regard when not onely the publick peace is called the Kings Peace but the Laws too are called his Laws being acted in his name as well as enforced by his authority so that to question or abolish his power of Judicature is not onely to overthrow Peace but Justice also Insomuch as if none should be at any time so lawfully possessed of the soveraign power as to challenge obedience no man then can expect a legal remedy for any injury offered him by another for how can he do me right upon my appeal if he may not lawfully command and the other be not bound to obedience And if another be bound why not I Would I be righted in my own particular by acknowledgement of his authority and do I yet think it haâ—d to joyn with all others in the like acknowledgement whereby the whole Commonwealth may have right Doth not protection necessarily imply and call for subjection as perfect relatives If I hold Land of another either by rent or service or both and do in that case think it reasonable in me to expect continuance of that benefit which ariseth by tenancy am I noâ— bound to give to him of whom I hold and have it that rent and homage which is due to the place he holdeth And would I not being a Lord expect the like from my Tenants Would I think it proper or reasonable that upon any of my Tenants presumption that I was noâ— so rightly seized as they conceived I should they might thereupon take liberty to withdraw their acknoweldgments and services even during the time they hold under me If this were permitted and some of the Tenants licenced to with-hold their Lords due upon every fair pretence they could make that way what great disturbance do we think would insue Doth not the instance between Nabal and David inform us that the rule of Reason and Prudence as well as Gratitude do justly call for obedience and compliance to a protecting power even in a case against the interest and leave of his present Prince and while he is neither possessed nor so much as claiming the whole Sovereignty and shall we think it yet reasonable that after this Sovereign power is wholly possessed and hath been generally submitted unto we may then with Shemei or Sheba out of particular love or relation to the last person or family as being allied by courtesie or kindred or out of some discontent at this renounce and cast off our subjection when we shall think fit 47. Surely no such a resolution can never find entertainment in any that is a true Cavalier indeed that is one that out of a true sence of duty and loyalty alone appeared on the side of the late King even because he was their King and their present Governour in chief I am for my part perswaded that as the most considerable body of that party consisted of the Nobility and Gentry so were they men of too much honour and ingenuity to joyn themselves that way in hope of any private advantage to themselves but rather resolved to hazard their own lives and fortunes in testimony of their loyalty to their present Sovereign And therefore I have cause to hope that no loss by that means to be sustained which the chance of war must render to one side or other can move them to be now so inconsiderately inconstant as to cease to be loyal at such a time as is apparently advantagious also All sinister construction and wresting of principles is most to be feared from such as appeared on that party not out of any such consciencious principle to their King as King but as they stood byassed by hope of gain or preferment such as these finding themselves defeated of their aims it is no wonder if they be found hardly reconcileable to those they conceive the Authors thereof but mutinous against them without any just sence of that publick detriment which must thence insue It being not unlikely also but thaâ— in case the King had prevailed those that were then the most forward in lifting themselves for the Royal party would themselves have proved the Kings greatest enemies if their covetousness or ambition stood at any time not satisfied to their liking no otherwise then we do plainly find now in some of those thaâ— were most zealous on the other side as if they were the most godly of that party who upon such like discontent are found most ready to turn enemies themselves to that party and protection under which they fought clearly evincing that it was rather gain then godliness that first engaged them It was for the conâ—â—â—ction of these and such as these and for prevention of such dangerous doctrines and practises as they might infuse into others to the abatement of ouâ— bounden duty on the one hand and the endangering ouâ— just punishment on the other that hath made me thus large in the discovery of all those things as they stand both in conscience and prudence considerable in themselves separate from all personal regard and prejudice 48. For if we be not very watchful against such like insinuations or what our own passions and prejudices may in these cases tempt us unto we may quickly mistake in our respect and censures of Gods Vicegerent amongst us no otherwise then St. Paul did in his answer to the High Priest at such a time as he stood much exasperated through sence of his present suffering under his command But what then if he fall mark how quickly he riseth If he be told by a Brother that it was Gods High-Priest he so answered he disputes noâ— his succession or legal election into that Office according to their former law although he could not but know that these were wanting in a far higher measure then can be now objected But he being now in Moses seat the Seat of supreme autority applies the Text of subjection and respect to him Thâ—u shalt not curse the Gods nor revile the Rulers of the people As if on purpose to leave us a president that no such supposition could hereafter warrant any mans disobedience or contempt of Authority It will therefore concern us to be very watchful against all temptations of like kind as that which is but too subject to prevail upon flesh and blood For however such things may have a religious appearance put upon them by him that can transform himself into an Angel of light yet by their fruits we may know them to be none other then works of flesh 49. When therefore we read that this blessed Apostle and true Saint indeed Saint Paul himself is finding a law in his members warring against the law of his mind and bringing him into captivity unto the law of sin Shall we â—uch as we think we are free have we not rather just cause to doubt that siâ—ce he notwithstanding that abundant grace and revelation given him could not at all times dâ—scover and bear against this enmity even against this sinister construction
