OBSERVATIONS UPON THE OATH Enacted 1. Eliz. Commonly called, The OATH of SUPREMACY.  
For the better satisfaction of those that may find themselves concerned therein.   

Observations upon the Oath Enacted 1. Eliz. commonly called, The Oath of SUPREMACY.  
BY the Oath of Supremacy Enacted by Henry the Eighth, the said King was sworn to be Supreme Head of the Church of England. Which title was of so great offence and scandal, even to some of those that then professed the Reformed Religion, that they writ Invectives against the same, as Roman Catholics also did, and sundry persons lost their lives in those days for denial thereof, as is written of Sir Thomas More, and others.  
But that Oath was afterwards abolished by Parliament, with some other statutes relating thereunto: and in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth the ensuing Oath was enjoined by an Act then entitled (All ancient Jurisdiction restored to the Crown, and all foreign power abolished) the words of which Oath are as followeth,  
I A, B. do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, of all other her Highness' Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes, as temporal, etc. That no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath, or aught to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm, and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities, and Authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs and lawful Successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the Contents of this Book.  
Although the words of this Oath are not the same as in the former, and Supreme Head of the Church of England not particularly mentioned therein, yet according to the common acceptation of the words in the said Oath, it seemed to attribute to her said Majesty in effect and substance no less spiritual Jurisdiction and power; (nay more) than what the said former Oath did or might import. Wherefore this Oath was also excepted at by divers. In which consideration, and for the clearing of doubts that might be conceived thereupon, her Majesty by an Admonition in her Injunctions published afterwards in the said first year of her Reign, did explain and interpret the sense and meaning of the words of the said Oath, in which the same should from thenceforth be accepted and taken. The Admonition and Title is as followeth.  
An Admonition to Simple men deceived by malicious.  
The Queen's Majesty being informed, that in certain places of the Realm sundry of her native Subjects being called to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church, be by sinister persuasion, and perverse construction, induced to find some scruple in the form of an Oath, which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for the Recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty, which certainly never was ne ever meant, nor by any equity of words or good sense can be thereof gathered; would that all her loving Subjects should understand, that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath, to have any other duty, allegiance, or bond required by the same Oath, than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous memory, K. Henry the 8. her Majesty's Father, or K. Edward the 6. her Majesty's Brother.  
And further, her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her Subjects, to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving Subjects, how by words of the said Oath it may be collected, that the Kings or Queeus of this Realm, possssors of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministry, of Divine Service in the Church: wherein her said Subjects be much abused by such evil disposed persons; for certainly her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other authority then that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memory, K. Henry the Eighth, and K. Edward the sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, THAT IS, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner 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 aught to have any superiority over them. And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath, 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, and shall acquit them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath.  
It is observable, that the Queen did thus explain and interpret the words of this Oath by her own authority. But whereas some might then object, as others have done since, upon the same occasion, that the words of an Oath could not be warrantably interpreted from their ordinary sense, and usual acceptation, by any authority less than that of the Lawmaker: Therefore the said Admonition was confirmed by her said Majesty in Parliament, by the Statute 5 Eliz. cap. 1. wherein is this Proviso as followeth.  
Provided also, that the Oath expressed in the said Act made in the said first Year, shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions published in the first Year of her Majesty's Reign; That is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, none other authority then that was challenged and lately used by the Noble K. Henry the 8. and K. Edward the 6. as in the said admonition more plainly may appear.  
It is observable, that in virtue of this Proviso in the said Statute, the aforesaid admonition acquired the force of a Law as much as the Proviso itself had, which refers to the said admonition, and consequently makes void in law whatsoever was formerly Enacted contrary to the same. So that from and after the said Act 5. Eliz. the said Oath (though pronounced in the form of words verbatim, as is expressed in the Act 1. Eliz.) yet the effect and tenor of the said words must be construed and understood in the form, and according to the Interpretation, sense and meaning, as appeareth in the aforesaid admonition. And whosoever upon tender of the said Oath unto him, if (when he shall have read or pronounced the words thereof) he do profess that he intends in swearing the same to mean those said words in no other sense, but according as the admonition aforesaid doth set forth, No Officer whatsoever can press him to swear it any other ways. Which being matter of Law the Learned in the Law can best resolve, if any doubt be made thereof.  
