marks And so the Act goes on prescribing still greater punishments for the second and third offences by way of mulct to the Queen and her Successors 34. But now what if her Successors come to enact against the use of it and be themselves Compellers and Threateners may we not then conclude that they may lawfully interrupt or at least the other be excused for being interrupted where before in a Subject it was unlawful to interrupt or let any Parson in the doing what was by the then Law established So that by this very Act as I conceive such as have a reverend esteem and willingness to use it are not only freed foro interno but by the Clause following enacting That no person shall be at any time hereafter impeached or molested of or for any of the offences above-mentioned hereafter to be committed or done contrary to this Act unless he or they so offending be thereof indicted at the next General Sessions to be holden before any such Justices of Oyer and Determiner or Justices of Assise next after any offence committed or done contrary to the tenor of this Act we may conlude he is freed foro externo also and may for ought I can find rest free from all danger while obedient to the Queens Successory she dying without an Heir 35. And if by reason of any Oath or Obligation received at Ordination or taking degrees some should think themselves farther bound They are also to consider that as neither any derived power can go beyond that which impowers it so are they also to presume that their intentions are alike even to maintain Peace and Order by Uniformity to what is enjoyned and not to raise disturbance by opposition And surely if Oaths Vows or the like were to be held of force in such a case I see not how any Jesuite or Priest could in reason no nor in Conscience be perswaded to recede in any thing from their obedience and conformity to the Papall Sea and Ceremony when as their Promises are not only more strict but confirmed by Laws more ancient and general and which are still in the same force 36. It is also farther to be considered that when after in the Preface to our Bibles it is set down That where heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm some following Salisbury use some Hereford use some the use of Bangor some of York and some of Lincoln now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one use And when in the directions following that Preface it is set down That all Priests and Deacons should be bound daily to say the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly except they be let by preaching studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause We are still to conceive that both Uniformity was aimed at and that the duty of Preaching was in the first place held necessary 37. And if we go to experience in their practise of this precept of reading of the Service Book then we shall find it apprehended as an injunction that did onely bind them ad semper velle but not ad semper agere as Mr. Hooker elsewhere speaks of Gods affirmative Precepts as Pray continually and the like and that thereupon few could give account of their daily use of it even when the hindrance of preaching studying or the like could not well be alledged as before noted And therefore if in a time when it was commanded the use of it might be forborn rather then preaching be omitted what may we think of them that in a time it is taken away will yet rather omit preaching then it to the great discouragement and scandall of many a man in his Christian obedience and Communion and to the great detriment of the nation in generall who in a time of scarcity are much wanting of that instruction which might be had from men of their abilities In which respect as I am my self a true lover of many of them for their learning and gifts in that kinde so hath the sence of mine own losse as well as that of others now made me thus large in this particular 38. But besides this and the want of satisfaction how they can in this condition uphold the Church of England in her former sentence against non conformity if upon the same score they shall slight her authority themselves They are next to consider what answer for their present Recusancy they can bring which on the other side shall not withall justifie the Recusants themselves in their separation from our Communion also For plain it is as I said before that as the drift of all the arguments brought formerly by the Papists against our Churches authority was in respect of usurpation in our Princes and want of succession lawfull ordination and the like in our Priests so was the sum of all their Doctrine that wrote in defence of what was done by us brought to this issue That these things were not essentiall to Salvation or to the being of a Church That each Christian Church having as heretofore set down a power within it self for ordering its own affairs had as well power to abbreviate or abrogate what was in former times or by other Churches instituted before as to institute that which was new so that the casting out from our Service Book and leaving out of our publike Forms of Worship all such Prayers Ceremonies and Observations as in the opinion of those that then had power in the Church had on the one side little or no footing in Scripture and which had on the other side greatest Superstition cast towards them was then held lawfull as by that Declaration annexed to our Bibles concerning Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained may appear And if it was then held agreeable