entring the Land durst not claim any right to the Crown as his right but onely to the Dukedom of York wearing also the Badge of Henry the Sixth's eldest Son in tâ—ken of his Homage What shall we say when he after in cruel manner smoâ—e him on the face with his Gantlet and caused him to be slain by his own servants and caused also the Father to whom â—e had formerly done homage to be imprisoned murthered and scornfully buried a person so good that he was called by the name of the Holy Yet do we not find but for all this while he had possession he had due loyalty and subjâ—ction acknowledged unto him and the Crown entailed on his Family 73. Against the Right of his Son Edward the Fifth King Richard the Third enters and might well also be called Usurper because he exercised Kingly power before the other was actually dispossessed And yet as ill as he was otherwise also is he generally obeyed and fought for 83. Henry the Seventh succeeds but he not taking to himself Kingly power till he were in full possession is not called Usurper Although his title was not so good as the others whom we are however to expect to be called Usurper and Tyrant also the more to dignifie the other now in possession when as yet although the said Richard were an Usurper as to his Nephews he was none to him Again although Richard were dead yet were there others living and in England too of a far more lineal and legal claim to the Crown as was the Lady Elizabeth Daughter to Edward the Fourth and the Earl of Warwick Son to the elder Brother of King Richard George Duke of Clarence to whom and his Heirs the Crown was also by Parliament given by Henry the Sixth in case he should die without issue as he did And yet further he stood by Act of Parliament attainted of Treason and had his Lands and Goods with those of his followers confiscate to the said King Richard May he not also be called Usurper for that he not onely exercised Kingly power before he was married to the Lady Elizabeth the right Heir but that afterwards he never so much as joyned her name in Acts of State and Sovereignty when by the Law of the Land she should have been chief as was adjudged on the case of Queen Mary and King Philip. And although he also brings in a new Family to wit that of Tudor in place of Plantagenet yet being in possession of the Crown he hath not the stile of Usurpation so thrown upon him as to take off the Subjects duty of allegiance Nor do I think that any will commend them for Loyalty that did after rise in the behalf of Perkin Warbeck although the Subjects generally thought him to be the right Heâ—r indeed and no counterfeit 39. Henry the Eighth succeds him upon the same Title and Edward the Sixth him with very small dispute of their Right 40. Queen Mary finds another Claimer to retard her possession namely the Lady Jane Grey And truly had she not bestirred herself and frighted the other party by a much greater power I beleeve the other would with her possession have been generally reputed and obeyed as the legal Heir having all the State conformation could be then expected For the Lords of the Council that then acted all publick affairs caused her to be proclaimed in London and no worse a man then B Ridley in a Sermon at Pauls Cross perswaded obedience to Lady Jane and invighed earnestly against the Title of Lady Mary as witnesseth Stow fol. 1033. And it is like he might use the same motives against the succession of her as are recorded by Mr. Camden in his introduction to the Annals of Queen Elizabeth to have been used against the succession of her and her Sister also To wit for that the Ladies Mary and Elizabeth were by the Act of Parliament judged illegitimate which Act was never duely repealed notwithstanding that the King their Father had by the same Act declared that they should succeed in order after Edward the Sixth if his issue should fail and for that the said Sisters could not by the Common Law of England be Successors Hereditarily to King Edward because they were not Germans that is of the whole blood by Father and Mother but as our Lawyers term it of the half blood It was also signified that Henry the Eighth by his last Will and Testament conveyed the title of the Crown to the said Lady Mary or the Lady Elizabeth should marry with Foreign Princes which might revoke the Bishop of Romes Authority now banished out of England and subject the English under a foreign yoke And to the same purpose also were produâ—ed Letters Pattents of King Edward the Sixth made a little before his death and signed with the hands of many Noblemen Bishops Judges and others But all this notwithstanding those very Lords that had before caused her to be proclaimed finding afterwards themselves unable to put her into full possession they wisely laid Title aside proclaimed the other and made what haste they could to obtain her favour Dutifully and wisely preferring that which was the sure way to publick peace and benefit although hazardous and disadvantagious to their own before a more sure way to their own advance with the loss of that which was publick 41. What shall we now think of the lawfulness of all those transactions which all along in those times were performed to the several Princes here was there never any obedience rightly given but to Edward the Second and Queen Elizabeth because they two onely could prescribe as to the term of a Hundred years since the Crown was usurped by their Progenitors and this hapening to them but towards the end of their Reigns shall we conclude that what was done before or towards any other was not legally done and to be esteemed acts of fear and flattery more then of Duty How comes it to pass that the Laws made by these several Princes nay by Richard the Third himself are acknowledged for Laws of force If possession of the Law-makers place gave them a right to make laws will it not also give them a right to their Subjects obedience Beyond all which if we will be truly regarding the injury offered to the deposed Family and think our selves obliged to sâ—e right therein done without regard to the publick will it not follow that this injury being the higher and the more as the party doing it was nearer in relation or of kin to those he did it that therefore an Usurpation made by a stranger is not so heinous as where a Son usurpeth against his Fathers likeing as Edward the Third did or an Uncle against Nephews as King John and Richard the Third or one Brother against another or the like as is to be observed in this long story In which cases to alleadge they had consent of the people this will not make any thing lawful as
