the late King's moderation in the matter which is That having consulted the Judges and others Learned in the Law and finding them not only ready to countenance the Vndertaking but assuring him he had a Power of Dispensing with the Penalties of those Statutes he might therefore lawfully exercise that Power so confidently declared in him To this I say that thô it should be granted that such a Dispensing Power had been vested in him yet it cannot be denyed but that it was accompanied with a Trust not to make use thereof but for the Good of his People and it can never be made out that what he did was so so long as the preservation of the Protestant Religion is the great Interest of the Nation This Answer supposes the King acting according to Law but if we take the Case as it really was we shall find that the Long Robe did not make the King of their pretended Opinion but that he made them of his which is plain by the many Removes he made on the Benches before he could get a Sett for his purpose and then the famous Judgment so much insisted on was such a piece of pageantry as was never acted in Westminster-Hall The Judges may deny as they do that they knew who was Plantiff or that he wore the Defendant's Livery or that the Defendant or Graham paid the Fees of both sides but herein their luck was very bad to be ignorant of what few of the Nation were But supposing this the dispatch they made was very extraordinary for it was obvious to all Men of Sence as well as Law that the Case was of some consequence and deserved more than a short Vacations Consideration and more Arguments than one and if what a late Author tells us be true and one that had any regard to his Credit could scarce publish a Lye in so notorious a matter and so easie to be disproved the Court denied to hear Mr. Wallop argue the Case for which Sir Edward Herbert makes no excuse in his Book neither could he if it be true But what further clears the matter beyond all dispute is that in delivering the Judgment they carried the matter further then the necessity of the Case before them required which amongst Lawyers always lessens the Authority of such Resolutions but I forbear entring on the Legal part of this Controversie because it has already been done and is not within the Task I have undertaken The rest of this Page is taken up in magnifying the late King's kindness to the Church of England in assuring them all their Rights and the sole Injoyment of their Dignities Offices and Benefices thereto belonging and that no Persons were presented to any Ecclesiastical Dignities belonging to the Hierarchy but Members of the Church Something has been already said to the kindness designed for the Church in general and more shall be said when we consider the Author's Objections in the mean time it is sufficient to say we have heard of the Reproaches thrown by him on the Church where in one of his kind fits to Alsop he threatned Ours should be the last Church to which he would turn And that we know not whether Sam. Oxon or his Brother of Chester should be accounted of our Church but if they were we know no difference between imposing such Men and professed Papists on us That we look upon the Preferments in our Universities to be of great concern to our Church yet there we find Obadiah Walker a great Ruler and a whole swarm at Magdalen-Colledge If theirs were not Ecclesiastical Preferments what had our late Ecclesiastical Commissioners to do with them though they deprived the Fellows as Visitors yet sure their incapacitating Decree was by vertue of their Ecclesiastical Supremacy Next we find our Author giving some instances of the late King's with-drawing his Protection from the Church of England which he modestly calls one Objection instead of many For the clearing whereof he tells us That as soon as the King published his Declaration for Indulgence there presently began a great ferment in the Nation and that the Roman Catholicks finding the Church of England imbittered against them he means unwilling to submit to the Romish Yoke which our Forefathers were not able to bear they fell a Caressing the Dissenters vainly supposing them the most powerful Interest of the Nation All that I shall observe from hence is That this procedure exactly follows their old measures in keeping up the Divisions amongst Protestants they had not forgotten the Old saying Divide impera But I have not seen the end of keeping up these differences so plainly owned by any of the Party as by our Author who says plainly That when the Church of England would not serve their turn they joyned with the Dissenters in confidence that in conjunction with them they had the most powerful interest of the Nation which I always looked upon as the true reason of the Indulgence when I reflected on the time when we were blessed with it it was then that the generality of the Dissenters were better satisfied with the Church than ever they had been they were then fully satisfied the Church had no inclination or warping towards Popery so that it was really timed so as to blast the fair hopes we had of a perfect Union amongst our selves From hence let us learn how to regard such as promote the old or any new difference amongst us for let the Pretensions be never so plausible the Design is to weaken us by dividing us which hopes are not quite dead in the Author as we may imagine by his attributing all that was done against any Member of the Church os England to their struggle with the Dissenter I am confident the Bishop of London and the Fellows of Magdalen know where to place it better viz. to their struggle with the Papists which is plain if we consider the time when these things happened the Bishop of London's Persecution began the 14th of July 86 that being the Date of the King's Letter to him and his first Appearance was on the 4th of August following and the King's Declaration for Liberty of Conscience was not until the 4th of April after so that it is impossible to ascribe what was done to this Member of the Church to any struggle with the Dissenter occasioned by the Declaration of Liberty and how the business of Magdalen should be attributed to that I cannot see when the Letter in behalf of Farmer bore date the day after the Indulgence it was of a mighty force if it could set the Nation so soon in a ferment as the Author says it did and Alban Francis's Letter bore date the 7th of March before the Indulgence on which Dr. Peachell was deprived so that our Author must either mean that these were no Members of the Church of England or what is as ridiculous that there was nothing done against them or his Proposition is false that the Dissenters
