allow'd him to furnish him with Books for that purpose I told him I believ'd he would and in a Letter to the Doctor told him what great satisfaction that Honourable Person and many more had reaped by reading his Book De Iuramento and ask'd him whether he would be pleased for the benefit of the Church to write some Tract of Cases of Conscience He reply'd That he was glad that any had received any benefit by his Books and added further That if any future Tract of his could bring such benefit to any as we seem'd to say his former had done he would willingly though without any Pension set about that work Having receiv'd this Answer that honourable Person before mention'd did by my hands return 50 l. to the good Doctor whose condition then as most good mens at that time were was but low and he presently revised finished and published that excellent Book De Conscientiâ A Book little in bulk but not so if we consider the benefit an intelligent Reader may receive by it For there are so many general Propositions concerning Conscience the Nature and Obligation of it explained and proved with such firm consequence and evidence of Reason that he who reads remembers and can with prudence pertinently apply them Hic nunc to particular Cases may by their light and help rationally resolve a thousand particular doubts and scruples of Conscience Here you may see the charity of that Honourable Person in promoting and the Piety and Industry of the good Doctor in performing that excellent work And here I shall add the Judgment of that learned and pious Prelate concerning a passage very pertinent to our present purpose When he was in Oxon and read his publick Lectures in the Schools as Regius Professor of Divinity and by the truth of his Positions and evidences of his Proofs gave great content and satisfaction to all his hearers especially in his clear Resolutions of all difficult Cases which occurr'd in the Explication of the subject matter of his Lectures a Person of Quality yet alive privately asked him What course a young Divine should take in his Studies to inable him to be a good Casuist His answer was That a convenient understanding of the Learned Languages at least of Hebrew Greek and Latin and a sufficient knowledge of Arts and Sciences presuppos'd There were two things in humane Literature a comprehension of which would be of very great use to inable a man to be a rational and able Casuist which otherwise was very difficult if not impossible 1. A convenient knowledge of Moral Philosophy especially that part of it which treats of the Nature of Humane Actions To know quid sit actus humanus spontaneus invitus mixtus unde habent bonitatem malitiam moralem an ex genere objecto vel ex circumstantiis How the variety of Circumstances varies the goodness or evil of humane Actions How far knowledge and ignorance may aggravate or excuse increase or diminish the goodness or evil of our Actions For every Case of Conscience being only this Is this action good or bad May I do it or may I not He who in these knows not how and whence humane Actions become morally good and evil never can in Hypothesi rationally and certainly determine whether this or that particular Action be so 2. The second thing which he said would be a great help and advantage to a Casuist was a convenient knowledge of the Nature and Obligation of Laws in general To know what a Law is what a Natural and a Positive Law what 's required to the Latio dispensatio derogatio vel abrogatio legis what promulgation is antecedently required to the Obligation of any Positive Law what ignorance takes off the Obligation of a Law or does excuse diminish or aggravate the transgression For every Case of Conscience being only this Is this lawful for me or is it not and the Law the only Rule and Measure by which I must judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of any Action It evidently follows that he who in these knows not the Nature and Obligation of Laws never can be a good Casuist or rationally assure himself or others of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Actions in particular This was the Judgment and good counsel of that learned and pious Prelate and having by long experience found the truth and benefit of it I conceive I could not without ingratitude to him and want of charity to others conceal it Pray pardon this rude and I fear impertinent Scrible which if nothing else may signifie thus much that I am willing to obey your Desires and am indeed London May 10. 1678 Your affectionate Friend Thomas Lincoln ERRATA In the Preface Page the last after that read I. In the Life P. 20. l. 5. for renew r. review p. 26. l. 16. for warily r. rarely p. 30. l. 13. for relate r. dilate p. 37. l. 11. for cautious r conscious p. 58. l. 10 for inmate r. innate p. 63. l. 5. for predestination r. predestinarian p. 126. l. 4. for complying r. complaining p. 161. l. 1. for propositions r. prepossessions Bishop Sanderson's JUDGMENT Concerning SUBMISSION TO Usurpers LONDON Printed for Richard Marriott MDCLXXVIII Bishop Sanderson's JUDGMENT Concerning SUBMISSION TO USURPERS SIR WHEREAS you desire to know what my judgment and practice is concerning the using or forbearing the establish'd Liturgy either in whole or in part in the publick Service of God and Office of the Church If it be any satisfaction to your Friend I shall fully acquaint you what my practice is whereunto if my own Judgment be not conform I am without all excuse my own condemner and upon what considerations I have according to the variation of the times varied from my self therein So long as my Congregation continued unmixt with Souldiers as well after as before the Promulgation of the Ordinance of the two Houses for the abolishing of the Common Prayer I continued the use of it as I had ever formerly done in the most peaceable and orderly times not omitting those very Prayers the silencing whereof I could not but know to have been chiefly aim'd at in the Ordinance viz. three for the King and Queen and Bishops and so I did also though some Souldiers were casually present till such time as a whole Troop coming to Quarter in the Town with a purpose to continue a kind of Garison or Head-quarter among us were so enrag'd at my reading of it the first Sunday after they came that immediately after Morning Service ended they seiz'd upon the Book and tore it all in pieces Thence-forward during their continuance there for full six months and upwards viz. from the beginning of November till they were call'd away to Naseby Fight in May following besides that for want of a Book of necessity I must I saw that it also behoov'd me for the preventing of farther Outrages to wave the use of the Book for the time at