The next Enquiry shall be, if any thing be contained in the said admonition, either in words or meaning, which a Conscientious person, Protestant, or Roman Catholic can justly except against.  
The Exceptions generally pretended against the same are, First, That the said Oath was purposely framed for profession of Religion then newly established. Secondly, That the Sovereignty and rule claimed by her Majesty in the said admonition is, over Ecclesiastical persons, and in things and Causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical, both which (say most of those that except against the same) are exempted (Jure divino) from the power of the temporal Magistrate, and consequently the King is in effect declared thereby to be Head of the Church. Thirdly, That the spiritual power and Jurisdiction left by Christ to his Church, and the respective Pastors of the same, is likewise absolutely denied therein. These things being part of their Faith and Religion, they cannot swear without renouncing the same, and giving scandal to others of their profession, which therefore shall be the subject of our next Observations.  
1. The very words of this admonition do express that the said Oath was prescribed and required for recognition of Allegiance.  
2. The Latitude of meaning which might be contained in the words of the Oath, viz. (Under God Supreme Governor, as well in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and Causes as temporal) is restrained in this admonition, by these words, viz. Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other authority then what was challenged and lately used by Henry the Eighth, and Edward the sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And then it is particularly specified what that authority was by the words of the said admonition immediately following, viz. THAT IS under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner persons born within those her Realms, Dominions, and Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be.  
3. Lest by the said Oath her Majesty might seem to deny to the Church the Power and Jurisdiction left by Christ to his Apostles and their Successors, being merely spiritual, her Majesty therefore professeth not to challenge authority or power of Ministry of divine Service in the Church. And moreover restrains the denial of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Power, etc. mentioned in the said Oath (being in general) to such Jurisdiction (only) as was repugnant to the said Sovereignty and Rule over all her Subjects. Which is apparent by these words, So as no other foreign power shall or aught to have any Superiority over them.] which words (SO AS) denote the rest to be relative to her Majesty's Superiority and Rule, that immediately before was declared.  
And in further proof thereof, Whereas the aforesaid Act in the said first Year of her Reign was entitled [All ancient Jurisdictions restored to the Crown, and all foreign power abolished,] the Statute made in the fifth Year of her Reign, Cap. 1. seemed to qualify or explain the said former Act, for it entitled the said former Act to be an Act restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction ever the state Ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power REPUGNANT to the same. The alteration of the Title is very observable in this latter Act, for it seemed thereby to denote and explain that which in the heat of the then sudden change of Religion had not been so maturely digested and established in the former.  
The Articles of the Church of England, and of the Clergy, express the Kings said power and Authority by calling it the civil (not spiritual) sword.  
Doctor Carleton afterwards Bishop of Chichester in his notable Treatise of 
* In his Admonition to the Reader. The Fathers writ for the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church above Princes, which thing we never denied.  Jurisdictions Episcopal, Regal and Papal, writes most learnedly and clearly upon this Subject. He says pag. 9 As for spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church, standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith, judging of Heresies, deposing of Heretics, Excommunication of notorious and stubborn offenders, Ordination of Priests and Deacons, Institution and collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures, etc. which Princes cannot give nor take from the Church, this power hath been practised by the Church without coactive 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 of the Civil Magistrate.  
Page 42, 43. It cannot be denied, 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 Consntories, 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 referred to spiritual Censures, or as it is with Coaction. As it standeth in spiritual Censures, it is the right of the Church, as 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 Magistrate, but was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate, whether he were Christian or Heathen. & e.  
The Apostles did sometimes take vengeance upon the disobedient, but that was not by the Material Sword, (in the Power whereof we place Coaction) but by the Spiritual Sword.  
The Learned Bishop of Derry, lately made Bishop of Armagh, and honoured with the Title of Lord Primate of all Ireland, speaks most clearly to this Point, in his Book Schism Guarded, p. 160. But I expect it should be Objected, that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church, the Legislative, the Judiciary, the Dispensative Power of Popes, There are two other Statutes made by Henry the Eighth. The one, An Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome: The other, An Act for establishing the King's Succession in the Crown; wherein there is an Oath, That the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any Jurisdiction or Authority in this Realm. And that it is declared in the 37th Article of our Church, That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Kingdom of England. And in the Oath ordained by Queen Elizabeth, That no foreign Prelate hath, or aught to have, any Jurisdiction or Authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.  
