no Reason since they are only Declarative and Persuant to the late Act of the Convention whereby after the Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects King William and Queen Mary are Declared That they were and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Soveraign Leige Lord and Lady and King and Queen of England c. M. Well it is late and besides to no purpose to argue this Point any longer since it concerns not me nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you make and impose upon those whose Consciences will never permit us to take them What I have said was only to shew you the Folly and Weakness of such Oaths and Consequently that they can be subservient to no other end then a renewal and aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us which God forgive this sinful Nation among the many crying Sins it now growns under Yet give me leave still to mind you that you have not given any answer to the Objection I have made concerning the Schism that is like to follow from the depriving of all such Bishops and Clergy that shall refuse to take the new Oath by such a time which Deprivation being uncanonically ordain'd by the meer lay power of the Convention without the authority of a Convocation or Synod such proceedings are sufficient cause for all of our way to break off all Church Communion with you as soon as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops shall happen to be deprived and new ones put in their Places since all Church Communion wholly depends upon the lawfullness of the Bishops who are the supreme Pastors of our Church F. I forgot to say any thing of this because I said so much to answer concerning the new Oath I proposed as sit to taken by those in places of Trust but since you desire it I shall say somewhat though not so large as I could speak upon this Subject First I must tell you it is altogether a new Notion and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it is declared that the Kings of this Realm have the same Power with Persons in the Church as the Kings of Iudah and Israel had among the Jews therefore you must either depart from the Doctrine of this Canon or else the King and Parliament who are certainly as much the supreme Power of the Nation as the Kings of Iudah were to that of the Jews may as well deprive the Arch Bishop of Canterbury for Example for Treason or Disobedience to the Government as Solomon did Abiathar for Anointing his Brother Adonijah King and besides this I can shew you many Examples of the like power exercised by the Roman and Greek Emperours in depriving and banishing not only Bishops but Patriarchs for the matters of State without any Sentence or Judgment of a Synod or general Council of other Bishops if your Doctrine were true the poor Greek Church would be in a sad Condition and all her Members in a perpetual Schism for some Ages past that there hath been scarce any Canonical Elections or Deprivations of the Patriarchs of any of the great Seats viz. Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria but they are all nominated and put in and out at the Grand Seigniors nay Visiers Will and Pleasure as any Man who will but peâ—uâ—e Sr. Paul Rycauts account of the Greek Church may easily see But indeed you fall into this Errour for want of considering the original of Bishop-pricks in England and the true meaning of this intended Deprivation for pray take Notice that though Episcopacy was setled in England in the time of the Britains yet all the Seas and Jurisdictions of the Bishops of this Realm in respect of such and such Diocesses have been wholly oweing to the bounty of our Kings and the Authority of our Great Councils which were also confirmed by the Popes Bulls and since the Reformation to the Authority of the King and Parliament as were all the Bishop-pricks erected in Henry the VIII ths Reign so that let the Bishops meer Spiritual Power of Ordaining Excommunicating c. be derived immediately from Christ if you please yet the Exercise thereof as limited and appointed to this or that Precint or See is as meer a temporal Institution as that of Parishes which was not introduced till long after Christianity was settled in this Island So that the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the See of Canterbury for Example being a Civil Institution it hath anciently belonged to Supream Powers not only to confer this Power as appears by their ancient Investitures of our Bishops per Baculum Annulum but also to take it away for Treason or Disobedience against the State since the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their Spiritual Character or Episcopal Orders but only of their right to exercise it within such Sees or Diocesses thus although the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishops of London and Wichester with the rest of the Popish Bishops were deprived by Act of Parliament in 1 o th of Elizabeth for not taking the Oath of Supremacy the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade those Bishops of their Episcopal Orders but only to forbid their acting as Bishops in their former respective Diocesses and therefore I doubt not but that notwithstanding this Depriviation those Bishops might if they had pleased have ordained Priests and confirmed Children and that such Ordinations and Confirmations would been good even in our Protestant Church if such Priests or Children had afterwards turned Protestants since 't is very well known that the Church of England ownes the orders of the Church of Rome to be valid which is more then we do for the ordinations of meer Presbyters coming from those Protestant Countrys where there are no Bishops at all the like I may say for their Confirmations too But pray Sir consider how upon your Principles this Schism can be so Universal as to influence and involve all England in it for if the Arch Bishop of Yorke for example will rather take this Oath then suffer Deprivation and that the rest of the Bishops of his Province should be of the mind as I am credibly informed they will pray tell me how the People of that Province being a distinct Church or body Ecclesiastical from that of Canterbury as to all Spiritual matters as having a distinct Convocation of their own can ever be involved in this Schism by the deprivation of the Arch Bishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury And pray also tell me in the next place how all the Members of the two Universities can ever be involv'd in this intended Schism since they owe no Canonical Obedience to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury or York nor to any other Bishop but only to their Chancellour and the Vice-Chancellour as his Deputy who exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the said Universities and therefore their Church
