THe Divine Providence having been so watchful over His Most Sacred Majesty in his wonderful preservation from dangers, and so miraculous in restoring him to his Throne, just and necessary it is that both Himself and his Counsel should make use of all lawful means to preserve him in safety, and his Subjects in Obedience and Peace. And because a greater obligation cannot be imagined among Christians then a Solemn Oath, it became them to make use of that Obligation indifferently to all,Declara­tion from Breda, April. 4.14. 1660. the which in all probability would now at last have a greater effect by vertue of his Ma­jesties Declaration of a Liberty to tender con­sciences, and that no Man shall be disquieted, [Page] or call'd in question for differences of Opinion in matter of Religion, which do not disturbe the Peace of the Kingdom: by which is ta­ken away the chief cause which began and fomented the late Troubles and confusion.

2. Notwithstanding seeing that the man­ner of the application of that Preservatory and remedy of an Oath, hath lately occa­sioned great Disputes, and unquietness of minds, in several persons; and seeing the Oath by none more readily taken and ear­nestly imposed on others, then by those who began the War, and promoted the Covenant, and of whose party not one was ever found that drew a sword for his Ma­jesty; and on the other side by none more scrupled at or refused, then by those who alwayes assisted the King, and of whose party never any one drew a Sword against him, and withall of whose Loyalty his Majesty hath oft professed that he hath sufficient assurance: The consideration of all this begat in my mind an Opinion, that surely there lay hidden in these Oaths some Mystery fit to be discovered, and which is attempted in the following Reflexions.

3. In which, 1. After a brief Declaration 1 of the Nature of a solemn Oath, how high a point of Gods worship it is, and what Reve­rence and caution is to be used in it. 2. And 2 after the setting down the Formes of the two Oaths at this time imposed. 3. There 3 follow Reflexions upon the said Oaths in gross, shewing the occasion of the making of them, &c. 4. After which it is demonstra­ted 4 that the Oath of Supremacy as it lyes, and according to the sence of the first Lawgiver, cannot lawfully or sincerely be [Page 5] taken by any Christian. 5. Then is declared 5 in how different a sence the two Oaths are taken by Protestants, 6. And by 6 Presbyterians, Independents, &c. 7. And up­on 7 what grounds Roman-Catholicks do ge­nerally refuse to take the Oath of Suprema­cy, 8. And some of them make scruple to 8 take that of Allegiance. 9. Lastly there are 9 short Reflexions on his Majesties Gracious Declaration for tender consciences, shewing who have the justest pretentions to the benefit of it, &c.

4. All this is offered to the considerati­on of all good Christians among us, to the end Advice may be taken whether it be for Gods honour, or the Kingdoms peace, that such Formes of Oaths so manifest­ly ambiguous, so inefficacious to the pro­ducing of Loyalty and Peace in the generality of the Kings Subjects, so piercing and wounding to tender Consciences, &c. should be continued to be imposed, or new Formes more effectuall for his Majesties se­curity contrived, after the Example of Scotland, &c.

5. AN Oath, by which God is invoked as a witness, Surety and caution of whatsoever we affirm, renounce and pro­mise, and a Revenger upon us if we trans­gress in any of these, is certainly an high Act of Religion: but such an one, as that like Medicines, it ought not to be used ex­cept in cases of just necessity, and then with great advice and sincerity.

[Page 6]6. The conditions therefore required by God himself in an Oath are expressed in this saying of the Prophet, Thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, and in Judgment, and in Justice. So that if an Oath be ambiguous, captious or false, it wants the condition of Truth. If it be ei­ther unnecessary, or indiscreet and unprofi­table, it will be destitute of Judgment; and if in the Object and Forme of it, and in the mind of the Taker, there be not a confor­mity to the Eternal Law of God, it will want Justice: Lastly if with all these, it be not attended with fidelity in the executi­on of what is promised, (supposing it be a Promissory Oath) and this according to the intention of the Law-giver, it will be dishonourable, Irreligious and odious to God; and wanting any of these conditions it will respectively be destructive to those that so contrive or take it.

7. All these conditions are doubtless with more then ordinary caution to be observed in Solemn, publick and National Oaths: the breach of which will involve whole Kingdomes in guilt and punishment, and this, even in the Opinion of Heathens, inevitably.

8. These things considered, if we will call to mind how many Oaths, Covenants, Abjurations, &c. Ambiguous, Entangling, Trayterous, Contradicting one another, and consequently inducing a necessity of Perju­ry, have been sometimes voluntarily taken, or by a pretended Authority imposed on the Subjects, it will surely deeply concern us all to take some fitting course to avert Gods most just indignation from our Nati­on, [Page 7] by humbling our selves before his Di­vine Majesty, and making a publick acknow­ [...]edgment of the guilt universally contracted by us: and however for the future to take [...]are that men may clearly see and understand what it is that they must be compelled to wear.

9. THe Oathes at this time in force, and publickly or generally imposed are two, 1. that of Supremacy, 2. that of Allegi­ance, conceived in distinct Formes.

10. The Oath of Supremacy is in the forme here expressed, viz. An. 5. Eliz cap. 1.

I A. B. do utterly testifie and de­clare in my conscience that the Kings Majesty is the only supream Governour of this Realme, and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiasti­cal things or causes, as Temporall: And that no Forreign Prince, Per­son, Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritu­all within this Realme: And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all [Page 8] forraign Iurisdictions, Powers, Su­periorities and Authorities: And doe promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highness, his heirs and law­ful Successours, and to my power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions, Priviledges, Pre-eminencies and Au­thorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness, his h [...]irs and Suc­cessours, or united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realme: So help me God, and by the Contents of this book.

11. The tenor of the Oath of Allegiance is this, An 3. Jac cap. 4. viz.

I A. B. do truely and sincerely ac­knowledge, professe testify and declare in my conscience before God and the World, that our Soveraign Lord King CHARLES is lawful and rightful King of this Realme, and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries; and that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church or Sèe of Rome, or by any o­ther means, with any other, hath a­ny Power or Authority to depose the [Page 9] King, or to dispose any of his Maje­sties Kingdomes or Dominions, or to authorise any forreign Prince to in­vade or annoy him or his Countries, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty; or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Armes, to raise tumults, or to offer any vi­olence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person, State or Govern­ment, or to any of his Majesties Sub­jects, within his Majesties Domini­ons. Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or s [...]ntence of Excommunication or De [...]rivation made or granted, or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successours, or by any Authority de­rived, or pretended to be derived from him or his Sèe, against the said King his Heirs or Successours, or any Abso­lution of the said Subjects from their Obedience; I will hear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his H [...]irs and Successours, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my po­wer against all conspiracies and at­tempts whatsoever, which shal be made [Page 10] against his or their Persons, their Crown or dignity, by rea­son or Colour of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesties Heirs and Successours all Treasons and Traiterous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them. And I do further swear that I from my heart abhorr, de­test and abjure as impious and hereti­call this damnable doctrine and positi­on, That Princes which be excommu­nicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Sub­jects, or any other whatsoever. And I do believe, and in my conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministred unto me. And do renounce all Pardons and dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these expresse words by me spoken, and according to the plain [Page 11] and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equi­vocation or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition and acknow­ledgment heartily, willingly and tru­ly, upon the true faith of a Christian: So help me God.

12. These are the formes of the two Oathes: Both which if they be understood according to the proper and natural sence of the words import, that there being only two kinds of Jurisdictions, viz. Spirituall and Temporal, both which are named here, the King within his Dominions is equally the Fountain and Root of them both: So that whosoever exercises any office or Ma­gistracy either in the State or the Church, does it (and must acknowledge so much) meerly by communication from the King, or a participation of so much of his power as he is pleased to impart. Upon which grounds it will follow not only that no for­raign Prince, Prelate, &c, No Assembly or Councel of Bishops, though never so Oecu­monical hath right to any superiority or Ju­risdiction within these Kingdomes, but also that whatsoever any Bishop or Priest in the Kingdom &c. acts in matters & duties pure­ly Spiritual, as conferring Orders Ecclesiasti­cal, inflicting censures, administring Sa­craments &c. they do all this with a direct subordination to the King, & as his Delegates or Substitutes: insomuch as if he pleases, he [Page 12] may himself exercise all those functions per­sonally, and may according to his pleasure suspend the execution of them in all o­thers.

13. All this plainly seems to be the true im­portance of the Oathes; neither will any Stranger or dis-interessed person, reading them frame to his mind any other meaning of them: though certain it is that our four last Princes have not intended that all that took them, should accowledge all this, that is imported by them. Neither is there at this day any Church or Assembly of Christi­ans, nor perhaps any person (unlesse it be the Authour of Leviathan) that taking these Oathes, will or can, without contradicting his belief, mean all that the formes and clau­ses of them do directly, properly and Gram­matically signify, as shall be Demonstra­ted.

14. IT well deserves to be considered, what was the occasion of framing this Oath of Supremacy by K. Henry the eighth, and what power he received, or at least ex­ecuted by vertue of such Acts of Parliament as enjoyned the taking of it, &c.

