claim any jurisdiction apart or make separation therefrom upon allegation of any extraordinary sanctity or neerer degree of imploiment in Religious affairs for this were to overthrow the main scope of the Church before set down And therefore since humane preservation and Peace is the end of Religious as well as Civil associations it will therefore follow that as each State hath its rule entire and absolute for the better preservation of concord and order so must each Christian State or Church much more have the like in as much as those precepts and directions leading thereunto are much more apparently within their Commission their duty and charge being to perfect and consummate that by a religious tie unto which natural perfection could not reach 9. And hereby it comes to pass that what was vertue or vice in a bare Philosophical accompt is now called righteousness or sin And so these Politick societies which upon the former light of natural reason took upon them the guidance of humane actions and were called Kingdoms and Commonwealths when they come to acknowledg subjection to this higher direction and rule are usually called Churches also And thereupon those that were formerly called Schismaticks in respect of separation or stubbornness to Ecclesiastick authority are now to be esteemed seditious and Rebels also if they do in any such thing disobey or oppose him that hath both these authorities conjoined For very hard it would seem if the same terms of separation should still be kept up against Christian Princes and Rulers as was formerly and they allowed no more honor and power being Christians then while they were Pagans But we will now proceed to shew what hath been the sense of the Church of England herein according to the doctrine of those that were eminent in it 10. As those of the Roman party had no doubt a design of stretching the Papal jurisdiction even in temporals by their engrossment of all spiritual power as Catholick head so hath it been always censured by ours as an unjust usurpation Therefore we shall find that the late Archbishop in his Answer to the Jesuite all along to disprove that claim of Universal head of the whole Church and sect 25. num 12. sheweth That after the conversion of the Emperors the Bishops of Rome themselves were still elected or confirmed by them without any title of Universal head until that John Patriarch of Constantinople having been countenanced in that title by Mauritius the Emperor who came afterward to be deposed and murthered by Phocas Phocas conferred on Boniface the third that very honor which two of his Predecessors had declaimed against as monstrous and blasphemous if not Antichristian And as he thus defends the power and jurisdiction of particular Churches and the chief Magistrate in them against the Pope so doth he defend the power and supremacie of this Magistrate over all that live within the same jurisdiction And therefore sect 26. num 9. doth set it down for a great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus That wheresoever there is a Church there the Church is in the Commonwealth not the Commonwealth in the Church and so also the Church was in the Roman Empire The truth is that at first and while some smaller parcels of the Roman Empire only were Christians then these being only of the Church might it be said to be in the Commonwealth first as being but a part and next but a subordinate part of the whole Empire or those that had jurisdictions therein But after that the Government it self became Christian then was there no question to be rightly made which was in which that is whether the Church in the Commonwealth or that in the Church For that both were one and both to be conceived included under that name of highest honor the name of Church importing as well our relation to God as to one another Whereupon also since for some Ages the authority of the Roman Empire did extend it self in a manner over all Nations that were Christian it might well come to pass that amongst the Writers of those times the Roman and Catholick Church might be taken as equivalent and alike which to use now is an absurd contradiction as implying a particular-universal for none other it is to call any man a Roman Catholick At the time the Emperor of Rome had the soveraignty or government of any Christian State then and there had the Pope or chief Bishop of Rome the like soveraignty in ordering of the affairs of that Church if the said Emperor so thought fit and to depart from that obedience or communion was then as I conceive not Schism alone but Sedition also But in case any that are neither within the Popes own territory nor jurisdiction but in the proper jurisdiction of some other Prince who yields only a voluntary conformity in doctrine and discipline to that Sea as Spain and France and other free Princes now do then are they that make alteration against the liking of that Prince or Power under whom they live not Schismaticks against the Pope of Rome but against him and if he approve of their doctrine they are neither Schismaticks nor Seditious As was the case of our Henry the Eight and those his Subjects of the Church of England which followed him and for ought I know was the case of Luther also in respect of his subjection to the Duke of Saxony 11 For it is to be considered that where the Jurisdiction doth divide and become independent there doth the notion of Church divide also as was to be seen in the Church of the Jews after they fell into two distinct Governments to wit that of Judah and that of Israel In which case although they had still but one divine Law and prescript form of Worship to live by yet the Government of each Kingdom being unsubordinate they were each of them reckoned as a Church apart and the good or ill Government of each of them attributed to none but the peculiar King thereof even as proceeding from his proper observance or breach of the Law And although the Primitive Churches in Saint Johns time had not yet any absolute Jurisdiction yet since what they had was independent we shall find that those Reproofs and Admonitions which were in the Apocalyps given to the seven Churches are directed to their several Angels or Heads apart without any hint or notice of subordination to any other Catholick Head or Curate save of CHRIST himself 12. I must confess that as the earnest desire and aim I have always had towards the silencing of disputes and civil commotions in Kingdoms hath made me the more earnest and studious in pressing the power and authority of each Prince so for common-peace sake again amongst Kings themselves and for taking off those irregularities and oppressions which each of them by this power might inflict on their Subjects I have many times entertained the thoughts of admittance of some such power like that claimed
the State in quiet also and prevent all those mischiefs we now so much complain of through changes therein The which of latter times have from hence chiefly taken their rise when such as are seeking to make themselves more glorious or powerful do daily make use of mens too great zeal and credulity in this kind as the ordinary Stalking-horse hereunto The instances whereof are plain enough in Christendom especially since it became so divided into Sectâ— for the advance of any of which as Gods Truth we shall ever find the notion of Reformation cried up and alledged but alteration in the State and those that are in rule therein is really brought in If we do but reflect on some more remarkable passages among our selves we may from that smal difference which was in the six Articles themselves from the Roman Doctrine well conclude that the preservation of the Popes power as Head of the Church here was more aimed at then truth of Religion insomuch as a dispensation was ready to be granted for every thing save for taking the Oath of Supremacy When on the other side again both Henry the Eighth and his Successors looked upon this foreign acknowledgement as a sure testimony of ill affection to them and their Government Nay the Law it self came to be resolute in that point â—oo accounting Popery to consist in the alienating and withdrawing of Subjects from their obedience to their Prince to raise sedition and rebellion c. 58. And so now also we find that presumption of malignancy and disaffection to the present Government and Governor is most taken from that great affection which is cast to the use of this book because in so doing they manifestly decline those acts and alterations which are made by him and do submit to what was done by another I have not heard that any man hath been particularly forbidden to read this Book that did in the use of it pray for the present Sovereign power according to the foâ—m therein set down and as always hath been used to be done towards them onely that were in present Authority If that be not done doth it not too plainly argue that some affection and zeal beside that of the Book it self doth guide them in this choyce Doth not the Scripture look to the present when it enjoyn obedience to the Powers that are and commands to pray for Kings and all that are in authority Doth it any where in this case leave us to a choice by distinction saying such as should be in authority or the like And is it not a general rule that where the Scripture makes no distinction neither should we No in this case we may presume that the present higher Power and Kings were meant without such distinction both for that they were aâ— that time such as might that way have been excepted against and also for that the words following that under them we may lead quiet and peaceable lives c. must determine the prayer to be made for that present Auâ—hority which we do live under and are subject unto Nor do I find that ever any Orthodox pen but did confess prayer for that person under whose protection they lived to be a duty incumbent upon all Christians without referment of them to distinctions and qualifications Nay doth not the Book it self in that prayer for the whole state of Christs Church militant here on earth interpret this Doctrine of the holy Apostle to include all and accordingly appointed us to pray for all Christian Kings Princes and Governors and when it comes with an especially for that person who shall be at present our Governour â—â— iâ— said because he is the right Heir or hath best Title or the like no it hath still respect to the divine authority of the Apostles precept and therefore presently gives the same reason that under him we may be godlily and quietly governed In which respect I cannot by the way but highly commend that those frequent and full expressions which were made for those