fifty years ago but I do not look upon them as the Antient Establisht Doctrine of our Church because these Canons are not confirmed but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments and consequently never legally Established as they ought to be by the publick Saction of the King and Nation Our Old Queen Elix Divines such as Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines nay teaching in several places of their Writings the quite contrary Noâ— was this Doctrine of absolute Subjection and Non-Resistance ever generally maintained until about the middle of King Iame's Reign when some Court Bishops and Divines began to make new Discoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity and did by their Preaching and Writings affirm that the King had an absolute Power over Mens Estates So that it was unlawful in any Case to disobey or resist his Personal Commandâ— if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God as may appear by Dr. Harsâ—et then Bishop of Chichester his Sermon upon this Text Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's wherein he maintained That all the Subjects Goods and Money were Caesar's that is the Kings and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the publick use which Sermon thô order'd by the Lords and Commons to be Burnt by the Hangman yet was so grateful to the Court that he was so far from being out of Favour for it that he was not long after Translated to Norwich and from thence to the Archbishoprick of York So likewise about the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First Dr. Manwaring preached before him the substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher than the former viz. That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land not to impose Taxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament and that when they were so imposed the Subjects were oblieged in Conscience and upon pain of Damnation to pay them which if they refused to do they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebelion For which Sermon he was Impeacht by the Commons in Parliament 4. Car. I and thereupon Sentenced by the House of Lords to be Disabled to hold or receve any Ecclesiastical Living or Secular Office whatever and also to be Imprisoned and Fined a Thousand Pound Notwithstanding all which we find him presently after the Parliament was disolved not only at Liberty but also presented by the King to a Rich Benefice in Essex and not long after made Bishop of St. Davids So likewise one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Asâ—ize Sermon at Northamtâ—n on Rom. 13.7 wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines as that it was the King alone that made the laws and that nothing could excuse from an active Obedience to his Commands but what is against the Law of God and Nature And that Kings had Power to lay Pole Money upon their Subject Heads But this much I have read that this Sermon was Licensed by Dr. Laud then Bishop of St. Davids because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law for which he was very much frwoned upon at Court and it is supposed to have been one of the main causes of his Suspension from his Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction which not long after happened But as for this Siothâ—rp tho he lived long after even till the Kings Return yet being as Archbishop Abbot describes him a man of but small Learning I cannot learn that he was ever preferred higher than the Parsonages of Barchley and in Northamptonshire But I find a New Doctrine broach'd by some Modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of King Iames the first That Monarchy was of Divine Right or Institution at least so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful and of this New Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written several Treatises to prove this Doctrine and which is worse That all Monarchs being Absolute they cannot be limited or obliged either by Oaths Laws or Contracts with their People farther than they themselves shall think fit or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives of which they only are to be the Sole Judges So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings what strong inclinations they had to render themselves Absolute and that few Divines or Common or Civil Lawyers were preferr'd in their Reigns to any considerable Place either in Church or State who did not maintain these New Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit You need not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way if so many were carried away with it since it was but to expose themselves to certain misery if not to utter ruin to oppugn it All who offered by Speaking or Writing to maintain the contrary being branded with the odious Names of Puritans Common-wealths-men Whigs c. Some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned Fined nay Whipt for so doing So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought nor could any thing but the imminent danger upon our Laws Religion and Properties proceeding from the Kings illegal practices have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen Gentlemen and Clergy who contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue did generously venture both their Lives and Estates to joyn their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings M. I do not doubt notwithstanding all you have said to prove before I have done these Doctrines of Non-Resistance and of the Divine institution of Monarchy to be most consonant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and also to that of our Reformed Church of England Nor were those Divines you mention in K. Iames the First 's time the Authors or inventers of these Doctrines which were publickly received and Decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began in the first Year of K. Iames and continued till the Year 1610. as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins late Bishop of Durham besides a very fair Copy now to be seen in the Archbishops Library at Lambeth which if you please to peruse you may be quickly satisfied that the Church of England long before ever Sir R. F. writ thoses Treatises you mention held that Civil Power was given by God to Adam and Noah and their Descendants as also that absolute subjection and obedience was due to all Soveraign Powers without any resistance as claiming under those Original Charters These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted as the Doctrines of our Church So that you deal very unjustly with the memory of those Divines as also of Sir R. F. to
wanting to the making such a Master of a Family a lawful and absolute Prince provided he was endued with such power as to be able to protect them yet all this while without supposing any new Divine Authority to be infused by God upon his accession to this Dignity M. I confess you have given me a more exact account concerning your sense of this matter than ever I had before and therefore I shall not further dispute this point with you only let me tell you that upon this Hypothesis of yours is founded that desperate Opinion concerning the real Authority or Majesty of the People which the Common-Wealths men suppose still to reside in the diffusive body thereof after the Government is Instituted And by vertue of which they suppose there still remains a power in them to call their Kings or Governours to an Account and punishing them for Tyranny or any other supposed Faults against the fundamental constitution of the Government or the Original Contract as those of your party are pleased to term it F. Well then to let you see I am none of those Common-Wealths men who maintain any such desperate Doctrine Here I do freely own that where the People have parted with their whole Power either to a Monarch or else to a Supream Council or Senate from thenceforth they have nothing at all to do to call such Governours to an Account or to punish them for the highest Tyranny or Oppression they can commit The utmost I