they are imployed will as Bravely Honourably and Circumspectly discover their abilities and I hope will keep so good a correspondence with Loyal Protestants that are their Fellow-Servants to so great a Master that the King may at least have that satisfaction that he can unite them in a Camp which he cannot do in a Church and shew his great wisdom in Government that he can be faithfully and effectually served by all his Subjects of different Religious Interests And though the endeavours of several to explicate the Roman Catholic Religion more approachingly to the sentiments of Protestants have not as yet had that effect they wished yet it may be useful to let us see that in affairs of State and Government such an intercourse and mixture may be as former Ages have not known and by the Conduct of our Gracious and Wise King may be laid a foundation for better accord in future times that we may not be at such feuds among our selves It is true that under a Protestant King there might be some reason to maintain the Protestant Church so as it might neither be indangered by the Roman Catholics or Protestant Dissenters and by Sanguinary Laws tho rarely put in use people might be deterred from being of any other Communion yet we cannot think that the same measures can be taken now such circumstances varying the methods of proceeding and in Government and Politicks new Emergencies may yea must render old Axioms obsolete Hence we take notice how imprudent these Informers are who in our King's Reign more out of pretence and impotent zeal than for any good concern to the Church of England tempt the Justices and instigate them to prosecute Catholics by binding them to Sessions and Assizes for what can be expected from this but it will exasperate the King and discover how desirous these are to persecute them tho they know he will pardon the Transgression in as much as it relates to himself Thirdly 3 It is against the Kings Prerogative Having thus far treated of the Natural and Religious Grounds the King hath to demand to have the Act repealed I come now to the politic and more necessary part as it relates to the legal constitution of the Government which by this Act of the Test suffers a great alteration in the abridging the King of an undoubted Prerogative of the Crown For the illustrating of which I shall first give you the opinion of the most Celebrated Writers of the English Laws of what nature the Kings Prerogative in general is Secondly That the Leigance of the Subject to his Sovereign is judged among the principal Prerogatives of the King. Thirdly How tender our English Ancestors have been of the Royal Prerogative Fourthly That the Test deprives the King of the Leigance and of that Fundamental Prerogative of having the service of his Subjects And Lastly Conclude with some Inferences from these Considerations The nature of the Kings Prerogative As to the first a L. 1. Instit 90. Sr. Edward Coke saith the Prerogative extends to all Power Preheminence and Priviledge which the Law giveth to the Crown b Lib. 1. Bracton calls it in one place the Liberty in another the Priviledge of the King. c Fol. 47. Bretton following the d Weston 1. c. 50. Statute calls it Droyt le Roy and the e 61. Register stiles it the Kings Right and the Royal Right of the Crown My Lord f 2 Instit 84. Coke saith the Prerogative of the King is given him by the Common Law and is part of the Law of the Realm g Prerog c. 1. Stanford saith the Prerogative hath its Being from the Common Law and the Statutes are but declarative Properly speaking the Prerogatives of the Crown are such powers as the Kings of England have reserved to themselves as most necessary for the support of their Dignity and the Government Therefore h Rusâ—w Collect. 555. Sr. John Banks in his argument about Ship-mony affirms that the Jura Summae Majestatis which are the Prerogatives are given to the person of the King by the Common Law and the Supreme Dominion is inherent in his Person Another judicious i Mr. White Majestas Intemerata p. 30. Lawyer out of the Authorities he there cites saith The Prerogative is inseparable from his Person not grantable over it is always stuck upon the King or Crown and being inherent to the Majesty of a King and part of the matter of that Majesty is no more grantable than the Majesty it self or a Royal member of the Imperial Stile These are the Characters given to the Kings Prerogative in general â— The Subjects 〈…〉 the Crown Let us now in the second place consider that among the Prerogatives of the Crown It hath been always accounted one of the eminentest principal and fundamental ones that the King and none but he may at his own pleasure command the service of all and every his Subjects in his Wars and other Ministerial Offices which they are bound to by their Natural Allegiance Hence k 2 Instit. 