SInce the Supreme Power of this Nation hath, for the Security of its Government, enacted, that all Persons should either take these Oaths, or suffer severe Penalties for their Refusal: It seems to be an Act of Charity, no less than of Prudence, to consider the Reasons for taking or refusing them: I apply my self to Catholicks.

The first of these Oaths is barely promissory to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the present Prince, who, whatever his Title be, hath suffi­cient [Page 10] Power to rule, Protection infers publick Obedi­ence. govern and protect us: To him, whilest we live under his Government, we are Subjects: As it is undeniable that he is King of this Realm either de jure or de facto, or both ways, (which, matters not now to be consider­ed, for no sort of Right is here sworn to, as was in the former Oaths to our lawful Kings) so it is plain, that we are his Subjects de jure or de facto, or both ways. The Right of a Prince and Duty of a Subject are Correllatives, they live and ex­pire together. Thus whilest he is our King, we are his Subjects; whilest we are his Subjects we owe him Duty and Fidelity, and ought not to scruple promising it, when thereto required; to which we are now more strictly obliged, by the Authority of the Kingdom commanding it.

In all Countries, as well Catholick as others, Fidelity is required from those in Subjection, unto those who have the Dominion, whether it be gained by Conquest, or otherways. In our own, Pope Gregory declared, that (notwith­standing the Censures of his Predecessor Pius Quintus) the Subjects of England ought to per­form all Duty to Queen Elizabeth: and what­soever might be the Catholicks inward Judg­ments concerning her Title, yet after the Par­liament [Page 11] had acknowledged her a lawful Queen, all Civil Obedience was exactly paid to her. This Oath of Fidelity is generally taken in Ire­land by the Catholicks, pursuant to the Articles for Surrender of Limerick, by Approbation of the Primate and Clergy of that Kingdom. The Fathers of the Society of Jesus, In the Provinci­al Congregation at Ghent, 5 Ju­ly, 1681. of the English Province, decree thus, ‘Let us all profess, that as much Obedience and Fidelity ought to be sincerely sworn and exhibited to our King from every one of us, as is wont to be sworn and exhibited to any Princes whatsoever from other Catholick Subjects.’ Here is no Distin­ction made between lawful or unlawful Titles of Princes, but the Relation between any Princes whatsoever and their Subjects allowed to be a Ground for Fidelity.

The second Oath is a part of the Oath of Al­legiance, made in the Reign of King James, 3 Jac. 1. cap. 4. which Oath was freely taken by the chief and others of the Catholick Clergy here in England, and by them the Nobility and Gentry were ad­vised and exhorted to do the same, declaring it to be a Duty incumbent on them by the Law of God. Sixty of the Doctors of the Sorbon sub­scribed [Page 12] to the said Oath, these following Words, ‘We underwritten, Divines and Doctors of the Sacred Faculty of Paris, do judg the Oath, as it is on the other side, ( i. e. the Oath of Allegiance) may with Safety of Faith and Conscience be taken by English Catholicks, &c.’ But Pope Paul the Fifth sent a Breve into England, directed to the English Catholicks, wherein, re­citing the said Oath at large, he declares, that this Oath contains many things plainly repug­nant to Faith and Salvation, and admonisheth and requireth them not to take that Oath. This Breve his Holiness seconded by another, and both were confirmed by succeeding Popes. The Fathers of the Society in their Provincial Congregation afore-mentioned, decree thus concerning that Oath, that the Oath ( i. e. the Oath of Allegiance) as it is now sprinkled with many Heterodox Clauses, cannot be taken, as being condemned by many Breves of Popes. These things considered, I'll suppose, that Oath might not be taken by Catholicks, because it contained many things contrary to Faith, &c. and is sprinkled with many Heterodox Clauses; and lastly, because it is condemned by many Breves of Popes. But then it must be granted [Page 13] to me, that this Oath, now to be taken, is not that Oath which was required not to be sworn, which was condemned: This Oath is but one Clause amongst many which compose that Oath; the Pope doth not declare that all the things in that Oath are repugnant to Faith, &c. his Prohibition doth not fall on any particular Clause, the Fathers of the Society do not im­peach every Clause in that Oath, nor distinguish those Heterodox ones that are sprinkled in it: Both Pope and Fathers allow, that some Things and Clauses in that Oath are not liable to Cen­sure: There are many Clauses in that Oath, whereof those which are condemned, though called many, may be fewest in number. Now if this Oath be not plainly repugnant to Faith and Salvation, there is no Ground for refusing it, because it is a part of the former Oath: And that it is not plainly repugnant to Faith, &c. to abhor, detest and abjure that damnable Doctrine and Position, (mentioned in this Oath) the Word of God, the Council of Constance, the Subscription of the Doctors of the Sorbon, the Decrees of the Parliament of Paris, and Sub­scription of the Fathers of the Society to an Agreement with the Sorbon, are full and suffici­ent [Page 14] convincing Evidences: To all or some of which every one may easily apply himself for Satisfaction.