have allowed as lawful to be done in this case in all the Conversations we have had is no more than this That the People in case they see themselves like to be destroy'd and ruin'd both in their Persoâ—â— Consciences and Estates may even under the most Absolute Governments stand upon their own defence and prevent their being thus totally ruined and may also cast off all Allegiance to such Powers in case they refuse to treat them with greater justice and moderation for the futureâ— But as for such limitted or mixt Governments as ours are where the People have still retain'd a share in the Legislature and also in the raising of publick Taxes yet since the King is by Law exempted from punishment or rendring any account of his Actions either to the People or their Representatives the utmost that I contend for is that since the King receives only a Limited Power of ruling according to such and such Laws and will Usurp that share of the Government that do's not belong to him In such cases if he refuse to amend then they may resist his Officers and Ministers nay himself in Person in the executions of such Violent and Illegal Actions And if he still prsist and rceâ—use to amend that then at last they may proceed to Declare that he hath forfeited his Crown or Regal Right of Ruling over them And then in such Case I hold that it again devolves to the People from whom it first proceeded and that this is no new Doctrine I have the Authority of Fortescut on my side who in his Treatise De Laudibusâ— Legum Angliae Where after having shewn that all Political or Limited Governments proceeded at first from the consent of the People proceeds thus Addressing himself to Prince Henry Son of King Henry the VI. For whom he composed this work Habâ—s ex hâ—c 〈◊〉 Princâ—â—s institutionis Politici Regni formam ex qâ—â— metiri poteris potestatem quam Rex eju◠〈◊〉 legis ipsius aut subditos valeat exercire Ad Tutelam â—amous legis ac subdit orum â—â—rum Corporum â—onorum Rex hujuâ—modi erectus est ad hanc Potestatem a Populo affluxam ipsi habet quo eiâ—noâ— licâ—t potestate aliâ suâ— Populâ— Dâ—minarâ— From whence we may observe that he calls the Government of this Kingdom not Regnum Simply but Regnum Politicum that is a Politick or Limited Kingdom in opposition to Regnum Absolutum made up of divers parts This he calls a â—ower flowing or proceeding from the People and if it thus proceeds from the People it must certainly return to them again upon the failure of the conditions to be performed on his part Noâ— do's this suppose any real Majesty or Authority in them who take this forfeiture any more than is â—o's suppose it in the People according to your own Hypothesis when the Civill Authority do's again devolve to them upon the Death of a King without Lawful Heirs M. I do now very well understand your Hypothesis but I think Princes are not thereby in a better condition by being thus unaccountable to and unpunishable by the people But that they are father in a much worse since you say they may resist nay kill them when they are once entered into a state of War against them For whereas where Princes are accountable to their People or Senate they may then be admitted to be heard to make their defence in case of any Oppression or Misgovernment laid to their charge As the King of Poland may at this day to the great Assembly of Estates or Dyeâ— of the Nation Whereas in the case of the King as you have put it though he is not accountable to the Parliament yet he is still lyable to that which is more dangerous viz. To be Judged Censured and Declared forfeit by every â—onsiderable fellow of the Rabble on pretence of violating this Original Contract and having broken the fundamental constitution of the Government and so shall be condemned unheard and perhaps without any just cause So that I think a man had as good be a Bâ—â—ward as a King upon such Term. F. The men of your Principles I see are not to be pleased unless Princes may do whatever they have a mind to without controul or any mans judging or opposing the Illegality of their Actions For if a Parliament takes upon its self to judge of the Kings Actions this is calling their Princes to an Account and a thing against the Laws of the Land as also that of Nations If the whole Body of the People take upon them to judge when he has violated the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and broken the Original Contract and thereupon resist him This is making the King liable to be Judged and Censured by every mean fellow of the Rabble But to let you see that both Judging and Disobeying the Kings commands if contrary to Law is not a thing of such dangerous consequence as you would make it appears by the late Petition of the Seven Bishops wherein they take upon them to Judge that the Kings 〈◊〉 Declaration of Liberty of Conscience being against several Acts of Parliament they cannot with a safe Conscience Publish it or agree to the Reâ—ding of â—t in the Churches Now I desire to know whether this be 〈◊〉 a making the Kings Actions liable to be Judged and Censured by every one of the Rabble since these Bishops acted thus neither as Privy Councellors noâ— as Peers in Parliamentâ— for by the
make them the first breachers of it whereas you may find that it was the opinion of the whole Convocation for many years before ever those Divines or that Gentleman began to Preach or write upon this subject Nor were these the only men who maintained these Principles but Archbishop Usher and Bishop Sanderson whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines you so much condemn as any of that party you find fault with and have very well proved all resistance of the Supream Powers to be unlawful not only in absolute but limited Monarchies Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfie your self if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bishops viz. The Lord Primate Usher's Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it as also the said Bishop's Treatise de Iura nouto written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford F. I must beg your pardon Sir if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention much less of the opinions therein contained since there is no mention made of their proceedings in any History or Record of those times either Ecclesiastical or Civil as I know of But this much I am certain of That these Determinations or Decrees you mention call them which you please never received the Royal Assent much less the confirmation of the King and Parliament one of which if not both is certainly requisite to make any opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doctrine of the Church of England otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience tho' they stand at this day condemned by Act of Parliament so that however even according to your own Principles you cannot urge this Book as the Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent which you your self do not affirm they had for you very well know that as in Civil Laws no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King hath refused to give his Royal Assent to it so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Lay-men till they have received the confirmation of the King and the two Houses of Parliament or otherwise the consequence would be that if the King who hath the nomination of all the Bishopricks and Deaneries as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England