128. Sr. Edward Coke stiles Leigeance the highest and greatest obligation of Duty and Obedience that can be and defines it The true and faithful obedience of a Liege man to his Liege Lord or Sovereign and so calls it * Vinculum Fidei Leges essentia The Ligement or bond of Faith and the essence of the Law and in l 7 Rep. p. 9. amittit Regnum sed non Regem amittit Patriam sed non Patrem Patrie another place he affirms That it is not in the power of any Subject to dissolve this Obligation saying That he that abjures the Realm may loose the Kingdom but not the King may loose his Country but not the Father of his Country agreeable to what another eminent m Dyer fol. 300. Lawyer asserts That none can divest himself of his Country in which he is born nor abjure his due Allegiance nemo patriam qua natus est exuere nec ligeanciam debitam ejurare potest In Calvin's Case the famous n 7 Rep. p. 4. Chief Justice saith That Liegeance and Obedience is an Incident inseparable to every Subject For as soon as he is born he oweth by Birthright Liegiance and Obedience to his Sovereign therefore in several Acts of o 14 H. 8.61 43 H. 8. c. 3. Parliament the King is called The liege and natural liege Lord of his Subjects and his people natural liege Subjects So that the liegiance is due to the natural person of the King by the Law of Nature which is immutable is part of the Law of England and was before judicial and municipal Laws as the same great Author affirms Long before him p Lib. 1. Stanford Plea 54. Bracton saith That things which are annexed to justice and peace belong to none but the Crown and dignity Royal nor can they be separated from the Crown for they make the
the Church for the Common-weal and for the remedy disburthening and ease of them that be grieved yet this should not be prejudicial to him or to his Crown but that the Right which to him appertaineth should be saved Which Sir Edward Coke calls the Kings Right of his Crown and Prerogative It is declared by the Lords and Commons in full h Reâ—l Parliament 43 Ed. 3. No. 7. Parliament upon demand by the King That they would not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disinhereson of the King and the Crown whereto they were sworn This makes the Chief i 4 Iuctiâ— 51. Justice censure as a great fault the omission in the printed Statute of 2 R. 2. in confirmation of Liberties these Words Saving to the King his Regality which are found in the Parliament k Roll. Parlam 2 R. 2. Stat. 2. cap. 4. Roll. A Lawyer l Davis Reports 86. of no small esteem saith The Commons of England have ever been exemplary for the tenderness of the Kings Honour and the maintenance of the Sovereignty But this was before they medled so much with Articles of Religion So in latter times 3º Car. 1. both Houses declared upon passing the Petition of Right that they have neither intention nor power to hurt the Kings Prerogatives Thus far as to the regard our Ancestors have had to the Royal Prerogative Now I shall in a few particulars shew the resolutions of the Judges in such Cases when Acts of Parliament have intrenched upon them In the 13th of m 4 Institu 42. How the Judges have resolved upon Acts of Parliament that Insringe the Preregative Richard the Second Stat. 2. cap. 1. it was enacted That no Charter of Pardon unless so and so qualified should be from thenceforth allowed by the Justices for Murther Treason or Rape and if it were otherwise the Charter to be disallowed Yet my Lord Coke saith This did not bind the King the granting of Pardon being the Kings Prerogative incident solely and inseperably to the Person of the King. The same Richard the Second bequeathed n Ibid. certain Treasuries to his Successor on condition to observe the Acts made the 21 Reg. This was held unjust and unlawful for that it restrained the Sovereign Liberty of the King his Successor And the same Reason saith a judicious o Majestas Intemorata Lawyer may serve to overthrow a Statute which shall unjustly and unlawfully restrain the same Sovereign Nor had saith he this bequest been of more strength had it been enacted by Parliament Injustice being Injustice and Vnlawfulness Vnlawfulness every where It was p Cokes Report 12. p. 14. enacted 23 H. 6. That no man should serve the King as Sheriff in any County above one year but the Grant should be void the person accepting it pay two hundred pound and it was expresly provided that the King by a non obstante should not dispence with it Yet it was agreed 2 H. 7. against the express provision of that Act That the King may by a special non obstante dispence with the Act because no Act could debar the King from the service of his Subjects which the Law of Nature did give unto him In the 37 H. 6. it was q Ibid. p. 18. enacted That none should be Justice of Assize c. in the County where he was born or did inhabit Yet saith the same judicious Lawyer the King with a special non obstante may dispence with it and gives the reason for that it belongs to the inseperable Prerogative of the King viz. his power to command to serve The same r Ibid. p. 18. Lord Chief Justice in the same report is more express and as full as if he had foreseen this present Case of ours where he affirms That no Act can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseperable to his person but that he may dispence with it by a non obstante and instanceth in the Sovereign Power to command any of his Subjects to serve him for the Public Weal For this saith he is solely and inseperably annexed to his Person and this Royal Power cannot be restrained continues he neither in Thesi nor Hypothesi but that the