in the reading Desk or Pue Between which Prayers and the singing Psalms before the Sermon I do also daily use one other Collect of which sort I have for the purpose compos'd sundry made up also as the former for the most part out of the Church Collects with some little enlargement or variation as namely the Collects Adventual Quadragesimal Paschal or Pentecostal for their proper seasons and at other times Collects of a more general nature as for Pardon Repentance Grace c. And after one or more of them in the Forenoon I usually repeat the Ten Commandements with a short Collect after them for Grace to enable us to keep them This hath been my practice and is like still to be unless some happy Change of Affairs restore us the liberty of using the old way again or it be made appear to my Understanding by some able charitable Friend That I therein have done otherwise then I ought to have done For I may say that I have not yet met with any thing in Discourse either with my own Reason or others of sufficient strength to convince me that I have done any thing but what may stand with the Principles as well of Christian Simplicity as Prudence There are but three things that I know of that are of any consideration oppos'd viz. 1. The Obligation of the Laws 2. The Scandal of the Example 3. The unseemly symbolizing at least with Schismaticks if not partaking with them in the Schism The first and strongest Objection which I shall therefore propose to the most advantage of the Objector is that which is grounded upon the Laws and their Obligation For it may be Objected That every humane Law rightly establish'd so long as it continueth a Law obligeth the Subject and that for Conscience sake to the observation thereof in such manner and form as in the same Law is prescribed and according to the true meaning and intention of the Law-giver therein That a Law is then understood to be rightly establish'd when it containeth nothing but what is honest and lawful and is enacted by such person or persons as have full and sufficient authority to make Laws That a Law so establish'd continues a Law and is so in force till it be either Repealed by as good and lawful Authority as that by which it was made or else antiquated by a long continued uninforc'd disuse with the tacit or presumed consent of the Law-giver That the Act printed before the Common Prayer Book and entituled An Act for the Uniformity was such a Law being it was established in a full and free Parliament in peaceable times and ratified by the Royal Assent That it still continues in force and being not yet Repealed but by such persons as at least in the Opinion of those that maintain the Dispute for want of the Royal Assent have not a sufficient right or authority to do such an Act nor disused but of late times and that by enforcement and as is presum'd much against the mind of the Law-giver That therefore it still retains the power of obliging in part of Conscience that power being so essential and intrinsecal to every Law quatenus a Law that it can in no wise be sever'd from it And that therefore no Minister publickly officiating in the Church can with a good Conscience either omit any part of that which is commanded by the aforesaid Law or use any other Form than what is contained in the foresaid Book but must either use the Form prescribed in the Book or else forbear to officiate The Answer to this Objection granting all in the Premisses besides dependeth upon the right understanding of that which is affirmed concering the Obligation of the Laws according to the intention of the Law-giver which if it should be understood precisely of that particular actual and immediate intention which the Law-giver had declared by the words of the Law in which sense only the Objection proceedeth will not hold true in all cases But there is suppos'd besides that in Law-giver a more general habitual ultimate intention of a more excellent and transcendent nature that the former which is to have an influence into and over-ruling power over all particular Laws viz. an intention by the Laws to procure and promote the publick good The former intention binds when it is subservient to the latter or consistent with it and consequently bindeth in ordinary cases and in orderly times or else the Law is not a wholesome Law But when the observation of the Law by reason of the conjuncture of circumstances or the iniquity of the times contingencies which no Lawgiver could either certainly foresee or if foreseen sufficiently provide against would rather be prejudicial than advantageous to the Publick or is manifestly attended with such inconveniencies and sad consequents to the Observers as all the imaginable good that can redound to the Publick thereby cannot in any reasonable measure countervail In such case the Law obligeth not but according to the latter and more general intention only even as in the operations of nature particular Agents do ordinarily move according to their proper and particular inclinations yet upon some occasions and to serve the ends and intentions of universal nature for the avoiding of some things which nature abhors they are sometimes carried with motions quite contrary to their particular natures as the Air to descend and the Water to ascend for the avoiding of vacuity c. The common received Maxim which hath been sufficiently misapplied and that sometimes to very ill purposes since the beginning of these unhappy divisions in the true meaning of it looketh this way Salus populi suprema Lex the equity of which Maxim as it leaveth in the Law-giver a power of dispensing with the Law which is a suspending the Obligation thereof for the time in respect of the proper and particular intention so he shall see it expedient in order to the publick good so it leaveth in the Subject a liberty upon just occasions as in cases of great exigency and for the preventing of such hazards and inconveniencies as might prove of noysome consequence to the Publick to do otherwise than the Law requireth And neither is the exercise of that power in the Lawgiver to be thought an unreasonable Prerogative nor the use of this liberty in the Subject an unreasonable presumption inasmuch as the power of dispensing with particular Laws is such a Prerogative as without which no Commonwealth can be well govern'd but Justice would be turn'd into Gall and Wormwood Nor can the Supream Governour without forfeiture of that faithfulness which he oweth to the Publick Weal devest himself thereof And he that presumeth of the Law-givers consent to dispense with him for the Observation of the Law in such needful cases where he hath not the opportunity to consult his pleasure therein presumeth no more than he hath reason to do For it may well be presum'd that the Law-giver
who is bound in all his Laws to intend the safety of the Publick and of every member thereof in his due proportion hath no intention by the strict observation of any particular Law to oblige any person who is a Member of the Publick to his destruction or ruin when the common good is not answerably promoted thereby Upon which ground it is generally resolv'd by Casuists That no Constitution meerly humane can lay such Obligation upon the Conscience of the Subject but that we may according to the exigency of circumstances do otherwise than the Constitution requireth provided it be done extra casum scandali contemptûs i.e. without either bewraying in himself any contempt of the Authority of the Law-giver by his carriage or giving any just occasion of scandal to others by his example in so doing I have been somewhat the longer in explaining this point not only for the better clearing of the present doubt but also in respect of the usefulness of this consideration for the preventing and removing of many scruples that may happen to conscientious men in such times as these wherein so many things are and are like to be commanded and forbidden contrary to the establish'd Laws and those as they are perswaded yet standing in force The best rule that I know to guide men in their deliberations and actions in such emergent cases according to what hath been already delivered is advisedly and impartially to weigh the benefit inconveniencies as well on the one side as on the other as they stand in relation unto the Publick Good and if after such examination and comparison made it shall then evidently or but in the judgment of probability appear that the Observation of