with the Titles of impious seditious infamous to Popes ruinous to States c. 96. Yea moreover within these six Moneths a certain Priest of the Hermitage of Caen called Fossart a known Emissary of that society having in his publick acts for a degree in that University advanced this proposition That the Pope has a Soveraign Authority in Temporals as well as Spirituals and that he has power to depose and constitute Kings though to evade a censure he Interpreted his Assertion saying that he understood that power of the Pope to extend only to Tyrants notwithstanding by a Decree of the whole faculty of that University both his proposition and exposition of it was censured to be impious pernicious seditious and in all regards to be detested and as such it was by them condemned And the same Fossart being after this imprisoned was sentenced by the presidial Court of Justice in Caen publickly and bare-headed to acknowledge that the said propositions were false contrary to the holy Decrees of Councels to the fundamental lawes of that Kingdom and to the liberties and rights of the Gallican Church 97. Such is the judgment of the Ecclesiasticks and State of France of this Article of Faith from which was issued rivers of blood during the Ligue there As zealous against the Temporall power of Popes has the State of Venice shewed it self And if other Catholick Kingdomes have not done the like it is because they have not had such dismal occasions and provocations to declare their minds In Spain indeed the Schools are connived at to preserve it from extinguishing because by its assistance a great part of Navarre has been annexed to that crown and some hopes of England too gave it credit there But yet when the Court of Rome would interpose in temporal matters there without the Kings liking he is as boldly resisted as in any other Catholick Kingdome besides 98. And as for the Church and State of England I mean even in former times when Catholick Religion most flourished here and when Church-Men had the greatest power what sign can be shewed that the foresaid Decree and the new article of Faith was admitted either in Parliaments or Synods Yea so far were they from acknowledging the Popes deposing power or Supremacy in Temporals that Statutes were then made and the penalty no less then a Praemunire against any that without the Kings licence should make any Appeals to Rome Or submit to a Legats Jurisdiction Or upon the Popes Summons go out of the Kingdom or receive any Mandats or Briefs from Rome Or sue in a forrain Realm for any thing for which the Kings Courts took Cognisance Or for impeaching a judgment given in the Kings Courts Or for purchasing Bulls from Rome for presentments to Churches anâ—iently sued for in the Kings Courts in the time of all his Progenitors And it is very observable that in the Act where the last Ordinances were made we find this expression To this all the Bishops present and all the procuratours of the absent unanimously assented protesting against the Popes translating some Bishops out of the Realm and from one Bishoprick to another And moreover the ground of their rejecting the Popes usurpations in temporal matters is there thus expressed For that the Crown of England is free and hath been free from earthly subjection at all times being immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalities of the same and not subject to the Pope 99. All these lawes and many other of the like kind all the Kings Catholick Subjects knew and willingly submitted to without any prejudice to their beliefe that the Pope was the supreme pastour of Gods Church in spiritualibus And all these Lawes are still in force and the penalty of them no less then a premuniâ—e Our De-fide-men are not much concern'd in all this but sure persons of honour and loyalty and such as have Estates in the Kingdom are very deeply interested 100. And now let any English Catholick judge what reception such a decree or Article of Faith would have had in England in those most Catholick times if they had been proposed Those that were so jealous of the least deminution of the Kings temporal power in matters of the smallest consequence and that imposed the greatest penalty but death upon transgressours that is upon all Factours for the gaining to the Court of Rome any illegal temporal Authority with what indignation would they have heard only the mentioning of the reception of such a Decree And yet those Lawes were made not long after that Councel had been assembled whereby it is apparent that they were ignorant of it Those that would not suffer the least flower of this imperial Crown to be ravished from it would they admit a power and forraign Jurisdiction to take the Crown it self from the Kings head and afterward the head it self from his Shoulders 101. It is true the teaching of such an Artiâ—le of faith brings very great temporal commodities to those few that have the cruelty to their Country to become the preachers and Apostles of it great favour and power they gain thereby abroad and therefore they will take it kindly at the hands of English Catholicks if for a mere Secular advantage of theirs they will be content to Sacrifice their own Estates Honours Families and lives as traytors to the lawâ—s and withall bring an unavoydable scandal to Catholick Religion besides But truly this is too dear a rate to be paid for such a commodity 102. A man would think that such Apostles should be content yea and by their own Doctâ—ine of probability should be obliged to grant this Doctrine of the Popes deposing power to be somewhat less then an Article of Faith The opposition of the whole State Ecclesiasticks of France against their single forces surely may be available to make it pass at least for a probable Opinion But this they must not allow because if it be not an Article of Faith unless infidelity to Princes be de fide it signifies juâ—t nothing neither can it have any effect at all For certainly no Law nor justice wil permit that an Authority only probable and therefore questionable can dispossess Kings of their right to a Supremacy in temporals in which they are actually instated So that such an Authority can only have force to dispossess Princes already dispossessed 103. However they would esteem themselves much bound to any other learned Catholicks among us if they would condescend to grant that it is only probable that it is a point of faith and decree of a General Councel But in vain will they expect such a compliance For by granting only so much it will necessarily follow 1. That all the so rigorous censures given of it by the Parliaments and Vniversities of France have been most temerarious and damnable For what can be more horrible then to call a Doctrine impious seditious detestable c. which probably is a