15. The Title of Supream head and Gover­nour of the Church of England, was first given to King Henry the eight, in a Petition addres­sed unto him by the Bishops, obnoxious to a Praemunire for having submitted to Cardi­nal Wolsey's Legantine power without the Kings assent. Now how far this new Eccle­siastical [Page 13] power of the King was intended to extend, will appear by following Acts of Parliaments, and by the Kings own proceed­ings in vertue thereof.

13. It was enacted by Parliament, 1. that no Canons or Constitutions could be made by the Bishops,Stat. 25. Hen. 8. &c. and by them promul­gated or executed without the Kings com­mand. 2. Yea the Clergy were forced to give up also their power of executing any old Canons of the Church without the Kings con­sent had before.Records of Convo­cation. vit. Hey­lins Hist. sect. 1. p. 7. Stat. 25. Hen. 8. pref. 3. All former Constituti­ons Provincial and Synodal, though hither­to inforce by the authority of the whole Church (at least Westerne) were committed to the abitriment of the King & of sixteen Lay persons and sixteen of the Clergy appointed by the King, to be approved or rejected by them, according as they conceived them consistent with, 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,Stat. 26. Hen. 8. pref. c. 1. 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.Stat. 37. Hen. 8. c. 17. Supreme Power of dispensing with any Ecclesiastical Constituti­ons is ascribed to the King and Parliament, [Page 14] as recognised Supreme Head of the Church,Stat. 25. Hen. 8. c. 21. 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,Stat. 37. Hen. 8. c. vid. Re­form Leg. Eccles. de offic Jud. 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, Stat 32. H. c. 26. 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.Stat 2, 15, & 6. Ed. 6 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,ibid. by the same authority to frame a new forme of Consecra­tion of Bishops, &c.

[Page 15]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,M S in Bibl. Col. 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 [Page 16] 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, Calvin on Amos cap. 7. vid Epist. ded. to the book of Juris­diction of Bishop Carlton. 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 l [...]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.

[Page 17]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;L. Chan­cellour Heaths speech, M.S. 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 Spiritual Government, then it would be considered what the spiritual Govern­ment is, and in what points it doth chiefly remain. I find, sayes he, in the Gospels, that when Christ gave to St. Peter the Su­preme [Page 18] Government of the Church, he said to him, Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum, &c. That is, I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, &c. Now if you mean to give to the Queen that Authority which our Lord gave to St. Peter, if you will say, Nos tibi dabimus claves Regni coe­lorum, &c. We will give to your Majesty the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, I pray you shew your Commission by which you are authorised to make such a Gift. Again, for the same purpose Our Lord said to St. Peter, Pasce, &c. Pasce, &c. Pasce, &c. Feed my sheep, Feed my sheep, Feed my lambs: As likewise, Tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres, When thou art converted, confirm thy Brethren. Now if you mean to say so much to the Queen, let us see your Commission, and withall consider whether her person, being a Woman, be in a capacity to receive and execute such an Authority, since St. Paul forbids a Woman to teach in the Church.’ Thus argued the said Lord Chancelour, proceeding in the same manner upon other branches of spi­rituall Government, and concludes, That without a mature consideration of all these premises, their honours shall never be able to shew their faces before their Enemies in this matter.

23. But notwithstanding all this, the Lords, &c. proceeded to frame an Act without any distinct explication, whether it was a Temporal or Spirituall Authority which they gave the Queen. Or rather they fra­med it with such clauses, as that the most obvious sence of it imported that it was [Page 19] an Authority purely spiritual, that they in­vested her withall: and most certain it is, that if she had executed such an Authori­ty, she might have justified her so doing by that Act.

24. However, after that Parliament was ended, but before the first year of her Raign was expired, such considerations as the Lord Chancelour had formerly in vain represen­ted had so great an influence upon the Queen, that she was obliged by an Admo­nition prefixed to her Injunctions, to declare that which the Parliament would not, that it was not her intent by vertue of that Act to challenge Authority and power of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church, but only to have Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born within her Realmes, of what State either Ecclesiastical or Temporall, soever they be. Which explication of hers was confirmed four years after by Par­liament, yet without changing the forego­ing Act, or any clauses in it.

25. And consequently she left ordering of matters purely Spiritual to Bishops, &c. Ex­presly renouncing it; For as for the power of Excommunication, having again taken it from the Pope, she did not fear it from a­ny of her Bishops.

26. In the times succeeding after her, what qualifications were made and declared by three Kings touching spiritual Jurisdicti­on, shall be shewed afterward. They had not any such interests, nor such fears as the three foregoing Princes had; and therefore look'd with a more indifferent eye upon the matter: Without repealing lawes, or chang­ing the Exteriour Forme of the oath of Su­premacy; [Page 20] they esteemed it sufficient to quali­fie it by moderate interpretations, as shall be shewed.

27. As for the other Oath of Allegiance, the compiler whereof was King James, the most sad and horrible occasion of it is but too well known; the intention of it is obvious, and the sence plain. So that it did not stand in need of such a Multiplicity of Acts of Parliament, with many clauses to shew the extention of it. Excepting one party, scarce any except against it; and were it not for some few incommodious expres­sions and phrases (nothing pertaining to the substance and design of the Oath) it would freely and generally be admitted and taken, notwithstanding the foresaid parties condemning it, who take that advantage to decry the substance of the Oath, from which they have an aversion in as much as Fidelity is promised thereby.

28. IT is a truth from the beginning ac­knowledged by the Fathers of the Church, that all Kings are truly Supream Governours over the persons of all their Subjects, and in all causes even Ec [...]lesiastical, wherein their civil authority is mixed Con­stitutions of Synods, however they may ob­lige in conscience, and be imposed under spi­rituall censures, yet are not lawes in any [Page 21] Kingdom, that is, they they are not com­manded, nor the transgression of them pu­nishable in external Courts by outward pu­nishments, as Attachments, Imprisonment, &c. further then supream Civil Gover­nours do allow.

29. This is a right due to all Kings, though Heathens, Hereticks, &c So that Kings by being converted to Christianity or Catholick Religion, have not any new Juris­diction added, or their former enlarged there­by. They do not thereby become Pastours of Souls, but sheep of lawfull pastours: And it is not a new Authority, but a new duty that by their conversion accrews to them, obliging them to promote true Religion by the exercise of their Civil Authority and Sword: And subjects are bound to acknow­ledge and submit to this Authority of theirs, that is, not alwayes to do what Princes in Ecclesiasticall matters shall command, but however not to resist, in case their inward Beliefs be contrary to theirs, but patiently to suffer whatsoever violence shall be offer [...]d them.

30. Such a submission therefore to Kingly authority may, when just occasion is, be lawfully required by Kings from all their Subjects, yea a profession thereof by oaths. But such an one was not the Oath of Supre­macy when it was first contrived and impo­sed. For there an authority in many causes purely spirituall, was by our Princes chal­lenged, as hath been shewed. Therefore if we consider that Oath as now imposed on Subjects infinitely differing from their Prin­ces beliefe and Judgment, both in Point of doctrine and discipline, it is not imaginable [Page 22] how it can be taken in such a sense as was first meant, by any congregations, no not even by that which is of the Kings own Re­ligion.

31. The Oath consists of two parts; one Affirmative, and the other Negative: The Affirmative clause obliges all the Kings Sub­jects though never so much differing in their beliefs, to swear an acknowledgment that the King is the only supreme Head and Gover­nour of his Realme, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal. And the Negative to deny that any forraign Prince, Prelate, &c. hath or ought to have a­ny Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre­eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritu­al within this Realme, and to renounce all such.

32. These two Recognitions, if the words be interpreted in their proper Grammatical sence (as all Oathes in reason ought to be, unlesse they be otherwise interpreted by au­thority) and according to the intention of the first lawgiver declared by his practice, imply (excepting even a personal confer­ring of Orders, and administring sacraments) that all Jurisdiction purely Spiritual is ac­knowledged to be the Kings right. Now what Christian at this day alive will make these two Recognitions in the sence afore­said? Yea what English Protestant will be willing to make even the Negative Recogni­tion? For if there be no Forraign power at all Superiour to the King in things or causes purely spiritual, then neither is the Pope a Patriarch of the West (which yet King James will not deny) neither can a lawful and free General Council oblige English Protestants, [Page 23] which yet they so often protest to submit to. And as for the Affirmative clause, it is well known they do not admit it, at least in K.H. the eighth his sense; we may add, nor in Q. E­lizabeths, as their 37 Article will testify, con­trary to the rigorous sence of the words of the oath.

33. How much lesse then can any English Subjects divided both in belief and Ecclesi­astical Discipline from the Head and Body of the Church of England, submit to the same Oath? For can the King be acknowledged in all causes spiritual to be a Head of Chur­ches of which he renounces, and is renoun­ced the being so much as a member? Shall he contrive, or order the contriving of Arti­cles of belief respectively sutable to each Congregation, and bind his Subjects seve­rally to subscribe thereto, when himself be­lieves them to be false? Will he require some to be obedient to Bishops as instituted by Christ, and others to renounce them as Anti­christian? Some to use no other Forme of Service but the Common-prayer-book; o­thers not that but the Directory; and others neither of them, but their owne crude ima­ginations and Non-sense? Will he command some to submit to the Pope as supreame pastour, others Calvin, others Zuinglius, or Socinus, or a John of Leyden, or a Knip­per dolling?

