and I cannot then guess how he should determine this point of the Dispensing Power But let us now consider what this Author alledges to prove That the Archbishop did teach that this Dispensing Power is an inherent and inseparable Right of the Imperial Crown And to set this matter in a clearer light I shall place his quotations in that natural Order they stand in in the Archbishops Book He having then searched into the ground of Soveraignty and by Reason and Witnesses of all sorts deduced the Original thereof from no lower an head than Heaven it self as he himself tells us The Power of Princes p. 66. Ed. 2. 1683. he proceeds to look a little into those Royal Prerogatives which are annexed to the eminent Estate of such supreme Governors And the principal thing he takes notice of is their exemption from Laws P. 68. as the Senate of Rome decreed to Vespasian That what Laws soever either of the Senate or People it was ordained that the Emperor's Predecessors were not tied to from those he should be loose also So that this freedom from Laws tho a Branch of the Imperial Power was decreed and confirmed by the Laws of the Empire and granted to the Emperor by the Roman Senate which indeed signified making him Emperor for without this he had not been an Imperial Prince But what is this exemption from Laws which belongs to the Imperial Crown And that he tells us from the Civilians That they are free from all Coactive Obedience to them and are held by none of the written Ordinances For the understanding of which he distinguishes between God's Law the Law of the King and that which is the Law of God and the King together As for God's Law which signifies the unwritten Law of Nature or the Written Word the greatest Prince in the World is as much bound to obey it as the meanest Subject But then he adds which is one of our Author's quotations By the Law of the King I understand such Ordinances as are meerly Civil and Positive the Coactive Power whereof being derived from him who is the supreme Law-giver under God on Earth he himself cannot be properly said to be tied thereby Which he proves from Grammarians Civilians and Schoolmen and by this good Argument As no man therefore is superior to himself so no man hath jurisdiction over himself because none can oblige a man against his Will but only his Superior and the jurisdiction over a mans self may be dissolved at pleasure Which only signifies that the King is not bound in his own person to observe the Laws as Subjects are because no body has any jurisdiction over him but himself and no man can command himself any longer than he pleases Right But suppose a Soveraign Prince has bound himself by Oath to God and his Country that he will observe the Laws is he not as much obliged then to observe the Civil and Positive Laws of his Country made and confirmed by his own Authority as he is to observe the Laws of God for tho by making a Law he does not immediately oblige himself yet by his Oath he may The Archbishop only considered what was the Right of Soveraign Power without any Super-induced obligation not what a Soveraign Prince might oblige himself to by Sacred and Solemn Oaths And yet I wonder this Writer should have no more regard to the Sacred Majesty of Princes than to found their Rights upon such a Power as the wisest and best Princes have not thought fit to use As he might have learnt in the same place had he thought fit to have read on For there the Archbishop quotes the saying of Valentinian the younger p. 74. It is in truth a greater thing than the Empire to submit the Princedâ—m it self unto the Laws And that of Alexander Severus Although the Law of the Empire hath freed the Emperor from the Solemnities of the Law yet nothing is so proper for Empire as to live by the Laws And that which Severus and Antoninus set down so oft in their Prescripts Altho we be loosed from the Laws yet we live by the Laws Whereunto also we may add that commendation which Plutarch giveth to Alexander the Great That he conceived he ought to be thought Superior to all Men yet subject to Justice That is to be obliged to observe all the Laws of Justice not to be subiect to any Coercive Power And Pliny to Trajan He thinks himself to be one of us and so much the more excellent and eminent he is that he so thinketh and no less remembreth that he is a Man than that he is a Ruler of Men. For he who hath nothing left to increase his height hath but this one way to grow by if he submit himself being secure of his Greatness And in his direct Speech to the Emperor himself Thou esteemest us the same and thy self the same and in this only greater than the rest that thou art better than they And Thou hast made thy self-subject to the Laws O Caesar which were not written to restrain the Prince by but Thou wilt have nothing more lawful to Thee than is to Vs Now when this has been the Sense and Practice of the wisest and best Heathen Princes that it is an Imperial Vertue and Dignity tho they are free from Laws yet to submit themselves to the observance of Laws I should think it no great Complement to a Christian Prince to found any part of his Imperial Power upon such Exemptions as Soveraign Power must have but yet which Soveraign Princes think it their greatest Glory not to use For if the Exercise of such a Liberty be inglorious that Power which is founded on it cannot be glorious And here comes in the first Citation of this Writer who I think has not mended the Arch-Bishop's Sense by altering his Method The Power of the Prince P. 76. For such positive Laws as these being as the other works of Men are imperfect and not free from many discommodities if the strict Observation thereof should be perused in every particular it is sit the Supream Governour should not himself only be excepted from subjection thereunto which shows that before he had only spoke of the personal exemption of the Prince from the necessity of obeying his own Laws and that he now enters upon a new Prerogative of the Crown in the Words that follow but also be so far Lord over them that where he seeth cause he may abate or totally remit the Penalty incurred by the breach of them dispense with others for not observing them at all and generally suspend the execution of them when by experience he shall find the imconveniencies to be greater than the profit that was expected should redound thereby to the Common-wealth Plutarch sctteth this down as a chief point of that natural skill which Philopaemen had in Government that he did not only rule according to the Laws but over-ruled the Laws