The Declaration annexed to these Oaths is not to be sworn to, This Declarati­on is assertory of something past; it is an Act of Faith, depend­ing on the pro­bable Evidence of what is past. but only to be made, re­peated, and subscribed to, as a Matter which the Declarer believes to be true, according to a rational Judgment and moral Certainty thereof, which yet may be consistent with an absolute Possibility of the thing being otherwise: It is an Assertion of the Truth of a thing, as it is in his Conscience or rational Judgment, not as it is in it self; and this moral Certainty may secure the Declarer from a Lie, and justify him before God and Man.

The Reflections I make being with Reference to the Catholicks in England, I will consider the Duty and Lawfulness of their making, or refu­sing to make this Declaration distinctly from others.

1. And to shorten my Work I will here sup­pose, that by foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, &c. is meant the Pope and his Successors.

2. That the Pope hath, and ought to have, some Jurisdiction, or Power, or Superiority, or Preheminence, or Authority, in this Realm.

[Page 15] 3. That the Popes formerly had, and had a Right to, some Jurisdictions, &c. within this Realm, which now are not enjoyed by them.

4. That the Jurisdictions, &c. which Popes formerly had, and now have not, they ought not to have in this Realm.

To explain my self in my second Supposi­tion, Catholicks unanimously grant, that Christ gave a Power purely spiritual to his Apostles, throughout the whole World, and in them to their Successors, to preach, to feed his Sheep, to bind and loose, &c. This Power being de­rived to the Pope, as Successor to St. Peter, his Holiness hath a Right to throughout the whole World, for thus large is the Commission from Christ. King James in his Premonition, p. 46. Let the Pope be Primus Episcopus in­ter omnes Epis­copos, and Prin­ceps Episcopo­rum as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum. And this Power being given by God, cannot be taken away by Men, nor be denied by Christians, either in this Realm, or any other part of the World, without Breach of Faith. The spiritual Power could not be exercised by Kings or Princes, it did never belong to them, or to their Crowns, nor indeed was ever claim­ed or pretended to in this Realm: therefore I will here only conclude, that it is not proba­ble that this Declaration intends to deny the Pope's Power purely spiritual in this King­dom. [Page 16] I shall endeavour to make this more plain hereafter.

