the same in Matters of Religion as well while that of our Princes and their Subjects was Pagan as afterwards when it became Christian Let us see then the Transition from the one Religion to the other in the Reigns of Lucius the First British and Ethelbert the First Christian King of the Saxons We find that in both our Kings acted without any controul of Laws as well in the relinquishing the long-established Pagan as in the reception of the Christian Religion And as our Kings were free so they kept their Subjects free from the Coaction of Laws in that Matter Particularly Venerable Beda relates of Ethelbert That having embraced the Christian Religion he could not but cast some more benign Aspect on such as were Converts with himself Yet so Bed. Histor Eccles ex Versione Abrahami Wheelock Vt nullum cogeret ad Christianisimum That there should be no Force upon the Consciences of his Subjects Didicerat enim à doctoribus auctoribusque suae salutis servitium Christi voluntarium non coactitium debere esse For that he had been taught of those who were the Authors of his Salvation That the Service of Christ ought to be voluntary and not of compulsion The Antient Jurisdiction of this Crown you may see by this was at that time free and whatever Laws were before established in favour of the Pagan Superstition and Persecution of Christians these Princes dispensed with them of their own Supreme Power next and immediately under God and so became Instruments of introducing the Blessed Means of Salvation and transmitting them to us their Posterity Which otherwise perhaps had not been so easily effected by a National or Parliamentary Concurrence at present But this Subject has been laboured by many great and learned in the Laws of this Realm to whom it especially belongs and to whom I refer those who desire further satisfaction This Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown the Second Canon measures by that which was claimed and exercised of the godly Kings of Judah and Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church How uncontrouled of any they exercised that Power who were Kings of Judah let their History in the Holy Scriptures teach you As for the Ancient Christian Emperors that they issued out Laws Ecclesisiastical by their Imperial Edicts and made Revocation of those Edicts as they pleased I think no Body will deny I know there was all the way of the Primitive Christianity another Spiritual Jurisdiction over Souls and even over the Emperors themselves as they were Sons of the Church for their Edification but no way intrenching on the Temporal Power even in Causes Ecclesiastical proper to such a Power When ever it made any attempt that way it was always checked by Christian Princes And is it to be believed that this Canon which was made with all the singular Laws and Statutes there mentioned for the abolishing all Foreign Power repugnant to the same would not have been as sharp upon any upstart Power at Home and of His Majesties own Subjects repugnant to the same if they had been aware of any the least tendency then to such an Insolence Take an Instance in one of the most famous and first Emperor of the Christian Church Constantine the Great and let us see what kind of Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical the Canons of our Church give to our Kings in parallel to what was exercised by the Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church Thrice I think according to some Historians twice I am sure according to Valesius in the Appendix to his Latin Version of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History Constantine did dispense with the Imperial Laws by Indulgence and Toleration of the Donatists in Africa And for that purpose caused his Declaration of Indulgence to be published directed Vniversis Episcopis per Africam to all the Bishops throughout Africa as it is found extant among the Writings of Optatus and almost in the like words and for the like Reasons on which His Majesty issued out this His present Declaration of Liberty Some part of it I will therefore repeat Quod fides debuit quantum prudentia valuit prout puritas potuit tentasse me per omnia optimè scitis ut juxta Magisteria Legis nostrae Pax stabilita per omnem concordiam teneretâ— Sed quia vim illam scelâ—ris infusi intentionis nostrae ratio non potuit edoâ—nare expectandum nobis est dum totum hoc Omnipotentis Dei misericordia witigetur Verum dum Coelestis Medicina procedat hactenus sunt cencilia nostra Moderanda ut patientiam percolamus quidquid insolentia ilierum pro consuetudine intemperantiae tentat aut facit id omne tranquillitatis virtute toleremus nihil ex reciproco reponatur injuriae This Declaration of Indulgence had likewise the ill fortune of His present Majesties to be regrated by some of the Churchmen and the severity of the established Laws against the Donatists som what unwillingly restrained and Constantine by some of them particularly by Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage solicited to revoke