Elizabeth came out the next day or at least very shortly after the Death of the Queen of Scots whereas it was not till many years after 3d. Whereas the present Church of England is upbraided with the 35 of Eliz. it is not beyond the memory of Man since in this Church a Bill passed both Houses of Parliament for the Repeal of that Act but when it came to the Royal Assent the Bill was not to be found and they say there was foul play in the losing of that Bill But I think the greatest blot and blunder of all is a little above in the same page in these words After the Queen of Scots Condemnation the Parliament Petition'd for her Execution each House apart and the Bishops gave their Reasons why it ought to be If the Bishops had Reasons why it ought to be then they were no Traytors nor Rebels as they are all along branded then they did not kill the Heir that the Inheritance might be theirs for that we are very sure ought not to be And if their Reasons are weak and Insufficient and in effect no Reasons why then are they not Answered For the bare mentioning of them without answering them will leave a suspicion in all mens minds that there is somewhat in them which is Unanswerable And truly this is just such another piece of work as a very young and unskilful Conjurer uses to perform in raising what he cannot lay In a word I do not see one true and close thing in this Paper unless it be this p. 3. That the Church of England-men themselves do not Obey their own Canons Which if they had Obeyed and particularly the 114. Canon whereby they are Bound to Present all Popish Recusants and all that are Popishly given every year They had not this day been troubled with New Tests and Instances of their Loyalty But failing in that part of their Loyalty and Obedience they are now Questioned for all the rest However it is never too late for men to return to their Duty To conclude I would advise these Popish Scriblers to let the Church of England alone which has both the Truth of God and the Laws of the Land on her side and having Heaven and Earth on her side all the Powers of Hell cannot prevail against her much less is she to be run down by a few Impotent Libels which can never attain their end nor arrive at their Conclusion though we should grant them all their own Premisses For supposing Queen Anns Confession of a Precontract yet that does not make Queen Elizabeth Illegitimate And supposing her Illegitimate and only an Act-of-Parliament-Queen yet that does not make her an Unlawful Queen And supposing her an Unlawful Queen and without a Legal Title and only Queen for the time being yet the Church of England were not Rebels and Traytors for Assisting her but did their true Duty of Allegiance as is expresly said in the 11 Hen. 7. c. 1. which Act was made on purpose to save the Peoples Allegiance in that Case who had like to have been Ruined but a little before by the cross Pretensions and Alternately prevailing Titles of York and Lancaster Nay to go farther supposing that Queen Elizabeth was an Usurper and the Church of England over and above Traytors and Rebels and thereupon all the Laws made in her time of no Authority for that I know is the point that they would be at and the only meaning of all this Scurrility poured forth upon that Queen and her Clergy yet still they would lose their Aim those Laws having been confirmed in so many Parliaments since and by such Princes as now they list not to bark at Though heretofore the Jesuite Parsons in his Book of the Succession under the Name of Doleman shewed himself and his Fraternity to be as much Devoted to K. Iames's Title as this Author is now to Queen Elizabeths In short being nothing is to be gotten by Railing against Queen Elizabeth and by making her Illegitimate they may as well let her rest in Peace or pass for Legitimate And they may save the foul spittle they are daily casting upon her which will serve much better for the making of their Holy Water FINIS
Former and the Creator of a Mass Priest whom he carries in his Box and worships be a Living God or no Nay according to the School of the Eucharist I will be judged by the very Rats and Mice which often run away with him III. The next thing the Church or rather the State of England is charged with for it was a Parliament business at least Thirteen Years is the Execution of Mary Q. of Scots for Treason against Q Elizabeth Wherein if they did any thing contrary to Law and the Allegiance due to their then present Q. Elizabeth they are chargeable with Disloyalty otherwise not And whereas this Author calls it a Barbarous Murther and an Execrable Fact I would desire him to speak low for if the Laws should over-hear him they would call this Arraigning the Justice of the Nation And in saying