My third Supposition grants, that Popes had a Right to, and enjoyed Jurisdictions, Pow­ers, &c. These were in Courts and Matters called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, as Cases of Marriage, Tythes, Wills, &c. These Juris­dictions, &c. were merely external, political or civil, and came not to the Pope jure divino. Our Saviour declared, that his Kingdom is not of this World, and therefore gave no Jurisdicti­on, Power, &c. besides that which is purely spiritual, to his Apostles, or their Successors. The Crown of England is, and of long time hath been, an Imperial Crown, depending only on God, by whom Princes reign. From the Crown divers Privileges have been at divers times, ei­ther by the Piety or Inadvertencies of Princes, granted to Popes (in the Language of those Days called the Church;) at other times Usurpa­tions have been made, when the Princes were weak or unfortunate: These Privileges being long used, and their Origine either forgotten or concealed, have been commonly look'd on, and claimed, as the proper and inherent Right of those to whom they were granted, or came. [Page 17] This Right being charily preserved by them, and freely confess'd by others to be a good Title, accompanied with a long and quiet Possession, and called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, came to be thought at last to be a Right given them by God, whereas in Truth it proceeded from Men; and as all humane things are subject to change, may, by the same Power from whence it was derived, be taken away. And thus hath it fared with the Pope's Power in Temporals, 24 H. 8. c. 12. 25 H. 8. c. 20. 25 H. 8. c. 19. 25 H. 8. c. 21. 28 H. 8. c. 16. 1 Eliz. cap. 1. 5 Eliz. cap. 1. 1, 2 P. M. c. 8. which he had and exercised in this Kingdom; sometimes they have been disputed, other times taken from him and restored to the Crown, then again restored to his Holiness, and about 130 Years since were again taken from him and restored to the Crown, In France the Clergy published this Proposition, That the Pope had no Power in civil or tem­poral Affairs, and that Kings are subject to no Ecclesiastical Powers. and so continue at this Day, which is a Matter so evident to every English-man, that no one of them can find Reason to believe, that the Pope, at this time, hath any Jurisdiction, Pow­er, &c. (besides that which is purely Spiritual) in this Realm.

The fourth Supposition intends, that since those Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Jurisdictions, Powers, &c. which the Pope enjoyed and ex­ercised in this Realm, and which were not pure­ly Spiritual, nor derived to him from the Apo­stles, [Page 18] but came to him by the Grants of Princes, Consent of People, or by some other mere hu­mane means, as touching Appeals, Annats, First­fruits, electing of Bishops, Dispensations in hu­mane Laws, to the Prejudice of the Crown, and impoverishing of the Subjects, giving Li­cences in abundance of humane Cases or Things, putting Bishops into their Bishopricks, and Priests into their Parishes: since I say these Pow­ers, &c. came to the Popes by times, or by Concordates between Princes on the one side, and Popes on the other, which could not be Di­vine or Supernatural Powers, that is, Powers derived to him, or conferred on him jure divino, are abolished as to his Holiness, and restored to the Crown, by several Acts of Parliament, as antiently belonging thereto, it is as plain that the Pope ought not to have those Jurisdictions, Powers, &c. of which he is thus legally di­vested, as it is apparent that at this time he nei­ther hath nor exerciseth them.

Now to enlarge somewhat on the Substance of the two last Suppositions, I will instance in some few Remarks, what Interruptions the Popes have met with in the Exercise of their Ec­clesiastical or Spiritual Powers, &c. in Matters [Page 19] merely Temporal in this Realm. King Henry the First gave the Bishoprick of Winchester to Wil­liam Gifford, and forthwith invested him into all the Possessions thereto belonging, though con­trary to a Canon. The same King also gave the Archbishoprick of Canterbury to Radolph Bi­shop of London, and gave him Investiture by a Ring and a Crosiers Staff. In the same King's Reign Thurstan, elect Archbishop of York, got leave of the King to go to a Council held un­der Pope Calixtus at Rhemes, giving his Faith to the King that he would not receive Consecra­tion of the Pope, but notwithstanding he ob­tained to be consecrate at the Pope's Hand, which, as soon as the King heard, he forbad him to come within his Dominions. King Ed­ward the First prohibited the Abbot of Waltham, and Dean of Paul's, to collect a tenth of every Man's Goods, for a Supply to the Holy Land, which the Pope by three Bulls had committed to their Charge. The same King impleaded the Dean of the Chappel of Wulverhampton, because the said Dean had, against the Privileges of the Kingdom, given a Prebend of the same Chap­pel to one at the Pope's Command. King Richard the Second, by Act of Parliament, pro­hibited [Page 20] that any should procure a Benefice from Rome, under pain to be put out of the King's Protection. Thus several Catholick Princes, in Catholick times, disputed the Pope's Jurisdictions, Powers, &c. in several Ecclesi­astical or Spiritual Matters. King Henry the Eighth (no less a Catholick, and likewise in a Catholick time) by several Acts of Parliament, consisting of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, all Catholicks, deprived the Pope of several Jurisdictions, Powers, &c. which were supposed to be usurped from the Crown, and the Exercise whereof were much to its Detriment. 1 Eliz. cap. 1. 5 Eliz. cap. 8. Again, Queen Elizabeth re­vives all those Statutes made by her Father, re­stores all antient Jurisdictions to the Crown, and abolisheth all foreign Powers repugnant to the antient Jurisdiction of the Crown: And thus they continue to this Day.