or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative as now a new head of the Church or to the laws of God By which means without one single voice of the Clergy all former Ecclesiasticall Lawes might be abrogated 4. An authority was allowed to the King to represse and correct all such errours Heresies abuses and enormities whatsoever they were which by any manner of spirituall Jurisdiction might lawfully be repressed c. any forreign Lawes or any thing to the Contrary notwithstanding 5. All manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall was by Parliament ackowledged to belong to the King as Head of the Church So that no Bishop had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but by under and from the King 6. Supreme Power of dispensing with any Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognised Supreme Head of the Church and the Archbishop is made only the Kings Delegate So that in case he should refuse two other Bishops might be named to grant such Dispensations And after all the King and his court of Chancery are made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations are repugnant to Scriptures what not 7. Though the King did not personally himself exercise the power of the Keys yet this right he claimed that no Clergy man being a member of the English Church should exercise it in his Dominions in any cause or over any person without the leave and appointment of him the Supreme head Nor any refuse to exercise it whensoever he should require 8. It was moreover enacted that no speaking doing or holding against any spiritual Lawes made by the See of Rome which be repugnant to the Lawes of the Realme should be deemed heresies As also that whosoever should teach contrary to the determinations which since the year 1540 were or afterwards should be set forth by the King should be deemed and treated as a Heretick So that the King and Parliament are hereby constituted Judges of Heresy 9. In the dayes of King Edward the sixt an Act is made in which the King and Parliament Authorise Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take informations concerning the not useing the Forme of Common Prayer then prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. 10. There were also appointed six Prelates and six others nominated by the King by the same authority to frame a new forme of Consecration of Bishops c. 17. Hereby it is apparent that a Jurisdiction purely Spiritual was communicated to or assumed by King Henry the eighth this he further shewed by many practises For besides Jurisdiction as if he had the Key of divine knowledge given him by Christ he set forth Books of instructions in Catholick doctrine by his own authority declaring them hereticks that taught otherwise The labour indeed and we may say drudgery of composing those books as also of executing other spiritual functions was left either wholly or in part to the Clergy but when they had done he perused them and and made what additions and alterations he pleased in them and without remanding them to the Bishops caused them to be printed The Book with his Interlinings and Changes is still ex-tant 18. Indeed it was only spiritual Jurisdiction that he by his new Title of Head of the Church sought to deprive the Pope of for he feared not his pretended temporal Power which in those dayes the world was little troubled withal For he stood in need of a power to justify his Divorce and to dispense with the horrible Sacriledge designed by him He was unwilling to be looked on by his Subjects as a Heathen and a Publican and therefore to prevent this danger he devested the Pope and assumed to himself the power of Excommunication also that is not the execution of it but the disposing of of it by Delegation to the Arch-bishop who should execute it according to his will and directions only 19. A further irrefragable proofe that it was a power purely Spiritual which that King challenged by his new Title is taken from the Declaration of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester the contriver of the Oath as we find it recorded by Calvin himself For saith he when Stephen Gardiner was upon the Kings affairs at Ratisbon he there taking occasion to expound the meaning of that Title of Supream head of the English Church given to King Henry the eighth taught that the King had such a power that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine and abolish old As tamely that the King might forbid the marriage of Priests and might take away the use of the Chalice in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in such things might appoint what he lâ—ft A Title thus interpreted the same Calvin vehemently inveighs against calling Gardiner and worthily an impestour and Archbishop Cranmer with his fellowes inconsiderate persons who make Kings too spirituall as if beside theirs there were no Ecclesiasticall Government and Jurisdiction 20. As for his Son King Edward the sixth the same Title with the plenitude of power was given him which he likewise as very a child as he was executed for he by his Authority made Ecclesiastical Lawes to be new reformed Church service and Administration of Sacraments to be changed and new Instructions in matter of Religion to be published quite contrary to what the foregoing Head though his Father had decreed to be Christian Doctrine And the reason was the same because new Sacriledge was to be committed by the Protectour for which he was loath to be excommunicated 21. His elder sister succeeding repealed and renounced this Jurisdiction and restored it to the Church But her younger sister repealed her repealings and took it again when it was in as high language yea higher confer'd on her by Parliament And there was a greater necessity for it than her Brother had For her Mothers Marriage was declared Null by the Pope and consequently her right to the Crown 22. And that this was the design intention of the Parliament in the first year of her Raign when they renewed the Title of her Supremacy in Church matters though they blushed to call a Woman Head of the Church may sufficiently be collected from a Speech yet extant and made in that Parliament upon that occasion by the then Lord Chancelour Nicholas Heath For arguing very strongly against the said Title and the Authority imported by it he takes it for granted that by giving the Queen such a Title they must forsake and fly from the Sea of Rome the inconveniencies of which he desires may be better considered In the next place he recommends to their Advice what this Supremacy is For sayes he if it consist in Temporal Government what further Authority can this House give her then she hath already by right of Inheritance and by the appointment of God without their Gift c. But if the Supremacy doth consist in