and the Church thought a fit Judge wherein Superstition was most to be feared and what was the best way of Reformation how can we now change our Principle unlesse we joyn with the adversary to dâ—â—â—de the fact as done by the Civil power and Magistrate and with them neither own England for a Church nor him for head thereof Let us hear a little what Father Not the Jesuite in his Book called Charity maintained doth to this purpose alledge in his answer to Doctor Potter after some dispute Chap. 6. about the truth of our Ministery for want of Succession visibly derived from the Pope and Church of Rome he saith at last Sect. 20. But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gave authority to their pretended Successors The Primate of England but from whom had he such authority And after his decease who shall confer authority upon his Successors The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a child Queen Elizabeth a woman an Infant of one houres age is true King in case of his Predecessors decease
if he be not throughly satisfied in the right of his possession stands before God accomptable for the injury done to the dispossessed and what else shall happen in his regiment In which respect as his possession it self so the commands thereby imposed may well be unlawful as to the Imposer but cannot be so esteemed in the Obeyer He may be called Usurper by the dispossessed in reference to the place by which he is impowered but is not by the Subjects to be so thought in the execution of what is proper thereunto They are to look to Possession as an evidence of Right in it self for are not all mens Estates else called by that name do we not say Such and such men are men of great Possessions And if Subjects shall be put to guide their obedience and loyalty by other dark evidences who shall shew them and expound them but parties interessed and how shall they agree in them Do we not for peace sake say in other things that Possession is eleven points of the Law And will it not in this much more follow that it should be all twelve There one part is left open and free because Appeal to the Law-maker may make alteration But there being in this case no Superior on earth it is to pass as confirmed by God also till he in his providence shall make alteration 22. If this course should not hold but their obedience and loyalty should not be lawful if the Prince were not lawfully seised or made so by prescription there would seldom any time happen in any Nation amidst those many changes of Families wherein Subjects could warrantably obey for want thereof It was not I am sure the practice and opinion of Christians formerly They as they lived neerer the Apostles times so they followed more closely their precepâ—s and examples in subjection to the parties possessed of those higher powers they lived under If they should have understood S. Pauls injunction of subjection to the Powers that are to have no enforcement upon the conscience of any that could not be perswaded his present Prince or Emperor came in as a lawful Successor or by lawful election how could they have been at all times noted for such constant Loyalists notwithstanding there were very few but either in their entry balked the election and approbation of the Senate or people which at first were held only lawful authorities and as much afterwards transgressed the rule of hereditary succession by bringing in new families In which cases although to the eyes of all men it was apparent that force or craft set upon their present Soveraigns yet would not they forget their duty of loyalty to him however their Prince might have forgot to do justice to another And if to this end we shall but look to our Stories we shall find cause enough to retract this opinion of Disobedience being contrary to the sense and practice of our loyal Ancestors We will begin but from the Conquest because best known although more shifting have been before 23. Harold that preceded the Conqueror is chosen by the Nobility being then the prevailing party and though a stranger by family is yet generally obeyed notwithstanding the known right heir is amongst them even Edgar Atheling 24. Harold is thrust out by the Conqueror by force both a stranger himself and of a new family He is also obeyed notwithstanding the right heir is still living 25. His son William sirnamed Rufus dispossesseth his elder brother Robert and is yet generally obeyed although also the right heir be still living 26. After him the other younger brother Henry possesseth the Crown against the right of the said Robert still living and is yet generally obeyed 27. Next Stephen by help of Londoners and Nobility assumes the Crown and although he were of a new family yet is he generally obeyed notwithstanding the right of succession was in Maud the Empress and her issue 28. In the next Henry the Second begins a new family and in him indeed may we may find the first true usurpation for his own sons are taking upon them soveraign power their father yet living and possessed 29. He being dead Richard the First his son gets the Throne and is no longer to be called Usurper 30. King John next seiseth on the Soveraignty against the hereditary right of his Brothers son In his time indeed the Pope doth usurp authority to censure and depose 31. The next Possessor is Henry the Third who although the son of the said John is not yet cast off upon the score of Usurpation but generally acknowledged and obeyed But he was much troubled with the usurped authorities of some