the Law according to the proper intention of the Law-giver therein though with hazard of Estate Liberty or even life it self hath a greater tendency to the Publick Good and the preservation of church or Commonwealth in safety peace and order than the preventing of the foresaid hazards or other evil consequents by doing otherwise than the Law requireth can have or which cometh to one if the violating of the Law shall then to be more prejudicial to the publick Good than the preservation of the Subject's Estate Liberty or Life can be beneficial hereunto In such case the Subject is bound to hazard all he hath and undergo whatsoever inconveniencies and calamities can ensue thereupon rather than violate the Law with contempt of that Authority to which he oweth subjection But if it shall after such comparison made evidently or but more probably than the contrary appear That that preservation of such a persons Life Liberty Estate would more benefit the Church or Commonwealth than the punctual observation of the Law at that time and with those circumstances would do it were an unseasonable unreasonable and pernicious scrupulosity for such a person to think himself in such a case obliged for the observing of the Law perhaps but once or twice with little or no benefit to the Publick to ruin himself whereby to render himself unuseful and unserviceable to the Publick for ever hereafter To bring this Discourse home and to apply it to the business now under dispute Suppose we ten twenty or One hundred godly Ministers well affected to the establish'd Liturgy and actually possess'd of Benefices with the Charge of Souls thereto belonging should thinking themselves in Conscience obliged to the use of the whole Form of the Book as is by the Act appointed without any addition omission or alteration whatsoever notwithstanding the present conjuncture of Affairs resolve to use the same accordingly it would be well considered what the effects and consequents thereof would be Besides other evils these three are visible which must all unavoidably follow one upon another if any body shall be found as doubtless within short time there will be found one or other to inform and prosecute against them 1. The utter undoing of so many worthy persons fit to do God and his Church good service together with all those persons that depend upon them for their livelyhood by putting the fruits of their Benefices wherewith they should buy themselves bread under Sequestration 2. The depriving of those persons of the opportunity of discharging the duties that belong unto them in their Ministerial Calling in not permitting them after such Sequestration to teach or instruct the people belonging to their Charge or to exercise any thing of their Function publickly in the Church 3. The delivering over the Sheep of Christ that lately were under the hands of the faithful Shepherds into the Custody of ravenous Wolves when such Guides shall be set over the several Congregations as will be sure to mis-teach them one way or other viz. either by instilling into them Puritanical and Superstitious Principles that they may the more securely exercise their Presbyterian Tyranny over their Judgments Consciences Persons and Estates or else by setting up new Lights before them to lead them into a maze of Anabaptistical confusion and frenzy These consequents are so heavy to the Sufferers so certain to ensue upon the use of Common Prayer and so much without the power of the Law-givers in this state of Affairs either to prevent or remedy that it is beyond the wit of man what benefit to the Publick can accrue by the strict observation of the Act that may in any proportion countervail these mischiefs In which case that man must needs suppose a strange austerity in the Law-giver that dares not presume of his consent to disoblige him for the time from observing the same It would be also well considered Whether he that by his own over-nice scrupulosity runs all these hazards be not in some measure guilty of his own undoing of deserting his station and of betraying his flock and do not thereby lose much of that comfort which a Christian Confessor may take in his sufferings when they are laid upon him by the Hand of God and not pull'd upon himself by his own hands And more I shall not need to say as to that first Objection The next thing objected is The danger of the Scandal that others might be ready to take at the Example who seeing the Law so little regarded by such men men that have Cure of Souls and perhaps also of some eminency and esteem in the Church and whose Example will be much look'd upon will be easily encourag'd by this Example to set light by all Authority and to take the liberty to obey and disobey the Laws of their Soveraign at their pleasure But this Objection after we are once satisfied concerning the former need not much trouble us For 1. It seemeth an unreasonable thing in cases of great Exigence such as we now suppose that the fear of scandalizing our weak Brethren which is but Debitum charitatis only should lay upon us a peremptory necessity of observing the Law punctually whatsoever inconveniencies and mischiefs may ensue thereupon when the duty
Faith and Manners at this day firmly believed and securely practiced by us when by the Socinians Anabaptists and other Sectaries we should be called upon for our proofs As namely sundry Orthodoxal Explications concerning the Trinity and Co-equality of the Persons in the Godhead against the Arians and other Hereticks the number use and efficacy of Sacraments the Baptizing of Infants National Churches the observation of the Lord's Day and even the Canon of Scripture it self Thirdly In respect of our selves we are not satisfied how it can stand with the Principles of Iustice Ingenuity and Humanity to require the extirpation of Episcopal Government unless it had been first clearly demonstrated to be unlawful to be sincerely and really endeavoured by us 1. Who have all of us who have taken any Degree by subscribing the 39 Articles testified our approbation of that Government one of those Articles affirming the very Book containing the Form of their Consecration to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God 2. Who have most of us viz. as many as have entred into the Ministery received Orders from their hands whom we should very ill requite for laying their hands upon us if we should now lay to our hands to root them up and cannot tell for what 3. Who have sundry of us since the beginning of this Parliament subscribed our Names to Petitions exhibited or intended to be exhibited to that High Court for the continuance of that Government which as we then did sincerely and really so we should with like sincerity and reality still not having met with any thing since to shew us our errour be ready to do the same again if we had the same hopes we then had the reception of such Petitions 4. Who hold some of us our livelyhood either in whole or part by those Titles of Deans Deans and Chapters c. mentioned in the Articles being Members of some Collegiate or Cathedral Churches And our memories will not readily serve us with any Example in this kind since the world began wherein any state or profession of men though convicted as we are not of a Crime that might deserve Deprivation were required to bind themselves by Oath sincerely and really to endeavour the rooting out of that in it self not unlawful together wherewith they must also root out themselves their Estates and Livelyhoods 5. Especially it being usual in most of the said Churches that such persons as are