knowing Christian Man judge what he ought to Teach or judge what is Faith what is Heresie likewise what is or is not a convenient Canon-Law or a fit Prayer to be used in his Churches and the like And more than these we do not find that the Acts ever gave K. H. 8th I believe it will be found that Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple and the Kings of Judah did as much or more as in reforming Abuses in God's Worship pulling down Superstition and Idolatry and the like and yet none imagined they in so doing usurp't the Office of the High-Priest as sacredly reserved to him then by the Law of Moses as the Pope's or that of Bishops is now to them 17. To these Examples I know it is commonly reply'd That these Kings did not do these Things without usurping the Priest's Office in case they did more than Execute what the Priests judg'd to be the Law of God and its Convenient Practice It being not the King's but Priest's Office to judge what was the Law of God to Teach it to the People and perswade them to Practise it And hence that they reach not King Henry's Case who was impower'd with Sixteen of the Clergy and Sixteen of the Laity to judge what Canons were not repugnant to the Law of God as in 25 H. 8. C. 19. and in his Court of Chancery to judge of Appeals from Spiritual Courts Nor Queen Elizabeth's Case who took upon her to order a New Form of Prayer and a New Manner of Consecrating Priests and Bishops 18. But this Reply invalidates not the Application of these Examples First Because in the Preamble of the Statute 24. C. 12. the Judgment of Things concerning the Law of God and Divinity is left to the Clergy as a thing of their and not the Laity's Office By which it appears that the King no more acted out of such an Office in himself than the Jewish Kings did And the same Office Queen Elizabeth denyes to her self in her Admonition and so leaves it and its Exercises to the Clergy And this is also evident because no Power is given to either of them by Act which only concerns us to order concerning the Law of God or its Practice without the Clergy's ordering it with them For in the First Sixteen Clergy-Men are mentioned In the Second the Spiritual Court if the Matter belonged to it Judged First And though an Appeal lay to the Chancery 't was not the Chancery but Commissioners who were to judge of that Appeal which Commissioners if the Case concern'd the Law of God 't is to be presumed were to be Clergy-Men as we shall see by and by Likewise Queen Elizabeth left the making of the Common-Prayer and Form of Consecration to Clergy-Men And hence they were never hindred from doing their Office that Christ gave them Power to do Neither did our Princes by these Laws pretend to do it but do what they did by the Clergies Directions as far as they judg'd them to direct right 19. Hence I Reply Secondly according to what has been said already That though no Lay-Man can be a Judge of what is Faith or a Preacher of it to which are reduced an Excommunicator or Denouncer of him that doth contrary to it or its Practice as of a Man to be avoyded and a Maker of Laws or Directions for its best Practice without any other Force than that of Excommunication in the most common or most proper Sense of these VVords which is the same as a Judge or Preacher authoriz'd or made by Christ's Immediate or Mediate Appointment Yet if the Word Judge be used to signify no more than one that knows or judges what is true Faith or its best Practice by Natural Reason not Authoritative Mission in this Sense every Lay-Man is and ought to be Judge of Faith and of its Preachers too because every Man has and ought to use his Reason in Faith as well as every thing else And he seeing many sorts of Faith pretended to be Christ's and many sorts of Preachers pretending to be True Ones is this way to judge of both these by the Reasons they bring for themselves and their Faith And hence the King as a Christian Man is in this Sense a Judge of Faith Nay in a particular Manner as he is King For as King he ought to use the Power he hath to see that Christ's true Faith be believ'd and practiz'd by his People And how can he see that Laws be made and executed for this without he knows or judges which it is Or how can he put in True and put out False Preachers without he knows by more than their own Words which are so And how can he establish right Laws for its Practice and abolish wrong Ones except he judge which are Good Ones which not Neither do I by this Power given to Princes of Judging in Matters of Faith give them that Power of Judgment which is proper to the Church Christ delivered his Doctrine not to Princes but Pastors and commanded Them not Princes to Teach the Flock and all the Flock Princes as well as private Men to hear their Voice Yet Faith being one of the many Things which fall under a Princes Care and about which he must needs Act one way or other I conceive he cannot Act in any thing without Judgment and so must of Necessity judge his way of Faith if he Act about Faith But the Church judges in order to Teach the Faithful the Prince in order to Govern his Subjects and appoint Rewards or Punishments We hold the Church Infallible and therefore She can oblige People to Interior Assent The Prince may happen to judge wrong which if he do we are not bound to Believe as he Judges Though we are bound to submit and patiently suffer the Penalties to which that wrong Judgment may expose us Other Differences there are which it is to no purpose to mention 20. Likewise If the Word Preacher signify no more than one that Teaches another what he knows of Christ's Doctrine and it 's right Practice then a Lay-Man may without Injury to the Clergy be a Preacher witness Apollo in the Acts Sir Thomas Moor in his proving Faith and disproving Heresies and writing Devout Treatises Parents in respect of their Children and God-Fathers in respect of their God-Children More-over What Injury would it have been if Sir Thomas More had been made such a Writer or Preacher by Act of Parliament And the same may be said of a King or Queen who either by Themselves or Counsel may be Learn'd enough Nay though every King be not a Preacher by Writing or Speaking yet he is a Supreme Authoritative Preacher in his kind since he by establishing one Faith and its Practice before another both Teaches and perswades to Practise it and in this way he hath none above him And since all properly call'd Preachers here have Leave or Jurisdiction from Christ and from our Law he
supremely gives them the Later Much more the Jurisdiction they have to make Temporal Laws to judge those that do against them and execute their Sentence And in this we have seen how the King as a Christian may be Judge and Teacher of Faith and that Authorized by the Law of the Land How as a King he may and ought to be Supreme Civil Judge of what Faith ought to be establish't by Law and the Supreme of those that Preach or cause People to Believe and Practice by establishing Faith its Preachers sent by Christ and their Directive Laws by Law and by giving them the Jurisdiction they may have from Law to do what Christ bid them lastly how he is the Supreme Giver of Power to make Civil Laws to Judge by them and Execute them 21. Thirdly There is in Truth more Assumed in the Objection than there is warrant for in the Act mentioned It does not appear there that the King is impower'd to judge of the Repugnance of Canons to the Law of God On the contrary it seems meant that that Matter should be left to the Clergy For why else should Sixteen of them be put into Commission Neither are the Words on which the Objection is grounded viz. That such Canons shall be retained as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c. the Words of the Parliament but of the Clergy themselves who cannot be thought to mean by them that the Laity should be Judges of the Law of God They are only recited by the Parliament which when it comes to do its own part uses other Expressions There are other Reasons why the King should interpose The Reason of the Act is assigned to be because Divers Constitutions c. be thought not only to be much Prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal and Repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness and his Subjects Of those things who can Judge so well as the King with the Assistance of some of the Laity best versed in the Laws of the Land Again the King was to add his Authority to those Canons to make them Binding and therefore must needs know what he should Authorize and see why he should do it And this is all the Power in him which can be Collected from this Statute As for Appeals the Act indeed orders they should for lack of Justice in other Courts be made in Chancery but not determined there but by Commission to be granted by the King that all Differences of his Subjects be finally determin'd by his Authority But 't is not said nor is to be supposed that those Commissions shall be granted to the Laity where the Case concerns the Law of God For Appeals are ordered by this Act to be as was directed by a former Act of the same Parliament An. 24 H. 8. By which Act where any Cause of the Law-Divine or Spiritual Learning hapned to come in question the Body-Spiritual of the Realm is declared to be Qualifyed and to have Power to determin it and therefore to them it must needs be meant to be left To return to our Matter again Since those Parliaments evidently knew their King was neither Bishop nor Priest which even in their Thoughts was the same as not to have Power to Act in Spiritual Things by our Saviour's immediate or mediate Supernatural Mission