of his Peers and Parliaments who would often incroach upon the Soveraignty 32. Edward the First is the next Possessor generally obeyed atlhough entring upon the like claim as Grandchild to King John 33. To him succeeded his son Edward the Second towards the end of whose time Prescription of an hundred years from his Great-grandfather John might only have been pleaded to have made their obedience matter of conscience when on the contrary he hath the most opposition of all his Predecessors from his wife Peers and Parliaments all which usurp upon his authority 34. Edward the Third the next was not only a Rebel but a true Usurper in taking upon him to act in things of State without and against his Fathers leave being still in possession For however his claim was undoubted as to succession yet deserved he more then a stranger to have the odium of Usurpation cast upon him as being most unnatural Yet the Father being dead and he possessed of the Crown although the other had been forced to resign as he could not but well know we do not find that any man took upon him to disobey him afterwards as Rebel or Usurper 35. This mans Successor Richard the Second we shall find deposed and dispossessed by a prevailing party who set up Henry the Fourth as in right of the Family of Lancaster reckoning the other but as Usurpers whose Grandchild Henry the First is again dispossessed by that Family of York as Uâ—urpers whom they had called Usurpers before and all within the space of sixty years During which time and that of Richard the Second those that continued loyal to the persons in possession were certainly to be esteemed better and more consciencious Subjects then those those that opposed who could in truth be but Rebels 36. Although the next Edward the Fourth might well be called Usurper taking upon him as King while the other was yet living and in possession of part of the Country and when also by the Articles made with his Father and confirmed in Parliament Henry the Sixth was to reign during his life yet is he generally obeyed But then what shall we say of him when his Predecessor Henry the Sixth comes to be restored and repossessed again and himself being forced to flye beyond Sea and after he was publickly proclaimed Usurper
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
But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant King or green head of the Church come to years of discretion Do your Bishops your â—ierarchy your succession your Sacraments your being or not being Hereticks for want of Succession depend on this new found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shamefull ends Impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chief Protestants as Doctor Andrews Wâ—tton c not held any necessary point of Faith And from whom I pray you had Bishops their authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greek Patriarchs receive spiritual jurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the baptism of Princes lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the Temporal Magistrate authority to preach to assoil from sins to inflict Excommunications and other censures Why hath he not power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King James either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gave Commission to some Bishops to do it And since they were subject to the Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as superior to them all and Head in the Protestants Church in England If we have no such authority how can he give to others what himself hath not Your Ordination or Conseâ—ration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no character can only consist in giving a power authority jurisdiction or as I said before Episcopal or Priestly functions If then the temporal Magistrate confers this power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but ordain and consecrate Bishops and Priests as often as he confers authority or jurisdiction and your Bishops as soon as they are designed and confirmed by the King must ipso facto be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or matter and form of Ordination Which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledg to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal Prince And therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledg that he hath spiritual jurisdiction or that your selves can receive none from him And afterwards again sect 22. he saith But besides this defect in the personal succession of Protestant Bishops there is another of great moment which is that they want the right form of ordaining Bishops and Priests because the manner which they use is so much different from the Roman Church at least according to the common opinion of Divines that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of Ordination as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise and will not fail to do if D. Potter give me occasion In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author cited here in the margent and then compare our form of Ordination with that of Protestants and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating Bishops or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtful they can never have undoubted Priests nor Bishops For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops nor can any be true Bishop unless he be at first Priest I say their Ordination is at least doubtful because that sufficeth for my present purpose For Bishops and Priests whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful are not to be esteemed Bishops or Priests and no man without sacrilege can receive Sacraments from them all which they administer unlawfully And if we except Baptism with manifest danger of invalidity and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated so Protestants must remain doubtful of Remission of sins of their Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true Church which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests nor without due administration of Sacraments which according to Protestants is an essential note of the true Church And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordination For first An. 3 Ed. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve years of age it was enacted That such a form of making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests as by six Prelates and six other to be appointed by the King should be devised Mark well this word devised and set forth under the Great Seal should be used and none other But after this Act was repealed 1 Mar. Sess 2. Insomuch as that when afterwards An. 6 7 Regin Eliz. Bishop Bonner being indicted upon a Certificate made by Doctor Horn a Protestant Bishop of Winchester for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacie and excepting against the Indictment because Dr. Horn was no Bishop they were all at a stand till An. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. the Act of Ed. 6. was renewed and confirmed with a particular Proviso That no man should be impreached or molested by means of any Certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act whereby it is cleer that they made some doubt of their own Ordination and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their Ordination which forsooth must depend on six Prelates the Great Seal Acts of Parliament being contrary one to another and the like So that you see all along the authority and interposition of the Magistrate is scoffed at and by them made ineffectual in the ordering of the affairs of the Church nay the Church must be no Church if not wholly and independently governed by the Clergy and a Clergy too that do particularly derive their Ordination and power from a forein Head and according to Rights and Ceremonies then abolished If none but true Priests can administer the Sacraments nor none but true Bishops make true Priests nor none but the Pope make true Bishops but that the authority of the Magistrate doth interpose why then no true Sacraments nor no true Church by their doctrine And to that purpose he doth put a mark upon the word devised as deriding the Civil power therein 38. If we shall add to this what was before him observed by Father Parsons concerning the institution of the Service-book and objected against the validity and use of it as well as the power to abolish their Mass and other Ceremonies it will make us wary in condemning less Alterations now made by a greater Power while yet we shall commend conformity to a less Power in a matter of greater alteration For he alleadgeth in his Book of the Three Conversions of England par 2. chap. 12. sect 25. That the Reformation and Service-book were made by the then Protector to Edward the
sixth who it is well known had no such power and soveraignty in himself as our present Protector hath And to this end he saith And now Candles Ashes and Images being gone as you see there followed in the next moneth after to wit March that the Protector still desiring to go forward with his designment of alteration sent abroad a Proclamation in the Kings name with a certain Communion-book in English to be used for administration of Sacraments in stead of the Mass-book But whether it was the very same that was rejected a little before in the Parliament or another patched up afterward or the same mended or altered is not so cleer But great care there was had by the Protector and his adherents that this Book should be admited and put in practice presently even before it was allowed in Parliament To which effect Fox setteth down a large Letter of the Council to all Bishops exhorting and commanding them in the Kings name to admit and put in practice this Book We have thought good say they to pray and require your Lordships and nevertheless in the Kings Majesties our most dread Lords name to command you to have a diligent earnest and careful respect to cause these Books to be delivered to every Parson Vicar and Curate within your Diocese with such diligence as they may have sufficient time well to instruct and advise themselves for the distribution of the most holy Communion according to the Order of this Book before this Easter time c. praying you to consider that this Order is set forth to the intent there should be in all parts of the Realm one uniform manner quietly used To the execution whereof we do eftsoons require you to have a diligent respect as you tender the Kings Majesties pleasure and will answer to the contrary c. From Westminster the 13. of March 1548. By all which and by much more that might be alleadged it is evident that all that was hitherto done against Catholick Religion for these first two years until the second Parliament was done by private authority of the Protector and his adherents before Law and against Law c. 40. And if we look farther into the Preamble of the first Statute that confirmed this Book by him also set down a little after sect 35. we may find that the said Book was appointed first for