of which the Convocation chiefly consists should nominate such men into those places which would agree with him to alter the present establisht Reformed Religion â—n Governmenâ— and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it or at least to submit without any contraditioâ— to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make which of how fatal a consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom this Kings choice of Bishops and Deans such as he thought most fit for his turn would have taught â—s when it had been too late M. You very must mistake me Sir if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons which I grant must have the Royal Assent but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament I very much question since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church and diverse Canons made under Queen Elizabeth and King Iames are good in Law at this day tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you to let you see that these Doctrines are more Antient than the time you prescribe and also that the Major part of the Bishops and â—lergy of the Church of England held these Doctrines which you so much condemn long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention medled with this controversie and I suppose we may as well quote such a Convocation Book as a Testimony of their sense upon these subjects as we do the French Helvetian or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines tho' without any confirmation of the Civil Power F. If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony and not Authority I shall not contend any further about it but then let me tell you that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation though never so much confirmed by King and Parliament do no further oblige in Conscience than as they are agreable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures sure their determinations without any such Authority can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reuerence for the Judgments of so many Learned Men yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book I think notwithstanding that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason and express Testimonies of Scripture by either of which when I see you can convince me of the falshood of my Tenets I shall count my self happy to be beâ—â—er informed But as for those Treatises of Bishop Usâ—er and Bishop â—anderson which you now mentioned I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately writen and tho' I am against Rebellion as much as any man and do believe that subjects may too often be guilty of it yet am I not therefore convinced that it is absolutely unlawful in all cases whatsoever even in the most Absolute and Arbitrary sort of Civil Government for the People when violently and intolerably opprest to take up Arms and resist such unjust violence or to join with any Foraign Prince who will be so generous as to take upon him their deliverance So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bishops you mention were very Pious and Learned men â—im â—hat I bear great reverence to their memories yet doth it not therefore follow that I must oâ—â— them to be Infallible or as great Polititians as they were Learned Divines or that they understood the Laws of England as well as they did the Scriptures or Fathers and perhaps there may be a great deal more said on their behalfe than can be for divers others who have since Wâ—â—een and Prâ—â— so much upon those subjects for if you please to consider the times of their writing those Treatises you will find them written about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars which they supposed to be begâ—n and carried on contrary to all Law and Justice under the pretenced Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against King Charles the First and therefore it is no wonder if they thought themselves obliged to Write very high for the Prerogatives
as we read Chancellor Fortescue did Prince Henry Son to Henry the VIth and I hope he will come over again to practise them in his own Country before he comes to be infected with the Arbitrary Principles of the French Government but as for those of not keeping Faith with Hereticks and a propagating his Religion by Persecution I doubt not but the King his Father will take care not to commit his Education to any of those who are infected with such Principles and I am the more inclin'd to believe it because it is very well known that his Majesty's tenderness and moderation in matters of Religion and not persecuting any body for the belief or bare profession of it as it was the greatest cause of his late Declaration of Indulgence so it was the main original of all his late Misfortunes nor can I see any reason why a King by being a Roman Catholick must necessarily be a Tyrant and a Persecutor since you cannot deny but that we have had many good and just Kings of that Religion and it is from those Princes that professed it that we derive our Magna Charta and most of the priviledges we now enjoy F. Though I would not be thought to affirm that the Romish Religion is every way worse than the Mahometan yet this much I may safely affirm that there is no Doctrine in all that Superstition so absurd and contrary to Sence and Reason as that of Transubstantiation held by the Church of Rome in which the far greatest part are certainly Idolators which can never be objectâ—d against the Turks and therefore though I will not deny but that a Man may be saved in the Communion of the Romish Church yet it is not for being a Papist but only as far as he practises Christ's Precepts and trusts in his Merits that he can ever obtain that favour from God But as for those evil Principles both in Religion and Civil Government which you cannot deny but are now commonly believed and practiced in France and which you hope King Iames will take care that the Prince his Son shall be bred to avoid I wish it may prove as you say but if you will consider the Men that are like to be his Tutors and Instructors in matters of Religion viz. his Fathers and Mothers Confessors the Jesuits and for Civil Government those Popish Lords and Gentlemen of notorious Arbitrary Principles and Practises who are gone over to King Iames you will have small reason to believe that there is ever a Fortescus now to be found among the English-men in France or who is likely to instill into him those true English Principles you mention And though I do not affirm that every Popish Prince must needs be a Persecutor yet since that wholly depends upon those Priests that have the management of their Consciences shew me a Prince in Europe who has a Jesuit for his Confessor and tell me if he hath not deserved that Character But though I am so much of your Opinion that King Iames ownes the greatest part of his Misfortunes to his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience yet was it not so much to the thing it self as to his Arbitrary manner of doing it by assuming a Dispensing Power contrary to Law and you may be very well assured by the little opposition which the late Acts met with for taking off the Penalties against Conventicles and not coming to Church in respect of all Dissenters except the Papists that King Iames might have as easily obtain'd a like Act to pass in respect of those also as to the free profession of their Religion and having Mass in their