or which is the same thing by the Power of the Keys They evidently saw he neither had nor could have any Pastoral Power purely Spiritual much less the Supreme Power of that kind what-ever the Supremacy of that kind consists in Hence they could never intend to give him what they saw he could not have given to him nor signify any such Gift or Sense by their Words in the Act or Oath But only a Gift of the above-explicated Power arising from Nature and Reason A Legal Power to exercise which as a Governor they knew he might have from them and to say that they intended to flatter him with the Acknowledgment of a Power in him which they knew was not in him is a Fault that they cannot be prov'd Guilty of especially when we remember their Proviso And so according to the Axiom Every one is to be presumed Good till he be prov'd to be Bad they ought to be acquitted 23. Wherefore upon the whole it is many wayes evident that the Words in the Affirmative Part of the Oath cannot mean any thing but Supremacy of the Sword which whether in Temporal or Spiritual Things cannot be exercis'd but by Authority deriv'd from the King And this Supremacy is so evidently His that He needed not this Act for it He has it from God and Nature and as it is inseparable from the Crown alwayes had it even when Ecclesiastical Authority was at the Highest For though the Bishops claim'd an Independent Power of their own yet as Things do not cease to be by not being acknowledged They truly acted under him and in vertue of his Allowance and subject to his Controll When-ever he pleased to interpose as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisions Premunire and the rest made in Catholick Times shew he often did His Pleasure and Laws carry'd it notwithstanding their Pretences 24. That they did mean only thus is beyond all doubt apparent by all manner of wayes by which any thing can appear And though what hath been already said out of the Oath it self and all the Acts which are any way ordered to Establish the Duties to be acknowledg'd by it seem to force a Perswasion that only Royal Power is required to be own'd by the Affirmative Clause I cannot leave this Part till I put the Reader in mind lest he should suspect these Reasons Fallacious as seeming good Ones only to my self how both Learned Protestants and the Protestant-Church understand this to be the Sense of it I alledge then that all Protestant Authors not one I think excepted agree That 't is not the Power of the Keys but of the Sword which is in the King I could name several but chuse to mention only Doctor Bramhal late Arch-Bishop of Armagh because no Body speaks or I think can speak plainer And what he sayes I take to be the Sense of the Church of England his Works being very lately Reprinted in one Volume Dedicated by the Bishop of Limric to the Arch-Bishop of Dublin In his Schism Garded p. 311 312. speaking of this Act he sayes thus In a Word there is no Power ascribed to our King but meerly 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 exprest in Words less subject to Exception but the Case is clear 25. Next The 37. Article of the Church of England Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the Chief Government We give not to
s Preamble speaks only of such a Power of the Pope as was by reason of its Opposition to the Prerogatives of the Crown by Catholick Kings taken from him and restor'd to the Crown And of such a one as he exercis'd with great Damage to the Nation in Causes of Appeals in several Cases and for Remedy of this Damage it is enacted That he shall have this Power of being a Judge in those Causes no longer And if it be said that in this Preamble he is spoke of at least once as a Preacher when it is said that the Clergy of this Realm were alwayes able to Judge of God's Law without him I answer This invalidates not the Argument for it is Founded in this that where any Power is deny'd him all there spoken of is Temporal VVhence is infer'd that all deny'd him is Temporal Now it is not there said the Pope cannot or shall not Judge what is God's Law when a Question may rise in England about some Point as a Preacher or one skillful in God's Law But that the Clergy is able to do it without him And thence he seems to infer that 't is needless to appeal out of this Realm to know of him what is the Law of God if there should chance to be any doubt in case of Matrimony or Divorce for Example And it being a needless thing to appeal to him even as a Preacher and inconvenient to appeal to him as a Judge commands this not to be done And thus no Power was deny'd him where he was spoke of as a Preacher but only where he is spoken of as a Judge in those Causes as far as they depend on Human Laws Next the Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 20. speaks of no Power taken away but the Power of exacting Annats and First-Fruits and of Electing of Bishops which having accrew'd to him by time could not be Divine or Supernatural Power that is Power deriv'd to him or confer'd upon him Jure Divino 15. The Statute in the 25 K. H. 8. cap. 19. excludes perchance his as well as our Clergie's Power of continuing old Canon-Laws or making new Ones without the King's Approbation And the Power of making such Laws is grounded only on Human Reason shewing the Things prescribed to be convenient Of which Conveniency our Clergy and also Layity as knowing it best by living here where a thing may be Inconvenient that else-where is Convenient and not the Pope ought to be Judge VVhich is the Reason why Laws even of General Councils do not Oblige except where they are Receiv'd Hence not so much as a Just Human Authority is here taken from the Pope 16. But if it be here upon this Occasion ask'd VVhether the Clergy and Layity could in Reason and good Conscience renounce their Human Power to continue all such old Canons which the King should not approve of when as they being more in Number and more likely to be in the Right than he might judge either an Old or New Canon convenient which he might think to be inconvenient And hence whether the King in Reason and good Conscience could then and now by this Act 's being Revived and giving this same Power to the King take and keep the Power of Repealing all such Canons as he should please And consequently whether we can with a good Conscience Swear as we do in the later part of the Oath to defend this his Power if Conscientiously possest by him I answer That I believe they did according to Reason and Conscience in rather choosing the little Harm that might be in the Repealing of some good Old Canons than the great One that might proceed not only from the King's Displeasure but either from the Continuance of many former bad Canons or the Enacting of as bad New Ones or upon such other account upon which a Man may now after it is made Law upon the same or a better Motive continue to consent to the Continuation of what they did Likewise the King might as reasonably take upon him that a Law may not be continued which he dislikes as that a Bill which both Houses like may not be a Law except he likes it or as that a Law which he likes shall not be discontinu'd though both Houses that are more dislike it And this is for Publick order sake 17. The Statute 25 K. H. 8. cap. 21. speaks of no Power to be taken away but Power of dispensing in the King's Laws to the Prejudice of the Crown and impoverishing of the Subjects which Power must be of the same Nature as the Laws dispensed with 18. The last reviv'd Statute that takes any thing away is in the 28 K. H. 8. cap. 16. and it takes away only Power of giving Licences in abundance of Human Cases and among the rest the Power of putting Bishops into their Bishopricks and Priests into their Parishes and of giving them leave to do their Divine Offices VVhich though it may at first Sight look like Pastoral Power given him by Christ yet it is not For where-ever an Apostle dyed the People and Clergy of the Place had Power to choose themselves a Bishop and put him into his Bishoprick without the Pope's Consent And this Power they Exercis'd for many hundred Years all over Christendom according to the Antient Canons and Customs till partly under pretence of Respect to St. Peter's Successor but whether truly or only for that Reason is another Question it was by several Concordates between some Emperors Kings and Princes and States of Europe of one side and Popes on the other agreed There should be no Bishops allowed in their Territories but whom the Pope or Bishop of Rome should approve of Hence the Power which the Pope had that a Bishop could not or should not be put in without his Consent he got by Human Agreement and only this Power was taken here away For it is not said here that the Pope cannot or shall not perswade People to chuse themselves a Bishop that he sees want one or perswade a Bishop who hath Authority from Christ to do it to go and preach to People that want him which may belong to the Care our Saviour gave him over the Church but that they having a mind to have Bishops will have them of their own choosing and putting in and not of the Pope's as was of former Times practis'd And that this is their Sense is evident out of the History of what the Pope did before that time and of what they themselves did and hinder'd him to do afterwards Or it may be said in short that as they saw it not necessary by God's Law that the Pope should choose and give them a Bishop who were ready to do it themselves so they thought it not convenient he should and thence made a Law that he should not The Law not saying that he could not nor should not send them a Bishop in case of necessity in which case he hath Power from