34. It is evident that by vertue of this oath unchanged in any words, this Kingdom has at least thrice changed its Religion, and the whole frame of the Church. For in K. Henry the eighths dayes, excepting onely in one point, it was intirely Catholick. In King Edward the VI. his daies it was al­most [Page 24] Lutheran: and in Q. Elizabeths very much Calvinistical. And which is strange, excepting Catholicks, those that did not change their belief, yet were content to take the same Oath. Which could not be done without framing to themselves diffe­rent sences and mental evasions, so as though all took the same Oath, yet each severally took a different Oath, with a meaning in all of them contrary to the intention of the Oath-makers.

35. Matters standing thus, what a burden of guilt most we suppose to lye upon these Kingdomes by occasion of an Oath so so­lemnly imposed on the whole Nation, which if we regard the force of the words, no man can take sincerely? And this guilt is the more aggravated in this respect that there cannot possibly be any real necessity for the impo­sing of it. For since by an Oath of Allegi­ance and Obedience, his Maiesty may be secu­red of his Subjects Loyalty, what necessity or use can there be of such ambiguous ac­knowledgments of such a Supremacy which the King himself will not acknowledge, and the affirming or denying of which contri­butes nothing to his safety? He has experi­enced great disloyalty from a world of those that have most freely taken it, and none at all from those Catholicks that have refused it. It is manifest that it was first contrived meerly on purpose that King Henry the eighth might make a most filthy and exe­crable use of it. But now at last his Majesty having been pleased to declare a liberty to tender consciences, a world of men there are in these Kingdomes that are or ought to be weary of colluding with men, and dis-ho­nouring [Page 25] God in swearing according to a a Forme which they cannot but judge un­lawful, though it were for no other reason but because it is ambiguous. And these are not Roman Catholicks, for they refuse the Oath: but many of distinct Sects from both Catholick and Protestant belief. And sure­ly that Christian conscience which is not ten­der in a matter in which the honour of God and the salvation or damnation of souls is so much concerned as in a solemn National Oath, or that would voluntarily make advantage for temporal ends of gain to themselves, or malice to others, by such an oath to ensnare the consciences of another, only pretends to be a Christian, but in his heart saies, There is no Christ, and no God.

36 NOtwithstanding what hath been said, although the oath of Supremacy as it is conceived, and in the rigorous sence of the Words, cannot lawfully be taken by a­ny sect amongst Christians; yet we see it freely taken by persons of quite different perswasions in matters of Religion: Neither will charity permit us to judge, that they do all, or indeed any of them directly against their consciences either take it, or impose it. And some make no doubt at all but that an Oath, though it contain expressions which absolutely considered are false, yet are ca­pable of a good interpretation, and that a commodious interpretation is allowed by supreme authority, such a forme of an [Page 26] Oath may not unlawfully be sworn to, if o­ther circumstances impede not.

37. Now what the sences are in which respectively the Protestants and other divided Sects do take this oath, cannot assuredly be determined, otherwise then as they have expressed themselves in their writings. But however certain it is that they all of them take it in a meaning so farr different from that which K. Henry the eighth intended, that if they had lived in his dayes, and given such limitations to the Kingly power in Ecclesi­astical matters, as we find openly and plain­ly discovered in their Writings, they would have been esteemed as guilty of treason, as Bishop Fisher and Sr. Thomas More were. Whence appears that an Oath remaining for the Forme unchanged, may be taken, and allowed to be so taken, in various senses.

38. First for English Protestants, I mean since from toward the latter end of Queen Elizabeth to these dayes, that notwith­standing any Spiritual Authority either by Statutes confer'd, or assumed by K. Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, they at­tribute to the King only a Civil power in matters Ecclesiastical, and that they do this with the allowance of our Princes, who questionlesse have authority to interpret Oathes (such especially as concern their own safety, and when their interpretations do no waies enlarge their own power, nor diminish their subjects rights) may appear by evi­dent testimonies in all these three last Prin­ces times, published by the most learned Do­ctours then living among them.

39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have [Page 27] the Testimony of Doctour Bilson, Dr Bilson Of Subject 2. par. p. 218. 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, Id ibid p. 256. 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: Ibid p 173 in marg. [Page 28] and then more particularly,ibid p: 252 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 [...]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 whi [...]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 pa [...]t of their charge. Lastly to explain the Negative clause in the Oath, he sayes, In this sense we defend Princes to be supreme, ibid p. 218 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 B [...]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 [Page 29] states the matter;Carleton of Juris­dict. c. 1. p. 8, 9. 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. [Page 30] 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,Id. ibid. pag. 42. 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, Schisme guarded. &c. The summe of which Book is in the Title-page expressed to consist in shewing [Page 31] 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 the eighth, nor any of his Legislators did ever en­deavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the keyes, or any part thereof; Either the key of order, or the key of Jurisdiction. I mean Jurisdiction purely spirituall, which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience, and over such persons as submit willingly. Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the key of order, or the key of Jurisdiction purely spiritual. All which they deprived the Pope of, all which they assu­med to themselves, was the external Regiment of the Church by coactive power, to be exercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it. This power the Bishops of Rome never had, or could have justly over their Subjects, but under them whose Subjects they were. And therefore when we meet with these words or the like, (That no forraign prelate shall ex­ercise any manner of power, Jurisdiction, &c. Ecclesiastical within this Realm) it is not to be understood of internal or purely spiritual power in the Court of Conscience, or the power of the keyes, (VVe see the contrary practised every day:) but of external and Coactive pow­er in Ecclesiasticall causes in Foro con­tentioso. And that it is, and might to be so understood, I prove clearly by it Proviso in one main Act of Parliament, and an Article of the English Church. [Which act & article shall be produced afterward.] The Bishop continues [Page 32] They (that is, the Parliament,) profess their or­dinance is meerly Political: What hath a Po­litical Ordinance with power purely spiritual? They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from rapine, &c. And then having produced the Article, he concludes, You see the power is political, the sword is political, all is Politi­cal. Our Kings leave the power of the keyes and Jurisdiction purely spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it. Nothing can be more express then this so clear a testimony of so judicious a Bishop touching the Kings supremacy in matters Ecclesiasticall acknow­ledged by Oath. Only we must be excused if we assent not to what he affirms, touch­ing King Henry the Eighth his not assuming spiritual Jurisdiction.

42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds,Id. ib. pag. 169. Wheresoever our Lawes do deny all spiri­tuall Jurisdiction to the Pope in England, it is in that sence that we call the exteriour Court of the Church, the spirituall Court. They do not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the keyes, or of any spiritual power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles, when he is able to prove his Legacy. To conclude,Id. ib. p. 119. omitting a world of other passages to the same effect, he saith, We have not renounced the substance of the Papacy, except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive power.

43. Moreover to warrant these explica­tions of three so eminent men of the Pro­testant Church, who write expresly upon the Subject, may be added, testimonies yet more authentick and irrefragable, of our Princes themselves, who are to be esteemed unquestionably authoritative interpreters of [Page 33] their own lawes, at least in these cases, as a­fore was observed; and besides those, the publick Articles of the English Clergy, yea the Statutes of Parliaments also.

44. In an Act of Parliament made in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeths Raign there is an interpretation of the Oath of Suprema­cy in an express Proviso, Stat. 5▪ E­lizab. That the Oath of Supremacy shall be taken and expounded in such forme as is set forth in an Admonition an­nexed to the Queens Injunctions published in the first year of her Raign. The which Admoni­tion was made to take away a scruple raised by some, as if the Queen had usurped a Ju­risdiction purely spirituall, which she re­nounces:Admonit. of Q Eliz. to [...]er in­junctions. professing first that by vertue of that Oath, no other Authority is to be acknow­ledged then what was challenged and lately u­sed by King Henry the eighth, and King Ed­ward the sixth. This clause is not to be sup­posed to be any part of the interpretation of the Oath: but it is only intended to sig­nifie, that this is no new invented usurpati­on of a Title, but that the same had been al­lowed to those two Kings before her and the same Authority (saith she) is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this Realm. Neither doth she say, that she challenges all that those two Kings did, as in effect it is apparent she did not, but that what she re­quires had been formerly granted to them. And it is evident that if her meaning had been that the Oath should be taken according to that enormous latitude of power allow­ed and exercised by them, such a way of indefinite explication would have been far more burdensome and entangling to consci­ces then before: For that would signifie, that all that swear should be obliged to in­form [Page 34] themselves in all the clauses of acts of Parliament made by those two Kings, and in all the actions performed by them, or else they will swear they know not what. Her explication therefore is set down clearly and distinctly in the following words, by which she declares what that authority is which she challenges, and which must be acknowledge in taking the Oath, Viz. That is, Ibid. the Queen under God to have the Soveraign­ty and rule over all manner of persons born within these Realms, Dominions and Coun­tries, of what Estate, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal, soever they be, so as no other forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority o­ver them.