King by his Royal Prerogative may dispence with it For all which he gives this most unanswerable reason because upon the Commandment of the King and Obedience of the Subject doth the Government subsist I might add very many more Authorities as Edw. the Thirds repealing an Act of Parliament by Proclamation as consented to upon necessity But I shall leave that to those whose Province it is and close this Head with one Observation We are all commendably and justly tender of the preserving the Liberties and Enfranchisments we enjoy by the gracious Condescentions of our Princes and are vigorous maintainers of our Properties and ought we not to own that there is as good reason that the Kings of England should be as solicitous to preserve their Prerogatives which are their right For as a most judicious Å¿ Quicquid in Regalibus est Ita est Principibus privatum ut Subditis quod suum est Selden prefat Mare Clausum Antiquary and Lawyer expresseth Whatsoever belongs to the Kings Royalty he hath as much Propriety in it as the Subject hath in any thing that is his We must likewise consider that the King is as much sworn to preserve the Right of his Crown as the Liberties of the People Therefore we find that branch in t Majestatis Intemerata some Coronation Oaths that the King swears he shall keep all the Lands Honours and Dignities of the Crown righteous and free in all manner whole without any manner of minishment And the rights of the Crown hurt decay or lost to his power shall call again into the Ancient Estate Therefore my Lord u 12 Rep. 18 Coke praiseth King Henry the Second in that he was a great Defender and Maintainer of the Rights of the Crown Inferences from the premises Having dispatched these Heads I now come to the application of them to the Test which as the Case now is and ever will be so long as it stands unrepealed deprives the King of the Allegiance of such of his Subjects as either Conscientiously or Designedly refuse the taking of the Oaths and affirming the Declaration enjoyned The Inconveniency of which is double First In robbing the King of so necessary and fundamental a Right over his Subjects in commanding them to serve him in Offices Military and Civil without which he is but a very Impotent Sovereign and cannot exert that necessary Justice of Protecting Rewarding and Imploying his Subjects which surely is not only much to the dishonour of the Sovereign but an unsufferable restraint And if w 31 Eliz. c. 4. Imbezelling Purloyning and Conveying away the Arms Ordnance Munition Shot Powder Habiliments of War c. is declared Fellony what sort of Crime
Crown It is a known maxim in Law saith the learned q Coke Report 7 p. 7. ex Stat. 11. H. 7. c. 1. 2 Eliz c. 2 Judge that every Subject is bound to defend the King and to go with the King and to serve in his Wars as well without as within the Realm The Liegeance to the Prince saith a singularly well read r Majestas Intemerata Lawyer is immutable and absolute in all places It obligeth in all ubi's and the liege man ought in duty of this faith to perform to his Lord the Offices of a Subject when ever he shall need his assistance against all who mori possunt aut vivere can die or live This is clear by Law and Reason In the 48 Å¿ Claus 48. H. 3. M. 3. Tam militiâ—e quam liberi homines omnes alii ad defensionem Regis tenentur H. 3. the words of the Law are That the Knights and Free-tenants and all others were obliged to the defence of the King And so 12 E. 3. All and every single person are bound to defend the King. Thence it was that a t 4 Instit 7. In â—â—riâ—â—lo Hestium suorum Parliament judged it High Treason in Nicholas Segrave that he withdrew himself from the Kings Hoste leaving the King in danger of his Enemies The ground of all which is what u Lib. 2. c. 1. Bracton so long since hath noted that to receive Justice and Protection are the greatest benefits of this Life and there can be no use of w Com. 3.5 Rulers without these Attributes for if the Sovereign be abridged x Roll. Eritt 234. of the Prerogative to exact Obedience and Liegiance from his Subjects he hath but a small portion of the Sovereignty indeed his Kingship must be precarious as depending only on the good Nature of his Subjects Thence the Attorney y Pusw Col cer 〈◊〉 552 General in the Argument of Ship-money saith The King as Head of the Politic Body is furnished with intire Power and Jurisdiction not only to minister Justice in Causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal unto his People but likewise for defence both of the one and of the other Whence the Clause inserted in the Register Ad providendam Salvationem Regis Bracton z 2 Lib. 1. fol. 6. saith The Life and Members of every Subject are in the Power of the King And a a Pasch 19 E. 1. Rol. 36. North. Record saith Vita membra sunt in manu Regis both which are understood that the King hath sole Power to command their Service in his Wars or otherwise as he hath occasion The Lord Chief b Instit 149. West 2.39 1 R. 3. p. 2. c. 15. Rol. Brit. 85. Justice saith That if any Privy Councellor or other cause one to enter into an obligation to serve the King it is void every man being bound to serve him without it and such Writings are declared dishonourable