Soul for what People under the Cope of Heaven are more tender of Liberty and Property than the English And I am sure that the other day a great Lawyer express'd himself very freely touching the Subjects Rights affirming That as Kings have their Prerogatives too great for an Act of Parliament to bound or limit and as the next Heir to the Crown has so firm a Right to the Succession that no Consideration of Religion no nor that of Treason it self can be made a Bar to exclude him for Jura Sanguinis nullo jure Civili dirimi possunt So Subjects have their various and different Rights either by Inheritance Creation or Election answerable to their several Qualities which no Act of Parliament can divest them of insomuch that if a Statute be de facto made contrary to a Fundamental Right of the Subject it 's void and null and if any one in pursuance of such a Statute ravish from the Subject his Liberty and Property in one King's Reign he may as it has been heretofore suffer for it in the Reign of another I insist not nevertheless at this time on this Great Man's Opinion any farther than to offer it to the Consideration of the Learned in the Law that if possibly I may do it they may be provok'd to an Enquiry and to give the People some farther Satisfaction than he did when he only told me it was so plain that instead of confirming it by Authorities he must defere to the known Rule viz. In rebus manifestis errat qui authoritates Legum allegat quia perspicuè vera non sunt probanda For let this Opinion be clear'd 't will contribute extreamly towards the ending the present Controversie especially if the other thing he mention'd also which indeed concludes our whole Argument be made out viz. That amongst the Inalienable Rights of the Subjects we must reckon this That no Free-Man may be depriv'd of his Liberty or Property or any other Civil Right or Privilege for the sake of his Religion so long as his Religion has no influence on the Government Let this I say be made good 't will unavoidably follow that all the Penal Laws for meer Religion and the Securing the Tests must appear to be ab initio void and null and a Great Charter Declaratory of so much will put a stop to Persecution for evermore for Conscience sake and answer all the Objections that can be brought against the Taking away the Tests But to return It 's my part to enquire more particularly Whether the Damning or Establishing the Tests be most agreeable to what I have declared the Ancient Constitution of our Government to be And the Solution is easie for from the Contexture of the foregoing Discourse we must conclude for the Taking them off because they twist the Religion of one part of the People so closely with the Government as to deprive the Body of the Nation of their Civil Rights Liberty and Property for the sake of an Opinion that hurts no Body but its Owner There are three or four Tests which do twist Religion and the Civil Government so unluckily together that whoever scruples the Religious part of the Test is immediately esteem'd an Enemy to the Government The First requires that they who take it do declare that they 'll never endeavor any Alteration of Government in the Church The Second obliges all in Office to Receive the Lord's Supper according to the Church of England and declare in these Words I A. B. do declare 25 Car. 2. cap. 2. That I do believe that there is not any Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper or in the Elements of Bread and Wine at or after the Consecration thereof by any Person whatsoever The Last imposed both on the Nobility and Commons chosen to Sit in Parliament runs thus I A. B. do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testifie and declare That I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any Person whatsoever And that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint and the Sacrifice of the Mass as they are now us'd in the Church of Rome are Superstitious and Idolatrous These being the several Tests impos'd on the Subjects of this Realm there are these several Arguments which occur to my Thoughts against their continu'd Establishment I. It 's contrary to the Liberty of the Subject who without just cause is hereby depriv'd of his Rights as an Englishman It is the Right of a Freeholder in the County My Lord Chief-Justice Coke positively affirms That the Barons ought to have a Writ of Summons ex debito Justitiae to Sit in Parliament and it s most manifest that their Summons must be either of Grace or ex debito If the former it lies in the Breast of the King to call whom of the Lords he will and so never want an House of Lords for his Purpose If the latter then my Argument abides in its strength and it 's the Barons Right to be Call'd and Sit in Parliament and of a Free-man of any City or Town Corporate to choose his Representative in Parliament and the Right of those freely chosen if good Subjects which they may be tho' of a Religion different from that of the State to Sit in Parliament and it 's the Birthright of our Ancient Nobility and the most undoubted Right of every Peer of the Land tho created a Peer but yesterday to Sit in the Higher House of Parliament and Advise and Consent to the Enacting Laws And it 's a known Case that tho' a Man be Excommunicate yet he is not thereby divested of his Right to choose his Representative and why but because a Man may remain a good Subject and a good English-man altho' thrown out of the Church and therefore ought to enjoy the Privilege of an English-man And why shall not the Persons chosen and the Nobility so long as they sufficiently demonstrate to the World that they are true English-men and good Subjects enjoy their undoubted Rights and Privileges What belongs to a good Subject as such belongs to every good Subject and it 's a Wrong to rob him of it Let there then be such a Test impos'd I mean a CIVIL TEST which Characterizes a good Subject and which a good Subject cannot refuse to take and let that be all for that surely may be made sufficient and unscrupulous to secure the just Prerogatives of the King and the Liberty and Property of the Subject which is the whole Concern in it that a true Englishman as such is bound to look after II. The Imposition of a Religious Test on the Subject excluding the Refusers from having any Advancement in Places of Trust is a Branch of that Doctrin on which all Penal Laws for Religion