that which is repugnant to the Ancient Laws of England and to the Prerogative Royal p. 340. That Jurisdiction purely Spiritual the same which I call Pastoral doth neither disinherit the Prince nor the Pâ—ers nor destroy and Annul the Laws and Prerogative Royal nor vex the Kings Liege people nor impoverish the Subject nor drain the Kingdom of its Treasures c. infint is not guilty of any of the grievances of which our Laws complain It is the external Regiment of the Church by new Roman Laws c. that are apparently guilty of all these evils These Papal Innovations we have taken away indeed more than these Innovations we have taken nothing away that I know of page 353. We have not renoanced the Substance of the Papacy except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive Power who considers besides that these things are not whisper'd in Corners but own'd in the face of the World nor the private fancies of a single man his Book being lately Reprinted after the Authors Death with the countenance of more considerable Authority than Books usually have and the same may be said of the other Protestant Authors above-cited will find himself put to it if he be urged to make out how he comes to pretend to understand the meaning of Protestant Laws better than Protestants themselves 5. It may very well be that a Protestant may be willing to swear what a Catholick cannot because one may think true what the other does not But where they both agree in the thing and what the Protestant means when he swears the Catholick thinks true as well as he and yet will not swear the same truth in the same words looks like a Riddle If the words All Power signify All Usurped Power to a Protestant I see not but they may signify the same to a Catholick too And if it be known that he means by them as the Protestant does 't is plain They cannot signify otherwise For the signification of words is nothing but the known meaning of those who use them And though they should signify otherwise elsewhere they can signify no more but so where 't is known no more but so is meant by them 6. This difficulty then in two words is only this Whether All Power in the Oath means absolutely All or All the Power mentioned and intended by the Act for the observation whereof the Oath was made That General words are ordinarily I had almost said always confin'd by Circumstances is a thing so known that 't is impertinent perhaps to mention at least to bring examples of it Whether Those words are confin'd in This Case is all we have to consider and to every mans Judgment and Conscience I leave it Only who is not satisfy'd with what has been said has still I conceive a safe way of proceeding by declaring before hand if he take the Oath that he takes it in the sense of the Law as understood by all Protestant Writers none excepted particularly Arch-Bishop Bramhal which as was shown seems to amount to a Consent of the Nation After which I for my part see no cause of Scruple remaining for the first Point 7. For the second who is perswaded that the Power Renounc'd by the Oath does indeed belong to the Pope by Divine Right For what is settled by Human may by Human Authority be unsettled undoubtedly cannot take the Oath But he should do well to consider how he comes to be so perswaded This is no place to treat the Question I shall only say that if any one take that Perswasion for Faith he is certainly mistaken and that many of the most Learned among Catholicks are mistaken too if it be true It is a Power which heretofore has drawn perpetual complaints from our Catholick Ancestors and many Laws for Redress of the Inconveniencies they suffer'd by it It is a Power for whose sake our Religion is at this day aspers'd with the imputation of Inconsistence with the Ease of Subjects and Security of the Common-wealth Who will maintain it engages himself to clear it from these Objections For if he do not he will not clear himself from doing his part to bring his Country again into what the Law calls Bondage and his Religion into the Scandalous shame of being indeed guilty of what is laid to her Charge No man can go about it without maintaining in the first place that our Catholick Ancestors complained always without cause and felt nothing when they cry'd out of the burthen If They had reason to complain Protestants have none to endure what they complained of nor can Catholicks of all men expect they should 8. In short there is nothing does more harm in the world then mistaken Zeal which under a mistaken pretence of Religion we see transports Men to things the most contrary to Religion that can be 'T is not to be thought that in our Communion there is no Humane Frailty Opinions have been broacht concerning the Pope and are to this day maintained prejudicial to say no more both to the Soveraignty of Princes and Hierarchy of the Church Whether the Power in question to exercise an independent Soveraign Coactive Judiciary Authority in all Princes Dominions and all Bishops Diocesses upon the matter to govern the Church and World alone be not of the number They should do well to consider who refuse the Oath for it's sake For if it be their Zeal is plainly a mistaken Zeal which as it uses to do deceives and carries them just contrary to what they mean the Scandal and to their Power ruine of Religion which they think to preserve For my part I beg of God the grace rather to suffer the loss of my own life than deny the Pope or any man any just right and I beg the same grace to preserve me from abetting unjust things even in the Pope Time has been when England has seen three Hundred Forreigners sent over at once by the Power in question to be provided of the first Vacant Benefices I should think my self neither good English-man nor good Christian if I should obstinately stand for a Power to commit such Exorbitancies FINIS
A TREATISE OF THE OATH OF SUPREMACY Printed in the YEAR 1679. THE Words of the Oath I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Kings Majesty is the only Supream Governor of this Realm and of all other His Highnesses Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ougbt to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith true Allegiance to the Kings Highness His Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Pre-eminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness His Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God and by the Contents of this Book Introduction 1. THe Oath of Supremacy has long been thought by the generality of Catholicks Inconsistent with Faith both for what it affirms of the King and denies of the Pope And truly who considers only the Words as they ly naked there without seeking to inform himself what they mean of any thing but the bare sounds has reason at first sight to check at it I am apt to believe that every body does not look farther at least I my self did not a great while and therefore thought of it as others did 2. Yet it seemed strange that the most Learned of the Church of England should freely take it without scruple and at the same time Irreprehensibly affirm both of the Kings Power and the Popes what Catholicks therefore refuse the Oath because they think it denies I perceived they must of necessity understand it otherwise than We did For to suspect that either of us proceed otherwise than according to our conscience They in Taking and VVe in Refusing is not either for a Charitable or Reasonable Man I would not handsomly unriddle when a mistake there must needs be on one side how the mistake should ly on theirs or which way they should misunderstand an Oath of their own making In short I knew not what to make of it and while I had no Key to the Lock but the bare words could not easily open it For still those words seemed Irreconcilable to Truth and to that Truth which they profess as well as that which I believe 3. Upon farther search things appeared somthing otherwise I found that what those Learned Men mean when they swear and which they think the VVords of the Oath mean is not only sutable to what they believe themselves but likewise to what we believe and I found there is more Reason than I imagined to believe that the words of the Oath do indeed mean as they judge they do and not as VVe thought VVhat occurs to me I thought a seasonable Charity to communicate to others lest by seeking to avoyd one Error we fall into many 4. For as we are on the one side obliged to prefer a good Conscience before all Worldly respects so we are obliged on the other to obey our Soveraign and his Laws where with a good conscience we can No Man can justify the refusal of an Oath tendred by Lawful Authority without a sufficient Reason The Reason why we have refused this Oath is because we apprehended it Inconsistent with Faith And that is undoubtedly a sufficient Reason if the apprehension be true but if it be not we are left in the Lurch If the Oath as some think do not renounce the Faith of all Catholicks but only the Opinions of some and those both false and pernicious to refuse it is not to preserve but to scandalize our Faith with the imputation of obliging us to things by the Wisdom of the Nation judg'd Intolerable It is to confirm the bad opinion which some have of us that our Religion is indeed Inconsistent with the security of the Commonwealth In a word what we took for Religion would prove Faction 5. Before I speak of the Oath it self it will be convenient to observe that divers priviledges have at divers times been granted by the Piety of Princes to the Church and Church-Men when being long used and their