45. This clause according to the Queens interpretation confirm'd by act of Parlia­ment, contains the true sence of the Oath, so that if this clause can be sworn to, that is all that is signified in the form of the Oath, say Protestants. Now that by this Clause only civil power over all persons Ec­clesiasticall is challenged, appears by a wrong interpretation of the Oath which she com­plains to have been spred abroad, Viz. as if by the words of the said Oath it may be col­lected that the Kings and Queens of this Realm, Ibid. possessours of the crown may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine offices in the Church: She renounces all medling with a­ny Offices purely Ecclesiasticall in the Church, (as also Doctor Bilson by her au­thority declares in the forecited words:) she pretends not to administer Sacraments, conferr Orders, inflict Ecclesiastical censures, determine controversies of faith, &c. But she challenges a supream civil Authority over [Page 35] all those that have right to exercise those Offices, as being her Subjects as well as the Laity: And this Jurisdiction she will have acknowledged so to be her peculiar Right, as that no forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them, that is, no part of this Regal power, whatsoever spiritual Jurisdiction, which she medles not withall, they may challenge. That this is the true sence of this clause appears by that expression [SO AS] which would be void of all sence, if the meaning of it should be conceived to be, That the Queen has the supream Regal au­thority, so as no other hath a Pastorall au­thority, no way prejudicial to the Regal; and this sence is evidently confirm'd by the Act 50. Eliz. Act. 5, E­liz. c. 1. which gives this title to the Act 10. Eliz. That it is an Act by which there is restored to the Crown the Ancient Juris­diction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiri­tual, and an abolishing of all forraign power repugnant to the same; not simply all forraign power, but only that which would diminish her regal power. For how ridiculous would it be to declare a power challenged, and another power renounced that has no repugnancy to it, and renounced with the words So as?

46. Moreover in the said Admonition there are other matters worthy to be well obser­ved: For first by making and with authori­ty publishing that Admonition and injuncti­ons, she expresly assumes as her right, a power to interpret Oaths and Acts of Parli­ament: Which if she may do, so doubtless may her Successors. Secondly, besides this she gives power to any one that takes the Oath, in taking it to signifie that he accepts [Page 36] it with the said meaning;Admonit. o [...] Q E­liz. for sayes she, If any person that hath conceived any other sence of the Form of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation, sence or meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalfe as her good and Obedient Subject, and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath. Thirdly, that this her interpretation and addition is moreover established by a fol­lowing Act of Parliament, Stat. 5. E­liz. which sayes, That it is to be taken and expounded in this Forme. Lastly, that the Oath it self is by the Queen in her admonition said to be an oath prescri­bed to be required of divers persons for the re­cognition of their Allegiance to her. Which shews it concern'd not Beliefe, but duty on­ly in maintaining her supream civill Autho­rity.

Artic. 37.47. Next in King James his daies what was conceived to be the power challenged by our Kings in vertue of that Oath, will easi­ly appear by a notable passage in his Premo­nition to all Christian Monarchs, in which his intention is to convince (as he saith) those (Roman) Libellers of Wilful malice, Praemon of K. James to all Chr. Monarks pag. 9. who impudently affirm, that the Oath of Allegiance was devised for deceiving and intrapping of Papists in points of Conscience. [Now speaking thus, surely he would not it should be believed that his meaning was by conti­nuing to urge the Oath of Supremacy likewise to deceive and intrap his poor Subjects in points of Conscience. From which unwor­thy intention how averse he was, that is, how far from assuming to himself or even [Page 37] denying to the Pope a Jurisdiction purely spiritual, the following words will testify:] The truth is (saith he) that the lower house of parliament at the first framing of that Oath made it to contain that the Pope had no power to ex­communicate me;ibid. which I caused them to re­forme, only making it to conclude, That no ex­communication of the Popes can warrant my Subjects to practise against my person or State; denying the deposition of Kings to be in the Popes lawful power: as indeed I take any such Temporal violence to be far without the limits of such a spiritual Censure as excommunication. [And Suarez and Becanus, &c. go further, affirming that by Excommunication not any Temporal right or Power is taken away, or diminished.K. James Premon. ibid.] So careful was I (saith he) that nothing should be contained in this Oath except the profession of natural Allegiance, and Civil and Temporal obedience, with a promise to resist to all contrary uncivil violence. And presently after he adds, That the occasion of the Oath was ordained only for making of a true distinction between Papists of quiet disposition, ibid. and in all other things good Subjects, and such other Papists as in their hearts maintained the like violent bloody Maximes that the powder-traitours did. Ibid. pag. 46. Nay moreover touching the patriarchal Jurisdiction he saith, For my self (if that were the quèstion) I would with all my heart give my consent, that the Bishops of Rome should have the first seat: I being a Western, King would go with the Patriarch of the west. And how far he was from challenging spiritual Ju­risdiction, he shewed by his constant com­mitting such affairs to his Clergy, only ad­ding his regall Authority for the execution of their Ordinances: but more publickly and validly by a new confirming and causing [Page 38] to be published by his authority the Arti­cles of the English Clergy, among which is the 37th, We do not give our Kings ei­ther the administration of Gods word or Sa­craments, which the injunctions published lately by Queen Elizabeth do most evidently daclare: But only that prerogative which we see to have been alwayes attributed to all godly Princes by himself in holy Scriptures, that is, To preserve or contain all Estates and orders committed to their trust by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or civil, in their duties, and restrain contumacious offenders with the civil sword.

48, This one Article, not only publickly acknowledged by all English Protestants, but a subsciption thereto enacted from Eccle­siasticks, and those that take degrees in the Vniversities, and withall by Act of Parlia­ment enjoyned to be read by all Beneficed Ministers within two moneths after their induction, this one Article, I say, so confirmed, may alone suffice to demonstrate evidently and distinctly that it is only a civil Jurisdicti­on that the Kings of England challenge in Ecclesiasticall matters, and not at all an au­thority purely spiritual or Pastoral: They are as all other Christian Princes have ever been acknowledged, custodes utriusque Ta­buloe: They ought to see and provide that all their Subjects do their duty both to God and Man. Wherein that duty consists, which concernes the Divine worship, they are to learn from the Church: and at their peril it is, if they be misdirected by a false Church; but however thus far their just power extends, which must be submitted to either by obeying or suffering. As long [Page 39] therefore as this Article is in force in Eng­land, there will be no need of searching in­to the senses or interpretations of following Kings, say Protestants; yet if we should do this, it is well known that our late Sove­raign, and his Majesty now raigning, (be­sides many expressions vivae vocis oraculo,) have been rather more carefull then King James, not to interpose themselves in functions purely spirituall.

49. This Section shall be concluded with setting down a notable Provizo extant in that very Statute in which the Popes Juris­diction was most prejudiced, and the grea­test Authority in Ecclesiasticall matters con­fer'd upon King Henry the eighth. The which Provizo is so cautelously framed, that though King Henry esteemed himself to have gained a Jurisdiction purely spirituall, 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, Stat. 25. Hen. 8. cap. 21. 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 [Page 40] 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.

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 [Page 42] 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,Confes. des Egli­ses de France. 9. ult. 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 [Page 43] 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 Sco [...]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, [Page 44] 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 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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.

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, Q 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 [Page 48] 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.

R.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:Ob. 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 [Page 49] 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,Ob. [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, [Page 50] 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.

Sol.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.Ob. 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, Schisme guarded. 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 [Page 51] 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, Joan. c. 9. 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] expresly excluded by this Oath, as it is by that of Allegiance. Though how can Equi­vocation be excluded, when according to them one Equivocation may be renounced by another? A most horrid example where­of England has lately seen in the R. Padre Antonio Vais.

72. Neither do Protestants think that a Declaration formerly made by the Pope,Ob. and forbidding Catholicks to take those Oaths with any Interpretation whatsoever, needs to be a hindrance to the taking of it in the forementioned sence so publickly a­vouched, but onely in any secret meanings invented, or mentally reserved by particu­lar persons. For surely the Pope intends not to take a power from Law-givers to in­terpret their own lawes, nor to forbid their Subjects to admit their interpretations, if they be agreable to truth, and that the words be capable of being so interpreted, as these are pretended to be. Certain it is that the Pope was never informed of this so legal an interpretation: For if he had, he would never have forbidden that to distressed Eng­lish Catholicks, which to his knowledg all good Subjects in France, Germany, Venice, &c. neither will nor dare refuse to acknow­ledge and profess. Besides, (say they) is England now become the only Kingdom in Christendom where all manner of Briefs must be immediately submitted to without a pub­lick Legal acceptation, and without exami­nation of the Motives, or suggestions by which they w [...]re procured? It is far other­wise now in the most Catholick Countries, and was formerly even in England, when it was most Catholick: the Lawes then made [Page 54] against receiving or executing Bulls from Rome without a publick admission under the penalty of incurring a Praemunire, are still in force.

