Consent nor Read. Nevertheless the Basis or Ground-work on which you Rear the whole Superstructure of your Letter is a supposition That no Minister of the Church of England can give his Consent to the Declaration What! Not to a thing in which if there be any Fault it is of his own making Is our thinking some one way some the other enough to turn the Scale so as what were otherwise no fault at all becomes presently contrary to the Laws of God and Laws of the Land as you say afterward Point to that matter of the Declaration which cannot be approved by a Minister of the Church of England on account of its being contrary to or prohibited by the Laws of God. This indeed would make it matter of Conscience which to render it the more odious you here and there slily suggest without offering at the least mannâ—â— of Proof for you know well enough there is none His Majesty by this 〈◊〉 Declaration requires us to signifie to His People a method which in this juncture he Judges most expedient to be taken for the securing the Crown and the Persons of our Kings from those apparent Dangers to which they have been frequently exposed by our Dissentions in matters of Religion and for the common Peace and Good of all His Subjects Some approve it and some do not according as their Humour their Interest or their Parts serve and as ordinarily Mens Censures pass on other Affairs of State. But so to Reprobate it as a Mulum in se as a Pest to the Publick as an Abomination and Prophanation of our Churches and not fit to be heard by Christian Ears is such a hard straining of the case as brings along with iâ— the very dregs of Passion and Party We cannot approve of the matter of it you say it may be so Men doâ—câ— always disapprove or deny their Consent to what is proposed because it is evil but because they have no mind to it and so the consequence will be applying it to the matter in Hand That the Authority of His Majesty over a Minister of the Church of England does not to extend so far as to injoyn him to Read the Declaration when he has no mind to it For I doubt there is with a great many more of Stomach in the refusal than Conscience but this not to appear above board One thing though I perceive you have a great mind to which is that we would grant you your supposition before you prove it namely That no Minister of the Church of England can give Consent to the Declaration and then let you alone to make good your Inference that he cannot Read it Now Sir I do not think you have us so much upon the Hanck as you imagine should I grant your Supposition But I see you care not whither we do or no for you presently fall hot upon the Work to prove the Conclusion Ergo He cannot Read for that is interpretative Consent Now for my part I confess to you I turn over the Leaf knowing how many soever your Arguments be to prove it they would not satisfie me nor I think any reasonable Man till he see first how well bottom'd your Hypothesis be from which you borrow your Inference I would fain see your Reasons first Why a Minister of the Church of England cannot Consent before I grant what you are so hasty to suppose Why that I shall by and by but you will prove first That Reading is Consenting Reading is Teaching which is as odd an Hysteron Proteron as Hanging and Trying afterwards Let Reading be Consenting or not Consenting without troubling your self till I hear whether I may Consent or Not. Wherefore I must beg your Favour to let me depart from your method and turn over two or three Pages further to examine your Reasons wherefore we cannot Consent 1. Your first is That it is against the Constitution of the Church of England which is established by Law and to which I have subscribed and therefore am bound to teach nothing contrary to it so long as this Obligation lasts The Constitution of the Church of England as it is now a Protestant Church distinct from what it was before consists in various Acts of Parliament made especially in the beginning of the Reformation But I know of no Subscriptions required of the Clergy to such Acts of Parliament There is a Book intituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical Treated upon by the Bishop of London c. Anno Domini 1603. Which Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical are in Number CXLI These I think you must mean by your saying to which you have subscribed But you have not pleased to tell us against which of them it is we offend by Reading the Kings Declaration So that this Argument does nothing but lead us into a Wood and there leave us to be lost Is there any Constitution or Canon Ecclesiastical which bars the King from extending Clemency even to His Dissenting Subjects where He sees a reasonable and honourable Occasion for it Much less where the Necessity of His Affairs drive Him to it His Honour His Conscience the Preservation of Himself and His Friends and the common Peace of all I dare trust King JAMES the First for that without troubling my self to look over all the Hundred and Forty One Canons He had more King-craft than to part with such a Jewel out of the Crown to adorn the Crosier of the Church of England The Constitution you mention here is to what you have subscribed you say By the 36 Canon Subscription is required not to the whole Book but only to three Articles in that Canon mentioned By the first We acknowledge the Kings Supremacy By the second The lawful use of the Common-Prayer By the third An Allowance is made of the 39 Articles Upon any of which I cannot imagine how you ground your Reason wherefore