his Letters of Indulgence whereupon says the Historian in the year 321. The Bishops on the part of Donatus put up their Petition also to the Emperor Poscentes ut libere ipsos agere sineret nec invitos adCommunionem Caeciliani cogere vellet Adding further that they never should either by Promises or Threats be induced to it and that they would rather dye a thousand deaths than to hold Communion with that Knave as they rudely styled the Bishop against their Consciences And here as the Historian goes on did most of all appear the Clemency of the Emperor that when he ought to have punished this impudence and insolence of the Donatists in calling their Archbishop Knave whose Innocency was well known and approved by Constantine himself Nihilominus ipsis quaecunque poscebant solita benignitate indulsit Nevertheless of his wonted Benignity he Granted what Indulgence they desired issuing out to Verinus his Vicarius Vicar-General in Africa a Rescript signifying his pleasure that the Donatists should be recalled from Banishment Monensque ut proprio eos dâ—mittat arbitrio ac furorem eorum Deo vindici reservet c. All this Constantine did by the Virtue of that Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical which the Godly Kings had among the Jews and the Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church and which says the Canon further is the Regal Supremacy of this Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein established Now if the Church of England be the same it was then you see by what measures we are to Govern ourselves in the present Affair Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Downe and Connor I think was a Man who understood how far a Church of England Loyalty ought to extend as any Man this day of it He says plainly in his Ductor Dubitantium Vol. 2. lib. 3. p. 148. That the Supreme Power is above the Laws that he can dispense with Laws he can interpret them and he can
easily seen whither you would drive us If you are as you pretend your self a Son of that Church an unspotted Loyalty has hitherto been accounted Her indeleble Character I am sorry to find so little of it in your Letter you have by it outdone the subtilty and cruelty of all Her Enemies Never was so deadly a stroke given nor so natural and effectual to Her Ruine as that which you commend to us for the only method of saving Her. I am charitably minded you have done this nevertheless of a good Intent crowded along with the zealous Hurry of a Popular Mistake And the rather because I see your Letter makes a better ending than a beginning and that notwithstanding your positiveness all the way you are not so satisfied in your own Reasonings but you relent at last into that good Nature and Temper which for your Honour I will Remark in your own Words thus This Sir is our Case in short the difficulties are great on both Sides and therefore now if ever we ought to Besiege Heaven with our Prayers for Wisdom Counsel and Courage c. To clear then the difficulties which you acknowledge in this Case I shall apply my self touching upon the most material parts of your Letter Our Enemies you say who have given our Gracious King this Council against us have taken the most effectual way not only to Ruine us but to make us appear the Instruments of our own Ruine that what course soever we take we shall be undone and one side or other will conclude we have undone our Selves and fall like Fools By our Enemies I conceive you can mean no other than the Kings Friends whom I believe no further our Enemies than what amounts to a bare Se Defendendo Where they meet us in opposition to what necessarily conduces to the preservation of Themselves their Lives their Fortunes you must not blame them but the common instinct of Nature that they are so far our Enemies In all other Cases they are our Friends beyond our Expectations Enemics short I am sure of our Fears and of what was heretofore in publick Print our own Character and Prospect of a Popish Successor As for the Free and Undisturbed Exercise of our Religion our Churches our Revenues our Dignities we enjoy them all And we have further the Kings Gracious Offer of whatsoever other Assurances we can excogitate against our Fears and Jealousies lest they should not continue I know no cause of this great Out-cry against the King and His Friends on account that they are our Enemies nor where we are hurt unless by the holding our Hands from flying at one anothers Throats We are enabled by these Laws so soon as we may to let loose our too prurient Rage one upon the other but especially upon the Kings Friends whom we I think therefore call our Enemies We can hardly forbear already and aloud to foretell what must become of them afterwards what Gibbets and Axes and Confiscations are provided for them for His Majesties Commissioners Judges Military Officers Papists in Mascarade and out of Mascarade and whoever else have not dared to deny their Obedience to His Majesties Moral Commands or to leave him Solitary and Destitute of Servants