73. If Catholicks rejoyning, say that there is another regard for which they are unwil­ling even to receive information touching a­ny qualifications of these Oaths,Ob. viz. be­cause the mere admitting a probability that they may lawfully and without prejudice to Catholick Faith be taken, would argue that so many vertuous, wise and holy Men as have suffered death, &c. for refusing them, have suffred without any necessary cause: Such were Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, &c. in King Henry the eights dayes, and ma­ny good Priests since.

Sol.74. Notwithstanding, say Protestants, such a consequence is not necessary: For first, it hath been shewed that King Henry the eighth intended to exclude the purely spiritual Ju­risdiction of the Pope, his power of deter­mining matters of Faith according to former Lawes of the Church, &c. And therefore no wonder that good Catholicks then would not betray their consciences. But it is well known that Sir Thomas More advised the King to limit some excesses of the Popes Jurisdiction.K. James defence of the Oath. And an eminent writer, tells us that Bishop Fisher offered to take the Oath, if it might have been permitted him to explicate his sence of it, which could be no other then this, that he should deny the Popes temporal Jurisdiction. Secondly as for those that suffred in Q. Elizabeths time, it is certain that all good Catholicks would never have esteemed it a Martyrdom to dye for refusing to the King a supreme Kingly [Page 55] Power, and attributing that to the pope. They had therefore a quite different notion of what the state of England required by this Oath. But of late good occasion has been given for a more exact examination of it. For to make a sincere and ingenuous confes­sion, it was a Committee of the late rebelli­ous parliament, that probably first of all dis­covered what use they made of the foresaid proviso in the Act 5. Eliz. to warrant them to take this Oath without submitting their Religion to the King. And the same use they judged that all other Sects might make of the same, and justify their so doing by law, even Roman Catholicks themselves.

75. All these things considered, it is no wonder that English protestants not being fully informed of the state of Catholicks, should wonder at Roman Catholicks for their so Universal agreement in refusing an Oath so interpreted, without the least pre­judice to their faith, but with so unexpressi­ble a prejudice both to their estates and ex­ercise of their Religion.

76. The Authour of these Reflexions does freely acknowledge that he has been inquisi­tive with more then ordinary diligence into the grounds upon which Protestants do make no scruple at all to take an oath, which if it had no Expounders to qualifie the sence properly imported by the words, he knows they could not take it with a good conscience Nay moreover he has given all the advantage that he could to the proofes produced by them to justify that no other sence ought to be given therto, by any English Subject: in so much as he may apprehend that he shall incurr a danger to be esteemed by Catho­licks [Page 56] to have a design to encourage them al­so to take it, since that sence is such as is ve­ry convenient to the principles of Catholick Religion.

77. But he protests the contrary. His end in writing all this is (besides a satisfaction given to his mind, that he cannot now without breach of Charity charge Protestants with such an unsincerity in their taking this Oath, as Presbyterians &c. are apparently guilty of) to afford unto the World an illustrious proof of the most perfect sincerity, and the greatest tendernesse of conscience expressed on this occasion by the generality of English Catho­licks, that I believe ever was given by any Church since Christs time.

78. They live here in their own native Country with lesse priviledg then strangers, they are excluded from having any influence on any thing that concerns the Common­weale of which they are freeborn Subjects; When laws are made against them as guilty persons, they are not permitted to sepa­rate their cause from a few that only deser­ved the penalties of those lawes; they are by lawes obnoxious to greater sufferings then enemies; they see their families impo­verished, their houses invaded by savage of­ficers, their lives forfeited as Traytours, for entertaining those without whom they could not live otherwise then as Pagans, deprived of performing any service and worship to God, &c. All these miseries they groan under without proofe of any demerit on their parts; the crimes of a few miserable seduced and seducing wretches, and their bloody Doctrine, by none in the Kingdom [Page 57] more detested then by themselves, are made their guilt. And these calamities they could avoid by taking an oath, the present new acknowleded sence whereof (as to his Majesties right) is just and lawful. And yet they dare not take it. Why? Because they fear God above all. But do not Protestants fear him too? They are no Judges of the con­sciences of others. This they assure them­selves of, that if those that now take the Oath, had been to have framed it, they would have shewed a greater proof of their fear of God, then to have expressed the Kings Supremacy in termes fit for none but K. Hen. the VIII.

79. But moreover great difference there is between the case of Protestants and Roman Catholicks in regard of this Oath. For Pro­testants know that the first invention of this Oath was to explore the consciences of Ca­tholicks, and to tempt them to Schisme, by renouncing the Spiritual Authority of the head of Gods Church, which under perill of damnation they cannot do. They would not perhaps find so great difficulty, (without swearing,) only to say, That the King alone is the supreme Governour in all matters Ecclesi­astical within his Dominions, &c. when they are obliged to say this to persons that ac­knowledge with them such power to be on­ly Civill: But an Oath to Catholicks is a thing so dreadful, that they dare not call God to witnesse that they sincerely swear an ac­knowledgement that the Pope has not, nor ought to have any Superiority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, unlesse it might be permitted them at the same time, & in the same breath to signify that this is intended of Civil, King­ly [Page 58] Authority in Ecclesiastical causes. They tremble to swear in a phrase at the best am­biguous, or rather not ambiguous, but for­mally contradictory to Catholick Doctrine: for all the words that they pronounce, and of their acknowledgment whereof they make God a witnesse, are such as they are perswaded to be manifestly erroneous. Now God is called a witnesse to what men say in an oath, not to what they think, unless they think as they say.

80. But moreover there is another con­sideration that is more than sufficient to make the taking of this oath inconsistent with Catholick Religion: and that is, the diffe­rence that King James, Bishop Andrews, &c. put between the two oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance, in regard of their End and in­tention.Defence of the Oath. For sayes King James, The Oath of Allegiance (was not framed against Ro­man Catholicks in general, but) only to make a separation between Catholicks of a peaceable dis­position & in all other things good Subjects, and such Roman Catholicks as maintained the Rebel­lious Maxims of the Powder-traitours. But as for the Oath of Supremacy, the intention of the continuation of it, was to the end to disco­ver who were Roman Catholichs, and who Protestants. So that whosoever takes that Oath, is presumed by King James &c. to de­clare that he is no Catholick: Tort. tort. pag. 3. Bishop Andrews has the like expression: but withall he di­scovers the usesessness of that oath. For (saies he) what needs any oath at all to detect who are Roman Catholicks? For they refuse to be pre­sent at the Protestants Church service, they will not come to our Sermons, they dare not re­ceive the Eucharist with us, &c. So that with­out [Page 59] any oath you may easily know who are Ro­man Catholicks.

81. Lastly the principal proof by which Protestants demonstrate that by the Oathes no other Authority or Supremacy is given to our Princes, but civil only (which is the 37 Article of the English Church) though it be sufficient to clear the Affirmative part of the oath, yet not so for the Negative, concern­ing the Popes spiritual Jurisdiction. Yea in the same place it is expresly excluded: For the words following in the same Article do apparently give and require a very uncatho­lick sence of that Negative Clause; for there is expressely affirmed, The Bishop of Rome hath not any Jurisdiction in this Kingdom. Now since both King James, Bishop Andrews, and the thirty seventh Article, even in the very same places where they speak of Kingly and papal power do as the former rightly state the Kingly, and leave the Papal (Spiri­tual) power indifinitely excluded, their in­tention appears to have been to declare a­gainst, and require an abrenunciation of a Catholick point of faith.

82. Upon these grounds Catholicks dare not but refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy. Perhaps by the new unlawful art of Casuistry some of them might think they could find e­vasions: but generally such is the tendernesse of their consciences that they dare not think it lawful to make advantage of Casuistry in a Solemn Oath. Very likely Protestants will call them nicely scrupulous, foolish or im­provident for this their tendernesse of consci­ence. But sure they will not suspect them disloyal, who attribute as much Au­thority to the King as themselves do: and if [Page 60] it were permitted them to confirm this by a clear Oath, in their own language, they would not yield to them in the fullnesse of the expression. If hereafter they are re­solved not to grant them any ease from their pressures, if a harmlesse scrupulosity in Ca­tholicks shall bear those penalties which di­rect rebellion in others escapes, If to sa­tisfy the passion of not very good Subjects, those that are truly loyal shall be treated as Rebells, and their religion only punished in­deed; however that will not be acknowledg­ed by those that punish it, all that remains for Catholicks to say, is, Dominus judicabit fines terrae.

83. NExt followes the Oath of Allegiance, framed by K. James upon the greatest provocation, and an attentat the most execrable, the most abhorred by the whole body of Catholicks, both at home and abroad, and the most scandalous to Christian Religion that ever was. This oath affords also matter of wonder to Prote­stants, Why Catholicks who acknowledge the Kings supreme civil authority, should make any scruple to take it, since it was ne­ver meant against such.

