ever was who setting his feet on two of Gods Kingdoms the one upon the Sea the other upon the Earth lifting up his hand to Heaven as you are to do this day and so Swearing Rev. 10. c. and consider how he there makes this Oath to be the most effectual means for the ruining Popery and Prelacy and leaves it to be consider'd whether seeing the preservation of Popery hath been by Leagues and Covenants God may not make a League and Covenant to be its Destruction after he had before-mention'd the Associations of the Religious Orders and Fraternities and the Combination by the la Sainte Ligue for the muniting of Popery as incentives to this League and how he doth again go to the Magazine of the Apocalypse for some Weapons for this Covenant and hath other artillery for it from the Iewish State citing the words of the Prophet Let us joyn our selves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten how according to the ratio nominis of Superstition viz. of mens over-importunate Prayers that their Children might out-live them he concludes with a devout Prayer that this Covenant may out-live their Childrens Children and let any one behold in Mr. Henderson's Speech the like flame of Enthusiastick Zeal or of the Superstition quam vulgo bonam intentionem vocant against Superstition and Idolatry in Worship c. and concluding it with his belief that the weight of that Covenant would cast the balance in our English Wars I say let any one consider all this and tell me if ever he saw a more pompous Scene of Superstition and more magnificent Procession bestow'd on it and contrived as Bishop Sanderson's words are in his Lecture De bonâ intentione and having his eye on that Covenant viz. Obtentu gloriae Dei reformandae Religionis propagandi Evangelii extirpandae superstitionis exaltandi regni Domini nostri Iesu Christi and if ever he saw what the Bishop in that Lecture calls The Iesuites Theology viz. Omnia metiri ex Commodo Sanctae matris Ecclesiae more strongly asserted then in the Contexture and Imposition of that Covenant But those two Divines lived to recover their Allegiance and a due sense of their Oaths for it and to see that foetus of their Brain that at its solemn Christning they wish'd immortality to renounced publickly as a spurious Birth and to the Scandal of that Age a race of other Oaths in England as infamously born intercept its inheritance Nay let me tell you that in the Nation of Scotland Loyalty hath been a growing Plant of Renown since the year 1660. and the Idol of their former Covenanted Presbytery been by the Loyal Nobility and Gentry and Populace there generally abhorr'd And tho Sir George Wharton in his Gesta Britannorum relates it as a strange thing that on the 21st of August A. 1663. the Parliament of Scotland Passâ—…d an Act for a National Synod the first that ever was in that Kingdom under the Government of Bishops yet I can tell you of an Act of Parliament that pass'd there afterward that declared the right of the Crown to dispense in the external Government of the Church I shall entertain you with it out of the Scotch Statutes viz. In the first Session of the Second Parliament of King Charles the Second there pass'd an Act asserting His Majesty s Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical Edenburgh November 16 th 1669. THe Estates of Parliament having seriously considered how necessary it is for the Good and Peace of the Church and State That His Majesty's Power and Authority in relation to Matters and Persons Ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an Act of Parliament Have therefore thought fit it be Enacted Asserted and Declared Like as his Majesty with Advice and Consent of his Estates of Parliament doth hereby Enact Assert and Declare That his Majesty hath the Supreme Authority and Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical within this his Kingdom and that by virtue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the External Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong to his Majesty and his Successors as an inherent Right to the Crown And that his Majesty and his Successors may Setle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Administration of the External Government of the Church and the Persons employed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Matters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit Which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the Books of Councel and duly published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Majesty's Subjects any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding Like as his Majesty with Advice and Consent aforesaid doth Rescind and Annul all Laws Acts and Clauses thereof and all Customs and Constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to or inconsistent with his Majesty's Supremacy as it is hereby asserted and declares the same void and null in all time coming A. You told me before how the King dispens'd with