wished had never been done or might be blotted out of all mens memories or upon the Decrees of some Councels not received or acknowledged by Catholick Churches but principally upon a Decree of the Councel of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third in which an Ordinance is said to have been framed to oblige not supreme Princes but Temporales Potestates and Dominos which bear Offices in States to take at Oath to root out of their Dominions all Hereticks upon penalty if they do not performe what they swear of being denounced by the pope to be deprived of their Estates c. yet reserving the right of the supreme Lord. 88. All these Allegations have been already unanswerably confuted by several learned Writers of our Nation but because this last Decree of a Councel not so questioned for as much as can be proved to have been decided in it and because it is almost alone suggested to the tongues of some Catholicks among us as the principal pillar of that pretended Article of Faith for the maintaining of which they are exhorted to forfeit their Estates and Lives they are desired sadly to consider 89. First that this pretended decree of faith has been disclaimed by a World of unquestion'd Catholicks and Doctor Bishop the last Catholick Bishop but one in England has written a book purposely against it and no proof can be given that it was ever received or executed by any Catholick Kingdome out of Italy The reasons whereof are 1. Because these Decrees were never published by P. Innocent nor so much as a copy of them extant either in the Body of Councells or the Vatican Library or any where else till a certain German three hundred years after said that he found them in a Manuscript compiled he knowes not by whom being indeed a meer Collection made by some unknown person out of the Decretals of his Nephew Gregory the ninth 2. Because by the testimony of all Historians of those times P. Innocent the third suffred much in his reputation for having convoked such a multitude of Prelates to no purpose Above sixty Capitula were by the Popes order recited in the Assembly and many of them pend in a stile as if they had been concluded for that was the Popes expectation but nothing at all could be plainly decreed they seemed indeed to some PLACABILIA passable to others Onerosa but no conciliary Determinations were made except one or two which was about the recovery of the holy Land and the subjection of the Greek Church to the Roman by reason of a war then begun between them of Pisa and Genua which called the Pope from the Councel 90. Again though it were granted that this was a Conciliary Decree it is far from looking like an Article of Faith which saith Bellarmine and Canus may easily be discerned by the stile Here is nothing proposed to be believed no Anathema fulminated against those that are of a contrary sentiment no signification that the contrary is against the words or sence of Scriptures c. At the best therefore it is a mere Ecclesiastical Ordinance touching external discipline And being such what is more ordinary and by custom permitted then for Princes to refuse the admittance of them we see at this day that the State and Church of France do reject the Decrees of Reformation made in the Councel of Trent This is known at Rome and all Christendom over and yet who dare impute Heresy to them What confusion would follow if all the Ordinanâ—es of the Councel of Trent should be practised among catholicks here in England as about Clandestine Mariages c. 91. Thirdly suppose this were granted to be an Ordinanâ—e established and admitted all Christendom over yet supreme and Independent Princes not being expresly named in it but rather excluded by the expressions of it what can be more palpably injust then without and against their consent to captivate them to such an ordinance Moreover to demonstrate that they were purposely excepted the Emperour Frederike not above five or six years after published an edict to the very same intent and in the very same language and titles by which he intended to oblige only the Feudatary princes and officers of the Empire by oath to root out heresy And yet after all no example can be produced either in the Empire or other Christian States that such an oath was in succeeding times imposed This is the Article of Faith for the maintaining of which it is by one party expected that all English Catholicks should ruine both themselves and their Religion It is not so in Catholick countries abroad VVe know that Charles the fifth by a law of the Empire publickly permitted Lutherans in several provinces and all the Kings of France since Henry the third the Calvinists through their Kingdom and yet the pope never so much as threatned nor they feared a Deposition 93. And as for the Doctrinal point of faith most shamelesly pretended to be involved in that or the like decrees to wit the Popes power of deposing Princes what one Catholick State Kingdom Republick or City can the preachers of it name where it is received or permitted to the people to be taught even as a probable opinion 94. It is well known that in France in the year 1614. a book written by Suarez the Jesuite purposely against this Oath in which that Deposing power was asserted was by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris condemned therefore to be burnt by the publick Executioner as containing propositions scandalous seditious tending to the eversion of States and inducing Subjects to practise against the lives and sacred persons of Kings c. And moreover it was ordained according to a former Edict made A. D. 1610. that a decree then made by the Theological faculty for renewing a Doctrinal Censure of the same faculty A. D. 1408. against the like Doctrine and confirm'd by the Councel of Constance should every year upon a certain day be read in the Schools of the Jesuites and of the four Mendicant orders Besides all this the same Parliament enjoyned the four principal Jesuites in Paris Armandus Cotton Fronto and Sirmond to take order that their General at Rome should renew a prohibition to any of the society to teach and publish the like Doctrines and themselves were commanded in their Sermons to preach a contrary Doctrine all this under the penalty of being proceeded against as Traytors 95. The like fate had several other books written by eminent persons of the same Order as Mariana Bellarmine Santarellus c. which maintained the Popes temporal Jurisdiction and power to deprive Princes and to absolve Subjects from their Obedience And particularly upon occasion of Santarellus his book no less then eight Universities in that Kingdom Paris Valentia Tholouse Poictiers Bourdeaux Bourges Rheims and Caen did of their own accord not expecting any command from the Court in the year 1626. brand the Doctrine of the Popes deposing power
