had before built upon to wit continual peace by continual submission to the present Monarch Whereas if any party of the Subjects might take upon them to withdraw obedience when they thought their Governour defective in Title then since it should seldom happen but that there might be some objections in that respect made by some discontented party or another it would also follow that for want of constant means how peace and agreement should for every time present be preserved that course which they had designed whereby it should be continually and at all times preserved would contradict it self and come to nothing And therefore having endeavoured that this peace as they thought should never be interrupted even by the course formerly mentioned that is laying so great imputation and leaving such small hopes of enjoyment on those that should attempt it they were less regardful to speak of any way to be taken after it was interrupted and the publick peace now setled in another hand lest by any express allowance of a lawful obedience to him afterwards they should as we said seem to cast more hopes and encouragements upon such like enterprises And that their intentions hereby were onely to deter from such ambitious rising and not from giving obedience to any in possession we shall not find that any name of odium is found out and given to such as live in subjection to Usurpers which doubtless they would have done had they conceived them as guilty in their obedience as he in his entrance or command 8. And if we shall appeal to matter of fact we shall find the Cavalier party all along constant to the sure way of preservation of publick peace by their adherence to the party possessed and by opposing of such as would upon the allegation of Usurpation or want of title in him or his Ancestors or for want of Election or Authority derived from the people make all his commands and rule unlawful And in order to this was that maxime so often found in the mouths of that party at such time as many personal defects and imputations were laid to the charge of the late King That the Crown was to be obeyed and fought for although it stood upon a May-Pole Which speech as it had been taken from the Duke of Norfolk so was it by him used in defence of his Loyalty to his present Sovereign whom the other party called both Tyrant Usurper 9. And if we do impartially look upon the reason and ground of all Politick Constitutions of this kind We shall find all contrary construction to arise from mistake or prejudice For first is there any thing more available to the continuance of publick peace then that submission should be continued to the Monarch in possession And then that there might be one always in possession so as to make use of this submission and that without danger of publick disturbance through strife about the person to enjoy it was it not again necessary that by publick Edict it should be beforehand appointed to whom it should succeed that all might be more deterâ—ed from seeking it Which succession being not by the Law of God entailed on any one Family amongst Christians now as amongst the Jews it formerly was on the Linage oâ— David will it not still rationally and equitably follow that the possessor should have most right of any to have this entail setled on his Family and do we not accordingly find that all Nations that have due regard to future peace and quiet have joyned with the possessor in setling it accordingly and will it not onward still follow that in order to maintain the first Principles we should be loyal to the Family so setled â—o as to the utmost of our powers to defend them in their possession against all opposers justly charging them with the imputation of Treason and Rebellion that are desturbers of publique peace in favour to the claim of any other whatsoever But then again will it not from the same Principles still follow that in case my loyal endeavors shall not have their wished success but that the other party shall set up another Monarch and that in such full possession as now to be quietly and generally submitted to as in the Seat of Justice the Laws being executed in his name as they were in the others before that then present peace depending on present obedience and present obedience on present Power and Command therefore I that was before a Loyalist in maintenance of the power in being am now a Rebel if I change my principles I continue not loyal to him that is so having in that regard changed conditions with those that were Rebels before who by their adherence to the present power and maintenance of peace thereby are now become the true Royalists 10. If we shall examine the grounds and intentions of our own fundamental constitutions concerning this Government and Governors therein we shall find them to be the same Namely the design of peace by submission to the present Monarch without regard to the stile of King or Family of which he was of And to this end it may be observed that in the Act made in Henry the Eighths time wherein his Supremacy is asserted it is set down 24. Hen. 8. c. 12. Where by divers sundry old authentick Histories and Chronicles is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realmâ— of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by one supream Head and King having the Dignity and Royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people being bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience c. By which words we may easily discover some determination touching the present dispute by observing what is therein set down as the foundation and original of this Government to wit that it is and always hath been an Empire or Monarchy as well over all estates in it self as independent of any other And then as it is called an Empire as well as Realm so may that Heâ—d thereof be called Emperor or the like as well as King he whosoever he is that is at any time Monarch or Head thereof is he to whom all sorts of people been bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience It is no part of the fundamental Law to appropriate it for perpetuity to the family of Plantagenet Tudor Stuart or the like no authentick Record to be brought for that that as it must be excepted as a secondary constitution made in order to preserve the first he must give it place when the other is indangered As for the first I conceive that if King and Parliament should enact that this Government should be a Monarchy no longer it would be void not onely as contrary to the Law of God and Reason but as a thing without their jurisdiction even as overthrowing