the five Articles of Perth setled by Act of Parliament but this Act yields so great a territory to the Dispensative Power that my thoughts cannot suddenly travel through it It acknowledgeth in the Crown a more sublime Power then of dispensing with Presbyterians or Independents or of suspending the Penal Laws against them namely of abolishing Episcopacy and of making Presbytery or Independency the National Church-Government Car tel est notre plaisir now for the external Form of Church-Government is allow'd to make the Pattern in the Mount. And 〈◊〉 accordingly as Mr. Baxter in his Book call'd a Search for the Schismaticks represents Archbishop Bramhal's new way of asserting the Church of England in his Book against him 1. To abhor Popery 2. That we all come under a foreign spiritual Iurisdiction obeying the Pope as the Western Patriarch and also as the Principium Unitatis to the Universal Church governing by the Canons c. may not the King by this Act make the external Government of the Church of Scotland Patriarchal and the Pope Patriarch B. The Act needs no Comment and if you will tell me that the Scots shew'd themselves Erastians or Latitudinarians when they made it I shall acquaint you that that Archbishop in his Schism guarded p. 319. asserts That a Sovereign Prince hath Power within his own Dominions for the Publick good to change any thing in the external Regiment of the Church which is not of divâ—…ne Institution and that he had in p. 4. of that Book allow'd the Pope his Principium unitatis and his Preheminence among Patriarchs as S. Peter had among the Apostles and that in p. 78. of his Iust Vindication of the Church of England he takes notice that by the Statute of Carlisle made in the days of Edward the First it was declared That the Holy Church of England was founded in the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
while or since that Statute of the 25th of his Reign committed the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to Lay-men did or might give occasion to some Evil-dispos'd persons to think and little regard the Proceedings and Censures Ecclesiastical made by his HIGHNESSE and his Uice-gerent Officials Commissaries Iudges and Uisitors being also Lay and Married men to be of little or none effect whereby the people gathereth heart and presumption to do evil and not to have such reverence to your most Godly Injunctions and Proceedings as becometh them c. So I leave it to you to consider how the disabling of any subjects by reason of Religionary Heterodoxy to serve their Prince did or might give occasion to some evil-disposed Persons to attempt the disabling of their Prince on the same account as I bâ—…fore hinted it to you and as the popular incogitancy of the Power given by God extending to all such Persons as should be employâ—…d under the King producing the irreverence of their surmises of the incapacity of the Officials and Visitors employ'd by the Vicegerent and consequently of the incapacity of the Vicegerent himself did naturally terminate in their gathering heart and presumption to do evil and to surmise the King 's being disabled to exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and to do that which was directly repugnant to his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church and to his Prerogative Royal his Grace being a Lay-man how you ought still to preserve a tenderness in your thoughts for that Prerogative Royal given him by God's Word of Commanding the Services of all his Subjects by what Laws or Constitutions soever de facto incapacitated And by the gradual Proceedings I have now mention'd you ought with horror to think of the incapacitating any one Subject to serve his Prince as of the first step from a Precipice A. You have provided variety of Entertainment for my Consideration and have my thanks for it But suppose I should be so Curious and Inquisitive as to ask where in God's Word that Power is given to Princes to employ such Persons as they shall think fit in their service according to the purport of that Statute B. You may likewise suppose that you would then find my Genius so inquisitive as to ask you where you have been at Church of late years For you could then go to no Church in England Scotland or Ireland without hearing St. Paul's Omnis anima spoken of Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers whether he be Apostle or Evangelist Prophet Priest Clergy or Layety whether he be of the People diffusive or representative and the like And as the well-drawn Effigies of a man seems to look on every one in the Room so hath the Picture of the Regal Power drawn by the Divines of the Church of England appear'd to cast its Eye on every one and been made as it were Vocal and saying to every one For he is the Minister of God to thee for good And the good old Book call'd God and the King that you have read over and over hath told you that the Bond of the King's Subjects Obedience to his Majesty is inviolable