I Answer this Objection three ways, First, As to the two Laws of Henry the vl, They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary, and never were restored by any succeeding Prince. If there were any thing blame-worthy in them, let it die with them. I confess I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another, nor the swearing beforehand to Statutes made or to be made, But de mortuis nil nisi bonum.  
Secondly, I Answer according to the equity of my second ground, that although it were supposed, that our Ancestors had overreached themselves and the truth in some expression; yet that concerns not us at all, so long as we keep ourselves exactly to the line and level of Apostolical Tradition.  
Thirdly and principally I answer, That our. Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do, our only difference is in the use of words, Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction, which we understand properly of authority and Jurisdiction, purely Spiritual, which extendeth no further than the Court of Conscience. But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction, they did understand Ecclesiastical authority and Jurisdiction in the Exterior Court, which in truth is partly Spiri-tual, partly Political. So our Ancestors cast out External Ecclesiastical Coactive Jurisdiction. The same do we, They did not take away from the Pope the Power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely spiritual; No more do we. And p. 119. We acknowledge, that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Cannons, both for composing of them, and executing of them; but with this Caution, that to make them Laws the confirmation of the Prince was required, and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them, the Princes Grant or Concession was needful. And p. 170. Whatsoever Power our Laws did divest the Pope of, they invested the King with it. But they never invested the King with any Spiritual Power or Jurisdiction, witness the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth, the Articles of the Church, King James, our Statutes, etc.  

* K James Triplict nodo, tripl●●● cuncus. p. 47.  In that Oath ONLY is contained the King's absolute Power, to be Judge over all Persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical, excluding all foreign Powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions: And generally all English-Protestant Writers who maintain the 39 Articles, with the Discipline and Canons of the Church of England, do constantly affirm.  
That the Kings said Supreme Government and Rule is intended no other ways but to exercise under God the Supreme coactive Jurisdiction and Power over all his Subjects within his Realms and Dominions, of what estate soever they be, whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal, to take cognisance in his external Tribunals of offenders for the punishing of them with civil and corporal punishments, according to the nature and quality of their respective offences: And that Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and Causes (the transgressors wherein are liable to his cognisance and punishment as aforesaid) are not meant of things and causes that are merely spiritual, as of Faith and Religion, but of such as in their own nature are either civil or mixed with something that is temporal, which according to vulgar acceptation, are called nevertheless Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, for the reasons noted by Doctor Carleton as aforesaid.  
This Supreme external Coactive power and Jurisdiction as aforesaid, cannot be acknowledged to be due to the King, but by necessary consequence all Power, Prerogative, Jurisdiction, Superiority or Authority repugnant to the same, must be denied and disclaimed in any Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate, foreign or domestic whatsoever, other then by or under his Majesty's permission or Authority.  
But it is also observable, that what Power or Jurisdiction soever that is but merely Spiritual (and consequently not belonging to the King) is not meant or intended to be denied or renounced to the Church, or to any Person Prelate etc. whatsoever, as the aforesaid Bishop of Derry most expressly declares, in very many places, of his Book aforesaid, which for brevity's sake, are omitted, excepting these few hereunder mentioned, which may abundantly satisfy. Pag. 62. And therefore when we meet with these words, or the like, That No foreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Pre-eminence or privilege Ecclesiastical or Spiritual 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 Keys (We see the contrary practised every day) but of external coactive power in Ecclesiastical causes, in foro contentioso, etc. And in his Epistle to the Reader, (having set down all or the most considerable Points of difference and question upon this Subject, concludes his said Epistle with these words, viz. The true controversy is, Whether the Bishop of Rome ought by Divine Right to have the external regiment of the English Church, and Coactive Jurisdiction in English Courts, against the will of the King, and Laws of the Kingdom. And p. 218. No difference between Roman Catholics and ourselves about the Papacy, but only about the extent of Papal power, etc.  