origin either forgotten or dissembled have at length been commonly enough lookt upon and claimed as the proper and inherent Right of the Church Among these is the right of holding Judiciary Pleas and Courts proceeding like Secular Courts to Sentence even of Temporal and Corporal Punishments as Fines Imprisonment c. and Executing their Sentences by their own Officers unless in case of Death for which whether for Form or Substance the Prachiam Seculare was usually call'd upon These Courts were settled by little and little and their Power was sometimes more sometimes less which variety remains to this day as the Secular Power in several Nations concurs more or less with them But it became at last the general Practise that Ecclesiastical Persons should appear only in these Courts for all causes and the Laity for some chiefly such as had relation to the Law of God The Judges there being either Ecclesiastical Men themselves or acting by Commission from them the Courts got the Name of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts the matters determinable in them of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual matters or causes and their Power of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Power But 6. When things had gone thus Time out of mind and People saw them constantly act not by renewed Commissions as Subordinate Officers use to do but by a Right of their own a Right charily preserved by them and freely confest by every body els as undoubtedly it was both by a good Title at first and a quiet possession of many Hundred Years it came to be thought at last that this Right of theirs was given them with their Character by God whereas in Truth it proceeded from the condescendence of Pious Men and as all Humane things are subject to change may by the same Power which gave it on just occasion be taken away 7. In the mean time the Notion of Spiritual when applyed in the Law to Power Judge Court Matter Cause or Thing has generally relation to these External Courts The word is ordinarily taken so in our common Language but there seldome otherwise and when we find it in the Law we must expect it should signify as it uses to do in the Law not as it does in Philosophy or Controversy or Ascetics It is so well known that I know not whether it be not idle to mention the different Significations which the same words have in different Occasions For example who thinks of the Theological vertue when he is to swear Faith to his Prince who of a Stone or Tree when he hears of a Body not in Philosophy but Physick and when a Man
of business is talking of a Material action or consideration He would be thought strangely to rove who should fancy Material there signifyed as among Metaphysicians The frequency of such cases made it necessary that People might understand one another to settle a Rule for the understanding of words and establish this maxime that they be alwayes understood Secundum subjectam Materiam as they phrase it according to the subject of which they speak I cannot tell whether this Rule have alwayes been remembred in the case of this Oath but doubt that who forgets it any where hazards to perplex himself into inextricable confusion Section I. Of the Affirmative Clause of the OATH 1. THis premised I come to the Oath which consists Principally of two Clauses One Affirmative the other Negative according to which the rest which have any shew of difficulty are to be understood The Affirmative acknowledges the King to be the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and the rest of his dominions as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal By this clause it was apprehended not only by Catholicks but others too that the King was invested with Power to do all that a Supreme purely Spiritual Governour could do Preach Confer Orders Administer the Sacraments c. Which as it is evidently false so 't is evident likewise that 't is not the meaning of the Clause 2. For First the Oath being enjoyned by Law for the acknowledgment of what was re-setled by Law in the King it's words must bear the sense they use to do in Law-Language and Law-Books which according to what has been said before is that the King is Supreme Governour of this Realm So that who ever hath any share in the Government of it be he Spiritual or Temporal Man hath it from and under the King 3. Secondly These words being in two Acts of Parliament whose declared sense is to restore what was due to the Crown ought so to be understood as to acknowledg all and no more in the King then those two Acts either in themselves or in those of King Henry the Eighth revived by them restored to him since no more at most and perchance not all of them are ordered to the making and consequently sense of this Oath Now what was restored by these every diligent Reader of them will find to be only what may without injury to Gods Law be possess'd by the King 4. For to begin with King Henry the Eighth in the first of them viz. Stat. 23. H. 8. C. 9. He only claims or exercises the Power of ordering where citations belonging to Spiritual Courts of this Realm shall be made which may be seen to be evidently his due In the Second 24 K. H. 8th C. 12. he takes Power only to order that no appeals in matters of Wills Marriages Divorces Tithes Oblations and Obventions shall be made out of this Realm alleadging for reason that as to the Temporal part of them they belong to the Imperial Crown and as to what in them may concern the Law of God to the Clergy of this Realm as being of parts fit for it to whom he expresly leaves this part not assuming it to himself 5. In the 3d. Stat. 25. C. 20. He uses the Power to restrain the payment of Annats and first-Fruits to Rome to which Temporal Power extends and with his Bishops in Parliament orders how others are to be elected and consecrated by them which Catholick Kings use to do 6. In the 4th 25. C. 9. The Power which he exercises is that no new Canon-Laws shall be made or old ones stand without his approbation Which he may have as a Knowing Man they being things of human institution nay as a Prince he ought to have since 't is known that Canon Laws do often clash with the Laws of the Realm Though if he abuses this Power by hindering good Laws and unprejudicial to the State He is to answer for that though to God alone 7. In the 5th 25. K. H. c. 21. He takes Power to hinder Paying of Money to Rome to hinder the Pope from Dispensing in Human Spiritual Laws to dispense in them Himself by his Bishops and with his Parliament to annul them All which certainly he may do as King And that he intended here to do no more than he might do appears by a Proviso of this Act revived by Q. E. and afterwards to be Cited 8. In the 6th 26. C. 14. He only assigns Suffragans by consent of Bishops in Parliament Which Assignment is a thing of Human Institution and as it depends on the Law of the Land may proceed from him And if it be said by any That since Christ gave his Apostles Power to Preach where they should please and think fit and so that they have from Christ Power independent of any Law of the Land as in times of Heathen Emperors to agree among themselves what Territories every one shall have to do his Duty in which the King cannot take from them as he may seem here to do 'T is reply'd That They may agree among themselves to have what Territories the Law or King shall assign them And thus at least the King may without Injury because with their Consents assign them Diocess's as well as the Legislators in England and in Forreign Countries divide one Parish into two or compound two into one as occasion invites without the least Danger apprehended of violating Faith or to speak more properly transgressing any Divine Institution And that it was done with their Consents is evident because here They did agree to it in Parliament Or it may be said That They themselves in Parliament did this And the Laity agreed with them to make it the Law of the Land 9. In the 7th 28. C. 16. He takes Power to give those Temporal Gifts which the Pope formerly gave to put Bishops into their Bishopricks Curates into their Cures as Catholick Princes now do and to give them leave to do their Duties not as to the purely Spiritual Intrinsical Power in common but as to some Circumstances belonging to the Exercise of it and commodious for the Subject So as they should have it from Parliaments and not from Rome Which he might lawfully do as is just now explicated and also make a Law they should not have it from Rome it being not necessary They should They having Power from Christ to Preach every where till they limited their Territories by their own Consent and here dissent from doing it at the Pope's Pleasure 10. In the 8th He takes Power to make a Civil Law as to Degrees of Marriages And if as he did this he judg'd what was of Faith in the Case he did it not as sent by Christ but as a Schollar Authoriz'd by Law which he may also do or as pre-inform'd by his Bishops In the 9th and last He only makes a Civil Order concerning the Marriage of Doctors of the Civil Law 11. The