admitted Members thereof have a personal Oath administred unto them to maintain the Honour Immunities Liberties and Profits of the same and whilst they live to seek the good and not to do any thing to the hurt hindrance or prejudice thereof or in other words to the like effect Fourthly In respect of the Church of England we are not satisfied how we can swear to endeavour the extirpation of the established Government no necessity or just cause for so doing either offering it self or being offered to our Understandings 1. Since all Change of Government unavoidably bringeth with it besides those that are present and evident sundry other inconveniences which no wit of man can possibly foresee to provide against till late experience discover them We cannot be sure that the evils which may ensue upon the Change of this Government which hath been of so long continuance in this Kingdom is so deeply rooted in the Laws thereof and hath so near a conjunction with and so strong an influence upon the Civil Sate and Government as that the Change thereof must infer the necessity of a great alteration to be made in the other also may not be greater than the supposed evils whatsoever they are which by this Change are sought to be remedied For there are not yet any come to our knowledge of that desperate nature as not to be capable of other remedy than the utter extirpation of the whole Government it self 2. Whereas the House of Commons have remonstrated That it was far from their purpose or desire to abolish the Church Government but rather that all the Members of the Church of England should be regulated by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and that it was Malignancy to infuse into the people that they had any oother meaning We are loth by consenting to the second Article to become guilty of such Infusion as may bring us within the compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant 3. Since it hath been declared by sundry Acts of Parliament That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England we dare not by endeavouring the extirpation of Prelacy strike at the very foundation and thereby as much as in us lieth co-operate towards the ruine of this famous Church which in all conscience and duty we are bound with our utmost lawful power to uphold Lastly In respect of our Obligations to his Majesty by our Duty and Oaths we are not satisfied how we can swear to endeavour the extirpation of the Church Government by Law established without forfeiture of those Obligations 1. Having in the Oath of Supremacy acknowledged the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical Persons having bound our selves both in that Oath and by our Protestation To maintain the King's Honour Estate Iurisdictions and all manner of Rights it is clear to our Understandings that we cannot without disloyalty and injury to him and double Perjury to our selves take upon us without his consent to make any alteration in the Ecclesiastical Laws or Government much less to endeavour the extirpation thereof unless the imposers of this Covenant had a power and meaning which they have openly disclaimed to absolve us of that Obedience which under God we owe unto his Majesty whom they know to be intrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law 2. We cannot sincerely and really endeavour the extirpation of this Government without a sincere desire and real endeavour that his Majesty would grant his Royal Assent to such extirpation Which we are so far from desiring and endeavouring that we hold it our bounden duty by our daily prayers to beg at the hands of Almighty God that he would not for our sins suffer the King to do an act so prejudicial to his Honour and Conscience as to consent to the rooting out of that estate which by so many branches of his Coronation Oath he hath in such a solemn manner sworn by the assistance of God to his power to maintain and preserve 3. By the Laws of this Land the Collation of Bishopricks and Deanaries the fruits and profits of their Lands and Revenues during their vacancies the first fruits and yearly tenths out of all Ecclesiastical Promotions and sundry other Priviledges Profits and Emoluments arising out of the State Ecclesiastical are established in the Crown and are a considerable part of the Revenues thereof which by the
But of these Dr. Sanderson then drew up for his own satisfaction such a Scheme he call'd it Pax Ecclesia as then gave himself and hath since given others such satisfaction that it still remains to be of great estimation among the most learned He was also chosen Clerk of all the Convocations during that good Kings reign Which I here tell my Reader because I shall hereafter have occasion to mention that Convocation in 1640. the unhappy long Parliament and some debates of the Predestination Points as they have been since charitably handled betwixt him the learned Dr. Hammond and Dr. Pierce the now reverend Dean of Salisbury In the year 1636. his Majesty then in his Progress took a fair occasion to visit Oxford and to take an entertainment for two days for himself and honourable Attendants which the Reader ought to believe was sutable to their dignities But this is mentioned because at the King 's coming thither Dr. Sanderson did attend him and was then the 31 of August created Doctor of Divinity which honour had an addition to it by having many of the Nobility of this Nation then made Doctors and Masters of Art with him Some of whose names shall be recorded and live with his and none shall out-live it First Dr. Curle and Dr. Wren who were then Bishops of Winton and of Norwich and had formerly taken their degrees in Cambridge were with him created Doctors of Divinity in his University So was Merick the Son of the learned Izaak Causabon and Prince Rupert who still lives the then Duke of Lenox Earl of Hereford Earl of Essex of Barkshire and very many others of noble birth too many to be named were then created Masters of Arts. Some years before the unhappy long Parliament this Nation being then happy and in peace though inwardly sick of being well namely in the year 1639. a discontented party of the Scots Church were zealously restless for another Reformation of their Kirk Government and to that end created a new Covenant for the general taking of which they pretended to petition the King for his assent and that he would injoyn the taking of it by all of that Nation but this Petition was not to be presenred to him by a Committee of eight or ten men of their Fraternity but by so many thousands and they so arm'd as seem'd to force an assent to what they seem'd to request so that though forbidden by the King yet they entred England and in their heat of Zeal took and plunder'd New-Castle where the King was forc'd to meet them with an Army but upon a Treaty and some concessions he sent them back though not so rich as they intended yet for that time without blood-shed But oh this Peace and this Covenant were but the forerunners of War and the many miseries that followed For in the year following there were so many chosen into the long Parliament that were of a conjunct Council with these very zealous and as factious Reformes as begot such a confusion by the several desires and designs in many of the Members of that Parliament and at last in the very common people of this Nation that they were so lost by contrary designs fears and confusions as to believe the Scots and their Covenant would restore them to their former tranquillity And to that end the Presbyterian party of this Nation did again in the year 