To these may be added, that the Bishop of Spalleto that came into England, after his being consecrated Bishop by the Pope, or by authority from the See of Rome, did not renew his Character after he came over, yet (as is well known) ordained divers Priests here, which was never disputed, but allowed by the Church of England to have been validly done. All which confirms what is said before, That Jurisdiction purely spiritual is not denied by the now intendiment of the said Oath, and that it is not an Oath of Religion, but of Allegiance, as is expressly said in Queen Elizabeth's Admonition aforesaid, and obliges the takers to no more, but to assist and defend all the ancient Jurisdictions of the Crown, and to renounce and impugn all foreign Jurisdictions and Powers repugnant to the same. What those ancient Jurisdictions of the Crown were esteemed to be, may be observed by the Statutes of Clarendon, the Statute of Carlisle, the Articles of the Clergy, the Statute of Provisors, and other the Laws of our Norman Kings, and in the times of Henry the Third, Edward the First, Edward the Third, Richard the Second, Henry the Fourth, which Statutes and Laws had not so publicly passed, without a greater clamour of other Nations professing the same Religion, if the Pope's pretended power in those respective mixed cases had been thought to have been Jure divino, or so undeniably his right, as some Divines do challenge in his behalf.  
But forasmuch as many Learned and Large Treatises have been written upon this Subject, of mixed Causes, as aforesaid, both by Roman Catholics, and by Professors of the Reformed Religion of several Nations, and of each side some holding that they belong to the King's Supreme Authority and civil sword, others that they belong only to the Church without any Concession from the temporal Magistrate.  
For allay to the Scruples that may hereupon arise in the minds of any his Majesty's Loyal Subjects, it may be observed, that since the Learned Doctors of both sides do respectively declare upon mature consideration of several Texts of holy Writ; Acts of Councils, and other reasons alleged, to have different Sentiments therein, some of each side, holding the contrary to what others of the same profession do strongly maintain, but never determined by the Church:  
The probability of their said opinions may respectively warrant (if not oblige) all his Majesty's Subjects (especially being so enjoined by Law) to acknowledge submission to that external coactive Power and Authority of his Majesty for the punishment of Offenders with civil and corporal punishments in such mixed cases, as aforesaid, which their respective Teachers do affirm to be justly derived from natural Reason, and clear places of Scripture, and assert them as part of his Royal Jurisdiction.  
Our ancient Histories, Statutes, and most authentic Records of former times, long before Henry 8th do testify as aforesaid, That our Kings did challenge a sovereign, external, coactive Jurisdiction over all their Subjects, as aforesaid in those cases, sometimes indulging them to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and See of Rome, sometimes restraining them again (of their own Authority, without recourse to the Pope or See of Rome) more or less according to their zeal or devotion towards the Church and Churchmen, and the respective occasions in those times, according as was then thought fit by our Kings and Parliaments. Read the Statutes of Provisors, 25. of Ed. 3.  
The practice in France sufficiently declares what that King's Power is in the cases aforesaid: For although spiritual offences (that are merely such) are punishable in the Ecclesiastical Courts only by spiritual Censures as Excommunication, Suspension, etc. Yet if the cause be mixed in any sort with what is civil or temporal, as aforesaid; or if never so little pecuniary Mulct be imposed upon the offenders for damages by the Ecclesiastical Judges, the whole matter may be brought to the cognizance of the civil Court upon appeal, and the former sentence reversed, if it be thought fit: Nor does any Ecclesiastical Promotion or Dignity, how great soever, privilege any person from civil and corporal punishments there; if he offend against the the now Archbishop of Paris, under the most Christian Kings, who is known to be most zealously devoted to the Church and See of Rome. And many other Precedents of the same nature have been in Hungary, Germany, and other Countries that hold communion with that Church.  
The King of Spain exercises the like Authority in several places of his Dominions, and so amply in his Kingdom of Sicily, that it is there called, Supreme Spiritual Authority, and spiritual Monarchy, as is acknowledged by the Catholic Divine in in his Answer to the fifth part of Sr Edward Cooks Reports, pag. 102. which words Supreme, spiritual Authority, and Spiritual Monarchy sound as harsh, and require a favourable explanation, no less than any the words in Queen Elizabeth's Oath aforesaid. He says indeed, That Pope Urbane granted the same long time since to that King's Predecessors, as Pope Nicolas somewhat of the like nature to St. Edward King of England.  
