THE Manifest Design of our Church­men's Out-cries against His MAJE­STIES Ecclesiastical Commission, being to insinuate into the Mobile, That the KING, notwithstanding the solemn Promises he has made to the Church of England, intends nothing less than Her Ruin; I cannot forbear adding some Considerations to what the Vindicator of the Proceedings of His MAJESTY's Ecclesiastick Commissioners hath said on this Subject. And [Page 2]thus much I the rather do, because I find, that the Last thing they aim at, is the setting the Nation against the Taking off Penal Laws and Tests. But, that I may the more Successfully go through this Province, it will be necessary, that I examine what has been opposed to the Legality of the Court.

His MAJESTY has Promised to Protect the Church of England, as by Law establi­shed, and hitherto has done Nothing that in­terseres with this most Gracious Promise; for, it must be acknowledged, that a Correcting the Disobedient Members of a Church, is not a Destroying, but rather an using proper me­thods to preserve and secure it.

The Church of England is a Body-Politick, compact, and compounded of many, and al­most infinite several, and yet well-agreeing Members, of which the KING is Head, in­stituted and furnished with plenary and entire Power, Prerogative, and Jurisdiction, to ren­der Justice and Right to every part of this Body, of what Estate; Degree, and Calling soever he be.

The Exercise of this Power and Prerogative, according to the Ecclesiastick Laws of this [Page 3]Realm, is the Great Engine, used for the De­fence and Security of this Church. The Distribution of Justice, whether by encoura­ging those that do well, or punishing the Offenders, is the true way to support a Body-Politick.

Thus much, I presume, all men of Sence will yield, from whence it is easily inferr'd, That on my Clearing the Legality of the Commission [for nothing has been (that I do know) objected against the Defence of its Proceedings] it must be moreover gran­ted, that His Majesty has done the Church of England no harm.

My present Work then, is, to consider, What has been urged against the Legality of this Court? The Author of a Letter to the Vindicator will have the Question to be, ‘Whether or no by the Laws of this Nation, as they now stand, the KING's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, may be delegated to Commissioners? Or, Whe-Ecclesiastical Commissioners derived their Authority from His Majesty, by vertue of the First Elizabeth only, and not upon the score of any Prerogative in the Crown, preceding to that Act, whereby our Kings [Page 4]might appoint Commissioners in such Ca­ses, ad libitum, is the single Question, upon which the Validity or Invalidity of the present Commission will turn?’

To this the Author answers, ‘That it is not an Expression that might drop from my Lord Coke's Pen, that will determine so weighty a point as this, especially it being a question that depends upon some know­ledge of Antiquity, which my Lord Coke was very little acquainted with: Besides, he adds, That my Lord Coke never tells us, that our King's, by vertue of their ancient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, could appoint any Commissioners.’

After this, the Author goes on to let us know what the ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesia­stical was, boldly affirming, that no Eccle­siastical Jurisdiction was anciently delegated to Commissioners; For, saith he, ‘Com­missioners are not such Arbitrary things as some mistaken Men do fondly imagine. And how plausibly soever it be said, That what Power a Man has in himself, he may de­legate unto another; Yet this difference must be admitted betwixt Persons Commissio­nated [Page 5]by the KING in Matters of Go­vernment, and Persons authorized by pri­vate men, to act for them, and in their stead, viz. That private men may by Law do those things in Person, which they im­power others to do for them. But the KING Commissionates Persons to do what Himself cannot by Law do in Person.’

This is the Substance of what our Author opposes to what the Vindicator had said of the Legality of this Court. And in my Re­ply, no more is needful, than to shew,

• 1. That in the Sence of the Church's great Archbishop, the KING may do by Law those things in Person, which He impowers Commissioners to do for Him.
• 2. That before the 1 Eliz. the Kings of Eng­land, by the Common Law, might grant out Commissions.
• 3. That notwithstanding any thing contained in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. be KING may do so still.
• [Page 6]4. That His Majesty may exercise this Preroga­tive in Matters Ecclesiastical, in a more ample manner than yet He has done; and therefore seeing he doth not, it's manifest, That His Majesty designs no Hurt to the Church of England.