Uniformity and next that it or some other had been set on foot before by the Lord Protector in the Kings name The words are Where of long time saith the Act there hath been in this Realm of England divers Forms of Common-Prayer commonly called the Service of the Church as well concerning Mattens and Evensong as also the whole Communion called the Mass c. And where the Kings Majesty with the advice of his most entirely beloved Vncle the Lord Protector and others of his Highness Council hath heretofore divers times assayed to stay Innovations or new Rites concerning the premisses yet the same hath not had such good success as his Highness required in that behalf Whereupon his Highness by the most prudent advice aforesaid being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his Subjects in that behalf of his great clemencie hath not been only content to abstain from punishment in that behalf but also to the intent that an uniform quiet and godly order should be had concerning the premisses hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and certain of the most learned and discreet Bishops to consider and ponder the premisses and thereupon having as well an eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scriptures as the usages of the Primitive Church should draw and make one convenient and meet order rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and administration of Sacraments to be used in England Wales c. The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost with uniform agreement is of them concluded set forth and delivered to his Highness great comfort and quietness of mind in a Book entituled The Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments c. Now truly I cannot for my part see how we can make either the first Imposition or receipt of this Book lawfull if we stick not to our main principle in acknowledging the present supream Christian Magistrate to be head of the Church which doubtless the Protector was in the non-age of the King And if those elder Reformed Protestants amongst us did well to conform to this authority in abolition of the Masse and other very ancient services and that notwithstanding the Book had been by Parliament already rejected there seems to me great reason to conform to what an Act of Parliament and a Protector of more power hath determined concerning another alteration of this kinde To think that the Book or the Ceremonies thereby appointed had of themselves separate from that Authority by which they were devised and imimposed any such inherent and divine worth as for their own sake to claim admittance and continuance were plainly to contradict the act it self and the Stories of those times which tell us by whom it was made and by whom commanded and it doth plainly cross the judgement of Mr. Hooker himself who in his answer to Mr. Travers fol. 471. may be found giving sentence for indifferency in the use of these things as in themselves by the instance of kneeling sitting or walking at receiving of Sacraments his words are An order as I learn there was tendred that Communicants should neither kneel as in the most places of the Realm nor sit as in this place the custome is but walk to the one side of the Table and there standing till they had received passe afterwards away round about by the other which being on a sudden begun to be practised in the Church some sat wondring what it should mean others deliberating what to do till such time as at length by name one of them being called openly thereunto requested that they might do as they had been accustomed which was granted and as Master Travers had administred his way to the rest so a Curate was sent to minister to them after their way which unprosperous beginning of a thing saving onely for the inconvenience of needless alterations otherwise harmless did so disgrace that order in their conceit who had to allow or disallow it that it took no place Was there indifferency and harmlesness in the use of these things then and now they onely inconvenient as causing distraction and scandall to the generality of other receivers and could Master Hooker record without censure the custome of that Congregation whereof he was Minister in receiving of the Communion sitting and for ought appears gave it so to them himself whereas yet the Service Book had appointed it kneeling and shall we now think of any inherent divine worâ—â—in the things themselves No sure this would but too plainly argue them guilty of Superstition that so maintain
may be retained as with some it is and with us it is and it may be spared as it is with others spared or retained all is one no claim groweth that way But last of all where it was used as by Samuel to Saul by Zadoc to Solomon yet they claimed nothing in the parties they anointed but called them still Gods and never their own anointed They knew no claim lay by it Nay if it had been a Sacrament as it was but a Ceremony he that ministreth the Sacrament hath no interest in the party by it but God alone and then much lesse he that performeth but a Ceremony is to plead any meos So that every way this claim vanisheth of Christi Pontificis Afterwards he reproves all claim made by the people of power over them as though they were their anointed or had his right to govern from their suffâ—ages And setâ— forth also by divers instances of personal failings both in Government and Religion as well among the Roman Emperors as others that no such pretence of fault could debar the person him that was in