84. But they may impute only to them­selves the cause of such a refusal: for by some incommodious phrases unnecessarily thrust into it they have frighted many from [Page 61] taking it: and as if they had conspired with that one too well known party which alone gave occasion for the framing it, they have given them advantage for those unnecessary phrases sake to fix upon all the Refu­sers a scandalous however unjust imputation as if they approved these abominable prin­ciples, from which flowed that more abo­minable Attentat, which deservedly wrung extreme severity from a Prince the most element that ever this Nation formerly had enjoyed.

85. In the following Reflexions therefore upon this Oath, justice requires that we should divide between the innocent and the guilty, between those that (not in this Kingdom on­ly) have made that Principle of Disloyalty their distinctive Charter; and those that are ready to renounce that Principle, if they might be allowed to renounce it by any other, though more Emphatical expressi­ons.

86. As touching the former unhappy par­ty, it is observable that at the first publishing of the Oath, there were in every line and almost particle of it pointed out by them a several Heresie: All which Heresies are now at last vanished, excepting only one, which is that by which there is enjoyned [a renoun­cing of that so bruited Article of Faith touching the Popes power of deposing Princes not for Heresie only but almost any other fault that shall be esteemed sufficient to deserve it.

87. This pretended Article of Faith is by such new De-fide-men grounded either upon the Actions of certain Popes since Pope Gre­gory the seventh, which both for their own sakes and ours it is to be wished had never [Page 62] 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 [Page 63] 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,M. Paris, Naucle­rus, A.D. 1215. Godf. Mo­nachus. Platinain Innoc. 3. 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. 2.

90. Again, though it were granted that this was a Conciliary Decree, it is far from looking like an Article of Faith, Bel. l. 2. de. R. Pont. cap. 12. Canus. l. 5. q. 4. 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 [Page 64] 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 Ordinan [...]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 Ordinan [...]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.

[Page 65]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, [Page 66] 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 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.

[Page 67]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;Stat. 25. Edw. 3. 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;Stat. 16. Rich. 2. Or for purchasing [Page 68] Bulls from Rome for presentments to Churches an [...]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,Ibid. 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,Ibid. 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 premuni [...]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, [Page 69] 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 Ar­ti [...]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 law [...]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 Doct [...]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 ju [...]t nothing, neither can it have any effect at all. For certainly no Law nor [Page 70] 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 fundamental Christian verity? 2. That the preaching of that doctrine will be far more safe, yea only safe in conscience: because if it be probable that it is an Article of faith, the teaching of the contrary may perhaps come to be Heretical, which the teaching of it cannot be.

104. In vain therefore do they expect so easie a condescendence from others: and the more unreasonably, because themselves dare not justifie this their Article of Faith in the Catholick Kingdom of France to be so much as a probable opinion, no not in these times when they lately had a great Cardinal a Minister of State their confident, and a Confessarius or manager of the Kings con­science, their Court-instrument: Who is so much, too much a Courtier, and (as long as he lives in France) too little a zelot for this their peculiar principle, as that he dares not so much [Page 71] as motion to his penitentan acceptation of that Decree of Lateran interpreted in their sence, but freely absolves him, and admits him to the communion without so much as confes­sing among his faults his dis-beliefe of this Article, yea professing the contrary. Nay more, they themselves whilst they are there, do not believe it: for if they did, they would not surely omit to attempt the con­version of French Catholicks, at least, in ar­ticulo mortis, to this their Fundamental point of Faith; but this they dare not, and care not to do, nor do they refuse to take mony for praying for their souls, as they did for­merly in England to some that defended the Oath of Allegiance.

105. What charme then have they to make such a topical, uncatholick Aricle of Faith to serve only for the Meridian of Eng­land, which of all the Countries in Christen­dome ought least to hear any mention of it? They themselves in France are, or at least appear Catholicks a la mode de France, and dare not so much as in a whisper say that this is a topical Opinion, much less an Article of Faith: And yet the King there is of the Popes own Religion, and consequently not obnoxious to the danger of it. What stupi­dity then, what blindness do they presume to find among us English Catholicks, that they should fancy that we do not evidently see that it is their own secular interest only that makes the same point of Doctrine to be de fide in an Island, and a pestilent errour in terra firma?

106. In vain therefore do they hope that all Catholicks which have not made them the Depositaries of all their reason and common [Page 72] sence, will admit a position infinitely preju­dicial to their Religion, to their King, and to their own souls, which they would re­nounce in regard of their own single Estates or persons. For suppose a Bull of Excom­munication should be procured from Rome against any Catholick Lord, Gentleman, or Farmer in England for some new Heresie of Jansenisme, or for denying their Exempti­ons, &c. and that in consequence thereof, the Pope by his temporal Authority should lay a sine upon their heads, or deprive them of their Titles and Estates: Would those Lords or Gentlemen quietly be content to be un­lorded and become peasants, or would they pay their fines and resign their Estates to such Apostles? If not, as most certainly they would not, with what conscience would they suffer themselves to be perswaded that the Sacred person of their Soveraign only is obnoxious to slavery, beggery and danger?

107. Though that party therefore be so tender-conscienced that they dare not, or so obnoxious to Superiours abroad that they must not, according to the clause of this Oath of Allegiance, swear, that they do detest as im­pious that position of theirs, That Princes ex­cummunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdred by their subjects: Yet since English Catholicks, yea even their own penitents will be both good Catholicks, and therefore good subjects, as all are in France, Germany, Venice, Flanders, &c. Till an Au­thentick approved, received decree of the Church be produced, or procured to de­clare, not in England only, but all Christen­dom over, that that position is de fide, they [Page 73] will not be deprived of their Christian liber­ty to renounce it, especially being assured that without renouncing of it the State will never acknowledg them for loyal Subjects. It is well known that in France there was an Oath framed by the whole Body of the fiers Estate, in which they are to be sound farr more comprehensive expressions then are in our Oath, for therein is expresly affirmed, That there is no power on Earth, Wid­dring. last Rejoyn­der. p. 425. either spiri­tual or temporal that hath any right over his Majesties Kingdom to deprive the sacred per­sons of our Kings, nor to to dispence with, or absolve their Subjects from their loyalty and obedience whi [...]h they owe to them, for any cause or pretence whatsoever.

108. This will suffice concerning that po­sition, which those who will not be permit­ted to renounce, but rather maintain it to Article of faith, yet however will perhaps not refuse to profess themselves ready to swear. 1. That the Kings of England excom­municated by the Pope, may not be murthered by their Subjects, and to detest the contrary as Heretical. 2. Yea moreover, that notwith­standing any sentence of deprivation ever here­after, upon what occasion soever to ensue, they will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Ma­jesty and his successours. And what needs Princes desire any greater security (say they) what need they trouble themselves with their Subjects speculative opinions?

109. But (alas) a miserable security, a poor testimony or gage of fidelity is all this, God knowes. For first, Murder being an unjust killing out of malice, and with a de­liberate purpose, is a sin so horrible in it self, that God himself cannot make it lawfull, [Page 74] much lesse the Pope: therefore in all reason instead of those words [May not be murdred] they ought to say [may not be killed by their Subjects] For otherwise notwithstanding that Oath the Pope may be acknowledg­ed to be a competent Judge of life and death over our Kings to sentence them to the slaughter, and that sentence may be put in execution without murther: For who ever said that a Malefactour put to death by Law was murthered by the Judges sen­tence?

110. But whether they say [May not be murthered] or [May not be killed] Princes will esteem themselves little advantaged by such an Oath, unlesse the swearers say withal [May not be deposed.] For whosoever has a su­preme just right upon any pretence whatso­ever to Depose Princes, has thereby right to cause them to be killed, in case they by armes oppose the Execution of that sentence. And can it be imagined that any Prince judged an Heretick or otherwise guilty by the Pope, and by him sentenced to be deposed will thereupon quietly descend out of his Throne, and yield up his Scepter to one of a contrary Religion? Or rather, is it not most certain that they will not, but on the contrary bring with them many thousands of their armed 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] great Master in the Deposing Doctrine, Suar. de­fens. Fid. lib. 6. c. 3. 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 [Page 77] 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. [Page 78] 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.

[Page 79]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 substance and intention of the oath: and being present do render the whole ineffectual. They are assured that the first framer of this Oath, K. James ne­ver intended to intangle the consciences of his subjects, and if he had foreseen that a few unnecessary words would have rendred them uncapable to serve him, he would never have made choice of such unhappy expressions. But so long experience having demonstrated what it is that wounds the consciences of Catholicks, they confidently hope that this tendernesse will shew how infinitely more tender they will be to keep the Fidelity pro­mised in the oath, since they have kept it when they were treated as breakers of it, only for, I cannot say, not daring to professe it, for that have alwayes been ready to do: but for not dareing to say things unnecessary to be said, or that they understand not or are not permitted to Explicate their meaning.

119. Never certainly was there a time when it was either more seasonable or more necessary to obstruct all passages of jealousies amongst English Subjects, and to prevent all attempts of disturbing the Kingdomes peace. As for other Sects, the State will (it is hoped and prayed for) be assisted by a divine wis­dom, to provide against the particular tem­pers of each: and as for Roman Catholicks no other expedient will be necessary but to afford them means to shew abroad that Fide­lity which their Religion indispensably ob­liges [Page 80] them to. This indeed will be a great affliction to other Sects among us, who would rather forgive Catholicks for being real tray­tours, then for manifesting themselves in the eyes and to the satisfaction of all to be good Subjects.