Houses which is more than the Papists will allow the Protestants in any Country in Europe And therefore I must beg your pardon if I still find great reason to doubt whether K. Iames his tenderness towards those that differ'd from him in matters of Religion and the Indulgence he gave them were purely out of consideration of tender Consciences and not rather thereby to destroy the Church of England Established by Law since the Dispute began between King Iames and his Parliament was not about Liberty of Conscience but those Offices and Commands which the King was resolved to bestow upon the Papists whether the Parliament would or not And certainly there is a great deal of difference between a Liberty for a Man to enjoy the free profession of his own Religion and the power and benefit of having all the chief Imployments of Honour and Profit in the Common-wealth But that the Indulgence of Popish Princes towards those that dissent from them in matters of Religion may not always proceed from pure Tenderness and Compassion appears from a Manuscript Treatise of F. Parsons that great Jesuit in Queen Elizabeth's time which I have been told was found in King Iames's Closet after his departure This if you can see it will shew you that the subtil Jesuite doth there direct his Popish Successor in order to the more quiet introducing the Romish-Catholick Religion to grant a general Toleration of all Religions out of a like design Thus did Iulian the Apostare long ago tolerate all the Sects and Heresies in the Christian Religion because he thereby hoped utterly to confound and destroy it But as to what you alledge concerning Magna Charta's being granted by Popish Princes and that there has been many good Kings of that persuasion As I will not deny either the one or the other so I desire you to remember with what struglling and great difficulties this Charter was at first obtain'd and afterwards preserved though it was no more than a Declaration of most of those Antient Rights and Liberties which the Nation had always enjoy'd And you may also remember that they were Popish Princes who more than once obtain'd the Pope's Dispensation to be discharged from those solemn Oaths they had taken to observe those Charters and though there hath been divers good Princes before the Reformation yet even the very best of them made the severest Laws against Protestants and were the most cruel in their Persecutions witness King Henry the IVth Henry the Vth and Queen Mary And indeed it is dangerous to rely upon the Faith of a Prince who looks upon it as a piece of Merit to destroy all Religions but his own and when he finds it cannot be done by Law will not stick to use any Arbitrary means to bring it about To conclude pray consider whether the strict observing or violation of Magna Charta and his Coronation Oath hath been the cause of King Iames's Abdication Pardon this long Discourse which your Vindication of the Opinion and Practises of Popish Princes hath drawn from me M. Pray Sir let us quit these invidious Subjects which can do no good since Princes must be own'd and submitted to let their Principles and Practice be never so Tyrannical and let us return again to the matter in hand I will therefore at present suppose
Authority since besides that it was done by Usurpation in those rough and unsetled times yet I believe if the antient Writs of Summons were now in being you would find that they were called by those Usurpers though not by the Title of Kings but I defie you to show me since the Reign of Edward the First any Parliament ever call'd without the King's Writs of Summons and though upon the deposition of Edward and Richard the Second the Parliaments you mention might continue to sit and transact publick business yet was it during a plain Usurpation upon those Princes whom you your self must grant to have been unlawfully deposed and therefore we find upon the Parliament Roll of the 21 st of Richard the Second that an Act of the first of Edward the Third confirming the Judgment given upon the two Spencers was not only repeal'd in Parliament but declared to be unlawful because Edward the Second was living and true King being imprison'd by his Subjects at the time of that very Parliament of 1 Edward III. But as for your last instance of a Conventions declaring it self a Parliament in the Reign of King Charles the Second there is a great deal of difference between them and the present Convention since they did not take upon them to declare or make a King as this Convention has done but only to recognize him to be their Lawful Sovereign which as I have already told you being that which was their duty to do they might very well justifie though they were not Summon'd by the King's Writs but however all their Acts were looked upon as made without legal Authority and therefore were confirmed in the first legal Parliament of King Charles's Reign But as for the Authority of the Statute of the 13 th of Eliz. whereby you would prove that the Parliament has at this day power to alter or limit the Succession of the Crown besides that such an Act being against the fundamental rules of Succession was void in it self yet if you please to look upon the Act in Rastal's Statutes you will there find it was only made to serve a present turn and to keep the Queen of Scots and her Party from enterprizing any thing against Queen Elizabeth and therefore it is there only declar'd to be Treason during the Queens life for any Persons to maintain that the Queen could not riot with the Authority of the Parliament limit the Succession of the Crown and as for the last Clause that makes it forfeiture of Goods and Chattels to maintain the contrary after her decease this was made to strengthen and confirm the former part of the Statute which was a provision and security against such pretences and Practices as had been lately made against her by the Papists on the behalf of the Queen of Scots Title and this Clause could not take effect after her death but was added to preserve Queen Elizabeth's Memory from being defamed after her decease or being slanderously charged with the heinous Crime of Usurping the Crown which must have been the inevitable consequence of affirming that she and her Parliament could not limit the Succession For to confess the truth I think Queen Elizabeths best Title was by Act of Parliament since her Legitimacy might be justly question'd by reason that her Mothers Marriage was declar'd unlawful by the 28 th of Henry the VIII th and she was as good as declar'd illegitimate by her Father in that very Act that setled the Crown upon her but that this Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth is now looked upon as expired appears in Palton's and all other late Collections of the Statutes since her time wherein the Title of the Statute is barely mention'd with EXP. immediately following it to shew it is looked upon as expired So that you are mistaken to affirm that the Convention has done nothing in the late limitation of the Crown but what may be justified from that Statute therefore if it be not Law at this day I think they had no Authority to alter the Succession of the Crown from the right Line let them be of what Religion they would F. I see you do all you can to evade the force of my Authorities from History and direct matter of Fact and therefore as to what you say that those were rough and unsetled and therefore no Precedents to be drawn from thence