to Guard and Attend him What else means this our so tenacious sticking to these Undoing and Sanguinary Laws And how pitifully are the Claws hid of such as pretend them to be the only possible expedient of their own Security Now to repress the violent and blind Zeal of such Men for the Established Laws without abatement or allowance of any thing to the Vicissitude which the Providence of God has made among us from a Protestant to a Prince of the Catholick Communion is I assure my self all His Majesty designs by His Endeavor to get our good Will toward the remove of the Test and Penal Laws And if I thought any Clergy of the Church of England or other of that Communion compliant with the King in this his charitable undertaking should suffer in the least Hair of his Head or lose by it any the least Liberty becoming a Christian to own in such a Juncture I should not have opened my Mouth to have been an Advocate in this Cause And whosoever thinks otherwise if he consider he will find he cannot do it without Reflection of most vile ill Names upon his Majesties Honour and Blaspheming the Sacredness of his Royal Promise So that Sir I think you might have spared His Majesties Friends and His Council and have allowed them a milder Character than our Enemies and such as seek our Ruine by that Name exposing them in the very Head of your Letter to the Rage and Odium of the People who are so far from being Enemies to us that themselves are the Persons in distress and danger from us And having now a time to Speak do request of us without any injury to our selves that we will please to remove no other but those Laws to which not only their Fortunes but their Lives lay every Hour Obnoxious and only for serving God according to their Consciences and their King at his Command according to their natural Allegiance But these Enemies of ours since you will have them so you note further and to our greater misfortune to be of that base and ignoble kind as having us in their Claws they must divert themselves a little in Play with us as the Cat does with the Mouse before they devour us our Gracious King the while looking on and so comes in the business of the Declaration The Reading of which in our Churches and Chapels you intimate to be contrived as it were for nothing in the World but to make our Enemies Sport For the main work of our Undoing you account is over and the trick of this Declaration no other Than while themselves are the Authors to make us appear nevertheless the Instruments of our own Ruine In good earnest Sir and is this the likeliest reason you could Excogitate Had you but a little of what St. Paul tells us thinketh no evil that would have suggested to you some more charitable account of His Majesties together with his Councils proceeds in this Affair If you had not been so hasty as to take what lay uppermost in a Mind possest with Passion and Prejudice you might have thought of that His Majesty Himself publishes in the front of His Declaration in these words Our Conduct has been such in all times as ought to have perswaded the World that We are firm and constant to Our Resolutions Yet that easie People may not be abused by the Malice of crafty wicked Men We think fit to declare That Our Intentions are not changed since the Fourth of April 1687. when We issued out Our Declaration for Liberty of Conscience How the easie People have been wrought upon since that time to lessen their Opinion of His Majesties Sincerity in that Declaration is too notorious And what Insinuations of the daily progress
thing and to make choice of such Members of Parliament by whose Concurrence the Provision for His Majesties Safety might be made It is true the Church of England is hereby disobliged but who can help it or is to be blamed for it it was offered to them first and rejected by them Will they be neither persuaded to afford His Majesty together with theirs the Service and Assistance of His Roman Catholique Subjects of whose Loyalty there can at this time be no doubt for His sufficient defence against His numerous and inveterate Enemies nor yet allow him by His Indulgence of Liberty to their Consciences to win them to a Dutiful and Peaceable Subjection Just such an unsociable rigor as this now in the Church of England towards the Roman Catholioks was that of the Presbyterians towards us whom they then called Malignants and which was the occasion of bringing His Majesty CHARLES I. of Sacred Memory to the Scaffold and all upon piques and dislikes one against another on point of Religion The Presbyterians had a mind to Save the King and deliver him out of the hands of the Army which they then called Sectaries but this was morally impossible to be done by them upon the strength of their own single Interest without uniting to their assistance the Malignant also as they termed all those who stood well-affected to the King and Church but by no means would they be persuaded to any conjunction with the Royalists when His Majesties Life at that time depended upon it and might