WHat the danger of the Law is, for refusing this Oath, hath beene sufficiently opened by my Lords the Iudges; and the qualitie and quantitie of that offence hath been aggravated to the full by those that have spoken after them. The part which is most proper for me to deale in, is the information of the Con­science, touching the truth and equitie of the matters contained in the Oath: which I also have made choice the rather to insist upon, because both the forme of the Oath it selfe re­quireth herein a full resolution of the consci­ence [Page 2] (as appeareth by those words in the ve­ry beginning thereof; I doe utterly testifie and declare in my conscience, &c.) and the persons that stand here to be censured for refusing the same, have alledged nothing in their owne defence but only the simple plea of Ignorance.

That this point therefore may bee cleared, and all needlesse scruples removed out of mens minds: two maine branches there bee of this Oath, which require speciall conside­ration. The one positive: acknowledging the Supremacy of the governement of these Realmes, in all causes whatsoever, to rest in the Kings Highnesse onely. The other nega­tive: renouncing all iurisdictions and autho­rities of any forreine Prince or Prelate with­in his Maiesties dominions.

For the better understanding of the for­mer, we are in the first place to call unto our remembrance that exhortation of St. Peter. 1 Per. 2. 13, 14. Submit your selves unto every ordinance of man for the Lords sake: whether it bee unto the King, as having the preheminence; or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punish­ment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that doe well. By this we are taught to respect the King, not as the only governour of his domi­nions [Page 3] simply (for wee see there bee other Go­vernours placed under him) but [...] as him that excelleth, and hath the preeminence over the rest, that is to say, (according to the tenure of the Oath) as him that is the onely su­preme Governour of his Realmes. Vpon which ground we may safely build this conclusion; that whatsoever power is incident unto the King by vertue of his place, must be acknow­ledged to be in him supreme: there being no­thing so contrary to the nature of Soveraign­tie, as to have another superiour power to over-rule it.

Qui Rex est, Regem (Maxime) non habeat.

In the second place wee are to consider, that God for the better settling of piety and ho­nesty among men, and the repressing of pro­phanenesse and other vices, hath established two distinct powers upon earth: the one of the Keyes, committed to the Church; the o­ther of the Sword, committed to the Civill Magistrate. That of the Keyes is ordained to worke upon the inner man; having imme­diate relation to the Iohn 20. 23. remitting or retaining of sins. That of the Sword is appointed to work upon the outward man; yeelding protection to the obedient, and inflicting externall pu­nishment [Page 4] upon the rebellious and disobedi­ent. By the former, the spirituall officers of the Church of Christ are inabled to [...]. Tim. 5. 17. governe well, to Tit. 2. 15. speak and exhort and rebuke with all authoritie, to Matth. 16. 19. & 18. 18. loose such as are penitent, to commit others unto the Lords prison, untill their amendment, or to binde them over un­to the iudgment of the great day, if they shal persist in their wilfulnesse and obstinacie. By the other, Princes have an imperious power assigned by God unto them, for the defence of such as doe well, and executing Rom. 13. 4. revenge and wrath upon such as doe evill; whether Ezra 7. 26. by death, or banishment, or confisca­tion of goods, or imprisonment, according to the qualitie of the offence.

When St. Peter, that had the Keyes com­mitted unto him, made bold to draw the Sword; he was commanded to Matt. 26. 52. put it up, as a weapon that he had no authoritie to med­dle withall. And on the other side, when Vzziah the King would venture upon the ex­ecution of the Priests office, it was said unto him; 2. Chr. 26. 18. It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burne incense. Let this therefore be our second conclusion: [Page 5] that the power of the Sword and of the Keyes are two distinct ordinances of God; and that the Prince hath no more authoritie to enter upon the execution of any part of the Priests function, than the Priest hath to intrude up­on any part of the office of the Prince.