being every man is bound to defend the King and his Realm and to do the service that appertaineth to him as his Liege Lord. The King c Com. pl. 316. is stiled the Sovereign and Chief Captain of Arms all Power is his no man may use Arms so much as in Turnament Tilt c. without the Kings License The d Rol. Parl. 5 H. 4. N o 24. Statute of Array is full in this tho' not printed This is further illustrated in that if a Sheriff return that he is resisted in serving the Kings Writ it is declared not to be good because it redounds to the Kings dishonour being presumed the King can command every one to obey and the Sheriff hath Authority from him to raise the Posse Commitatus In former Ages the Kings absolute Power in disposing the Militia was never disputed It was the black or bloody Parliament only that assumed to themselves coordinate Power and challenged the Power of ordering the Militia for preserving the Kingdom without and against the Kings consent which occasioned the first Parliament of King Charles the Second to declare in the preamble of the Act e 13 Car. 2. c. 6. 14 Car. 2. c. 3. That it is and ever was the Kings Prerogative alone to dispose of the Militia of the Nation to make War and Peace League and Truce to grant safe Conduct without the Parliament and that he may Issue out Commissions of Lieutenancy impowering them to form into Regiments and imploy them as well within their own as other Countries as the King shall direct Since the taking away Tenures it is true the Method of raising Men hath been something altered but before the imposing of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and now this Test we find no qualifications of the persons required but that they should be habiles Corporis of able Bodies sit to serve the King and Country And tho this Test doth not totally deprive the King of the service of his Subjects yet it diminisheth his Authority and takes away the corporal Service of a considerable number of his Liege people Thirdly Hew careful our Ancestors have been to preserve the Prerogatives I now pass to the third particular in which I shall in some few instances shew how careful the Houses of Parliament have been in preserving inviolable the Prerogative of the Crown or when by any pressing emergency they have been invaded that the Judges have determined that the Kings of England might by a special non obstante dispence with the penalty of them This Question about the Test being wholly new and such a weakening of the Prerogative as hath not been known in our Ancestors days you cannot expect any clear discission of it in the Books of the Law. All one can do in such a case is only to produce some Maxims Presidents or parallel Cases that may affect it most which without the help of any ones Collections as having never perused any of the Arguments in Sir Edward Hales Case I shall out of my own small reading offer these following to your consideration The Attorney f Rushworth's Collect 578. General affirms That an Act of Parliament doth not extend to take away the Common Right of the Crown and saith That hath been the exposition of the Judges of Acts of Parliament that have done so He instanceth in the Magna Charta of King Johns 17º Regni where it is said That no Scutage or Aid should be without assent of Parliament So that in this there was no exception of an Aid to Knight the Kings Eldest Son or marry his Eldest Daughter yet it was resolved in this case that by that Charter those Aids were not abolished they being due by the Law of the Land and so it was declared 25 E. 1. cap. 1. We find an Antient Statute in King g Westons c. 50. 2 Instit 263. Edward the First 's time wherein the King speaks thus That he bad done this for the Honour of God the Honour of
reputed such c. and every one of them to have hold and possess seat place and voice in our Parliaments Publick Conventions and Councils and of those of our Heirs and Successors within our Kingdom of England amongst other Barons and Barons of our Parliaments publick Conventions and Councils This having been the long used form of the Patents granted by our Protestant Princes it is not only an abatement of what the Sovereign intended for their well-deserving Subjects and a violating of that peculiar Right which was designed to be transmitted to their Posterities and thereby a degrading of Roman Catholic Peers of so importent a priviledge but it wrests out of the Kings hands a Royal Prerogative he hath Jure Coronae to make and create the Members of that most Honourable House which is his Supreme Court of Judicature The ill Consequences that may follow such Retrenchment being well worth serious Reflections and of the Kings Prerogative I having occasion hereafter to treat more largely shall add no more here but only hint to you the Resentments of some Parliaments when they have wanted their Members and close this Head with some short Reflections which with all due deference to better Judgments and those whom it may most immediatly concern I shall only offer to be considered Mat. Paris p. 885. Anno 1255. The Earls and Barons absolutely refused the King any assistance or answer at all to what he demanded because all the Barons were not at that time called according