entring the Land durst not claim any right to the Crown as his right but onely to the Dukedom of York wearing also the Badge of Henry the Sixth's eldest Son in tâ—ken of his Homage What shall we say when he after in cruel manner smoâ—e him on the face with his Gantlet and caused him to be slain by his own servants and caused also the Father to whom â—e had formerly done homage to be imprisoned murthered and scornfully buried a person so good that he was called by the name of the Holy Yet do we not find but for all this while he had possession he had due loyalty and subjâ—ction acknowledged unto him and the Crown entailed on his Family 73. Against the Right of his Son Edward the Fifth King Richard the Third enters and might well also be called Usurper because he exercised Kingly power before the other was actually dispossessed And yet as ill as he was otherwise also is he generally obeyed and fought for 83. Henry the Seventh succeeds but he not taking to himself Kingly power till he were in full possession is not called Usurper Although his title was not so good as the others whom we are however to expect to be called Usurper and Tyrant also the more to dignifie the other now in possession when as yet although the said Richard were an Usurper as to his Nephews he was none to him Again although Richard were dead yet were there others living and in England too of a far more lineal and legal claim to the Crown as was the Lady Elizabeth Daughter to Edward the Fourth and the Earl of Warwick Son to the elder Brother of King Richard George Duke of Clarence to whom and his Heirs the Crown was also by Parliament given by Henry the Sixth in case he should die without issue as he did And yet further he stood by Act of Parliament attainted of Treason and had his Lands and Goods with those of his followers confiscate to the said King Richard May he not also be called Usurper for that he not onely exercised Kingly power before he was married to the Lady Elizabeth the right Heir but that afterwards he never so much as joyned her name in Acts of State and Sovereignty when by the Law of the Land she should have been chief as was adjudged on the case of Queen Mary and King Philip. And although he also brings in a new Family to wit that of Tudor in place of Plantagenet yet being in possession of the Crown he hath not the stile of Usurpation so thrown upon him as to take off the Subjects duty of allegiance Nor do I think that any will commend them for Loyalty that did after rise in the behalf of Perkin Warbeck although the Subjects generally thought him to be the right Heâ—r indeed and no counterfeit 39. Henry the Eighth succeds him upon the same Title and Edward the Sixth him with very small dispute of their Right 40. Queen Mary finds another Claimer to retard her possession namely the Lady Jane Grey And truly had she not bestirred herself and frighted the other party by a much greater power I beleeve the other would with her possession have been generally reputed and obeyed as the legal Heir having all the State conformation could be then expected For the Lords of the Council that then acted all publick affairs caused her to be proclaimed in London and no worse a man then B Ridley in a Sermon at Pauls Cross perswaded obedience to Lady Jane and invighed earnestly against the Title of Lady Mary as witnesseth Stow fol. 1033. And it is like he might use the same motives against the succession of her as are recorded by Mr. Camden in his introduction to the Annals of Queen Elizabeth to have been used against the succession of her and her Sister also To wit for that the Ladies Mary and Elizabeth were by the Act of Parliament judged illegitimate which Act was never duely repealed notwithstanding that the King their Father had by the same Act declared that they should succeed in order after Edward the Sixth if his issue should fail and for that the said Sisters could not by the Common Law of England be Successors Hereditarily to King Edward because they were not Germans that is of the whole blood by Father and Mother but as our Lawyers term it of the half blood It was also signified that Henry the Eighth by his last Will and Testament conveyed the title of the Crown to the said Lady Mary or the Lady Elizabeth should marry with Foreign Princes which might revoke the Bishop of Romes Authority now banished out of England and subject the English under a foreign yoke And to the same purpose also were produâ—ed Letters Pattents of King Edward the Sixth made a little before his death and signed with the hands of many Noblemen Bishops Judges and others But all this notwithstanding those very Lords that had before caused her to be proclaimed finding afterwards themselves unable to put her into full possession they wisely laid Title aside proclaimed the other and made what haste they could to obtain her favour Dutifully and wisely preferring that which was the sure way to publick peace and benefit although hazardous and disadvantagious to their own before a more sure way to their own advance with the loss of that which was publick 41. What shall we now think of the lawfulness of all those transactions which all along in those times were performed to the several Princes here was there never any obedience rightly given but to Edward the Second and Queen Elizabeth because they two onely could prescribe as to the term of a Hundred years since the Crown was usurped by their Progenitors and this hapening to them but towards the end of their Reigns shall we conclude that what was done before or towards any other was not legally done and to be esteemed acts of fear and flattery more then of Duty How comes it to pass that the Laws made by these several Princes nay by Richard the Third himself are acknowledged for Laws of force If possession of the Law-makers place gave them a right to make laws will it not also give them a right to their Subjects obedience Beyond all which if we will be truly regarding the injury offered to the deposed Family and think our selves obliged to sâ—e right therein done without regard to the publick will it not follow that this injury being the higher and the more as the party doing it was nearer in relation or of kin to those he did it that therefore an Usurpation made by a stranger is not so heinous as where a Son usurpeth against his Fathers likeing as Edward the Third did or an Uncle against Nephews as King John and Richard the Third or one Brother against another or the like as is to be observed in this long story In which cases to alleadge they had consent of the people this will not make any thing lawful as