Title of Q. E's first Act made 1. El. c. 1. being an Act restoring to the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual and abolishing all Forreign Power repugnant to the same evidently denotes that what she took was in Catholick-Times due to the Crown And Possest by Gift or Usurpation from it till she took it back For she could not call what might be due only since the 22th Year of her Father's Reign Antient Jurisdiction And since purely Spiritual Jurisdiction was not then in the Crown it could not be in her Time restored to it The Preamble also speaks of K. H. 8's restoring Antient to wit in respect of his Times Jurisdictions of Right belonging c. which could be only those of Catholick Times More-over By this Preamble which contains the Design of the whole Act praising K. H. 8th for taking away from the Pope what Power he had Usurped and restoring it to the Crown dispraising Queen Mary for un-doing what he had done in this and desiring a Remedy or that Things be brought into the state in which K. H. put them as also by this Acts reviving the afore-said Nine Statutes it seems evident that this Act intended to give the Queen no more than the Revived Acts gave him giving her here in general Words and the same is to be said of taking away from the Pope and at once what those several Acts gave by parts Now that they gave him only Natural Temporal Earthly or Civil Power and not any Super-natural derived from the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven we have seen by numbring up all Particulars given and finding ever one of them to be but Temporal and we may also find by reflecting that he declares in the Preamble to the Second of them That he intended to do more fully what several Catholick Kings had done in part And this is clearly confirm'd by seeing in particular what it was which this Act when it comes to Establish doth Establish in her For we see the Particulars mentioned are only Power for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons to wit to the end that she might know their Faults and for the Punishment of all such Faults And as for giving Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power 't is already seen to be in our Law-Books but Human. 12. Presently after this the Act tells us That the End design'd to be brought about by the Oath is the Maintenance of the Act or the acknowledging what is in it Established And hence except we are so unreasonable as to think that the Oath was design'd for the Maintenance of this and some thing else not spoken of and for want of its Knowledg that way not to be maintained or acknowledged since no Man can maintain or acknowledg a Position he doth not know of we must say That the Words of the Oath signify nothing at all more in the King than the Acts give him Since then 't is by the Consideration of all Particulars given evident that the Act neither by its self nor by the Acts revived in it gives the King any Power as from Christ to preach Christ's Doctrine perswade People and help them by giving them the Sacraments to practise those Parts of it 'T is also evident that the Words of the Oath signify no such thing in him 13. It only remains to see whether the one other Act made 5. E. cap. 1. concerning this Matter and Oath gives her any more than this former What represents it self first to our View is its Title which runs thus An Act for the Assurance of the Queens Majesties Royal Power over all States and Subjects within her Dominions Now that Royal is no more than Human every Body that understands both these Words knows Next comes the Act it self in all its Particulars doing what the Title speaks and no more For first For Conservation of the Queen and the Dignities of the Crown and to avoid several Mischiefs proceeding from the usurped Jurisdiction of the See of Rome it makes the Maintaining of this Premunire and Treason and to hinder the Maintenance of this because it did those Human Mischiefs for those Human Good 's sake What is it else but assuring her Royall Power Secondly It makes a Law that the Sense which the Queens Admonition gives the Oath shall be its Sense And that this gives her only a Regal Power we shall here after clearly see Thirdly and as to our purpose Lastly It makes a Proviso to exempt the Temporal Lords from this Oath and any thing contain'd in this Act. And why doth it do this It sayes expresly Because her Majesty was otherwise assured of their Faith and Allegiance Which would have been no good Reason in case she had required more than Faith and Allegiance to be given her For though she had been assured of these yet for the Assurance of that other thing which she requires to be given her she might have caus'd them to take the Oath and not have exempted them from it 14. Thirdly Our Assertion may be confirmed by considering that the Oath sayes not barely That she is the Supreme Governour in all Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical where Supreme Governour might possibly be in Sense the same as Supreme Preacher but expresly that she is the Supreme Governour of the Realm in all such causes And since Supreme Governour of a Realm is in common and indeed all speech the same exactly as Temporal Governour the Oath only sayes That she is the Supreme Temporal Governour in all Spiritual Things Which it would be Treason to deny her not only in all those Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Things of which only we have shew'd the Oath to speak in the Common Sense of those Words as they are us'd in Law But also in the most Spiritual Thing that can be imagin'd as in the Faith of the Trinity Incarnation and the like For she is by her Office the Temporal Rewarder of this Vertue and Punisher of iâ—s contrary Vice which is to be a Temporal Governour as to this Vertue and Vice 15. Fourthly Because she sayes expresly in her Admonition in which she calls it an Oath of Allegiance and not Religion and Allegiance thereby shewing that she required no more than Allegiance by it except we will say It is an Oath of more than she said it was who best understood it that she took only what K. H. 8th and K. Ed. 6th took to wit in the Acts which she liked and reviv'd and not in Acts which she dislik'd with what was taken in them and therefore repeal'd as is most reasonable to understand her Especially since she adds lest we should mistake her to take any thing that in them might seem Uncatholick And what was of Antient which is the same as Catholick time due to the Crown Now what K. H. 8th took which only is to our purpose all that K. Ed. 6th might do remaining by her Repealed we have largely and I think fully seen to
our Prince the Ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given 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 26. I could add here divers other Eminent and publickly approved Authors who are very full in expressing the same Sense of the Oath as Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in Queen Elizabeth dayes Doctor Carlton Bishop of Chichester in King James's Time both cited at large by Mr. Cressy in his Reflections upon the Oaths Sect. 6. and others But I conceive enough is said to the clearing the Affirmative Clause of the Oath and perhaps they may be more proper here-after to explain the Negative Part of it to which we now address Section II. Of the Negative Clause of the OATH THe Negative Clause runs thus That no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm Now though there want not some who think that taking the Words of the Oath in a Law-Sense and allowing Common Reason to scan the whole not Fancy to catch suddainly at single Words the Oath even as it lyes may lawfully be taken by those who are able to penetrate throughly into it Yet the Generality whom chiefly I must endeavour to satisfy are more apt to judge that if those Words be taken in the full Latitude of what they seem first to sound they cannot be sworn by any Catholick And they have Reason For it is plain that no Human Authority can take away what is given by Christ It is plain in Scripture that Christ did give to his Apostles and in them their Successors Power to Teach and Feed to Bind and Lose c. and this over all the World The Exercise of this Power may be and is restrained by Human Constitutions because it being to Edification not Destruction 't is against its Nature to be us'd where 't would do harm as if every Pastor should promiscuously Feed every Flock there would happen so much Confusion and Disorder that a good part of the Sheep would be not Fed but Starv'd 'T is this which truly binds up the Power Human Laws shew and that Authoritatively and Obligingly where the Harm is but have their obliging Vertue from that Harm Should They under pretence of Destruction forbid what Truths were to Edification They would indeed expose the Contraveners to Penalties but induce no Obligation to Obedience upon the Conscience So we see the Apostles the great Masters of Submission and Obedience to Authority when they were commanded to forbear Preaching the Doctrine of Christ declared plainly it was their Duty in that case to prefer God before Man But where Edification requires the Power should be exercis'd no Power of Man can hinder the Ordinance of God nor shelter those who do not Evangelize from the Wo with which they are threatned As any Bishop and any Priest might perform the Functions of a Bishop and Priest in any Part of the World before Canons were made to limit them to Places and Persons so They may still where Necessity or what-ever Circumstance takes off the Restraint and leaves the Power to its own Original Liberty Now the VVords of the Oath saying That no Forreign Prelate has any Spiritual Power in England do in the utmost Latitude of their Sound deny that the properly Spiritual Power given and commanded to be us'd by Christ in all the VVorld can even on any occasion be exercis'd by any Forreign Prelate in England And this being contrary to the Appointment and Grant of Christ cannot I think be sworn by any who believes in Christ For a Forreign Prelate being a Prelate cannot be without the Power of a Prelate nor that Power excluded from any Part of the VVorld where Edification