Pharisees by whom divine things indeed were lesse because other things were more divinely esteemed of then reason would The Superstition that riseth voluntary and by degrees which are hardly discerned mingleth it self with the Rites even of every divine service done to the onely true God must be considered of as a creeping and incroaching evill an evill the beginnings whereof are commonly harmlesse So that it proveth onely then to be an evill when some farther accident doth grow unto it or it self come unto further growth for in the Church of God sometimes it cometh to passe as in over-battle grounds the fertile disposition whereof is good yet because it exceedeth due proportion it bringeth forth abundantly through too much ranknesse things lesse profitable whereby that which principally it should yeeld being either prevented in place or defrauded of nourishment faileth This if so large a discourse were necessary might be exemplified by heaps of Rites and Customes now superstitious in the greatest part of the Christian world which in their first originall beginnings when the strength of vertuous devout or charitable affection bloomed them no man could justly have condemned them as evill whereby it is still plain that things good and profitable in their first institution and setled upon good advice and great authority may by a succeeding age and Church be found prejudiciall and that then that Church hath power to take away and abolish that which the other did institute 27. And again much to the same purpose and in answer to such as think things once well and solemnly established cannot be altered he saith l. 4. fol. 165. True it is that neither Councels nor Customes be they never so ancient and so general can let the Church from taking away that thing which is hurtful to be retained Where things have been instituted which being convenient and good at the first do afterward in processe of time wax otherwise we make no doubt but they may be altered yea though Councels or Customes General have received them And therefore it is but a needless kind of opposition which they make who thus dispute If in those things which are not expressed in the Scripture that is to be observed of the Church which is the custome of the people of God and decree of our Forefathers then how can these things at any time be varied which heretofore have been once ordained in such sort Whereto we say that things so ordained are to be kept howbeit not necessarily any longer then till there grow any urgent cause to ordain the contrary For there is not any positive Law of men whether it be general or particular received by former expresse consent as in Councels or by secret approbation as in Customs it cometh to passe but the same may be taken away if occasion serve Even as we all know that many things kept generally heretofore are now in like sort generally unkept and abolished every where By which we may further finde that as it is the duty of the Members of any Church to conform to such Rights and Orders as the Authority thereof shall institute and set up so also can no plea of former establishment whether by Councels or Customes warrant their opposition or inconformity if the Church under which they live shall think fit to abrogate them when they find urgent cause to the contrary No he accounts it but a needless kinde of opposition to urge in these disputes the custome of the people of God or the decree of our Fore-fathers as if for the necessary continuance of Peace and Order there were not the same degree of respect due to a succeeding Church by her present children as was given to the former Church and such as were our Forefathers therein Can we fancie that the establishment we doe now approve might be made in place of what the Church preceding it had made before and yet think the Church under which we live cannot do the like in disanulling some things made by the Church preceding us 28. But now if all this while it should be allowed that this power should be in the Church yet what and if some mens greater affection and interest cast towards other persons then those that had the present managing of Religious affairs might make them conjecture that rather they then these ought in these things to be obeyed and what and if they might withall doubt that him they called the Civill Magistrate should have power to order affairs of the Church as head thereof we will therefore set down what he farther inferreth fol. 567. The Lord God of Israel hath given the kingdom over Israel to David for ever even to him and his sons by a Covenant of Salt And Job 56. 8. bringing in that place of Cant. 8. 11. Solomon had a Vineyard in Baalhamon he gave the Vineyard unto keepers every one bringing for the fruit thereof a thousand pieces of silver c. He saith it is true this is meant of the Mystical Head set over the body which is not seen but as Christ hath reserved the mystical administration of the Church invisible to himself so hath he committed the mystical government of Congregations visible to the Sons of David by the same Covenant whose Sons they are in governing of the flock of Christ whomsoever the Holy Ghost hath set over them to go before them and lead them in their several pastures one in this Congregation another in that As it is written Take heed to your selves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And presently after to shew who he means by those Overseers he saith The Pope hath fawned upon the Kings and Princes of the earth and by spiritual couzenage hath made them sell their lawful Authorities and Jurisdictions for titles of Catholicus Christianissimus Defensor fidei and such like And again fol. 569. complaining of the unnatural usage of some towards their Mother that were natural children of this Church under a misguided conceit that Obedience was not due to the then Queen Elizabeth but to another he saith That by this means the bowels of the child may be made the mothers grave and that it hath caused no small number of our brethen to forsake their native Country and with all disloyalty to cast off the yoke of their allegiance to our dread Soveraign whom God in mercy hath set over them for whose safeguard if they carried not the hearts of Tygers in the bosomes of men they would think the dearest blood in their bodies well spent and presently after he reckons up the faults charged by the Popish party upon them and for which they stood excommunicated as if they had been no Church nor part thereof Viz. That the Queen had quite abolished prayers within her Realm that we not only have no assemblies unto the Lord for Prayers but to hold a Common School for sin and flattery
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
sixth who it is well known had no such power and soveraignty in himself as our present Protector hath And to this end he saith And now Candles Ashes and Images being gone as you see there followed in the next moneth after to wit March that the Protector still desiring to go forward with his designment of alteration sent abroad a Proclamation in the Kings name with a certain Communion-book in English to be used for administration of Sacraments in stead of the Mass-book But whether it was the very same that was rejected a little before in the Parliament or another patched up afterward or the same mended or altered is not so cleer But great care there was had by the Protector and his adherents that this Book should be admited and put in practice presently even before it was allowed in Parliament To which effect Fox setteth down a large Letter of the Council to all Bishops exhorting and commanding them in the Kings name to admit and put in practice this Book We have thought good say they to pray and require your Lordships and nevertheless in the Kings Majesties our most dread Lords name to command you to have a diligent earnest and careful respect to cause these Books to be delivered to every Parson Vicar and Curate within your Diocese with such diligence as they may have sufficient time well to instruct and advise themselves for the distribution of the most holy Communion according to the Order of this Book before this Easter time c. praying you to consider that