ever challenge, or assume to themselves any juris"diction purely spiritual. All, which they deprived "the pope of; all, which they assumed to them"selves, was the external regimen of the church "by co-active power, to be exercised by persons capable of his respective branches of it. And "therefore, when we meet with these words, or "the like, (that no foreign prelate shall exercise

66

66

any manner of power, jurisdiction, &c. eccle"siastical 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 and co-active power in ecclesiasti❝cal causes, in foro contentioso.—Our kings leave "the power of the keys, and jurisdiction purely spiritual, to those to whom Christ has left it.— "Our ancestors cast out external ecclesiastical co"active jurisdiction; the same do we. They did "not take from the pope the power of the keys, or jurisdiction purely spiritual,-neither do we." Citations of passages to the like effect from other protestant writers, might, it is said, be easily multiplied.

66

In further support of this construction, its advocates notice the conduct of the clergy in the reigns of Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, as well as the conduct of many of the clergy during the first part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, who, they say, did not refuse similar oaths, when these were pressed upon them.

They intimate, that objections to the oath prescribed by the parliament of Elizabeth, were first made by the priests, who came to England from the foreign seminaries. In those schools, they say, the ultramontane doctrines on papal power were taught in their utmost extent. In conformity with these,

the members of those communities believed the pope to be entitled, at least indirectly, to temporal power by divine right, and must therefore object to every oath, which denied the right of the pope to the exercise of temporal power in the administration of spiritual concerns, or the right of the church to enforce the sentences of the church by temporal process.

These, the writer apprehends, are the principal arguments by which it is contended, that catholics might conscientiously take the oath of supremacy prescribed by the parliament of queen Elizabeth, and similar oaths prescribed by subsequent parliaments. His own impression on the subject is as follows:

Were it quite clear, that the interpretation contended for is the true interpretation of the oath, and quite clear also, that the oath was and is thus universally interpreted by the nation,-then, the author conceives, that there might be strong ground to contend, that it was consistent with catholic principles to take either the oath of supremacy which was prescribed by Elizabeth, or that, which is used at present.

He also thinks it highly probable, that, if a legislative interpretation could now be obtained, the

interpretation suggested would be adopted. *But, that the oaths of supremacy were thus understood by the bulk of the nation, when they were first promulgated,―this, the writer considers, at best, extremely doubtful. He cannot reconcile such construction of them, either with that, which the monarchs and their parliaments themselves repeatedly put on them, by their conduct, or with the powers which the legislature has very frequently attributed to them. Hume, (ch. 40), says expressly, that Elizabeth always pretended that, in "quality of supreme head of the church, she was "fully empowered by her prerogative to decide "all questions which might arise with regard "to doctrine, discipline, or worship; and would "never allow her parliaments so much as to take "these points into consideration.” This appears to the writer to afford a conclusive argument for supposing, that, when the acts conferring the supremacy on the crown were passed, they were not

See lord Grenville's exposition of the nature of the spiritual supremacy of the kings of England, in his speech, on moving the petition of the Irish Roman Catholics, in 1810: an extract of which is given in the second volume of this work, pp. 178, 179. The preamble also to the act passed in 1793 for the relief of the Scottish catholics, is important. It is inserted, at length, in the last chapter of the second volume of this work. It states explicitly, that "the rigour of the act "which prescribed the oath of supremacy to the Scottish "catholics, was chiefly judged expedient in order to preserve "the government against the attempts or efforts of those persons, who then did, or were supposed to acknowledge the temporal superiority or power of the pope or see of Rome, over that part of the realm of Great Britain called Scotland."

66

generally understood in the sense contended for by those, who deem it lawful for catholics to take them. The subject is ably discussed by Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans, ch. 1v. His arguments to show, that the acts in question were intended to confer on the monarchs some powers merely spiritual, and belonging of right to the church, appear to the writer to be incontrovertible.

That the acts are at this time so understood, both by the general body of catholics, and by the general body of protestants, the writer considers quite undeniable.

"These things," (to use the language of Sir John Winter, in his Observations on the Oath of Supremacy, in which he contended, in the reign of Charles the second, with great force of argument for the construction of it in the sense suggested by its advocates,)—"These things have made it to "be firmly believed by the catholics, and those of "their profession over all christendom, that in taking the said oath, with what explanation soever,

66

66

(if such explanation be not 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 oath do import no less."

66

CHAP. XVII.

PRINCIPAL ECCLESIASTICAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.

BOTH the creed and discipline of the church of England were left at the death of Edward the sixth in a very unsettled state. Speaking of their state at that time, bishop Latimer, in one of his sermons said, “it is yet but a mingle-mangle, a hotch-potch, I cannot tell what; partly popery, " and partly true religion, mingled together. They 66 say in my country, when they call their hogs to "the swine trough, 'come to the mingle-mangle, "come, puz, come!' Even so do they make a mingle-mangle of the gospel."

66

I, By the book of common prayer, II, and the thirty-nine articles; with the aid, III, Of the act of uniformity; IV, and of the statutes against recusancy, the ecclesiastical Reformation of England was completed: V, The subject leads to some mention of the translations of the Bible during the reign of Elizabeth.

XVII. 1.

The Book of Common Prayer.

THE two revisals of the liturgy, and the confirmation of the latter by two acts of parliament in the reign of Edward the sixth, have been mentioned. Both acts were repealed in the first year of the reign of queen Mary. The second revisal, but with some alterations, was adopted by queen Elizabeth, and received the sanction of the legislature.