inclinable to follow such Guides as these and therefore I should have thought it more advisable to have taught people more to rely on the Opinions of Judges than of Divines in matters of Prerogative and Law because I fear that the honest Prerogative Divines will be greatly out-numbred by the Popish and Phanatick Common-wealths-men and whether this will prove for the service of the King should have been considered 2. My second Reason why I dislike this way is That I fear instead of doing service it will do great disservice to the King by weakning the Authority of those many excellent discourses which have been written about Non-resistance and which did great service not only to former Kings but even to our present Soveraign in the late evil and critical times It will not easily be forgot how many hard Censures those honest Divines underwent who durst both from the Pulpit and the Press oppose that factious humour which was then so rampant and presaged those wicked Conspiracies which were afterwards by the Divine Providence so happily discovered and disappointed The Doctrine of Non-resistance would very hardly go down and the great objection against it was That it made the Prince absolute and set him above all Laws which were Laws no longer than he pleased to have them so and thus our Lives and Properties and Liberties and Religion were at the Will of the Prince and if this were really the natural consequence of the Doctrine of Non-resistance I suspect it would to this day put a great many English Subjects out of conceit with it and yet this is in great measure the design of this Letter to apply those Sayings or Arguments which were urged for the Doctrine of Non-resistance to prove a Dispensing Power inherent and inseparable from the Crown Now far be it from me to dispute this Point Whether there be such an inherent Right in the Crown or no especially as far as the Judges have determined that there is but this I say That it is not a necessary Consequence of the Doctrine of Non-resistance that because we must not resist our Prince whatever he does therefore he may de jure dispense with what Laws he pleases and I think it is for the Interest of the Crown that these two should be kept distinct that the Prerogatives of the Crown should be asserted and maintained upon their own bottom and that the Doctrine of Non-resistance which must defend all other Prerogatives and is a better and cheaper security than Forts and Castles may not be entangled with other Disputes which will weaken its Authority though it be Divine when it is clogged as some men will think with such uneasie and fatal consequences This I confess gives me a just indignation against those half-witted Scriblers who to serve as they think a present turn have endeavoured to lessen the Reputation and to weaken the Arguments of those Divines who have appeared so zealous for the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience by affixing a great many consequences to them which are neither consequences nor theirs and by wresting their words to other purposes than they intended and for this reason I judg it a very good piece of Service to the Crown to undertake the Vindication of the men and of their Doctrines For Divines to determine points of Law especially such as require deep skill and insight into the nature of the Constitution as I observed before is out of their Sphere but obedience to Soveraign Princes both Active and Passive is not merely a point of Law but a Gospel command and this they not only may but ought to explain and press upon the Consciences of their hearers This the Church of England her self has done in the Homily of Obedience and this the Ministers of the Church have taken all occasions to do and with that success that there are not more Loyal Subjects in the World than the true Sons of the Church of England but farther than this they have not gone or if a few dablers in Politicks have let them answer for themselves The Scripture teaches Obedience but the Prerogatives of Princes and the Liberties of Subjects are the matter of human Laws and Constitutions which properly belong to another Gown And thus I come to consider what Testimonies this Writer has produced to prove That it is the Doctrine and Judgment of the Reverend Clergy of the Church of England that the Power of Dispensing with any Laws is an inherent and inseparable Right of the Crown where I will not meddle with the main point Whether the King have any such right for I will not dispute that but whether these Divines whose Authority is alledged in the cause ever taught any such Doctrine He begins with the Reverend Dr. Hicks Dean of Worcester and endeavours to render one of the best Books that ever was wrote for Passive Obedience wholly useless or odious to those men who are not fond of the dispensing Power But what does the Dean teach That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it is a Compleat Imperial Independent Soveraign that it is a contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty Well! to make short work with it does the Dean say That this Dispensing Power is one of those Rights which are involved in the notion of Imperial Soveraignty