we cannot consent to the Declaration unless you had told us If you were to prove the contrary from these Constitutions there seems to be something accommodate for your purpose in the first and second Canons All Archbishops Bishops c. are obliged by the first to keep and observe all and singular the Laws made for restoring to the Crown of this Kingdom the Antient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical Which Antient Jurisdiction in the Second Canon is resembled to the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical which the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church Now if the Parallel run so high as to the Antient Jurisdiction of this Crown how Antient does it mean Certainly before any pretence of the Invasion of it by the Bishop of Rome Wherefore that being a Work too big for a Letter I will give but one or two Instances and those so far back as to be out of suspicion of any such Foreign Invasion The Government or Jurisdiction of this Crown if inherent in it was and of right ought to be
their Consciences As for the other succeeding Ages of the Church after the Sixth Century the Church of England throws them aside as no Precedents for us to follow And yet it is the Christian Church in all Ages you would call in to avouch for you the Illegality of this Toleration 3. Your next Reason on which you ground your suppose that we cannot Consent you thus express It is to Teach my People that they need never come to Church more but have my free leave as they have the Kings leave to go to a Conventicle or to Mass Why Sir that they would do without the Kings leave or yours either before this Declaration came out However you are loth to have your Scepter wrested out of your Hands though it be with as vain and empty a Title as King of Jerusalem What a Grand Seignior you may be still in your Parish I cannot tell but I assure you in our Country Parish Dominions such a despotick Church-Power is extinguished long since Well Sir I perceive you are not inclin'd to be so merciful a Prince over your Subjects as His Majesty over His they shall never have leave for you But your Brother King would intreat however this favour at your Hands that when you have occasion to shake your Rod over your Subjects you would not send for him to be your Beadle And the rather because as he has no mind to it and that it is against his Conscience so you have no want of him neither the Spiritual Power having a Rod of their own more proper and agreeable to their purpose that is the Rod of Excommunication and other Church Censures which no body goes about to take out of your Hand Wherefore when you Read the Declaration you may let your People understand if you please that it is with a Non Obstante to that and so you have well enough escaped the Danger you fear should ensue to your Regalia viz. That it would be to Teach your People that they need never more come to Church but have your free leave as they have the Kings leave to go to a Conventicle or to Mass And so I pass on to your Fourth Reason 4. It is you say to Teach the dispensing Power which alters what has been formerly thought the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom which we dare not do till we have the Authority of Parliament for it At the Kings Command you dare not do it till you have the Authority of Parliament for it It seems then however you are bound in Conscience not to approve of such a Declaration Though it be against the Constitution of the Church of England nay though condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages though against the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land yet Authority of Parliament can discharge you of all Never was any Pope in England so high as Authority of Parliament is now set up that can dispense with the Laws both of God and Man for all this of the Kings doing is against both you say but not of the Parliaments By the way though you give a fair Hint unto the Parliament of the only Expedient as things now stand for the Common Peace Agreement and Satisfaction of all which is by their concurring with His Majesty in the setling what He has proposed by His Declaration For one part of the Nation approve of it for it self and all the rest want nothing it seems for their intire Satisfaction but only their Authority along with His Majesties At the present the main thing you stick at is The Kings Dispensing Power without Authority of Parliament Which indeed is the only thing you have said which bears any semblance of excuse for not consenting and consequently not reading the Declaration And you would have done better to have maintained your Post here than to have stuffed your Letter with Enemies Evil Counsellors Popery Mass Ruine utter and avoidable Destruction to both Church and Kingdom I have been fain to follow you hitherto in this wild Ramble which is nothing to the purpose but to inflame and exasperate Nobility Gentry Clergy People and all against the King and make the Breach wider than it would be Was not his late Majesty who was a Protestant and by the Advice of Protestant Councellors the adored Earl of Shaftsbury the Duke of Lauderdale and others forced to do the same thing when necessity of Publick Affairs required it Yet no Ruine of the Church of England followed nor of the Protestant Religion no Ruine no Destruction no Introduction of Popery nor intended to follow Some stir was then about the business of the Dispensing Power but nothing to what it is now Let us but quietly attend the expectation of a Parliament