Subjects to resist the execution of such a sentence all which must together with them be killed or murthered before it can have its full effect 111. In the next place touching the Offer made by the same persons who without renouncing the position of the Popes deposing power will however swear future Allegiance to the King and his Successours notwithstanding any past or coming sentence of Deprivation in what age do they hope to find in England a King that will be so simple and so over good-natured as to believe them or rely upon such a Promise especially considering what passed little above fifty years since Is that Oath to be believed which they that take it do know to be unlawful and consequently to be ipso facto null and invalid so that it must be repented of and must not be kept For either they must swear that assoon as ever they shall have taken their rectifyed Oath the Kings of England will have this particular priviledge annexed to their Empire that they shall never deserve let their religion or practises be what they will that the Pope should exercise his just authority of deposing them that they alone will be out of danger to the worlds end of being denounced No-Catholicks or Rebells to the See Apostolick And this none can swear without the spirit of prophecy which they will hardly perswade the State here to believe to be in them Or else they will swear that though the Pope never so justly and necessarily exercising his lawful authority should command the Deposition of any of our Kings and absolve all their Subjects from their Allegiance yet they against their duty conscience and Religion will disobey such his lawful authority and continue in Allegiance to him to whom in such circumstances an Article of their Faith obliges them to believe that no Allegiance is due but rather utmost hostility Now who will believe such an Oath as this Or rather will they not be esteemed for such an oaths sake resolved to be disloyal both to God and man After this manner argues the great Master in the Deposing Doctrine Suarez writing upon this very Clause of this Oath 112. I would to God I could have delivered my conscience on this subject without danger of incensing or contristating any person But in the present conjuncture of affairs after so many years proof of the constant fidelity of Catholicks to his Majesty it being necessary that the State should be assured that such fidelity proceeded from a principle of Catholick Religion unalterable to discourse upon such a subject with a complying softnesse and tendernesse to any party that is without a free hearty sincere and confident renouncing of a false principle of disloyalty maintained but by a very few but imputed to and punished in the general body of English Catholicks would have been to betray the cause of Catholicks in general and to justify the suspicion that Protestants have formerly had against our Religion 113. There is another sort of loyal well meaning Catholicks who have no scruple at all to renounce this pretended Article of Faith nor to make any the most strict professions of their Allegiance but in this Oath meet with some Expressions and adventitious phrases nothing pertinent to the substance which they out of tendernesse of conscience cannot swear to For first they seem to professe a Declaration of a point of Faith which a particular Christian cannot presume to do Again they cannot say that Position of the Popes deposing power is Heretical any other ill names they will be content to give it but they dare not swear it is Heretical because the contrary is not evidently in Scripture neither has it been condemned by the Church 114. For the former Protestants perhaps will account it a needlesse scrupulosity since those which framed the Oath never intended that any one that takes it should seem to make himself a judge and decider of a point of faith but only to signify his acknowledgment touching it Besides say they this is the ordinary stile by which a Profession is made abroad of the condemning and renouncing of any erroneous propositions which are by Parliaments and Courts declared to be impious seditious c. Not that each Doctour or whole faculties take upon them an Authority Conciliary to propose doctrines to the church but only to testify their judgment concerning them 115. But the second difficulty will not so easily be cleared which is the profession of detesting such a position as Heretical Because catholicks know that it cannot be called Heretical according to the notion of that term universally received among them and what notion Protestants have of that word does not appear by any publick Declaration of theirs how then can catholicks by Oath protest a detestation of that position as Heretical since if they understand it in their own sence they should swear that which they know to be false and if in any other unknown sence they shall swear they know not what Besides they should by Oath testify that all Popes that have exercised and all writers that have maintained such a deposing power are to be esteemed Hereticks persons fit to be excluded from Catholick communion And what Catholick alive will presume to say this ¶ 116. Such is the case of afflicted Catholicks touching these two Oathes their tendernesse about phrases hath hitherto been either interpreted or at least treated as professed disloyalty But their hope now at last is that his Majesty according to his most gloriously element dispositon and the whole State so miraculously renewed will with a compassionate eye look upon and read their most secret thoughts touching this matter Though their abilities and number be inconsiderable yet Justice even to a single person ought not to be esteemed so They are not unwilling nay they are desirous to be obliged to make protestations of their unalterable Fidelity Obedience and peaceable submission to the State and if none other besides themselves shall be esteemed to deserved to be obliged hereto by Oathes they are contended to endure such a mortification and they beseech God that his Majesty may never have just ground to suspect any others for then they are sure that without any Oaths at all he may be most secure 117. If any Oath of Supremacy shall be still accounted necessary they only beg that they may not seem to renounce the Supreme spiritual jurisdiction of him whom they acknowledge for the Head of Gods Church or at least that for refusing to renounce this and suffering for such a refusal they may be acknowledged to suffer purely for their religion without the least imputation of Disloyalty to his Majesty which they will never be guilty of whether they swear against it or no. 118. That which they deprecate in the Oath of Allegiance is that which God himself requires that it may not be ambiguous dificult to be interpreted nor charged with expressions which if they were absent would not prejudice the
among them 39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have the Testimony of Doctour Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester whose expressions are these The Oath saith he expresseth not the duty of Princes to God but ours to them And as they must be obeyed when they joyne with the truth so must they be endured 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 JESUITES 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 Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdomes 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 represse the broachers and abbettours 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 Realmes no mortal man hath any power from Christ judicially to depose them much lesse to invade them in open field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sence Spiritual Jurisdiction seems by the oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince judge of Faith and 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 pastours of the place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical things and â—auses Princes be neither the devisers nor Directours of them but the Confirmers and establishers of that which is good and displacers and Revengers of that whiâ—h is evill 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 paâ—t of their charge Lastly to