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
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
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
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
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 And hence he infers that in respect of this sole and supreme power the Church or Congregation must not come uncalled or refuse to come when called that is must not act against or without him but according to his direction in Church Affairs these being the two duties which he saith Gods people have ever duly performed to the two Trumpet No meeting without a Trumpet like Demetrius and his Craftsmen out of love to any Diana of their own liking as Nonconformists formerly did nor no slighting of the Magistrates call like Core and his Company out of conceit of equal holiness with him or in favor to the supreamacy oâ— some other Head as the then Recusants did After that instancing how the Magistrates here had been troubled with those of the Roman Clergy and with that of the Non-conforming party too who would neither yeeld that he should at all make Reformation nor like that he had made but would have those Trumpets and Powers in other hands he exhorts as I may do to constancy in this Doctrine saying That which we once held and maintained for truth let us do so still that we be not like evil Servants judged ex ore proprio 51. For when as it was by the Papists usually objected against our Reformation that no such thing was necessary since no such Heresie or Superstition was in their Doctrine or publick form of Worship as was alleadged and having in proof of them brought in divers Texts of Scripture and also produced evidence of general Practise of a Thousand years for most of them in that Church which at that time was held Catholick I do not for my part find but that the chiefest stress of lawfulness of Reformation lay as I said before in asserting the power of the chief Magistrate And that way ran the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury also who in his Answer to the Jesuite A C. Sect. 26. num 11. fol. 205. says Emperors and Kings are custodes utriusque tabulae they to whom the custody of both Tables of the Law for Worship to God and the Duty to Man are committed That a Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time to be given the King That the Kings under the Law but still according to it did proceed to necessary Reformation in Church businesses and therein commanded the very Priests themselves as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah who yet were never censured to this day for usurping the Priests Office That the greatest Emperors for the Churches honour Theodosious the elder and Justinian and Charls the Great and divers other did not onely meddle now and then but Enact Laws to the great settlement and increase of Religion in their severall times 51. If more satisfaction be requisite to assert not one the Kings Right to meddle in these things but even to shew the necessity of having a King to that very purpose iet us see the judgement of Bishop Andrews in another place where he is speaking upon that Text In those dayes there was no King in Israel and using these words fol. 122. This is not noted as a desert in gross or at large but even in Israel Gods own chosen people It is a want not in Edom or Canaan but even in Israel too the want of a King Truely Israel being Gods own peculiar might seem co claim a prerogative above other Nations in this that they had the knowledge of this Law whereby their eyes were enlightned and their hands taught and so the most likely to spare one others had not like light yet this non abstante their light and their Law and that they were Gods own people is no Supersedeas for having a King of which there needeth no reason but this That a King is a good means to keep them Gods Israel here for want of a King Israel began and was fair onward to be no longeâ— Israel but even Babel When Mica and by good reason any other as well as he might set up Riligions and give Orders themselves as it were in open contempt of God and his Law So that the people of God can plead no exemption from this since it is his own Ordinance to make them and keep them the People of God Was it thus here in the Old Testament and is it not so likewise in the New Yes even in the New too for there Saint Peter willeth them that they be subject to the King as to the Soveraign or Most Excellent And Saint Paul goeth further and expresseth it more strongly in the Stile of Parliament and like a Law-giver saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be it Enacted that they submit themselves And when Saint Paul there had in his Act said Omnis anima That this Act reacheth to every soul which was enough Yet because that seemed too general Saint Peter came after and goeth to the very point and saith Gens sancta must do thus too That is there must be a King even in Gods Israel And what would we more I come to the third part And to what end a King Quid faciat nobis What will a King do unto us It it hath been said already He will look that every one do not that which is good in his own and evill in Gods eyes He will in his general care look to both parts the Eye and the Hand The eye that men sin not blindly for want of direction the hand that men sin not with an high hand that is wilfully for want of correction He will be their good Opthalmist with right Eye-salve that the sight may be cured and things seem as they be and not be as they seem At the hardest si noluerunt intelligere but the eye will rove and run astray that the hand be bound to the good abearing That they do it not or if they do it as do it they will yea though there be a King yet that they may not do it impune do it and nothing done to them for it and scape the punishment due unto it for that is the case when there is no King in Israel And if when there is one that be the case too where have we been all this While For if so Etiam nâ—n est Rex cum est Rex Then when there is a King there is no King or one in name but none indeed Which as it is not good for the State so neither is it safe for themselves To this special regard will be had Non enim frustra saith St. Paul for they bear not the Sword in vain That every one do not thus Every one but namely which is the occasion of this Text that not Mica for Mica's fact brought â—orth this first sight That they were not come to this pass that he or any such as he was might