120. Certainly that old policy of Queen E­lizabeths Calvinistical Statesmen is now very unseasonable, and was alwaies dangerous, of first fomenting divisions among Catholick Subjects, especially about principles of loyalty and disloyal [...]y, and then exposing both the loyal and disloyal subjects indifferently to the same rigour of lawes. Surely it is of greater concernment now for his Majesties security to unite all Catholicks with one heart to assist and defend him by casting out all principles of disloyalty inconsistent both with Catholick and Protestant Religi­on.

121. Now what more efficacious mean, or rather what other mean is there for this then that which his Majesty may if he please con­ferr upon them by allowing such an Ecclesi­astical Government among them by which there will be produced a true Christian Uni­ty and Uniformity both in opinions and pra­ctises, and consequently by which without giving the least jealousy, but on the contra­ry very great security to the State, they may all be united to concurr in promoting his service?

122. Now to what special parties both within and without the continuation of a defect so projudicial is to be imputed, is but too well known. It is not to be doubted but that the forementioned party will make use of all their skill and power to oppose all [Page 81] good correspondence among them, upon more then one Motive. For 1. A strong af­fection which they have to independence, and to a promoting of their particular interests dividedly from all others (by which means they have got great power abroad, little for the publick good of this Kingdom) this will make a common union very unwellcome to them. 2. And again they will easily foresee that by this only means those wick­ed principles of disloyalty which made them heretofore eminent abroad, must necessari­ly then be renounced. They will no longer be looked upon as the only Apostles of a for­raign temporal power, either direct, or (which is as bad) indirect; the enormous writings and worse practices of their Forefathers, which only procured the continuation of the Oath of Supremacy, and the framing of that of Allegiance together with the sharp lawes, not against them alone, must be condemned to the same fate that they have suffered in other Kingdomes: and lastly an advantage of corrupting good English Natures with Maximes of Morality odious to all Christen­stom, and condemned by supream Autho­rity will be taken from them.

123. These cannot chuse but prove un­to such dispositions very great mortificati­ons, and as great as any of these, would be the framing of Oaths which all good Catholicks could securely take. For it is well known that they have been publickly told that it is for their advantage only that such Oaths are imposed here as cannot generally be taken, and that worse newes cannot come to their brethren abroad, then that such Oaths were taken away from Catholicks: Because they have a strong apprehension that themselves [Page 92] having been the sole clauses of those ri­gours against the whole body of English Catholicks, shall have but a small portion in any future indulgence without an expli­cite, satisfactory renunciation of their prin­ciples, and an assurance given to teach the contrary, as they were obliged by an Ar­rest of the Parliament of Paris, A. D. 1626.

124. And that this was no suspicion groundlesly taken or invented, there was produced a well known verified story hap­ning toward the latter end of Queen Eliza­beths raign:Widdr. a­gainst Fitzharb. in the pref. p. 66. For that Queen being at last sa­tisfied of the loyalty of certain Catholick Priests, had a purpose to shew some indul­gence and qualification of the lawes to them. Hereupon certain of their Brethren went to Rome to carry such good newes thither, whither being come they were by that party branded with the names of Schisma­ticks, Spies and Rebels to the See Apostolick: and moreover there was by one of the party [T.F.] compiled a Treatise in Italian to advise his holyness, That it was not good or profitable to the Catholick cause that any liberty or tole­ration should be granted by the S [...]ate of Eng­land to Catholicks. And why not good for the Catholick cause? Because not for their own interest: For having been persons ne­ver formerly admitted by publick authority into this Kingdom, and having given sad proofs of their temper, they did not with­out reason suspect that if only good loyal Catholick Subjects were tolerated, their so dangerous, and to themselves only advan­tageous principles must be abandoned.

125. It is not therefore to be expected, but that a charitable concurrence of several Ecclesiastical pastours here would be to them [Page 93] very unwellcome. But the commodities and Benedictions flowing there-from are unexpressible. For 1. Though perhaps by a hindrance thereby given to that parties di­vided way of agitation here, the number of Catholicks among us might come to be di­minished; yet then there would be none but good, charitable and obedient Catholicks in England, free from all intelligence or de­signs abroad. 2. Matters of discipline and Spiritual Government would not be only and immediatly ordered by a Court too far distant from us, and too much suspected by the State here. 3. English Catholicks would be freed from a burden, (and the King from jealousies) to which no other in the World are obnoxious. For in France, &c. none dare under utmost penalties execute orders or publish Mandats without express allowance from the State, though such briefs touched only 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 [Page 84] 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: Fi [...]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 fl [...]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 [Page 85] 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 Prot [...]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, no [...]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,Ob. That the prom [...]ses made by Ca­tholick Ecclesiasticks of Canonical Obedien [...]e [Page 86] to their supreme pastour in their ordinations are dangerous to the State. But alas how ground­less is such a fear?Sol. 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.

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 [Page 87] 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 to their Religion, & in consequence thereto gave too just cause to th [...] State to provide against them.

132. But of late the temper of the King­dom is strangely altered. God only knowes how many new Religions are star [...]ed up, the natural issues of the more antient Presbyteri­an [Page 88] private spirit: All which perhaps think themselves little or nothing concerned in Oathes made against Roman Catholicks, and therefore will not much stand upon the ta­king of them: by which means they, not­withstanding their known principles and pra­ctises, destructive both to Allegiance and peace, wlll passe for good subjects, without any obligation to renounce such principles, or change such practises: and only Roman Catholicks will keep the Oathes, though they dare not take them: by which means being yet more odious to such Sects for keeping the Oathes then they would have been if they had broke them, the only re­venge that the others have against them, is to force them to take them. So that be­tween them all the security of his sacred Ma­jesty, which was only intended by the Oathes, is not in the least measure provided for. Yea I may, I hope, be permitted to say, That his Majesty thinks himself secure of those that do not take the Oathes, and stands in great need of securing himself from too many that freely take them, and swear to be loyal to him. What then can be imagined more ne­cessary for a cure to so great a confusion, then to change such inefficacious instruments of Loyalty?

133. But moreover since it is not to be doubted but that his Majesty will not be un­mindful of his promise so publickly made of a liberty for tender consciences, and that none shall be called in question for differences of opi­nion in matter of Religion, which do not disturb the peace of the Kingdom: Those certainly will declare themselves most unworthy of the fruit of so unexampled a beingnity, that shall either expect from such a promise a liberty [Page 89] to reserve any ill principles of Disloyalty, or that shall exclude from the benefit of it any other of his Subjects that shall submit them­selves to all possible proofs of renouncing such principles, and that have hitherto with­out any Oathes taken, constantly adhered to him.

134. As his Majesty therefore has been pleased to take notice that among his Sub­jects of a different belief there are tender consciences, and has promised to have a mer­ciful regard to them: So it is most just and necessary that his Subjects likewise should al­low his Majesty to have a tender conscience too, to which also they must have regard. Now wherein can He (or any in authority under him) more truly and perfectly shew that he has a tender conscience with regard to his Subjects, then by using his Authority to root out all ill Principles that disturbe peace, or dispose to sedition and Rebellion? For this end especially Princes were ordained by God: So that if they do otherwise, they should resist the ordinance of God, and become far worse then Tyrants to their people. Those Subjects therefore that would expect or de­sire that the maintaining any principles of disloyalty should be esteemed a proof that they have tender consciences, do consequent­ly expect that the King should give them leave, whensoever they have a grudge in conscience thereto, to depose him, and to put the whole Kingdom into confusion.

135. And now, till his Majesty shall vouch­safe to interpret his promise more distinctly, let any indifferent person judge, who they are among so many different beliefs that ought to be esteemed to have tender conscien­ces, and to hold Opinions which do not disturb [Page 92] the peace of the Kingdom: whether they that have and ever will be ready to give all possi­ble proofes of loyalty both by words and deeds, so that the words by which they pro­fesse this may not prejudice their relig [...]on in a point of mere internal belief which has not any influence upon their Loyalty: and who if they cannot otherwise then by be­traying their faith be accepted and treated as loyal, will protest themselves bound in conscience and by their Religion never to di­sturb the peace of the Kingdom, but patiently to suffer as if they did disturb it; Or those which make no conscience to swear accor­ding to a Forme that requires loyalty, though they know that such a form in the proper sence of the words cannot consist with their belief; and when they have done, make lesse conscience of violating that duty which they know the law requires, and which ought to have been performed though they had never sworn it. Surely unlesse passion alone be judge, unlesse that be to be called a tender conscience which is none at all: and unless the Title of disturbers of the peace of the Kindom, be appropriated to those only that trouble no body, and wrongfully imputed to those only who are irreconcileable to all that love and promote peace and loyalty, both Protestants and Catholicks, there will be no errour in making a iudgment.

136. It is not out of any design to please men, but only because God and religion re­quire it, that Roman Catholicks acknowledg his Majesty to be our supreme Governour over all persons, and in all causes, as far as Kin [...]ly power can be exercised in them: And by Gods grace it is not any fear of man that shall hin­der them from professing that they acknowledg [Page 91] the Pope to be the supreme spiritual pastour of souls, not only not subject to Kingly Civill authority therein, but in his line above it, as all spiritual jurisdiction of the Church is, (by the testimony of Dr. Carleton in his Admoni­tion to the Reader.) It is purely from the fear of God that they deny unto the King a Spiritual Jurisdiction, and to the Pope a Temporal. Flattery, disrespect or malignity have not the least influence on either of these professions: If they should ascribe to the King a Pastoral authority in spiritual matters, or to any Spiritual Pastours a Lordly dominion over the persons or lives of other mens sub­jects, and much more over Kings themselves, they should give to Caesar the things which are Gods, and to God spiritually ruling in his Vicar, the things which belong to Caesar: they should herein wrong both the Pope and the King too, and by mixing or doubling either of their powers, destroy both. As for their Duty to Kings, they hear our Lord saying, The Kings of the Nations bear a Lordly Domini­on, but nor so yee (my Apostles:) I have not given to you any such authority: yea they find our Lord refusing to be a King, or so much as a Judge in temporal matters, but not re­fusing to pay tribute, nor to acknowledg Pi­late to have power from heaven over him. They hear the first Vicar of our Lord St. Peter commanding with an authority greater then ex Cathedrâ, Be subject to every humane crea­ture, to the King as precelling all others, &c. Again, as touching Spiritual Pastours, they hear St. Paul say, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. They are not car­nal, not externally coactive by attachments, imprisonments, banishments, executions, &c. but far more powerful as being Spiritual, [Page 92] binding and imprisoning in invisible chains, banishing from the Communion of Saints, delivering up to Satan, &c. It is a zeal to this Jurisdiction a Jurisdiction greater then any that the Angels injoy, that forbids Catholicks to enervate it by adjoyning thereto, with an opinion of making it stronger, a carnal autho­rity; as knowing that Popes were never so powerful over m [...]ns souls, as when they de­spised worldly advantages. By hearkning to flattering Ca [...]nists or Schoolmen who invest­ed them with Temporal power, Popes never gained any so much as temporal commodity to themselves, but infinitely prejudiced their spiritual; being often looked upon by Princes not as Fathers, but as, &c. So that the Parlia­ment of Paris in their censure did very justly say, That such doctrines rendred the dignity of the Pope odious.

137. This is that which Catholicks have been taught by Gods word, by tradition, by Counsels, &c. this they are ready with or without Oathes to professe, and which, God willing, neither oathes nor lawes, nor hu­mane power shall force them to d [...]ny. If this renders them obnoxious to the penalties of lawes as ill subjects, yet it cannot make them ill subjects; if this renders them disloyal sub­jects, there is not a loyal subject in France, Germany, &c. if humane tribunals condemn them, God will in his time acquit them.

138. In a word, to demonstrate how little they deserve the imputation of being not most perfectly good Subjects, Roman Catho­licks are ready to subscribe to such a professi­on and oath of Loyalty, as whosoever takes it will give all the security of Fidelity that ho­nour, conscience, religion and the hope of eternal happinesse, or fear of eternal damna­tion [Page 93] can lay upon a soul, that is, By Oath to protest not only an indispensable obedience and non-resistance in all things to his Majesty and his successours of what religion soever they be, but also a firm perswasion or belief that it is abso­lutely unlawful upon any pretence or motive whatsoever, either of ascribing to any other an un­due power, or even of defending religion, for sub­jects actively and with armes or violence to op­pose his Majesty. By the same Oath they will ob­lige themselves to discover all secret plots or conspiracies against his Majesty or the State. This Oath they will promise to keep inviolably; from the obligation of whi [...]h no commands or per­swasions of any person whatsover, spiritual or temporal, no private interpretations of Gods word, no supposals of divine inspirations shall or ought to free them. And lastly, both in this and all other promises they will sincerely professe a detestation of the abominable doctrine of men­tal reservation, and of the lawfulness of break­ing faith given to Hereticks.

139. If this will not serve to approve the loyalty of Roman Catholicks; if there be no possibility of conjuring down the furious Cal­vinistical spi [...]it among us, but that it must be suffered both in Protestant Churches to preach down Prelacy and Ecclesiastical Government, and in the State to embitter lawes for their own advantage only, & to the prejudice both of Protestants and all other good subjects: what will become of the reputation of the English Nation in forreign Countries? It is too well known how strangely we are fallen of late in esteem abroad; the dismal effects produced in this Kingdom by that ill spirit, have been, though unjustly, imputed to the whole King­dom: English men have been looked upon as enemies both to God and their Kings, as per­sons [Page 94] ready to admit any frenzies in religion, & the horriblest cruelties against their princes.

140. But blessed be God, his divine Pro­vidence hath wrought miracles to restore our reputation again, which was almost for­feited. All the world almost is now satisfi­ed that the generality of Englishmen are the best Subjects in the world to the best of princes; and therefore it is to be hoped that the Pres­byterian spirit will not, now that it is so well known, be permitted to have that influence as to imprint again upon us this peculiar cha­racter, That England is the only Nation in which pure religion is most pretended to, and the way to make that challenge good is (by the malignity of one faction) to make the most sacred bonds of Religion snares and en­gins of unlawful passions: where a just and peaceable Government is designed, and the way to it is by unlawful, however legal, means to make peace impossible: where oathes are framed against disloyalty, which are rui­nous only to good subjects, and advantageous to the disloyal: where loyalty and duty are only excluded from rewards, or even IN­DEMNITY: where lawes are made against crimes, and the penalties of those lawes are insupportable only to those that are free, and are known ever to have been free from any suspition of such crimes, and are commodities and rewards only to the Nocent: where per­sons of approved fidelity are condemned as traytors, and both Jurors, Witnesses & Judges for the most part are Presbyterians, very in­competent and unindifferent parties in such matters, and especially against such accused persons: Lastly where the only proof of ten­derness of conscience is to sear their consciences; [Page 95] and of no intention to disturb the publick peace, is to take oathes with an intention, yea an obligation in conscience to break them; and o­penly to profess both by words and known pra­ctises that peace shall never be setled till the whole frame of the Kingdom, both for Religion and government, shall be first broken in pieces, and then new moulded for their own only ad­vantage. And after all this, if Rebellion and deso­lation follow, we will wonder (forsooth) what demerit God can find in us to punish, and how it could be possiblé that a desolation should hap­pen in a Kingdom, where piety, justice, and his sacred Majesties safety have been so well pro­vided for.

141. If among all Religions and Sects now swarming in this Kingdom, there shall yet be a­ny English Protestants that are still implacable a­gainst Catholicks only, it will be more suitable to English dispositions which heretofore have been above all other Nations esteemed frank and sin­cere, to discover their intentions clearly: let them therefore say, We will only destroy that Reli­gion which all our forefathers professed; which through all Christendom abounds most with learning, civility and loyalty; which gave to Protestancy our Baptisme, Bishops, Churches, Estates, and whatso­ever affords us an advantageous appearance above all other Sects; the professours of which only will assist us in the maintaining our priviledges against sacriledge and professed prophaness; which will in­dispensably concur with us in preserving his Maje­sties person and prerogatives from the attempts and usurpations of all others; these are the only persons we will destroy: And because a publick promise is made of liberty to tender consciences, we will annul or interpret it so, as that only those shall have no right to it that dare not swear an ambiguous Oath, but with all dare less think it lawfull to neglect [Page] that duty which is intended by the Oath: Those on­ly shall be excluded from the protection of lawes, or banished, or made the Victimes of publick rigour: But as for all other Sects, the names and number of which we do not know, or if we know many of their names, we scarce know how blasphemous and dan­gerous are their secret tenents, only we know that they are haters of Antiquity, and learning; united in designes of destroying our Religion, our Estates and Government; and what care they are likely to have of his Majesties safety and dignity, hath been shewed these last twenty years: these are the only persons esteemed by us to have tender consci­ences, because they are bound to disturb peace, to cry down Bishops, to gather hands against lawes, &c. If any Protestants will make this profession, they will at least deal ingenuously; whether conscio­nably and prudently, or no, they must be judges.

142. To conclude, if it be necessary (as doubt­less it is) that Oaths should provide against ill principles, and consequently that the present Oaths should be interpreted or changed, then is the proper season to separate the guilty from the innocent: For he that justifies the wicked, and condemnes the just, both of them are an abominati­on to our Lord. Then is the proper time to have regard equally both to loyalty and tender con­sciences joyntly together: And an effectual mean to discover who are such tender consciences as his Majesty intends liberty to, would be to require from all parties a distinct and sincere explana­tion in what sence and how far they acknow­ledge his Majesty to be supreme, in all both temporal and Ecclesiastical matters. After which, the State will easily find out who are the tender consciences that are most tender both of their duty to God and of his Majesties safety, and who are they from whom it will behove him to stand most upon his guards.