No he says no such thing but this Writer says so for him that this Power of dispensing with Penal Laws must be or nothing one of those Prerogatives which he proves from Sir Robert Pointz his Vindication of Monarchy and what then suppose it be does the Dean say so for that is the only point in question What his Judgment is No but he says That the Imperial Crown has all the Rights which are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty and our Author can prove that the dispensing Power is such a Right and therefore the Dean must grant that this dispensing Power is a Right inherent in the Crown Very well A Popish Priest will allow that an Imperial Crown has all the Rights that are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty now say I a Supremacy in all Causes over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil is an inherent Authority of the Imperial Crown therefore Popish Priests renounce the Supremacy of the Bishop of Râ—me and own the Supremacy of the Kings of England If he think this is not a good proof let him consider this matter over again which will be worth the while if it be only to teach him to Reason a little When there is any Dispute about the rights of Soveraignty it is a ridiculous inference to say That he who owns all the Rights of Soveraignty owns whatever any man says is a Right of Soveraignty for still he owns no more than what he himself believes to be so
Now I am not concern'd to enquire what Dr. Hicks believes about the Dispensing Power but what he has said and our Author has not produced one word out of his Book about it and therefore I suppose he could not for his own words had been a better Authority in this case than Sir Robert Pointz I am sure where he particularly states and enumerates the Rights of Soveraignty he takes no notice of it for as he reckons them up they are these Jovian or an Answer to Julian the Apostate chap. 10. p. 201. Ed. 1. 1. To be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God 2. To have the sole Power and disposal of the Sword 3. To be free from all Coercive and vindicative Power 4. Not to be withstood or resisted by force upon any pretence whatsoever Lastly To have the Legislative Power that makes any form of words a Law The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the exercise of this Power which may be confined to Bills and Writings prepared by others but still it is the Soveraign Authority who gives Life and Soul to the dead Letter of them Here is nothing at all about this Dispensing Power when there was a fair occasion for it Possibly this was an Omission which at that time he did not think of that not being the matter of Dispute or it may be he was not so well instructed and did not think this essential to the notion of all Soveraign Power as seems probable from his two sorts of Imperial Power either of which make an Imperial Soveraign such as is limited by the Laws of God and nature only or such as is limited by the Laws of God and nature and Civil Laws and Pactions too The Power in both sorts of Soveraigns is Imperial full perfect absolute and entire but the exercise of it is differently bounded and regulated one by the Laws of God and Nature and the other by human positive Laws and the latter limitation doth no more destroy the fulness and perfection and Supremacy of the Power than the former because the Soveraign who is under Political limitations as to the exercise of his Power hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely fully and entirely in himself as he that is only under the limitation of Divine and natural Laws De laudibus legum Angliae C. 9. Rex Angliae principatu nedum Regali sed Politico suo populo dominatur Regnum sic institui ut Rex non libere valeat populum tyrannide gubernare quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politica cohibetur Thus the learned Chancellor Fortescue grants the King of England to have Regal or Imperial Power though it be under the restraint and regulation of the Power political as to the exercise thereof and as a Fountain that hath Channels and Pipes made for it within which its waters are bounded in their passage and through which they are to flow is nevertheless as perfect a Fountain and hath its waters as fully and entirely within it self as any other Fountain whose waters flow from it at liberty without any such regulation so a King whose Imperial Power is limited by human Constitutions in the exercise of it is nevertheless as compleat a Soveraign and hath the Soveraign Power as fully and entirely within himself as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority as he will To be arbitrary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign than to be free in the course of its waters is of the Essence of a Fountain but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct for example is as perfect in its kind and generally more beneficial and useful to mankind than a free flowing spring so limited Soveraigns are as perfect and essential Soveraigns as the purely arbitrary and despotick and generally more beneficial and salutary to the world A great deal more the Reader may find to this purpose in the same place which possibly may be the reason why he did not mention this absolute Dispensing Power among the Essential Rights of Soveraignty because he might imagine that this might not be essential to all Soveraigns not to those the exercise of whose Soveraign Power is regulated by Civil and Political Laws who yet are as perfect Soveraigns as the most arbitrary and despotick Princes But I do not love to guess at other mens thoughts nor shall I undertake to justifie or condemn this Notion of his but I think the Reader by this time sees what little reason there was to appeal to the Dean of Worcester to justifie the dispensing Power His next Authority is Arch-bishop Bancroft who it seems asserted That the Judges are but the Kings Delegates and that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine from the determination of the Judges and determine them himself which the Archbishop said was clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the Word of God in Scripture Now I wonder this Writer would produce this and that for these two Reasons 1. Because at that very time in the Presence of King James my Lord Chief Justice Coke contradicted the Arch-bishop and told the King he could not do it and gave him his Reasons why he could not as the Ch. Justice himself reports it in that place to which this Writer refers 12 Co. Fol. 64. 