to their taking of possession more then it did that of Adoniah against the liking of David 42 Find we any in all this List of Kings and story of changings amongst them that left his stile and claim of Dei gratiâ or divine providence and stood upon that of lawful succession when they do still all along write themselves Henry Edward or the like By the Grace of God King of England c. not mentioning at all their Fathers or Progenitors name or the descent by which they did at first claim What is this I say but plainly to evidence to us that the best evidence of their right and tenure as Gods Vicegerents is that attestation of his Providence whereby they have been enabled to attain this possession Towards the Attainment of which the same providence doth ordinarily make use of succession until he hath some notable work to do and then sometimes of election by bowing the hearts of the people and sometimes of conquest as Lord of Hosts Yet can I never find that however those that were to enter for strengthning of their party and adherents were ready to make use of popular exclamations against Usurpers and to do their best to have it beleeved that the possessor was so yet as I said they being in possession stuck to that claim above all other A fresh example hereof we have in her that was Successor to Queen Mary and the last of the Family of the Tuedors or indeed of the English Nation that were Crowned amongst us For says Mr. Camden in his Annals of Queen Elizabeth fol. 18. Although in some mens opinions Bacons wisdome failed him on whom as an Oracle of the Law the Queen wholly relied in such matters for that the Act of Parliament which had excluded her and Queen Mary from succession of the Crown was not repealed upon which some seditious persons took occasion afterwards to attempt dangerous matters against her as being not lawful Queen yet saith he the English Laws having long since pronounced That the Crown oâ—ce worne quite taketh away all defect whatsoever It was by others imputed to Bacon's wisdom who in so great perplexity and inconstancie of Acts and Statutes whereas those things that made for Queen Elizabeth seemed to be joined with the ignominy and disgrace of Queen Mary would not new gall the sore which was with age skinned over and therefore applied himself unto that Act of the 35. year of Henry the Eight which in a manner provided for both their fames and dignities alike 43. So that we find that however Princes are in prudence willing to omit no claim that may make for their admission or security and that especially at their first entrance yet is seisure and possession held ever to be the steadiest support nay such it is in the express verdict of Law it self To which end I shall here insert the opinion of him that by Lawyers themselves hath been accounted the Oracle of the Law since in fuller confirmation of that Maxim before set down And that is the resolution of my Lord Coke who in the third Book of his Institutes f. 7 8. in the Title of Treason expounding the words of NÌ„re Seignior le Roy says that by le Roy is to be understood a King regnant and not of one that hath but the name of a King And then also he alleadges the instance of Queen Mary on whom as having indeed the soveraign power the word le Roy was appropriate although she were a woman and her husband at the same time stiled King of England And that the stile or title alters not the respect and obedience due from Subjects to Soveraigns more then it doth from Children to the Master or Father in which respect a Yeoman is as absolute in his relation as a Lord may appear besides in that instance of our Kings holding the soveraignty of Ireland under the title of Lords and not as Kings till of late times during which space they had certainly as great authority as afterwards and the Subjects there were in the same cases made Rebels or Traitors to him as Lord as afterwards to him as King Afterward he quotes in the margent the Statute of 11 H. 7. enacting That none shall be condemned for any thing done in obedience to the present King or Soveraign for so the words of the Statute are King or Soveraign He further saith This Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto non de jure yet is he Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute and the other that hath right and is out of possession is not within this Act Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto non de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void By all which it will appear that the Law directs our fidelity to NÌ„re Seignior our Soveraign Lord not confining it to the stile of le Roy or King to whom it is only due as being actually NÌ„re Roy our Soveraign Lord the King 44. By which we may see that the intention of Common and Fundamental Law of the Land was not by proper Acts made at the instance of and in favor to particular persons and their families to overthrow that first main design of Publike peace which was sought by appointment of a Successor in the Government The which because it was to be supposed to come to the Heir of the Possessor therefore were Subjects sworne to Him his Heirs and Successors still intending that it is not due to the Heir only as Heir if he be not also Successor For if so why did not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacie run as Grants of Land and of other inferior Offices of Power To him and his Heirs if none but his true Heir must be obeyed after his death or removal And therefore the Law by putting down that word of Successor did doubtless determine that obedience should go along with possâ—ssion as before noted 45. The Laws you see having publick regard will not be abused with these misapplied terms of Usurper or the like which passion or interest as heretofore noted had politickly sometimes wrested to serve as a snare to withdraw obedience from the person already in power when it was only due to him that did attempt to dispossess him And therefore they use not the term of Usurper more in this then other cases where he that takes possession of any thing by fraud or force is not called Usurper but Disseisor or the like even as here he is called a King by fact They knew well enough how to put a difference between the legality of their commands that are Usurpers while they were usurping and
the State in quiet also and prevent all those mischiefs we now so much complain of through changes therein The which of latter times have from hence chiefly taken their rise when such as are seeking to make themselves more glorious or powerful do daily make use of mens too great zeal and credulity in this kind as the ordinary Stalking-horse hereunto The instances whereof are plain enough in Christendom especially since it became so divided into Sectâ— for the advance of any of which as Gods Truth we shall ever find the notion of Reformation cried up and alledged but alteration in the State and those that are in rule therein is really brought in If we do but reflect on some more remarkable passages among our selves we may from that smal difference which was in the six Articles themselves from the Roman Doctrine well conclude that the preservation of the Popes power as Head of the Church here was more aimed at then truth of Religion insomuch as a dispensation was ready to be granted for every thing save for taking the Oath of Supremacy When on the other side again both Henry the Eighth and his Successors looked upon this foreign acknowledgement as a sure testimony of ill affection to them and their Government Nay the Law it self came to be resolute in that point â—oo accounting Popery to consist in the alienating and withdrawing of Subjects from their obedience to their Prince to raise sedition and rebellion c. 58. And so now also we find that presumption of malignancy and disaffection to the present Government and Governor is most taken from that great affection which is cast to the use of this book because in so doing they manifestly decline those acts and alterations which are made by him and do submit to what was done by another I have not heard that any man