have been secur'd by it and even to the last point when the Army came up in their march towards the City with the poor Captive KING in their power they obstinately refused to take in any of the King's Party to joyn with them notwithstanding all their frequent offers and importunities and notwithstanding their own ruine along with theirs choosing rather to deliver up the Common Cause than to joyn with the King's Friends in one common Defence Nay to bring the parallel still nearer when it pleased the Divine Providence to make some aspect towards the Restauration of His late Majesty CHARLES II. to the Succession of His Royal Fathers Crown so imperious and ill natur'd were they still towards the poor Cavaliers and so resolved against admitting them to any share in the Honour and Interest of the Enterprize however their former Fidelity to His Majesty might commend them and His Affair need them that after the Secluded Members were re-admitted a Resolution taken of Convening a Free Parliament in order to the King's Restauration before their Rising they passed these two Votes One That all and every Person who have Advised Abetted or Assisted in any War against the Parliament since January the First 1641. his or their Sons should be uncapable to be elected to Serve as Members of the next Parliament And another That no Man should act as a Commission-Officer without First Acknowledging and Declaring That the War undertaken by both Houses of Parliament in their Defence against the Forces raised in the name of the late KING was Just and Lawful What can more nearly resemble those Oaths and Tests which have been of late years laid upon so many of His present Majesties Friends and no doubt with the same Design and in a then probable prospect of His Succession to the Crown That if they should fail of Excluding himself yet at least they might exclude a considerable number of His Friends from joyning their Force and Assistance to the rest when He should most need them and so one time or other he might fall into their Power thus unarmed and deprived of His just and sufficient Defence The subtle Projectors and Contrivers of this Intrigue it is likely are now off the Stage but since many of those who I believe have not the least Malice against His Majesties Person are yet nevertheless so intoxicate with the fears and jealousies they then imbib'd that they are yet hardly sober and must have time to recover their debauched Reasons It is necessary in the mean time that His Majesty look to the preservation of himself and of them also whose Loyalty is yet half asleep and who perhaps when they are better awake will find reason to thank him for interposing His Prerogative against their obstinate Defence of a Law so unreasonable and unsafe and thank God too for that Courage and Wisdom with which he has inspired him to preserve both them and Himself and the whole Nation from their precipitate Folly. These things considered may I think satisfie any reasonable unprejudic'd Man of the justice and necessity of His Majesties exerting His Royal Prerogative at this time and in the manner he has expressed in His Declaration for the preservation of Himself the Head of this great National Body which cannot be touched with danger in that principal part without a fatal evil to the whole But with His Majesties Person I intimated also a Salvo for His Conscience and that by His Prerogative if he cannot have it otherwise Conscience is the common answer on the account of which the Nobility and Gentry do not consent to His Majesties Proposals for taking off the Test and Penal Laws Is there not some regard to be had to the King's Conscience as well as other Mens The King no doubt so sincere and devout as he is in the profession of His Religion accounts it a very high offence against God and danger of Eternal Damnation to His Soul to persecute what He accounts the Truth and to drive away or terrifie any by Penal Laws from embracing it Who does not I believe also the inflicting of such Penalties on any other for mere matter of Conscience is not without a great regret to His own That Conscience ought not to be constrained nor People forced in matters of mere Religion are the express words of His Declaration Now all prosecution of Law against Recusants or what other Dissenters from the establish'd Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England must be made in the King's Name and all Warrants for the execution of Sanguinary Pecuniary or what other kind of Mulcts issue from His immediate Authority So that no Man's Conscience of the whole Nation is so nearly concern'd nor so accountable to God for what relates to these Laws as the King's Conscience I think no Man will say that the King ought in the execution of such Laws to sin against His Conscience or that we have ever the less obligation upon us to Own Him and Obey Him as our King and to comply with Him tenderly for the finding such a temper if there be any better than what He already offers for the satisfaction of both His Conscience and ours Subjects may suffer for Conscience sake and lose some part of the priviledge of Subjects rather than break the publick measures which have been established But Kings may not be constrained by Law to suffer nor to diminish any part of their Royal Sovereignty