persons that were still in chief power amongst us as proceeding from good principles even the sence of honor and esteem which was owing to that God whose Authority he did represent amongst us when as now we may observe that those that have been possessed of the same party with the Protector do yet either wholly neglect to pray for him at all at least to mention him therein and then do it so coldly and fumblingly that partly by the falling of their voyce partly by the conditional qualifications they mention in their prayer for him they give but too just cause to suspect they are not so rightly principled and perswaded concerning that high duty and respect which is â—â—e to him in this his relation for as it becomes not them in publick especially to censure him so also not to insinuate any thing that might give occasion for others to do â—o for this will be â—o pray rather against then for him But to return to the consideration of the Service Book I say that to prevent those jealousies and dâ—ngers which might happen to some amongst us through too much forwardness to read or abuse and partialy in reading it the said Book I have made all the foregoing Discourse both â—o shew what is truly fundamental and necessary in our Christian Faith and what rule to follow in our Christian Obedience and to give satisfaction in that particular of taking away the Service Book the thing for ought I see now most insisted upon I have to that end striven to evince that continual power which is continually residing in the Head of this and each other Church to abrogate as well as impose in things of that natuâ—e Unto the confirmation whereof I shall now onely by way of conclusion add that Testimony of the Universiâ—y of Oxford printed in the year 164â— who in their reasons against the Discipline and Directory in place of the Service Book fol. 32. say We are not satisfied how we can submit to such Ordinances of the two Houses of Parliament not haveing the Royal assent as are contrary to the established Laws of this Realm contained in such Acts of Parliament as were made by the joynt consent of King Lords and Commons Nor so onely but also pretend by repeal to abrogate such Act or Acts for since ejusdem est potestatis destruere cujus est constituere it will not sink with us that a lessor Power can have a just right to cancel and annul the Act of a greaâ—er Especially the whole power of ordering all matters Ecclesiastical being by the Laws in express words for ever annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And upon what head that Crown ought to stand none can be ignorant In this we see their plain concurrence in yeelding the power of abrogation of this Book to such as instituted iâ— even to him that should hold the Imperial Crown of this Realm And as for the words following which by
that power whereby themselves had power or that fundamental Rule or Law whereby themselves were made Law makers He that is in possession being the present Monarch by that Law established may by vertue of that Authority he hath over all under him for peace sake determine and enact that the Sovereign Power shall descend to his Heir and no doubt but he is therein to be obeyed by all that are his Subjects â—n case he be either naturally or politickly dead and those that were his Subjects become the Subjects of another then the fundamental Law that aims at continuance of peace by continuance of Monarchy must in like manner be presumed to determine the subjection and obedience to this present possessor and his Family Want of due consideration whereof we shall find one of the chief grounds why some of more consciencious sort as well of those that have as have not been of that party are so hardly drawn to conceive right of things of this nature and also for want of due distinction and differencing of that condition which through alteration of time may come to make the same person to contract a different guilt in the entrance into this place of power over it is in the execution of it How a man may be an unlawful intruder in to an Office whereunto a lawful power doth belong when yet being possessed he is lawfully to be obeyed by all that stand subjected to those that are in this place of power For want of which due consideration and how those exceptions and objections usually made against the lawfulness of Government gotten by Usurpation are to be as before noted differently understood in reference to the commander and obeyer much trouble doth many times arise for he though he may not lawfully hold the place by authority whereof he doth command yet ought he lawfully to be obeyed by the authority of that Office which he doth hold 11. Two great faults and mistakes therefore there may be observed which do daily administer occasion of much trouble in things of this nature by frustrating divine and positive Edicts of their true intent through their making so great a separation between those that are necessarily to this end conjoyned that is the power and person thereby impowered for while some would have obedience to the power onely as Gods Ordinance without due regard to the person they make the power vain by leaving no possibility whereby it should be reduced into act These being affected with so much ambition or impatience against Church or State Rulers are crying out with Core and his company You take too much upon you and power is in the whole Congregation in the whole people by which means they are about to usurp and keep the real execution of power to themselves while they leave to others onely the Titles and formalities thereof And some again having too personal regard herein and striving to make the worth and value of the power depend on their affectionate choyce do thereupon shrewdly hazard if not wholly defect that true esteem and benefit which is to be given unto and expected from this conjunction These may be reckoned of Ephestiâ—ns company that report not Alexander as King but the King as he is Alexander and in justification of this their opinion and the attempts of their Favorites in this kind comes the title of Usurper to be every where so commonly applied by the dispossessed and his Favorers to all persons in possession of power although they might perhaps have the better title of the two even as among our selves in that doubtful claim between the Houses of York and Lancaster each party threw it upon the other on purpose to withdraw the Subjects allegeance from his Adversary all that he could For although each party in presumption of his better title had agreed that obedience to an uâ—uâ—ped power was not lawful especially when known and voluntary given when as yet prejudice would not give them leave to consider that when obedience to this Power commanded by its proper Officer now in actual seisure thereof is always both lawful and necessary that is always lawful for Subjects to obey though not lawful for him it may be to continue in command 12. And if we seriously look into the true ground of these aspersions we shall find both the imputation of Vsurper fastned on him that commands and Flatterer on him that defends to proceed from heat and prejudice alone And therefore they seldom go rationally to work and shew what are those evils and inconveniences as in order to peace and publique good that do attend on subjection or acknowledgment of any that is now peaceably obeyed as in the soveraign power and that this is no way to be avoided but by striving to remove the person possessed Then indeed might they have had some ground for disobeying him themselvs and for calling others Flatterers that wrote or spake in his behalf But else to write or speak in the defence of him who by the Law of God and Reason and present Law of the Nation is to be so acknowledged and in a case too apparently tending to publike peace and good is not flattery but duty whereas he that out of private or personal regard would to the plain disturbance and unsettlement of the State perswade to a present obedience where there is not a present power may be truly called a Flatterer or Selâ—-â—eeker both as making his address and acknowledgment where it is not due and by being therein swayed out of discontent of something past or out of hope of increase of private advantage to come to himself by the change 13. And therefore in such like disputes as these passion or interest will be always subject to biass and mislead us in personal adherence if we do not lay aside our private respects and candidly and conscionably look back into those true grounds and reasons why obedience did originally come to be given to any one man at all being as heretofore we shewed Gods glory by mans peace And this will be found the most warrantable and surest way to discover unto us that person who at any time is to have it And to this end I have judged it a well-grounded Maxim Love the King for Peace sake and Peace for Gods sake For since none but God can be perfectly good so as to be loved for his own sake only so all other things being good but suo modo or according to their relation and that serviceableness and benefit they afford to other things that stand his creatures and witnesses of his goodness and glory amongst us they must still be personally loved and respected according to such their present relations whereas those that want that relation cannot out of any separate respect and value that is in themselves be esteemed right objects of that love and respect which is only due in regard of the relation it self 14. So that the way to cleer our selves of prejudices