In the third place we are to observe, that the power of the civill sword, (the supreme ma­naging wherof belongeth to the King alone) is not to bee restrained unto temporall causes only; but is by Gods ordinance to be exten­ded likewise unto all Spirituall or Ecclesiasti­call things and causes. that as the spirituall Ru­lers of the Church doe exercise their kinde of governement, in bringing men unto obedi­ence, not of the duties of the first Table a­lone (which concerneth piety and the religi­ous service which man is bound to performe unto his Creator) but also of the second (which respecteth morall honesty, and the offices that man doth owe unto man:) so the civill Magistrate is to use his authority also in redressing the abuses committed against the first Table, aswell as against the second, that is to say, aswell in punishing of an heretick, or an idolater, or a blasphemer, as of a thiefe, or a murtherer, or a traytor; and in providing by [Page 6] all good meanes, that such as live under his government 1 Tim. 2. 2. may leade a quiet and peacea­ble life in all piety and honesty.

And howsoever by this meanes we make both Prince and Priest to bee in their severall places Custodes utriusque tabulae, Keepers of both Gods tables: yet do we not hereby any way confound both of their offices together. for though the matter wherein their govern­ment is exercised may be the same; yet is the forme and manner of governing therein al­waies different. the one reaching to the out­ward man onely, the other to the inward: the one binding or loosing the soule, the other laying hold on the body and the things be­longing thereunto: the one having speciall reference to the iudgement of the world to come, the other respecting the present retai­ning or loosing of some of the comforts of this life.

That there is such a As on the o­ther side, that a spirituall or ec­c [...]esiasticall go­vernment is ex­ercised in cau­ses civill or tem­porall. For is not Excommu­nication a maine part of Ecclesi­asticall govern­ment, and Forest lawes a speciall branch of cau­ses Temporall? yet we see in Sententiâ latâ super chartas, anno 12. R. H.; that the Bishops of England pro­nounce a so­lemne sentence of Excommuni­cation against the infringers of the liberties contained in chartâ de Fo­restâ. civill government as this in causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, no man of iudgement can deny. For must not Heresie (for example) bee acknowledged to be a cause meerly spirituall or Ecclesiasticall? and yet by what power is an Hereticke put to death? The officers of the Church have no [Page 7] authority to take away the life of any man: it must be done therefore per brachium secu­lare; and consequently it must bee yeelded without contradiction, that the temporall Magistrate doth exercise therein a part of his civill government, in punishing a crime that is of it owne nature spirituall or Ecclesiasticall.

But here it will be said. The words of the Oath being generall; that the King is the only supreme governour of this Realme and of all other his highnesse dominions and countries: how may it appeare that the power of the civill sword only is meant by that government, and that the power of the Keyes is not comprehended therein? I answere: first, that where a civill Magistrate is affirmed to bee the governour of his owne dominions and countryes; by common intendement this must needs be understood of a civill governement, and may in no reason be extended to that which is meerely of ano­ther kinde. Secondly I say, that where an am­biguitie is conceived to bee in any part of an Oath; it ought to bee taken according to the understanding of him for whose satisfaction the Oath was ministred. Now in this case it hath been sufficiently declared by publick au­thority, that no other thing is meant by the [Page 8] governement here mentioned; but that of the civill sword onely.

For in the booke of Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops & Bishops & the whole Clergie in the Convocation holden at Lon­don anno 1562. thus we read. Where we at­tribute to the Queenes Majesty the chiefe govern­ment, (by which titles wee understand the minds of some slanderous folkes to be offended:) we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments (the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queene doth most plainly testifie:) but that onely prerogative which we see to have beene given al­waies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himselfe, that is, that they should rule all e­states and degrees committed to their Charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Temporall, and restraine with the Civill sword the stubborne and evill doers.