5. Jac. Now methinks here he loses more than he gets for if he have got a great Church-man he has lost a very great Lawyer whose Judgment is more considerable in such matters for as the Arch-Bishop could tell him what hath been done in Scripture-times under the Jewish Common-wealth that Moses and David and Solomon and other Kings of Israel administred Justice in their own Persons So the Ch. Justice could tell him what the Constitutions of this Kingdom and the regular form of Law will admit which is more to our purpose 2. I wonder a little more how he can prove the dispensing Power from this The King may judg what causes he pleases himself Ergo He can dispense with all Laws when he pleases Does the Power of hearing and trying causes and expounding and interpreting Laws include in it a power of dispensing with Laws Then it seems every Judg is by his Office a Dispenser with Laws If the King have Power of determining causes in his own person must he judg with or without Law If he judg according to the Laws how does this prove his Power of Dispensing with Laws Surely this is a Power which can result only from a Supreme absolute and unlimited Soveraignty not from a mere power of hearing and judging causes according to the true meaning and interpretation of Laws so little does this Writer understand what he writes about and it is great pity there is no more care taken that the Kings Prerogative do not suffer by such unskilful Scriblers His next man is a very great one indeed not only an Archbishop but a Martyr for
themselves when he found it conducing to the Weal-Publick Now I do not see one Word in this but what is the undoubted Right of the Supream executive Power For it is impossible any Nation should be well and happily governed where this Power is not And that for this Reason which the Arch-Bishop gives Because Human Laws are imperfect and therefore there must be a living Authority to supply their Defects and to temper their Severities and to pity and relieve Subjects when the case is truly pitiable But then there are some natural Limitations of the exercise of this Power in the most absolute and despotick Princes and there may be Political Limitations of it by the consent of Soveraign Princes themselves according to the Laws and Constitutions of several Kingdoms For tho the Imperial Crown can be divested of no part of Soveraign Power yet the exercise of it may be directed and limited by publick Laws as we heard before from Bishop Sanderson This last the Arch-Bishop takes no notice of it not being his design as you heard before to adjust the Rights of Princes by Political Laws but only to consider in general what are the essential Rights of Soveraign Power without examining how the exercise of it is diversly limited in different Countries And therefore let us only consider what those natural Bounds and Limits are which he has set to this dispensing and suspending Power And they are included in the reason of this Power because all Human Laws are imperfect and therefore there wants a Soveraign Power which is so far Superior to all Laws that it can correct their Faults and supply their Defects and temper them to such particular Emergencies and Cases as could not be foreseen when the Laws were made For if human Laws could be so exactly framed as to fit all possible cases if the Law were for the good of the Common-wealth the dispensing with or suspending the execution of such Laws would be a publick mischief And a Power which could serve no good end could be no Prerogative of Soveraignty And therefore the very Dispensation must be for the publick good or else it is the abuse not the natural Right of Soveraign Power To which purpose he mentions the Opinion of John of Sarisbury P. 79. I do not take away the dispensing with the Law out of the Hands of the Powers but such Precepts or Prohibitions as have a perpetual Right are not as I think to be subjected to their Will and Pleasure In those things only that are mutable the Dispensation with the Letter of the Law is to be admitted yet so as by the compensation of Honesty or Vtility the Intention of the Law may be intirely preserved So that according to this Rule the natural Instances of this dispensing Power seem to be these When a Law is made and is for the Publick Good but happens to fall very severely upon some particular Persons without their own fault only because such particular Cases were not and could not be considered in making the Law here the Equity of the Prince ought to releive such Sufferers according to his long Quotation out of AEneas Sylvius P. 91. which this Author has transcribed at large and we readily own When the Penalty annexed to the Law may in some particular cases be remitted without the publick Injury and may be thought very just and convenient with respect to the pittiable Circumstances or former Merits of the Person offending as the Archbishop observes and this Author from him P. 79. While the Laws do stand in force it is fit that sometimes the King's Clemency should be mingled with the Severity of them especially when by that means the Subjects may be freed from much detriment and damage Which belongs to the Regal not to the Ministerial Power the condition of the