abrogate them he can in time of necessity Govern by the Laws of Reason without any written Law and he is Judge of the necessity and in all this he warrants him as the Canon does by the Power which the Kings of Judah had and in the later end of that Chapter says that this Prerogative of Kings is not against Law but by Law and that the Laws themselves imply so much and have given this leave The same Loyal Bishop in the said Treatise further notes the great submission which the Bishops of Rome themselves made to the Imperial Laws and that even when they liked them and when they lik'd them not and of all most material says he is the Obedience of St. Gregory the Great to Mauritius the Emperor who made a Law that no Soldier should turn Monk without his leave This St. Gregory esteem'd to be an impious Law he modestly admonished the Emperor of the irreligion of it But Maurice nevertheless commanded him to publish that Law. The good Bishop knew his Duty obeyed his Prince sent it up and down the Empire and gave this account of it Vtrobique quae debui exolvi qui Imperat ri obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minimè tacui I have done both my Duties I have declared my Mind for God and have paid my Duty and Obedience to the Emperor Ductor Dubit Vol. 3. Lib. 2. p. 176. This that Learned and Loyal Bishop remarks as a president to Guide and Govern Church-men in the like Cases And by the way we may note upon the Story that in those days when St. Gregory publish'd an Edict of the Emperor's which to him seemed impious Reading was not thought to be Teaching If you reply that the model and measures of our Government are different and will not admit of so high a Prerogative in our Princes as was exercised in those unbounded and absolute Monarchies What! not in Causes Ecclesiastical Was it well done then of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of our Church in Convocation to run the parallel of that Obedience we owe to His Majesty in Causes Ecclesiastical up to the height of what was used by the Godly Kings among the Jews and Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church and to hold him Excommunicate ipso facto Whosoever should affirm the contrary and not restored but only by the Archbishop after his Repentance and publick Revocation of those his wicked Errors And had not you better have held your peace than on this occasion to have medled with the Constitution of the Church of England to which you have subscribed I think this a time to have been more reserved 2. Your Second Reason wherefore we cannot Consent and consequently not Read follows Because it is to Teach an unlimited and universal Toleration which the Parliament in 72 Declared illegal and which has been condemned in the Christian Church in all ages How well you have reasoned from the Constitution of the Church of England in such points of it as relate to this matter let others Judge Your next proof is drawn from the Civil Constitution with Respect to the Parliament of England that says it is illegal How the Parliament of England Where are the Three Estates Where the King Did all these Declare it illegal I wonder you will so much reproach the Clergy of England with whom you deal in this Discourse as to think them such as may be shammed again with the old Wheadle of 41. No no Sir we know enough and have felt enough and too lately yet to forget it of such Parliaments as would have their Votes and Ordinances Obligatory to the Subject without the Assent and Authority of the King And yet this is the Authority and the best you have to alledge or say for yourself in justification of your Disobedience and Opposition to His Majesty in this Affair The Parliament say you in 72. Declared it illegal What then What is the Parliaments Declaration to us in this or in any other matter so as to make it illegal ever the more without the King Is this after the Constitution of a Monarchical Government Does not a pretence to such a Power in a Parliament without the concurrent Authority of the King subvert the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom But I assure myself that they in that matter assumed not to themselves such a Power as your Letter would give them Why may not a Vote of the House of Lords and Commons in 41. the King dissenting be as good an Authority as one in 72. the King dissenting On the same grounds you may as well determine against the Kings Soveraign and his Negative Voice as his dispensing Power For it was then resolved and while they were yet a legal Parliament as that in I mean that of 41. That the Sovereign Power resides in both Houses and that the King ought to have no Negative Voice Resolved also That whatsoever they Declared to be Law ought not to be questioned by the King. But