1643. invite the Scotch Covenanters back into England and hither they came marching with it gloriously upon their Pikes and in their Hats with this Motto For the Crown and Covenant of both Kingdoms This I saw and suffer'd by it But when I look back upon the ruine of Families the bloodshed the decay of common honesty and how the former piety and plain dealing of this now sinful Nation is turned into cruelty and cunning I praise God that he prevented me from being of that party which help'd to bring in this Covenant and those sad Confusions that have follow'd it And I have been the bolder to say this of my self because in a sad discourse with Dr. Sanderson I heard him make the like grateful acknowledgement This digression is intended for the better information of the Reader in what will follow concerning Dr. Sanderson And first That the Covenanters of this Nation and their party in Parliament made many Exceptions against the Common Prayer and Ceremonies of the Church and seem'd restless for a Reformation And though their desires seem'd not reasonable to the King and the learned Dr. Laud then Archbishop of Canterbury yet to quiet their Consciences and prevent future confusion they did in the year 1641. desire Dr. Sanderson to call two more of the Convocation to advise with him and that he would then draw up some such safe alterations as he thought fit in the Service Book and abate some of the Ceremonies that were least material for satisfying their consciences and to this end they did meet together privately twice a week at the Dean of Westminster's House for the space of 3 months or more But not long after that time when Dr. Sanderson had made the Reformation ready for a view the Church and State were both fall'n into such a confusion that Dr. Sanderson's Model for Reformation became then useless Nevertheless his Reputation was such that he was in the year 1642. propos'd by both Houses of Parliament to the King then in Oxford to be one of their Trustees for the settling of Church affairs and was allowed of by the King to be so but that Treaty came to nothing In the year 1643. the 2 Houses of Parliament took upon them to make an Ordinance and call an Assembly of Divines to debate and settle some Church controversies of which many were very unfit to judges in which Dr. Sanderson was also named but did not appear I suppose for the same reason that many other worthy and learned men did forbear the Summons wanting the King's Authority And here I must look back and tell the Reader that in the year 1642. he was Iuly 21. named by a more undoubted Authority to a more noble imployment which was to be Professor Regius of Divinity in Oxford but though knowledge be said to puff up yet his modesty and too mean an opinion of his great Abilities and some other real or pretended reasons exprest in his Speech when he first appeared in the Chair and since printed kept him from entring into it till Octobor 1646. He did for about a years time continue to read his matchless Lectures which were first de Iuramento a Point very difficult and at that time very dangerous to be handled as it ought to be But this learned man as he was eminently furnished with Abilities to satisfie the consciences of men upon that important Subject so he wanted not courage to assert the true obligation of Oaths in a degenerate Age when men had made perjury a main part of their Religion How much the learned world
be medling again The respect I bore to his person and great learning and the long acquaintance I had had with him in Oxford drew me to the reading of that whole Book But from the reading of it for I read it through to a syllable I went away with many and great dissatisfactions Sundry things in that Book I took notice of which brought me into a greater dislike of his Opinion than I had before But especially these three First that he bottometh very much of his Discourse upon a very erroneous Principle which yet he seemeth to be so deeply in love with that he hath repeated it I verily believe some hundreds of times in that work to wit this That whatsoever is first in the intention is last in execution and è converso Which is an Error of that magnitude that I cannot but wonder how a person of such acuteness and subtilty of wit could possibly be deceived with it All Logicians know there is no such universal Maxim as he buildeth upon The true Maxim is but this Finis qui primus est in Intentione est ultimus in Executione In the order of final Causes and the Means used for that end the Rule holdeth perpetually But in other things it holdeth not at all or but by chance or not as a Rule and necessarily Secondly that foreseeing such Consequences would naturally and necessarily follow from his Opinion as would offend the ear of a sober Christian at the very first sound he would yet rather choose not only to admit the said harsh Consequences but professedly indeavour also to maintain them and plead hard for them in large Digressions than to recede in the least from that opinion which he had undertaken to defend Thirdly that seeing out of the sharpness of his wit a necessity of forsaking the ordinary Sublapsarian way and the Supralapsarian too as it had diversly been declared by all that had gone before him for the shunning of those Rocks which either of those ways must unavoidably cast him upon he was forced to seek out an untroden Path and to frame out of his own brain a new way like a Spider's web wrought out of her own bowels hoping by that device to salve all Absurdities could be objected to wit by making the glory of God as it is indeed the chiefest so the only end of all other his Decrees and then making all those other Decrees to be but one entire coordinate Medium conducing to that one end and so the whole subordinate to it but not any one part thereof subordinate to any other of the same Dr. Twiss should have done well to have been more sparing in imputing the studium Partium to others wherewith his own eyes though of eminent perspicacity were so strangely blindfolded that he could not discern how this his new Device and his old dearly beloved Principle like the Cadmean Sparti do mutually destroy the one the other This Relation of my pass'd thoughts having spun out to a far greater length than I intended I shall give a shorter accompt of what they now are concerning these points For which account I referr you to the following parts of Dr. Hammonds Book aforesaid where you may find them already printed And for another account at large of Bishop Sanderson's last Judgment concerning God's Concurrence or Non-concurrence with the Actions of men and the positive entity of sins of commission I referr you to his Letters already printed by his consent in my large Appendix to my Impartial inquiry into the Nature of Sin §. 68 p. 193. as far as p. 200. Sir I have rather made it my choice to transcribe all above out of the Letters of Dr. Sanderson which lie before me than venture the loss of my Originals by Post or Carrier which though not often yet sometimes fail Make use of as much or as little as you please of what I send you from himself because from his own Letters to me in the penning of his life as your own Prudence shall direct you using my name for your warranty in the account given of him as much or as little as you please too You have a performance of my promise and an obedience to your desires from North-Tidworth March 5. 