theirs that are now Possessors although they were once Usurpers While they are in their act of usurpation they are to be resisted not only as opposers of publick quiet but of the Crown and dignity of the present Prince which in conscience as well as by oath we are bound to maintain But then if it happen that the Crown and dignity do by providence fall to him that was Usurper before the same consideration of duty and publick peace must enjoin us to loyalty where the Crown and dignity is all actors to his disturbance must be now resisted as Usurpers For as the Oath of Allegiance did personally before pass in relation to that Regal power he or his had or were like to have so when the person or family comes to be changed it must be presumed to pass in reason to those that shall be now possessed of those Regal powers to which it is due 46. But because â—ome Divines may perhaps make slight of the determination of Lawyers in this matter I shall confirm their judgment out of plain example in Scripture What think we of that panishment which David the King over Israel de jure did inflict on Baana and Rechab for their Treason against Ishbosheth that was but King de facto Nay what think we of the doing it by this King de jure before he was possessed of that Crown Again what other plea but Possession can justifie all those of Israel for adhering to him since the right was in David to rule over Israel as well as Judah To think that they knew not that David was by God appointed Ruler over Israel as well as Abigal 1 Sam. 25. 30. hath little likelihood nay it is plain that Abner knew so much by those words of his God do so to Abner and moâ—e also except as the Lord bath sworne to David even so I do to him To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan to Beersheba 2 Sam. 3. 9 10. Nay that all Israel knew so much appears by their speech to David after that Ishbosheth Sauls son was dead viz. In time past when Saul was King over uâ— thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Isreal and the Lord said to thee Thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be a Captain over my people Israel They make no Apologie for their past obedience to another set up over them by the power of Abner without any choice of theirs as may be presumed And yet being a King and possessed David is so far from blaming his Subjects for obedience that he calls him a Righteous person 2 Sam. 4. 11. that is to say one that by reason of possession ought to be esteemed righteous by such as like Baana and Rechab lived under him Nay if possession give not to Princes right to command their Subjects also I see not how David in that seven years war between the house of Saul and his 2 Sam. 3. 1. could be excused of that oath he made to him of not cutting off his seed after him 1 Sam. 24 21 22. For however the war be there set down as between the two houses yet it being to be looked upon as a National contest it became not David now in publick charge to prefer his private engagement before that engagement he now had taken upon him that is to preserve the common safety and liberty of his Subjects against all opposers however they might be well esteemed of by himself And the truth is that however all Kings are pressing that an Oath of Allegiance or the like should be express to them and their family yet since the whole reason for swearing to them and their family and in maintenance of their power was in reâ—erence to peace and publick good to be preserved by their power it must of consequence follow that being out of power that then the obligation of the Oath doth attend him on whom the power now rests for preserving that publick peace and good 47. And indeed if he should be an Usurper in any Monarchy which could noâ— prove his discent by direct lineal right from an Ancestor by God put in or instituted by Nature then all the Monarchs that are or have been in the world except some few that by express divine appointment have ruled amongst the Jews are and have been Usurpers or at least for ought appears to the contrary even for that they cannot or do not derive their pedigree from Adam in such sort as to evince that of all that Nation wherein they live and govern both their family and they in it ought by the rule of Primogeniture to have precedence to that Soveraignty according to the observation of the judicious Author of a Treatise called The Anarchy of a limited Monarchy who says f. 12. All Kings that now are or ever were are or were either Fathers of their people or the Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the right of such Fathers It is a truth undeniable that there cannot be any multitude of men what soever either great or small though gathered together from the several corners and remâ—test regions of the world but that in the same multitude considered by it self there is one man amongst them that in nature hath a right to be the King of all the rest as being the next heir to Adam and all the others subject unto him Every man by nature is a King or a Subject the obedience which all Subjects yield to Kings is but the paying of that duty which is due to the supreme Fatherhood Many times by the â—â—â— either of an Vsurper himself or of those that set him 〈…〉 Heir of a Crown is dispossessed God using the miâ—… wiâ—kedest men for the removing and setting up 〈…〉 in such cases the Subjects obedience to the Fat 〈…〉 â—ust go along and wait upon Gods providence wâ—… right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt Subjects in the obedience of anotner Fatherly Power In which as he hath in the beginning according to the most general opinion of the Royalist sounded Monarchy on Patriarchical Right so doth he end like a true Royalist indeed in directing Subjects obedience to wait on Gods providence in the appointmeet of this their political Father in like manner as they do of their natural For since right of Primogeniture and power of Government could not be conceived to be given to Cain out of personal worth but for preservation of peace and since no one now as David formerly can plead divine Right for the settlement of their Families therefore it must still follow that all Families being equal as to original right respect to peace and obedience must in conscience cause us to submit to that Person or Family which Divine Providence hath set over us 48. Nay and respect to the continual administration of Justice also unto which doubtless our Laws had an especial
regard when not onely the publick peace is called the Kings Peace but the Laws too are called his Laws being acted in his name as well as enforced by his authority so that to question or abolish his power of Judicature is not onely to overthrow Peace but Justice also Insomuch as if none should be at any time so lawfully possessed of the soveraign power as to challenge obedience no man then can expect a legal remedy for any injury offered him by another for how can he do me right upon my appeal if he may not lawfully command and the other be not bound to obedience And if another be bound why not I Would I be righted in my own particular by acknowledgement of his authority and do I yet think it haâ—d to joyn with all others in the like acknowledgement whereby the whole Commonwealth may have right Doth not protection necessarily imply and call for subjection as perfect relatives If I hold Land of another either by rent or service or both and do in that case think it reasonable in me to expect continuance of that benefit which ariseth by tenancy am I noâ— bound to give to him of whom I hold and have it that rent and homage which is due to the place he holdeth And would I not being a Lord expect the like from my Tenants Would I think it proper or reasonable that upon any of my Tenants presumption that I was noâ— so rightly seized as they conceived I should they might thereupon take liberty to withdraw their acknoweldgments and services even during the time they hold under me If this were permitted and some of the Tenants licenced to with-hold their Lords due upon every fair pretence they could make that way what great disturbance do we think would insue Doth not the instance between Nabal and David inform us that the rule of Reason and Prudence as well as Gratitude do justly call for obedience and compliance to a protecting power even in a case against the interest and leave of his present Prince and while he is neither possessed nor so much as claiming the whole Sovereignty and shall we think it yet reasonable that after this Sovereign power is wholly possessed and hath been generally submitted unto we may then with Shemei or Sheba out of particular love or relation to the last person or family as being allied by courtesie or kindred or out of some discontent at this renounce and cast off our subjection when we shall think fit 47. Surely no such a resolution can never find entertainment in any that is a true Cavalier indeed that is one that out of a true sence of duty and loyalty alone appeared on the side of the late King even because he was their King and their present Governour in chief I am for my part perswaded that as the most considerable body of that party consisted of the Nobility and Gentry so were they men of too much honour and ingenuity to joyn themselves that way in hope of any private advantage to themselves but rather resolved to hazard their own lives and fortunes in testimony of their loyalty to their present Sovereign And therefore I have cause to hope that no loss by that means to be sustained which the chance of war must render to one side or other can move them to be now so inconsiderately inconstant as to cease to be loyal at such a time as is apparently advantagious also All sinister construction and wresting of principles is most to be feared from such as appeared on that party not out of any such consciencious principle to their King as King but as they stood byassed by hope of gain or preferment such as these finding themselves defeated of their aims it is no wonder if they be found hardly reconcileable to those they conceive the Authors thereof but mutinous against them without any just sence of that publick detriment which must thence insue It being not unlikely also but thaâ— in case the King had prevailed those that were then the most forward in lifting themselves for the Royal party would themselves have proved the Kings greatest enemies if their covetousness or ambition stood at any time not satisfied to their liking no otherwise then we do plainly find now in some of those thaâ— were most zealous on the other side as if they were the most godly of that party who upon such like discontent are found most ready to turn enemies themselves to that party and protection under which they fought clearly evincing that it was rather gain then godliness that first engaged them It was for the conâ—â—â—ction of these and such as these and for prevention of such dangerous doctrines and practises as they might infuse into others to the abatement of ouâ— bounden duty on the one hand and the endangering ouâ— just punishment on the other that hath made me thus large in the discovery of all those things as they stand both in conscience and prudence considerable in themselves separate from all personal regard and prejudice 48. For if we be not very watchful against such like insinuations or what our own passions and prejudices may in these cases tempt us unto we may quickly mistake in our respect and censures of Gods Vicegerent amongst us no otherwise then St. Paul did in his answer to the High Priest at such a time as he stood much exasperated through sence of his present suffering under his command But what then if he fall mark how quickly he riseth If he be told by a Brother that it was Gods High-Priest he so answered he disputes noâ— his succession or legal election into that Office according to their former law although he could not but know that these were wanting in a far higher measure then can be now objected But he being now in Moses seat the Seat of supreme autority applies the Text of subjection and respect to him Thâ—u shalt not curse the Gods nor revile the Rulers of the people As if on purpose to leave us a president that no such supposition could hereafter warrant any mans disobedience or contempt of Authority It will therefore concern us to be very watchful against all temptations of like kind as that which is but too subject to prevail upon flesh and blood For however such things may have a religious appearance put upon them by him that can transform himself into an Angel of light yet by their fruits we may know them to be none other then works of flesh 49. When therefore we read that this blessed Apostle and true Saint indeed Saint Paul himself is finding a law in his members warring against the law of his mind and bringing him into captivity unto the law of sin Shall we â—uch as we think we are free have we not rather just cause to doubt that siâ—ce he notwithstanding that abundant grace and revelation given him could not at all times dâ—scover and bear against this enmity even against this sinister construction