had before built upon to wit continual peace by continual submission to the present Monarch Whereas if any party of the Subjects might take upon them to withdraw obedience when they thought their Governour defective in Title then since it should seldom happen but that there might be some objections in that respect made by some discontented party or another it would also follow that for want of constant means how peace and agreement should for every time present be preserved that course which they had designed whereby it should be continually and at all times preserved would contradict it self and come to nothing And therefore having endeavoured that this peace as they thought should never be interrupted even by the course formerly mentioned that is laying so great imputation and leaving such small hopes of enjoyment on those that should attempt it they were less regardful to speak of any way to be taken after it was interrupted and the publick peace now setled in another hand lest by any express allowance of a lawful obedience to him afterwards they should as we said seem to cast more hopes and encouragements upon such like enterprises And that their intentions hereby were onely to deter from such ambitious rising and not from giving obedience to any in possession we shall not find that any name of odium is found out and given to such as live in subjection to Usurpers which doubtless they would have done had they conceived them as guilty in their obedience as he in his entrance or command 8. And if we shall appeal to matter of fact we shall find the Cavalier party all along constant to the sure way of preservation of publick peace by their adherence to the party possessed and by opposing of such as would upon the allegation of Usurpation or want of title in him or his Ancestors or for want of Election or Authority derived from the people make all his commands and rule unlawful And in order to this was that maxime so often found in the mouths of that party at such time as many personal defects and imputations were laid to the charge of the late King That the Crown was to be obeyed and fought for although it stood upon a May-Pole Which speech as it had been taken from the Duke of Norfolk so was it by him used in defence of his Loyalty to his present Sovereign whom the other party called both Tyrant Usurper 9. And if we do impartially look upon the reason and ground of all Politick Constitutions of this kind We shall find all contrary construction to arise from mistake or prejudice For first is there any thing more available to the continuance of publick peace then that submission should be continued to the Monarch in possession And then that there might be one always in possession so as to make use of this submission and that without danger of publick disturbance through strife about the person to enjoy it was it not again necessary that by publick Edict it should be beforehand appointed to whom it should succeed that all might be more deterâ—ed from seeking it Which succession being not by the Law of God entailed on any one Family amongst Christians now as amongst the Jews it formerly was on the Linage oâ— David will it not still rationally and equitably follow that the possessor should have most right of any to have this entail setled on his Family and do we not accordingly find that all Nations that have due regard to future peace and quiet have joyned with the possessor in setling it accordingly and will it not onward still follow that in order to maintain the first Principles we should be loyal to the Family so setled â—o as to the utmost of our powers to defend them in their possession against all opposers justly charging them with the imputation of Treason and Rebellion that are desturbers of publique peace in favour to the claim of any other whatsoever But then again will it not from the same Principles still follow that in case my loyal endeavors shall not have their wished success but that the other party shall set up another Monarch and that in such full possession as now to be quietly and generally submitted to as in the Seat of Justice the Laws being executed in his name as they were in the others before that then present peace depending on present obedience and present obedience on present Power and Command therefore I that was before a Loyalist in maintenance of the power in being am now a Rebel if I change my principles I continue not loyal to him that is so having in that regard changed conditions with those that were Rebels before who by their adherence to the present power and maintenance of peace thereby are now become the true Royalists 10. If we shall examine the grounds and intentions of our own fundamental constitutions concerning this Government and Governors therein we shall find them to be the same Namely the design of peace by submission to the present Monarch without regard to the stile of King or Family of which he was of And to this end it may be observed that in the Act made in Henry the Eighths time wherein his Supremacy is asserted it is set down 24. Hen. 8. c. 12. Where by divers sundry old authentick Histories and Chronicles is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realmâ— of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by one supream Head and King having the Dignity and Royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people being bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience c. By which words we may easily discover some determination touching the present dispute by observing what is therein set down as the foundation and original of this Government to wit that it is and always hath been an Empire or Monarchy as well over all estates in it self as independent of any other And then as it is called an Empire as well as Realm so may that Heâ—d thereof be called Emperor or the like as well as King he whosoever he is that is at any time Monarch or Head thereof is he to whom all sorts of people been bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience It is no part of the fundamental Law to appropriate it for perpetuity to the family of Plantagenet Tudor Stuart or the like no authentick Record to be brought for that that as it must be excepted as a secondary constitution made in order to preserve the first he must give it place when the other is indangered As for the first I conceive that if King and Parliament should enact that this Government should be a Monarchy no longer it would be void not onely as contrary to the Law of God and Reason but as a thing without their jurisdiction even as overthrowing
