These things being premised to dull the edge of his argu- DISCOURSE ment, now I proceed to a direct answer. And, III. sense we First, I charge him with chopping and changing the words of [2. In what the oath. The words of the oath are these, that "the King's maintain Highness is the only supreme governor in this realm;" but, it.] in paraphrasing upon them and pressing them, he renders them thus, "not only governor P but only and supreme governor." There is a vast difference between these two; to say the king is "the only supreme governor" of the realm of England, which signifies no more but this, that there is no other supreme governor of the realm but he, which is most true; and to say that he is the "only and supreme governor," which implies that there is no other governor but he, which is most false; there are both spiritual and civil governors in England besides him. To say the Pope is the only supreme' Bishop in his own Patriarchate, is most true; but to say that he is the only and supreme' Bishop in his Patriarchate, is most false; this were to degrade all his suffragans, and allow no Bishop in his province but himself. Secondly, I answer, that there is no supremacy ascribed to the king in this oath but merely political; which is essentially annexed to the imperial Crown of every sovereign prince. The oath saith, that "the King's Highness is the only supreme governor of his Highness' realms and dominions." What doth St. Peter himself say less to his own 1Pet. ii. 13. successors as well as others? "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme." How often doth St. Gregory acknowledge the emperor to be his supreme governor or sovereign lord? and profess obedience and subjection unto him? and execute his commands in ecclesiastical things? That commonwealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of jurisdictions, where there are two supremes; like a serpent with two heads, at either end one. The oath addeth, " In all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes." This is true with some limitations: as, first, either by himself, or by fit substitutes, who are ecclesiastical persons; for our kings cannot excommunicate or absolve in 176. note p.] [Not only chief governor."] 1. PART their own persons: secondly, it is to be understood of those causes which are handled 'in foro contentioso'—in the exterior court, not in the inner court of conscience: thirdly, either in the first or in the second instance, by receiving the appeals and redressing the wrongs of his injured subjects. Some things are so purely spiritual, that kings have nothing to do in them in their own persons; as the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and the binding and loosing of sinners. Yet the persons to whom the discharge of these duties doth belong, and the persons towards whom these duties ought to be discharged, being their subjects, they have a power paramount to see that each of them do their duties in their several stations. The causes indeed are ecclesiastical, but the power of governing is political. This is the true sense of the oath, neither more nor less, as appeareth plainly by our thirty-seventh Article ;—“ Where we attribute to our princes the chief government, by which 231 titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's Word or of the Sacraments, . . . . but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God Himself; this is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn or evil doers "." Here is no power asserted, no punishment to be inflicted by the king in his own person, but only political. I confess, persons deputed and delegated by the king do often excommunicate and absolve, and act by the power of the Keys; but this is by the virtue of their own habit of jurisdiction. All which the king contributes by his commission, is a liberty and power to act in this particular case, and an application of the matter; which a lay-patron, or a master of a family, or a subordinate magistrate may do, much more a sovereign prince. This power many Roman Catholic doctors do justify. The king of Spain cites above twenty of them". "Let the princes of this world know, that they owe an account to God of the Church, which they 8 Artic. Eccles. Angl., art. 37. Memor. de Sa Magestad Catolica, [Philip IV.], cap. 10. [See Just Vindic., c. vii. vol. i. p. 235.] III. have received from Him into their protection; for whether DISCOURSE peace and right ecclesiastical discipline be increased or decayed by Christian princes, God will require an account from them, Who hath trusted His Church unto their power." All this power the king of Spain exerciseth in Sicily, in all ecclesiastical causes, over all ecclesiastical persons, as well in the first instance as the second". This power a lay-chancellor exerciseth in the court Christian. This power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her nuns. Whilst all the mariners are busied in their several employments, the sovereign magistrate sits at the stern to command all, and order all for the promotion of the great architectonical end, that is, the safety and welfare of the commonwealth. It follows in the oath, "as well as temporal;" that is, as truly, and as justly, but not as fully, nor as absolutely. "And that no foreign prelate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm." That is to say, neither the Pope nor his Court: for a general Council, which is no standing court but an aggregate body, composed partly of ourselves, is neither included here nor intended. If this be "the new Creed of the English Protestant Church," as he calls it in scorn, it was the old Creed of the Britannic Church, as I have proved evidently in the Vindication. If this profession of royal supremacy in our sense do 'make men heretics and schismatics,' we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman doctors along with us; and for sovereign princes, we shall leave them few, except some necessitous persons, who could not subsist otherwise than by the favourable influence of the Roman Court. 'Very many doctors do hold, that, for the common good of the republic, princes have jurisdiction in many causes otherwise subject to the ecclesiastical court, not only by the positive law of God, but by the law of nature. And many more give them a power indirectly in causes ecclesiastical over ecclesiastical [See Just Vindic., ibid. pp. 228, * [Franciscus] a Sanctâ Clarâ, Expos. Paraph., in Art. 37. [p. 409. See Just Vindic., c. iii. vol. i. p. 125.] PART persons, so far as is necessary for the preservation of the I. peace and tranquillity of the commonwealth: "nec putem ullum doctorem Catholicum refragari," saith the same author in the place cited,-" neither do I think that any Catholic doctor will be against it"." Now I have said my mind concerning the oath of allegiance, who they were that first contrived it, and in what sense we do maintain it; I hope agreeably to the sense of the Christian world, except such as are prepossessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome. As our kings out of reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of "Supreme Heads of the English Church," so, though it be not meet for me to prevent their maturer determinations, I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of subjects, who may err out of invincible ignorance, they would be pleased to lay by the oath also. God looks upon His creatures with all their prejudices; why should not man do the same? It seemeth to be hard measure to destroy men for mere speculative opinions, which it may be are not in their own power, so long as there is neither blasphemy nor sedition in the case. It is often easier to secure a man's actions, than to cure the errors of his judgment. No contra my words. SECTION THE SECOND. In the next place he chargeth me with 'contradicting of diction in myself",' because I say, "the emperors and other princes of the Roman communion have done the same things in effect 232 with the king of England";" and in another place I confess, that the kings of England have "abolished the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome," but the emperors have not".' This, he saith, is 'to give myself the lie.' Certainly he was in some heat or passion, when this word of disgrace dropped from his pen; as commonly disputers III. are, when they find that they have gotten the wrong end of the DISCOURSE staff. If he had advisedly read over my assertion, it is this, that either they have done "the same thing in effect, . . or at least" have "pleaded for it." If either part of the disjunction be true, my assertion is a truth, and no "contradiction;" much less a‘lie,' which implieth that it is both against truth and against conscience. Now I have shewed clearly in the Vindication, that they have not only "pleaded" it, but sworn it, that they would 'maintain the rights, liberties, and customs of the Empire inviolated,' against the Pope and the Court of Romed;-and that they have protested, that "they would not have his Holiness to be ignorant that they neither could nor would endure his intolerable pressures any longer," but would vindicate themselves. Further, to "do the same thing in effect" doth not signify to do the same individual action, nor always the same specifical action, but only that which argueth the same power, or implieth the same consequences. If an ordinary do suspend a clerk from his benefice, or degrade him from his Holy Orders, so long as the question is only whether he be under jurisdiction of the ordinary, it is all one "in effect," whilst the one proveth the intention as well as the other. If a thief steal a shilling or a pound, it is not "the same thing in effect;" because the thief pretendeth no right to what he taketh; but if a magistrate impose a tribute of a shilling or a pound, where the question is only whether he have power to impose tribute or not, it is all one "in effect;" for his title is as just to the one as to the other, and as he imposeth a shilling to-day, so he may, if he have occasion, impose a pound to-morrow. The whole and all the parts are "the same in effect." The emperors have done all the particular acts which the kings of England have done-concerning patronage, investitures, legislation, reformation, legates, appeals, tenths, first-fruits, &c.,-and moreover have deposed Popes, which the kings of England never attempted to do; though they have not made one general act of abolition. [Letter of the Elector. College, &c, to Benedict XII. A.D. 1338. See Just Vindic., c. vii. § 2. vol. i. p. 212. See also § 7. ibid. p. 216.] e [Centum Gravamina, &c. (A. D. 1522), in conclus. See Just Vindic., ibid., p. 211.] |