marks And so the Act goes on prescribing still greater punishments for the second and third offences by way of mulct to the Queen and her Successors 34. But now what if her Successors come to enact against the use of it and be themselves Compellers and Threateners may we not then conclude that they may lawfully interrupt or at least the other be excused for being interrupted where before in a Subject it was unlawful to interrupt or let any Parson in the doing what was by the then Law established So that by this very Act as I conceive such as have a reverend esteem and willingness to use it are not only freed foro interno but by the Clause following enacting That no person shall be at any time hereafter impeached or molested of or for any of the offences above-mentioned hereafter to be committed or done contrary to this Act unless he or they so offending be thereof indicted at the next General Sessions to be holden before any such Justices of Oyer and Determiner or Justices of Assise next after any offence committed or done contrary to the tenor of this Act we may conlude he is freed foro externo also and may for ought I can find rest free from all danger while obedient to the Queens Successory she dying without an Heir 35. And if by reason of any Oath or Obligation received at Ordination or taking degrees some should think themselves farther bound They are also to consider that as neither any derived power can go beyond that which impowers it so are they also to presume that their intentions are alike even to maintain Peace and Order by Uniformity to what is enjoyned and not to raise disturbance by opposition And surely if Oaths Vows or the like were to be held of force in such a case I see not how any Jesuite or Priest could in reason no nor in Conscience be perswaded to recede in any thing from their obedience and conformity to the Papall Sea and Ceremony when as their Promises are not only more strict but confirmed by Laws more ancient and general and which are still in the same force 36. It is also farther to be considered that when after in the Preface to our Bibles it is set down That where heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm some following Salisbury use some Hereford use some the use of Bangor some of York and some of Lincoln now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one use And when in the directions following that Preface it is set down That all Priests and Deacons should be bound daily to say the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly except they be let by preaching studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause We are still to conceive that both Uniformity was aimed at and that the duty of Preaching was in the first place held necessary 37. And if we go to experience in their practise of this precept of reading of the Service Book then we shall find it apprehended as an injunction that did onely bind them ad semper velle but not ad semper agere as Mr. Hooker elsewhere speaks of Gods affirmative Precepts as Pray continually and the like and that thereupon few could give account of their daily use of it even when the hindrance of preaching studying or the like could not well be alledged as before noted And therefore if in a time when it was commanded the use of it might be forborn rather then preaching be omitted what may we think of them that in a time it is taken away will yet rather omit preaching then it to the great discouragement and scandall of many a man in his Christian obedience and Communion and to the great detriment of the nation in generall who in a time of scarcity are much wanting of that instruction which might be had from men of their abilities In which respect as I am my self a true lover of many of them for their learning and gifts in that kinde so hath the sence of mine own losse as well as that of others now made me thus large in this particular 38. But besides this and the want of satisfaction how they can in this condition uphold the Church of England in her former sentence against non conformity if upon the same score they shall slight her authority themselves They are next to consider what answer for their present Recusancy they can bring which on the other side shall not withall justifie the Recusants themselves in their separation from our Communion also For plain it is as I said before that as the drift of all the arguments brought formerly by the Papists against our Churches authority was in respect of usurpation in our Princes and want of succession lawfull ordination and the like in our Priests so was the sum of all their Doctrine that wrote in defence of what was done by us brought to this issue That these things were not essentiall to Salvation or to the being of a Church That each Christian Church having as heretofore set down a power within it self for ordering its own affairs had as well power to abbreviate or abrogate what was in former times or by other Churches instituted before as to institute that which was new so that the casting out from our Service Book and leaving out of our publike Forms of Worship all such Prayers Ceremonies and Observations as in the opinion of those that then had power in the Church had on the one side little or no footing in Scripture and which had on the other side greatest Superstition cast towards them was then held lawfull as by that Declaration annexed to our Bibles concerning Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained may appear And if it was then held agreeable and the Church thought a fit Judge wherein Superstition was most to be feared and what was the best way of Reformation how can we now change our Principle unlesse we joyn with the adversary to dâ—â—â—de the fact as done by the Civil power and Magistrate and with them neither own England for a Church nor him for head thereof Let us hear a little what Father Not the Jesuite in his Book called Charity maintained doth to this purpose alledge in his answer to Doctor Potter after some dispute Chap. 6. about the truth of our Ministery for want of Succession visibly derived from the Pope and Church of Rome he saith at last Sect. 20. But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gave authority to their pretended Successors The Primate of England but from whom had he such authority And after his decease who shall confer authority upon his Successors The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a child Queen Elizabeth a woman an Infant of one houres age is true King in case of his Predecessors decease
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
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