explain the Negative clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Princes to be supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of truth or right but without superiour on Earth to represse them with violent means and to take their Kingdomes from them Thus Doctour Bâ—lson 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 readily subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctour Carleton in King James his time thus states the matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There is a triple Power in the Bishop of Rome first of Order secondly of internal jurisdiction thirdly of external jurisdiction The first is referd 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 beside excommunication As for spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offendours Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and spiritual Cures c. this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This power hath been practised by the Church without co-active jurisdiction other then 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 or 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 externall and contentious Courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again 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 spirituall censures As it standeth in spirituall 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 civill Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctour Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctour Bramhall Bishop of Derry in our late Kings dayes and now Archbishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative parts of the Oath touching the Kings supream authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Popes Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his book called Schisme guarded c. The summe of which Book is in the Title-page expressed 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
and accordingly in many particulars practised it to the which several clauses also both in this and following Statutes seem as if they gave warrant yet the Parliament by the said Provizo laid a ground how they might in future and better times shew how they meant no such thing The words are these 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 tranquillity from rapine and spoil insuing much the old ancient customes of this Realm in that behalfe Not minding to seek for any reliefes succours or remedies for any worldly things and humane lawes in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly causes to any other Superiour By this Proviso never repealed the Parliaments Ordinance is declared to be meerly Political that the Kings Independence on forraign power is in worldly things and humane lawes he being in worldly causes not obliged to any other Superiour 50. Thus far of the sence in which both the most judicious among the English Protestants have declared and have been authorised to declare what power it is that by the Oath is deferred to the Kings of England and renounced to be in any forraign Prince or Prelate to wit a civil Political power wheresoever it can be exercised in any causes Ecclesiastical c. Against this there is not extant a contradictory Testimony of any one Protestant Writer So that the Protestant Subjects of England do intend and judging that they have unquestiónable grounds to judge this only to be the sence of the Oath in this sence only do they take it and require it to be taken by others SECT VII In what sence the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance seem to be taken by Presbyterians Independents c. 51. IT is a wonderfull Mystery how it should come to pass that our English Prebyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously not without threatning urge the imposing them upon others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practises or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years 52. First for ther Doctrinal principles I do not find that any of those Sects of late in England in peaceable times have publickly declared in what sence they allowed his Majesty to have a supreme Jurisdicton in causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritaul as to themselves But as to the oppression and destruction of poor Roman Catholicks they have alwayes shew'd too great a willingness to exalt the Kings Authority and to draw out and sharpen his sword far more then himself was willing I do not find that any of them have busied themselves as a world of Protestants and Catholicks have with making discourses upon the Oathes Their silence in this point wherein they are doubtless much concern'd one way or other is surely very argumentative 53. Who ever knew or heard to flow from the tongue or drop from the pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a positon as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the generall body of Roman Catholicks viz. That even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his civil power to persecute truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of armes but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his misused Authority leaving the judgment to God only How unknown at least how unreceived such a Doctrine has hitherto been among their Brethren abroad will but too manifestly appear in a volume entitled Dangerous positions collected by Archbishop Bancroft out of severall books written by Calvinisticall preachers What judgment their patriarch Calvin made of King Henry the eighths new Title of the Head of the Church we have seen before And what an exception terrible to Princes the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their confession of Faith speaking of Obedience due to the supreme Magistrate appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in print Where they acknowledge such obedience due to them except the Law of God and religion be interested or to use their own expression mogennant que l'empire de Dieu demeure en son entire that is upon condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminished Which clause what it means their so many and so long convinced Rebellions do expound 54. And as for their practices in England and Scotland it were to be wished they could be forgotten especially all that has hapned the last twenty years And it may suffiice only in gross to take notice that the most efficacious Engin for begining the late war and engaging their party in the prosecution of it was a publick declaration that their design was to root out Popish Doctrines favoured by the King and Bishops to abolish publick Formes of Church-service and to destroy Episcopacy and Church Government root and branch which had been established in England by the universal authority of the whole Kingdom 55. These things considered is it not a great Mystery that such persons of such perswasions should be so zealous to take and impose generally either of these Oaths To think that they do knowingly directly and formally forswear themselves and force others to do so would be uncharitable Therefore an Evasion they have to secure themselves in their own opinions from perjury How little they deferr to Kings in their own Ecclesiastical matters and Government yea how they declare that none must be excepted from their consistories and Synodical Jurisdictions even externally coercive is evident both in Scoâ—land and elsewhere And it is observable that in the form of an Oath lately contrived in Scotland the word Ecclesiastical is studiously left out How comes it then to pass that they can in England swear that the King is supreme Head and Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical or spirituall Who can reconcile these things together in such a sence 56. Surely it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to imagine any colourable Evasion or pretext for cousening themselves except it be this That both the Oaths were made only against Roman Catholicks acknowledging the Pope to be supreme