this Order is set forth to the intent there should be in all parts of the Realm one uniform manner quietly used To the execution whereof we do eftsoons require you to have a diligent respect as you tender the Kings Majesties pleasure and will answer to the contrary c. From Westminster the 13. of March 1548. By all which and by much more that might be alleadged it is evident that all that was hitherto done against Catholick Religion for these first two years until the second Parliament was done by private authority of the Protector and his adherents before Law and against Law c. 40. And if we look farther into the Preamble of the first Statute that confirmed this Book by him also set down a little after sect 35. we may find that the said Book was appointed first for Uniformity and next that it or some other had been set on foot before by the Lord Protector in the Kings name The words are Where of long time saith the Act there hath been in this Realm of England divers Forms of Common-Prayer commonly called the Service of the Church as well concerning Mattens and Evensong as also the whole Communion called the Mass c. And where the Kings Majesty with the advice of his most entirely beloved Vncle the Lord Protector and others of his Highness Council hath heretofore divers times assayed to stay Innovations or new Rites concerning the premisses yet the same hath not had such good success as his Highness required in that behalf Whereupon his Highness by the most prudent advice aforesaid being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his Subjects in that behalf of his great clemencie hath not been only content to abstain from punishment in that behalf but also to the intent that an uniform quiet and godly order should be had concerning the premisses hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and certain of the most learned and discreet Bishops to consider and ponder the premisses and thereupon having as well an eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scriptures as the usages of the Primitive Church should draw and make one convenient and meet order rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and administration of Sacraments to be used in England Wales c. The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost with uniform agreement is of them concluded set forth and delivered to his Highness great comfort and quietness of mind in a Book entituled The Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments c. Now truly I cannot for my part see how we can make either the first Imposition or receipt of this Book lawfull if we stick not to our main principle in acknowledging the present supream Christian Magistrate to be head of the Church which doubtless the Protector was in the non-age of the King And if those elder Reformed Protestants amongst us did well to conform to this authority in abolition of the Masse and other very ancient services and that notwithstanding the Book had been by Parliament already rejected there seems to me great reason to conform to what an Act of Parliament and a Protector of more power hath determined concerning another alteration of this kinde To think that the Book or the Ceremonies thereby appointed had of themselves separate from that Authority by which they were devised and imimposed any such inherent and divine worth as for their own sake to claim admittance and continuance were plainly to contradict the act it self and the Stories of those times which tell us by whom it was made and by whom commanded and it doth plainly cross the judgement of Mr. Hooker himself who in his answer to Mr. Travers fol. 471. may be found giving sentence for indifferency in the use of these things as in themselves by the instance of kneeling sitting or walking at receiving of Sacraments his words are An order as I learn there was tendred that Communicants should neither kneel as in the most places of the Realm nor sit as in this place the custome is but walk to the one side of the Table and there standing till they had received passe afterwards away round about by the other which being on a sudden begun to be practised in the Church some sat wondring what it should mean others deliberating what to do till such time as at length by name one of them being called openly thereunto requested that they might do as they had been accustomed which was granted and as Master Travers had administred his way to the rest so a Curate was sent to minister to them after their way which unprosperous beginning of a thing saving onely for the inconvenience of needless alterations otherwise harmless did so disgrace that order in their conceit who had to allow or disallow it that it took no place Was there indifferency and harmlesness in the use of these things then and now they onely inconvenient as causing distraction and scandall to the generality of other receivers and could Master Hooker record without censure the custome of that Congregation whereof he was Minister in receiving of the Communion sitting and for ought appears gave it so to them himself whereas yet the Service Book had appointed it kneeling and shall we now think of any inherent divine worâ—â—in the things themselves No sure this would but too plainly argue them guilty of Superstition that so maintain
and thereupon render the abolition of it both just and reasonable Now as the abolition of the Masse Book was formerly in respect of like superstition cast towards it For the late Archbishop sect 35. num 7. punct 5. affirmeth that himself had heard some Jesuites confess that in the Lyturgie of the Church of England there is no positive Error And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us In like manner as now Conformists may be asked now when no positive error can be objected neither They answered saith he they could not do it because though our Liturgy had nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service So that if this answer were not valuable to excuse Refusants then I see not how the like can excuse any now 41. All which well weighed I know no effectuall answer to be made to such as have been Recusants or Non-conformists if we fall from that principle of acknowledgement of that Supremacy which the Church then gave the chief Magistrate amongst us accounting him in all causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supream Head and Governour If upon any pretence we forsake this hold we not only lose the direct way to unity and peace but do let in error on every side to over master and confound us And although this power were formerly given to the chief Magistrate while they had the stile of King or Queen yet if we shall impartially consider the intention of that Act whereby this power was exercised by the King we shall finde that it like all Laws having a regard to the perpetuall conservation of Peace Order and Unity did not limit it to persons so stiled onely but that it might be kept for ever did for ever unite it to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is to the Monarch thereof although no King nor more crowned nor anointed then some of the Roman Emperors were and accordingly we shall find Mr. Hooker to understand and apply it for reckoning up the Subject whereof his eight Books are to treat He saith The eight is of the power of Ecclesiastical dominion or Supream Authority which with us the highest Governour or Prince hath as well in respect of