To the First, I will only insist on what is affirm'd by Archbishop Bancroft, the Malleus Puritanorum, the great Champion of our En­glish Church, who was President of the Con­vocation called in the First year of K. James 1. and stifly insisted on the imposing the three Articles, and on a Depriving all that diso­beyed. This Great man, the Church of En­gland's Darling, expresses himself most fully in these Words, Lib. 12. Mich. 5 Jac. Pro­hibitions de l'Roy. as Sir Edward Coke reports.

‘Upon Sunday the 10th. of November, the KING, (upon Complaint made to him by Bancroft Archbishop of Canterbury, con­cerning Prohibitions) was informed, That when question was made of what Mat­ters the Ecclesiastical Judges have cogni­zance, either upon the Exposition of the Statutes concerning Tythes, or any other thing Ecclesiastical, or upon the Statute [Page 7]of 1 Eliz. concerning the High Commissi­on, or in any other case, in which there is not express Authority in Law, the KING Himself may Decide it in His Royal Person, and that the Judges are but the Delegates of the KING; and that the KING may take what Causes he please to determine, from the Determination of the Judges, and may determine them Himself. And the Arch­bishop said, It was clear in Divinity, that such Authority belongs to the KING by the Word of GOD.’

Nothing can be more expresly opposite to what the Author of the Letter affirms: He saith, that The KING cannot by Law do that in Person which He impowers others to do. But the Archbishop is positive, That the KING can do it in Person, yea, that thus much is ratified by the Holy Scriptures, and therefore is out of the power of humane Laws to alter. If then there be any Truth in this Church-man's Divinity, there is no force in what the Author offers for Law. But,

Secondly, The thing I chiefly insist on, is this, That before the First of Elizabeth, the Kings of England might grant out Commissions.

In Caudries Case, Coke Rep. Lib. 5. after great and long Deliberation and Consultation, the Judges resolved, ‘That the Act of the First year of the late Queen, concerning Ec­clesiastical Jurisdiction, was not a Sta­tute Introductory of a New Law, but De­claratory of the Old; which appeareth as well by the Title of the said Act, viz. An Act restoring to the CROWN the An­cient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, &c. As also, by the Body of the Act, in divers parts thereof. For that Act doth not annex any Jurisdiction to the CROWN, but that which in truth, or of Right, ought to be by the Ancient Laws of the Realm, parcel of the KING's Jurisdiction, and united to his Imperial Crown, and which Lawfully had been, or might be exercised within the Realm.’

Thus you see the Judges are clear in their Opinion, that the First of Elizabeth is not Introductory of a New Law, but De­claratory of the Old: And thus much in the General the Author of the Letter will [Page 9]grant me, but then he will by no means yield, That our KINGS, by vertue of their Ancient, Inherent, and Primitive Ec­clesiastical Jurisdiction, might Delegate to Commissioners the Exercise thereof: How­ever, if we observe what was further re­solved by these Judges, we shall find that 'twas thus:

‘If that Act of the First Year of our late Queen, had never been made, it was Resolved by All the Judges, that the King or Queen of England, for the time being, may make such an Ecclesiastical Commission, as is before mentioned, by the Ancient Prerogative and Law of Eng­land.’

Thus you have the Resolution of all the Judges, against the Opinion of one unknown Gentleman, whether Lawyer, or no, is not clear; but had he been (though he discovers no such thing) Learned in the Laws, I presume, his Opinion is not to be regarded, in a Matter wherein the Judges are so plainly against him. And, [Page 10]though this be enough, yet ex abundanti, I will add one Resolution more of our Judges. Coke Rep. Lib. 12. ‘Mich. 4. Jacob. post Prandium; There was moved a Question amongst the Judges and Serjeants at Serjeants-Inn, If the High Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes may, by Force of their Commis­sion, imprison any man, or no? First of all, it was resolved by all, that Before the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. The KING might have Granted a Commission to Hear and Determine Ecclesiastical Causes.’