If it be here objected that the authority of the Convocation is not a sufficient ground for the expositiō of that which was enacted in Par­liament: I answer, that these Articles stand con­firmed not onely by the Royall assent of the Prince, (for the establishing of whose Supre­macy the Oath was framed) but also by a spe­ciall [Page 9] Act of Parliament; which is to be found among the statutes in the thirteenth yeare of Queene Elizabeth, chap. 12. Seeing therfore the makers of the Law have full authority to expound the Law; and they have sufficient­ly manifested, that by the supreme government given to the Prince they understand that kind of government only which is exercised with the Civill sword: I conclude, that nothing can be more plaine than this; that without all scruple of conscience, the Kings Majesty may be acknowledged in this sense to bee the only supreme governour of all his Highnesse domi­nions and countries, as well in all spirituall or Ec­clesiasticall things or causes as temporall. And so have I cleered the first maine branch of the Oath.

I come now unto the second; which is propounded negatively: that no forrein Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre­heminence or authority, Ecclesiasticall or spiritu­all within this Realme. The forreiner that challengeth this Ecclesiasticall or spirituall ju­risdiction over us, is the Bishop of Rome: and the title whereby he claimeth this power o­ver us, is the same whereby he claimeth it o­ver [Page 10] the whole world; because he is S. Peters successor, forsooth. And indeed, if S. Peter himselfe had beene now alive, I should freely confesse, that hee ought to have spirituall au­thoritie and superioritie within this king­dome. But so would I say also, if S. Andrew, S. Bartholmew, S. Thomas, or any of the other Apostles had beene alive. For I know that their commission was verie large; to Mark. 16. 15. goe in­to all the world, and to preach the Gospel unto every creature. so that in what part of the world soever they lived, they could not bee said to be out of their charge; their Apostleship being a kind of an Universall Bishoprick. If therefore the Bishop of Rome can prove himselfe to bee one of this ranke: the Oath must be amended; and wee must acknow­ledge that hee hath Ecclesiasticall authoritie within this Realme.

True it is, that our Lawyers in their Year­bookes by the name of the Apostle do usually designe the Pope. But if they had examined his title to that Apostleship, as they would try an ordinary mans title to a piece of land: they might easily have found a number of flawes and maine defects therein. For first it would be enquired, whether the Apostleship [Page 11] was not ordained by our Saviour Christ as a speciall Commission; which being perso­nall onely, was to determine with the death of the first Apostles. For howsoever at their first entry into the execution of this commis­sion, we finde that Acts 1. 25, 26. Matthias was admitted to the Apostleship in the roome of Iudas: yet afterwards when Iames the brother of Iohn was slaine by Herod, wee doe not reade that any other was substituted in his place. Nay we know that the Apostles generally left no successors in this kinde: neither did any of the Bishops (he of Rome only excepted) that sate in those famous Churches, wherein the Apostles exercised their ministery, challenge an Apostleship or an Universall Bishoprick, by vertue of that succession.

It would secondly therefore bee inquired, what sound evidence they can produce, to shew that one of the company was to hold the Apostleshipp as it were in fee, for him and his successors for ever; and that the other eleven should hold the same for terme of life only. Thirdly, if this state of perperuity was to be cast upon one: how came it to fall up­on S. Peter, rather than upon S. Iohn; who outlived all the rest of his fellowes, and so as [Page 12] a surviving feoffee had the fairest right to re­taine the same in himself & his successors for ever? Fourthly, if that state were wholly set­tled upon S. Peter: seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome; we require them to shew, why so great an inhe­ritance as this, should descend unto the yon­ger brother (as it were by Burrough-english) rather than to the elder, (according to the or­dinary manner of descents.) Especially seeing Rome hath little else to alledge for this pre­ferment, but only that S. Peter was crucified in it: which was a very slender reason to move the Apostle so to respect it. Seeing ther­fore the grounds of this great claime of the Bishop of Rome appeare to be so vaine and frivolous: I may safely conclude, that he ought to have no Ecclesiasticall or spirituall au­thority within this Realme; which is the prin­cipall point contained in the second part of the Oath.