regulation of Corporations shewed them but little respect with many other things of this sort that might be mentioned I am sorry the Author's indiscretion should have forced me to give so many instances of that Man's failings he fancied had all that could be wished and do now leave it to you and all indifferent persons to judge whether the Author has made out his first Proposition of King James's good intentions The second Proposition laid down by our Author is That the late King's designs were totally frustrated but whether by ignorance or treachery or both is not worth while to examine In his discourse on this Head he mentions several over fights in the then Ministers of State but instead of four he should have given us many more wherewith I will not trouble my self at present my design being to Answer his Book not to Mend it I will therefore hasten to the third Proposition which is That our condition in respect of our Laws Liberties and Properties is now worse than it was or was like to have been under King James In the handling whereof our Author pretends to consider the several Grievances we laboured under in King James his time as they are summed up in the Declaration of the 12th of February last which filled up our vacant Throne and that he will draw the Parallel between the late and present Times impartially This I must confess is a very proper method for his design which is all the good I can say of the undertaking I will follow him through the several Articles as laid down and hope plainly to demonstrate the malice and false glosses of all he says and if that be well done I think little more need be said in Confutation of the rest of the Book The first Article is That King James did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom the other Articles are only the means which he used to this end In answer to which he says The late King aimed at nothing but Liberty to all sorts of Dissenters and that Roman Catholicks might have their share of ease 2. That few Converts were made in his time 3. And that having armed his Roman Catholicks in his last extremity they did not amount to the fortieth part of his Army nor to the 300 fighting Men in his Kingdom therefore they could afford him small assistance 4. That the Church flourished in his time many Dissenters being then brought into its Communion 5. That now the Church of England and Episcopacy is in danger if Protestancy be not as appears by the late Act of Toleration wherein Turcism is not excepted though Popery be 6. That Episcopacy is abolished in Scotland and they have a Party in the Convention here endeavouring the same thing 7. That we have lost the Doctrine of our Church-Loyalty and Non-resistance 8. That we have seen a total Abolition of the Laws for we have changed the Hereditary Monarchy into an Elective one and destroyed all Government by declaring an Original Power in the People This with some scandalous and unjust Reflections on his present Majesty to which I will not give so much countenance as an Answer is the substance of what he says on the first Article which for Method's sake I have sub-divided into eight Particulars to each of which I will propose some Considerations except to the first of which I have said so much already that it is needless to say more But that if the late King had been as our Author says Master of the Wisdom we could have wished him he would never have done so many mean harsh and superstitious things for no purpose whatsoever unless it were to hinder what our Author says he only designed From hence I think we may strongly conclude that he designed more than Ease for Roman Dissenters To the second no body would have said that few Converts were made in his time that did not wish them more Was there any Order of Men amongst us free Some of the Nobility in all the three Kingdoms some of our Clergy Lawyers Souldiers and of all other ranks had actually declared and it is too much to be feared that many waited only for the Repeal of the Penal Laws though they cared not for their Souls nor stood in awe of Damnation yet they dreaded the Statute against being reconciled But then if their Numbers were but small the fault was not the King 's for he made the full use of the Arguments in his Power discountenancing the stedfast and rewarding those that came over to him the Great Seals of two of the Three Kingdoms were in such hands and surely England will not brag much of their Protestant Chancellor to go to Mass was the certain way to Preferment as might be instanced in many particulars and we cannot forget what took the Treasurer's Staff from the Earl of Rochester To the third That the Papists of Fngland are not the 300th fighting Man I will not dispute but that they were not the 40th Man of the late Army is certainly false if he had told us in plain English that there was but one or two of them in a Company all persons that had been conversant in the places where they were Quarter'd would have known the contrary therefore he chose other words and yet says the same thing which is plain when we consider that our Companies consisted of about 50 Men but for easiness of computation we will allow them to be 60 which by our Author's proportion is only three Papists to two Companies I might here mind our Author that the Irish Army was Papist which multiplied by 40 had made an Army big enough for the Great Mogull But I will yield that our Author did not include the Irish Army when he made the 40th Man the proportion of Papist and yet they ought not to be forgotten when we are speaking of King James's Popish Forces But his Expression being That the Papists armed in his last extremity were not the 40th part of his Army The Party that came from Ireland in October 88 must be included or he was not then or afterwards in extremity Now supposing no Papists in his Army before and that Party being at least 3000 by the Author's Rule of proportion his Army ought to have consisted of 120000 Men but his Army was not so great and the Papists of it more so that another estimate of them must be taken if we throw away the cypher and read a 4th instead of a 40th part I believe we shall be nearer the matter But since that and a much greater force was not sufficient to enslave this Nation we must conclude he had other Tools Forreign or Domestick to carry on the Cause To the fourth That the Church flourished in the late King's time if our Author means that we had many good and learned Men then in it I must grant it but then it must be granted to me that he