that this Fact was the First of the kind he betrays great Ignorance He might as well have said That the Emperour Licinius Colleague with Constantine the Great and Queen Ioan of Naples are still Living And as yet I have never read that what Constantine did in that case was to the Scandal and Reproach of Christianity or even of those Christians who lived under Licinius and joyned with Constantine the Great in that Affair But fourthly I find which is the Substance of the sixth and seventh Pages That the Church of England might have all her old scores cleared and all her former faults forgotten and might pass for Loyal still if She would now consent to the Repeal of the Sanguinary Penal Laws which were purposely Enacted to maintain the Usurpation of Queen Elizabeth and the late Impious Tests Which puts me in mind of the conditions of Peace which the Wolves sent to the Sheep The main Article was That the Sheep should deliver up their Dogs which they kept for a Guard and which were the great hindrance to a firm and lasting Peace But every body Knows how long the Peace lasted But to proceed If the Sanguinary Penal Laws were purposely Enacted to maintain the Usurpation of Queen Elizabeth How came they to be Enacted afresh in the first year of King Iames when that Usurpation was over How came they two years after 330 Iac. c. 1. to be called Religious and Necessary Laws And How came more of these Religious and Necessary Laws to be made in the same Parliament and in succeeding Parliaments As for the late Impious Tests choice Epithets for the Laws of the Land they were made as appears by the Title of the Acts To prevent Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants Now the sheep might safely have parted with their Dogs if the Peaceable Wolves at the same time would have parted with their Fangs 5. In the last page he says As for the Tests themselves it is not my Province to shew the Absurdities of them in point of Doctrine It is well it is not for he must get Abundance of Help whenever he goes about that Work. However he offers at it in these words Though by the by I must hold it a great folly to say that Transubstantiation is not a Probable Opinion at the least considering the Number and Learning of those who maintain it which is the best part of Christendom And if it be a Probable Opinion it must be a great Temerity in any man to Swear there is no such thing I had always thought that a Probable Opinion must be made out by Proofs and Probable Reasons and not by Numbers and telling of Noses But it seems the Cause of Transubstantiation runs very low when it must be maintained by such Arguments as hold much Stronger for Paganism and for Diana of the Ephesians whom all the World worshipped The Religion of the Heathens was of a larger extent and of longer standing than Popery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by all the Learning of Athens and of Ancient Rome and yet we dare be Sworn that it was a False Religion I think we do not renounce Transubstantiation upon Oath but only by publick Declaration and Subscription But if we did it would by no means be a rash Oath For may not I safely Swear That there is no such Figure as a Square Circle when the thing involves manifold contradictions and it is plainly Demonstrable that the Properties of a Square and of a Circle are utterly Inconsistent Now we have a Thousandfold more Evidence and are able to make as clear Proof and Demonstration of it a Thousand times over That there never was nor is nor can be any such thing as Transubstantiation which is nothing else but a Heap of Contradictions Absurdities and Impossible Falshoods And therefore we have the same Assurance that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation never came nor could come from God as we have of this clear and evident Truth That it is Impossible for God to Lye. 6. And now we are come to the Conclusion and upshot of the business which is in these words So that upon the whole matter the Loyal Church of England must either change her old Principles of Loyalty and take Example by her Catholick Neighbours how to behave her self towards a Prince who is not of her Persuasion or she must give his Majesty leave not to nourish a Snake in his own Bosome but rather to withdraw his Royal Protection which was promised upon the Account of her constant Fidelity I wish this Author had bin more express and particular in this Dilemma and difficulty to which he thinks he has reduced the Church of England Either to turn over a new leaf and learn a new lesson of Loyalty from her Catholick Neighbours or else to do worse For he does not tell us Which of our Catholick Neighbours we must take Example by Whether Mrs. Celier and Mr. Sclater who have both Published