and of Soepter in the singular number we may well understand the King before mentioned And however the Pâ—ophetick designation of Monarchical government to succeed as under the notion of Kings as the adopted Father of each Country took not place until Moses but that those that were the natural Fathers of the Tribes and had right of Government by primogeniture continuâ—â— as Princes and Rulers yet their as he was the first that was so stiled being King in Jesâ—uâ—â—â—â— even as the succeeding Judges may be so well called for that in the inter-regnum it is said there was no King in Israâ—l so shall we â—ind Moses again as expresly foretelling that they should have a King as that they should possess the Land For the words to each Promise run absolute Dent. 17. 14. When tâ—â—u art come into the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shâ—lt possess it and shalt dwell therein and shalt say I will set a King over me like all the Nations that are round about me c. It is not said If thou shalt say no such conditional but an express duty or prophecie For the conjunction and here used and shalt possess it and dwell therein and shalt say makes all of them equally certain as certain in the blessing of Kingship as in that of the promised Land it self Of all which I have formerly at large discoursed and have briefly here premised to unprejudice such as are averse to Monarchy or the acknowledgment of the power of Kings in the Church and shall now treat of the Church it self and of its proper cognisance and power in which we shall have farther occasion to assert this Kingly superintendencie CHAP. II. Of the Church Catholick and of the power and jurisdiction of each particular Church and Head thereof THe word Ecclesia or ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English Church doth originally import a Company called forth or men met together upon some special occasion But the Scripture treating of Religious matters applies that notion to Meetings made to that end And therefore that Assembly which Demetrius and his Craftsmen made is called by that name But then farther because to be called forth must presuppose some person or persons having power so to do and also to propound and regulate what shall be disputed of or determined in these Assemblies in that respect again we after find that those things which in the former unruly meeting could not be composed are by the Town-Clark promised to be determined in a more lawful Church or assembly to be called according to Authority All Religions agreeing in this truth that without observation of Government and Order both Church and State will quickly run into confusion After Christianity had a while been professed this name by way of excellence was appropriate to them and those of their communion Insomuch as in the beginning thereof and while the Land of Jewry did contain the whole number of Believers or that the Christians there or elswhere had not cast themselves into any proper or distinct forms of regiment all such as stood as well separated from the world as associated amongst themselves by their joint profession of the same faith stood only distinct from the rest of the world by the word Church or Church of Christ Catholickly applied without distinction thereof into parts in respect of any local application But when afterwards they came to be dispersed into several Cities so distant from one another in place and so different in jurisdictions as to require some form of Ecclesiastical discipline to be setled amongst themselves for their more orderly service in their Religion it came then to pass that as those that had begotten them in the faith and been their spiritual fathers and instructors had chief authority herein so were those their Churches and followers distinguished by topical additions as the Church or Saints at Rome at Corinth at Ephesus or the like By the use of the word at such a place and not saying the Church of Rome of Corinth of Ephesus or the like as now we do the Church of Rome England Geneva c we are to conceive that as the first Believers were in respect of this separation from the rest of the world in faith and some religious exercises called by the name of a Church so these in those several Cities wherein they lived were called Saints or Church at such a City and not of as betokening that they were aswel but a part of that City as to civil regiment as also a part of the whole Catholick Church now subordinate to some separate Authority in the exercise of their Religion But then we are to conceive that although this separation of theirs from others of the same City both in their meetings and holy exercises were done in order to their Religion yet was it not the quality of any Religion as such a Religion but difference in rites and form of Worship and in meeting thereabouts from that other Religion which was publikely authorised in that place which made it preserve this name of Church as taken in its proper sense And therefore as before said we shall usually find that the Addition of the Church of God or of Christ is put to distinguish as well as to dignifie it above other religious Congregations that were not such And upon this reason it is that we never read in the Scripture that the the word Church is applied to the Jews although they were a Nation separate from all the rest of the world both in their Religion it self and in the Ceremonies thereof even for that it was all one and the same with that which the publick Authority of that place did appoint and allow Whereas when Christianity first began amongst them the first Professors thereof being but subordinately divided were set down as a Church or Congregation of men in that respect separate saying The Church or Church of Christ which is at Jerusalem Which being considered we need not wonder why S. Paul should proceed to no higher punishment then that of Excommunication against a Blasphemer or an incestuous person or the like who by the very heinousness and nature of their sins might be presumed not greatly desirous of their Communion even for that it was at that time all the punishment he or other Heads of Churches could inflict wanting as before noted all coercive jurisdiction Upon which ground again we find not that the Jews did ever exercise this kind of punishment while they continued masters of their own soveraignty but comprising all offences under the same Law they punished transgressions of all sorts as breaches thereof when yet afterward in the time of our Saviour that the supreme power was in the hand of the Romans we find them both threatening and actually thrusting men out of their Synagogues But however such notorious sinners as those might in the infancie of Christianity set lightly of any Church-censure in that kind yet with the
But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant King or green head of the Church come to years of discretion Do your Bishops your â—ierarchy your succession your Sacraments your being or not being Hereticks for want of Succession depend on this new found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shamefull ends Impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chief Protestants as Doctor Andrews Wâ—tton c not held any necessary point of Faith And from whom I pray you had Bishops their authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greek Patriarchs receive spiritual jurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the baptism of Princes lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the Temporal Magistrate authority to preach to assoil from sins to inflict Excommunications and other censures Why hath he not power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King James either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gave Commission to some Bishops to do it And since they were subject to the Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as superior to them all and Head in the Protestants Church in England If we have no such authority how can he give to others what himself hath not Your Ordination or Conseâ—ration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no character can only consist in giving a power authority jurisdiction or as I said before Episcopal or Priestly functions If then the temporal Magistrate confers this power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but ordain and consecrate Bishops and Priests as often as he confers authority or jurisdiction and your Bishops as soon as they are designed and confirmed by the King must ipso facto be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or matter and form of Ordination Which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledg to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal Prince And therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledg that he hath spiritual jurisdiction or that your selves can receive none from him And afterwards again sect 22. he saith But besides this defect in the personal succession of Protestant Bishops there is another of great moment which is that they want the right form of ordaining Bishops and Priests because the manner which they use is so much different from the Roman Church at least according to the common opinion of Divines that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of Ordination as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise and will not fail to do if D. Potter give me occasion In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author cited here in the margent and then compare our form of Ordination with that of Protestants and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating Bishops or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtful they can never have undoubted Priests nor Bishops For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops nor can any be true Bishop unless he be at first Priest I say their Ordination is at least doubtful because that sufficeth for my present purpose For Bishops and Priests whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful are not to be esteemed Bishops or Priests and no man without sacrilege can receive Sacraments from them all which they administer unlawfully And if we except Baptism with manifest danger of invalidity and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated so Protestants must remain doubtful of Remission of sins of their Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true Church which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests nor without due administration of Sacraments which according to Protestants is an essential note of the true Church And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordination For first An. 3 Ed. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve years of age it was enacted That such a form of making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests as by six Prelates and six other to be appointed by the King should be devised Mark well this word devised and set forth under the Great Seal should be used and none other But after this Act was repealed 1 Mar. Sess 2. Insomuch as that when afterwards An. 6 7 Regin Eliz. Bishop Bonner being indicted upon a Certificate made by Doctor Horn a Protestant Bishop of Winchester for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacie and excepting against the Indictment because Dr. Horn was no Bishop they were all at a stand till An. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. the Act of Ed. 6. was renewed and confirmed with a particular Proviso That no man should be impreached or molested by means of any Certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act whereby it is cleer that they made some doubt of their own Ordination and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their Ordination which forsooth must depend on six Prelates the Great Seal Acts of Parliament being contrary one to another and the like So that you see all along the authority and interposition of the Magistrate is scoffed at and by them made ineffectual in the ordering of the affairs of the Church nay the Church must be no Church if not wholly and independently governed by the Clergy and a Clergy too that do particularly derive their Ordination and power from a forein Head and according to Rights and Ceremonies then abolished If none but true Priests can administer the Sacraments nor none but true Bishops make true Priests nor none but the Pope make true Bishops but that the authority of the Magistrate doth interpose why then no true Sacraments nor no true Church by their doctrine And to that purpose he doth put a mark upon the word devised as deriding the Civil power therein 38. If we shall add to this what was before him observed by Father Parsons concerning the institution of the Service-book and objected against the validity and use of it as well as the power to abolish their Mass and other Ceremonies it will make us wary in condemning less Alterations now made by a greater Power while yet we shall commend conformity to a less Power in a matter of greater alteration For he alleadgeth in his Book of the Three Conversions of England par 2. chap. 12. sect 25. That the Reformation and Service-book were made by the then Protector to Edward the
and thereupon render the abolition of it both just and reasonable Now as the abolition of the Masse Book was formerly in respect of like superstition cast towards it For the late Archbishop sect 35. num 7. punct 5. affirmeth that himself had heard some Jesuites confess that in the Lyturgie of the Church of England there is no positive Error And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us In like manner as now Conformists may be asked now when no positive error can be objected neither They answered saith he they could not do it because though our Liturgy had nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service So that if this answer were not valuable to excuse Refusants then I see not how the like can excuse any now 41. All which well weighed I know no effectuall answer to be made to such as have been Recusants or Non-conformists if we fall from that principle of acknowledgement of that Supremacy which the Church then gave the chief Magistrate amongst us accounting him in all causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supream Head and Governour If upon any pretence we forsake this hold we not only lose the direct way to unity and peace but do let in error on every side to over master and confound us And although this power were formerly given to the chief Magistrate while they had the stile of King or Queen yet if we shall impartially consider the intention of that Act whereby this power was exercised by the King we shall finde that it like all Laws having a regard to the perpetuall conservation of Peace Order and Unity did not limit it to persons so stiled onely but that it might be kept for ever did for ever unite it to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is to the Monarch thereof although no King nor more crowned nor anointed then some of the Roman Emperors were and accordingly we shall find Mr. Hooker to understand and apply it for reckoning up the Subject whereof his eight Books are to treat He saith The eight is of the power of Ecclesiastical dominion or Supream Authority which with us the highest Governour or Prince hath as well in respect of domestical jurisdictions as of that other forrainly claimed by the Bishop of Rome In which expressions of Highest Governour or Prince Prince signifying the same with Highest Governour or Governour in chief we may presume he meant it due to the King as Monarch and not to the Monarch as King And a great pitty it is that we had not the Book it self to have been further satisfied herein and in the power belonging to him But for want thereof we will adde the judgement of such others as have been generally held most famous in their generations 42. Bishop Andrews in his Sermon upon that Text of Touch not mine annointed proves at large that all persons in Supream Power are to be esteemed Gods annointed although material Unction and other Ceremonies be wanting as primarily he saith It was meant of such as were Patriarchs For saith he fol 798. in the first World the Patriarchs were principal persons and as I may safely say Princes in their generations and for such holden and reputed by those with whom they lived I may safely say it for of Abraham it is in expresse terms said by the Hethites Audi Domine Princeps Dei es inter nos Thou art a Prince of God that is a mighty Prince here among us As indeed a Prince he shewed himself when he gave battel and overthrow to four Kings at once Of Isaac no less may be said who grew so mighty as the King of Palestine was glad to intreat him to remove further off and not dwell so neer him and then to go after him in person and sue to him there might be a league of amity between them And the like of Jacob who by his sword and bow conquered from the Amorite the mightiest of all the Nations in Canaan that Country which by will he gave to Joseph for possession It was neer to Sichar well known you have mention of it Joh. 4. 5 Great men they were certainly greater then most conceive But be their greatness what it will this is sure they were all the Rulers the people of God then had and besides them Rulers had they none And that is it we seek Pater was in them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too Fatherhood and Government And these two made them Patriarchs unctos ante unctionem saith S. Augustine anointed before there was any material anointing at all And as he said it to be properly due to such and none but such as were Rulers of the people of God so because Christian Magistracie in the latter ages was mostly executed by and under the notion of Kings so doth he afterwards prove how they were to succeed in this right Which done he proceeds to censure that usurpation of power foreignly claimed by Pope and Cardinals who under pretence of this title would enter common with Christian Kings proving that thirty three times in Scripture the terms of Gods anointed are used and no where to be applied to any but Patriarchs Christ himself or of Kings all shewing farther that others Priests Prophets or the like although they were anointed and might be so called yet were never stiled the Lords aâ—ointed it may be uncti but not Christi And then setting forth the Kings more proper claim to this title as being chief Christian head he after asks Who be they If we go by the book Princes why then touch not Princes that is such as are in principal power or Rulers in chief And thereupon he after adds to take their supposition off that thought this Authority depended on the Ceremony of Unction or the like fol. 800. This claim by the Ceremony is clean marred by this Text For when these words here were spoken there was no such Ceremony instituted it was non ens no such thing in rerum natura that name not up til Moses Now these here in the Text were in their graves long before Moses was born no meos then no claim by the Ceremony And after it came up no Priest went out of Juâ—â— to Persia to carry the Ceremony to Cyrus yet of him saith Isaiah Haec dicit Dominus Cyro Christo meo Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus mine anointed And yet never came there any oil upon his head So that even after it was taken up yet the Ceremony and the claim by it would not hold The truth is the Ceremony doth not any thing onely declareth what is done The party was before as much as he is after it Onely by it is declared to be that he was before and the which he should have been still though he had never so been declared The truth may and doth subsist as with the Ceremony so without it It