parts thereof And as to the first we will find That he was so far from Governing according to Law that so soon as he thought himself out of the danger of the Monmouth Rebellion by his Victory over him in the West and Triumph on Tower-hill and that his severe Prosecution of the remainder of that Party had secured him against all other opposition his whole Government was a perfect opposition to the Law after that most of the great Employments of the Nation were disposed of by him to persons by Law uncapable of them At Court we had a Secretary and Privy-Seal Lords of the Treasury and Privy-Counsellors with their President of that sort in the Administration of Justice we had Judges Sheriffs Justices of the Peace with a long c. of unqualified persons in the Cities our Mayors and other Magistrates were so the Army which was wholly against Law was made more illegal by its unqualified Officers and the other persons whereof it consisted the Tower in ill hands and the very Church not free of such Vermin the chief Government of Ireland given to one that designed to dismember it from this Crown Were not our Persons imprisoned against Law witness the Seven Bishops Were we not disseised of our Estates against Law and without Tryal witness Dr. Hough Were not Taxes levied on us without and against Law witness the Custom-house Books Were not some of us Hanged up as Criminals without any colour of Law at least less than was for the Dispensing Power or Ecclesiastical Commission so little as could not satisfie him that was well satisfied in both the other These are Instances of the breach of the Law in the case of our Liberties Lives and Properties and that our Souls might be endangered were not Schools and Churches opened to the Romish Clergy Had any of their Converts the reward due to them by Law and to keep us under these Oppressions without redress Were not our Parliaments put off and Prorogued from time to time and not suffered to sit at the end of three years as the Law requires This was the condition of the Executive Power And as for the Legislative it was far worse and wholly over-thrown by the claim of an Absolute power to which we were to submit without reserve the Dispensing with the Ecclesiastical Laws implied a Power of Dispensing with all the rest and the Dispensing with any one was an Usurpation on the Legislative For to what end should the Parliament make Laws if they were to be of force only during the King's pleasure If that were so all their costs and pains could not ensure them one Law for so long time as would be requisite for their Journey home and as the Suspension of one Law is certainly the making of another As for instance the Law imposes Twelve-pence for not coming to Church on Sunday the Proclamation suspending that Act enacts that I may stay at home or go to a worse place without paying any thing so it seems to me that the last is the higher Power for to controle an Act requires more Authority than contributed to the first making of it as the daily experience of our Courts shews us the King's-Bench controles the rest but no inferiour Court puts any check to the proceedings thereof Lastly The Kings of England never claimed nor exercised such a Power before 62 and 72 and then the Endeavours were but faint the Crown wished for such a Power and afterwards on the Remonstrance of the Commons promised it should never be drawn into Consequence or Example The imposing Taxes and Oaths on the Subject was always looked upon as another branch of the Legislative Power but both were exercised by the late King As to the last part mentioned we have seen the late King corrupting the Elections by the meanest Arts a perpetual regulation of the Corporations until they could find a Sett of Men that would engage to chuse such persons as should be recommendeâ— by the Court and daily displacing all persons that would not engage their Votes But this was not all the injury done us in relation to the House of Commons we had Sheriffs and Mayors not qualified for their Offices so not capable of guiding the Elections Formerly under weak Princes and in ill times there has been attempts made against the Constitution of the Kingdom but never so Universal an one or with such success as now neither was it ever attempted before this Reign to pack a whole House of Commons New Creations has done something of that sort on the Peers and there has been Irregularities in particular Elections but it was never attempted before to rob us of the whole House of Commons at present the Crown neither claims nor aims at any of these things now the Law runs in its old channel and that it may still do so the King has given us Judges of the ablest of their profession and the Chancery from a State-Courtâ— is now become a Court of Conscience the Crown pretends to no absolute Authority either in suspending or altering our Laws the King concurs with his People in all Laws they have prâ—pared for his Royal Assent and wishes to be no greater than the Laws of England make him with respect to the House of Commons he has seized on no Charters nor used any Regulations but the present Members of that House are the most unanimously chosen that ever any were And now let the World judge whether our Religion Laws and Liberties are not in a better condition than in the late Reign Our Author tells us that the second Article shews the ways and means King James used to effect what he was charged with in the first which is an assuming and exercising a Power of dispensing with and suspending Laws and the execution of them without Act of Parliament Our Author is so modest as not to deny this or the fatal consequences thereof to the Kingdom but excuses it as done by colour of the Prerogative whereas the Prerogative is nothing but the Law of the Land and a part of it with which the King is intrusted for the good of his People He then tells us That the present Parliament have made some Acts that Abrogate old and others that are new Laws But unless he shews us that the King assumes 〈◊〉 Power to himself the Times are not parallel and that is what he promised to make appear Our Author in this and in other Sections is witty or thinks himself so upon our present Parliament calling them Self-created and that they have assumed God's Prerogative of creating themselves out of nothing as if God had done so For the taking off that Assertion and clearing of that matter I must desire you to remember that the Essential parts of an English Parliament are the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons chosen by the several Shires and Towns of the Nation as their Representatives Now the Convention that met at Westminster the 22d of