hath been particularly forbidden to read this Book that did in the use of it pray for the present Sovereign power according to the foâ—m therein set down and as always hath been used to be done towards them onely that were in present Authority If that be not done doth it not too plainly argue that some affection and zeal beside that of the Book it self doth guide them in this choyce Doth not the Scripture look to the present when it enjoyn obedience to the Powers that are and commands to pray for Kings and all that are in authority Doth it any where in this case leave us to a choice by distinction saying such as should be in authority or the like And is it not a general rule that where the Scripture makes no distinction neither should we No in this case we may presume that the present higher Power and Kings were meant without such distinction both for that they were aâ— that time such as might that way have been excepted against and also for that the words following that under them we may lead quiet and peaceable lives c. must determine the prayer to be made for that present Auâ—hority which we do live under and are subject unto Nor do I find that ever any Orthodox pen but did confess prayer for that person under whose protection they lived to be a duty incumbent upon all Christians without referment of them to distinctions and qualifications Nay doth not the Book it self in that prayer for the whole state of Christs Church militant here on earth interpret this Doctrine of the holy Apostle to include all and accordingly appointed us to pray for all Christian Kings Princes and Governors and when it comes with an especially for that person who shall be at present our Governour â—â— iâ— said because he is the right Heir or hath best Title or the like no it hath still respect to the divine authority of the Apostles precept and therefore presently gives the same reason that under him we may be godlily and quietly governed In which respect I cannot by the way but highly commend that those frequent and full expressions which were made for those persons that were still in chief power amongst us as proceeding from good principles even the sence of honor and esteem which was owing to that God whose Authority he did represent amongst us when as now we may observe that those that have been possessed of the same party with the Protector do yet either wholly neglect to pray for him at all at least to mention him therein and then do it so coldly and fumblingly that partly by the falling of their voyce partly by the conditional qualifications they mention in their prayer for him they give but too just cause to suspect they are not so rightly principled and perswaded concerning that high duty and respect which is â—â—e to him in this his relation for as it becomes not them in publick especially to censure him so also not to insinuate any thing that might give occasion for others to do â—o for this will be â—o pray rather against then for him But to return to the consideration of the Service Book I say that to prevent those jealousies and dâ—ngers which might happen to some amongst us through too much forwardness to read or abuse and partialy in reading it the said Book I have made all the foregoing Discourse both â—o shew what is truly fundamental and necessary in our Christian Faith and what rule to follow in our Christian Obedience and to give satisfaction in that particular of taking away the Service Book the thing for ought I see now most insisted upon I have to that end striven to evince that continual power which is continually residing in the Head of this and each other Church to abrogate as well as impose in things of that natuâ—e Unto the confirmation whereof I shall now onely by way of conclusion add that Testimony of the Universiâ—y of Oxford printed in the year 164â— who in their reasons against the Discipline and Directory in place of the Service Book fol. 32. say We are not satisfied how we can submit to such Ordinances of the two Houses of Parliament not haveing the Royal assent as are contrary to the established Laws of this Realm contained in such Acts of Parliament as were made by the joynt consent of King Lords and Commons Nor so onely but also pretend by repeal to abrogate such Act or Acts for since ejusdem est potestatis destruere cujus est constituere it will not sink with us that a lessor Power can have a just right to cancel and annul the Act of a greaâ—er Especially the whole power of ordering all matters Ecclesiastical being by the Laws in express words for ever annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And upon what head that Crown ought to stand none can be ignorant In this we see their plain concurrence in yeelding the power of abrogation of this Book to such as instituted iâ— even to him that should hold the Imperial Crown of this Realm And as for the words following which by
enjoyments he may be stirred up to praise and acknowledg him it is therefore farther to be considered that even in those duties that are apparently to be performed towards God as being expresly commanded for perpetuity in Scripture as duties of the first Table there be not yet so violent a pressure made or yoke laid on the back of flesh and blood as to defeat the end of the second Table Mans good and make his service seem altogether a burthen And therefore they that are so ready to fancie to themselves an eminent proficience in piety out of the more strict observation of some one or two Precepts as the Pharisees of old were wont to do in the strict observation of the Sabbath even to the neglect of the rest are to remember our Saviors answer to the same Pharisees That the Sabbath was made for man not man for it For as the sense of pleasure and enjoyment was implanted as well to witness Gods bounty as to provoke us to gratitude therefore unnecessarily to abate mans pleasure is to abate Gods glory Which should have been considered of them that for fear of breaking the Sabbath-day would now turn it into a day of fasting and mourning They are to remember how that Evangelical Prophet Isaiah Chap. 1. is declaiming against those things that were done in more direct service to God as Sacrifice Prayers and the like and directs them to the observance of those things that tended to Charity as a more ready way to serve and please him To abstain from blood to seek judgment to relieve the oppressed the fatherless the widow and the like They are to consider that although God doth set down his own service first and strictly call for our faith and fear towards him as well knowing that according to our fear and confidence in him our observance of his laws will follow yet doth he always aim at our good to be gained or strengthened by any religious observance In which regard we may well know how to interpret that speech of S. Paul He that provideth not for his family hath denied the faith and is worse then an Infidel Where in an Oecâ—â—â—â—ical instance he speaketh of that force which Christian Religion upon its true ground and intent should have in the promoting of all moral vertues besides Insomuch as not to do the one is to deny the other and to become worse then he that hath no faith in Christ at all because he wanted that divine direction and ecouragement thereunto And lastly for want of due consideration of these things and how Charity