To return to our Author, on this Que­stion, Whether our KINGS, by vertue of their Ancient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, might Grant out Commissions, or Delegate the exercise of their Power to Commissio­ners? I say, on this Question (as this Gentleman grants) the Validity or Invalidi­ty of the present Commission will turn: that is to say, If by the ancient Laws our KINGS might Grant out Commissions, then the present Commission is valid; But it has been Resolved by all the Judges again and again, that by the Ancient Law [Page 11]before the First of Elizabeth, the KING might Grant out Commissions. Ergo, the present Commission is valid, the Court is a Legal Court.

Though this be so very clear, yet our Gentleman is still of the Opinion, That the Statute of 16 Car. 1. has taken away the Commission it self, Root and Branch. I will therefore proceed to the Third point, viz.

Thirdly, That notwithstanding any thing con­tained in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. the KING may still Grant out Commissions. For, if the Power of Granting this Commission be, as our Church-of-England-Lawyers declare, a part of the Ancient Ecclesiastick Jurisdic­tion, it is, notwithstanding any thing in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. still so. For it is expresly declared in this 13 Car. 2. c. 12. That Neither the said Act, nor any thing therein contained, DOTH, or Shall take away any Ordinary Power from the Arch bishops, Bi­shops, &c. but that they, and every [Page 12] Person above-named, exercising Eccle­siastical Jurisdiction, may proceed, and execuce all manner of Ecclesia­stical Jurisdiction, belonging to the same before the making of the 16 Car. 1. And if we look back, and ob­serve who those Persons are that are above­named, we shall find them to be not only Archbishops, and Bishops, but Vicar-Gene­rals, or any other person or persons what­ever, exercising Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power by any Grant, Licence, or Com­mission of the KING's Majesty; and if the Ecclesiastical Power be restored to Vi­car-Generals, and to the KING's Com­missioners, then the Power extraordinary is restored too, for 'twas an Extraordinary Power that belonged to them, which can no sooner be yielded, but 'twill follow, that no more Power is taken from Vicar-Generals, and the KING's Commissioners, than what was taken from Archbishops, Bishops, &c. which is further confirmed by that Clause, in which it is Declared, That the KING's Supremacy in Ecclesiastick af­fairs shall not be abridged or diminished; [Page 13]On which I thus argue: That that Sence of this Law, by which the KING's Ecclesia­stick Supremacy is abridg'd or diminished, is not the true Church of England Sence. But the holding that all extraordinary Juris­diction is taken away, abridges the KING's Supremacy; For, as our Church-men will have it before this Statute was Enacted, it's most manifest, that the Power of making Vicar-Generals and Commissioners, for the exer­cise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction, and sum­moning Men out of their own Diocess, belong'd to the King's Supremacy Ecole­siastical, and therefore it still doth apper­tain to it, which cannot be satisfied by Commissioners of Delegates, and Commissi­oners to visit in places exempt; For as I have already observed, Vicar-Generals, whose Jurisdiction is Extraordinary, are named amongst the rest. But to follow our Author,

If we enquire after the Special Reason that moved Queen Elizabeth to set up the High-Commission Court, we shall find, that though it was to the end she might De­prive [Page 14]the Popish Priests, yet, by the Instiga­tion of the Clergy, it was, for many years together, turned against the Protestant Dis­senters; and, according to Church-of-England-Law, it may as well be turned against themselves: For the Powers, Au­thorities, and Jurisdictions annexed to the Imperial CROWN of England, were for the Redressing, Ordering, Correcting, Re­straining, and Amending any Offences, Contempts, and Enormities whatsoever, which by any manner of Spiritual Autho­rity and Jurisdiction, ought to be refor­med; and therefore, if a Church-of-Eng­land-man be guilty of any such Offences, Contempts, or Enormities, he falls under the Ecclesiastick Censure, as well as a Ro­man Catholick, or Protestant Dissenter; and for the same Reason, One Prince exercises this Authority against Offenders of one sort, another Prince may use the same Power, for the amending the Offenders of the other Denomination.