power of this priviledg and title so as to give liberty of touching him either with hand tongue or pen or the like For saith he It is the administration to govern not the gift to govern well the right of ruling not the ruling right It includes nothing but a due Title it excludes nothing but Vsurpation And he asks the question who is anointed and answers it on whom the right rests And so again he asketh Who is inunctus and answers He that hath it not that is as I conceive hath not this right by administration to govern or immediate possession of the Government If he be a Foreigner like the Pope he is to be accounted an Usurper as medling in anothers mans jurisdiction Or if he be as he after instanceth in Nimrod one who cared for no anointing thrust himself in and by violence usurped the throne came in rather like one steeped in vinegar then anointed with oil rather as a Ranger of a Forrest then a Father of a family he was no anointed nor any that so cometh in These words at first view will seem to a prejudiced Reader to contradict and overthrow all said before in defence of the authority and respect to be given to the chief Magâ—strate but when we shall have considered those qualifications that debar him this anointing and then whether it abate Subjects in their just obedience or him only in having just title to it and then whether this repulse and resistance of such an one may be made whilst he is first entring or afterwards also and by whom then made we may then well reconcile him to what was said before For first having spoken of that sacred power which belongs to each Christian King as anointed he was to oppose to it all foreign claim whether craftily entred upon as the Pope mentioned before or forcibly as now instanced in Nimrod especially if a Heathen or of another Religion in which respect he could not be reckoned among the Christi not caring for anointing or to have care of Church or Religion which is the drift of this Discourse When as if we should understand that every one that a discontented party will call Usurpers or do make a forcible entry may be by those that live under his obeisance withstood upon any allegation we make him contradict himself in commending that submission which Primitive Christians gave to their former Emperors although known Usurpers and some of them different in Religion 43. But he will be best understood to gainsay such kind of Liberty or meaning by the immediate following words But on the other side David or he that beginneth a royal race is as the Head on him is that right of ruling first shed from him it runs down to the next and so still even to the lowest border of his issue so that then you finde that it is not that which now is usually called Usurpation the possâ—ssion of the government by a new Person or Family that is Usurpation indeed for how then should any amongst Christians be thought a lawfull beginner of a Royal Race who in his possession must needs dispossess some person of the old family which could never be supposed to want some such relating to him in kindred as to be apparantly within the lowest borders of this natural Issue as he said before And if he did do so as David did to the family of Saul and have not the like Divine anointing and warrant as he had how shall Subjects be so guided in their distinction as not mistake and think every one a Usurper For if such an one be a Usurper then are Christian Kingdoms governed by a race of Usurpers Nay by Usurpers too if as he saith right be to be derived from the first beginner of a Race 44. And it is also to be noted that this derivation of right from first seisure as though his right were best even as Davids was better then any that followed doth contradict that fancy of prescription as meer fancy indeed wherein it is made worst or rather to have no worth at all but that the Successors do arrive at Lawfulness accordcording as by degrees they shall be removed from it 45. And to prove his meaning to be that Subjects may not upon any such Allegation rise or resist we shall finde him instancing in the case of Saul of whom he saith fol. 791. I verily think God in this first example of his first King over his own people hath purposely suffered them all to fall out and to be found in him even all that should fall out in any King after him to enforce their Position that so we might find them answered to our hands To touch them in Order they would easily have quarrelled at Sauls mis government Not at the first he then was a mild and a gracious Prince Never came there from any Princes mouth a more princely speech then the first speech he is recorded to have spoken Quid populo quod flet what ailes the people to complain A speech worthy everlasting memory so they complain not without cause But within a while he grew so stern and fierce as no man might speak to him Upon every light occasion nay upon no occasion at all his Javelin went straight to nail men to the wall not David onely but Jonathan his Son and Heir apparant and no cause why In the 13. Chapter it is said Saul had then been King a yeer and reigned two years in Israel yet it is well known his reign was fourty years Their own Writers resolve it thus how long soever he reigned he was a King but two years All the time after he was somewhat else or somewhat more then a King And they let not to tell what applying to Saul that of the Psalm Tyrants that have not God before their eyes seek after my soul And that Vnder thy wings shall
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