is the end of the Law it is that men are generally so superstitious and so disconsolate and unsatisfied in their religious performances even so as to become Quakers Seekers and what not For while they guide themselves in their actions without due sense or regard how these things are both of them by Rules of Religion made mutually serviceable to the same end they do lose their Religion by this irregular and partial seeking of it in one sort only even by dissolving and disjoining those things which God hath thereby joined together For as all Vertue and Morality in regard of our inability to be so fully compleat as the first strict Rule of Providence requires is no better then Heathenish Philosophy when done without faith in Christ or sense of duty towards God so also all acts of devotion proceeding from any uncharitable heart or not having charitable intention but done only out of fear or care to please or serve God thereby as in things by him aimed at for himself are at best but superstition And therefore when our Saviour makes up our Religion by joining these fundamental precepts Thou shalt lâ—ve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbour as thy self And when again it is said Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord It is not for us to think of disjoining that religious tie of the Word and to believe that by any extraordinary way of serving God whom we see nâ—t or of following of some holy duties we can find acceptance if we have not the while a due regard to the love of our Brother whom we do see and to follow Peace also But since Righteousness and Peace have thus kissed each other Men should therefore in their religious deportments seek to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace and even study to be quiet by making conscience of avoidance of such things whereby scandal may be given or taken to the disturbance of their joint Communion in the same Profession Let men be to their utmost wary in communicating in acts of known sin because nothing of that kind but tendeth to the dishonor of God and the general harm of men But let them withall take heed that private prejudice interest or passion makes them not forsake their society as they are men much less in what they do as Christians for that were more directly both to dishonor God as Creator and Redeemer and to prejudice man himself For although we may and must hate and abandon vice and sin yet we may not the vitious and sinner farther then they are so but so far as iâ— possible and as much as in us lieth to have peace with all men 7. If we look to Mankind in their first way of Religion and to that condition and ability they then stood in for maintenance of their duty both towards God and their neighbor we shall find that in all these deviations or defects wherein through private appetite and abundance of enjoyment they might be led both to forget the Author of their benefits and to neglect the good and preservation of other things their fellow-creatures that God almighty did accept of them and what they did while they should forbear to eat of that forbidden Tree of the Knowledg of good and evil Sacramentally put to repute them as innocent in all such actions as in a strict sense they might be found to deviate from the fulfilling of the whole Law or Rule of Providence since they implicitely obeyed him that was the Author thereof and took not upon them to be guided by their own knowledg of that good and evil whereto they might morally tend 8. In the second estate and under the Law we may apprehend God conditioning with the posterity of him that had been most righteous in the keeping of the first Natural Law for the observation of a certain number of Precepts upon the performance whereof there was a promise of Justification as if they had performed the whole Moral Law or Law of Providence 9. But this being yet found too difficult God almighty in the third way of dispensation of his will to wit in the Evangelical Covenant conditions with Mankind for Belief not accepting us for any acts of our own as our own but as done and accepted in the name and by the merit of another whom by
him and leave no setled way for Peace or Order He is therefore to be understood as concluding that as the lawfulness of inferior Powers must for Peace and Orders sake depend on him who alone is to be held the lawful and true Governor to this end so his can depend on none but God But of this more hereafter 30. In the mean time it is to me a wonder how those that do now so much insist upon the necessity of their agreement with that Doctrine and Discipline which was formerly set down by the Church of England amongst which the frequent use of Sermons and Saâ—raments were set down as duties necessary to our Christian profession if not salvation can now be so much changed from their first principles as to decline those means and instruments which by the providence of God are for the present sent us to that very end and that only for want of such like formality of induction or institution which the Rule of the Church or State did in that case formerly appoint and can now even while they do profess their constancie in the same belief go about to perswade against effectualness of administration either in one kind or other through any such like objection More likely to my thinking it should follow that since there is such a great necessity still remaining in the frequent use of these things and since such manner of ordination induction and other qualifications as they themselves have received can only warrant men to be right hearers or receivers that therefore it is incumbent on them as a necessary duty to be doing hereof for fear of that sentence Wo if I preach not 31. In which case if we shall compare the cause and prosecution of Nonconformists now in their scandal in matters of abridgment with those exceptions and that demeanor therein which the former Nonconformists made against the Churches too great imposition in that kind we may as I conceive attribute more reason and Christian charity and moderation to them than these For amongst them it was held for a Maxim That they would rather preach in a Fools coat then be deprived of that benefit which might come by their Ministry and preaching And this the discreeter and more moderate sort did although the doing of a thing conceived to be unlawful by the Law of God be more to be scrupled at then the forbearance of a thing held lawful by the authority of the Church which in the condition they then stood in would not suffer them to be Preachers without actual use of the Surplice or the like whereas amongst us neither subscription nor use of any thing in the like kind is by present Authority enjoined 32. And as for those that so much stand upon the former institutions of the Service-book and other Rites and Ceremonies if we should have respect only to abolished Laws yet do I not find that it is any where said that no Sermon or Sacrament shall at any time be held lawfully or effectually made or done when these shall not be also used But the intention of the Act of Vniformity as an Act of Vniformity must be construed that in the times appointed for the use of such like things that then for preservation of peace and uniformity in the Church none other but those shall be used Doth the Act any where say or can any presume it