From what I have collected here it may ap­pear, that no purely spiritual Power hath been by the Laws of this Kingdom taken from the Pope; that whatever Power hath been taken from the Pope, hath been restored to the Crown, as its antient Jurisdiction, and no other: but since the Words of the Declaration deny any Ju­risdiction, [Page 21] &c. to be enjoyed by, or rightfully to belong to any foreign Prelate, &c. I shall consider the Meaning of those Words, wherein, if I can hit on the Sense which this Declaration by the Intent of the Imposers of it bears, let that determine the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of making it, for no more is required of us.

This Declaration is verbatim a Clause in the Oath of Supremacy, 1 Eliz. cap. 1 [...] Entituled, An Act to restore to the Crown the antient Ju­risdiction over the Estate Ec­clesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign Powers repugnant to the same. 5 Eliz. cap. 1. formed in an Act past in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; and in another Act made in the fifth Year of her Reign, it is en­acted, that the Oath made in the first Year of her Reign, shall be taken and expounded in such Form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queen's Majesties Injunctions, publish­ed in the first Year of her Majesty's Reign, that is to say, to confess and acknowledg in her Ma­jesty, her Heirs and Successors, no other Autho­rity than that was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henry the Eighth, and King Ed­ward the Sixth, as in the Admonition may more plainly appear.

In that Admonition the Queen saith as fol­loweth: Admonition to simple Men de­ceived by mali­cious. For certainly her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that which was challenged, and lately used [Page 22] by the noble King of famous Memory, If any Person shall accept the same Oath with this Interpreta­tion, Sense or Meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient Sub­jects, &c. Henry the Eighth, and King Edward the Sixth, which is, and was of antient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is, 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 foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them.

Now to shew that King Henry the Eighth neither claimed nor pretended to any Power purely Spiritual, let us see a Proviso made in an Act past in his Reign, 24 H. 8. c. 21. Provided always that this Act, nor any thing 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 Christ's 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. The Statute containing this Proviso is revived and confirmed by the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. And it is undeniable, that all Christendom, at that [Page 23] time, did own the Pope's Spiritual Power, which was derived from the Apostles.

Further, to shew, that the Queen who made this Oath, intended it only for to distinguish those who denied the Pope's Power in Tempo­rals, from others who would not, and that therefore she doubted of their Loyalty. In the Act made aforesaid is enacted, 5 Eliz. cap. 1. ‘That for­asmuch as the Queen's Majesty is otherways sufficiently assured of the Faith and Loyalty of the Temporal Lords of her Highness's Court of Parliament; therefore this Act, nor any thing therein contained, shall not extend to compel any temporal Person, of or above the Degree of a Baron of this Realm, to take or pronounce the Oath abovesaid.’