1677 8 Your affectionate humble Servant Tho. Pierce THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN'S LETTER My worthy Friend Mr. Walton I Am heartily glad that you have undertaken to write the Life of that excellent person and both for learning and piety eminent Prelate Dr. Sanderson late Bishop of Lincoln because I know your ability to know and integrity to write truth and sure I am that the life and actions of that pious and learned Prelate will afford you matter enough for his commendation and the imitation of Posterity In order to the carrying on your intended good work you desire my assistance that I would communicate to you such particular passages of his life as were certainly known to me I confess I had the happiness to be particularly known to him for about the space of 20 years and in Oxon to injoy his conversation and his learned and pious Instructions while he was Regius Professor of Divinity there Afterwards when in the time of our late unhappy confusions he left Oxon and was retir'd into the Countrey I had the benefit of his Letters wherein with great candor and kindness he answered those doubts I propos'd and gave me that satisfaction which I neither had nor expected from some others of greater confidence but less judgment and humility Having in a Letter named two or three Books writ ex professo against the being of any original sin and that Adam by his fall transmitted some calamity only but no Crime to his Posterity The good old man was exceedingly troubled and bewailed the misery of those licentious times and seem'd to wonder save that the times were such that any should write or be permitted to publish any Error so contradictory to truth and the Doctrine of the Church of England established as he truly said by clear evidence of Scripture and the just and supreme power of this Nation both Sacred and Civil I name not the Books nor their Authors which are not unknown to learned men and I wish they had never been known because both the Doctrine and the unadvis'd Abettors of it are and shall be to me Apocryphal Another little story I must not pass in silence being an Argument of Dr. Sanderson's Piety great Ability and Judgment as a Casuist Discoursing with an honourable Person whose Piety I value more than his Nobility and Learning though both be great about a Case of Conscience concerning Oaths and Vows their Nature and Obligation in which for some particular Reasons he then desired more fully to be inform'd I commended to him Dr. Sanderson's Book De Iuramento which having read with great satisfaction he as'kd me if I thought the Doctor could be induced to write Cases of Conscience if he might have an honorary Pension
or no. When for decency order or uniformities sake any Constitutions are made concerning Ceremonies there is the same necessity of obeying such Constitutions as there is of obeying other laws made for the good of the Commonwealth concerning any other indifferent things That such necessity either in the one or the other ariseth not properly from the authority of the immediate lawgiver but from the Ordinance of God who hath commanded us to obey the Ordinance of men for his sake That such necessity of obedience notwithstanding the things remain in the same indifferency as before every way in respect of their nature and quoad rem it being not in the power of accidental relations to change the natures of things and even in respect of their use and quoad nos thus far that there is a liberty left for men upon extraordinary and other just occasions sometimes to do otherwise than the Constitution requireth extra casum scandali contemptûs A liberty which we dare not either take our selves or allow to others in things properly and absolutely necessary Upon which very account I mean the consideration of the indifferency of the things in themselves and upon which account alone it is that many of the Episcopal that is to say the true English Protestant Divines who sadly resent the voting down of the Liturgy Festivals and Ceremonies of the Church by so many former Laws established heartily desired heretofore the continuance and as heartily still wish the restitution and are by God's help ready with their Tongues Pens and Sufferings to maintain and justifie the lawful use of the same do yet so far yield to the sway of the times and are perswaded they may with a good Conscience so do as to forbear the use thereof in the publick worship till it shall seem good to those that are in place of Authority either to restore them to their former state as it is well hoped when they shall have duly considered the evil consequents of that Vote they will or at leastwise and in the mean time to leave them arbitrary for men according to their several different judgments to use or not to use which seemeth but reasonable the like favour and liberty in other kinds having been long allowed to almost all other sorts of men though of never so distant perswasions one from another Lastly That all Laws made concerning Ceremonies or other indifferent things whether Civil or Ecclesiastical are mutable and as they were at first made by humane authority so may they from time to time be by humane authority abrogated and repealed And then and thenceforth they lose their obligation whereby the necessity of yielding obedience thereunto wholly ceaseth and determineth and the things thereby commanded or prohibited return to their primitive and natural indifferency even in their use also and in respect of us But in the Case of our Church now it is far otherwise Cap Surplice Cross Ring and other Ceremonies which are the matter of our differences though they be things indifferent for their nature and in themselves yet are not so for their use and unto us If the Church had been silent if Authority had prescribed nothing herein these Ceremonies had then remained for their use as they are for their nature indifferent Lawful and such as might be used without sin and yet Arbitrary and such as might be also forborn without sin But men must grant though they be unwilling if yet they will be reasonable that every particular Church hath power for decency and orders sake to ordain and constitute Ceremonies which being once ordained and by publick Authority enjoyned cease to be indifferent for their use though they remain still so for their nature and of indifferent become so necessary that neither may a man without sin refuse them where Authority requireth nor use them where Authority restraineth the use Neither is this accession of necessity any impeachment to Christian Liberty or insnaring of mens Consciences as some have objected For then do we ensnare mens Consciences by humane constitutions where we thrust them upon men as if they were Divine and bind mens Consciences to them immediately as if they were immediate parts of God's worship or of absolute necessity unto Salvation This Tyranny and Vsurpation over mens Consciences the Pharisees of old did and the Church of Rome at this day doth exercise and we justly hate in her equalling if not preferring her Constitutions to the Laws of God But our Church God be thanked is far from any such impious presumption and hath sufficiently declared her self by sosolemn protestation enough to satisfie any ingenuous impartial judgment that by requiring obedience to these ceremonial constitutions she hath no other purpose than to reduce all her children to an orderly conformity in the outward worship of God so far is she from seeking to draw any opinion either of divine necessity upon the constitution or of effectual holiness upon the ceremony And as for the prejudice which seemeth to be hereby given to Christian liberty it is so slender a conceit that it seemeth to bewray in the objectors a desire not so much of