domestical jurisdictions as of that other forrainly claimed by the Bishop of Rome In which expressions of Highest Governour or Prince Prince signifying the same with Highest Governour or Governour in chief we may presume he meant it due to the King as Monarch and not to the Monarch as King And a great pitty it is that we had not the Book it self to have been further satisfied herein and in the power belonging to him But for want thereof we will adde the judgement of such others as have been generally held most famous in their generations 42. Bishop Andrews in his Sermon upon that Text of Touch not mine annointed proves at large that all persons in Supream Power are to be esteemed Gods annointed although material Unction and other Ceremonies be wanting as primarily he saith It was meant of such as were Patriarchs For saith he fol 798. in the first World the Patriarchs were principal persons and as I may safely say Princes in their generations and for such holden and reputed by those with whom they lived I may safely say it for of Abraham it is in expresse terms said by the Hethites Audi Domine Princeps Dei es inter nos Thou art a Prince of God that is a mighty Prince here among us As indeed a Prince he shewed himself when he gave battel and overthrow to four Kings at once Of Isaac no less may be said who grew so mighty as the King of Palestine was glad to intreat him to remove further off and not dwell so neer him and then to go after him in person and sue to him there might be a league of amity between them And the like of Jacob who by his sword and bow conquered from the Amorite the mightiest of all the Nations in Canaan that Country which by will he gave to Joseph for possession It was neer to Sichar well known you have mention of it Joh. 4. 5 Great men they were certainly greater then most conceive But be their greatness what it will this is sure they were all the Rulers the people of God then had and besides them Rulers had they none And that is it we seek Pater was in them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too Fatherhood and Government And these two made them Patriarchs unctos ante unctionem saith S. Augustine anointed before there was any material anointing at all And as he said it to be properly due to such and none but such as were Rulers of the people of God so because Christian Magistracie in the latter ages was mostly executed by and under the notion of Kings so doth he afterwards prove how they were to succeed in this right Which done he proceeds to censure that usurpation of power foreignly claimed by Pope and Cardinals who under pretence of this title would enter common with Christian Kings proving that thirty three times in Scripture the terms of Gods anointed are used and no where to be applied to any but Patriarchs Christ himself or of Kings all shewing farther that others Priests Prophets or the like although they were anointed and might be so called yet were never stiled the Lords aâ—ointed it may be uncti but not Christi And then setting forth the Kings more proper claim to this title as being chief Christian head he after asks Who be they If we go by the book Princes why then touch not Princes that is such as are in principal power or Rulers in chief And thereupon he after adds to take their supposition off that thought this Authority depended on the Ceremony of Unction or the like fol. 800. This claim by the Ceremony is clean marred by this Text For when these words here were spoken there was no such Ceremony instituted it was non ens no such thing in rerum natura that name not up til Moses Now these here in the Text were in their graves long before Moses was born no meos then no claim by the Ceremony And after it came up no Priest went out of Juâ—â— to Persia to carry the Ceremony to Cyrus yet of him saith Isaiah Haec dicit Dominus Cyro Christo meo Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus mine anointed And yet never came there any oil upon his head So that even after it was taken up yet the Ceremony and the claim by it would not hold The truth is the Ceremony doth not any thing onely declareth what is done The party was before as much as he is after it Onely by it is declared to be that he was before and the which he should have been still though he had never so been declared The truth may and doth subsist as with the Ceremony so without it It
Moses the owner still the right remains in him their sounding of them deprives not him of his interest alters not the property Erunt tibi must still be true that right must still be preserved It may be if we communicate with flesh and blood we may think it more convenient as some do that God had delivered Moses and Aaron either of them one But when we see Gods will by Gods 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 Now then if the Trumpets belong to Moses and that to this end that with them he may call the Congregation these two things do follow First that if he call the Congregation must not refuse to come Secondly that unless he call they must not assemble of their own heads but keep their places Briefly thus The Congregation must come when it is called and it must be called ere it come These are the two duties we owe to the two Trumpets and both these have Gods people ever performed And yet not so but that this right hath been called in question yea even in Moses own time that we marvel not if it be so now and both these duties denied him even by those who were alive and present then when God gave him the Trumpets But mark by whom and what became of them The first duty is to come when they be called and this was denied in the 16 Chapter following ver 12. by Core Dathan and their Crew Moses sounded his Trumpet sent to call them they answer flatly and that not once but once and again Non veniemus they would not come not once stir for him or his Trumpet they A plain contradiction indeed neither is there in all that Chapter any contradiction veri nominis truly and properly so to be called but only that You know what became of them they went quick to hell for it And wo be to them even under the Gospel saith Saint Jude that perish in the same contradiction the contradiction of Core The second duty is To be called ere they come This likewise denied even Moses himself that they in his place might not think strange of it in the 20 Chapter of this very Book Water waxing scant a company of them grew mutinous and in â—umultuous manner without any sound of the Trumpet assembled of themselves But these are branded too the water they got is called the water of Meriba And what followed you know none of them that drunk of it came into the Land of Promise God swore they should not enter into his rest Now as both these are bad so of the twain this latter is the worse The former that came not being called do but sit still as if they were somewhat thick of hearing But these latter that come being not called either they make themselves a Trumpet without ever a fac tibi or else they offer to wring Moses's Trumpet out of his hands and take it into their own Take heed of this latter It is said there to be adversus Mosen even against Moses himself It is the very next forerunner to it it pricks fast upon it For they that meet against Moses's will when they have once throughly learned that lesson will quickly perhaps grow capable of another even to meet against Moses himself as these did Periclitamur arguiseditioâ—is