's or his King's word And though this were a sufficient reason for the mild course taken by the new Act injoyning the Oaths yet certainly the Nation does attribute that course very much to the mild Nature of the King who would not too hastily exact a Complyance nor too severely punish the want of it though certainly the accepting of him for King and swearing Allegiance to him is a matter of far greater moment than any opposition King James met with from the Church and so might deserve a severer punishment than for not obeying an illegal Mandate Our Author misses no opportunity of telling what is doing in Scotland but he is not so forward to tell us News from Ireland He tells us the Scotch Clergy are obliged to pray for the King and Queen under pain of Deprivation and pray why should they not But does not tell us that the Bishop of Dunkell was deprived by the late King for Voting or Arguing in Parliament according to his Conscience neither does he give us any account of the pretended Act of Parliament in Ireland taking away many of the Rights of the Clergy without any pretended fault nor of their Act repealing the Acts of Settlement which almost renders useless another of their Acts attainting our Nobility Gentry and Clergy only for being in England Here is Fangs and Claws with a witness and of so weak a Government that one would think these Acts were designed for nothing else than to shew the Temper of the Man and those that influence him The fourth Article is against the Court of the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes To which he says That the Statute repealing the first of Elizabeth hath a Salvo for the King's Supremacy so that there was an appearance of Law to justifie that Commission and that our Parliament meddle with Ecclesiastical matters also Our Author is pretty modest in this Answer pretending but to an Appearance of Law to justifie the late Commission-Court So that now I am not only to argue against the Court but also to shew how little that very Appearance really was which I think will be best done by considering the Statutes of 170 Car. primi C. 110. and the 13. Car. secundi Cap. 12. In the first we will find that the Clause of the Statute of the Queen which Erected the first Ecclesiastical Commission-Court is repealed In this I do not find any Salvo for the King's Supremacy but there is a Clause of another nature to wit That no new Court shall be Erected with the like Power Jurisdiction or Authority as the former had or pretended to have and that all such Commissions made or to be made by his Majesty his Heirs or Successors and all Sentences and Decrees by colour thereof shall be utterly void and of none effect By the 13th of King Charles the second part of this Statute is repealed but what relates to the High Commission or the new Erecting of such another Court is not this Statute has the Salvo I suppose our Author means So that now the matter is shortly thus The first Statute suppresses the High Commission-Court in being and prohibits the Erecting of any such other for the future and Enacts some other things forreign to this matter which by Charles the second 's Statute are repealed But as to the High Commission-Court it confirms the former with the Author 's Salvo that this Act shall not extend to abridge the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs Now though this Statute had by this Clause been Felo de se yet still by the first Statute the Erecting any such new Court is prohibited for the Salvo only is That nothing in that Act shall abridge the King's Supremacy but does not say that nothing in the former shall To obviate this our Author put his Salvo in the first rather than in the other But I say further That though the Salvo had been where our Author would have it or that the Clause had been That nothing in either of the Acts should abridge the Supremacy or to make the matter a little plainer Suppose it had been literally worded provided that the King by his Supremacy may Erect such a Court when he thinks fit the matter had been but little mended for the Enacting part that no such Court should be Erected had been good and the Proviso void for it is a known Rule in Law That the Proviso or Exception must not wholly destroy the preceding Grant though it may lessen or qualifie it As for instance If one grant to me all his Trees and afterwards adds a Proviso except all his Trees the Grant is good and the Proviso void because it would tender the Grant wholly useless but he may except all his Trees in such a place or twenty or any number by name because there is a subject both for the Grant and Exception So a Proviso in the Act might have preserved the Supremacy in Wales or any particular place but being general it is void or rather has no operation on the matter positively Enacted though it may preserve the Supremacy in other matters This Article complains as much of the Executing as the Issuing this illegal Commission To which since our Author says nothing I will only add That though the Law had been plain for the Prerogative in this case as to the Erecting of the Court yet since King Charles who was looked upon as a Protestant did not think fit to put this Power in execution during the Twenty-four years he lived after the Statute which implies That either there was no need of such a Court or that he thought he had no Power of Erecting it it was a bold step in the late King to venture on it but perfect madness as he managed the matter When the Statute was in force the Proceedings were for the Correction and Reformation of such Offences as by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction could lawfully be corrected and reformed during the continuance of that Court which was near an hundred years The Proceedings there were only against persons that disobeyed the King's Laws never one was punished by them for not obeying a Letter but the Bishop of London the disobeying the King 's Arbitrary and Illegal Mandates was never looked upon as a crime before the late times And for a further instance and proof of their illegal Proceedings the Commissioners that acted in pursuance of the Statute could not proceed against persons for small Crimes or such as could be remedied by the ordinary For which reason we find in our Books that a Prohibition went out of the Temporal Courts to stop their Proceedings against one for Adultery as Judge Hutton tells us in Isabel Peel's Case unless in such Cases as were very exorbitant and notorious Now unless we have lost another the most secret Adultery of the Commandments is a greater Offence and a little more expresly prohibited than the Contempts punished in that Court. In Drake's Case a Prohibition went to stop