to the world That they turned Papists that is have made themselves High-Traytors for the Improvement of their Loyalty Or whether we should take Example by this Author himself to call Queen Elizabeth Bastard to Ridicule an Infallible English Parliament as he calls it in Scorn to Deprave and vilifie several Statutes which are and will be the Standing Laws of the Land till such time as they are Repealed by Act of Parliament And therefore he has not been so clear as he might have been in this point Which the Church of England will hardly trouble herself about because she likes her old Principles of Loyalty very well and is not given to Change but knows when she is well In the mean time this Author tells us very plainly and expresly enough That till the Church of England Change their Old Principles of Loyalty and take Example by their Catholick Neighbours they are to be lookt upon as a Snake in his Majestie 's Bosome and cannot expect to be Protected Alas this Gentleman is utterly mistaken For a Legal Establishment has a Right to a Legal Protection and the King is bound both by his Oath and by the duty of his Kingly
Arguing from the Church of England's Own Principles which he says is the Design of his Paper p. 6. Is it the Principle of any One Clergyman in England That the Doctrine of the Church of England is to be sought for and found out in Addresses Or in any thing but the Liturgy and Homilies the Articles and Canons of the Church which have the Publick Sanction and the Universal consent of the whole Clergy If he had found materials out of any of these to make good his charge of Disloyalty he had done like a Man and the Church of England had been Condemned out of her own Mouth But if he cannot do this at present we will have patience to stay till he can and in the mean time he had done wiselier to have said nothing 2. The Bishops and Clergy of several Convocations who have been Dead these Hundred years are rendred Disloyal for not governing themselves by these Addresses two years ago which they knew not of This is a great Hardship indeed that men shall be tryed and condemned by Laws which were not promulged till an Hundred years after their Death The present Church of England has a very great Reverence for those Bishops and Clergy who were the Restorers of the Protestant Religion to this Kingdom and who had formerly hazarded their Lives for it and will be very loth to see them pass under the Character of Traytors and Rebels And when we Demand What Laws of the Land or what Principles of the Church of England they had transgressed we are in effect told That they were Rebels against some chosen Expressions in very modern Addresses The Instance which he gives is the Church of England's behaviour towards Mary Queen of Scots above an Hundred years ago Now mark his words p. 5. But yet because I am about to give a notorious Instance of their Receding from this Principle namely the Divine Right of Succession when the Practise of it thwarted their Interest it will not be amiss to observe that they have Acknowledged in their several Addresses to his present Majesty upon his Accession to the Crown the Unalterable and Inherent Right of Succession Now this is the Reasoning which as I said before would make a Man stand upon his Head. Besides How could they Recede or go back from a Principle which they never came to and were never nearer it than than at an Hundred years Distance For their Opinion or Principle call it what you will was this as appears by the 27. Eliz. That in case an Heir in Remainder killed the present Lawful Possessor of the Crown that person had not a Divine Right of Succession And that neither God nor the Laws ever meant to Reward the falshood of Treason and the bloody Usurpation of a Crown with so much the Earlier possession of it My business is not to concern my self about either of these Principles or opinions but only to shew the absurd reasoning of this Writer 3. Mary Queen of Scots is made Queen of England by such an Argument as makes her no Queen of Scots and by giving her another's Kingdom takes away her own The Argument is this That Queen Elizabeth being Illegitimate and only an Act-of-Parliament-Queen could not interpose betwixt the Crown of England and Mary Queen of Scots who was Heir by Inherent Birth-right Now does not all the World know That all the Title that Mary Queen of Scots had to the Kingdom of Scotland was an Act of Parliament made at Scone in the time of Robert the First whereby his Issue by Elizabeth Moore his Concubine whom he never Married but who was afterwards Married to one Giffard a Gentleman of Louthien were made Inheritable to the Crown and at the same time all his Legitimate Children by his Lawful Queen Eupheme were set aside