did mean that no man should preach at any time a Sermon or come to hear others do so unless at the same time the Service-book or part of it were read No certainly if we consider the injunction as to persons it will be plain it lies not upon Preachers as Preachers but upon such as had fixed ministerial charge in delivering of the Sacraments or the like to the which the Book had chief reference and not enjoined on them neither if they had Vicars or Curates to do it It is not said if any Preacher Pastor or Lecturer shall refuse nor was ever so construed For experience tells us that never any did do it when they preached if they could have it conveniently omitted or done by others being while the Law was in force seldom read by Bishop Dean or Doctor but left to those of inferior sort however now it be pressed as necessary 33. And if we consider the intent of the words directing to the use of this Book or Form they must be construed by way of seclusion of all other Which will be manifest to such unprejudiced persons as shall consider how the whole scope of the Act doth condemn such as did by speech or action derogate or deprave against the use of the Service-book or Ceremonies as unfit or unlawful and not those that did approve them And therefore it prescribes no punishment to such as in obedience to Authority do against their own liking forbear to use or hear it but such as notwithstanding the authority of the Church do refuse it out of contempt of their power or better liking to some other form saying If any manner of Parson Vicar or other Minister whatsoever that ought or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the said Book or minister the Sacraments from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming refuse to use the said Common-Prayer or to minister the Sacraments in such Cathedral or Parish-Church or other places as he should use to minister the same in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said Book or shall wilfully and obstinately standing in the same use any other Rite Ceremony order form or manner of celebrating the Lords Supper openly or privily or Mattens Evensong Administration of the Sacraments or other open prayers then is mentioned and set forth in the said Book c. But then again in case they do not refuse but have been willing and made offer of doing it and have been by others disturbed in the use of that or made to use another why then by the judgment of that very Act they are not comprised in any blame But the punishment laid on such as should by open fact deed or by open threatenings compel or cause or otherwise procure or maintain any Parson Vicar or other Minister in any Cathedral or Parish-Church or in Chappel or in any other place to sing or say any Common or open Prayer or to minister any Sacrament otherwise or in any other manner and form then is mentioned in the said Book or by any of the said means shall unlawfully interrupt or let any Parson Vicar or other Minister in any Cathedral or Parish-Church Chappel or any other place to sing or say any Common and open Prayer or to minister the Sacraments or any of them in such manner and form as is mentioned in the said Book that then every such person being lawfully convicted in form abovesaid shall forfeit to the Queen our Soveraign Lady her heirs and successors for the first offence an hundred
marks And so the Act goes on prescribing still greater punishments for the second and third offences by way of mulct to the Queen and her Successors 34. But now what if her Successors come to enact against the use of it and be themselves Compellers and Threateners may we not then conclude that they may lawfully interrupt or at least the other be excused for being interrupted where before in a Subject it was unlawful to interrupt or let any Parson in the doing what was by the then Law established So that by this very Act as I conceive such as have a reverend esteem and willingness to use it are not only freed foro interno but by the Clause following enacting That no person shall be at any time hereafter impeached or molested of or for any of the offences above-mentioned hereafter to be committed or done contrary to this Act unless he or they so offending be thereof indicted at the next General Sessions to be holden before any such Justices of Oyer and Determiner or Justices of Assise next after any offence committed or done contrary to the tenor of this Act we may conlude he is freed foro externo also and may for ought I can find rest free from all danger while obedient to the Queens Successory she dying without an Heir 35. And if by reason of any Oath or Obligation received at Ordination or taking degrees some should think themselves farther bound They are also to consider that as neither any derived power can go beyond that which impowers it so are they also to presume that their intentions are alike even to maintain Peace and Order by Uniformity to what is enjoyned and not to raise disturbance by opposition And surely if Oaths Vows or the like were to be held of force in such a case I see not how any Jesuite or Priest could in reason no nor in Conscience be perswaded to recede in any thing from their obedience and conformity to the Papall Sea and Ceremony when as their Promises are not only more strict but confirmed by Laws more ancient and general and which are still in the same force 36. It is also farther to be considered that when after in the Preface to our Bibles it is set down That where heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm some following Salisbury use some Hereford use some the use of Bangor some of York and some of Lincoln now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one use And when in the directions following that Preface it is set down That all Priests and Deacons should be bound daily to say the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly except they be let by preaching studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause We are still to conceive that both Uniformity was aimed at and that the duty of Preaching was in the first place held necessary 37. And if we go to experience in their practise of this precept of reading of the Service Book then we shall find it apprehended as an injunction that did onely bind them ad semper velle but not ad semper agere as Mr. Hooker elsewhere speaks of Gods affirmative Precepts as Pray continually and the like and that thereupon few could give account of their daily use of it even when the hindrance of preaching studying or the like could not well be alledged as before noted And therefore if in a time when it was commanded the use of it might be forborn rather then preaching be omitted what may we think of them that in a time it is taken away will yet rather omit preaching then it to the great discouragement and scandall of many a man in his Christian obedience and Communion and to the great detriment of the nation in generall who in a time of scarcity are much wanting of that instruction which might be had from men of their abilities In which respect as I am my self a true lover of many of them for their learning and gifts in that kinde so hath the sence of mine own losse as well as that of others now made me thus large in this particular 38. But besides this and the want of satisfaction how they can in this condition uphold