thought them too many and endeavoured to make them sewer both by tearing so great a Limb as Magdalen from the University and shutting Twenty-seven of them out of the Church by the cruel Decree of the 18th of October 87. And how little he regarded those good Men that helped our Church to flourish may be seen by the Worthies he preferred to the Sees of Oxford and Chester and his preferring Farmer to Dr. Hough that he did this out of kindness to the Church our Author dare not say but he may tell me and that truly that in the See of Bristol it was otherwise and that therefore the King did not always design a scandal or injury to the Church by those he preferred in it I have too great a veneration for the Christian Courage and Sufferings of that Bishop not to make him an Exception out of that Rule But then we must remember he was preferred before his Fears of opposition from the Nation were quit off him and if we consider how many of the Lay-Protestants preferred by him in the beginning of his Reign were afterwards displaced and his after-carriage to that Bishop we may conclude that his High Commission would soon have rectified that mistake by a Deprivation if his fault was any thing greater than not Suspending Dr. Sharp or as great as the Bishop of Dunkell's giving his Vote in Parliament against the Repeal of the Test had it not received an unexpected dissolution But notwithstanding all his Suspensions Deprivations Imprisonments and other favours to our Clergy our Author tells us that many of the Dissenters were brought into the Communion of the Church by the unanswerable Writings of that time against Popery that these should influence them more than those learned ones set out a little before for their Conviction shews that the terrour of Popery wanted not its force in perswading them to that prudent Conduct But how to draw an Argument from hence in praise of the late King or his Times I see not unless those straying Sheep were brought back to the Fold by the diligence of his Shepherds Was any of those Pieces written by Sa. Oxon or did the famous Rippon's Sermon contribute thereunto Not so much I dare say as it did to the Preacher's Bishoprick I must confess the Reasons for Abrogating the Test Mr. Sclater's and Obediah's Pieces contributed thereunto but it was by setting ingenious Men to write Answers to them Before I close this Section I must again put you in mind of what I sormerly hinted to you That the Indulgence coming at the nick of time when things were healing very fast and when the great Scare-crow the approaches of our Church to Popery was experimentally confuted it looks as if some-body designed to widen our Breaches and to disappoint the Church of that satisfaction which was not more earnestly desired by us than dreaded by them As to the fifth in which our Author tells us That the Church of England is in danger and pretends to prove it by the late Act of Toleration I say first that the late King 's being larger must have endangered it more if the Act let in Turcism as our Author falsly suggests it keeps out Idolatry and at once frees us from God's Judgments due to that crying Sin and in a great measure from Popish Contrivances for now the Jesuits must work in the dark as they did formerly which as it much retards their designs so it occasions many mistakes to the frequent frustrating thereof the Act requires the professing of Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost and thereby excludes Mahometism which the Proclamation does not Next I say it is pretty strange to find one that has said so much for Liberty of Conscience and a Proclamation granting it making the Act for Toleration dangerous Is it not lawful for their present Majesties to Signalize their Reign on the same Principle our Author pretends King James designed Or is the present Liberty the worse or more dangerous to Church or State becausâ— it comes as it ought to do in a regular and legal way from the Legislative Power Is it the worse because it does not alter the Constitution of our Government Had it been the less hurtful if like the late King 's it had placed the Royal Will and Pleasure above our Laws Does the King in the present Toleration claim an Absolute Power which we are bound to obey without reserve And does he thereby impose an Oath on us not only to submit to that Power but to assist and defend him in the Exercise thereof Since in these several particulars it has the advantage of the late King 's I doubt not but it will be more satisfactory to all people and that the Church will receive Ease as well as Enlargement by it 6. But Episcopacy is Abolished in Scotland and from thence sprung the Covenant that destroyed it here formerly our Author might as well have told us it was so at Geneva What has the Declaration of their Estates to do with the Government of our Church they do not so much as pretend to it only declaring it a Grievance to that Kingdom If the Author had but known how unlike the Scotch Bishops were to ours how unable they were of late to do any thing but mischief how little difference there is between no Episcopacy and Bishops during pleasure he would the less lament the loss but in truth the Abuses might have been redressed by other and easier methods good Laws might have restored Episcopacy to its antient Purity for otherwise and by that Argument we ought to Abolish Judges here because they have abused their Power being like the Scotch Bishops by their tenure Slaves to the Court though this is unreasonable and better methods have been taken but if we had chosen the other course certainly the loss would never have been less lamented than now when we are bleeding of the Wounds they have given us The Scotch I think should have remembred that the Protomartyr of the last Reign was one of those Tenants at Will and that Dr. Bruce was thrust out of the Bishoprick of Dunkell for opposing the Repeal of the Test These Nations ought to remember that it was he set us the glorious Example of despising the Honours and Profits of this World when they came in competition with the Preservation of the Protestant Religion But it is not fitting to be too positive in this matter relating to the Church of Scotland since it is uncertain what expedients his Majesty's Wisdom may find out for the satisfaction of that divided Nation But he tells us there is a Party in our Parliament endeavouring the same thing but who told him so he does not say if we judge of them by their Actions neither the Coronation-Oath nor the Address of the 16th of April last shews any thing of this and in the King's Answer thereunto and in the Speech that occasioned that Address we have his Majesty 's repeated Assurances