Magistrates whose Sentence is held corrupt if it be milder than the Laws being one thing the Power of Princes whom it becometh to qualify the sharpness of them a far different matter If any thing happens after the making of a Law which was not foreseen when it was made and which is besides or contrary to the original intention of the Law-makers and renders the execution of that Law manifestly and notoriously oppressive to the Publick the Prince may certainly suspend the Execution of such Laws till they be alter'd or repealed by the Power which made them or in the same regular Exercise of the Legislative Power as they were first made This dispensing and pardoning suspending Power is so necessary to the Publick Good that for my part I would not willingly live under any Government which wanted the Exercise of this Power And if this be all this Writer intended to prove by his long Quotations out of the Archbishop I am perfectly of his mind that the Archbishop was of his Opinion and so I believe is every Man who considers any thing For the Exercise of such a Power as this is no Injury to the Laws nor to the Legislative Authority For in this way the Prime and original Intention of the Law is always secure and can never be dispensed with the general Force and Vigor of the Law is maintained though it be remitted in some particular cases all Mens Rights and Properties are secure which are secured by the Law for the Laws can be dispensed with not for the hurt and damage but only for the Benefit of the Subject and therefore no legal Rights can be taken away by a Dispensation and more than that some Men may find Refuge and Sanctuary in the Clemency and Soveraign Power of the Prince from the Severities of the Law as far as is consistent with the Publick Good and Safety But any other dispensing Power than this the Archbishop says nothing of And this I think is answer enough to what he alledges out of Archbishop Vsher After these 3 Archbishops the next who follows is the humble patient and learned Dr. Robert Sanderson late Lord Bishop of Lincoln and were he living this Writer would exercise all the Humility and Patience he had without offering him any occasion to shew his Learning At the end of his 9 th Lecture concerning the final Cause of humane Laws Sect. 16. he comes to explain that Aphorism Salus Populi Suprema Lex The Safety of the People is the Supream Law which was expounded in those days to set up the Interest and Safety as they pretended of the People in opposition to the King which he does with so great Learning and Judgment as not only to confute but to shame all such Protences From the 18 th Sect. this Writer among others which are nothing to his purpose transcribes these Words which I suppose he thought were Non ita se voluisse Legum vinculis astringi A King that gives Laws and Statutes to his People will not or did not intend to be bound up by the Laws that it should not be lawful to him the Safety of the Common-Wealth
being in apparent danger to provide for the Safety of the Kingdom and People committed to him by God even against the Words of the Law It is lawful for the Prince in the Preservation of his own and his Subjects Safety to lay aside for a while all strict observance of the Laws and to make use a little of an arbitrary Right lest by too unseasonable and superstitious Reverence of the Laws he may suffer both his own Person and his People that are subject to him and even the Laws themselves to fall into the Power of his Enemies Ergo the Power of dispensing with Penal Laws is an inherent and inseparable Right of the Crown Quod erat demonstrandum An excellent Logician to make an accidental Case the measure and Standard of a constant and unalterable Right To prove that to be a Right when there is no necessity which nothing but Necessity can justify nay to make Necessity which has no Law the Rule and Pattern of Legal Administrations to prove a dispensing Power in ordinary cases from a Right or Necessity to act without or against Law in extraordinary cases For the Bishop does not here say that in such absolute Necessity the King may dispense with Penal Laws but that he may act against the Words of the Law that he may lay aside for a while while that Necessity lasts all strict observance of the Laws and make use of an arbitrary Right So that if he can draw any Inference from this to ordinary cases where there is no such absolute danger it must be to prove a lawless and arbitrary Power which is a great deal more than a Power of dispensing with Penal Laws In the very next Section â—e says almost as much of the People That it is lawful for Subjects in defence of their Prince and of themselves when there is such a pressing necessity that a pious and prudent Man could not doubt but if the Lawgiver himself were present he would grant a relaxation of the Law to have greater regard to the common Good which is the supream Law and the end of all Laws than to any particular Laws which were made not to prejudice but to serve the common Good Now should any man hence draw a general Maxim that all Men must have greater regard to the publick Good than to the observance of the Laws of their Country it would be as bad Logick as it is Divinity and Law The last Bishop he calls in to bear his Testimony is the present Right Reverend Bishop of Chester but tho I have ventured to defend our dead Bishops who cannot speak for themselves but in their Writings I dare not make so bold with the living That great Man understands his own Sense best and if he be misrepresented wants neither Learning nor Interest to right himself And thus we proceed to the Reverend Doctors of our Church who I believe will be found to speak the same things with the most Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops The first is Dr. Heylin whose words are said to be these He viz. the King hath Authority by his