It was notoriously known, that the Lords and Commons in that Parliament, wherein the Oath of Supremacy was appointed, were mostly Ro­man Catholicks, which includes their holding and professing the Pope's Pastoral Power. It was Treason and Premunire to hold or profess what by the Oath was denied to the Pope; but it was neither for a Lord or other Person to pro­fess himself a Roman Catholick, there was no Disloyalty in that. Thus then, I conclude, that [Page 24] the Pope's purely Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Pow­er is not denied in that Oath, and that this is the Sense, in which this Declaration is to be made, as being a part of that Oath. And this I am the more inclined to believe, because in these Oaths there are no doubtful Expressions of swear­ing the Jurisdictions, Powers, &c. to belong to any other Person; those which are here only declared, are, that no foreign Prince, &c. hath or ought to have. Nor is it to be past by with­out notice, that the Powers taken from his Ho­liness by King Henry the Eighth, were never meant to be other than those that were Tem­poral, for Queen Mary, [...] 2 P. M. c. 8. by Act of Parliament, restores to the Pope such Authority, Prehemi­nence and Jurisdiction, as his Holiness used and exercised, or might lawfully have used and exercised, by Authority of his Supremacy, &c. without Diminution or Enlargement of the same, and no other. Which demonstrates, that the Jurisdictions, Powers, &c. which King Henry the Eighth deprived the Pope of, were only such as an Act of Parliament could restore him to, which cannot be meant of that purely Spiritual Power given by Christ.

[Page 25] To sum up this Discourse: The Pope had a purely Spiritual Power committed by Christ to him, as Successor to St. Peter, to be exer­cised throughout the whole World, that is, To teach, to bind, and loose, &c. This Power, we say, no Temporal Prince ever had, or claim­ed, or could deprive him of. The Pope like­wise had in this Kingdom Ecclesiastical or Spi­ritual Power in Courts and Causes, or Matters, called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, as in Divorces, Tythes, Oblations, Obventions, &c. This Power was external, political, civil, and meer­ly temporal, granted by or gained from the Princes of these Realms, which being found to be exercised to the great Detriment of the Crown, and adjudged to be so by the Estates of the Realm, hath been by several Statutes di­vested from the Pope, and restored to the Crown above 130 Years past, and so still it continues. The Truth of this is assured to us by Acts of Parliament, and other credible Histo­ries, so manifestly, that there is no room for Scruple in affirming, that ( rebus sic stantibus) no foreign Prelate, &c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, &c. in this Realm, which is [Page 26] not derived from Christ, and which the Laws of this Kingdom have deprived him of.

Here is Authority commanding us to take lawful Oaths, and to declare what we may rea­sonably judg and be morally certain to be true, no competent Authority admonishing or requi­ring the contrary: Here are the Opinions of great and learned Divines for the Lawfulness and Duty of taking these Oaths: Here are the highest of Evidences for the Truth of that Mat­ter which we are to declare our Belief of; the Catholicks in England (generally) never took the former Oaths of Supremacy and Allegi­ance, and therefore on account of some Branches in those, they are not obliged to refuse the first of these Oaths: These Oaths neither are in themselves, nor are intended to be distinctive Signs between Catholicks and Protestants, for the Acts lately made for amoving Papists and reputed Papists, &c. and for disarming Pa­pists and reputed Papists, appoint the Declara­tion, made in the Reign of the late King Charles, 30 Carol. 2. to be for the Trial and Discovery of them, and that Declaration is not scrupled at by Prote­stants, who yet (some of them) refuse the first of these Oaths: And had the Declaration which [Page 27] is annexed to these Oaths been a Denial of the Pope's Pastoral Power in this Realm, there needed no other Test for Discovery of Papists, since no Catholick would disown that Spiritual Power to be in his Holiness. These things considered, I must own, that I know no Rea­son for the Roman Catholicks in England to provoke the Government, Johnson. to fall under the Re­putation of being entirely in the French In­terest, and to undergo severe Penalties for re­fusing these Oaths.