These men take just the same Measures as their Father Garnet did in the Gun-Powder Treason who Resolved That in order to blow up the Hereticks they might Lawfully blow up their Catholick Friends too Nay all that this Instancer says against Queen Elizabeth admitting it to be True which we do not bears much harder upon the Title of Mary Queen of Scots Was Queen Anns Marriage with Hen. 8. naught But in Elizabeth Moores Case there was no Marriage at all Or was King Edward set aside to make way for Illegitimate Elizabeth But so it was done by the Act at Scone Every body understands the English of Queen Ann Bolens Precontract when they Remember That King Henry the 8th was Married again to the Lady Iane Seymour within Three days after the Beheading of that Queen 4. Mary Queen of Scots is made Queen of England upon the Hypothesis of the Paternal Right p. 3. and 5. when upon that Hypothesis she was disinherited and foreclosed from the Crown of England by two Successive Patriarchs Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th Henry the 8th by his last Will and Testament excluded the House of Scotland and Edward the 6th by his Will excluded both that all his own Sisters likewise But as the Bishop of Ross argued against the first Will that it was not subscribed by his Graces own hand-writing as was directed by the Act of Parliament but only signed with a stamp of his Name so King Edward was never enabled by an Act of Parliament to dispose of the Crown at all And so neither of these Wills signified any thing because the Prince has no Power but what the Law gives him Whereas if these foresaid Princes had been Patriarchs and full of Inherent Paternal Power they could have Disinherited without an Act of Parliament For if a Father cannot Disinherit much less has he Power of Life and Death It were endless to reckon up all the awkerd and wilful mistakes which fill up that Sheet of Paper As where he insinuates p. 7. that the 13 th of Elizabeth was owing to the Queens Consciousness of the Insufficiency of her Title It is nothing so But it was made for the Preservation of her Person and that no body presuming upon an Unalterable and Unforfeitable Title in Reversion might immediately Destroy her An Act it is which is Law to this day and was recited 13 Caroli 2. and there Expresly made a Pattern for the 13th of his Reign And whereas he says p. 8. That before the Queen of Scots was taken off and so the Succession pretty well secured against Popery the Church of England never Persecuted any of her Protestant Dissenters but as soon as that Work was done and the Court likely to continue on their side then out flies the 35 Eliz. cap. 2. against Sectaries In those very few words there are a great many Blots For 1st I hope the 23 of Elizabeth was several years before the Death of the Queen of Scots and if that Act was not made against the Protestant Dissenters they have had the more wrong done them in having been since Prosecuted upon that Act. 2d He words it as if the 35 of
being the undoubted notion of Loyalty How should the Church of England ever dream of appropriating it to her self since Obedience to the Laws of their Country has always been practised in all Nations by all Vertuous men whatsoever It being a point of Common Honesty and Justice That men should abide by those Laws which either themselves or their Proxies have made and to which in one way or another they have given their own Consent which always concludes and is binding to an Honest Man Only there is one sort of men in the World who can never be Loyal because no Man can serve Two Masters the Government of his own Country and the Pope of Rome They who have a Legislator abroad to give them new Laws and a Dispencer to Repeal the old ones can never be true and firm to the Laws of their natural Country Their Loyalty is in Abeyance to the Popes Laws which agreed even with the Old Laws of England before the Reformation like Fire and Water as Archbishop Cranmer proves in his large Letter to Q. Mary and their Allegiance is pinned upon the Popes Sleeve In the mean time the Church of England has very great reason to insist upon her Loyalty because if a man be not a Lawful man he is defeated of the benefit of the Law in many cases Whereas the Members of the Church of England are able to use the Old Legal Exceptions against their present Accusers Siri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a la foy le Roy cest pravor est selon hors la foy le Roy. Sirs I am a Lawful Man and in Allegiance to the King and this Accuser of mine is a Felon or a Traytor and never took the Oath of Allegiance And we are ready to joyn Issue with them upon this Point whether they or we be the Lawful Men and which of us are guilty of High Treason