. But by the way do you think then that Sovereign Princes offend the Law of God in Pardoning Murther B. I do observe that many presume to censure Kings for so doing and are superstitiously misguided by thinking that those two places of Scripture referr'd to by my Lord Coke do necessarily make it a sin in Princes to Pardon Murther But I shall when we meet again shew you the mistake of such therein and shall shew you that David at that time when the Law of God and the lex terrae was the same thing and who had Sworn and would perform it that he would keep God's righteous Iudgments was not to be censured to have sinned either in the reprieve of Ioab who had murthered Amasa and Abner and in delaying the Execution of the Law and leaving it to Solomon his Son or in the Pardon of Absolon who had slain his Brother Ammon and that when the Law faith in Numb 35. The Murtherer shall surely be put to death our best Commentators and out of the Rabbins say that this is spoken to the Iudges before whom such Causes regularly came and under the Supreme Power and by authority thereof judged those Causes and that tho the Iudges who were subordinate to the Supreme Power were to take no Satisfaction for the life of a Murtherer but were by that Law to Condemn him yet that it followeth not that the Supreme Power who made them Iudges might not in some Cases Reprieve and Pardon some whom they had Condemned A. I shall be glad to hear you discourse of this and the rather for that 't is so Customary to many when they find the Prince exercising this Prerogative of Pardoning to be apt too much to busy their heads with those two places in the Old Testament to their neglect of others there viz. Exod. 22. 28. Prov. 24. 21. Eccles. 10. 20. and of Acts 23. 5. in the New and likewise there of Rom. 13. 2. 5. 1. St. Peter 2. 17. and from whence they might Collect their moral offices of not doing or speaking or thinking dishonourably of the Lord 's annointed and of paying honour and obedience to his Sovereign Power and that for Conscience sake But in the mean time give me leave à propos to ask you if ever you heard of any one of the Iudges of the Realm in the Reign of our former Princes that gave his judgment for the allowance of the King's Pardon of disability Shew me but that and I shall not be affrighted with my Lord Ch. Justice Vaughan's Simoniacal Dead man. B. I shall tell you of a Case that was well enough known to him and which you may find in Croke 3d p. 55. Sir Iohn Bennet v. Dr. Easedale where you may see that Sir Iohn Bennet being fined 20000 l. for Bribery by the Star-Chamber and Censured to be Imprison'd and made uncapable of any Office of Iudicature and that he having a Pardon from the King reciting the Bribery and Offences mention'd in the Decree and all Penalties and Punishments by reason thereof and all Disabilities and Incapacities and all things concerning the said Sentence except the Fine of 20000 l. and the Court of Star-Chamber having the advice of all the Iudges relating to the Decree and Pardon it was resolv'd by them all that this Pardon hath taken away all force of the Sentence in the Star-Chamber except for the Fine of 20000 l. and all Disabilities are discharged thereby That Lord Chief Iustice knew that as it was set down in that Chapter of Pardons Inst. 3. the King's Pardon extends to all Suits in the Star-Chamber and he knew of what was mention'd Inst. 4. Chap. 1. Of the High Court of Parliament viz. Of a Pardon to the Lord Latimer of a Iudgment in Parliament and he knew that by his own and other Iustices of Assize going into their own Countrys in the Execution of their Offices by vertue of the King 's Non-obstante to the Statutes of 8. R. 2. c. 2. 3. H. 8. c. 24. himself and as many as went Iudges of Assize so into their own Countrys gave Judgment by so doing for the Prerogative of dispensing with such Acts of Parliament and he likewise knew that as it is well express'd in Theâ—… Answer of King Charles the First to the Declaration of both Houses of Parliament concerning the Commission of array A. 1642. An Act of Parliament in any Matter tho mistaken being assented to by the King and his two Houses is equally binding as having equal Authority with an Act introductive of a new Law and that therefore Acts of Parliament having so particularly declared the justness of the Prerogative's dispensing with disability no magna nomina of any particular Sages of the Law in otherwise opining can expect any deference And if you will consider what my Lord Coke in that Chapter of Pardons hath mention'd of the operation of Prerogative over the dead in Law and consider the President he refers to viz. Pasch. 22. E. 3. tit Cor. 239. Coram Rege Quidam indictatus de Felonia inde Culp dicit quod Rex eum Conduxit inde producit Chartam quod Rex eum Conduxit in Vasc. in exercitu dicta Charta allocata fuit per Curiam and there see his opinion grounded on it that if a man be Indicted of Felony and found Guilty and being in Prison the King may under the Great Seal reciting the Offence c. retain him to serve in his Wars on this side or beyond the Seas this Charter he may Plead and the Court ought to allow it I believe you will be of Opinion that any one who will desire any more Presidents for the Commanding the services of dead men ought to be sent for one to the REHEARSAL viz. that of Arise you dead Men and get ye about your business A. Well Sir As for this objected Dead-man requiescat in Pace I have done with him and since from some things you have said I gather that the dispensing with disability by Roman Emperors and Popes of Rome did never by any ferment disturb their Governments and moreover since no men of sense here have ever troubled themselves or the Government with any vexatious Question about the King's Power in discharging a man from a Praemunire but not from a Penal disability incurr'd whereas by a Praemunire as my Lord Coke shews us Inst. 3. c. 54. men are put out of the Protection of the King and DISABLED to have any Action or Remedy by the King's Law or the Kings Writs and exposed to many other dreadful Punishments I do now begin to wonder whence it is that the mistake in some mens Minds hath come about a Penal disability being so unremoveable And thus I think too one might wonder how such as will allow the King's Pardon to discharge one from an Excommunicatio minor or major do look on disability as such an anathematizing thing as is not to be touch'd or that cannot be