of his kindness and care of the Church though those were cheap in the last Reign let us not suspect this only for that reason but rest satisfied until at least one promise to us be broken In the seventh our Author tells us That though our Religion be safer now than it was lately yet we have lost the Doctrine of our Church-Loyalty and Non-resistance and for proof of it gives us his Word so that a bare denial were a sufficient answer But to set the matter in a better light I must desire you to consider that there is a great difference between Aiding our Prince to destroy or enslave his People and the Doctrine of Non-resistance though I should yield that it was not lawful in lawful in October last forceably to resist the late King yet certainly it was both lawful and prudent not to assist him this is sufficiently justified by the practise of the Primitive Christians who did nothing in defence of their persecuting Emperors whilst living nor in revenge of their injuries after their death and does sufficiently excuse the Church in their late Conduct without the Shipwrack of any of its Doctrines Which being so full an Answer to our Author's Objection and seeing they were but few that took up Arms against the late King in respect to the Nation I will not at present insist on the Defence they make for themselves in acting only for their Laws Rights and Religion to which either they had no Right but if they had they had a Right to preserve them especially against him that had not only destroyed them but his own Right also if the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom create them as plainly they do But of this more anon In the last division of this Paragraph our Author objects the total Abolition of our Laws because we have changed our Hereditary Monarchy into an Elective As if the People of England had no Laws worth regarding but those that limit the Succession of the Crown if we have made some changes in that to secure the rest surely it is no ill bargain and is no more than the Wisdom of the Nation aimed at formerly more than once If this had been the first time a change had been made in the Succession I should not wonder that some turbulent Men should make a noise at it for want of a better pretence but since Alterations in the Succession have been frequent in this Kingdom why should people be more concerned at it now than formerly I need not mention the many Breaches of the Royal Line in the Saxon Times or in the time of our first Norman Kings but certainly the Intails of the Crown made in Henry the Eighth 's time and the Statutes authorizing them made a greater Alteration in the Succession than is made at present yet no body dream't that thereby our Monarchy was become Elective Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth successively enjoyed this Crown but what sort of Hereditary Right it was that could serve them both I do not see and after both their Reigns our Monarchy continued as Hereditary as it was before though there was a late Statute of Queen Elizabeth declaring it in the Power of the Parliament to alter it and making it Penal to deny it The interruption that is now given to the Lineal Succession is so remote a possibility that the persons most immediately concerned readily consented to it The Matrimonial Crown such as King Philip had in Queen Mary's time is due to the King on his Wifes ascending the Throne so that unless he out-live the Queen who is about twelve Years younger this terrible Alteration of the Succession ends in nothing unless it be the Exclusion of the pretended Prince of Wales which dissatisfies so few people that his pretence is scarce worth the expoting and were there no Objection against his being Born of the Queen but barely this That she did not during the nine Months time she should have been with Child satisfie the scruples and jealousies of all the Women ever came about her it leaves the reality of his Birth so doubtful that the known and received Heirs ought not to be set aside for him the Queen and her Counsel were not ignorant what opinion the Nation had of her big Belly neither were they so impolitick as not to know of what concern it would be to that Issue to be of an unquestioned Birth and we cannot suppose the Queen so much wanting in her Maternal duty and affection though nothing had been due to her own Honour as not to take some pains for the clearing of both therefore we must conclude since she did not give the World that satisfaction which any Woman with Child might easily have dâ—ne that she was not really so But to return to our Author I say it looks a little suspiciously to find him so much more fond of one part of the Constitution than of the rest whilst he is excusing so many Violations of the Law why should he be severe against what he calls but one when we find him justifying the late Dispensing Power and yet complain of altering our Constitution We must conclude that he either did not understand or not value it and that his concern is for something else than what he pretends which will be very plain if we take but a short view of the English Constitution And this will also be of further use in deciding the Controversie between us The first Fundamental part of our Constitution that I shall mention is That the Government be administred according to Law this is a Trust inseperably annexed to the Royalty of which the Coronation-Oath is a sufficient proof It is another Fundamental part of our Constitution That those Laws by which we are to be governed be made by the King Lords and Commons the Clause of the Coronation-Oath Quas vulgus elegerit proves this taken in either of the Tenses of have or shall chuse besides a practise Time out of mind which is the best proof of the Original contract The last part thereof that I shall mention is That the Representatives of the Commons be legally and freely chosen otherwise they are not the Kingdom 's choice nor do they represent their Electors nor carry their Assent with them to what shall be enacted Now if we take as short a view of the State that these essential parts of our Constitution were in during the late Reign we shall find them all in such disorder that it cannot be said that we then had any more than the shadow of our old Constitution and since the King 's Right to the Regal Estate is solely founded on these Constitutions if he do subvert them he thereby determines and destroys his own Right which is founded on them and does more effectually dethrone himself than the Declaration of the 13th of February did Now that the late King did over-throw the whole Constitution will appear if we examine his Behaviour to the several