this is to beg the Question for what could be the Law concerning the Succession of the Crown for the first hundred and fifty years after the Conquest but the constant usage of the Great Council of the Nation as low as the Reign of Henry the Third and it is a bold assertion to accuse the whole Nation of Perjury and Rebellion against their Lawful Kings during all those Successions I have now instanced in nor have you any thing to say against those Parliaments that met in the 1 st of King Edward III. and Charles the II. but that their Meeting was Lawful because it was only to recognize those Kings and not to make them which is indeed to beg the Question since you cannot deny but those Parliaments are held for good notwithstanding they were not call'd by the King's Writs But as for making a King the present Parliament have not taken upon them to do it since they do not in the Act for the Succession Elect King William and Queen Mary to be our Lawful King and Queen but only declare or recognize them to be so upon supposition that the Prince of Wales is either an Impostor or else his Legitimacy impossible to be tried and determined by them Nor are your Objections material against the Authority of those Acts of Parliament which were made in the 1 st of King Henry the IV th and Charles the II d. which were never Summon'd by those Kings Writs For as to the first of those Instances most of those Acts of Henry the IV th stand good at this day without ever being confirm'd by any subsequent Parliaments And tho' I grant that the publick Acts made in the first Year of King Charles the II d. were confirm'd in the next Parliament of that King yet this does not prove that they would have been void without it since divers private Acts passed in that Parliament which were never confirm'd in any other and yet are held for good As particularly an Act of that Parliament for making the Church of St. Paul's Covent-Garden Parochial And this Act though never confirm'd was yet adjudged to be in force by the Lord Chief Justice Hales and the rest of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench in a Case concerning Rate Tythes between the Minister and some of the Parishioners of the said Parish Nor is what you have now said to prove the Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth whereby the Crown is declared capable of being limitted by Act of Parliament to be now expired since it is plain by the purport of the
and sober Morals and of a quiet different Interest to those imploy'd in the two last Reigns and therefore I am so far from taking away the present Oath of Allegiance that I rather wish that there were a new one more strict and full then the present ordain'd to be taken by all those who shall take Offices and Employments of Trust or Profit whereby they should not only declare their present Majesties to be true and lawfull King and Queen of this Realm but also that they will defend them against all their Enemies King Iames himself not excepted M. I confess I cannot expect so great a Tenderness from this Government which has been introduced by so much Artifice that they should absolutely take away all Oaths of Allegiance whatsoever since I doubt not but it will assume to it self all those advantages which any former usurped Power could pretend to yet this much I must needs tell you as a Friend the depriving those Bishops and Dignified Clergymen who shall refuse this new Oath will be highly ungrateful since many of them have been as violent opposers of Popery and Arbitrary Government as any Men in England as appears by their late Petition to the King if therefore the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops I know to be so averse to this Oath should be deprived upon the refusal of it since it will be done uncanonically by the Temporal Power of an Act of this Convention without the Sentence of the two Houses of Convocation I doubt that it will be thought by many to be a sufficient Cause of departing from the present Church Communion and of seting up distinct Congregations by those who will be deprived and turned out of their Livings for refusing this Oath and what the consequence of that may prove God knows But whereas you think this present new Oath not full enough and therefore wish there were another made declaring the present King and Queen to be lawfully and rightfully so c. since this would amount to as good as an Oath of Abjuration of King Iames and his Title I doubt it were better let alone for I do not think the present Government will get any thing by it since the intent of the Oath you propose can only serve either to gain the present Government more new Friends or else to fix the old ones faster to it or else to discover secret Enemies now if I can prove it will not serve for any of these three ends I suppose you will grant that it were better to let it alone now that it will be so far from gaining it more Friends that it will rather serve to drive away a great many from it is apparent since many men are now in Offices and Imployments who think they may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance as long as the present King and Queen are not therein declared to be lawfully and rightfully so and I believe may serve them faithfully enough in their several stations who if they should come to be put to it to declare and swear that they were rightful and lawful King and Queen would rather lose their places than take it neither will it fix those that are for this Government faster to it since those that are zealous for it will be so whether they took any Oath or not and I have already proved that by the word Allegiance in this Oath it is implied that the present King and Queen are to be defended as lawfully so by the Swearer to it which is the main reason that I and those of my Opinion can by no means think it lawful to take it Nor lastly will it discover any secret Enemies to your Government since those who being rightly instructed in the true sence of this Oath and what is thereby required shall notwithstanding take it against their Conscience will I doubt take any Oath whatever the Convention shall think fit to impose since nothing but the fear of losing their present Imployments or else the desire of getting new ones could have made them take the Oath as it is since to my knowledge it hath been taken by many now in Places much against their own judgement and I doubt the conviction of their Consciences too I speak this only in relation to some of loose Principles but as to my self and many more of my Acquaintance who refuse this Oath we should be so far from taking any Place of Trust under this Government that we should not do it tho' no Oath were at all required of us since I think it not only wicked and dishonourable for any honest man to serve a Party only to watch an opportunity to betray it but I also believe my self obliged by my former Oaths as well as the duty of a natural Allegiance which I owe the King and his right Heirs not to serve those whom we look upon as Usurpers of their just Rights But if you would also have this new Oath to be an absolute abjuration of the King and his Title it will not only be unjust but impossible since who can tell but either by the help of a foreign Force or the general consent of the Nation tired out by a long expensive War either his Majesty or the Prince of Wales may be again placed upon the Throne and then sure whenever they shall call a Parliament