and cannot be dissolv'd And indeed the thing being so plain by the Law of Nature which being written in man's heart is the very same so far forth as it is yet undefaced with the Law of God reveal'd in the Word it is not tanti to raise Moot-Points about this relating to Scripture I doubt not but you remember it in my Lord Herbert's Harry the 8th that there being a Rebellion of many of the Commonalty A. 1536. and the Rebels sending the King their Grievances and one whereof was That his Grace had ill Councellors and of mean Birth among which Cromwel was not forgotten and the King sending an Answer penn'd by himself as to their Grievances he did therein upbraid them for medling in the choice of his Counsellors and command their acquiescence therein on the grounds of Nature and of his being their Natural Liege-lord A. Well Sir Let it for the present pass as a datum or concessum as you will have it that the Obedience of Subjects in serving their Prince is founded on the grounds both of Nature and Scripture And I shall moreover allow it to you that if you had an Enthusiast to deal with and such who as you said do outrage the 13th of the Romans out of the Apocalypse you might out of Brightman's Revelation of the Apocalypse shew him out of that part of Holy Scripture sufficient Authority for the King 's particularly making Cromwel his Vicegerent For he there on the 14th Chapter and the 17th and following Verses saith This Angel is Thomas Cromwel who lived in the days of Harry the 8th that most mighty King and was a man of great renown and place in our Kingdoms being the Earl of Essex and Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal who came out of the Temple and being a sincere favourer of pure Religion He had a Sickle in his hand being made the King's Deputy in all Ecclesiastical Matters and it was a sharp one as with which he sets stoutly and deliberately to his work and yet he had no Crown or Diadem to grace his head withal being a Minister rather to put another Man's Power in Ure then any that wrought by his own Power and Authority And he on Verse the 18th makes the other Angel to be a Martyr viz. Tho. Cranmer and refers the meaning of the words He cryed with a great voice to him that had the Sickle to Cranmer because saith he in the days of Harry the 8th he inflamed the mind of Tho. Cromwel by his words with a desire to make a Vintage B. I thank you for diverting me with that passage of Brightman but I can refer you to another Writer of our Church whose Authority will go further with us then Brightman's and who hath recorded it that the great figure that Cromwel made both in the Church and State and his and Cranmer's acting together in concert and by joynt Councels both in Church and at the Helm of State was so highly fortunate to the Reformation You may find this observed by Archbishop Parker in his De Antiquitate Ecclesiâ—… Britannicoe p. 530. where he saith Namque profligato Papa susceptâ Ecclesioe Anglicanoe defensione curâ tutelâ Rex excelsiâ—…ing â—…ii multarum rerum usu peritum Thomam Cromwellum Vicarium suum in spiritualibus generalem designavit Hic cum Thoma Cranmero Archiepiscopo tanquam in puppi sedit clavumque Ecclesioe Anglicanoe tenuit proramque à papali littore avertit in Christianum portum reduxit A. Was Vicar-general to the King in Spirituals Cromwel's style for his Office as the Archbishop there termed it B. I am apt to think it was not I never saw any Copy of his Patent or Commission for it The Acts of Parliament in H. the 8â—…h's time style him The King's Vicegerent c. And
request them to consider that a Private Interpretation of a Publick Act can give no satisfaction unless it be either expresly or virtually allow'd by the highest Authority that doth impose it and then it is made Publick c. But the Authority of Interpretation of any doubt in such a Publick Act belongs properly not to private but publick Persons c. For private Men tho Learn'd if they take upon them the Interpretation of publick Dictates may be more like to light on mutual Contradictions of each other then on the true and proper Construction of the Text they interpret So did Vega and Soto Soto and Catherinus who wrote against each other contrary Comments on the Council of Trent In which respect it was a wise advice given to the Pope by the Bishop of Bestice viz. to appoint a Congregation for the expounding of the Councel and well follow'd by him when he forbade all sorts of Persons Clerks or Laicks being private Men to make any Commentaries Glosses Annotations or any Interpretation whatsoever on the Decrees of that Councel Dr. Burgesse indeed made an Interpretation of his own Subscription but there had been no validity in it as we conceive unless it had been allow'd by the Superior Powers And so it was for as he saith It was accepted by King James and the Archbishop of Canterbury affirm'd it to be the true sense and meaning of the Church of England He refers there to Dr. Burgesse in his Answer