and that is a thing which it is likely may close of it self It did so before For indeed the Concurrence of His Two Houses of Parliament of which His Majesty made no doubt as He says when He first issued out His Declaration before we had royld the Nation The Concurrence I say of His Parliament will bury up all in Silence and Peace which is better than blow up so great a Flame as would arise by stirring the Coals of this Contest Prerogative of the Crown and Priviledges of Parliament are Matters too August for private Men as we are to meddle in much more to pass Sentence as your Letter does and plainly say The Dispensing Power is against the Laws and Constitution of this Church and Kingdom That it is Illegal which is so high a Presumption as can have no countenance for what was done in Parliament 72 for they have the Priviledge of free speaking there But out of Parliament perhaps it is a Crime of an higher Nature than we are aware Even the Bishops themselves though Persons moving in so high a Sphere and protected by so great a Power as the Pope was then in England yet they are given to understand as I find some Lawyers note 18 Hen. 3. That for as much as they hold their Baronies of the King that if they intermeddle with the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown they must look to forfeit their Baronies for their Presumption If I say the Bishops out of Parliament incur so high a Censure should they do any such thing what Animadversion is due to Men of a lower Order Evil Men such as have some Fish to take which will not be catch'd but in troubled Waters are wont to throw in one of these as certain Occasions of it and as Bones of Contention whenever they have a mind to have one It would have becomed us who are Men of Peace of all Men in the Kingdom to have contained our selves and whatever we think to have said nothing in this Matter Now is Out-cry against Prerogative Time was when we made as loud a Cry against pretended Priviledges of Parliament Liberty of the Subject and for Prerogative Among other Complaints and Grievances which the Black
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
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
Persons yet still left standing within the Verge of the King's Command and the Subjects Obedience For by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom and by a natural Allegiance to our Sovereign and Union to him as Members to our Politique Head we are bound to obey the King not only in all instances Legal but in all matters not Illegal Of which nature are all things neither forbidden by God nor by such Persons as have the sufficient and plenary Authority to do the same according to the Fundamental Laws and Constitution of this Monarchy And of that nature is the Dispensing Power which the Kings of England have always claimed to have over the Laws of their own or of their Predecessors Enacting in all such Emergencies as with the change of Times and Circumstances they become destructive and noxious as first and principally to the Head so to the other parts which make up together with Himself the whole Body Politique It is ordinary for some discontented Persons discountenanced at Court displaced from Office defeated in their Expectations c. to draw a Parry along with them or to sute themselves to one formed to their hands and by these especially in Parliaments to shew their resentments by their perverseness and crossness to the King's Affairs which nevertheless may be and are for the most part frustrated without any considerable detriment to the Publick through the wise Constitution of this Kingdom which soon leaves these weak and spiteful Efforts to turn to nothing but froth and bubble wanting the Support and Authority of the Royal Assent But how disingenious and disagreeing to Men especially of our Order is it to rake into the ashes of such long since departed Feuds and Factions and to raise up again what Time and Oblivion had buried to serve us in this Cause against the King. If we measure and form our Obedience by such Precedents and make such Votes of Parliament serve instead of Laws when our Interest wants them What hints will others be apt to take from our examples and perhaps when they want a better Reason for their Disobedience to remember the King of that Vote of Parliament which Declared The Legality of excluding Him from the Inheritance and Succession to the Crown Or that which Declared All those to be reputed and taken as Enemies to Parliaments who should lend the King any Money And yet suchas this is the best Authority you produce for us to depend upon and to justifie our present manage against His Majesty before God and the World. Well what is it then the Parliament as you call it in 72. Declared illegal Why an Vniversal and Vnlimited Toleration you say was that all The extent and latitude of the Indulgence then Granted against which they excepted I believe it was rather the Authority on which it was founded if an Universal and Unlimited Toleration be all against which you except From whom or what part of the Dissenters would you have His Majesty withdraw his Indulgence to make it ever the more Legal on your Principle to the rest I doubt your Parliament of 72. would not have thanked you for this But let that pass among your other Inconsistencies with yourself into which I perceive you often unwarily fall Whatever was done then here I am sure His Majesty by express words in the Declaration is so far from excluding His Parliament from their share either in the Authority of