Prerogative Royal to dispense with the rigor of the Laws and sometimes to pass by a Statute with a Non-obstante But where he says these words he does not tell us and therefore I know not where to find them and therefore know not upon what occasion they were said nor to what they are applied But as you have already heard no Man doubts but in some cases the King may dispense with the rigor of the Laws and before the Judges had declared their Opinions in the Point I know some good Lawyers who did not think that some few Instances of a Non-Obstante was a sufficient proof of a general dispensing Power and why might not Divines be of that mind too And then the Doctor 's saying that the King might sometimes pass by a Statute with a Non-obstante does not prove that he was for the dispensing Power in the modern Latitude of it for though it was as good Law before as it is now yet it might not be so well understood The next in order is the Learned and Judicious Dr. Isaac Barrow too learned and too judicious to be commended by so injudicious a Writer as will appear from what he transcribes out of his Treatise concerning the Pope's Supremacy I was mightily surprized to think what should come into the Doctor 's Head to state so nice a Point of Law as the dispensing Power in a Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy which seem'd as foreign to the business as could well be imagined and I was as much afraid that I should not have the Satisfaction of seeing what it was for he was resolved if Men would be so curious to examine they should take pains for it for he directs to no place where to find what he cites but sends his Readers to seek for three short Sentences in a Book of 428 Pages but by good luck I have found them and am very much edified by them The first is this Treatise of the Supremacy P. 311. Quarto It is indeed a proper endowment of an absolute Soveraignty immediately and immutably constituted by God with no Terms or Rules limiting it that it's Will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the abrogation of them the dispensation with them should be observed Where the Doctor was shewing how the Popes of Rome arrogate to themselves the most absolute and unlimited Soveraignty in the Church as it follows This Priviledg therefore in a high strain the Pope challengeth to himself asserting to his Decrees and Sentences the force and obligation of Laws c. The Mystery of this Quotation is this that he would have his unwary Readers to believe that this endowment or priviledg or Prerogative of Soveraign Power that it's Will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the abrogation of them the dispensation with them should be observed is immediately and immutably constituted by God with no terms or rules to limit it and thus indeed it is home to his purpose but shoots vastly beyond the Mark For this does not only prove that the King may dispense with Laws by his Proclamation but that he may make and abrogate Laws too by his Proclamation But the Doctor 's plain Sense is this That such an absolute Soveraignty as is immediately and immutably constituted by God with no terms or rules to limit the exercise of it and such a Soveraignty the Popes have challenged has this Endowment or Prerogative that its Will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the abrogation of them the dispensation with them should be observed And who ever denied this But I find no one asserting That the Kings of England were such absolute and unlimited Soveraigns by God's immediate and immutable Constitution That their Proclamations were as good Law as any Acts of Parliament That they could make and
the severities of the penal Laws whereby he may mâ—…st his clemency and goodness as well as his greatness and justice of graciously pardoning the â—maller Breaches of his Laws and the more capital offences which he might most justly punish For whoever denied this The King without doubt may not only pardon some smaller Fault but the greatest of Crimes but how this is to his purpose I still want to be inform'd And so I do as to what he quotes out of Doctor Puller's Book concerning The Moderation of the Church of England Iâ— that Equity which consists in remitting of the rigâ—… of the Laws when they press too hard upon particular Persons or in supplying the defects of the said Laws where they provide not sufficiently for particular â—ases which is all Doctor Puller contends for be all that this Writer wou'd have what need he to have writ a book about it and confirm'd it with so many great Authorities when I don't know that in this he has an Adversary in the World if he have it is fit such a man if ever he stood in need of Clemency and Mercy shou'd never have it Who thinks the Court of Chancery an illegal Court and yet that is properly a Court of Equity It is one thing to moderate the rigour of Laws in favourable cases another to dispense universally with such Laws as if Doctor Puller's Book prove any thing are very moderate already and yet this may be the Prince's Prerogative resulting not from Moderation and Equity but a Plenitude of Power As for his Anonymous Author with whom he concludes I neither know him nor his Book and suppose the cause will not depend upon a single Authority Thus we have heard what the Reverend Prelates and Doctors of the Church of England have said of this matter in the next place he tells us what were the Reasons that induc'd the Reverend Judges in Westminster-Hall so openly and solemnly after mature deliberation to declare their Resolutions in this Point for the thing But I had much rather he had told us what their Resolution was how far they extended this dispensing Power whether to all Cases or only to some or to all or to some as the King at any time judges necessary for I have heard very different Accounts of the matter but cou'd never see any authentick Record