their Proceedings against him for Alimony although this was one of the Articles their Commission authorizes them to hear and determine Here the Court looked on their Authority to be from the Statute not the Commission This is a full Judgment and many more might be instanced against those that assert That the King by his Supremacy or the Common Law could Erect such a Court though the Statute were repealed for in this Case he gave Authority to decree Alimony in Cases of severity but because the Statute gave none such their Proceedings were stopped by a Prohibition It is wonderful to me and seems something like an infatuation That the Projectors of that Court did not to gain some credit to it and in return for all the mischiefs they intended find out some real Criminals to make Examples of so that the Nation might sometimes be satisfied with their Judgments though they could not be with their Jurisdiction When we see vengeance over-take notorious Offendors it is but rarely that we inquire whence the blow comes and if we do we are seldom over-strickt in the matter But since they omitted this common piece of Policy after-times will rather suspect that they had not Power by the Commission to punish such Offendors then either that so populous a Nation should want fit Objects for their wrath or that so famed Politicians should contemn so prudent a course All the account I can give of this matter is that Quos Jupiter vult perdere prius dimentat The fifth Article is Levying Money for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament this he confesses ought not to have been done by the Petition of Right and some older Statutes he mentions which is a Confession of the justness of the Complaint But then what he did of this kind he says was by vertue of a Lease King Charles the Second was impowred to grant for three years This is another instance how small a matter was sufficient lately for Appearance of Law good enough to wrest the Legislative Power out of its proper course For this Lease our Author here speaks of was pretended but to be made by the Commissary of the Treasury the Fifth of February the day before King Charles dyed and when he was lying void of all reason and sence if not of life This looks so like a trick that it supersedes all necessity of enquiry Whether King Charles had power to make a Lease of that part of his Revenue granted him for Life only for any longer time than his Life But to shew the illegality of that Proceeding and the insincerity of the Author I will give the full account of this matter And first it is to be observed that the late King upon his first coming to the Crown levied Money on several Branches of the Revenue setled on King Charles for Life The Subsidies of Tonnage and Poundage and other sums of Money payable on Merchandises Exported and Imported were granted expresly by the Statute to King Charles during life yet the late King by his Proclamation of the 9th of February directs that the same shall be Collected as in the time of his Brother Herein he pretends to no other Law for this but that it is his Will and Pleasure the necessity â—f the Government requiring the same there is no three years Lease in this Case nor any pretence that King Charles did or could make any such so that as to this our Author's assertion is false But indeed as to the Excise the late King made use of that pretence and by his Proclamation of the 16th of February tells us That the late King's Commissioners of the Treasury did on the fifth of February contract and agree with Sir Peter Apsly Sir Benjamin Bathurst and James Grahme that they should receive the Duty of Excise for three years from the date thereof at the Rent of 550000 Pounds per annum And being certified by the Opinion of the Judges that the said Contract is good and valid in Law to the intent that the said persons may have no pretence of with-holding their Rent and that the Subjects may not incur the Penalties inflicted by the Laws of Excise for not making due Entries or Non-payment or concealing any part of the said Duty during the said three years He does publish to all his Subjects that the Judges have certified him their Opinions that the said Contract hath continuance notwithstanding the decease of his Brother His Will and Pleasure therefore is and he thereby Commands the Commissioners of the Excise and other Officers that they be Aiding and Assisting to the said persons in Collecting and Levying the said Duties and that all persons chargeable with the payment thereof do make due Entries and pay the same upon the pains and penalties to be inflicted thereupon according to the Laws of Excise Though these Proclamations were equally illegal yet the first was certainly the more generous it goes roundly to work and tells us in plain terms he wanted the Money and therefore would take it whereas the other pretends to be countenanced by the Law but instead thereof has only that of the Lawyers the Moiety of the Rent therein mentioned is a fair sum to be gained for three years by the private Opinion of the Judges which is sufficiently confuted by a bare stating of the Case The Excise was granted by two Acts of Parliament the one Moiety by one Act the other Moiety thereof by another The first is called a Grant of certain Impositions for the increase of his Majesty's Revenue during his life And Enacts That the Duties therein mentioned shall be paid to the King during his life ' the other Act lays the same Imposition on the several Liquors therein mentioned and Enacts expresly That the same shall be paid to the King his Heirs and Successors for ever Which being the Statutes of one Parliament shews plainly that it was intended that the one half of the Duty should dye with the King otherwise there was no need of two Acts and the reason of the difference is obvious for the last Moiety of this Duty was granted to the Crown in satisfaction of the Profits of the Court of Wards and for the Abolishing of the King 's Pre-emption and Purveyance in which the Crown had an Inheritance In both these Acts there is a Clause for making Leases not exceeding three years which was laid hold on to continue this Tax on us for three years longer than the express time we granted Had this Lease been made bona fide and in King Charles's health it would have been but a frivolous pretence but considering the time it was made it was the smallest way ever was laid hold of by a sinking Cause Our Author comes next to represent our present Condition to us and though he make a fearful Picture of it it is not so dreadful as Popery and Arbitrary Power in their best Dress He says we must pay great