passing it into a Law or of the Wisdom and Council to be used within what Latitude or Limits to bound it as he refers all to the Concurrence of His two Houses in Parliament As for the Universality and Unlimitedness of the Toleration if that so much offend you and that you and your Parliament of 72. place all your Illegality of the King's Indulgence there I hope you will have content with a little patience there shall be no Toleration of Vice of Blasphemy and Immorality and Profanation of the Lords day as I hear some complain there is none I am sure intended now However the Toleration at present is to be accounted on that score but in the nature of an Interim or Suspension as the State of things will permit till such a meeting of the King with his Parliament for a further Regulation But this Reason is not done with yet for such a Toleration is not only declared Illegal by the Parliament of 72 but condemned by the Church in all Ages I wonder Sir how you come so Heterogenously here to yoke together the Parliament of 72 and the Christian Church of all Ages I should have thought that would have sorted better with a part of it self the Church of England Sir do you know of any unkindness between them that having in your first Reason so fair an occasion to have brought them in and have set them down by our own Church as both agreeing in the same Sentiment You have rather chose to place them in the Parliament of 72 as if they were Members of that but that I could forgive you if you had not proceeded with Representing them Falsly to have condemned such a Toleration in all Ages as the King has Granted by His present Declaration If you did but use your self a little more to Think before you Write it would have been obvious to you from the account the Scriptures give of the First Age that you had stumbled at the Threshold Our Saviour himself the Head of the Church gave an early check to that manner of Spirit As for the descending Ages of the Church I have given you under the Head of your first Reason some account how matters stood in the Age of Constantine with respect to Toleration and refer you further to other Pens who have industriously treated on this Subject and have sufficiently shewed your Error If you mean that the Christian Church in all Ages did never so Tolerate Dissenters from Her declared Doctrines as not to note and discover them and expose them to her Anathema's I grant you all this In Gods Name let not the Church spare Her Censures The Declaration pretends not to take from them any thing of their own I mean their Spiritual Power but only to Suspend such Temporal Penalties as belong to him only to inflict Which is a thing so far from being condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages that the first three Ages were merely Passive themselves and as in no disposition so in no condition to inflict Temporal Penalties upon others In the three following Ages indeed when the Emperors themselves became Christians they had not only the favour and protection of the Laws for themselves but the Civil Sword also sometimes turned upon their Adversaries but this was precarious only and of special Grace and Favour for which they were Thankful and not pretended a standing and unalterable Law by which Princes were bound to it whether they would or no and with whatsoever hazard of their Persons disturbance of their Governments or regret to
Parliament will find some Temper that no restraint or oppression shall for the future be laid upon the Consciences of our Kings by our Laws their Consciences as I said being much more concerned and aggreived in the Execution of such Penal Laws and Tests by their Authority then ours can be who pretend that for the cause wherefore we cannot comply with His Majesties Proposals for the taking them off This I have said to justifie His Majesty in the present use of his Prerogative as the necessary Salvo for His Conscience in this Conjuncture With His Conscience I further intimated a care to be taken for the preserving his Honour and that by his Prerogative dispensing with such Laws as by any new emergency contrary to their Primary intention do interpose and cast a cloud upon it Honour in Noble much more in Royal Personages is by our Laws ratable at the value of Conscience what therefore they declare upon their Honour is Equivalent to what Persons of a less Honourable degree declare upon their Oath But above all the Honour of our Kings is a most inestimable Jewel of their Crowns and Standard of their Government it is upon the account of that that their Subjects are disposed to revere and obey them to love them to confide in them to repose in them the trust of all they are and have and with their Lives and Fortunes to serve them Upon which account it is having so great an interest in the Government and well being of Mankind in their respective Societies and so great an Influence upon Subjects to ingage them to a quiet and tractable compliance with the wise consults of their Subjects hence I say it is that God himself is concerned for their Honour commanding in His Holy Scriptures that as we Fear God so we should Honour the King. Let me note to you further that our Laws are for these great Reasons so tender of the Honour of Kings as they will endure no attainder upon them but so soon as from Subjects they become Kings whatever attainder was before upon them from the Laws it falls of it self because otherwise the Laws lose their main end laying a blot upon his Honour and lessening his esteem with his People from which does