Moses the owner still the right remains in him their sounding of them deprives not him of his interest alters not the property Erunt tibi must still be true that right must still be preserved It may be if we communicate with flesh and blood we may think it more convenient as some do that God had delivered Moses and Aaron either of them one But when we see Gods will by Gods word what it is that Moses is to have them both we will let that pass as a revelation of flesh and blood and think that which God thinketh to be most convenient Now then if the Trumpets belong to Moses and that to this end that with them he may call the Congregation these two things do follow First that if he call the Congregation must not refuse to come Secondly that unless he call they must not assemble of their own heads but keep their places Briefly thus The Congregation must come when it is called and it must be called ere it come These are the two duties we owe to the two Trumpets and both these have Gods people ever performed And yet not so but that this right hath been called in question yea even in Moses own time that we marvel not if it be so now and both these duties denied him even by those who were alive and present then when God gave him the Trumpets But mark by whom and what became of them The first duty is to come when they be called and this was denied in the 16 Chapter following ver 12. by Core Dathan and their Crew Moses sounded his Trumpet sent to call them they answer flatly and that not once but once and again Non veniemus they would not come not once stir for him or his Trumpet they A plain contradiction indeed neither is there in all that Chapter any contradiction veri nominis truly and properly so to be called but only that You know what became of them they went quick to hell for it And wo be to them even under the Gospel saith Saint Jude that perish in the same contradiction the contradiction of Core The second duty is To be called ere they come This likewise denied even Moses himself that they in his place might not think strange of it in the 20 Chapter of this very Book Water waxing scant a company of them grew mutinous and in â—umultuous manner without any sound of the Trumpet assembled of themselves But these are branded too the water they got is called the water of Meriba And what followed you know none of them that drunk of it came into the Land of Promise God swore they should not enter into his rest Now as both these are bad so of the twain this latter is the worse The former that came not being called do but sit still as if they were somewhat thick of hearing But these latter that come being not called either they make themselves a Trumpet without ever a fac tibi or else they offer to wring Moses's Trumpet out of his hands and take it into their own Take heed of this latter It is said there to be adversus Mosen even against Moses himself It is the very next forerunner to it it pricks fast upon it For they that meet against Moses's will when they have once throughly learned that lesson will quickly perhaps grow capable of another even to meet against Moses himself as these did Periclitamur arguiseditioâ—is saith the Town-Clark we have done more then we can well answer We may be indicted of Treason for this days work for coming together without a Trumpet And yet it was for Diana that is for a matter of Religion You see then whose the Right is and what the duties be to it and in whose steps they tread that deny them Sure they have been baptized or made to drink of the same water the water of Meriba that ever shall offer to do the like to draw together without Moses's call And now to our Saviour Christs Question In the Law how is it written How read you Our Answer is There it is thus written and thus we read That Moses hath the right of the Trumpets that they to go ever with him and his Successors and that to them belongs the power of calling the Publick Assemblies This is the Law of God and that no Judicial Law peculiar to that people alone but agreable to the Law of Nature and Nations two Laws of force through the whole world For even in the little Empire of the Body natural principium motus the beginning of all motion is in and from the Head There all the knots or as they call them all the conjugations of sinews have their head by which all the Body is moved And as the Law of Nature by secret instinct by the light of the Creation annexeth the Organ of the chiefest part even so doth the Law of Nations by the light of Reason to the chiefest person and both fall just with the Law here written where by erunt tibi the same Organ and Power is committed to Moses the principal person in that Commonwealth The Law of Nations in this point both before the Law written and since where the Law written was not known might easily appear if time would suffer both in their general order for conventions so to be called and in their general opposing to all Conventicles called otherwise 49. Afterwards he shews how practise ran in this point and shews that Joshua the next to Moses in chief Magistracy succeeding in execution of this power When he not Eliazar assemble all the Tribes Levi and all to Sichem Josh 24 called them together at the first verse dissolved it at the 28. Which being in a matter Ecclesiastical he doth as he says particularly note because it is by some objected concerning Moses that for a time he dealt in matters of the Priests Office Then he doth descend to the state of their Kings and shews particularly how they used this power till the Captivity In which he shews how it was used by Mordecai when he came in place of authority appointing the days of Purim and calling all the Jews in the Province together to the celebrating of them After the Captivity he instanceth in Nehemiah his using of it and so falls to the Maccabees and proves it used by those that were then chief Governours Afterwards he tells how this power was exercised by Christian Emperors and Kings upon their first receipt of Christianity and instanceth in general and National Councils and Assemblies Amongst whom we may not onely say that not onely Constantine Jovianus and others the prime Founders and Restorers of Christianity dâ—d not come in by the election of the Senate the way which was then held lawful but that they and most others were brought in by the force of a prevailing party nay commonly at first set up by one part of the Army only and yet the Christians in those times gave them always the
same respect and obedience which was by the Law of God due to their Governor in chief So that he that shall read their Stories and observe the legality of their entrance will not beleeve as I said that Bishop Andrews in what he said against such as Nimrod did ever intend that such like Usurpations as might by some be attributed to those should ever take from any that respect and subjection which did belong to the Lords annointed and Head of the Church 50. Afterwards the Bishop shews how Constantine and his Successors held those Trumpets for a Thousand years after Christ and then one of them saith he fol 113. by what means we all know was let go by them or gotten away and carried to Rome But that getting hath hitherto been holden a plain usurping and an usurping noâ— upon the Congregation but upon Princes and their Rights and that they in their own wrong suffered it to be wrung from them And why Because not to Aaron but to Moses it was said Et erunt tibi To draw to an end it was then gotten away and with some a do it was recovered not long since and what you may please to remember there was not long since a Clergy in place that was wholly ad oppositum and would never have yeelded ought Nothing they would do and in eye of Law without them nothing could then be done they had incroached the power of Assembling into their own hands How then how shall we do for an Assembly then Erunt tibi was a good Text it must needs be meant of the Prince He had this power and to him of right it belonged This was then good Divinity and what Writer is there extant of those times but it may may be turned to in him And was it good divinity then and is it now no longer so Was the King but licenced for a while to hold â—his power till another Clergy were in and must he then be deprived of it again Was it then usurped from Princes and are now Princes usurpers of it themselves And is this all the difference in matter of the Assemblies and calling of them that there must be onely a change and that instead of a Forreign they shall have a Domestical and instead of one many and no remedy now but one of these two they mnst needs admit of Is this now become good Divinity Nay I trust if Erunt tibi were once true it is so still and if Tibi were then Moses it is so still â—hat we will be better advised and not thus go against our selves and let truth be no longer truth then it will serve our turns And this calls to my mind the like dealing of a sort of men not long since here among us A while they plied Prince and Parliament with Admonitions Supplications Motions and Petitions And in them it was their duty their right to frame all things to their new invented plot And this so long as any hope blew out of that coast But when that way they saw it would not be then took they up a new Tenet â—traight They needed neither Magistrate nor Trumpet they The godly among the people might do it of themselves for confusion to the wise and mighty the poor and simple must take this work in hand and so by this means the Trumpet prove their right in the end and so come by devolution to Demetrius and the Crafts-men Now if not for the love of the truth yet for very shame of these shifting absurdities let these phantasies be abandoned and that which Gods own mouth hath here spoken let it be for once and for ever true That which once we truly held and maintained for truth let us do so still that we be not like evil Servants judged Ex ore propris out of their own mouthes Let me not overweary you let this rather suffice 1. We have done as our Saviour Christ willed us resorted to the Law and found what is written the Grant of this power to Moses to call the Congregation 2. We have followed Moses's advise enquired of the days before us even from one end of heaven to another and found the practise of this Grant in Moses's Successors and the Congregation so by them called It remaineth that as God by his Law hath taken this order and his people in former ages have kept this order that we do so too that we say as God saith Erunt tibi this Power pertaineth to Moses And that neither with Core we say Non veniemus nor with Demetrius run together of our selves and think to carry it away with crying Great is Diana But as we see the power is of God so truly to acknowledg it and dutifully to yield it that so they whose it is may quietly hold it and laudably use it to his glory that gave it and their good for whom it was given Which God Almighty grant c. I have the more largely