to recognize their Title they will be even according to your own hypothesis more lawful and rightful Kings than King William and Queen Mary since they will not be only Kings de facto but de jure too and therefore I believe it was out of this Consideration that in all those long and various Contests which so often happen'd between Competitors for the Crown they never presumed to proposed to the Parliament the passing any Act to impose an Oath to abjure the Title or Person of the Rival Prince Thus in all the long Wars between King Stephen and Maud the Empress as also between the two Houses of York and Lancaster each of whom as they prevail'd in their turns were very well contented to make the Subjects take the ordinary Oath of Fidelity to themselves without abjuring each others Title and even in the later times of the Rump Parliament when the most violent and hot-headed Commonwealths-Men would have imposed an Oath of Abjuration of Charles Stuart and all his Family as they then termed his late Majesty the most Wise and Moderate Men among them such as Lenthal their Speaker and others stifly oppos'd it saying it would be a fighting against Providence to take an Oath never to own his Majesty for their King if once he should come in again without their assistance and I think there is as much if not more reason now against such an Oath of Abjuration as ever there was then F. I cannot deny but you have spoken like an honest Man in absolutely refusing to act under this Government though without an Oath unless you could be satisfied of
Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Uncanonical deprivation of any Bishops in England I desire you to consider these things as a Canon-Lawyer and give me your answer if you can against the next time we meet and then tell me whether the causes of this threatned Schism be so just and apparent that it is like to involve so many of the Wisest and most Considerate of the Clergy and Laity into open separation from the Church as you suppose it will not but that I will grant there be many of the Clergy of this Opinion who as well out of Conscience as for their own interest will be contented to set up and encourage such a separation thereby to make themselves heads of separate Congregations when they shall be deprived of their present Benefices and Imployments upon their refusal of this Oath M. I must confess I never heard so much said upon this head before and if you could make out to me all the matters of fact you have now instanced in I know not but that I may come over to your Opinion tho' let me tell you this is the first time that ever you can shew me that any Bishops were deprived in England by the meer Lay Authority of the King and a Great Council or Convention of the Laity whilst they continued of the same Church-Communion with those Bishops for as to your instance of the Popish Bishops deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I doubt you will find it does not come up to the Point in question since the Queen and Parliament having then newly declared themselves Protestants did not own them for true and Orthodox Bishops and consequently thought they might justly depart from their Communion and upon the same account might deprive them and the Queen might then nominate others of their own Religion in their Places F. I cannot but differ from you in the matter of fack as you now relate it for Queen Elizabeth and the Parliament were when they made this Act so far from being separated from the outward Communion of the Church of Rome that Mass was then said and the Romish Priests still continued in all the Parishes and Churches of England and yet they still maintain'd an outward Communion though their Bishops were deprived by the Civil â—ower and others ordain'd in their stead So that it is plain the Papists themselves had then no notion of this new cause of Schism by reason of their Bishops being Uncanonically deprived nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Legality of our Reformation if the Protestant Bishops who succeeded in the places of those who were thus deprived by Act of Parliament could not be Canonical because their Predecessors deprived by the Lay Power were still alive But admit this was the first time that ever it had been thus practiced yet if it were then reasonable and done upon good grounds I cannot see but when the necessity of the Church and State require it and that the Clergy in Convocation are so wilfull and wedded to some old false notions as not to consult the peace and safety of the Church and Kingdom why the King and Queen who are acknowledged to be Supream over Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Persons may not together with the two Houses of Parliament make the like Law now as was done in the first of Queen Elizabeth for a less matter for none of those Popish Bishops though they believed Queen Elizabeth to have no better than a Parliament Title to the Crown yet ever denied her to be their lawful and rightful Queen only they would not own her Supremacy in Spiritual Matters But leaving the farther discussion of this Point to those who better understand it I would gladly know of you what you intend to do and what you would have us do who are like to be made Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace for if as you your self allow there be a necessity that some Civil Government be maintain'd during King Iames's absence I desire to know of you how it can be managed and who shall manage it in case all the Gentlemen of England were of your Principle and should positively refuse the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties for if King Iames be never so much our lawful King it is not now possible for us to be Govern'd by him since he is goâ—e and God knows whether ever he may return again since then you cannot have him if you would and that there is a necessity we should be Govern'd by some body And since it is also as certain that those who actually Govern us will exact this or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us as were due to their Predecessors and that no man must expect to enjoy or execute any Place or Office not only of profit but of burthen and charge for the necessary execution of Justice and the maintenance of Civil Government without which we cannot live or subsist without taking this new Oath of Allegiance as the only means to qualifie them for it if then the end viz. Civil Government be absolutely necessary and the taking of this Oath is the only means allow'd of to qualifie men for it this seems as evident to me that taking of this Oath is not only justifiable by Law but by Reason and good Conscience since it is done for the highest and noblest end viz. the publick good of the whole Nation or Common wealth which you grant cannot subsist without some kind of Civil Government amongst us M. I will say something in answer to what you have now alledged concerning the necessity of taking of the Oath in order to the maintenance of some Civil Government without which I grant the Kings good Subjects cannot subsist till his return since I confess this is the strongest Argument you have yet brought all I can say to it at present it that if all your Country Gentlemen and all the Lawyers in England would be so firm in their Loyalty to his Majesty as unanimously to declare that they cannot take this Oath with a safe Conscience the consequence then would be that either the present Usurped Power must be forced to give up the Government to the right owner or else they must at least desist from pressing this Oath upon you F. You know well enough this is altogether a vain supposition since you cannot but be sensible that their Majesties have not only a sufficient force both of Native Englishmen and Foreigners on their side who can force those that should make any opposition to the taking it and that there are also many Fanaticks and Common-wealths Men who not looking upon themselves as at all oblig'd by your notions of Natural Allegiance and the obligations of any former Oath of Allegiance will get into all the Offices and Imployments of the Kingdom to the great prejudice and destruction not only of the Church but the Monarchy it self which is as yet preserv'd tho the Person