And, Who can consider how our Church­men, that they might the more severely [Page 15]handle the Protestant Dissenter, have exal­ted the Prerogative, and not wonder that they should complain on the milder Exer­cises of it? But whatever they may think, it's impossible for them to open their Mouths in this matter, unless they bring upon themselves the greatest Odium and Con­tempt imaginable; for when they blame the present Commissioners for what they have done against the Bishop of London, and Mag­dalen Colledge, they do condemn themselves for exercising the greatest Severities against the Puritans, contrary (as now they them­selves will have it) unto all Law; For from what has been already said, it is ap­parent, That the same Power His Ma­jesty's Predeceffors exercis'd, belongs unto His Majesty, and that gives Strength to each Horn of the Dilemma.

In a word, then our Church-men must confess, they have been guilty of a very great errour, in turning the Royal Thun­der against the Old Puritans, in Q. Eliza­beths and K. James the First's days: Or, that they acted very Righteously in what they [Page 16]have done against them. If the Former, why do they not publish so much to the World? Why do they not confess, that their Forefathers have sinned, and gone astray, and that the Puritans were most Un­justly persecuted by their beloved Mother? If the Latter, if the Church of England in those days did but what was Just, seeing many Hundred of the Puritans were spoiled of their Benefices by the Royal Power, the KING may as Righteously proceed on the same bottom.

Fourthly, The Fourth thing to be done, is this, viz. That His MAJESTY may exer­cise His Prerogative in Matters Ecclesiastical, in a more ample manner than yet He has done.

The Author of the Letter affirms, That the Power of making Canons, for the Go­vernment of the Church, was no otherwise in the CROWN than the Power of making Temporal Laws; But the mistake in this place is as great as some others he is faln into, about Appeals and Investitures; the first of which, notwithstanding what [Page 17]he saith to the contrary, is to the KING without a Parliament, and decided by his Delegates or Commissioners of Review; the Last by the KING solely, who, by the delivery of the Staff and Ring, did usu­ally invest, as our Histories abundantly confirm. In like manner touching Laws about Rites and Ceremonies, it lies in the KING's Power, without a Parliament, to make 'em. So saith Dr. Zouch, and Dr. Cosin, and there is an Act of Parliament, Rex possit novas Leges condere circa ceremonias & ritus cum confilio Metropolitani vel Com­missariorum in Causis Ecclesiasti­cis. Zouch. Descrip. Jur. Eccles. Par. 1. Sect. 3. Cos. T. 6. expresly recognizing this Power to be in the KING; the Words of which are, If there shall happen any Con­tempt or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church — the Queen's Majesty, with the Advice of Her Commissio­ners in Causes Ecclesiastical, or Me­tropolitan, may Ordain and Insti­tute such further Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the Ad­vancement of GOD's Glory, the [Page 18]Edifying of His Church, and due Reverence of Christ's Holy Myste­ries and Sacraments. 1 Eliz. c. 2.

And as the KING, with His Eccle­siastical Commissioners, may make New Laws about Ceremonies, so, without a Par­liament, He may make Orders or Consti­tutions, for the Government of the Clergy, and deprive the Disobedient.

Thus much is affirm'd by those Prote­stant Divines, who have Written in Defence of the KING's Supremacy, particularly by Dr. Harris, in Answer to Becanus the Je­suit, where he is express in assuring us, ‘That the Right and Power by Regal Au­thority to make Church-Laws, as, that GOD should not be Blasphemed; that GOD should be pacified in a Fast, and Honoured in a Festival-day, and all such as we read to have been made in the Code, Authenticks, and Ca­pitulars by Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, and Carolus Magnus, belongs to our Kings.’