made recital of this Sermon because all along it is so express in cleering of most of those objections which are now made Now as it was then in answer to the Recusants and Nonconformists of those times in which respect I fear that what is let down towards the end thereof touching stubbornness in conformity towards the chief Magistrate in matters of Reformation when it shall be by him thought necessary will but too neerly condemn some amongst us with apostacie and tergiversation from their first principles and that ex ore proprio as he saith because they do now deny him the exercise of that power which hitherto themselves and the most eminent of their party have maintained to be their due For he sheweth that since the Church hath her Wars to fight and her Laws to make as well as the Civil State that therefore it is as necessary there should be a continual power to call and preside in all Assemblies made to that purpose in the Church as well as in the State That these Trumpers are to be of one peece Vnus juris That this power is from God immediately derived unto one without first setling it into any body collective at all And therefore truly if a whole National Church can claim no Church power no one party or separate Order therein can although they should be as eminent as Aaron himself No both powers are delivered to Moses not for his time onely but as he had it as the chief Magistrate so to succeed to such as should be chief Magistrates amongst the people of God as a Jus Regale to him that should be Rex in Jeshrune although in strict propriety he be no more King then Moses was And then he censures such as would in regard of their separate order sain have had a separate power It may be saith he if we communicate with flesh and blood we may think it more convenient as some do that God had delivered Moses and Aaron either of them one But when we see Gods Will by Gods
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
and to understand things aright is to consider them in their proper ranks and conditions and to diâ—â—inguish them by their proper names Even to put a difference between such as are justly called Usurpers upon reasons before spoken namely by assumption of that power which by place belongeth not to them as for the Woman to usurâ— authority over the Man or Subjects over their Prince and such as do dispossess any of the place it self the which last are to be esteemed Disseisors or Intrudors For although the wrong done by the Disseisor be greater then that of the Usurper as to the party dispossessed yet in respect of their right to obedience the first hath only right herein of the two the other having none at all And therefore in reference to that necessary conjunction which is to be upheld in the union of the person with the power 't is wel to be observed how God hath joyned these two together to the intent that no man through interest or prejudice should put them asunder For where he enjoins subjection to the Higher Power as his ordinance and sets forth the penalty of doing otherwise he presently denotes it to be personally due by subjecting us to those that are Rulers For Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil that is they being possessed of this power are to be expected just avengers of Resistance therefore called evil because the cause of so much evil And then when it after follows Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same it is presently appropriate to that person which God in his providence hath set over us For he that is this person is the Minister of God to thee for thy good that is Gods Deacon or Vicegerent in preservation of Peace by means of this submission And so it afterwards followeth He beareth not the sword in vain and He is the Minister of God c. And as we find the power and person thus conjoined so that it might be always effectual to this end it is also enjoined in the present tense without any exception to the lawfulness or validity in the title to enter or rule by when it is said The Powers that are that is the Powers in being are ordained of God He is and He beareth c. And so also when we are elswhere enjoined to make prayers for Kings and all that are in authority that under them we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty these words that are in authority denoting present authority cannot as heretofore noted warrant any exception to be made by those that are to obey For then it should not be effectual to the leading of a quiet and peaceable liâ—e nor would the duties pertaining to Godliness be so duly and freely exercised And we may consequently conceive that obedience and subjection is not to be given to such as are not in authority nor to Powers that are not in being And that Text especially where we are commanded to fear God and the King and not to meddle with those that are given to change will be expressed in obedience to the King or person in present power and possession For why else should we be forbidden to seek to change him or meddle or joyn with them that would do so in such unlimited words If to seek to change by way of sedition had been thought lawful for Subjects upon any ground by him that said That against the King there is no rising up then surely this precept was very wrong put especially not having any such exception for rather the word not should have been left out and the precept have been Meddle with them that would change or are seditious towards it for sedition must precede change in that kind 15. And if we do not carry an equal and impartial respect to persons dignified by Gods Ordinance we shew plainly we have no respect to his Ordinance at all but would have it an Ordinance of our own When as the power thereby claimed is to be at no time of value without our approbation and by this means fall within the compass of Saint James his reproof To have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons For as in his instance if those that are unequal in worldly honor or title are yet equally to be respected as they stand equally our Christian Brethren so also such as are now in power are for their power sake and for the honor of him that ordained it to be equally respected and obeyed however there might be a greater share of outward worldly title in one man then another So then we may see the way to be a constant Royalist is to be a constant Loyalist not to respect the power or place for the persons sake but the person for the place and power sake And thereby according to our duty having respect to God and his Precept before our own If we do not this he that to day was Loyal may to morrow be brought turn Rebel and Traytor through that change of Families which stories do tell us have in this thrust out one another 17. But some would make Prescription the onely way to lawfulness in possessions of things of this nature as well as it is for silencing of Claims between Subjects in their private possessions but since they have not yet nor cannot upon any true ground agree in limiting of this time it argues the thing it self to be but a fruitless invention For although towards the ending of Suits and Quarrels each State and Kingdom do by Laws of its own prefix a certain time in which possession shall in certain cases be a good plea in it self against all other yet this Law being positive bears always an exception to the Law-maker himself as having continual power to right himself and all others in case of equity according to that maxim Nullum tempus occurrit Regi And therefore although it may be available to silence private titles in regard of a superior power to appoint it and see it executed accordingly yet it will not thereupon follow that Subjects may fancy any such Laws to bind their Prince by And therefore when questions of this kind shall arise for confirmation of Law-makers themselves I know not any Superior under God himself who shall ascertain this prescription and see it executed accordingly And if we but mark the thing it self in its original rise and ground we shall find them gain-saying themselves and laying that very first possession which they disallow for a foundation of that which they would have to be right afterwards For in such variety of times prescribed suppose it should be a Hundred years when and where must we begin to accompt Must it be from the first day of the parties secret plotting or attempt to get into this place of power How shall that be truly known And if you leave that
entring the Land durst not claim any right to the Crown as his right but onely to the Dukedom of York wearing also the Badge of Henry the Sixth's eldest Son in tâ—ken of his Homage What shall we say when he after in cruel manner smoâ—e him on the face with his Gantlet and caused him to be slain by his own servants and caused also the Father to whom â—e had formerly done homage to be imprisoned murthered and scornfully buried a person so good that he was called by the name of the Holy Yet do we not find but for all this while he had possession he had due loyalty and subjâ—ction acknowledged unto him and the Crown entailed on his Family 73. Against the Right of his Son Edward the Fifth King Richard the Third enters and might well also be called Usurper because he exercised Kingly power before the other was actually dispossessed And yet as ill as he was otherwise also is he generally obeyed and fought for 83. Henry the Seventh succeeds but he not taking to himself Kingly power till he were in full possession is not called Usurper Although his title was not so good as the others whom we are however to expect to be called Usurper and Tyrant also the more to dignifie the other now in possession when as yet although the said Richard were an Usurper as to his Nephews he was none to him Again although Richard were dead yet were there others living and in England too of a far more lineal and legal claim to the Crown as was the Lady Elizabeth Daughter to Edward the Fourth and the Earl of Warwick Son to the elder Brother of King Richard George Duke of Clarence to whom and his Heirs the Crown was also by Parliament given by Henry the Sixth in case he should die without issue as he did And yet further he stood by Act of Parliament attainted of Treason and had his Lands and Goods with those of his followers confiscate to the said King Richard May he not also be called Usurper for that he not onely exercised Kingly power before he was married to the Lady Elizabeth the right Heir but that afterwards he never so much as joyned her name in Acts of State and Sovereignty when by the Law of the Land she should have been chief as was adjudged on the case of Queen Mary and King Philip. And although he also brings in a