against the King and the Realm Felony Misprision of Treason Praemunire and are utterly Disabled by the Law to hold any Office either Civil or Military not only by the Statutes made in Q. Elizabeths time but also in the Reigns of King Iames and of King Charles the Second And therefore as often as we are taxed in our Loyalty we shall only ask them what Laws we have broken Or whether it be We or They who hate the Laws of the Land and are continually Exclaiming against them and would blow them up with as good a will as once they attempted to blow up all the States of the Kingdom in the Parliament-house where those Laws were made and for that very Reason because those Laws were made there See 3 Iac. c. 1. the Statute which is yearly read in our Churches on the 5th of November Having thus explained the true sense and meaning of Loyalty it is easie for every body to apply it and to Justifie the Church of Englands carriage and behaviour both in her Infancy and now in her Old Age by the way Old Folks and Threatned Folks live long And to shew that it has been according to the Laws of the Land Which if they had broken and opposed as the Papists have done they might then be charged with Disloyalty indeed But while they continue to keep the Laws by the Grace of God the Laws will keep them for so long the Law enables them to hold their own they can challenge the Benefit of the Law they can claim a Legal Protection which is far better than any which is Illegal and Arbitrary Uncertain and Precarious and they are on the better side of the Hedge of all the Violators of the Law whatsoever I shall not need therefore to trouble my self with the Remainder of this new Test any otherwise than by making some very short Notes upon the most remarkable passages in it I. The first charge is That the Church of England Assisted Usurpers to Invade the Crown meaning the Lady Iane and Q. Eilzabeth As for the first of these I cannot see how it can be charged upon the Church of England because the Protestants were divided about Q. Ianes Title some were for it and some were against it as particularly Judge Hales and the Suffolk Gospellers who stuck to Q. Mary and were but sorrily rewarded for it But to wave Q. Ianes Case and what might be said concerning it from the Statute 11 Hen. 7. c. 1. I think this is a very fair offer That when the Papists have answered for all the bad Titles which were set up in the times of Popery which were at least in the proportion of two bad ones for one good we will then answer as well as we can for that single one which has happened since the time of the Reformation The other Usurper which the Church of England Assisted to Invade the Crown was Q. Elizabeth a known Bastard It is well known that a Popish Parliament then sitting acknowledged her Title and Assisted in setting her upon the Throne and not the Church of England which was then driven into Corners and into Foreign Countries and was not in a Condition to Assist any body And whereas Q. Elizabeth is said to have been a known Bastard the Church and Court of Rome knew the Contrary For they knew that her Mothers Marriage was good because the former Marriage was naught And the former was Confessedly naught because it wanted the Pope's Dispensation and Licence which was bought with a mighty summ of Money to make it good If it had been Lawful in it self it had not needed the Pope's Dispensation to make it Lawful And we are willing to refer it to all the World whether the Pope's Dispensation can make an Unlawful Marriage to be Lawful II. We are told That the Prelatick Protestancy called the Church of England enacted those Bloody Cannibal Laws to Hang Draw and Quarter the Priests of the Living God. I Suppose he means the Mass Priests Now these Canibal Laws were made to Hang them not as Priests but as Traytors and Traytor-makers But I would fain ask Might not any Sheep-stealer or Cut-purse in Newgate exclaim against Persecution and the Bloody Canibal Laws with a much better grace That a Man made in the Image of God should be Hanged like a Dog for such trifles as a Sheep or a little loose Pocket-money Whereas the Law of God only required Fourfold Restitution in those cases and in some Countrys Stealing was not only Lawful but was encouraged as an Accomplishment But on the other hand In Gods own Government Idolatrous Priests were to be put to Death And by the Law of Nations in all Countrys whatsoever Spies Deserters Adherents and Emissaries of a Publick Enemy as by our Law the Pope is to us and by his Law all Hereticks are Declared to be to him are all to be Hanged up And then as for the Mass Priests being called the Priests of the Living God I appeal to the Senses and Understanding of all Mankind Whether the Lord God the Maker the