saith the Town-Clark we have done more then we can well answer We may be indicted of Treason for this days work for coming together without a Trumpet And yet it was for Diana that is for a matter of Religion You see then whose the Right is and what the duties be to it and in whose steps they tread that deny them Sure they have been baptized or made to drink of the same water the water of Meriba that ever shall offer to do the like to draw together without Moses's call And now to our Saviour Christs Question In the Law how is it written How read you Our Answer is There it is thus written and thus we read That Moses hath the right of the Trumpets that they to go ever with him and his Successors and that to them belongs the power of calling the Publick Assemblies This is the Law of God and that no Judicial Law peculiar to that people alone but agreable to the Law of Nature and Nations two Laws of force through the whole world For even in the little Empire of the Body natural principium motus the beginning of all motion is in and from the Head There all the knots or as they call them all the conjugations of sinews have their head by which all the Body is moved And as the Law of Nature by secret instinct by the light of the Creation annexeth the Organ of the chiefest part even so doth the Law of Nations by the light of Reason to the chiefest person and both fall just with the Law here written where by erunt tibi the same Organ and Power is committed to Moses the principal person in that Commonwealth The Law of Nations in this point both before the Law written and since where the Law written was not known might easily appear if time would suffer both in their general order for conventions so to be called and in their general opposing to all Conventicles called otherwise 49. Afterwards he shews how practise ran in this point and shews that Joshua the next to Moses in chief Magistracy succeeding in execution of this power When he not Eliazar assemble all the Tribes Levi and all to Sichem Josh 24 called them together at the first verse dissolved it at the 28. Which being in a matter Ecclesiastical he doth as he says particularly note because it is by some objected concerning Moses that for a time he dealt in matters of the Priests Office Then he doth descend to the state of their Kings and shews particularly how they used this power till the Captivity In which he shews how it was used by Mordecai when he came in place of authority appointing the days of Purim and calling all the Jews in the Province together to the celebrating of them After the Captivity he instanceth in Nehemiah his using of it and so falls to the Maccabees and proves it used by those that were then chief Governours Afterwards he tells how this power was exercised by Christian Emperors and Kings upon their first receipt of Christianity and instanceth in general and National Councils and Assemblies Amongst whom we may not onely say that not onely Constantine Jovianus and others the prime Founders and Restorers of Christianity dâ—d not come in by the election of the Senate the way which was then held lawful but that they and most others were brought in by the force of a prevailing party nay commonly at first set up by one part of the Army only and yet the Christians in those times gave them always the
Reader forborn quotations of many other famous men in our Church concurring in the same judgement and made most particular choice of Mr. Hooker and Bishop Andrews as men generally held most famous and Orthodox in their generations the one in the time of Queen Elizabeth and the other since even in the time of our late King They were then and are still for ought I know held to be the great Defenders of this Churches authority and that of the â—hief Magistrate therein against the then Recusants and Nonconformists and I hope their credit is not so lost but that their authority and yet arguments will remain of the same force still to keep us from all inclinations either to Schism or Sedition that we do not thereby give the world too just occasion to say we are indeed fallen from our Principles through some sinister prejudice or partial conceit of our own 54 To direct and encourage in this constancy let us revert to thse grounds and reasons before laid down let us consider that since the maintenance of love and charity and the preservation of mankind by peace have so necessary a dependence upon submision to the Authority of that Church where we live and since the Glory Service and Worship of God here on earth hath again so near a relation unto this preservation of mankind by peace that therefore in these and thingâ— of the like nature which are not of such express divine Precept as to be demonstrable out of the Word of God or are not fundamental to our salvation there should no opposition be made to the disturbance of the peace of â—he Church but to that very end all to submit to the determination of those that have chief power therein Let not the crafts or designs of other men lead us to dâ—quiet so as to think that in things of this nature and where controversies and differences do daily arise between Church and Church Christian and Christian our salvation should be endangered while we incline to that side that maintains Charity by submitting our selves to those that have the rule over us To this end I shall here record that remarkable speech of Dr. Vsher late Primate of Armagh That in these Propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian World so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation Neither have we cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they builded by superinducing any damnable Heresies thereupon nor otherwise violating their holy Faith with a leud and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God This as it was alleadged by Dr. Potter in his Treatise called Charity mistaken for that the Church of Rome did make all things fundamental which she held and thereupon excluded all from salvation that were not of her communion so is it by Mr. Chillingworth in his Reply fol 20. held for as great and good a truth and as necessary for these miserable times as can be uttered For if it should stand with men in the point of salvation according to that censure which each Church or sect therein doth put upon all that differ or descent from them then could no one Christian hope for Heaven insomuch as he must necessarily be a member of some Church or other which in matters of Doctrine or Discipline if not both is by some other Churches held so far Heretical or Schâ—smatical as to exclude all of that communion from hope of salvation which thing the Papists do hold concerning all Protestants in general and many of the Protestants hold of them again and do also pass their sentence as hardly of one another But our comfort is that we shall at the last day be judged by him who knows our hearts and whether we have not sought and followed his Truth according to the uâ—most of the ability he gave us and not left to the sentence of such as out of pride prejudice or other interest are so ready to put an over-value upon their own Tenets and become both Parties and Judges 55. Corcerning those aspersions of Heresie and Schism which are now so frequently thrown by one party upon another I have in the general observed that where the names and notions themselves are ofâ—nest repeated and most stood upon there the Arguments