of it To have inform'd us in this matter had been a real Kindness because 't is the Rule of our Actions of our Words and of our Writing too for when I once know what the Judges declare to be Law I will enquire no further their Opinions solemnly declar'd must silence all Disputes because they carry Power and Authority with them unless any superiour Authority think fit at any time to judge over their Opinions This makes it very necessary to know what the Judgment and Resolution of the Judges is especially in any great and concerning Points but as for their Reasons I am not so fond of knowing them because it is the Authority of the Men not of their Reasons which must determine such matters for Mankind reasoning so very differently as they do there never cou'd be any final Determination of such Cases if all men must be first satisfied in the validity of their Reasons And therefore I think this Writer has done no service to the Cause by making their Reasons the Subject of Dispute for tho' they may be very good Reasons yet it may be all men will not think so and then such men will be apt to be dissatisfied that a Judgment which as they think is not founded on sufficient Reasons shou'd have such great Authority For it is not enough to say as this Writer does That the Reasons they went upon were only such as were exactly correspondent with the avow'd Doctrines before recited and that by this Declaration of theirs the Law of the Kingdom of England concerning this Soveraign Power in the Crown is no more than what was before publickly asserted to be the Divinity of the Kindom For tho' the Divinity of the Kingdom is a great word and cannot be determin'd by a Jury of Divines who liv'd in different Ages and never spoke together about it nay indeed can never be determin'd by any single Divines tho' never so many and never so learned but only by the Authority of a Convocation or National Synod yet those who think the Reasons not good will like them never the better because some Divines have been of that mind when they can so out number as I said before the Church of England with Popish and Fanatick Divines who teach another Doctrine And besides this I doubt he puts it upon a very dangerous Issue For if after all his confidence and assurance other men shou'd not think that these Reasons do so exactly correspond with the avow'd Doctrines of the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that they have neither taught the same Doctrine nor us'd the same Reasons as possibly this Author by that time he has read thus far may see reason to suspect what then had he not better have let all this alone have not the Reverend Judges great reason to thank him for bringing their Judgment and Reasons to such a Test as they will not bear They need not the Authority of Divines to justifie their Determinations at Law and therefore it is at best over-officiousness and a lessening of their Authority to make such Appeals besides the folly and rashness of making such Appeals as will do no Service But suppose these were not the Judges Reasons how will he justifie himself for publishing these Reasons as theirs without their Authority which I dare boldly say he never had Nay I dare lay considerable odds that these were not their Reasons as he has worded and represented them and that for more Reasons than one Did all the Judges agree upon these Reasons and make a Record of them or has he seen them signed with all their Hands if not how does he know that these are their Reasons For a Bench of Judges may agree in their Conclusion when they differ in their Premises and Reasons And I will believe that they had other Reasons besides these here mentioned Possibly some such thing as this might be said in Court but I believe not as it is here reported and it is an Affront to Judges in such a weighty Point as this to declare their Reasons upon meer hear-say when it is so evident that of twenty men who hear the same thing searce two of them shall exactly agree in their Report so uncertain and variable a thing is Oral Tradition which how infallible soever it may be in Divinity is not so in Law But to let all this pass and to allow these Reasons to be very good for I will no more dispute any Reasons which are attributed to the Judges than I will dispute their Resolutions yet the question still remains Whether these Reasons are exactly the same with what
the Divines of the Church of England that the Kings of England receive no power or Authority from the People for all Soveraign Power comes from God and the Crown of England is not Elective but Hereditary Nay they own that no Essential branch of Soveraign Power can be taken away from a Soveraign Prince the only question is whether the exercise of Soveraign Power can be regulated and limited by Laws of the Kings own making and this those who talk of a limited Monarchy must own for there can be no limited Monarchy if the exercise of Soveraign Power cannot be bounded by Laws Thus I have shewn as well as I can learn what the Sense of the Divines of the Church of England is in these Points how far they agree with the Judges reasons if they be theirs I cannot tell because I know not in what Sense they understood them As for his application of all this to the case of Liberty of Conscience I have nothing at all to say to it for since the King has declar'd his pleasure in it I will not dispute against it I am not without hope that Liberty of Conscience will not do the Church of England so much hurt as her Adversaries wish nor the Church of Rome so much good as they expected for tho' Fanaticism is a pleasing delusion Popery is not popular in this age and therefore it is not meer showing that will make Converts and I believe Liberty of Conscience it self at this time will not drive any Sober Dissenter the farther from Church And I have more hope of Gods Protection because we are