to these Votes the King never gave his Assent wherefore they signifie nothing to us but the Opinion of those men at that time The Sovereign Power and the Negative Voice and the Authority of Declaring what is Law and what is not Law standing where it did before for all their Declaring otherwise then or the Parliament in 72. Declaring afterward But I humbly conceive as I said before that the Parliament in 72. never meant to extend their Vote to the Uses you have made of it in your Letter The worst which can be made of it is no more than that the Question being at that time moved about the Dispensing Power in the King they shewed their Judgment but left the matter remaining undertermin'd For you must know it was no more than the Opinion and not the Sentence of Illegality which was passed on the King's Dispensing Power at that time They knew well enough that to be an Unparliamentary proceeding and that they had no Authority to drive that business so far without the joynt Concurrence of the King only it is some Mens presumption or ignorance to give them more Where there is a matter of Question or Doubt between the King and the Parliament the House of Lords or the House of Commons or both having by the King's leave the liberty of free speaking there may give their Judgment by passing a Vote so as to incline to their Opinion and obtain the Kings if they can to a Consent and Concurrence with them but not so as to bind the Subject or to defend them in their Disobedience to the King In the mean time till the matter be more Legally and Authentically according to the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom determined which can be no otherwise than with the joynt consent of the King and His two Houses of Parliament together Till then however problematically illegal the thing is not Authoritatively illegal and so however shaken by the Opinions of some Great
Parliament put into a Remonstrance and Presented to Charles the First was Frequent Dissolution of Parliaments Raising of Ship-money Suspensions Excommunications and Degradations of divers Painful Learned Pious Ministers c. There comes in at last a Complaint of His Chaplains and other Ministers of the Church of England Preaching before the King against the Liberty and Property of the Subject and for the Prerogative of the King above the Law. What will the World say of us while they see us blow hot and cold out at the same Mouth For my part I beleive the scratch is now where it don't itch Prerogative is not the thing does so much aggreive us If it happened to be on our side as we apprehend it now against us we should like Prerogative well enough If we had liv'd in those days what should we have though of such a Prerogative-Indulgence from Queen Mary in the behalf of Her Protestant Subjects from the Penal and Sanguinary Laws then established by Parliament Would we not have dared to own it to publish it in our Churches and Chapels till we had Authority of Parliament for it Would we have deserted and opposed so gracious a Queen and stroke into a Confederacy with the concurring Opinions of the Nobility and Gentry That to take away-the Penal Laws at that time would be but one step from the introducing of Protestancy I do not find the Clergy at all aggrieved at the Dispensing Power when at any time serving for the Interest of the Protestant Religion For instance When King Edward the Sixth by his mere Prerogative disposed of the Crown for that Reason to the Lady Jane most expresly contrary to a late establish'd Law passed in Parliament whereby the Crown was entailed on the Children of Henry the Eighth of which Mary and Elizabeth were both surviving it was so far from a daring not to do it till we had Authority of Parliament for it and from scrupling the Teaching of that which alters what has been formerly Thought the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom That Doctor Ridley Bishop of London by Order of the Council Preached a Sermon on purpose at Pauls-Cross to set forth the Title of the Lady Jane and to justifie the proceedings of the King and Council in that Affair Doctor Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the Principal in the Council and most of the rest of the Bishops and Clergy complied with and approved of it and commended it to their People Nor were the Nobility and Gentry averse from it After Queen Elizabeth by the same Established Laws the Succession of the Crown was to pass to Mary Queen of Scots but she being a professed Catholick what intrigues were driven to exclude Her in favour of the Protestant Religion and also Her Son James the First of England yet in his Infancy and probably enough supposed to bring with him His Mothers Religion Did not the Parliament offer to the Queen I cannot tell but it passed to an Act to enable Her to nominate Her Successor to the Crown Was not this to alter what had been formerly thought the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom Did not Charles the First the Protestant Martyr authorise the Canons of the