to the Tenure of Magna Charta Stat. 1â— 114 So the Acts of the Parliament of the 21th of Rich. 2. and all the proceedings therein were totally repealed and nulled by the first Parliament of King Henry the Fourth because the Lords who adhered to the King were summoned by him to the Parliament and some of the opposite party imprisoned impeached and unsummoned Pryns plea for Lords Stat. 24. When King Charles the First sitting the Parliament confined but one Member the Earl of Arundel the whole House of Lords Remonstrated and petitioned the King to take off the restraint and to admit him to sit and serve the King and Common-wealth in the great Affairs of that Parliament So the Lord Digby Earl of Bristol being not summoned the Lords ordered his Admission to Sit as his Birth-right 4 Justit p. 2. from which he might not be debarred for want of summons which ought to have been sent him ex debito Justitiae as Sir Edward Coke affirms Pryn ut supra p. 145 146. When the same King Charles demanded the Five Members the Two Houses grew exceedingly disquieted at it and would meddle in no other Business but adjourned themselves to Guild-Hall London till the King should give them satisfaction in discovering the Authors of that Counsel The stress of whose Argument in their Messages to the King Nov. 2. 1642 was That by that means under false pretences of Crimes and Accusations such and so many Members of both or either House of Parliament may be taken at any time by any person to serve a turn and to make a Major part of whereby the freedom of Parliament would be destroyed which they say dependeth in a great part on this priviledge because without it the whole Body of Parliaments may be dissolved by depriving them of their Members by degrees some at one time and others at another Plea for Lords p. 414. The same mischiefs which they urged might happen to the Being and Constitution of Parliaments by the Kings depriving the House of five Members may happen upon the Houses excluding their Members by Vote against which Mr. Prynn makes so great an Out-cry and from this unparallell'd president except in the long Parliament of expelling Members for their opinion in Religion Some Reflections upon the whole All Lovers of the so excellently composed Constitution of the Two Houses may do well to consider what an Inlet it will make to the Imitation of the likely designing Men when they shall have any Intrigue in hand to expel Members of other Qualifications Qualifications and Recognitions during the Usurpation Surely we ought not to forget how much it prolong'd our miserable slavery under the Usurpers when no Members how duly soever chosen by the Freeholders were admitted to sit unless they were so and so qualified and made a Recognition to own the Usurped Government and to Act nothing contrary to the Model of it I think it no great Commendation in us to be in Love with such a Copy of the same tho drawn in Oyl-Colours and made more lasting and obliging by the Legality of it When Queen Elizabeth was in greatest danger from Roman Catholics even while her Rival lived she could not be induced to deprive the Roman Catholic Lords of their places in Parliament The ill consequences of Secluding the Bishops I think we ought to remember what dismal effects followed the Seclusion of the Bishops out of the House of Lords and that upon the Kings Restauration none appeared more forward and zealous to have them brought into the House of Lords again than the Roman Catholic Peers did which Action none I think will interpret to have proceeded from their Love to their Religion but solely to the tender regard they had to Justice and the true Constitution of Parliaments and if the Bishops and Protestant Lords had thought fit to have been as careful of the Birth-rights of those few Catholic Lords that were Members of their House in all probability our Religion had been in as little danger by their stay as it hath been better'd by their expulsion for they neither were then or are like to be so numerous in that House as to carry any Vote to overthrow or weaken the Exercise of the Protestant Religion What sort of Acts of Parliament least dureable It must be owned that Acts of Parliament are to be looked upon as Laws the Subjects ought to yield all Obedience to But it is likewise to be considered that such Temporary Acts which upon Emergencies and to serve a juncture have altered any Ancient or Fundamental Constitution of the Government robbed the King of any useful Prerogative or the Subjects of their Birth-rights as likewise all such as by Revolution of Time have the Causes for which they were made ceasing have been rarely found conducible to Publick Good or of any long continuance It is true our present Sovereign was personally excepted from the severity of these Acts but it is well known that some great Members of the Houses designed to have him presented by the Grand-Jury as a Recusant in order to his Conviction as a Roman Catholic and the Judges for discharging the Jury too soon as the designers alledged whereby an Indictment could not be brought in were severely censured by the House of Commons This was not all for the hottest Zealots were for proceeding upon the Statute against being Converted or Reconciled to the Church of Rome upon