• 1. Be called the Supreme Head of the Church.
• 2. Call Councils, and preside in them.
• 3. Make Laws Ecclesiastical.
• 4. Constitute, and Depose the High-Priest.
• [Page 20]5. Bind His Subjects, by Oath, to Keep the Laws by Him made.

‘To conclude, Hereby may the Adver­saries see that Regal Primacy is founded on the Scriptures, and propagated from the First Religious Kings under the Old, to the First Religious Emperors and Kings, and so to Our Sovereign Lord K. JAMES, under the New Testament, and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished.’ So far Dr. Harris.

But before many Noble-men, Archbi­shops, and Bishops, and the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer, it was agreed, That the KING, without a Parliament, may make Constitutions for the Govern­ment of the Clergy, and that such a De­privation, Ex Officio, without a Libel, is good.

Besides, it must be further observ'd, That as it was held both by the Church-of [Page 21] England-Divines, and Lawyers, Noyes Re­ports, Fol. 100. to be in the Power of the KING to make Con­stitutions for the Government of the Clergy, and Deprive the Disobedient: In like man­ner our KINGS acted accordingly, and im­pos'd a Subscription to the Three following Articles.

To these three Articles all Persons re­ceived into the Ministry, were bound to Subscribe in these Words;

I N. N. do willingly, and ex animo, Sub­scribe to these Three Articles above-mention'd, and to all things that are contained in them.

This Subscription was imposed by the Regal Authority, without a Parliament, and many Hundreds who could not Sub­scribe, were, to the Ruin of them and their Families, actually deprived. And although this Subscription was exacted, during the whole Reign of James I. and Charles I. yet until the Restauration of Charles the 2d. it had never a Parliamentary Establishment.

Seeing then, it's past doubt, That His MAJESTY's Supremacy is as ample as that of any of His Royal Predecessors, what Q. Elizabeth and K. James the First have done, that His present MAJESTY may now do, and without a Parliament, Command a Subscription to other New Articles, and Deprive the Disobedient.

To instance in one Article: His MAJE­STY may Command all the Clergy through­out this Kingdom, to give in their Assent, and Consent to every thing contained in His late Gracious Declaration of Indulgence, and Deprive all that Disobey.

The power of Making new Articles, and requiring Subscription, His MAJE­STIES Royal Predecessors have exercis'd, and the same His MAJESTY may as well now do. For the Matter of His Ma­jesties Declaration has greater Countenance from Scripture, than the Ceremonies can pretend to. Ay, the very Dispensing Power it self, is no more than what many of our Clergy have, for many Years together, preach­ed up for Sound Doctrin.

Thus you see how the KING may stretch His Prerogative to an higher Peg than yet he has done; but, Would there not then be a Brave Work among our Clergy, who, on such an occasion, would be obli­ged to give in Assent and Consent to Li­berty of Conscience, or submit to a Depriva­tion! [Page 25]I will say it again, If His MAJESTY by His Regal Authority, should impose a Subscription to His late Gracious Declara­tion, He might most Righteously, according to Church-of-England-Law, Deprive all that refuse to Obey.

I know that of late, some have very confidently said, That Deprivation is no Ecclesiastical Penalty, for the Benefices of which they are Deprived, is a Property, and by Magna Charta, no one can be disseized of it, without a Tryal by a Jury of his Peers; I will therefore, in short, give you the Resolution of our Judges in this matter, and leave it to the impartial Reader to judge, as he shall see cause.

‘Robert Cawdrey, the Parson of the Rectory of North-Luffenham, in the County of Rutland, was, by the Queens Ecclesia­stical Commissioners, deprived of his said Benefice, for preaching against the Book of Common Prayer, as also for that he re­fused to Celebrate Divine Service, accor­ding to the said Book; which said Sen­tence [Page 26]of Deprivation was given by the Bishop of London cum assensu A. B. C. D. &c. collegarum suorum. But whether the Depri­vation was void in Law, was solemnly and oft-times debated at Bar by Council, and at the Bench by the Judges, and after great and long deliberation and consultati­on had with the rest of the Judges, the Case was in the Term of St. Hilary, in the 37 Year of the Queen, adjudged. It was argued by Cawdrey's Counsel, That the De­privation was void, for his Offence was against the First of Elizabeth, and therefore ought to be punished according to the mo­deration of that Act, which was not for the First Offence an ipso facto Deprivation, but only the Loss of the profits of his Ec­clesiastical Livings for One year, and Six months Imprisonment. But Deprivation was for a Second Offence, committed after he had been judicially convicted of Re­cord by Verdict of Twelve men, or by Confusion, or notorious evidence of the Fact. But although this was the method prescribed by the Statute of 1 Elizabeth, yet, because there was a Proviso in the [Page 27]said Act, [That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops, and eve­ry of their Chancellors, Commissa­ries, Archdeacons, and other Ordi­naries having any peculiar Eccle­siastical Iurisdiction, should have full Power and Authority, by ver­tue of that Act as well to enquire in their Visitation, &c. — of all and every the things above-men­tioned, done and committed, or per­petrated within the limits of their Iurisdiction and Authority, and punish the same by Admonition, Ex­communication, Sequestration, or Depriva­tion, and other Censures and Pro­cess, in like Form as heretofore had been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws,] It was adjudged, That the Ecclesiastical Judges might Deprive such Person, Vicar, &c. as shall deprave or not observe the said Book, as well for the First Offence, as he might have done by the Censures of the Church, and the Ecclesiastick Laws, as if no form of punishment had been in­flicted [Page 28]by that Act, and are not bound to pursue the Form prescribed by the said Act, which is to punish the Offender, accor­ding to the Temporal Law.’

Thus the Judges have Resolv'd it, That Deprivation is one sort of Ecclesiastical pu­nishment, and may be inflicted without an Observing the Form prescribed by the Tem­poral Laws: Which is enough to silence the Clamours of those Church-men, who now cry up Benefices to be such a Proper­ty, that the punishment by Deprivation can­not be justly inflicted, unless the process be in like Form as is used by the Temporal Laws.

Furthermore, as His Majesty may exer­cise this ample Power, and not recede the least from Church-of-England Law; even so, his Doing it would not interfere with his Promise: And, if we may judge of things by the Sentiments our Church-men have heretofore had of Deprivations, no hurt is hereby done unto their Church. For when the old Puritans, in Q. Elizabeths and James the [Page 29]First's days, and the Nonconformists in Charles the Second's Reign, were Deprived, these Deprivations were esteemed by the Gover­ning Clergy, no Damage, but a great Advantage to the Church; for, by them She was delivered from all those that dif­fer'd from Her in a Ceremony. On the other hand therefore, if His Majesty should impose Subscription to the Late Declaration, though many be thereupon Deprived, yet no more harm can be done the Church of England now than by the former Deprivations. And if the Opinion of a very Learned and Mo­derate Church-man may be of any value, the Difference between these and the Old Deprivations, must be only this: By the Old, the most Pious, Learned, and Peacea­ble, that scrupled the Ceremonies, were turn'd out, to the prejudice of Religion; But by this New one, none but the Debauched, and Persecuting part of the Clergy, to whom we may impute all our Late Miseries, will be laid aside, to the advancing the Nations Peace.

If then the KING may exercise his Prerogative, and go so far, as is here said, [Page 30]without doing any hurt to the Church, What ground is there for the present Noise? His MAJESTY's Commissioners have in­deed suspended One Bishop for his Disobe­dience, towards whom they have exercised the greatest patience, in not proceeding to a Deprivation; And what have they done more, than amove the Fellows of one Col­ledge for their insolent oppugning His Ma­jesties Supremacy, and a making 'em uncapa­ble of compassing their bad designs? Where then is the least Colour for the Jealousies these men endeavour to beget in the minds of His Majesties Subjects?