Convocation 1640 by His Prerogative-Royal the Bishops and Clergy rightly asserting and espousing His Authority and Power in that matter nevertheless for the Parliaments declaring at the same time the Illegality of the thing and That it was against the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom So that it is not so much the Parliament of 72 nor the Constitution of the Church and Kingdom but somthing else in the Wind which makes us so off the Hooks with Prerogative and Dispensing Power at this time something we fear which I am confident upon the Integrity of His Majesties promise we have no cause to Fear But since you have so rudely jogg'd Prerogative for nothing in the World that I can see but happening to stand in your way at this time I will try a little of my skill as well as I can to defend it Treating first of the King 's Dispensing Power in general And Secondly of the exercise of it in this particular Instance which is the matter of the Declaration 1. In General That such a Power of dispensing with the Laws at least in the interim of Parliaments be lodged somewhere is grounded upon the same reason as of making Laws which is for the common good Salus populi est Suprema Lex Laws abstract from the Sanctions whereby they are injoyn'd are nothing else but Provisions made as at the first so on every arising occasion of promoting the common Good and consequently of averting any prospect of evil But for Parliaments in which so great a number of Men are employed and at so great a charge as that must be to the Nation to Sit continually watching and waiting upon such contingent occasions were almost as intolerable as any other evil the Laws would prevent Somtimes Laws Salutary and fitting to the juncture wherein they were made with some unexpected Providence Vicissitude or other un-thought Emergency change their nature and become noxious Besides that many Evils even pernicious and destructive to Common-wealths are somtimes so sudden and impendent as the Remedy would come too late in that way Somtimes of that nature that as nothing but dispatch so nothing but Secresie can avert them Somtimes so fixed in a popular mistake and misunderstanding as nothing but Time and Reasoning can make the discovery and generally enough dispose the Nation to consent to a Remedy And what must the Publick suffer perhaps an intolerable Evil or an irrepairable Ruin for want of applying an extraordinary Remedy in such Emergent cases That it is not expedient only but necessary for the publique Good that a Trust be reposed somwhere to make provision for the security of the whole Poplitique Body in such grand Emergencies and to judge of the matter and of the means proper for averting the Evil I think is by no body denied Whether it be so in our written Laws it makes no matter I am sure he that runs may read it in the original Prototype of all Laws which is right Reason even in the Fundamental Laws and Constitution of this Kingdom and all other Human Societies The Parliament of 41. could see a dispensing Power thus far thô they could not or which is blinder would not see to set the Saddle on the right Horse It is resolved say they by both Houses that in this case of extreme danger and of His Majesties refusal the Ordinance agreed upon by both Houses for the Militia doth oblige the People by the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom It being so then that by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom written or unwritten such a Dispensing Power with the present establish'd Laws is necessary at some times to be interposed I know not nor do I believe that any one else can tell me where it
with this Power That it is no where wiser and safer lodg'd than in the King. That therefore we must acquiesce in His judgment when it is seasonable to use it That nevertheless for our satisfaction the Reasons which His Majesty has given in that Declaration of His which we refuse to Read are very clear and cogent for the putting in practice His Prerogative at this time But you say further We cannot Consent nor Read. For that is to recommend to out People the choice of such Persons as shall take away the Test and Penal Laws which most of the Nobility and Gentry have Declared their Judgment against This is an Argument not from the force of Reason but Example which may be right or wrong as it happens and we have no way to assure us when it is and when it is not but by putting it to the touchstone of Reason which being done already till I see those Reasons answer'd I have no more to say but Magis amica Veritas Passing this over therefore as nothing new but only a scrape to the Nobility and Gentry you say next rather than nothing almost the same over again viz. That it is to condemn all those great and worthy Patriots of their Country who forfeited the dearest thing in the world to them next a good Conscience that is The Favour of their Prince and a great many Honourable and Profitable imployments with it rather than consent to the Proposal of taking away the Test and