the Church of England in her former sentence against non conformity if upon the same score they shall slight her authority themselves They are next to consider what answer for their present Recusancy they can bring which on the other side shall not withall justifie the Recusants themselves in their separation from our Communion also For plain it is as I said before that as the drift of all the arguments brought formerly by the Papists against our Churches authority was in respect of usurpation in our Princes and want of succession lawfull ordination and the like in our Priests so was the sum of all their Doctrine that wrote in defence of what was done by us brought to this issue That these things were not essentiall to Salvation or to the being of a Church That each Christian Church having as heretofore set down a power within it self for ordering its own affairs had as well power to abbreviate or abrogate what was in former times or by other Churches instituted before as to institute that which was new so that the casting out from our Service Book and leaving out of our publike Forms of Worship all such Prayers Ceremonies and Observations as in the opinion of those that then had power in the Church had on the one side little or no footing in Scripture and which had on the other side greatest Superstition cast towards them was then held lawfull as by that Declaration annexed to our Bibles concerning Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained may appear And if it was then held agreeable and the Church thought a fit Judge wherein Superstition was most to be feared and what was the best way of Reformation how can we now change our Principle unlesse we joyn with the adversary to dâ—â—â—de the fact as done by the Civil power and Magistrate and with them neither own England for a Church nor him for head thereof Let us hear a little what Father Not the Jesuite in his Book called Charity maintained doth to this purpose alledge in his answer to Doctor Potter after some dispute Chap. 6. about the truth of our Ministery for want of Succession visibly derived from the Pope and Church of Rome he saith at last Sect. 20. But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gave authority to their pretended Successors The Primate of England but from whom had he such authority And after his decease who shall confer authority upon his Successors The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a child Queen Elizabeth a woman an Infant of one houres age is true King in case of his Predecessors decease
But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant King or green head of the Church come to years of discretion Do your Bishops your â—ierarchy your succession your Sacraments your being or not being Hereticks for want of Succession depend on this new found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shamefull ends Impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chief Protestants as Doctor Andrews Wâ—tton c not held any necessary point of Faith And from whom I pray you had Bishops their authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greek Patriarchs receive spiritual jurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the baptism of Princes lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the Temporal Magistrate authority to preach to assoil from sins to inflict Excommunications and other censures Why hath he not power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King James either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gave Commission to some Bishops to do it And since they were subject to the Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as superior to them all and Head in the Protestants Church in England If we have no such authority how can he give to others what himself hath not Your Ordination or Conseâ—ration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no character can only consist in giving a power authority jurisdiction or as I said before Episcopal or Priestly functions If then the temporal Magistrate confers this power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but ordain and consecrate Bishops and Priests as often as he confers authority or jurisdiction and your Bishops as soon as they are designed and confirmed by the King must ipso facto be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or matter and form of Ordination Which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledg to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal Prince And therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledg that he hath spiritual jurisdiction or that your selves can receive none from him And afterwards again sect 22. he saith But besides this defect in the personal succession of Protestant Bishops there is another of great moment which is that they want the right form of ordaining Bishops and Priests because the manner which they use is so much different from the Roman Church at least according to the common opinion of Divines that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of Ordination as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise and will not fail to do if D. Potter give me occasion In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author cited here in the margent and then compare our form of Ordination with that of Protestants and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating Bishops or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtful they can never have undoubted Priests nor Bishops For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops nor can any be true Bishop unless he be at first Priest I say their Ordination is at least doubtful because that sufficeth for my present purpose For Bishops and Priests whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful are not to be esteemed Bishops or Priests and no man without sacrilege can receive Sacraments from them all which they administer unlawfully And if we except Baptism with manifest danger of invalidity and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated so Protestants must remain doubtful of Remission of sins of their Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true Church which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests nor without due administration of Sacraments which according to Protestants is an essential note of the true Church And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordination For first An. 3 Ed. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve years of age it was enacted That such a form of making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests as by six Prelates and six other to be appointed by the King should be devised Mark well this word devised and set forth under the Great Seal should be used and none other But after this Act was repealed 1 Mar. Sess 2. Insomuch as that when afterwards An. 6 7 Regin Eliz. Bishop Bonner being indicted upon a Certificate made by Doctor Horn a Protestant Bishop of Winchester for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacie and excepting against the Indictment because Dr. Horn was no Bishop they were all at a stand till An. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. the Act of Ed. 6. was renewed and confirmed with a particular Proviso That no man should be impreached or molested by means of any Certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act whereby it is cleer that they made some doubt of their own Ordination and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their Ordination which forsooth must depend on six Prelates the Great Seal Acts of Parliament being contrary one to another and the like So that you see all along the authority and interposition of the Magistrate is scoffed at and by them made ineffectual in the ordering of the affairs of the Church nay the Church must be no Church if not wholly and independently governed by the Clergy and a Clergy too that do particularly derive their Ordination and power from a forein Head and according to Rights and Ceremonies then abolished If none but true Priests can administer the Sacraments nor none but true Bishops make true Priests nor none but the Pope make true Bishops but that the authority of the Magistrate doth interpose why then no true Sacraments nor no true Church by their doctrine And to that purpose he doth put a mark upon the word devised as deriding the Civil power therein 38. If we shall add to this what was before him observed by Father Parsons concerning the institution of the Service-book and objected against the validity and use of it as well as the power to abolish their Mass and other Ceremonies it will make us wary in condemning less Alterations now made by a greater Power while yet we shall commend conformity to a less Power in a matter of greater alteration For he alleadgeth in his Book of the Three Conversions of England par 2. chap. 12. sect 25. That the Reformation and Service-book were made by the then Protector to Edward the
Word what it is that Moses is to have them both we will let that pass as a revelation of flesh and blood and think that which God thinketh to be most convenient And hence he infers that in respect of this sole and supreme power the Church or Congregation must not come uncalled or refuse to come when called that is must not act against or without him but according to his direction in Church Affairs these being the two duties which he saith Gods people have ever duly performed to the two Trumpet No meeting without a Trumpet like Demetrius and his Craftsmen out of love to any Diana of their own liking as Nonconformists formerly did nor no slighting of the Magistrates call like Core and his Company out of conceit of equal holiness with him or in favor to the supreamacy oâ— some other Head as the then Recusants did After that instancing how the Magistrates here had been troubled with those of the Roman Clergy and with that of the Non-conforming party too who would neither yeeld that he should at all make Reformation nor like that he had made but would have those Trumpets and Powers in other hands he exhorts as I may do to constancy in this Doctrine saying That which we once held and maintained for truth let us do so still that we be not like evil Servants judged ex ore proprio 51. For when as it was by the Papists usually objected against our Reformation that no such thing was necessary since no such Heresie or Superstition was in their Doctrine or publick form of Worship as was alleadged and having in proof of them brought in divers Texts of Scripture and also produced evidence of general Practise of a Thousand years for most of them in that Church which at that time was held Catholick I do not for my part find but that the chiefest stress of lawfulness of Reformation lay as I said before in asserting the power of the chief Magistrate And that way ran the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury also who in his Answer to the Jesuite A C. Sect. 26. num 11. fol. 205. says Emperors and Kings are custodes utriusque tabulae they to whom the custody of both Tables of the Law for Worship to God and the Duty to Man are committed That a Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time to be given the King That the Kings under the Law but still according to it did proceed to necessary Reformation in Church businesses and therein commanded the very Priests themselves as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah who yet were never censured to this day for usurping the Priests Office That the greatest Emperors for the Churches honour Theodosious the elder and Justinian and Charls the Great and divers other did not onely meddle now and then but Enact Laws to the great settlement and increase of Religion in their severall times 51. If more satisfaction be requisite to assert not one the Kings Right to meddle in these things but even to shew the necessity of having a King to that very purpose iet us see the judgement of Bishop Andrews in another place where he is speaking upon that Text In those dayes there was no King in Israel and using these words fol. 122. This is not noted as a desert in gross or at large but even in Israel Gods own chosen people It is a want not in Edom or Canaan but even in Israel too the want of a King Truely Israel being Gods own peculiar might seem co claim a prerogative above other Nations in this that they had the knowledge of this Law whereby their eyes were enlightned and their hands taught and so the most likely to spare one others had not like light yet this non abstante their light and their Law and that they were Gods own people is no Supersedeas for having a King of which there needeth no reason but this That a King is a good means to keep them Gods Israel here for want of a King Israel began and was fair onward to be no longeâ— Israel but even Babel When Mica and by good reason any other as well as he might set up Riligions and give Orders themselves as it were in open contempt of God and his Law So that the people of God can plead no exemption from this since it is his own Ordinance to make them and keep them the People of God Was it thus here in the Old Testament and is it not so likewise in the New Yes even in the New too for there Saint Peter willeth them that they be subject to the King as to the Soveraign or Most Excellent And Saint Paul goeth further and expresseth it more strongly in the Stile of Parliament and like a Law-giver saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be it Enacted that they submit themselves And when Saint Paul there had in his Act said Omnis anima That this Act reacheth to every soul which was enough Yet because that seemed too general Saint Peter came after and goeth to the very point and saith Gens sancta must do thus too That is there must be a King even in Gods Israel And what would we more I come to the third part And to what end a King Quid faciat nobis What will a King do unto us It it hath been said already He will look that every one do not that which is good in his own and evill in Gods eyes He will in his general care look to both parts the Eye and the Hand The eye that men sin not blindly for want of direction the hand that men sin not with an high hand that is wilfully for want of correction He will be their good Opthalmist with right Eye-salve that the sight may be cured and things seem as they be and not be as they seem At the hardest si noluerunt intelligere but the eye will rove and run astray that the hand be bound to the good abearing That they do it not or if they do it as do it they will yea though there be a King yet that they may not do it impune do it and nothing done to them for it and scape the punishment due unto it for that is the case when there is no King in Israel And if when there is one that be the case too where have we been all this While For if so Etiam nâ—n est Rex cum est Rex Then when there is a King there is no King or one in name but none indeed Which as it is not good for the State so neither is it safe for themselves To this special regard will be had Non enim frustra saith St. Paul for they bear not the Sword in vain That every one do not thus Every one but namely which is the occasion of this Text that not Mica for Mica's fact brought â—orth this first sight That they were not come to this pass that he or any such as he was might