spiritual matters Whereas in England whensoever any such briefs are published at Rome although upon information of one interessed party there being no setled correspondence of pastours to whom they ought in common to be directed by them communicated to their respective flocks not only the consciences of particular Catholicks are disquieted whilst some of their directours press the validity of them others reclaim but the State also not causelesly entertains jealousies suspicious of secret practises not being at all or not sufficiently informed All which inconveniences by such a Government would be easily avoyded 4. Lastly by this means Catholicks would be enabled to receive from his Majesty any orders that may be for his service and effectually put them in execution 126. It is well known what important advantage the Prince of Orange and the States of Holland received from the Catholick Bishop there during the seditions between the Arminians and Calvinists The Prince doubting the success of those contentions to strengthen his party sent two or three persons of condition to the Bishop usually residing at Amsterdam to propose to him these two demands Fiâ—st to whether of the two Factions the Catholicks had an inclination to adhere Next what assistance of forces they were able to bring The Bishop being then absent they were to this effect answered by his Vicarius in spiritualibus As to the first That without studying or consulting with his brethren he could immediately assure his Excellency that he being the prime person trusted by the States with all their forces the Religion and consciences of all Catholicks obliged them to offer their Estates and lives for his service and assistance But that he could not give an answer to the second demand till two sundayes were passed in the one of which he was to publish orders for enquiry into their numbers and in the other to receive information And in effect accordingly after the second Sunday he gave them assurance of the readiness of above ten thousand well appointed Soldiers out of that one City This hapned in Holland where Catholicks though proportionably far exceeding us here in numbers yet never gave any jealousies to the State and the less because of their good correspondence among themselves 127. Such and many other great commodities flâ—wing from such a Government it is no wonder that besides the formentioned party there should be found out of the Church also many that have and no doubt will endeavour to oppose it especially their embitterd Enemies the Presbyterians partly out of the hatred which they bear to the very name of lawfull pastours which they want and will not have but principally least Catholicks thereby should be in a better capacity to serve his sacred Majesty and his faithfull Subjects after a manner that they do not desire and this not only by sacrificing their Estates and persons to the maintaining of his power and safety but also by gaining to himself and the State both civil and Ecclesiastical here a great affection and readiness of an assistance from Catholick Kingdomes when it shall appear that in England the scandal of disloyalty which heretofore was cast upon Catholick religion in general shall be taken away 128. These things considered and moreover that the Presbyterians c. implacable adversaries to Protâ—stant Religion and Government as well as Catholick have great intelligence and correspondence abroad upon that account and for the mere interest of their Religion which Protestants hitherto are utterly destitute of it would be strange if there should still remain any one among them after so long experience of the ready concurrence of Catholicks with them in adhering to his Majesty and suffering with them for him who should not now at last have spent all their aversion from them noâ—e being more interested then they to make use of all lawful means to enable his Majesty now more then ever to oppose all future practices 129. It hath been an objection formerly against this That the promâ—ses made by Catholick Ecclesiasticks of Canonical Obedienâ—e to their supreme pastour in their ordinations are dangerous to the State But alas how groundless is such a fear For this ground being once laid and assented to that no forraign power whatsoever hath any right to dispose of temporals in these Kingdomes what shew of prejudice to any Mans loyalty is the promise of Canonical Obedience in mere spiritual matters Do not all Ministers in England owe and promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops and Presbyterians to their Consistories which yet in merè spiritualibus they will not allow to be subject to the King but only and immediately to our Lord Besides all manner of such submissions and Obligations are every where meant and understood and if need be may be expressed with a Salvâ Obedientiâ Regi debitâ What apprehension have the Kings of France Spain or the State of Venice from such promises And yet were ever any Princes more scrupulous in defending their temporal superiority and authority against the power by some flatterers ascribed to the Pope then the King of France and the State of Venice are Nay they would not be so secure of their pastours loyalty if they should suspect them to be regardless of their duty to the Church which indispensably obliges them to loyalty SECT X. Of his Majesties Declaration for liberty of tender consciences And who they are that have the justest pretentions to the benefit of it 130. BY What hath been hitherto said it is apparent that the words phrases and Formes of these Oathes are at least ambiguous and that by such ambiguity no manner of convenience not the least addition of security accrews unto his sacred Majesty or the State c. but on the otherside infinite prejudice to his afflicted Subjects What then can be more just more for Gods honour more becoming the benignity of his Majesty and more for the reputation of the Kingdom then that such ambiguous expressions suggested no doubt by some particular malignant spirits should be cleared or taken away and that Oathes should be conceived in such a form that they may be taken uniformly sincerely and cordially by all good subjects and must be refused by all ill Subjects and withal that our Princes safety and the peace of the Kingdom may be provided for by them 131. Besides the ambiguity there seems now to be another Motive more pressing though none can be more weighty to perswade a change in the Formes of the Oathes and that is this When the Oathes were made the intention of the State was to have one only Religion openly permitted in the Kingdom and then the Catholick was that which appeared opposite to it as having been formerly the only Religion of the kingdom and for this reason consequently the Oathes were framed either upon a jealousy of a doubtful title or at least against some special point about the Popes Authority which one party among Catholicks falsely pretended to be essential
pastour of Gods Church so that whosoever can swear that he is no Papist may freely and without scruple take those Oaths as being nothing at all concerned in them Whatever he does he cannot be a traytor by vertue of the Oath because he was not a powder-traytor 57. If the secret of the affair do indeed lye on such an interpretation as this then it will follow that none of the Kings Subjects are or can by any oath as yet in force be obliged not to be traytors but only such Roman Catholicks as take the Oath of Allegiance A hard case for his Majesty 58. This Evasion may perhaps serve for the Negative clause of the Oath of Supremacy wherein profession is made That the Pope has no Jurisdiction in this Kingdom But how will they defend themselves from the most principal Affirmative clause That the King alone is supreme Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical Till they express themselves in this point no other expedient I Suppose can be found but by denying that there are two distinct clauses in the oath and consequently by saying that the whole Oath is but one simple assertion viz. That the King is so far to be esteemed the supreme Governour as that the Pope is not above him But yet a consistory of Presbyters though his Subjects yea any single Minister in causes toùching Religion and Church Government may be his superiour Now if this guess hit right upon the like grounds the Oath of Allegiance will be interpreted too as if they that take it should say thus We promise Fidelity to his Majesty so sincerely that notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of deprivation issuing from the Pope against him we will not seek to depose or murther him But if our teachers or we our selves do interpret the word of God against any of his actions or if we find in scripture that he loves not the pure reformed Religion and shewes his dislike by any publick action then he must look to himself For these Oaths do not extend to such cases no not so much as to hinder us from defending our purses with our swords against any illegall exactions We are sure we are not Papists that we readily swear and that is enough 59. Notwithstanding if they look well upon the Oath they will find the word Only too stubborn to comply with this sence where they profess the King to be the only supreme Governour Unless they will conceive the meaning to be That he is only a Supreme Governour in regard of the Pope with whom he will have nothing to do and who therefore is neither under him nor above him and in regard of no body of the world besides not the most pittifull Tub-Man This indeed would be an evasion the invention whereof is beyond the art of equivocation 60. It is not here pretended that by this evasion and no other Presbyterians have the art to sweeten Oaths which in the ordinary sence and understanding of all the rest of the Kingdom are point blank opposed at least to their Brethrens Doctrines and their own practises So that the Author of these Reflexions must leave a more perfect discovery of their mysterious wayes to the eyes of the State infinitely more clear-sighted and penetrating 61. As for the Independents all that to me is known of them since they lately shew'd their faces to the destruction both of Church and State is their new name What they think of the Oaths does not to me appear But the very name implying a renouncing of all order and subordination in Church-Government even among themselves and their known practice having been an Usurpation of supreme authority to themselves purchased with the most execrable murther of their undoubted and too too mercifull Soveraign if they can be so hypocritical as to take either of these Oaths they will deceive no body For it will be evident to all men that not changing their tenents and courses they must needs be perjured so that to some it may be a doubt whether it be a lawfull or however an expedient mean for the Kings safety to offer them the Oathes or to relye upon their taking them 62. All that for the present will be collected from the words or practises of these two Sects is That at least they do acknowledge so far a concurrence with the sence of Protestants touching these Oathes that they do assure themselves that by them there is no Jurisdiction purely Ecclesiastical attributed or due to his Majesty How far or whether at all they will permit his civil power to act in matters Ecclesiastical till they discover their minds if they be not too much discovered already who can tell 63. Besides these other Scots there are in abundance which the common voice tyes together as Samson did his Foxes tail to tail their faces all looking several wayes however they are called usually Fanaticks Of these some professe Obedience others profess against it but not any of them will swear either the one or the other Their sence therefore of these Oaths is neither to be expected nor if it were had is it to be valued SECT VIII Vpon what grounds Roman-Catholicks do generally refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy 64. IT may very well and indeed does to Protestants seem a mystery almost as hard to be penetrated into as was that in the last Section why Roman-Catholicks should so generally refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy considering that the whole Kingdom besides does unanimously agree at least in this point That the Supremacy ascribed therein to his Majesty does not at all prejudice the spirituall Jurisdiction of Pastours with which the King does not meddle neither indeed does it concern him for it is nothing to the King whether one of his Subjects be for his faults excommunicated or admitted to the communion Whether he be an Ecclesiastical person or a Lay-Man as likewise whether his Excommunication or Ordination proceed from one beyond Seas or at home and the like is to be said of his Orders Now since Catholick Faith teaches that secular power which belongs to Caesar should be given to Caesar and meer spiritual Authority over consciences and upon spirituall penalties only should be given to the supreme and subordinate Pastours Protestants wonder why Catholicks so perswaded should refuse to swear that which they profess Especially since by such a refusal they deprive themselves of a comfortable exercise of their Religion and withall expose themselves to many and grievous penalties They profess Loyalty to the King and dare not swear it And they hopefully perswade themselves that if they did swear it he would believe them which is a grace that he will not afford to all but by not swearing it when they are required by lawfull authority they put themselves in an incapacity to make their Loyalty usefull to his Majesty give perhaps scandal to many out of the Church as if indeed there were some unknown principle of disloyalty in their