On the whole, Whoever will consider how much, according to Church-of-England-Law, the KING may do, and yet not­withstanding the many Provocations some Hot-Church-men have given Him, How little He has done? I say, whoever will care­fully observe thus much, will see cause enough to conclude, That His Majesty's Cle­mency in the Exercise of His Supremacy, bears proportion to His Greatness.

It's amazing to observe, how industriously some of our Clergy, and their Creatures, struggle; how strenuously they labour to misrepresent His Majesty's most Glorious De­signs, how many Seditious Pamphlets they do daily emit, and at what charges they are to propagate 'em. But yet His Majesty, with the greatest steadiness pursues His Royal Purposes of Grace to the whole Kingdom, to all Parties in it, even to the Church of England, that She continue in the Enjoyment of all that is dear unto Her, so far as it's consistent with the true peace and quiet of the other great parts of the Na­tion.

Let things be restored to the Ancient Constitution, let all English-men, as such, enjoy the Priviledges that belong unto 'em: Let them all sit down with peace under their own Vines, and be equally concern'd in the Services the Government calls for, and Encouragements it gives, and His Majesty is satisfied.

The enclosing the Government, and nar­rowing it so, that none but Men of one [Page 32]Religious Perswasion can have a share in it, hath (as woful experience teaches us) pro­ved fatal to this Nation. It hath spoiled our Trade, depopulated the Kingdom, and exhausted the Nation's Treasure, carrying it unto a neighbouring People.

Let us then be content, that His Majesty brake down the Enclosures, and set the Go­vernment on a larger bottom, that all True English-men may have a share in it. Let Liberty and Property, and every man's Reli­gion, be secured, and we shall soon be the happiest People under Heaven.

I say, Let every man's Religion be secu­red, as much from Violence, as the most Sacred part of our Civil Liberties, for this is the thing His MAJESTY Desires; and, Where then is our danger?

His MAJESTY offers to do what never any of His Royal Predecessors ever did be­fore him, towards the establishing his Peoples Peace, And shall we be so unsensible, as not to Bless GOD, and accept of the Offer?

Here is no Trusting in the Case. His MAJESTY discovers so much Sincerity and Integrity in what he saith, that he will leave no room for Trust.

It is but to accept of a Magna Charta, in which our Religion is secured from all danger, (which can never be so long as Penal Laws, and those Tests, whose matter is meerly Religious, be kept up,) and we are immediately possest of all we can reasonably desire.

Let the same Instrument that takes away Penal Laws and Tests, secure our Religion, and by the very Breath, that the one is de­stroyed, the other will be established.

That a Sufficient Security may be found out, is not doubted by the most wise and thoughtful. What that is, is the part of a Parliament to consider; but if we have as good, or better Security for our Religion; to be content to part with Penal Laws and Tests, is both the Duty and Interest of every true English-man.

That His Majesty will give us as good Security as can be reasonably desired, is the Import of His Late Gracious Declaration, which, he has, on divers occasions, oft publickly repeated, and it hath been fully proved, That His Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners have done nothing that is inconsistent with It. Whence it clearly follows, That there is nothing of Argument in our Hot-Church­mens Clamours, about this Courts Procee­dings against the Taking off Penal Laws and Tests.

In a word, from what has been already urg'd, it's most apparent:

I. That the Court, held by His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is, according to the Sentiments of Church of-England-Lawyers and Divines, a Legal Court.