to a much applauded Pamphlet Praefat. p. 26. A. Your mentioning that of Dr. Burgesse his Interpretation of his Subscription minds me of what I have read at the end of his Book call'd No Sacrilege nor Sin to alienate or purchase Cathedral Lands viz. in his Postscript to Dr. Pearson and his No Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine of the Church of England Printed A. 1660. where he saith As touching the Regal Supremacy we own and will assert it as far as you do or dare Only we had reason to take notice of the improper Expression in the 37th Article that the Queen's Majesty hath the Supreme Power For if the Declaration father'd on the late King and prefix'd to the Articles had so much Power with his Printer that he durst not alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642 and those Articles must be read Verbatim without Alteration or Explanation then we say again there is a Necessity of Reforming that Article in the expression of it and not to talk at random what was indeed the meaning unless we may have leave when we read it Regiâ declaratione non-obstante to declare the sense which the Declaration alloweth us not to do But the truth is that exception of the Doctor to the Articles may well pass for a Scruple or rather a Cavil and at this rate we should be put to it to say O King interpret for ever B. You say right Dr. Pierson in that Judicious Book of his call'd No Necessity of Reforming the Doctrine of the Church of England well observes that the 37th Article hath express reference to the Queen's Injunctions set forth in the year 1559. and those Injunctions take particular care that no other Duty Allegiance or Bond should be required to the Queen then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th her Majesty's Father or King Edward the 6th her Majesty's Brother The words of the Article declare that the Doctrine contained in it concerneth all the Kings as Kings The title in General is of the Civil Magistrates and the words run thus where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government we give not to our Princes c. shewing that what they gave to her they gave to all the Kings of England Which will appear more plainly out of the first Latine Copy Printed in the time of Queen Eliz. in the year 1563. read and approved by the Queen the words whereâ—…f are these Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam Calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem c. Being therefore the Article expresly mentioneth and concerneth the Kings of England as they are the Kings of England the mention of the Queen's Majesty in the Article can make the Doctrine no more doubtful then it doth our Allegiance in that Oath which was made 1 o Eliz. where the Heirs and Successors of the Queen are to appoint who shall accept the Oath the words of which are that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm But I hope the Heirs and Successors of Queen Elizabeth did never appoint that Oath to be taken in the Name of the Queen's Highness but in their own It may be supposed that some such like Cavilling or Scrupling humour possess'd the fancies of some in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames the First and that some occasion was thereby given to that Prince in those his Canons expresly therein maintaining the 39 Articles and the Subscription thereunto and particularly in the 36th Canon there to enjoyn a Subscription to three Articles in such manner and sort as is there appointed and of which the first is That the King's Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions c. and that no foreign Prince Person Prelate HAUE or OUGHT to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual c. and in which the words have or OUGHT to have might possibly be inserted out of a Royal Complaisance with the Desires of some Scruplers in whose behalf the Famous Dr. Rainolds moved the King at the Hampton-Court Conference that to the Position in the 37th Article viz. The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm of England might be added nor OUGHT to have but which motion the King then rejected as a thing superfluous and saying Habemus quod jure habemus You may find an Account of this twoâ—…old Subscription in Coke 4. Inst. c. 74. and where he saith Subscription required by the Clergy is twofold One by force both of an Act of Parliament CONFIRMING and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. 13. Eliz. c. 12. Another by Canens made at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by King James A. I had thought you told me that the 39 Articles owed no Confirmation nor Authority to that Act of the 13th of Eliz. B. I did tell you so and do think that when my Lord Coke used the word Confirming he spake cum vulgo or as the word is taken minus propriè and as it is taken in declarative Acts of Parliament sometime to mean declared and as I and others may in Discourse sometimes use the word But speaking properly to