Thomas and Sorrell tell you that by one of the great Councel who argued in it it was asserted with great Learning That the Non-obstante in that Case remain'd good after the King's death That tho Acts the King doth in his Natural Capacity determine by his death as making of Iudges c. for those referr to his Natural Will yet things done in his Royal Capacity as King do not determine by his death as a License to alien in Mortmâ—…in in one King's time serves in anothers and the Reason is when the Subject is once exempt out of the Restraint of the Act he is ever exempt unless the Exemption be limited Coke 1. Inst. 52. 6. If the Lessor licence his Lessee that is restrain'd by Condition not to Alien tho the Lessor die the licence shall serve the Lessee to alien and is not determin'd by the Lessor's death And in this Point he cited Trin. 2. Jac. C. B. Rot. 2835. Wright versùs Radcliffe and Trin. 2. Jac. Norris v. Mason C. B. as Cases adjudged in this point And I shall then shew you how the same thing was then by others asserted but you may now for this purpose remember how the instances I have given you of Queen Elizabeth's Parliaments approving and declaring to be good what she did of this kind and the instances of what others of our Princes did by their own Authority and out of Parliament being valid and being afterward approved in Parliament have supported the extent of the Regal Authority of this kind as to point of time But because according to the Rule of Unumquodque dissolvitur eo modo quo colligatur many Indulgences and Injunctions and Dispensations being revocable by Kings themselves and by their Successors and because declaratory Acts of Parliament cannot be repeal'd but by other Acts common Prudence doth suggest it to all to endeavour the perpetuating to themselves by the Legislative Power what they account beneficial And if you will you may use the term of having it confirm'd by that Power that is if you will allow it to have been firm before you may call it confirm'd by the Prince and the three Estates afterward enacting it and making its firmness perpetual And this is the thing I aim'd at in what you might take for a Criticism when I said that the 39 Articles owed no Confirmation nor Authority to the Act of the 13th of Eliz. A. I know the reason of your cautious speaking here about a tender Point You accounting even every Declaratory Judgment of Parliament for our Religion to be a Treasure and having often said that you would allow some Roman-Catholicks to mock on in calling our Religion a Parliamentary Religion did I judge design to do honour to our Religion as well as to our Prince's in shewing that it was here orderly establish'd by God's Vicegerents before it was by the Deputies of the People or the Magnates Regni B. You guess right at my meaning in this way to salve Phaenomena And if you will look on a Book Printed in Oxford A. 1645. entituled Parliaments Power in Laws for Religion or an Answer to that old and groundless Calumny of the Papists nick-naming the Religion of the Church of England by the name of a Parliamentary Religion c. you will find the Fact in this Point clearly deduced through the course of our Laws and Constitutions in a long series temporum from the Reign of Harry the 8th downward and for the honour of our Kings and of the Church and the Reformation and the measures I have taken in our discourse have been suitable to those of the judicious and learned Author of that Book A. Well Sir we have had a great deal of frank Discourse and I will now take the freedom to put one Question more to you You have entertain'd me with the several Interpretations of our Oath and have shew'd me how the obligatoriness of them all hath been perpetuated and you have likewise salved the Phaenomena in the Iustice of the Government as to the Laws in terrorem But you know the Story of one who being Lord of a place did leave a Pit long open too near the High-way and who at Night erected Lights about it to prevent its being mischievous and he afterward hearing that sometimes poor Blind men who were Travellers fell into it and that at other times by various accidents the Lights were not helpful to other Passengers as being took away or going out too soon and he therefore at last very fairly removed both his Nuisance and Lights together And now may it hot be wish'd that the Prince and the three Estates would remove the Laws about our Oaths and the Interpretations too and so likewise all the Laws in terrorem among which I suppose you reckon the Test-Acts at which so many have taken offence B. You may easily guess that till we have both of us at another meeting discours'd of the Obligation resulting from the Promissory part of the Oath I will not engage your thoughts in any matter of Controverfie that may in the least perplex them But as soon as we have fully discours'd that I shall frankly give you my thoughts at large relating to the question about Repealing of the Test-Acts in a Parliamentary manner but do at present wholly forbear to mention what I think thereof And I have before told you my judgment of the likelihood of the continuance of our great Oath as a great luminary that may perhaps enlighten our English World in the measures of Loyalty to the end of time and as I have told you the Oath giveth no offence to the Considerate so I will hope none will be taken at it But I must here tell you that I have a greater veneration for the Oath because I look on the serious Consideration of the assertory part of it as likely to be very Instrumental in allaying the ferment we have been speaking of A. God grant it may be so B. You remember what I hinted to you about the Clause whereby you testify'd and declared that the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as Temporal and from whence it follow'd by way of natural Consequence that no foreign Prince c. hath any Iurisdiction within this Realm being the Corner-stone on which the great And therefore I mean your forsaking foreign Iurisdiction was built And I assure you that the same first Declaration doth bind you to the like AND THEREFORE to renounce the belief of any Power on Earth being able to dissolve your King 's right of Commanding your Obedience and your Obligation to obey him And indeed if I had produced to you no Iudgment of Parliament for the purpose I have done but that which is contain'd in the assertory part of the Oath and which is unanimously interpreted by Divines and Lawyers as expressive of the King 's right jure naturae to Command the Obedience of