naturally arise many intolerable Evils to the Government And for the same reason whatever Person is Convict of an attempt to Alienate from our Kings the Affections of their Liege People are looked on as Traitors and reputed such as do therein subvert the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom and if we follow the reason of the thing for doubtless upon that the Law is Grounded as any Person so any matter or thing which tends to Alienate from the King the Affections of his Liege People is by parity of Reason to be removed In short that which we call the Test however agreeable it might be to the present Circumstances in which it was made yet now as Circumstances are by the Divine Providence changed the continuing of it does reflect such Dishonour upon His Majesty as does evidently tend to alienate from Him the Affections of His Liege People and that two ways 1. As insinuating Him to be a Conspirator against the Life and Crown of His late Majesty in that which was called the Damnable Hellish and Popish Plot. And 2. As implying Him an Idolater against God the Supreme Majesty of Heaven and Earth First That the Test was made against the Roman Catholicks on presumption that they were generally ingaged in or one way or other Abettors of that then reputed Horrid Plot I think is too plain to be fairly denied If you object That His Sacred Majesty then Duke of York was Himself exempted from that Test and so it could not reflect upon him I answer Never the less for that Nothing more served their Purposes of that Conjuncture than that subtle-seeming Tenderness of the Duke For they knew His Majesties Love and Confidence in His Royal Brother was not yet shaken enough and that to have but named Him among the other Roman Catholicks at that time had certainly obviated the Kings Royal Assent to that Act. The Game was then but to extort from the King by force or gain by surprize what they might easily convert to the Dukes Disadvantage afterward For the Test being put upon all bearing Office throughout the Kingdom for the discovery of the Professors of that Religion on suspicion and suggestion to the People that they were all in that Conspiracy and the Duke being known to be of that Religion every one knew how to draw the Conclusion though the Duke were excepted to please the good King but especially when Matters were afterward intrigued to that pass that they dared openly to bring against Him a Bill of Exclusion in the High Court of Parliament and infaming Him at the same time all over the Kingdom with Libels of the most black and horrid import that Craft and Malice together could suggest Whatever was in the Design it is manifest enough in the Event that the first imposing of this Test and diffusing it through the whole Kingdom did universally ferment a disgust and prejudice against Him and cast a Dishonour upon Him and was a Method and Disposition to the Exclusion-Bill which followed while He was yet Duke But now He is by the Grace of God King of England c. the continuing of the same and the frequent occasion of using and renewing it must necessarily continue renew and fasten in His Subjects Minds the same preconceived prejudice which cannot be without Alienation of the Affections of His Liege-People from Him and consequently not only incumber and make His Government unwieldable in His Hand but also shrewdly hazard a Dissolution of it and be a continual Spring of many Evils against all which the keeping up of this Test still and putting that alone into the Ballance I think must appear to any thinking Man lighter than Vanity And yet much more when this malicious Suggestion against the King and others of His Religion is by the same Votaries to this Test for the most part acknowledged to be nothing but Sham and Illusion Cheat and Villany It were to be supposed in generous Equity that all those who had on that account suffered in their Fortunes and their Honour their Innocency being cleared should be also now cleared of the Laws respecting them on that account and that some other expedient might be excogitated so to secure us and our Religion as might not expose innocent Persons to Dishonor and Ruine How should we expect God should bless it to us and make us safe by such an unjust security Unjust I say and especially to so Great and Sacred a Person as our Prince Why do we suffer any thing to remain which may intimate and insinuate to His Liege People such a false Suggestion and dishonourable Imputation and still further impress upon their Minds so odious a Character as in this Test if not by design yet by
as Matters then stood But to shew that His present Majesties Religion which has been as severe towards Dissenters as ours may nevertheless for that be as sincere as we can be in the Inclinations he hints the Dissenters may hope from us when time serves I like your Commendations of the Church of England every where well enough and believe their well meaning but not as you make use of it slily to insinuate a distrust a snare and to create a suspicion in the Dissenters of His Majesties Veracity and Honour and by this base Suggestion tempt them to desert Him in this Juncture and adhere rather to those who oppose Him I believe as much as you that they are so wise and considering as to be sensible of a snare and as likely of your setting for them as of His Majesties And that they will think it more wise and safe to confide in His Word than in yours and to take the Opportunity which now presents than to stay and starve while your Grass grows But lest your Promises should not prevail you attempt also by Threatnings to deter them from strengthning His Majesties Party and Design Should they take it in this way you tell them they will find it the dearest Liberty that ever was granted I do not deny but Gold may be bought too dear let us see what we have by the Bargain of parting with our Test and Penal Laws If all the Discourse of your Letter had been against those only who are for delivering up our Laws into the Hand of another Religion without any effectual security for our own I should have agreed with you that we cannot Consent but must Suffer in this way and it is plain His Majesty is of that mind too His whole Declaration being a Proposal of Terms and Compremise of Peace among His Subjects of whatever different Persuasions that none may hinder one another of the Free Exercise of their Religion and full and quiet enjoyment of their Property and if you are so suspicious of Sinister dealing from His Majesty he offers to make our selves by our Representatives in Parliament Umpire in the business So that your Insinuation is very Ungenteel and Rude towards His Majesty and savors more of a piquing ill-natur'd jealousie than any just fear that we should find the Liberty now offered the dearest that ever was Granted These are the Reasons on which you ground your Magisterial Supposition That no Minister of the Church of England can Consent to the Declaration and therefore cannot read it how weak and insufficient they are to establish such an Hypothesis and that therefore all you have built upon it must come down with it let the world judge so that nevertheless for your Arguments a Minister of the Church of England can Consent to the Declaration and then I think that he may Read it no body will deny Nay and that he ought in omnibus licitis honestis to pay an active Obedience To answer the Command by a Passive Obedience To suffer all that can be suffered in this World as you somewhere say to be subject only and not resist will not serve the turn here The giving our Body to be burnt in this Cause will not make us Martyrs There is an Active Obedience due to all the King 's Honest and Lawful Commands by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom though the matter of the Command have not yet entred by a Parliamentary Law for that is but accidental we owe him 〈◊〉 much upon the account of our natural Allegiance founded in that Relation between King and Subject If it be a Matter in which he is necessitated to use his Prerogative all that we are bound to satisfie our selves in is this Is it a Moral Command Is it not against the Laws of God over which he has no Power of Dispensing though it were to save His own and the Lives of all His Subjects If not we are bound to it by our Natural Allegiance by our Loyalty or Legality which is not to be understood so ad Legem as it is not due for Conscience-sake save only in such Instances where it is pass'd into a Parliamentary Law. For Allegiance reaches to Law in a further Extent and Latitude than so even to that Law which Nature and right Reason teach is founded in such a Relation as King and Subject and Political Father and Sons Not only confined to that Law which defends the Right the Liberty and Property of the Subject which is for the most part written because it passes by Grant and stands on Record from the King But to that Prerogative Law also which is natural and unwritten and cannot be granted away because it defends the Rights of the Crown and defends the Majesty Authority and Dignity of the Prince and the Capacity whereby he may perform all the Offices of a Father to his People Do not we swear a Canonical Obedience to our Bishops In omnibus Licitis Honestis By what Law of the Land is this required By no Parliamentary Law but as I said by the Law of Nature rooted in that Relation he bears toward us of our Spiritual Father But here is no place for a Discourse so large and copious as it should be on this Subject All I mean by it here is this That if the Matter of the Declaration be Moral Honest and Lawful so far as Lawful takes in the Law of the King's Prerogative as well as the Peoples Laws We must pay an Active Obedience to this Command of His Majesty on the account of our Natural Allegiance A Suffering for it rather and not resisting only will not justifie us to God by whom Kings Reign and whose Power is Ordained of God. This I take to have been all along the Doctrine of the Church of England But after all this it is possible some of the Ministers of the Church of England cannot consent Some will not take the pains perhaps and some have not the parts to think deep enough Some like Trâ—â—â— stand their Ground where they were first set rooted by Education and some as much by Prejudice Some have their Reason over-poured by their Fears and some by their Interests What then May they not read the Declaration Must the grand and important Affairs of State be all at a stand till such Persons can be satisfied Must their Wills be the Law in the mean time and their Judgment the Standard of the King and Council and the whole Nation Must their Declaration in this Matter be published in all their Churches and Chapels and His Majesty's never suffered to come in at the Church-door Why may not both Tales be told and both Sides heard This is not just nor civil dealing with His Majesty Again What if you cannot give an internal Consent or a Consent of Approbation Can you not read it with a Consent of Acquiescence and Submission That is all which need to be in a Subject to Matters of this kind