in Religion these readily divided their adherence either to the Crown or to the Seditious or Rebels But whoever got by such commotions I am sure the generality of the Subjects were sufferers and whenever God Almighty punished them in this kind yet we find in the upshot the Government was again setled more firm as we may learn even by our latest examples at the Restauration of King Charles the second And whoever consider the benefits that accrue to a people that live quietly under Government and the sad mischiefs that Faction and Sedition cause will chuse the one rather than the other and will find that all the stricter impositions on the Subject have been occasioned by the peoples disobedience and the displacing of Officers have been for the security of the Government Hence the Act of purgeing Corporations and the late Quowarranto's and some Acts of State of later date Distrust of a Princes good Intentions for his People and diffidence in his gracious promises above all things are to be avoided in Subjects It is that hinders them from yeilding to his reasonable desires Our gracious King hath multiplied his Assurances of his protection of our Religion and it is our Duty and Interest to be confident in and truly thankful for them and neither by insolency mistrust or peevishness to forfeit his Royal Favour Those who are well acquainted with the gracious and generous temper of his Majesty know that a diffidence in his Sacred Promises is so much the more disobliging as it is the questioning his veracity which is one of the chief and most valuable of his Royal Virtues This distrust touching so vital a part as the Justice and Reputation of any private person raiseth a deep resentment how much more must it be ill indured in so great a Person who hath that peculiar temper of Spirit suitable to his Birth and Dignity not to suffer his Methods to be thwarted or disputed especially where the constructions put upon them tend to the diminution of the Love and Honour his Subjects owe him and will occasion seditious withdrawing of the Subjects from their Duty and Allegiance which as they are most important mischiefs and hazard the Peace of the Government so they have in all humane probability been the rrue and only Motives that have induced his Majesty to withdraw his wonted kindness from some persons that I am confident out of mere inadvertency of these consequences and out of desire to serve him in other Methods have fallen under his displeasure Upon this consideration it is that our Loyal Divines should have a special regard that neither openly or covertly they increase their Auditories suspition or distrust of his Majesties kindness to our Church but rather inforce a free passage of the contrary to our very heart and souls so as first to be truly thankful for his grace and then to be confident of it They have liberty from the King to confirm their Auditors with the best Reasons they can without misrepresentations in their Religion But withal I think it likewise necessary they be taught not to harbour those doubts and apprehensions of any Intendment of the King by any power to inforce us to abandon it but rather incourage them in a firm and thankful belief that the King will make good his gracious Promise Some such Cordials would preserve our Religion better than all the bewailings of the afflicted State of the Church which will not secure us one Article of our Religion I can foresee no danger to the Church of England by this way of proceeding but am most assured it would incline his Majesty more chearfully to continue his protection of it in finding such grateful returns of his Favours Only it might produce one effect that some probably are not desireous to experience that it would again bring us to that Criterion and perfect distinction of those who are true Members of the Church of England from others that now wear the Badge and Livery only which they can as soon undress themselves of when they should judge it for their Interest We should then find them at their old Calumnies that the Clergy were going over to or meeting half-way the Church of Rome and even those who are so much applauded and followed would in a little time be accused of selling the Reversion of our Religion as in the late times they were scandalized with the Incumbering and Mortgaging of it Upon the whole let us seriously consider that where Loyalty obtains no people can be miserable let us trust God and the King. And tho there are differences in point of Doctrine betwixt the Roman Catholics and us Yet as we agree in Morals and in several indisputable Points of Christanity in the Creeds and several Articles of Faith as well as in some external Ceremonies rejected by other Protestants there is no reason we should keep up such inveterate Animosities be at perpetual strife not de finibus regundis but of exterminating one another But rather study how by an amicable accord in our common Duty of Christianity and Allegiance we may mutually and Cordially endeavour the defence and preservation of the King and his Government which ought to be every Loyal mans design and is the sole intendment of this my present writing to you FINIS