new Family to wit that of Tudor in place of Plantagenet yet being in possession of the Crown he hath not the stile of Usurpation so thrown upon him as to take off the Subjects duty of allegiance Nor do I think that any will commend them for Loyalty that did after rise in the behalf of Perkin Warbeck although the Subjects generally thought him to be the right Heâ—r indeed and no counterfeit 39. Henry the Eighth succeds him upon the same Title and Edward the Sixth him with very small dispute of their Right 40. Queen Mary finds another Claimer to retard her possession namely the Lady Jane Grey And truly had she not bestirred herself and frighted the other party by a much greater power I beleeve the other would with her possession have been generally reputed and obeyed as the legal Heir having all the State conformation could be then expected For the Lords of the Council that then acted all publick affairs caused her to be proclaimed in London and no worse a man then B Ridley in a Sermon at Pauls Cross perswaded obedience to Lady Jane and invighed earnestly against the Title of Lady Mary as witnesseth Stow fol. 1033. And it is like he might use the same motives against the succession of her as are recorded by Mr. Camden in his introduction to the Annals of Queen Elizabeth to have been used against the succession of her and her Sister also To wit for that the Ladies Mary and Elizabeth were by the Act of Parliament judged illegitimate which Act was never duely repealed notwithstanding that the King their Father had by the same Act declared that they should succeed in order after Edward the Sixth if his issue should fail and for that the said Sisters could not by the Common Law of England be Successors Hereditarily to King Edward because they were not Germans that is of the whole blood by Father and Mother but as our Lawyers term it of the half blood It was also signified that Henry the Eighth by his last Will and Testament conveyed the title of the Crown to the said Lady Mary or the Lady Elizabeth should marry with Foreign Princes which might revoke the Bishop of Romes Authority now banished out of England and subject the English under a foreign yoke And to the same purpose also were produâ—ed Letters Pattents of King Edward the Sixth made a little before his death and signed with the hands of many Noblemen Bishops Judges and others But all this notwithstanding those very Lords that had before caused her to be proclaimed finding afterwards themselves unable to put her into full possession they wisely laid Title aside proclaimed the other and made what haste they could to obtain her favour Dutifully and wisely preferring that which was the sure way to publick peace and benefit although hazardous and disadvantagious to their own before a more sure way to their own advance with the loss of that which was publick 41. What shall we now think of the lawfulness of all those transactions which all along in those times were performed to the several Princes here was there never any obedience rightly given but to Edward the Second and Queen Elizabeth because they two onely could prescribe as to the term of a Hundred years since the Crown was usurped by their Progenitors and this hapening to them but towards the end of their Reigns shall we conclude that what was done before or towards any other was not legally done and to be esteemed acts of fear and flattery more then of Duty How comes it to pass that the Laws made by these several Princes nay by Richard the Third himself are acknowledged for Laws of force If possession of the Law-makers place gave them a right to make laws will it not also give them a right to their Subjects obedience Beyond all which if we will be truly regarding the injury offered to the deposed Family and think our selves obliged to sâ—e right therein done without regard to the publick will it not follow that this injury being the higher and the more as the party doing it was nearer in relation or of kin to those he did it that therefore an Usurpation made by a stranger is not so heinous as where a Son usurpeth against his Fathers likeing as Edward the Third did or an Uncle against Nephews as King John and Richard the Third or one Brother against another or the like as is to be observed in this long story In which cases to alleadge they had consent of the people this will not make any thing lawful as
to their taking of possession more then it did that of Adoniah against the liking of David 42 Find we any in all this List of Kings and story of changings amongst them that left his stile and claim of Dei gratiâ or divine providence and stood upon that of lawful succession when they do still all along write themselves Henry Edward or the like By the Grace of God King of England c. not mentioning at all their Fathers or Progenitors name or the descent by which they did at first claim What is this I say but plainly to evidence to us that the best evidence of their right and tenure as Gods Vicegerents is that attestation of his Providence whereby they have been enabled to attain this possession Towards the Attainment of which the same providence doth ordinarily make use of succession until he hath some notable work to do and then sometimes of election by bowing the hearts of the people and sometimes of conquest as Lord of Hosts Yet can I never find that however those that were to enter for strengthning of their party and adherents were ready to make use of popular exclamations against Usurpers and to do their best to have it beleeved that the possessor was so yet as I said they being in possession stuck to that claim above all other A fresh example hereof we have in her that was Successor to Queen Mary and the last of the Family of the Tuedors or indeed of the English Nation that were Crowned amongst us For says Mr. Camden in his Annals of Queen Elizabeth fol. 18. Although in some mens opinions Bacons wisdome failed him on whom as an Oracle of the Law the Queen wholly relied in such matters for that the Act of Parliament which had excluded her and Queen Mary from succession of the Crown was not repealed upon which some seditious persons took occasion afterwards to attempt dangerous matters against her as being not lawful Queen yet saith he the English Laws having long since pronounced That the Crown oâ—ce worne quite taketh away all defect whatsoever It was by others imputed to Bacon's wisdom who in so great perplexity and inconstancie of Acts and Statutes whereas those things that made for Queen Elizabeth seemed to be joined with the ignominy and disgrace of Queen Mary would not new gall the sore which was with age skinned over and therefore applied himself unto that Act of the 35. year of Henry the Eight which in a manner provided for both their fames and dignities alike 43. So that we find that however Princes are in prudence willing to omit no claim that may make for their admission or security and that especially at their first entrance yet is seisure and possession held ever to be the steadiest support nay such it is in the express verdict of Law it self To which end I shall here insert the opinion of him that by Lawyers themselves hath been accounted the Oracle of the Law since in fuller confirmation of that Maxim before set down And that is the resolution of my Lord Coke who in the third Book of his Institutes f. 7 8. in the Title of Treason expounding the words of NÌ„re Seignior le Roy says that by le Roy is to be understood a King regnant and not of one that hath but the name of a King And then also he alleadges the instance of Queen Mary on whom as having indeed the soveraign power the word le Roy was appropriate although she were a woman and her husband at the same time stiled King of England And that the stile or title alters not the respect and obedience due from Subjects to Soveraigns more then it doth from Children to the Master or Father in which respect a Yeoman is as absolute in his relation as a Lord may appear besides in that instance of our Kings holding the soveraignty of Ireland under the title of Lords and not as Kings till of late times during which space they had certainly as great authority as afterwards and the Subjects there were in the same cases made Rebels or Traitors to him as Lord as afterwards to him as King Afterward he quotes in the margent the Statute of 11 H. 7. enacting That none shall be condemned for any thing done in obedience to the present King or Soveraign for so the words of the Statute are King or Soveraign He further saith This Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto non de jure yet is he Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute and the other that hath right and is out of possession is not within this Act Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto non de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void By all which it will appear that the Law directs our fidelity to NÌ„re Seignior our Soveraign Lord not confining it to the stile of le Roy or King to whom it is only due as being actually NÌ„re Roy our Soveraign Lord the King 44. By which we may see that the intention of Common and Fundamental Law of the Land was not by proper Acts made at the instance of and in favor to particular persons and their families to overthrow that first main design of Publike peace which was sought by appointment of a Successor in the Government The which because it was to be supposed to come to the Heir of the Possessor therefore were Subjects sworne to Him his Heirs and Successors still intending that it is not due to the Heir only as Heir if he be not also Successor For if so why did not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacie run as Grants of Land and of other inferior Offices of Power To him and his Heirs if none but his true Heir must be obeyed after his death or removal And therefore the Law by putting down that word of Successor did doubtless determine that obedience should go along with possâ—ssion as before noted 45. The Laws you see having publick regard will not be abused with these misapplied terms of Usurper or the like which passion or interest as heretofore noted had politickly sometimes wrested to serve as a snare to withdraw obedience from the person already in power when it was only due to him that did attempt to dispossess him And therefore they use not the term of Usurper more in this then other cases where he that takes possession of any thing by fraud or force is not called Usurper but Disseisor or the like even as here he is called a King by fact They knew well enough how to put a difference between the legality of their commands that are Usurpers while they were usurping and