entring the Land durst not claim any right to the Crown as his right but onely to the Dukedom of York wearing also the Badge of Henry the Sixth's eldest Son in tâ—ken of his Homage What shall we say when he after in cruel manner smoâ—e him on the face with his Gantlet and caused him to be slain by his own servants and caused also the Father to whom â—e had formerly done homage to be imprisoned murthered and scornfully buried a person so good that he was called by the name of the Holy Yet do we not find but for all this while he had possession he had due loyalty and subjâ—ction acknowledged unto him and the Crown entailed on his Family 73. Against the Right of his Son Edward the Fifth King Richard the Third enters and might well also be called Usurper because he exercised Kingly power before the other was actually dispossessed And yet as ill as he was otherwise also is he generally obeyed and fought for 83. Henry the Seventh succeeds but he not taking to himself Kingly power till he were in full possession is not called Usurper Although his title was not so good as the others whom we are however to expect to be called Usurper and Tyrant also the more to dignifie the other now in possession when as yet although the said Richard were an Usurper as to his Nephews he was none to him Again although Richard were dead yet were there others living and in England too of a far more lineal and legal claim to the Crown as was the Lady Elizabeth Daughter to Edward the Fourth and the Earl of Warwick Son to the elder Brother of King Richard George Duke of Clarence to whom and his Heirs the Crown was also by Parliament given by Henry the Sixth in case he should die without issue as he did And yet further he stood by Act of Parliament attainted of Treason and had his Lands and Goods with those of his followers confiscate to the said King Richard May he not also be called Usurper for that he not onely exercised Kingly power before he was married to the Lady Elizabeth the right Heir but that afterwards he never so much as joyned her name in Acts of State and Sovereignty when by the Law of the Land she should have been chief as was adjudged on the case of Queen Mary and King Philip. And although he also brings in a new Family to wit that of Tudor in place of Plantagenet yet being in possession of the Crown he hath not the stile of Usurpation so thrown upon him as to take off the Subjects duty of allegiance Nor do I think that any will commend them for Loyalty that did after rise in the behalf of Perkin Warbeck although the Subjects generally thought him to be the right Heâ—r indeed and no counterfeit 39. Henry the Eighth succeds him upon the same Title and Edward the Sixth him with very small dispute of their Right 40. Queen Mary finds another Claimer to retard her possession namely the Lady Jane Grey And truly had she not bestirred herself and frighted the other party by a much greater power I beleeve the other would with her possession have been generally reputed and obeyed as the legal Heir having all the State conformation could be then expected For the Lords of the Council that then acted all publick affairs caused her to be proclaimed in London and no worse a man then B Ridley in a Sermon at Pauls Cross perswaded obedience to Lady Jane and invighed earnestly against the Title of Lady Mary as witnesseth Stow fol. 1033. And it is like he might use the same motives against the succession of her as are recorded by Mr. Camden in his introduction to the Annals of Queen Elizabeth to have been used against the succession of her and her Sister also To wit for that the Ladies Mary and Elizabeth were by the Act of Parliament judged illegitimate which Act was never duely repealed notwithstanding that the King their Father had by the same Act declared that they should succeed in order after Edward the Sixth if his issue should fail and for that the said Sisters could not by the Common Law of England be Successors Hereditarily to King Edward because they were not Germans that is of the whole blood by Father and Mother but as our Lawyers term it of the half blood It was also signified that Henry the Eighth by his last Will and Testament conveyed the title of the Crown to the said Lady Mary or the Lady Elizabeth should marry with Foreign Princes which might revoke the Bishop of Romes Authority now banished out of England and subject the English under a foreign yoke And to the same purpose also were produâ—ed Letters Pattents of King Edward the Sixth made a little before his death and signed with the hands of many Noblemen Bishops Judges and others But all this notwithstanding those very Lords that had before caused her to be proclaimed finding afterwards themselves unable to put her into full possession they wisely laid Title aside proclaimed the other and made what haste they could to obtain her favour Dutifully and wisely preferring that which was the sure way to publick peace and benefit although hazardous and disadvantagious to their own before a more sure way to their own advance with the loss of that which was publick 41. What shall we now think of the lawfulness of all those transactions which all along in those times were performed to the several Princes here was there never any obedience rightly given but to Edward the Second and Queen Elizabeth because they two onely could prescribe as to the term of a Hundred years since the Crown was usurped by their Progenitors and this hapening to them but towards the end of their Reigns shall we conclude that what was done before or towards any other was not legally done and to be esteemed acts of fear and flattery more then of Duty How comes it to pass that the Laws made by these several Princes nay by Richard the Third himself are acknowledged for Laws of force If possession of the Law-makers place gave them a right to make laws will it not also give them a right to their Subjects obedience Beyond all which if we will be truly regarding the injury offered to the deposed Family and think our selves obliged to sâ—e right therein done without regard to the publick will it not follow that this injury being the higher and the more as the party doing it was nearer in relation or of kin to those he did it that therefore an Usurpation made by a stranger is not so heinous as where a Son usurpeth against his Fathers likeing as Edward the Third did or an Uncle against Nephews as King John and Richard the Third or one Brother against another or the like as is to be observed in this long story In which cases to alleadge they had consent of the people this will not make any thing lawful as
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