Religion which forbids them to confirm by Oath that which they without oath willingly and almost unanimously profess This is a mystery that Protestants wonder at 65. If Catholicks answer that they are ready to swear that which Protestants so confidently affirm to be the sence of the Oath but the Oath it self according to the present form they dare not take because they find such a sence very unsuitable to the expressions in the Oath The others will reply That Catholicks take too much upon themselves to give a sence to an Oath contrary to what is declared by publick and supreme Authority That Protestants themselves would make a scruple perhaps at it were it not that the sence in which they declare their taking of it so seems to them warranted by supreme authority as no man can imagine almost a more Authentick testimony For that by the Oath our Princes would have no other then civil Regal authority in Ecclesiastical matters attributed to them and that as they themselves pretend not to a Jurisdiction purely spiritual so neither do they envy or deny it to any of those whom our Lord has constituted Pastours of souls in his Church All this is attested by all particular Writers nemine contradicente by the voluntary assertions of our Princes the undoubted authoritative interpreters of their own Lawes who publickly approved such Writers and also shew'd this by their Actions or rather their Omissions to exercise spiritual power Further the same is attested by a publick Article or confession of Faith of the whole body of the English Clergy confirmed and made an Ecclesiastical Law by Regal and Parliamentary authority And Lastly by Acts of Parliament remaining in full force so that in the opinion of Protestants it is almost impossible to find stronger assurances of any truth then are the proofs that this is acknowledged to be the true sence of the Oath Thus say Protestants 66. Notwithstanding in the judgment of Catholicks the Negative clause in the oath viz. No forraign Prince Prelate c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction power or authority Ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm seems incapable of that sence and directly contrary to a point of their Faith viz. that the Pope is supreme pastour of the whole Church in matters purely Ecclesiastical or spiritual That clause has so horrible an aspect it implies a renouncing even the Popes pastoral Authority and this with so much Emphasis that least the word ECCLESIASTICAL might possibly import a Civil authority in Ecclesiastical Courts there is added also SPIRITUAL that therefore a Catholicks tongue cannot repeat it much less swear to an acknowledgment of it 67. But this excuse does not satisfie such Protestants as out of compassion to the fellow-sufferings of Roman Catholicks are desirous that their Fidelity may be usefull to their Soveraign and Country For they reply that though the said clause might perhaps deserve to be ill looked on by strangers yet not so by Englishmen Since the word SPIRITUAL has not the same Notion elsewhere that it has in England The Oath is to be administred not only to schollers but to all Lay-persons in Office to Soldiers in ships c. Now in England the word ECCLESIASTICAL is not commonly understood by ignorant persons and therefore for explanation of it there is added OR SPIRITUAL which term whensoever it is applyed to Jurisdiction signifies in England no more then such Jurisdiction as is exercised In foro contentioso and Ecclesiastical Courts which we call the Spiritual Courts and Spiritual Judges and Spiritual Authority as my Lord of Derry well observes for as for that purely spiritual Jurisdiction that a Bishop exercises in censures or a Confessarius over his penitent in the internal Court of conscience English Men ordinarily know little or nothing of it And therefore if that clause were to be translated into Italian French or Latin the word SPIRITUAL ought not to be turn'd Spiritualem but some other term must be invented which should import this sence and no more 68. Again though the clause sayes that the Pope has not any authority no not so much as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual it hath as they think already been shewed that that phrase implies only that he hath not any such Regal or Civil authority by his own right and Divine Law as the King challenges in matters Ecclesiastical as the approved explication by the words SO AS in Queen Elizabeths Admonition demonstrates Neither is it unusual among Writers when they speak of a present matter and would deny any thing concerning it to deny it in indefinite terms So when our Saviour sayes to the Scribes If ye were blind ye should have no sin or ye should not have any sin his meaning is not That if they had not had sufficient light whereby they might perceive him to be the Messias they would not have been proud malicious adulterers c. but only this That the sin of infidelity should not have been imputed to them which before he had charged them withall 69. Therefore although that clause look so hideously in the eyes of Roman Catholicks that if it stood alone and were considered absolutely and simply by it self they could not without renouncing a point of acknowledged Catholick Faith subscribe to it Notwithstanding if it be considered with dependence on the foregoing words of the Oath it speaks a quite other language then otherwise it would in their opinion 70. To give some examples of the like case If it were proposed to an Orthodox Christian whether he would subscribe to these Assertions The Father is greater then the Son and There is no evill but God is the Author of it He would doubtless refuse to subscribe to the former as being Heretical and to the later as being moreover blasphemous Notwithstanding having been informed that our Saviour speaking of himself as a man said My Father is greater then I am and that the meaning is That the Father is greater then the Son if the Son be considered according to his humane nature And again that God has by his prophet speaking of Afflictions said expresly Is there any evill in a City of which I am not the Author and that the word EVILL in that speech doth not signifie sin which it does when it is mentioned absolutely and simply but only punishment then a good Catholick will make no difficulty in subscribing to both those sayings Now the very same say they may be said touching this clause as it lies in the Oath especially having been sufficiently declared that it is only a civill temporal Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Courts c. which is denyed to belong to any other by right except only the King 71. But in all events they conceive that among all Roman Catholicks those might soonest be perswaded to admit a favourable interpretation of this oath who maintain the doctrine of Equivocation which is not expresly excluded by this Oath as it is