whereas nothing can be more clear than that this particular sort of Ecclesiastical Government under which we now are is but an accidental and a movable Appendage to the Civil Constitution Thus much is known not only to our great Lawyers but to the Nobility and Gentry The Bishops as such who are a constituent part of the Ecclesiastical Government are not God's but the King's Creatures and all their Power as distinguished from their dealings with mens consciences by the Word of God is derived from the King. The words of 37 Hen. 8. c. 17. are That the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but BY UNDER and FROM the King 's Royal Majesty Thus it was in the Judgment of King James I. Queen Eliz. Edward VI. Hen VIII and upward amongst all the Princes of the Roman Communion so far as I can observe But the supposing it so essential to the Government that a Parliament can't Alter it as this Clergy-man insinuates and to oblige the Subject as this Test does solemnly to declare he will never endeavor an Alteration of it as if the Prelatic Power had its Origine from Heaven and not from the King only doth as I humbly apprehend make it necessary for the Government to take off the Test and assert their Power by an exercise of it in this great Instance which I am assur'd is a thing the Nobility and Gentry desire to be at and therefore I need not dwell on it any longer The Second which is impos'd on all that bear Office in the Kingdom viz. The taking the SACRAMENT of the LORD's SVPPER according to the Vsage of the Church of ENGLAND Be the man ever so Ignorant or Debauch'd if called to Office he must receive the Sacrament Altho' Almighty God has ordained it only for the Worthy and most look upon it as the most Solemn and Sacred Ordinance of the Gospel yet must this Pearl be prostitute to Swine this Holy thing profusely given to the vilest of men such as common Drunkards Whoremongers Adulterers and Blasphemers of God and that without scruple for that there are many such amongst the common Soldiers and also in Civil Offices is beyond Controversie Besides let a man be a knowing and pious Christian eminent for Loyalty to his Prince and acknowledged by all to be a good Subject yet if he cannot take it according to the Vsage of the Church of England himself must be deprived of a Place of Advantage and the Government of his Service So that I take this Test to be directly contrary to the Laws of God and the good of the Government and I cannot imagine how any man that has the awe of God upon his Soul and a love to the Government can consent to the establishing of it Especially considering that the Vsage of the Church of England is to receive the Elements kneeling which is a gesture of Adoration and ordained to avoid Profanation even before that Bread which is denied to be God and esteemed only his Image which some think and therefore refuse to take it to be Superstitious and Idolatrous But how fond soever the Church of England may be for the setling this Test yet sure the Protestant Dissenter unless he 'll offer violence to his avowed Principles can't be for it To this there is added the following Declaration which all in any Office Civil or Military must take in these words I A. B. do declare That I do believe that there is not any Transtantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper or in the Elements of Bread and Wine at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever This TEST being a part of that which the Peers and those who sit in Parliament must take I will only observe in this place how unhappily it 's worded for unless there be some Errata's in my Statute-book a man must declare That in the Elements of Bread and Wine there is no Transubstantiation after the Consecration It 's not said No Transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ but more indefinitely No Transubstantiation at all whereas after the Consecration they are eaten and drunken and after the eating and drinking them there is a Transubstantiation of them into his own Flesh and Blood in like manner as any other thing he eats or drinks is So that this Test being a solemn Declaration which a man is to make of his Faith he ought to be more explicit in the wording of it I presume farther That had it been matter of doubt in Physics whether the Bread be turned into the Flesh of him that eats it yet it 's not so clear that the contrary should be made a matter of Faith and that such as whoever believes it not must be made uncapable of any Office in the State. But this defect being supplied in the Parliamentary Test I will go on to that which is in these words I A. B. do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess testifie and declare That I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever And that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint and the Sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are Superstitious and Idolatrous c. The first part of this TEST I confess is well worded and what a Protestant Dissenter according to his own Principles may safely take tho' not impose but how it can be exacted from every Church of England man to take it or how they can urge the continued Imposition of it on others is beyond me to comprehend My reason in short lies here The Church of England in her first framing after Queen Maries Death did in Obedience to Queen Elizabeth's Command take special care to open her doors so wide that no one for his believing Transubstantiation should be excluded her Communion And if not deprived thereby of the Privileges of the Church why of those of the State The very drift of the Church of England has been to twist the two Interests of Church and State so closely together that none should have any Advantages from the State but those who were of the Communion of their Church and whoever was of the Communion of their Church was the person qualified for the entire enjoyment of all the Privileges of the State and what was not a bar to Church-Communion was none to the being possessed of State-Privileges Tho' they would deprive men of their Civil Liberties for not being of their Communion yet they never denied them to those whom they thought meet to admit to her Communion and indeed unless she will acknowledge that the Terms of her Communion as a Church are too wide I cannot see how she can deny those whom she admits to her
Communion an Interest in the Advantages of the Government of the Land. So that if it has been her care to open the way that those who believe Transubstantiation may notwithstanding that belief be admitted to her Communion the making this Test to the excluding all such Believers of Transubstantiation from their Civil Rights must needs be unjustifiable in the Church of England But in Obedience to Queen Elizabeth it has been the endeavor of the Church of England to explain the Doctrin of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist in such a Latitude of Expression as might indeed take in under it the Notion of Transubstantiation Thus much the Queen commanded as Dr. Burnet in his History of Reformation reports in these words The Queen who inclin'd to keep up Images in the Churches was resolved to have the Manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament left in some general words that those who believe the Corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an Explication of it And as Dr. Heylin assures us the Church obey'd this Injunction For saith he in his Hist of Q. Eliz. In the first year of K. Edward the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper being delivered with this Benediction that is to say The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for the Preservation of thy Body and Soul to Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. This was thought by Calvin and his Disciples to give some countenance to the gross and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament which passeth by the name of Transubstantiation in the School of Rome This was alter'd into this Form in the second Liturgy that is to say Take eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with Thanksgiving Take and drink this c. But the Revisers of the Book in Queen Elizabeth 's time joyned both Forms together that so according to the Queen's Injunctions the Corporal Presence by the Addition of the old Form might receive countenance Vpon this ground they expunged also a whole Rubric at the end of the Communion Service in which 't was declared that Kneeling was not in Regard of any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. And to come up closer to the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queen's Injunctions That the Sacramental Bread should be made round in fashion of the Wafers as in Queen Mary 's Days She also ordered That the Lord's Table should be placed where the Altar stood So far Heylin Besides in pursuance of the Queens Orders in the Communion in the Catechism and Book of Homilies there are several Expressions countenancing the Real and Corporal Presence which has been the occasion of Dr. Moor's brief Discourse on the Real Presence in which it must be observ'd that the Doctor putting us in mind of the Bishop of Meaux's Judgment which was That the Opinion of the Real Presence is the Doctrin of all the Churches as well Reform'd as Unreform'd The Doctor adds That he must confess he has been of this Persuasion ever since he wrote his Mystery of Godliness viz. That it is the Doctrin of the Church of England and that the Doctrin is true And he further assures us in these Words I remember saith he this I have heard from a near Relation of mine when I was a Youth a Dignitary of the Church of England and that often viz. That our Church was for the Real Presence but for the manner thereof if asked he would answer Rem scimus modum nescimus We know the Thing but the Mode or Manner thereof we know not And the Assurance we have of the Thing is from the common Suffrage of the Ancient Fathers and from the Scripture it self which impress'd that Notion on the Minds of our pious Predecessors in the Church of God. Nor can we as I humbly conceive relinquish this Doctrin of the Real Presence without declining the most easie and natural Sense of the Holy Scripture as it stands written in the Sixth Chapter of John. Pag. 42. Of which this Doctor saith It is plain that our Saviour's Discourse in this Chapter has for its Object or Subject not the Manner or Way of receiving his Body and Blood as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross but that it was to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner which Interpreters several of them drive at but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is Himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word Thus far Dr. Moor of Cambridge if he be the Author of the Mystery of Godliness from whom I observe the Doctrin of the Church of England to be this viz. That the very Flesh and Blood of Christ is present in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the same Sense as the Fish and Loaves were present to the multitude miraculously fed by them Of this Thing with them there is no doubt tho' as to the Manner how it should be so they are in the dark And were not the Fish and the Loaves Corporally present How then can the Flesh and Blood of Christ be present in the Eucharist as the Fish and Loaves were unless Corporally present And if Corporally present there must be either a Transubstantiation or a Consubstantiation And I have heard some Learned Protestants say that of the two Consubstantiation is the most difficult and perplexing And this Doctor himself unless he lays a violence on the very Words of the Text as understood by all Men throughout Christendom whether Papist or Protestant and moreover falls into one of the greatest Extravagances of Plato cannot escape a closure with Transubstantiation For he offers nothing towards the solving this great Phainomenon but this That tho' the Body of Christ is present yet not the Body Broken on the Cross tho' the Holy Ghost expresly affirms it but a Body made of Divine and Spiritual Flesh and Blood every where present a Vehicle for the Eternal Logos to inhabit So that he is necessitated contrary to express Scripture not to make a Coat for the Moon but God Almighty knows with horror I mention it a Coat for the Godhead of Christ a Body compos'd of Flesh and Blood of equal extent with and for the Clothing of Divine Nature For the countenancing which he brings Gratian a Popish Canonist whom he quotes out of Morney distinguishing between the Body of Christ's Soul which was Broken on the Cross and the Body of the Eternal Word or Logos and affirms That the Body in the Eucharist is the Omnipresent Body of the Eternal Word which is there Corporally present From the whole then I would humbly propose to the Reader 's Thoughts these few Considerations 1. That the Doctrin of the Church