II That the Prerogative, recognized by the Church-of-England to be inherent in the CROWN, is much larger than what His Majesty has yet exercised. For, [Page 35]

• 1. The KING with His Commissioners Ecclesiastical may make New Laws a­bout Ceremonies; and instead of Three, impose Thirty more. The Power be­ing lodg'd in the KING, He is the most proper Judge of their Decency, and Number; and for the same Reason, that Three are imposed, if His Majesty judges it meet, Thirty more may be ad­ded to the present Imposition.
• 2. The KING with His Commissioners Ecclesiastical, may enjoyn a strict Sub­scription unto New Articles, and in the present juncture, require the Clergy to give in Assent, and Consent unto them, on Pain of Deprivation. And if His Majesty should oblige our hot Church-Doctors to Subscribe, Assent, and Con­sent unto Liberty of Conscience, What a condition would these Violent Men be plung'd into? They must either re­nounce their persecuting Principles, or part with what is as dear unto them, viz. their Benefices.
• [Page 36]3. His Majesty may proceed against the Bishop of London to a Deprivation; for, when ever any one falls under Suspen­sion, it has been the Custome of the Church of England, stifly to insist on a Submission; and where that could not be obtained, they never stopt one point this side a Deprivation. Now it's plain, that it was the Bishop's Duty to obey the Mandate of his Supreme Ordinary, and suspend Dr. Sharp; and seeing he refused to Discharge his Duty, he was by their own Laws, justly suspended; and it's as certain, that His Majesty exercises the greatest Clemency, in waiting so long for his submission.
• 4. If His Majesty should deal with some of the Magdalen-Fellows after that manner, the Church-of-England-Judges advis'd King James the First, to proceed against the Old Puritanes, He might handle 'em more severely than yet his Commissio­ners have done. For their endeavour­ing to fill the Minds of His Majesties Sub­jects with Discontents, and Jealousies, is [Page 37]an Offence, Fineable at discretion, and very short of Felony, or Treason in the Punishment.

By all which it's manifest, that His Majesty has not stretched his Prerogative to the utmost length he might, and yet keep within the Church-of-England Circle, and it's also as clear, that by reason of this Power His Ma­jesty has all the Conformable Clergy under His Girdle; to which we may add, that on the account of the many Penal Laws against Protestant Dissenters, They also are as much under the Power of their PRINCE; for which reason, we may be assured, that if His Majesty design'd any thing more than the Peace and Quiet of all His People, if he had further resolv'd to have set up Popery in Do­minion, to the Ruining His Protestant Sub­jects, the only time of doing it would be be­fore the Penal Laws and Tests are taken off, and a Magna Charta, for Liberty of Consci­ence is Established. For Now, the KING can either Muzzle all the Clergy, or Ty [...]up the hands of Protestant-Dissenters, and get a Parliament, that shall set up Popery.

It's not to be doubted, but that 'tis more easy Now, than it can be after a Magna Charta for Liberty of Conscience is obtained; for Then, the persecuting principle will be Dam­ned, the Church of England will have fresh security for her standing, and the Protestant-Dissenter be deliver'd from the Awe, and Dread of Penal Laws. And every Man, whose desire is more for Peace, than Broyles and Confusions (be they Protestant or Roman Catholick) they will be for a continuing the Magna Charta.

To deliver freely my Conscience in this case, it is this: His Majesty designs to make us happy, by setting us all at ease under His Government; and the utmost he desires, is, That the Roman Catholicks with His other Sub­jects, may enjoy the Free Exercise of their Religion, and have an equal share with o­thers in the priviledges of Englishmen: and that thus much may be compassed, the King would have Matters so setled, that it may never be in the power of any one Party to hurt the Religion of the other, and that all Parties may be secured from Fears and Jealousies, [Page 39]His Majesty calls for the help of a Parliament, that in a Parliamentary-way, Men of every Religion, may have the greatest security the Wit of Man can invent for Liberty of Con­science.

All those Pamphlets therefore, that are daily spread abroad, chiefly by those, who had the greatest hand in the late Persecution, do hinder the Nations Peace, so far, as they obstruct this His Majesties most Gracious De­sign, and are to be consider'd as such, by all good Men, who, when they weigh things, will, I doubt not, see cause to do their ut­most, that We may have such a Parliament, as will concurr with His Majesty in making us Happy.