requires it 2. I purposely abstain from speaking particularly of the Pope because the Oath speaks not particularly of him though it comprehends him under the General Term Prelate And because I conceive his Power concerns us not at present since the Case would be the same though there were no such thing as a Pope in the World For our Question is not What Power forreign Prelates have but What they have not If the Oath be meant of the Power given by Christ it is opposite to the Power given by him to all Prelates and so not Takeable for their sakes If it be not meant of that Power it is not opposite to what was given by Christ to any and so not Refusable for the Pope's sake Our Business at present is to inquire What Power the Oath means not what Christ gave If we find the Oath leaves it untouch't 't is best for us to leave it so too For to do otherwise is to stray into a different and unconcerning Question and amuse our selves unprofitably with what is not spoken of 3. That the Oath does not speak of that Power at all there are many Reasons to perswade me They who fram'd the Oath were Christians and knew and acknowledged the uncontroulable Power of Christ I cannot imagin they either would go about to take away any thing which he gave or think they could though they would They knew that notwithstanding the Confinement of Pastors to their own Flocks as firmly establisht as Human Laws both Ecclesiastical and Civil can establish any thing nothing is more apparent in Ecclesiastical History than that Prelates thought themselves at liberty to exercise the Power of Prelates upon occasion any where As Lucifer Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia made them a Bishop at Antioch St. Gregory of Nazianzen took care of Constantinople and a hundred such Examples there are England to its great Advantage has had Experience of the same as when Germanus and Lupus came hither out of France and preserved us from Arianism At this day if a Bishop of the Church of England happen to go beyond Sea as I think some did when His Majesty was there himself though they carry not with them that External Power which they have in their own Dioceses I suppose they do not think themselves bard from Preaching or Ordaining or Exercising any Episcopal Function where they think it necessary or expedient because they are in the Diocess of another Man And so though the Priests which are Ordained in the Church of Rome are liable in their Persons to the Penalty of the Laws in England no Body thinks their Acts invalid None will Re-baptize one whom they have Baptized or think they live in Adultery who pursuant to the Doctrine of that Church receive the Sacrament of Marriage from them Every Forreign Person is as much excluded by the Oath as Forreign Prelates Had Luther or Calvin come hither would They have been bard from
our Saviour to provide for the Flock and so have other Bishops too in such case besides him but only that he should not in this case of no-Necessity Which is to take from him not the Power but the unnecessary Use of that Power which last was certainly not given by God 19. Likewise Bishops and Priests had from our Saviour Power to preach and that all the World over as they should think fit without its being necessary to have this Power from St. Peter's Successor But after some time they thought fit to agree that each one should not do his Duty every where nor at his own Discretion but only in the Place allotted to him and at the Discretion chiefly of the Pope at least within his Patriarchate And the Power that was by this Agreement given the Pope was here by the Disagreement of this Nation in Parliament taken away So that now they should have their Places allotted by it and at the Discretion of it exercise the Power they had from Christ 20. Having thus seen that when any Power of the Pope was in the Reviv'd Statutes turn'd out none but Human was spoken of Let us now see of what kind Q. Elizabeth speaks in her Acts. 21. In the Title of her First Act 1 Eliz. cap. 1. none is spoken of but Power Repugnant to the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown Now one Human Power is often Repugnant to another and in our Case the Pope's having Power to Judge some Causes here without having it as from or under her is Repugnant to her Imperial Power of having all Judges in the External-Court proceed under and from her But not the Ministerial Power our Saviour gave to preach his Doctrine and feed his Sheep a part whereof is to render to Caesar what is Caesar's In the Preamble we hear only of Usurp'd Power taken from the Pope by K. H. 8th And who can think that it here calls the Power our Saviour gave to preach Usurp'd But least one should think they meant not to call the Power which our Saviour gave Usurp'd but to call his pretence of being Chief Preacher so let him consider how the Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown restor'd is put both here and every where as relative to it So that where-ever there is mention made of Power taken from the Pope there is also mention made of Power restor'd to the Crown and where ever of Power restor'd to the Crown also of Power taken from the Pope Which gives one reason to think that none was taken away from Him but what was given to the Crown nor any thing given to the Crown but what was taken from Him And this is render'd more evident by Bishop Bramhal's Words Schism Garded p. 340. Whatsoever Power our Laws did devest the Pope of they invested the King with it Now this being so how is it possible they should apprehend the Pretence of being Chief Preacher or Pastor though false so usurp'd as to belong of Antient Time to our Crown and to be now restor'd to it 22. Next by the Fruit let him know the Tree And what is all the Good Fruit there mention'd as proceeding from what was taken away from the Pope and restor'd to the Crown Being kept in good Order and freed from intolerable Charges which are Temporal Fruits And what is all the bad Fruit there mention'd as proceeding from the Pope's having got all his Old Power again by Queen Mary's Act of Repeal Bondage under an Usurp'd-Forreign Power to the intolerable Charges of the Subjects If this be all the Fruit that grew upon all the Stocks of Power he had formerly taken from him could any of them be any other than the Temporal Stock of Power opposit to that by which the King kept them in good Order or of Power to get Money And lastly since this Preamble desires nothing but Freedom from these Evils who can imagin that this Act speaks of any other Roots but these to be pluck'd up Especially since in that Part of the Act in which this Power is taken away it is still all call'd Usurp'd all call'd Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Which Words as being in our Law must determin the word Power to import Temporal 23. Lastly The Title of the Act 5 Q. Eliz. cap. 1. being An Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Majesties Royal Power over all States and Subjects within her Dominions the word Power as often as 't is us'd in the Act must be understood in a Sense conducing to the Assurance of Royal Power except one should think the Law-makers to be so Imprudent as to use it in a Sense no ways conducing to effect their Design and what only Sense conduces to that end we have already seen Moreover the Preamble declaring no Design but the Preservation of the Queen and the Dignities of her Crown and the avoyding of Mischiefs that have befallen Her her Crown and Subjects by reason of the Usurp'd Power of the See of Rome all the VVords of the Act are to be understood of no other Power than that which is the Reason or Cause of those Mischiefs and of that only which being taken away the Ends aim'd at will be compass'd and this for the same Reason alledg'd before And now being come to the end of our View of every Particular deny'd by the Acts And being conscious that every particular Power deny'd to the Pope is Temporal we may solidly conclude that all deny'd him is such 24. For a Second Proof of the said Second Proposition let us reflect how it is altogether unreasonable to think that these Acts take away any Power from the Pope of which they express no dislike nor make any Complaint of its being in him and how our Eyes testify that they signify no dislike of his Preaching Power But only of his Power which was a Diminution of the King's Power as being Part of it and so Repugnant to its being intirely in him and of his Power to exact Mony for Dispensations Licences c. which was chargeable to the Nation and which was far different from that other which Christ gave him 25. For a Third Reason 't is incredible they would have done a thing in these Acts no wayes conducing to the Design they express themselves to have in them which only we ought to judge they had For they only speak of restoring what was Usurp'd from the Crown and abolishing what was Repugnant to its being Restor'd of freeing the Subjects from inconvenient Laws Judicatures and great Charges of securing the Queens Person her Royal Authority over her Subjects and their Allegiance to her To the compassing of which End the taking away the Pope's Power to preach Christ's Doctrine which enjoyns the giving the Crown its due and is no Power to oppress People by Inconvenient Laws or Exactions of Money in the Cases complain'd of nor to prejudice the Queen or her Soveraignty over her Subjects or their Allegiance to her is no way conducing VVhen as