out of the computation of unlawful action which was most of all so and begin to compute it from the time of possession then shall we want a Judge to state when that did precisely begin and thereupon when it shall take end so as to say to the Subjects The Hundred years are now out you have all this while been subject for wraths sake onely now you must submit for conscience sake also yesterday being but the Ninty ninth year and Three hundred sixty fourth day since the Family got possession it was never made lawful till this very day Thus they that deny right of obedience to the possessor do yet derive right from possession and by consequent grant it to be due thereunto And surely if men had had that due regard to publick peace which they should and in respect whereto it might be thought that they had prefixed a time to silence disputes of that nature they would not then have so far lengthened it as to pass that limit wherein it was not supposable that the dispossessed should continue at all or in such repute oâ— power as to disturb him that had all this while been setled and not on the other side while disturbance is most to be feared left them at liberty for to attempt it 17. Again Will they make one prefixed time serve for legitimating the Government of all new Families notwithstanding that great difference in right to claim and way of entry that may be observed in them they then become unjust If they make difference then who shall be Judge concerning him who shall really be esteemed an Usurper amidst that great partiality which interest or envy useth to cast that way as well for making Usurpers that are not as acquiting those that are so and again for aggravating or lessening the faults of such as are 18. If we think of some foraign power as that of the Pope or the like to undertake in this kind as he hath sometime done how shall we do for another to place above him again to see that particular spleen or interest have not made him partial also So far as to make Charls Martel and his Son lawful possessors notwithstanding known precedent usurpation even while he was Master of the Palace and on the other side to call King Henry the Eighth who was an Hereditary possessor an Usurper while he acknowledged not him for Supream 19. Will they put it to Subjects themselves to judge whether their Prince be at all and how far and in what degree an Usurper to the end that they may know whether or how far obedience is to be given unto him What hope of agreement in their Verdict Nay is it not the sure way to set them at disagreement and consequently to introduce Civil War for since he should not at all have been possessed if the wills and power of those that opposed him as wanting title could have prevailed against the greater number or power of such as elected and helped him in how then can we imagine that these should now not onely let go their superior power herein which they have all this while contended for but also submit that equal vote they have as Subjects to be overborn and silenced by the desires of their enemies in the dethroning their friend and admision of a known adversary into supreme power over them who by their past opposition they must now expect also to be heightned with thoughts of revenge 20. Is it not therefore much better and more becoming such as have any real love to the peace and welfare of the Church and State where they live to labour to distinguish and free themselves from private and personal respects and prejudices and ingeniously to examine all things accordiong to their prime intention and aim which is preservation of God glory by preservation of men and preservation of men by preservation of publick peace and agreement What and if for reasons before set down some have not so plainly asserted obedience and loyalty to an Usurper as they have to a Tyrant can we yet otherwise think then that as their intention was to preserve peace in this case to the publick notwithstanding the publick it self must therein suffer even so and much more must we imagine that in this other case where onely one person or Family doth suffer that yet they should leave men at liberty to make disturbance in the publick as often as passion or interest should furnish Subjects with occasion of such imputation No certainly had they meant that the Subjects of any Prince now peaceably setled might under colour of Usurpation withdraw their allegiance they would not then have so firmly asserted that this allegiance was due to Tyrants since that as formerly said can never be practised without Usurpation and that in a more continued and high measure and also accompanied with more pernicious and dangerous consequents then in the other For whereas a new Prince is called Usurper for breaking the Law made in behalf of the dispossessed in particular doth not the Tyrant much more break and transcend those Laws and the Laws of God and Nature also in what he doth in detriment to the publike And doth he not daily repeat the same breach and newly violate them as often as he doth tyrannise Whereas Usurpation consisteth only in one act against one single person or family of the whole and is not daily prosecuted like the other to the detriment of all in general Let us not therefore invert the prime intention of Laws and make that destructive to Peace which was purposely framed to preserve it by the wilful mistake of their meaning that seem to ascribe unlawfulness to the rule of Usurpers or possession of Usurpers And this we shall best do if we do but reflect on that different condition the same person is to be look'd upon in relation to that Prince or family he opposeth or dispossesseth and in relation to the rest of the Subjects and Nation and this also in reference to what shall be by him done before he is possessed over what it is afterward 21. While any one is attempting thus to enter he is doubtless to be opposed by both Prince and people as an Enemy not only to the Prince himself but to the Common-weal also in disturbing their peace and quiet And being not yet seised of any such place of power as to make his acts or commands warrantable there is nothing which is by him done in a politick capacity can be called lawful But if the Tables be now turned and he quietly seated in the Legislative power as the other was before then are the Subjects to turn themselves in their obedience too and having still respect to Gods ordinance and the publick quiet continue on the same peace by a dutiful submission to him that is now Dei gratia or by Divine providence brought into that authority which the other did claim Dei gratia before When yet the person thus entred