Taxes and reckons up some Millions I am not so conversant in the Affairs of the Treasury as to tell whether his Computation be right but be it so we had rather pay that and much more than fall into our former misery it is some satisfaction to our minds that when our Taxes are paid the rest is our own But to set this matter right and to discover the Author's disingenuity we must take notice that the Statute taking away the Hearth-money one of the most grievous burthens this Nation ever groaned under Peter-pence and Danegeld not excepted passed the Royal Assent the 24th of April 89. And that our Author in several places of his Book takes notice of Statutes passed and other matters happening afterwards as the Pole-bill the first of May the Declaration of War against France the 7th of May the Ease to Dissenters the 24th of May and the Act for satisfying the States-General the 20th of August 89. But yet he speaks not one word of the other and his reason is because if he had done that the great Taxes he speaks of would dwindle into nothing for if that Duty amounted to 200000 Pound per annum we have not yet given the King Twenty years Purchase for it which is the rate most of his Subjects sell at He tells us next The War cannot be carried on without Money and that at the end of it it must cost in a great Sum to Disband the Army which he would perswade us to save by restoring King James This is a declaring War against the Army and will lessen the number of his Friends if he have any there and then if the Nation by restoring that King will avoid paying their own Army they must pay his which is as numerous and to whom there is as great an Arrear due besides all that is due to the French King So that if any be so sordid as to wish a change in the Government it must be on other Motives than to save his Money the restitution of the Hearth-money being all he is like to get by that bargain He tells us next That we who feared the coming of the French in King James 's time have taken a way by declaring War against them to bring them upon us with a vengeance But I would have him know this Nation would rather see the French here open and professed Enemies than pretended Friends and that we fear them less in the one capacity than the other and surely we never had less reason to fear them than at present though it were too great presumption to guess at the Divine Councils or to say that God now designs to be avenged on him for his Blasphemy and many Oppressions or that he has at last heard the Groans of the Fatherless and Widows though doubtless he will in his own due time inquire and visit for these things yet if we consider how he stands with the Kings of the Earth we may rationally hope that his Glory is near an end for the Emperour and Princes of the Empire are exasperated against him not only by his seizing and barbarously destroying their Territories but by his stopping their Victories over the Turks and by assisting them by so great a diversion But it hath pleased God to bless their just Cause with success both against the one and the other with the King of Spain and the States of Holland he has actual War the Cantons of Switzerland at best but Neutral and some think they are almost over-come by the late Pope's advice to quit it who not only styled him the Common Enemy of the Christian part of Europe but with his last Breath advised the Cardinals to oppose his unjust designs Had England ever a better time to humble his Pride or to force him to do justice to themselves and Allies for the many injuries and provocations he has from time to time heaped upon them If we cannot deal with him now that he has no Allies to support but the Turks Irish and Algerines we must despair of ever seeing an end to the Miseries of Europe The sixth is Keeping a standing Army in time of Peace without consent of Parliament He wisely omits Quartering Souldiers contrary to Law being neither able to say any thing in defence of it nor to retort it on the present Government All that he says to this Article is That his Officers were enriched by his Pay and that they were his delight but he does not tell us they were so because he hoped to over-throw our Religion and Laws by their assistance and to throw off Parliaments those Shakells on his designs He tells us next King James used no Forreign force but contented himself with his Natural-born Subjects But was not there some of them as ill as either Dutch or Brandenburger The Irish are more opposite to our Religion and Civll Interest than either of the other But our Author is angry we have an Army in being not designed to enslave the Nation as the last was but ready to oppose all that shall endeavour to bring us under our old Bondage and some to spare to oppose the French design on Flanders by whose Courage he has already received one defeat and durst his General have stayed and not retreated so very fast he might have had another Our Author in his last Leaf gives us so true a representation of the inconveniencies and burthens the Nation groaned under from the Army that I cannot better express them than in the Author's words Some Rake-hells of the Army took liberty to disgrace the Service who to supply their extravagant Expences put the Souldier's Pay into their own Pockets for which they allowed them under-hand to sharp upon the Country and too often leave their Quarters unpaid to the dishonour of the King and ruin of many an honest Man And to add to that Infamy they forced the Constables by threats to give them Certificates that they had paid their Quarters and behaved themselves well in them when in truth they had done neither But to heal the matter he says further That those that were averse to the King's interest with a design to ruin him in the affections of the People either quite concealed this from him or at least so minced the matter that the difficulty the poor Country-man lay under of being heard or relieved made the remedy often prove worse than the disease Doubtless if there had not been too many instances of the fruitless Complaints of the Nation upon the abuses of the Army we should not have had so full a confession as this from our Author The seventh Article is Causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed But our Author omits the other half That Papists at the same time were both armed and employed contrary to Law What is said to this is so little to the purpose that I scarce know how to Answer it He cannot tell when this was done nor whether those disarmed Protestants were not