the taking the aforesaid Temporal Powers away is very much as I have already prov'd 26. For a Fourth Reason we may reflect that this Act both by its Title and Preamble seems to intend the Exclusion of only what K. H. 8. excluded in his here approv'd and reviv'd Acts only with this Difference that this seems to do at once and in general VVords what his did by Parts and in more particular Terms And he as we have seen by looking into all Particulars excluded not the Pope as Pastor More-over as she did what he did so he did fully what Catholick Kings shew'd him Example to do If one may take his VVord in the Preamble to the Statute 24 King Henry the 8th cap. 12. and the express VVords of his Proviso An. 25. cap. 21. after which he did nothing of Note besides ordering that Bishops should have their Bishopricks and preach without the Pope's Order as they did for a long time among the Brittains and others Also we may gather their Senses are the same from alike way of proceeding and speaking in Law 27. For a Fifth That 't is unreasonable to think that this Parliament should in this Act exclude the Pope's purely Spiritual Power as far as it is held to be a Tenet of Catholick Religion all over the VVorld and in the same Act revive the afore-said Proviso that formerly commanded it should not be excluded Except we should say that it had at the same time a mind it should and should not be kept in Kept in because the Will they had that the Words of the former Statute should not be taken in a Sense contrary to the Religion of the then Catholick Church which believ'd Religiously the said purely Spiritual Power of the Pope which Will these Men express'd by Reviving the Proviso could proceed only from a mind that no such Religious Tenet nor consequently this of the Pope's purely Spiritual Power should be deny'd And Not kept in if in this it denyes or excludes it And that the Proviso commands that is clear for it runs thus 28. Provided alwayes that this Act nor any Thing or Things therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted or expounded that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline or vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any Things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendom or in any other Things declared by Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary for Your and Their Salvation But only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient to repress Vice and for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Unity and Tranquility from Rapine and Spoyl ensuing much the old Antient Customs of this Realm in that Behalf Not minding to seek for any Reliefs Succours or Remedies for any Worldly Things and Human Laws in any Case of Necessity within this Realm but at the Hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successours Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an Imperial Power and Authority in the same and not oblig'd in any Worldly Causes to any other Superior 29. A Sixth Reason is Because a Proviso of the last Act 5 Eliz. cap. 1. sayes thus Provided alwayes that for as much as the Queen's Majesty is otherwise sufficiently assur'd of the Faith and Loyalty of the Temporal Lords of her Highnesses Court of Parliament Therefore this Act nor any Thing therein contained shall not extend to compel any Temporal Person of or above the Degree of a Baron of this Realm to take or pronounce the Oath above-said not to incur any Penalty limited by this Act for not Taking or Refusing the same any thing in this Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Where we see the Queen's being without this Act and Oath sufficiently assur'd of the Temporal Lords Faith and Loyalty is brought as a Reason why neither it nor its Oath belongs to them which would have been no Reason in case it had been also to deny the Pope's being Chief Preacher or such a Preacher as is to have a particular Care that all Christians and English among the rest know and practise Christ's Doctrine and that all Preachers and English amongst the rest Preach and help others under them to Practise the same For the Act and Oath being in this Supposition made upon two Accounts to wit for the Assurance of Allegiance and Denyal of Religion the Act might have belong'd to them and the Oath might have been offer'd them though the Queen had been other-wise assur'd or their Allegiance for Denyal of that Part of Religion which the Queen was so far from being other-wise assur'd that they did deny that she otherwise certainly knew that abundance at least of them did constantly profess it 30. For a Seventh and last Reason I alledge that they could not intend to make People swear in the First and Fifth of her Reign when this Oath was made and enjoyn'd that the Pope had not the Power of a Pastor then in England when as they certainly knew he had and exercised such a Power over Multitudes of Catholicks that then were by the State permitted to Live in and profess an Obedience to him as such Especially if it be found that the greatest Part of this Parliament were Catholicks which would not vote the Forswearing of their Faith And if they did not intend it their VVords do not signify it If it be said they could not intend to make the People swear he had not de facto such a Power since every Body knew this to be evidently False but that he had not de jure or ought not to have such a Power I answer 1st That the Words are And that no Forreign Prince c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction c. within this Realm And unless one will say that Hath and Ought to have are just the same and that Hath has not its Signification as well as Ought to have which is not very likely the Meaning must be that he hath not de facto the Power they there speak of Which infers that they there speak not of Pastorall Power 31. Next I answer That this Argument evidently concludes what it endeavour'd to wit that they could not intend that the Words of the Oath should signify that the Pope had not any Pastorall Power in England de facto And hence I argue that they could not intend to take them in the whole Latitude of their Sound and also that they intend to exclude no Pastorall Power de jure First Because their Words speak no more of this than they do of that of which they speak not at all Next Because 't is not likely that they should intend to make his Pastorall Power de jure be abjur'd by some as prejudicial to the Jurisdictions of the Crown for example and that others should not abjure it but be irreprehensibly permitted to believe and profess it Lastly Because it was Premunire and Treason
when they fall into errour Which side soever they take either obedience to their Wills or submission to their swords is their due by Gods Law And that is all which our Oath exacteth Again This is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and which you Id. ibid p. 256. JESUITS so bitterly detest That Princes be Gods Ministers in their own Dominions bearing the Sword freely to permit and publickly to defend that which God commandeth in Faith and good Manners and in Ecclesiastical Discipline to receive and establish such Rules and Orders as the Scriptures and Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdoms And as they may lawfully command that which is Good in all Things and Causes be they Temporal Spiritual or Ecclesiastical So may they with just Force remove whatsoever is Erroneous Vitious or Superstitious within their Lands and with External Losses and Corporal Pains repress the Broachers and Abettours of Heresies and all Impieties From which Subjection unto Princes no Man within their Realms Monk Priest Preacher nor Prelate is exempted And without their Realms no Mortal Man hath any Power from Christ judicially to depose them much less to invade them in open Field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sense Spiritual Ibid. p. 173. in marg Jurisdiction seems by the Oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince Judge of Faith And Ibid p. 252. then more particularly To devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church is not the Princes Vocation But to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the Place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical Things and Causes Princes be neither the Devisers nor Directers of them but the Confirmers and Establishers of that which is Good and Displacers and Revengers of that which is Evil. Which Power we say they have in all Things and Causes be they Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal Hereto his Adversary is brought in replying And what for Excommunications and Absolutions be they in the Princes Power also To this he answers The Abuse of Excommunication in the Priest and Contempt of it in the People Princes may punish Excommunicate they may not for so much as the Keys are no part of their Charge Lastly to explain the Negative Clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Ibid. p. 218. Princes to be Supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of Truth or Right But without Superior on Earth to repress them with violent Means and to take their Kingdoms from them Thus Doctor Bilson whose Testimony may be interpreted to be the Queens own Interpretation of the Oath since as appears by the Title page of his Book what he wrote was perused and approved by Publick Authority And to such a Sense of the Oath as this there is not a Catholick Clergy Man in France Germany Venice or Flanders but would reatdly subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctor Carleton in King James his time thus states the Matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There Carleton of Jurisdict c. 1. p. 8 9. is a Triple Power in the Bishop of Rome First of Order secondly of Internal Jurisdiction