Penal Laws which they apprehend destructive to the Church of England and the Protestant Religion and he who can in Conscience do all this I think need scruple nothing If the same Proposal had been made to us as to the Worthy Patriots that is Whether we would give our Votes in Parliament for taking off the Test and Penal Laws then you had rightly taken an Argument a simili for our suffering like them rather than consenting which is the thing you pretend to do but very inconsiderately for our Case is not like theirs Nor will the Great and Worthy Patriots Thank you for bringing them to parallel and patronize your Disobedience to His Majesties plain Command when the Consent they were asked to give was only to a Proposal and so can imply no Disobedience if they did not consent If His Majesty had asked no more of them than he does of us which is to publish His Declaration they would never have forfeited His Majesties Favour for that nor their Honourable and profitable Imployments For how I pray came His Majesties Declaration the first time published I suppose it must be communicated to others so as to pass all over the Nation through many Hands of Officers of the Gentry and of the Nobility too for any thing you know and of such as nevertheless did stop perhaps at the Proposal of taking off the Test and Penal Laws and so are you left free to do if you please for all your Reading and as free are all those that hear you You proceed next to the evil consequences which may follow your Reading It would make our Ministry contemptible you say which must by no means be admitted right or wrong for ought I see A Minister must look to please and humour the Mobile or all his Counsels Exhortations Preachings Writings are nothing worth For St. Paul has said Tit. 2.15 Let no man despise thee That is well enough argued against Authority in a matter where we see the People as hot and as forward as ourselves But now if we were to Teach the People as you call it by Reading the Act of Vniformity the Book of Homilies or the Book of Common Prayer or any thing else not so relishing or by which we are like to get the Ill-will and Contempt of the People Why it is but putting on our Nose of Wax again with a bent on the other side then by honour and dishonour by good report and evil report as deceivers and yet true 2 Cor. 6.8 Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the Truth If your business were only ad captandum populum this might serve but whereas you wish us so to behave ourselves that no Man despise us It will concern us who are Clergy-men and Scholars not to appear to all Men of Sense such silly and despicable Animals as you seem to take us for by thinking to impose upon us with such pitiful Sophistry as this For Sir Is the thing evil or is it not If it be as somtimes you are in the mind contrary to the Laws both of God and Man do but prove this as soundly to us as you have said it temerariously and we are as much at a point for not recommending it to our People as you though they should despise us for it never so much But if it be not evil in itself as forgetting your Theme in another place you had almost slipped out in these words It may be it were no fault to consent to the Declaration If I say there be perhaps no fault but only a popular misprision in it to make some Men despise us by the same reason we should not read the Book of Canons as we are bound every year nor an Homily nor the Book of Common-Prayer itself Your next Reason is that it will effectually tend to the ruine of the Church of England And why Because it will provoke or misguide all the friends it has What the Reading it and nothing else A Man had as good be a keeper of Bears as of such Friends who will be so easily provoked As for the King no body cares how much he be provoked though he be most able by His Power and obliged by His Sacred Promise to Protect us from ruine And if we once disoblige Him from that I fear we shall find it beyond the Power of the Nobility and Gentry to protect and maintain us so far as he has ingag'd Himself in this so provoking Declaration supposing His Majesty false and treacherous to His Royal Word and Promise you have said somthing on this Argument and truly he who should be over solicitous in answering it would but seem to be so too Wherefore you may run for me to the end of your Rope with the rest of your harangue on this reason It is all set on a false bottom which is Answer enough Your Objection comes next of some who should say These are Consequences but conjectural and not absolutely necessary It may be the Reading of it will not so effectually tend to the Churches ruine To which you Answer They are not indeed such effects in respect of certainty as arise from natural Causes but they are as morally certain as any thing can be Good Sir then do us the Favour but to hear them made out almost as evident Demonstrations as you have promised us let us see this Moral Certainty Moral Effects must have Moral Causes Is not the Kings a Moral Promise and may not a