But mere spiritual Jurisdiction (as is conceived) could not be granted to a Lay person. And our Question being of the original right of our Princes to supreme, external, coactive Jurisdiction over their Subjects to take cognizance of offenders in such mixed cases, as aforesaid, for punishing them with civil and corporal punishments according to the respective quality of their offences, which (indeed) is no other but a civil and temporal power, though the said cases be vulgarly called Spiritual for the reasons declared as abovesaid, he ought to have told us how the Pope came to be invested with such coactive power by force of Law and corporal punishments, which he so granted away unto others.  
Christ said, His Kingdom was not of this world. The Apostles claimed no such coactive power, by force of Law, and corporal punishments, as aforesaid, nor any the aforesaid exemption of their persons or goods from the temporal Magistrate and his Tribunals. The Church (as the said Catholic Divine confesses) had no such power for several Ages, the Emperor Constantine was the first that granted it, who did it (to use his words) voluntarily. And other Kings and Princes, upon their singular devotion, and in imitation of that good Emperor.  
And doth not all this plainly signify, that the External Coactive power (such as aforesaid) was originally in the Supreme temporal Magistrate? whose said Supreme power (as most Learned men do affirm) cannot bind and conclude itself in a Law, so as not to be able to revoke or alter the same when there is just cause, for preservation of its being, and general good of the Commonwealth (otherways) in imminent danger. And consequently howsoever Cannon Laws and Decretals have been sometimes received by permission or concession of our Kings alone, or Parliaments of our Nation, and in virtue of such reception (and not otherwise) matriculated among our Laws, yet according to the Precedent of many of our Kings and Parliaments long before King Henry the Eighth, the same might be validly restrained or made void to this Nation, so fare as to the nature of a Law, if our said Kings and Parliaments conceived it necessary for those reasons as above said. Whether the same was well or ill done by them, or whether the causes were sufficient or not, in the respective occasions, the doers were answerable in conscience, not their Subjects who were bound to yield obedience to their Sovereign power, in what things soever were not purely Spiritual, or repugnant unto the Law of God.  
Since therefore it is most apparent, that Spiritual Authority (it self) is not denied by the intendment of this Oath explained by the Admonition and declared as aforesaid (which is otherwise then the abovesaid Catholic Divine did understand it to be; but only the enlargement of Spiritual Authority to temporal coaction (such as aforesaid,) which (in reality) altars its nature, and is repugnant to the prerogative Royal of this Crown, and which indeed the Court of Rome (not the Church of Rome) and some Divines most especially depending upon the same would extend the said spiritual power unto, b●● Jure Divino, but was not so ab initio, as manifestly appears by what is abovesaid.  
Why should any his Majesty's Loyal Subjects (Roman Catholics especially) deny to acknowledge their dutiful submission to his Majesty's said Sovereignty and Rule over all his Subjects, and their like obedience to maintain Laws established, so fare as they relate to his said Authority in such manner as above declared; Whereas not only the Opinions of many of the most Learned Writers of their own Religion do maintain, That Externall Coaction by force of Law, and civil and corporal punishment upon offenders of what quality soever, and for what matter or cause soever so deserving, as abovesaid, is of natural right belonging to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate, But also, the practice of our Kings and Parliaments in former Ages (time out of mind) as also the present practice of other Kings and Countries, that (nevertheless) hold Communion with the Pope and Church of Rome, do authorize and approve the exercise of the same, according to emergent occasions, by the said Supreme temporal Magistrate, in manner as abovesaid.  
Let them not therefore give just advantage to their adversaries in Religion, to press against them the continuance of the penal Statutes, by objecting that what they suffer is upon suspicion of a dangerous dependency upon a foreign State, but not for any Doctrine or Point of Religion, which their Church hath declared to be of Faith.  