Thirdly of External Jurisdiction The First is refer'd to the Sacraments the Second to Inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience the Third to that External Government which is practised in External Courts And confesseth that of the First and Second there is no question between us but only of the Third Then of this saith Carleton we are agreed that the Question between us and them is only of Jurisdiction coactive in External Courts binding and compelling by Force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments besides Excommunication As for Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious Offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures c. this we reserve intire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This Power hath been practised by the Church without Coactive Jurisdiction other than of Excommunication But when Matters handled in the Ecclesiastical Consistory are not Matters of Faith and Religion but of a Civil Nature which yet are called Ecclesiastical as being given by Princes and appointed to be within the Cognisance of that Consistory And when the Censures are not Spiritual but Carnal Compulsive Coactive here appeareth the Power of the Civil Magistrate This Power we yield to the Magistrate and here is the Question Whether the Magistrate hath right to this Power or Jurisdiction c This then is the thing that we are to prove That Ecclesiastical coactive Power by force of Law and corporal Punishments by which Christian People are to be governed in external and contentious Courts is a Power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again Id. ibid. p. 42. afterward he sayes Concerning the Extention of the Churches Jurisdiction it cannot be denyed but that there is a Power in the Church not only Internal but also of External Jurisdiction Of Internal Power there is no question made External Jurisdiction being understood all that is practised in External Courts or Consistories is either Definitive or Mulctative Authority Definitive in Matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative Power may be understood either as it is with Coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But Coactive Jurisdiction was never practised by the Church when the Church was without Christian Magistrates But was alwayes understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctor Bramhal Bishop of Derry in our late King's dayes and now Arch-Bishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative Parts of the Oath touching the King 's Supreme Authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Pope's Schisme guarded Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his Book called Schism Guarded c. The sum of which Book is in the Title-page exprest to consist in shewing That the great Controversie about Papal Power is not a question of Faith but of Interest and Profit not with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome c. This Learned and Judicious Writer thus at once states the Point in both these Respects My last Ground sayes he is That neither King Henry
he let the Queen's Act remain unrepeal'd by which it necessarily retain'd her Sense with which its Opposit could not be for a Sense exclusive of Pastoral Power must have been superadded to the former Sense and this he also did not First because since he takes not that Power to himself the Words will not with good Sense bear the Exclusion of the Pope's Power Next because he in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance pag. 46. declares himself not to be against this Power of the Pope saying That he could be content that the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of the West and were the First among all Bishops and Princeps Episcoporum so as he be no otherwise than as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum which is all we contend for and who can think that he put a Sense into an Oath to make People forswear what he himself did not dislike 5. Lastly because this could not have been done by him so at least as to oblige Catholicks by reason of its being in not to take the Oath in case it were otherwise lawful except he had declar'd by Law or at least by some Authentick Act such a Sense to be newly put into it For in case they had not known of it it would have been all one to them as if it had not been in at all And how should they know of it unless it had been some such way made known to them Neither will an accidental and ambiguous Sentence in a Book be in the Judgment of any wise Man a sufficient Declaration of his Mind Moreover the Case seems to be this He did not doubt but that a great many of his Catholick Subjects were Loyal but did doubt some were not And had a mind to know who was of the former and who of the later Sort but could not by the tendering the former Oath which both Sorts refus'd Hence he out of Kindness to the Loyal made another Oath which he thought These would and Those would not take And this is all the apparent Reason of his former Assertion except He or Bishop Andrews might be of the general Opinion of Catholicks that that Oath was begun and continued with design to distinguish them from Protestants For besides this to think as some Speculators seem to do that K. James design'd the very Action of taking the Oath though the Sense of it were held True by Catholicks to be a new Sign to signify as much as these Words I am no Catholick without either Law or other Declaration is a Conceit as odd as 't is groundless Besides that these Words writ by Chance as it were should have so much weight put in them seem to me so unreasonable that I think it very reasonable to be of the contrary Opinion But the Truth is there is a grand Mistake in the Ground of this Objection and these Authors are indeed misrepresented for neither of them say that the Oath of Supremacy was intended at first when it was made in Q. Elizabeth's Dayes to distinguish Catholicks from Protestants nor can it with any Sense be so thought as has been shewn above And as for King James his Words are these As for the Oath of Supremacy the Intention of the CONTINUATION of it was to the end to discover who were Roman-Catholicks and who Protestants With which words it may very well consist that since Catholicks some out of Ignorance others out of interest or bad Principles had Universally refus'd it and so had made themselves liable to discovery by not taking it he like a wise and politick Prince made use of their Refusing him that just Duty by continuing the said Oath so to discover them without any necessity that he should either impose a new Sense on it or declare that the Original Sense was indeed opposit to Catholick Faith or a Signe really distinguishing them from Protestants by any Act or Intention of the State but only by their own private Opinion that the Oath clash't with their Faith 6. A Fourth Objection is grounded upon this That Q. Elizabeth who made the Oath made several Laws to destroy the Romish Faith by hindering any Priest by Authority of the See of Rome to Preach it here and so to abolish his Pastoral Authority which seems to argue that in her Oath she also deny'd it and upon this that Protestants who endeavour to have the same Faith destroy'd may now give this Oath a New Sense in order to bring about that end and in this Sense which we cannot deny offer it us now But I deny the Consequence because 't is most likely that she deny'd nothing by this Oath but what is deny'd by it as understood in the Sense of the before mention'd Acts and her Admonition which last assures us that who ever takes it in that Sense shall be esteem'd her good and obedient Subjects and freed from all the Penalties of that Act which is all we need aim at And all She aim'd at by the Oath was as we have seen to know who were to be esteem'd her good and obedient Subjects And not to destroy by it that Article of our Faith equally consistent with Allegiance as the rest which it is certain she did not intend to destroy by that Oath though by other Means she might then or rather afterwards for it was long after that she made those severe Laws against the Catholick Faith intend to destroy not only that but also all other Articles of our Faith which were opposit to hers that so she might make the State-Religion encrease and not that she might know who were her good Subjects Moreover 't is unlikely that she should give an Oath which she explicated in any other Sense than that in which she explicated it by Law since the giving it in that other Sense could proceed from no other Design than of having that other Sense deny'd by the Taker which he could not in our Supposition deny because he knew nothing of it And hence my Opinion is that her only Design was not to have any Tenet of Catholick Religion Doctrine or Perswasion deny'd but to know who would be True to her against the Pope King of Spain and Queen of Scotland Moreover 't is evident that Information given of a Horrid Treason caus'd our good King to enjoyn its being taken now 7. But though it be supposed that we are out in these Speculations and that the Queen afterwards had a design to make some Tenet of Catholick Religion be deny'd by it and the same be said at present yet she us'd an Instrument that was inefficacious to bring about that Effect except a Sense opposit to Catholick Religion or Doctrine had been so put into it that a Catholick might have been obliged to take it in that Sense For if he be still at Liberty to take it only in a True Sense and doth this he denies not his Religion Now that a Catholick was and is still at Liberty to take it only in that