satisfaction as cavil For first the liberty of a Christian to all indifferent things is in the mind and conscience and is then infringed when the conscience is bound and strained by imposing upon it an opinion of doctrinal necessity But it is no wrong to the Liberty of a Christian man's conscience to bind him to outward observation for orders sake and to impose upon him a necessity of Obedience Which one distinction of Doctrinal and Obediential necessity well weighed and rightly applied is of it self sufficient to clear all doubts in this point For to make all restraint of the outward man in matters indifferent an impeachment of Christian liberty what were it else but even to bring flat Anabaptism and Anarchy into the Church and to overthrow all bond to subjection and obedience to lawful authority I beseech you consider wherein can the immediate power and authority of Fathers Masters and other Rulers over their inferiours consist or the due obedience of inferiours be shewn towards them if not in these indifferent and arbitrary things For things absolutely necessary as commanded by God we are bound to do whether human Authority require them or no and things absolutely unlawful as prohibited by God we are bound not to do whether humane Authority forbid them or no. There are none other things left then wherein to express properly the Obedience due to superiour Authority than these indifferent things And if a Father or Master have power to prescribe to his child or servant in indifferent things and such restraint be no way prejudicial to Christian liberty in them why should any man either deny the like power to Church Governours to make Ecclesiastical constitutions concerning indifferent things or interpret that power to the prejudice of Christian liberty And again secondly Men must understand that it is an
our warrant from some place or other of Scripture Before the Scriptures were writ ten it pleased God by visions and dreams and other like revelations immediately to make known his good pleasure to the Patriarchs and Prophets and by them unto the People which kind of revelations served them to all the same intents and purposes whereto the sacred Scriptures now do us viz. to instruct them what they should believe and do for his better service and the furtherance of their own salvations Now as it were unreasonable for any man to think that they either had or did expect an immediate revelation from God every time they eat or drank or bought or sold or did any other of the common actions of life for the warranting of each of those particular actions to their Consciences no less unreasonable it is to think that we should now expect the like warrant from the Scriptures for the doing of the like actions Without all doubt the law of nature and the light of reason was the rule whereby they were guided for the most part in such matters which the wisdome of God would never have left in them or us as a principal relick of his decayed image in us if he had not meant that we should make use of it for the direction of our lives and actions thereby Certainly God never infused any power into any creature whereof he intended not some use Else what shall we say of the Indies and other barbarous Nations to whom God never vouchsafed the lively Oracles of his written word Must we think that they were left a lawless people without any Rule at all whereby to order their actions How then come they to be guilty of transgression For where there is no law there can be no transgression Or how cometh it about that their consciences should at any time or in any case either accuse them or excuse them if they had no guide nor rule to walk by But if we must grant they had a Rule and there is no way you see but grant it we must then we must also of necessity grant that there is some other Rule for humane actions besides the written word for that we presupposed these Nations to have wanted Which Rule what other could it be than the Law of Nature and of right reason imprinted in their hearts Which is as truly the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles So long as our actions are warranted either by the one or the other we cannot be said to want the warrant of God's Word Nec differet Scriptura an ratione consistat saith Tertullian it mattereth not much from whether of both we have our direction so long as we have it from either You see then those men are in a great errour who make the holy Scriptures the sole rule of all humane actions whatsoever For the maintenance whereof there was never yet produced any piece of an argument either from reason or from authority of holy writ or from the testimony either of the ancient Fathers or of other classical Divines of later times which may not be clearly and abundantly answered to the satisfaction of any rational man not extremely fore-possessed with prejudice They who think to salve the matter by this mitigation that at leastwise our actions ought to be framed according to those general rules of the law of Nature which are here and there in the Scriptures dispersedly contained as viz. That we should do as we would be done to That all things be done decently and orderly and unto edification That nothing be done against conscience and the like speak somewhat indeed to the truth but little to the purpose For they consider not First that these general rules are but occasionally and incidentally mentioned in Scripture rather to manifest unto us a former than to lay upon us a new obligation Secondly that those rules had been of force for the ordering of mens actions though the Scripture had never expressed them and were of such force before those Scriptures were written wherein they are now expressed For they bind not originally qua scripta but qua justa becuase they are righteous not because they are written Thirdly that an action conformable to these general Rules might not be condemned as sinful although the doer thereof should look at those rules meerly as they are the dictates of the law of nature and should not be able to vouch his warrant for it from any place of Scripture neither should have at the time of the doing thereof any present thought or consideration of any such place The contrary whereunto I permit to any man's reasonable judgment if it be not desperately rash and uncharitable to affirm Lastly that if mens actions done agreeably to those Rules are said to be of faith precisely for this reason because those rules are contained in the word then it will follow that before those particular Scriptures were written wherein any of those Rules are first delivered every action done according to those rules had been done without faith there being as yet no Scripture for it and consequently had been a sin So that by this Doctrine it had been a sin before the witing of S. Matthew's Gospel for any man to have done to others as he would they should do to him and it had been a sin before the writing of the former Epistle to the Corinthians for any man to have done any thing decently and orderly supposing these two Rules to be in those two places first mentioned because this supposed there could then have been no warrant brought from the Scriptures for so doing Well then we see the former Opinion will by no means hold neither in the rigour of it nor yet in the mitigation We are therefore to beware of it and that so much the more heedfully because of the evil consequents and effects that issue from it to wit a world of superstitions uncharitable censures bitter contentions contempt of superiours perplexities of conscience First it filleth mens heads with many superstitious conceits making them to cast impurity upon sundry things which yet are lawful to as many as use them lawfully For the taking away of the indifferency of any thing that is indifferent is in truth superstition whether either of the two ways it be done either by requiring it as necessary or by forbidding it as unlawful He that condemneth a thing as utterly unlawful which yet indeed is indifferent and so lawful is guilty of superstition as well as he that enjoyneth a thing as absolutely necessary which yet indeed is but indifferent and so arbitrary They of the Church of Rome and some in our Church as they go upon quite contrary grounds yet both false so they run into quite contrary errours and both superstitious They decline too much on the left hand denying to holy Scripture that perfection which of right it ought to have of containing all appertaining to that