used for confutation are the less or less weighty It faring in some mens discourses and writings about controversies as with women in their scolding where she that can call Whore lowdest and oftenest is coâ—ceived to have got the better of it So usually there is nothing to be perceived but a design cast towards disparagement when the imputation of those Ecclesiastical railing terms are used towards any without any remonsâ—rance or proof wherein their ill consists or how their Opponents are justly to be charged with them 56. As â—or Heresie I do not see why any Christian mans case should be held desperate that in things not fundamental cannot bring his judgement to assent to that of anothers always provided that it proceed not from or be encreased through discontent pride or â—ffected singularity and that he hold it peaceably to himself not seeking to disturbe the peace of the Church by publication thereof to others for then it plainly shews that some of those other coâ—râ—pâ— Principles had a hand in the entertainment as well as in the divulging of iâ— And then iâ— will come to pass â—hat that which would as in it self and aâ—â—onsidered aâ— matter of speculation have been an error in judgement onely being now infused into others so as to induce action and separation will argue pravity in the will and turn into Schism which I do look upon as a sin not to be at any time or in any Persons otherwise excusable then when the foundation of Faith or good manners cannot be otherwise preserved And because in all dissenting parties that live under any Christian Authority the name of Schismatick is by either side cast on the other I do hold it for a maxime â—hat that party iâ— onely free that conforms to the Rule set down by him that iâ— Head of that place and all the rest Schiâ—maticks Even as in State differences all parties that hold not with the Sovereign Power are to be called this or that Faction whâ—n as the other is not to be called a Faction or Party but rather to be looked upon as the whole because united to the Head â—7 And therefore truly if men could be once brought to put a greater rate upon thingâ— fundamental and a less upon superstructures considering that the not holding to â—â—â— one bringâ— on the loss of Heaven and the too strict holding to the other brings on the loss of Charity and thereby shrewdly endanger the other also besides that quiet we should imutually reap in the exercise of Religion we should preserve
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
and to understand things aright is to consider them in their proper ranks and conditions and to diâ—â—inguish them by their proper names Even to put a difference between such as are justly called Usurpers upon reasons before spoken namely by assumption of that power which by place belongeth not to them as for the Woman to usurâ— authority over the Man or Subjects over their Prince and such as do dispossess any of the place it self the which last are to be esteemed Disseisors or Intrudors For although the wrong done by the Disseisor be greater then that of the Usurper as to the party dispossessed yet in respect of their right to obedience the first hath only right herein of the two the other having none at all And therefore in reference to that necessary conjunction which is to be upheld in the union of the person with the power 't is wel to be observed how God hath joyned these two together to the intent that no man through interest or prejudice should put them asunder For where he enjoins subjection to the Higher Power as his ordinance and sets forth the penalty of doing otherwise he presently denotes it to be personally due by subjecting us to those that are Rulers For Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil that is they being possessed of this power are to be expected just avengers of Resistance therefore called evil because the cause of so much evil And then when it after follows Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same it is presently appropriate to that person which God in his providence hath set over us For he that is this person is the Minister of God to thee for thy good that is Gods Deacon or Vicegerent in preservation of Peace by means of this submission And so it afterwards followeth He beareth not the sword in vain and He is the Minister of God c. And as we find the power and person thus conjoined so that it might be always effectual to this end it is also enjoined in the present tense without any exception to the lawfulness or validity in the title to enter or rule by when it is said The Powers that are that is the Powers in being are ordained of God He is and He beareth c. And so also when we are elswhere enjoined to make prayers for Kings and all that are in authority that under them we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty these words that are in authority denoting present authority cannot as heretofore noted warrant any exception to be made by those that are to obey For then it should not be effectual to the leading of a quiet and peaceable liâ—e nor would the duties pertaining to Godliness be so duly and freely exercised And we may consequently conceive that obedience and subjection is not to be given to such as are not in authority nor to Powers that are not in being And that Text especially where we are commanded to fear God and the King and not to meddle with those that are given to change will be expressed in obedience to the King or person in present power and possession For why else should we be forbidden to seek to change him or meddle or joyn with them that would do so in such unlimited words If to seek to change by way of sedition had been thought lawful for Subjects upon any ground by him that said That against the King there is no rising up then surely this precept was very wrong put especially not having any such exception for rather the word not should have been left out and the precept have been Meddle with them that would change or are seditious towards it for sedition must precede change in that kind 15. And if we do not carry an equal and impartial respect to persons dignified by Gods Ordinance we shew plainly we have no respect to his Ordinance at all but would have it an Ordinance of our own When as the power thereby claimed is to be at no time of value without our approbation and by this means fall within the compass of Saint James his reproof To have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons For as in his instance if those that are unequal in worldly honor or title are yet equally to be respected as they stand equally our Christian Brethren so also such as are now in power are for their power sake and for the honor of him that ordained it to be equally respected and obeyed however there might be a greater share of outward worldly title in one man then another So then we may see the way to be a constant Royalist is to be a constant Loyalist not to respect the power or place for the persons sake but the person for the place and power sake And thereby according to our duty having respect to God and his Precept before our own If we do not this he that to day was Loyal may to morrow be brought turn Rebel and Traytor through that change of Families which stories do tell us have in this thrust out one another 17. But some would make Prescription the onely way to lawfulness in possessions of things of this nature as well as it is for silencing of Claims between Subjects in their private possessions but since they have not yet nor cannot upon any true ground agree in limiting of this time it argues the thing it self to be but a fruitless invention For although towards the ending of Suits and Quarrels each State and Kingdom do by Laws of its own prefix a certain time in which possession shall in certain cases be a good plea in it self against all other yet this Law being positive bears always an exception to the Law-maker himself as having continual power to right himself and all others in case of equity according to that maxim Nullum tempus occurrit Regi And therefore although it may be available to silence private titles in regard of a superior power to appoint it and see it executed accordingly yet it will not thereupon follow that Subjects may fancy any such Laws to bind their Prince by And therefore when questions of this kind shall arise for confirmation of Law-makers themselves I know not any Superior under God himself who shall ascertain this prescription and see it executed accordingly And if we but mark the thing it self in its original rise and ground we shall find them gain-saying themselves and laying that very first possession which they disallow for a foundation of that which they would have to be right afterwards For in such variety of times prescribed suppose it should be a Hundred years when and where must we begin to accompt Must it be from the first day of the parties secret plotting or attempt to get into this place of power How shall that be truly known And if you leave that
if he be not throughly satisfied in the right of his possession stands before God accomptable for the injury done to the dispossessed and what else shall happen in his regiment In which respect as his possession it self so the commands thereby imposed may well be unlawful as to the Imposer but cannot be so esteemed in the Obeyer He may be called Usurper by the dispossessed in reference to the place by which he is impowered but is not by the Subjects to be so thought in the execution of what is proper thereunto They are to look to Possession as an evidence of Right in it self for are not all mens Estates else called by that name do we not say Such and such men are men of great Possessions And if Subjects shall be put to guide their obedience and loyalty by other dark evidences who shall shew them and expound them but parties interessed and how shall they agree in them Do we not for peace sake say in other things that Possession is eleven points of the Law And will it not in this much more follow that it should be all twelve There one part is left open and free because Appeal to the Law-maker may make alteration But there being in this case no Superior on earth it is to pass as confirmed by God also till he in his providence shall make alteration 22. If this course should not hold but their obedience and loyalty should not be lawful if the Prince were not lawfully seised or made so by prescription there would seldom any time happen in any Nation amidst those many changes of Families wherein Subjects could warrantably obey for want thereof It was not I am sure the practice and opinion of Christians formerly They as they lived neerer the Apostles times so they followed more closely their precepâ—s and examples in subjection to the parties possessed of those higher powers they lived under If they should have understood S. Pauls injunction of subjection to the Powers that are to have no enforcement upon the conscience of any that could not be perswaded his present Prince or Emperor came in as a lawful Successor or by lawful election how could they have been at all times noted for such constant Loyalists notwithstanding there were very few but either in their entry balked the election and approbation of the Senate or people which at first were held only lawful authorities and as much afterwards transgressed the rule of hereditary succession by bringing in new families In which cases although to the eyes of all men it was apparent that force or craft set upon their present Soveraigns yet would not they forget their duty of loyalty to him however their Prince might have forgot to do justice to another And if to this end we shall but look to our Stories we shall find cause enough to retract this opinion of Disobedience being contrary to the sense and practice of our loyal Ancestors We will begin but from the Conquest because best known although more shifting have been before 23. Harold that preceded the Conqueror is chosen by the Nobility being then the prevailing party and though a stranger by family is yet generally obeyed notwithstanding the known right heir is amongst them even Edgar Atheling 24. Harold is thrust out by the Conqueror by force both a stranger himself and of a new family He is also obeyed notwithstanding the right heir is still living 25. His son William sirnamed Rufus dispossesseth his elder brother Robert and is yet generally obeyed although also the right heir be still living 26. After him the other younger brother Henry possesseth the Crown against the right of the said Robert still living and is yet generally obeyed 27. Next Stephen by help of Londoners and Nobility assumes the Crown and although he were of a new family yet is he generally obeyed notwithstanding the right of succession was in Maud the Empress and her issue 28. In the next Henry the Second begins a new family and in him indeed may we may find the first true usurpation for his own sons are taking upon them soveraign power their father yet living and possessed 29. He being dead Richard the First his son gets the Throne and is no longer to be called Usurper 30. King John next seiseth on the Soveraignty against the hereditary right of his Brothers son In his time indeed the Pope doth usurp authority to censure and depose 31. The next Possessor is Henry the Third who although the son of the said John is not yet cast off upon the score of Usurpation but generally acknowledged and obeyed But he was much troubled with the usurped authorities of some of his Peers and Parliaments who would often incroach upon the Soveraignty 32. Edward the First is the next Possessor generally obeyed atlhough entring upon the like claim as Grandchild to King John 33. To him succeeded his son Edward the Second towards the end of whose time Prescription of an hundred years from his Great-grandfather John might only have been pleaded to have made their obedience matter of conscience when on the contrary he hath the most opposition of all his Predecessors from his wife Peers and Parliaments all which usurp upon his authority 34. Edward the Third the next was not only a Rebel but a true Usurper in taking upon him to act in things of State without and against his Fathers leave being still in possession For however his claim was undoubted as to succession yet deserved he more then a stranger to have the odium of Usurpation cast upon him as being most unnatural Yet the Father being dead and he possessed of the Crown although the other had been forced to resign as he could not but well know we do not find that any man took upon him to disobey him afterwards as Rebel or Usurper 35. This mans Successor Richard the Second we shall find deposed and dispossessed by a prevailing party who set up Henry the Fourth as in right of the Family of Lancaster reckoning the other but as Usurpers whose Grandchild Henry the First is again dispossessed by that Family of York as Uâ—urpers whom they had called Usurpers before and all within the space of sixty years During which time and that of Richard the Second those that continued loyal to the persons in possession were certainly to be esteemed better and more consciencious Subjects then those those that opposed who could in truth be but Rebels 36. Although the next Edward the Fourth might well be called Usurper taking upon him as King while the other was yet living and in possession of part of the Country and when also by the Articles made with his Father and confirmed in Parliament Henry the Sixth was to reign during his life yet is he generally obeyed But then what shall we say of him when his Predecessor Henry the Sixth comes to be restored and repossessed again and himself being forced to flye beyond Sea and after he was publickly proclaimed Usurper
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
theirs that are now Possessors although they were once Usurpers While they are in their act of usurpation they are to be resisted not only as opposers of publick quiet but of the Crown and dignity of the present Prince which in conscience as well as by oath we are bound to maintain But then if it happen that the Crown and dignity do by providence fall to him that was Usurper before the same consideration of duty and publick peace must enjoin us to loyalty where the Crown and dignity is all actors to his disturbance must be now resisted as Usurpers For as the Oath of Allegiance did personally before pass in relation to that Regal power he or his had or were like to have so when the person or family comes to be changed it must be presumed to pass in reason to those that shall be now possessed of those Regal powers to which it is due 46. But because â—ome Divines may perhaps make slight of the determination of Lawyers in this matter I shall confirm their judgment out of plain example in Scripture What think we of that panishment which David the King over Israel de jure did inflict on Baana and Rechab for their Treason against Ishbosheth that was but King de facto Nay what think we of the doing it by this King de jure before he was possessed of that Crown Again what other plea but Possession can justifie all those of Israel for adhering to him since the right was in David to rule over Israel as well as Judah To think that they knew not that David was by God appointed Ruler over Israel as well as Abigal 1 Sam. 25. 30. hath little likelihood nay it is plain that Abner knew so much by those words of his God do so to Abner and moâ—e also except as the Lord bath sworne to David even so I do to him To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan to Beersheba 2 Sam. 3. 9 10. Nay that all Israel knew so much appears by their speech to David after that Ishbosheth Sauls son was dead viz. In time past when Saul was King over uâ— thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Isreal and the Lord said to thee Thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be a Captain over my people Israel They make no Apologie for their past obedience to another set up over them by the power of Abner without any choice of theirs as may be presumed And yet being a King and possessed David is so far from blaming his Subjects for obedience that he calls him a Righteous person 2 Sam. 4. 11. that is to say one that by reason of possession ought to be esteemed righteous by such as like Baana and Rechab lived under him Nay if possession give not to Princes right to command their Subjects also I see not how David in that seven years war between the house of Saul and his 2 Sam. 3. 1. could be excused of that oath he made to him of not cutting off his seed after him 1 Sam. 24 21 22. For however the war be there set down as between the two houses yet it being to be looked upon as a National contest it became not David now in publick charge to prefer his private engagement before that engagement he now had taken upon him that is to preserve the common safety and liberty of his Subjects against all opposers however they might be well esteemed of by himself And the truth is that however all Kings are pressing that an Oath of Allegiance or the like should be express to them and their family yet since the whole reason for swearing to them and their family and in maintenance of their power was in reâ—erence to peace and publick good to be preserved by their power it must of consequence follow that being out of power that then the obligation of the Oath doth attend him on whom the power now rests for preserving that publick peace and good 47. And indeed if he should be an Usurper in any Monarchy which could noâ— prove his discent by direct lineal right from an Ancestor by God put in or instituted by Nature then all the Monarchs that are or have been in the world except some few that by express divine appointment have ruled amongst the Jews are and have been Usurpers or at least for ought appears to the contrary even for that they cannot or do not derive their pedigree from Adam in such sort as to evince that of all that Nation wherein they live and govern both their family and they in it ought by the rule of Primogeniture to have precedence to that Soveraignty according to the observation of the judicious Author of a Treatise called The Anarchy of a limited Monarchy who says f. 12. All Kings that now are or ever were are or were either Fathers of their people or the Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the right of such Fathers It is a truth undeniable that there cannot be any multitude of men what soever either great or small though gathered together from the several corners and remâ—test regions of the world but that in the same multitude considered by it self there is one man amongst them that in nature hath a right to be the King of all the rest as being the next heir to Adam and all the others subject unto him Every man by nature is a King or a Subject the obedience which all Subjects yield to Kings is but the paying of that duty which is due to the supreme Fatherhood Many times by the â—â—â— either of an Vsurper himself or of those that set him 〈…〉 Heir of a Crown is dispossessed God using the miâ—… wiâ—kedest men for the removing and setting up 〈…〉 in such cases the Subjects obedience to the Fat 〈…〉 â—ust go along and wait upon Gods providence wâ—… right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt Subjects in the obedience of anotner Fatherly Power In which as he hath in the beginning according to the most general opinion of the Royalist sounded Monarchy on Patriarchical Right so doth he end like a true Royalist indeed in directing Subjects obedience to wait on Gods providence in the appointmeet of this their political Father in like manner as they do of their natural For since right of Primogeniture and power of Government could not be conceived to be given to Cain out of personal worth but for preservation of peace and since no one now as David formerly can plead divine Right for the settlement of their Families therefore it must still follow that all Families being equal as to original right respect to peace and obedience must in conscience cause us to submit to that Person or Family which Divine Providence hath set over us 48. Nay and respect to the continual administration of Justice also unto which doubtless our Laws had an especial