in pleyn Parliament that is in full Parliament where both Lords and Commons were present that the Proceedings of the Lords against those that were no Peers should not be drawn into Example c. Now pray see the Commentaries of the most Learned and Reverend Author of the Grand Question upon these words in this Record This hath all the formality of an Act of Parliament and therefore all the Estates were present so likewise in the same year in the next Roll but one Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy son Counsell in Plein Parliament which was an Act of Parliament concerning those that had followed the Earl of Lancaster So in the 5 th of this King we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who make a full Parliament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy Prelates Counts Barons autres Grands de Roiaâ—me in pleyn Parliament So in the 6 th of Edward the Ill d the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Oration in pleyn Parliament which is thus explained en le presence nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Prelats autres Grantz And in another Roll si est accorde assentu per tous in pleyn Parliament and who these were we are told in the same Roll viz. les Prelats Counts Barons tous les autres Summons à misme Parliament Now this is the clearest explication of these words in full Parliament viz. in the presence of all those who were Summon'd so that if the Commons were then Summon'd to this Parliament as certainly they were they must have given their Assents under the Title of Grantz since the Prelats Earls and Barons were particularly mention'd before To Dialogue the 10 th p. 706. after these words be Reformed by them or not read thus And that King Iames the First himself was satisfied of this Original Contract may appear by his own words in a Speech to both Houses of Parliament 1609. where he expresly tells them that the King binds himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom Tacitly as being a King and so bound to Protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation so as every King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws in framing the Government as agreeable thereunto according to that paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge c. To Dialogue 12. p. 874. after their Successors add this So that all the Modern Acts of Parliament for intailing the Crown being made and ordained by the Counsel and Assent of the Lords and Commons are so many plain declarations and evident Recognitions what the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government was in that grand Point To Dialogue the 12 th p. 898. after the words of the said Parish read thus and that not only all the Private Acts of that Parliament but some Publick ones also tho' never confirmed in the following Parliament of the 13th of Charles the Second are yet held good in Law appears by these that follow viz. 1. An Act for Continuance of Process and Iudicial Proceedings Continu'd By which all Writs Pleas Indictments c. then depending were ordered to stand and proceeded on notwithstanding want of Authority in the late Usurpers and therein it was farther ordained that Process and Proceedings in Courts of Justice should be in the English Tongue and the generall Issue be Pleaded till August 1. 1660. as if the Acts made during the Usurpation for that purpose had been good and effectual Laws And upon this foot only stand many Fines Recoveries Judgments and other Proceedings at Law had and passed between April 25 1660 and August 1. 1660. 2. An Act for Conforming and Restoring of Ministers This Act is usually to this day set forth and pleaded in Quare impedits tho' it was said to be refused upon debate to be confirmed in the House of Commons 13th of Car. II. when divers other Acts of the same time were confirmed yet both these Acts having no other Authority but from that Convention as you call it have been Judged and Constantly allowed to be good Laws for above these 30 years To Dialogue the 13 th p. 966. after these words were still alive read this And to shew you that the King and Parliament have deprived even Bishops of their own Communion and that such deprivations have been held good and that the King hath nominated new Bishops upon the vacancy you may see in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and in the Appendix to it where you will find a memorable Act of Parliament of the 25 th of Henry the VIII before his departure from his obedience to the See of Rome whereby Cardinal Campegio and Hieronimo de Ghinicci were deprived of the Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester which they had held for near 20 years and Campegio had without doubt been installed in it when he was in England The Act it self being so remarkable I shall give you some passages out of it verbatim first the Preamble sets forth that whereas before this time the Church of England by the Kings most Noble Progenitors and the Nobles of the same hath been founded ordained and establish'd in the Estate and degree of Prelacy Dignities and other Promotions Spiritual c. which sufficiently confirms what I but now asserted that all the Bishopricks were founded by our Kings with the consent of their Grand Councils or Parliaments and then it proceeds to recite that whereas all Persons promoted to Ecclesiastical Benefices ought to reside within the Realm for Preaching the Laws of Almighty God and keeping hospitality and since these Prelates had not observed these things but lived at Rome and carried the Revenues of their Bishopricks out of the Kingdom contrary to the intention of the Founders and to the great prejudice of the Realm c. in consideration whereof it is Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament that the said two Sees and Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester and either of them henceforth shall be taken reputed and accounted in the Law to be void vacant and utterly destitute of any Incumbent or Prelate and then follows a Clause enabling the King his Heirs and Successors to nominate and appoint Successors being the Natives of this Realm to the said Sees and the King did nominate Successors according to the said Act. A Table of ERRATA THE Authors Occasions not permitting 〈…〉 Town whilst most of these Dialogue were in the Press begs pardon for the many Erratas in some of them and desires you to Correct such gross ones that alter or disturb the sense viz. Dial. 1. p. â—0 l 24. for Author r. Authority p. 52. l. 37. for 4th r. 5th p. 36. l. 38. for Rights r. Rites Dial. 2. p. 80. l. 25. del hundred r thousand p. 80 l. 22. d. Greek p. 84.