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy we shall have sufficiently discharged our whole promise in that particular without any prejudice done to Episcopacy But 1. Neither the Composers of the Covenant by their words nor the Imposers of it by their actions have given us the least signification that they meant no more 2. Yea rather if we may judge either by the cause or the effects we may well think there was a meaning to extirpate the whole Government and every part thereof in the Article expressed For 1. The Covenant being as we have no cause to doubt framed at the instance of the Scots and for the easier procuring of their assistance in the late War was therefore in all reason so to be framed and understood as to give them satisfaction and considering what themselves have declared against Episcopacy we have little reason to believe the taking away Apparitors or any thing less than the rooting out of Episcopacy it self would have satisfied them 2. The proceedings also since the entring of this Covenant in endeavouring by Ordinance of Parliament to take away the Name Power and Revenues of Bishops do sadly give us to understand what was their meaning therein Fourthly As to the Scruples that arise from the Sovereignty of the King and the Duty of Allegiance as Subjects we find two several ways of answering but little satisfaction in either 1. The former by saying which seemeth to us a piece of unreasonable and strange Divinity that Protection and Subjection standing in relation either to other the King being now disabled to give us protection we are thereby freed from our bond of Subjection Whereas 1. The Subjects Obligation Ius subjectionis doth not spring from nor relate unto the actual exercise of Kingly protection but from and unto the Prince's obligation to protect Ius protectionis Which obligation lying upon him as a duty which he is bound in Conscience to perform when it is in his power so to do the relative Obligation thereunto lieth upon us as a duty which we are bound in Conscience to perform when it is in our power so to do His inability therefore to perform his duty doth not discharge us from the necessity of performing ours so long as we are able to do it 2. If the King should not protect us but neglect his part though having power and ability to perform it his voluntary neglect ought not to free us from the faithful performance of what is to be done on our part How much less then ought we to think our selves disobliged from our subjection when the Non-protection on his part is not from the want of will but of power 2. The later wherein yet some have triumphed by saying that the Parliament being the Supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom the King wheresoever in person is ever present there in his power as in all other Courts of Justice and that therefore whatsoever is done by them is not done without the King but by him But craving pardon first if in things without our proper sphere we hap to speak unproperly or amiss We must next crave leave to be still of the same mind we were till it shall be made evident to our understandings that the King is there in his power as it is evident to our senses that he is not there in his Person Which so far as our natural reason and small experience will serve us to judge all that hath been said to that purpose can never do For first to the point of presence 1. We have been brought up in a belief that for the making of Laws the actual Royal assent was simply necessary and not only a virtual assent supposed to be included in the Votes of the two Houses otherwise what use can be made of his Negative voice or what need to desire his Royal assent to that which may be done as well without it 2. The Statute providing that the King's assent to any Bill signified under his Great Seal shall be to all intents of Law as valid and effectual as if he were personally present doth clearly import that as to the effect of making a Law the Kings Power is not otherwise really present with the two Houses than it appeareth either in his Person or under his Seal Any other real presence is to us a riddle not much unlike to that of Transubstantion an imaginary thing rather devised to serve turns than believed by those that are content to make use of it 3. Such presence of the King there when it shall be made appear to us either from the Writs whereby the Members of both Houses are called together or by the standing Laws of the Land or by the acknowledged judgment and continued practice of former and later Ages or by any express from the King himself clearly declaring his mind to that purpose we shall then as becometh us acknowledge the same and willingly submit thereunto And as for the Argument drawn from the Analogy of other Courts wherein the King's Power is always supposed to be virtually present under submission we conceive it is of no consequence 1. The Arguments à minore and à majore are subject to many fallacies and unless there be a parity of reason in every requisite respect between the things compared will not hold good A petty Constable they say may do something which a Justice of Peace cannot do And the Steward of a petty Mannor hath power to administer an Oath which as we are told the House of Commons it self hath no power to do 2. That the High Court of Parliament is the Supream Judicatory we have been told it is by virtue of the King 's right of presiding there he being the Supream Iudge and the Members of both Houses his Council which being so the reason of difference is plain between that and other Judicatories in sundry respects 1. The Judges in other Courts are deputed by him and do all in his Name and by his Authority and therefore the presence of his power in those Courts of Ministerial Jurisdiction is sufficient his Personal presence not necessary neither hath he any Personal vote therein at all But in the high Court of Parliament where the King himself is the Supream Judge judging in his own Name and by his own Authority his Power cannot be presumed to be really present without either the actual presence of his person or some virtual representation thereof signified under his Great Seal 2. The Judges in Inferiour Courts because they are to act all in his Name and by his Authority do therefore take Oaths of fidelity for the right exercising of Judicature in their several places sitting there not by any proper interest of their own but only in right of the King whose Judges they are and therefore they are called the King's Judges and his Ministers But in the high Court of Parliament the Lords and Commons sit there in Council with the King as Supream Judge for the good of the whole Realm