upbraided as we are by this Writer with our very hope and confidence in the Divine Providence for who ever reads it can think it nothing less besides the knavery of the Quotation Doctor Hicks in answer to that Objection against the Doctrine of Passive Obedience Jovian p. 263. Where then is our security How can we be safe from the oppression of our Soveraign if we may not be allow'd to resist Among other things tells his Readers Pag. 265. that there neither is nor can be any absolute security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government and therefore in the second place it may be a sufficient answer to the question to show that we have all the security against the King that the King hath against us even all the security that any people in the World ever had have or ought to have and he instances in the Providence of God in the Conscience and Honour of the King and in the Laws of the Realm to which every man be he never so great is obnoxious besides the Prince himself This was all very much to the Doctors purpose it being all the Security we can have that our Prince will not oppress us which is not absolute security neither But what does this signifie to Liberty of Conscience how does this secure the Church of England if all her Enemies be let loose upon her But this Writer picking out two or three sayings from what the Doctor said of the Divine Providence without any regard to the series of the Argument concludes it with these words in Capital Letters So that they have all the security that any People in the world ever had have or ought to have As if the Doctor had taught that no People in the World ever had or ought to have any other security against the Oppression of a Soveraign Prince but only the Providence and Protection of God whereas he applies this not only to the Providence of God but To the Conscience and Honour of the King and the security of Laws The Providence of God indeed has the over-ruling determination of all things but ordinary Providence works by means and we have no reason to expect Miracles now and therefore the Providence of God does not make other securities needless The Doctor tells us Page 267. As the Princes best security against the People is the watchful Providence of God so the same watchful Providence is the Peoples best security against the Prince So that the Providence of God is an equal security to Prince and People against each other But how would any Prince look upon such a trifler who should tell him Sir all the security you have or possibly can have against your Subjects is only the Providence and Protection of God and therefore you may save Money and disband your Guards and Armies To perswade Men to part with all other securities and to venture upon the most destructive Methods in confidence of the divine Protection is like the Devils Temptation to Christ to cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple for it is written he shall give his Angels charge concerning thee and in their hands they shall bear thee up lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone 4. Mat. 6. I believe both Prince and People desire all the security they can and do not think it reasonable to part with one good security because they have another We have the Kings Word his Conscience his Honour and his Laws and thank God for all and implore the Protection of his Providence without which all other Securities are nothing and next to the Providence of God Laws are the best security because they are the Foundation of Conscience and Honour too and of all promises to govern by Laws for Conscience respects Laws and where there is no Law in the the case Conscience is not concern'd and can hinder nothing and to be sure the Honour of a Prince as well as Conscience is less concern'd when it is under no restraint of Laws He concludes this Pamphlet with some few Authorities for Liberty of Conscience I shall not now examine how pertinent they are for I will give no other Answer but this when he has answered all the Presbyterian Arguments against Toleration but especially that Book call'd Tolleration discus'd and the Arguments of Doctor Parker now the Right Reverend Bishop of Oxford in his Ecclesiastical Policy When he can prove that Liberty of Conscience is the Doctrine and Practise of the Church of Rome and the standing Rule of the Inquisition then I will consider further on this Argument In the mean time Sir I am Your most Obedient Servant FINIS Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHVRCH of ENGLAND against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom and his VINDICATOR Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and Reformation of the Church of England Quarto An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHVRCH of ROME touching TRANSVBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHVRCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome with an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo The Law-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24o. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings 〈◊〉 the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves Quarto A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Quarto The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. III Vers 15. Quarto A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some reflections on Cardinal Bell rmin's Fifteen Notes Quarto whereof Ten are extant The rest will be Published in their order A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquity against the Cavills of the Aâ—…viser Quarto The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted In Answer to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Popish Representer Second Part Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Quarto A Short Summâ—ry of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs