Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
warrantable and advantagious to the Publick Interest that they may formally oblige to Obedience how then shall we find out what Laws are purely penal and what are not so Truly here the Gentleman leaves us in the dark He tells us it is by accident that any Laws are purely Penal and not from the Specifick Nature of the Laws themselves but these Logical terms of Accident and Specifick Nature are not so proper in matters of Law nor are we ever the wiser in this case for them for who can tell what Accidents those are that make this difference since he has not been pleased to inform us And though he adds It is not from the different Authority of the Law but from the different Intention of the Law-giver that any Laws are purely Penal that is do not oblige absolutely to the fact yet we are never the nearer satisfaction for if the Obliging power of these Laws depend upon the Intention and Will of the Law-giver one would think where that Will and Intention are different the Authority of the Law must be different for the Authority of the Law and its Obliging power are the same thing but not to contend about the Phrase let us examine the Notion it self which is That it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal there are two inconveniencies I think attend it 1. The Will and Intention of the Law-giver any farther than it is exprest by the words of the Law is very doubtful and uncertain and more especially where the Legislative Power is in the hands of so many as it is with us for it 's possible the King may intend one thing the Lords another the Commons a third yea there may be an infinite variety of Intentions amongst both Lords and Commons and if we say the Intention of the Majority must carry it yet by what Scrutiny shall that be found out And if the Will and Intention of the Law-giver must be understood only by the express words of the Law I suppose it will be hard to find any Statutes that in express terms declare they do not intend to bind absolutely to Obedience and yet such Laws there are by the Gentleman 's own acknowledgment But 2. To say it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal will resolve the Obliging power of Human Laws into the Will of Man which is liable to considerable prejudices And I find this same ingenious Gentleman in another Treatise Miscellan consid of the Nature of sin Sect. 11 p. 370 371. has chosen to resolve the Obliging power of all Laws Divine as well as Human not into the bare will and pleasure of the Law-giver but in the fitness of the Laws themselves to promote the common good and this aptness fitness or tendency to promote the common good he tells us is the Supream Eternal and Irreversible Law which prescribes measures to all the rest and is the last reason of good and evil and he thus analyses the immorality of an Action into its last Principles It is to be avoided because it is sin it is sin because forbidden it is forbidden because it was in it self fit to be forbidden it was fit to be forbidden because naturally apt to prejudice the common Interest which is above all things to be regarded and prosecuted as the best and greatest End And though he acknowledges Authority is to be obeyed let the instance wherein Obedience is required be never so indifferent yet still the reason of this Obligation is not derived from the Authority of the Law-giver but from the common good P. 372. which requires that the Supream Authority be obeyed and yet by the way I cannot see how his foregoing Chain of Causes will admit of any meer positive Laws for did he not say a thing is therefore forbidden because it is in it self fit to be forbidden as naturally apt to prejudice the common good Now if this be so an indifferent Action which is not naturally and in it self apt to prejudice the common good cannot be either forbidden or commanded for according to his Scheme the fitness to promote the common good is not only the Reason of our obeying Laws but the Rule of God's making them also being as before the Supream Eternal and Irreversible Law which prescribes to all the rest Now if the Will of God must not be made the Ultimate Reason of our Obligation to obey his Laws but their fitness to promote the common good certainly the Will of Man must not be the Reason of the Obligation of Human Laws it would be very odd and dangerous to ascribe more to the Will of Man than to the Will of God therefore we must enquire for some better Reason why some Laws oblige absolutely to Obedience and other not than meerly the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver And I suppose the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this kind of Laws is to be found in the matter of them and those Laws are purely Penal which require things so very trivial and indifferent as naturally and in themselves have no fitness at all to promote the common good nor any tendency that way and though I dare by no means say that this tendency to common good is a Law so supream as that God himself must always observe it in his Commands and Prohibitions and that the Obliging power of his Laws is to be resolved into it for I doubt not God may command things that have no such tendency in themselves meerly to try whether men will obey the Authority of God for its own sake yet I am verily perswaded men should make the common good their Rule in every Law of theirs and that amongst men Salus Populi est suprema Lex and that God has not given them Authority to command any thing Demosthenes Natal Comit. Mythol l 2. c. 7. Aquinas q. 95. Camero praelec tom 1. p. 367. There was one saith the Bp. of Winch. on John 16. that would have his will stand for a reason 1 Sam. ch 2. Thus it must be for Hophni will have it so his reason is because he will God grant sayshe there be none such found amongst Christians and I say Amen but what has a tendency thereunto And therefore Cicero and others were wont to put the bonum publicum into the Definition of Human Laws and to affirm that those Edicts which command things no way tending to the publick good quidvis potius quà m Leges censendae sunt may be called any thing rather than Laws It is certain God has obliged Governours to steer by the Compass of Right Reason and to make the Point of publick good in all their Political actions if this be the Supream Law to all men it must be so to them they ought never to do an act Personal or Political but what has such a tendency if they do they act against the Authority
to him The Marshal only made it his Request that he would not trouble him for holding him so long in Restraint forasmuch as he was a Poor Man and had many Children and did only follow the Orders of his Superiours in what he had done Mr. Yarranton told him He did freely forgive him These dangerous Plotters being now at Liberty they depart every Man to his own Home and were never prosecuted or further questioned about this Matter There was no need of that for the Contrivers had now obtained their End which was to possess the King and Parliament that it was absolutely necessary to make some severe Act against this restless sort of Men who not contented with the King 's Gracious Pardon were always Plotting to disturb the Government Accordingly when the Parliament met together upon the 20th of November 1661. to which time they were Adjourned the King makes a Speech to them wherein are these words My Lords and Gentlemen I Am Sorry to find that the General Temper and Affections of the Nation are not so well Composed as I hoped they would have been after so signal Blessings of God Almighty upon us all and after so great Indulgence and Condescentions from me towards all Interests there are many wicked Instruments still as active as ever who labour Night and Day to disturb the Publick Peace and to make People jealous of each other it may be worthy of your Care and Vigilance to provide proper Remedies for Diseases of that Kind and if you find new Diseases you must find new Remedies c. No sooner was this Parliament in their geers Note this was before the Sham was discovered to Mr. Yarranton but Sir J. P. one of the Knights for Worcestershire with open mouth informs them of a dangerous Presbyterian Plot that was on foot that many of the chief Conspirators were now in Prison at Worcester The like Information was given by some of their Members that Served for Oxfordshire Herefordshire Staffordshire and other places yea this was the general Vogue Some say but by a very few Votes as may appear by the Printed Pamphlets of those times Hereupon a Bill of Uniformity was excogitated and carried on in the Parliament and passed that Sessions I have done with the First Part of this Sham Plot when I have added a Passage or two more concerning Mr. Yarranton As soon as he was Discharged as before he goes up to London and prevails with the Lord of Bristol to acquaint the King with the great wrong he had received and with the wicked Contrivance of some of his Ministers by Sham-Plots to divide the King from his People and his People from one another Hereupon an Order of Council was directed to the Deputy-Lieutenants of Worcestershire that were then in and about London to appear before the Council and to give an Account of this Matter They seemed to clear themselves from being concerned therein and desired such as were in the Country might be consulted The next Post they inform their Brethren in the Country how Matters stood before the Council and that the Lord of Bristol did Patronize Mr. Yarranton upon this Sir J. W. one of the Deputy-Lieutenants hastens up to London and brings with him one Hales an Attorney his Kinsman and Tenant now living in Tenbury which Hales with a Constable of St. Mary Overies and one Halborn a Waterman now living in Pepper-Alley in Southwark Arrested Mr. Yarranton when he was Bowling in Winchester-Park for High Treason and being further assisted by some of the Horse-Guards then in Southwark conveyed him in Halborn's Boat to White-Hall where he was that Night in Custody but on the Morrow the Earl of Bristol sent the King 's Privy Seal to a Friend of Mr. Yarranton's who brought it to him wherein it was declared That it was the King's Pleasure he should Travel where he pleased and not to be molested by any Person whatsoever without a Special Warrant from the King Mr. Yarranton seeing how Matters went in London resolved to return again into the Country where he prosecuted Major Wild and others for Imprisoning of him wrongfully but within Six Months after a Design is laid by some of the Criminals in the former Sham-Plot to Suborn Persons to Swear against him that he had spoken Treasonable Words against the King and the Government the Witnesses were one Dainty a Mountebank formerly an Apothecary in Derby who afterwards acknowledged that he had Five Pounds for his Pains The other Witness lived in Wales and went by two Names this was done at the Assizes in Worcester the Bill being found by the Grand Jury Twisden then Judge Mr. Yarranton put himself upon his Trial and though he did not except against any one of his Jury yet upon a full Hearing of the Case they presently acquitted him to the great disappointment of the designing Gentlemen This Narrative Mr. Yarranton Published under his own Hand and I never could understand that any Answer was made to it and by mentioning the Names of Persons then living and therein appealing to them it appears to be of undoubted credit and if any shall take upon them to contradict it there are so many of the Persons concerned still alive as are sufficient to make out the truth and certainty of it This Act of Uniformity which was gained by such an Infamous Stratagem Some of the Ejected Ministers had been Sufferers for the King as Mr. Cook Mr. Harrison Mr. Kirby Mr. Seddan sent up Prisoners about Sir Geo. Booth's Attempt Collection of Debates p. 212. obliged all Ministers to Subscribe to the Book of Common-Prayer by Bartholomew-Day upon pain of Deprivation ab officio beneficio which about Two thousand Ministers could not do and were accordingly ejected and it is a wonder that all the Ministers in England were not Silenced by it for it is a known and certain Truth that the Liturgy with its new Alterations to which they assented came not out of the Press till about Bartholomew-Eve so that all those that Conformed excepting perhaps one or two in London Subscribed to they knew not what and thus the Effects of that Edict were as scandalous as the cause and rise of it An honourable Member of the House of Commons observed in Parliament in the Year 1680. If the Laws against Dissenters were projected in favour of the Protestant Religion it is strange they were so promoted as many Members now here that Served in that Parliament do remember by Sir Thomas Clifford Sir Solomon Swale and Sir Roger Strickland who have all since appeared to be Papists When the lamentable Effects of this Act began to appear more visible every day than other and the King was sensible how they had been cheated into it by a pretended Plot the Forgery whereof was now discovered He set forth the very same Year Decem. 26. his Declaration of Indulgence and in February next when the Parliament was met Journal of the House of