The unlimited power, and immoderate attributes given to Popes by Canonists, and some other Writers of eminent Authority of that side, together with the violent proceed of some Popes thereupon, have been principally the occasion, that the said Oath hath been so strictly urged 〈…〉 Catholics, and hath chief caused 〈…〉 with that See, and by the overbold assertions of such Writers, that some of their said Opinions were De Fide, it hath been instilled (though not with truth) into the minds of most of the people of this Nation, That whosoever holds Communion with the Church of Rome, must necessarily be principled according to their said Tenets. Which caused his Majesty King James (and others so conceiving) to think that the above said Oath was purposely framed to make distinction between Protestants and Roman Catholics, who chief upon this score were all promiscuously called Papists, and so severe Laws Enacted against them in Queen Elizabeth's time and since. B p of Derry's Schism Guarded. Page 176. It is true there are other differences between us, but this is the main difference that giveth denomination to the parties.  
But the truth hereof ought (if but in charity) to be further enquired into by all conscientious men, especially by those in Authority.  
For many of the Roman Catholics of these Nations (nay most of the most-knowing among them) do profess, against such overbold assertions, such immoderate attributes, such unlimited powers and practices, as much as any Protestants whatsoever. And although they hold Communion with the Church of Rome in spiritualibus, and acknowledge (as their Ancient Forefathers did) that the Pope is the Supreme Spiritual Pastor (which the Bishop of Derry says is not meddled with one way or other in the intendment of this Oath, so it be but in spirituals. And his Royal Majesty King 
* Apol. for the Oath of Allegiance, p. 46.  James could be content that the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of the West, and were the first Bishop among all Bishops, and Princeps Episcoporum, so as he be no otherwise then as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum.) Yet the said Roman Catholics do not hold it as a part of their faith, that the Pope is infallibly free from Error, or that he can absolve Subjects from their obedience to their natural Prince, or from the Obligation of faithful upright dealing with their Neighbours, though such their Prince or Neighbour be not of their Religion, or were Excommunicated, or what more the Pope could do by himself, or with any other, against them for that cause. And all this (say they) they will cheerfully testify upon their Oaths, without equivocation or mental reservation, if an Oath in clear terms expressing as aforesaid be tendered unto them.  
It is not the true meaning of the Oath explained in manner as abovesaid, which makes many of them refuse to take the same; but there being an Oath made since, and called the Oath of Allegiance, makes them apprehend, that something more than mere Allegiance is contained in the former. And besides the latitude of the words in this Oath (at which many Protestants also stick) which words are not explained but by the admonition as aforesaid, and that admonition again not cleared, but by the Writings of Learned Doctors, and then authorized by the Proviso 5ᵒ Eliz. and the force of that Proviso to be resolved by the Learned Men in the Law. These particulars (not known to many, and so intricate in themselves) and above all, the constant tendering of the said Oath for so many years past, without the aforesaid explanation. These things I say have made it to be firmly believed by them, and those of their profession over all Christendom, that in taking the said Oath, with what explanation soever (if such explanation be not as publicly made known and declared) they give just scandal (which is Malum in se) that they renounce their Religion: as indeed the common acceptation of the words of the said Oath do import no less.  
And since the said Roman Catholics have been so Loyal to his Majesty, not one having drawn Sword against him in the late Rebellion, so many of them having lost their lives and estates, and endured strict Imprisonment and great hardship for his cause, and rendered eminent services in the late Wars even to the preservation of his most Sacred Person.  
It seems but very reasonable what is generally desire oy them, viz. that the Oaths required of them under so great penalties, may be cleared of those doubtful expressions in them, which cause their scruples as aforesaid, or a new Oath to be compiled in clear terms, whereby not only they, but also many Protestants who likewise scruple at the words of the same, may (to the entire satisfaction of his Majesty and the Nation) fully testify the Allegiance and Fidelity of faithful Subjects, and true Patriotts, and no longer remain (as generally they now do) disinherited, and subject to much obloquy, and in an incapacity to serve their King and Country, (notwithstanding the indulgence generally afforded to tender Consciences, though of different persuasion from the Tenets of the Church of England,) and all this upon no other score, but of being thought otherwise principled then what their said late actions have approved them to be, and what they now offer to profess upon their Oaths, which is the greatest security that can be given in testimony of a man's intention, and as much as satisfies in the like case of suspicion, from those that have fought, etc. against his Majesty and been his most bitter enemies.  
FINIS.