THE many Discourses that have been, and still are about the TESTS, being on a Point of the Highest Importance, both to the King's Majesty, and to the whole Kingdom, it doth most undoubtedly become every Englishman to consider, with the greatest Caution, not only the Nature of the Thing, but what may be the Tendency, either of the Damn­ing or Establishing 'em: And whoever ventures to offer his Thoughts about them, must remember, he has a very narrow Bridge to pass over, where one false Step will be fatal; for there is such a thwarting of Opinions, as makes the Case marvellously perplex'd and intricate. Some Great Men are fully persuaded, that a Taking them off will prove pernici­ous to the Protestant Subject; And there are others of as great a Figure, who are convinc'd, that in this Juncture a sticking to 'em will be more mischievous to all, than the destroying 'em can be to any. And because of the different Apprehensions Men of a great Character have of this Thing, [Page 2]the Inferior sort are hugely distracted, and in a Commotion amongst themselves; which makes it necessary to do some­what more than yet has been done to enlighten and settle the Body of the Nation on a sure Basis, in their Reasonings about it: And I cannot think of a better Method than the giving a just Account of the Ancient Constitution of our Govern­ment, and the several Interests of the KING and PEOPLE: For, what is most agreeable to that Constitution and these Interests, is undoubtedly most safe and meet to be done. I will therefore keep to this Method, and in the first place mention just so much of the Ancient Constitution of the Ci­vil Government as is necessary to the present purpose, and 'tis this.

THE Civil Government must be recogniz'd to be a thing entire within it self, and of distinct Consideration from Religion. For altho' there may be many Religions in a King­dom, yet the Government is but One and the same; and tho' there may be great Alterations made on the Religion of the State, yet that makes no Alteration on the Government. The blending any particular Religion so very close to Govern­ment, that a change of the former must infer a ruin on the latter, is quite contrary to the Ancient Constitution of this Nation, in which the Religions have been various, even when the Government remain'd the same, unalter'd and un­shaken. The change of Religion from Heathen to Chri­stian made no Alteration on the Government, nor did the turning it from Popish to Protestant. Under all these Vi­cissitudes and Changes, the Civil Government (for of that I still speak) was the same.

And as Civil Government is distinct from Religion, and entire without it; so the different Subjects and Ends of the one and the other makes it apparent. Civil Government, in the Intention of the Ordainer, is design'd to maintain Peace among Men as Men, and is Conversant about the Outward Man, regulating it by that Law which is reveal'd by a Light common to Mankind, and maketh use of Coercion for the enforcing Obedience: But the Design of Religion is [Page 3]to procure a Peace between God and Man, and its Subject is of a far larger Extent; for it reacheth the Souls of Men, giving Laws for their Regulation, which are Sanction'd by Spiritual, not Corporal Retributions.

I doubt not but the Intelligent Reader will do me right in the taking it for granted, that when I distinguish Civil Government from Religion, it's meant of that Religion that leans on Positive Revelation, and not of Natural Religion, that lieth in an Observing of the Laws given us with our Being: For it is the great End of Civil Government, to see that Men frame their Manners in conformity to those Laws, and by Corporal Mulcts to punish such as violate 'em. But the Religion that is founded on Positive Revelation, tho it comprehends Natural Religion within its compass, yet as contradistinguish'd from it, the chief Duty it requires is Faith, which can no ways be forced; and being to regulate Mens Hearts, it can operate no otherwise, but by the propo­sal of Spiritual Encouragements and Threats.

Here then do's arise a clear difference between Civil Go­vernment, and Positive Religion: The one is only conversant about the Outward Man, taking no cognizance of Mens Thoughts but in order to the Outward Act; The other is conversant about the Hearts of Men. The one therefore makes use of Coercion, or Corporal Enforcements; the other of Spiritual only.The Ecclesia­stical Law and the Temporal Law have se­veral Proceed­ings, and to se­veral Ends; The one being Temporal, to inflict Punishment on the Body, Lands, or Goods; The other being Spiritual, prosalute animae. The one to punish the Outward Man, the other to Reform the Inward. And this appeareth in 20 Hen. 7.22. & 10 Edw. 4.10 Coke, Caudrey's Case. If a Man violates those Laws that are ad­justed for the keeping Peace amongst Men, as such, he is ob­noxious to a Corporal and External Penalty; but if his Crimes lie only in transgressing those Laws that are brought to light by Positive Revelation, he is only liable to a Spiritual Punishment, not to what is Corporal.

Thus the Civil Government (I say) regards the Outward Conversation, the Keeping an External Peace amongst Men, by taking care that they observe the general Laws of Nature, and every other particular Law, which either Custom, or the [Page 4]present State of Affairs declare to be necessary for the good of the People. But Religion respects the Consciences of Men, having only the advantage of Persuasion to propagate, or at least defend it self against Foreigners; to which is added the power of casting all Domestick Adversaries out of Com­munion, that cannot be prevail'd with by Persuasion.

The confounding these has prov'd mischievous to King­doms, and so has the twisting Religion with the Govern­ment of the State, so as to make it lawful to deprive the Subject of his Civil Liberty or Property for not closing with the Religion. Thus much I may safely affirm, altho' I should also (as I do) grant, that it's the Duty of the Govern­ment to encourage that Religion which it esteems best; for there is a great difference between the encouraging Men of one Religion, and the destroying all of another. Besides, such is the Nature of true Religion, as obliges its Professors to be content with Religious (without calling in the Aid of Civil) Methods for its Security and Defence. And its no part of Civil Government to use Coercion for the advantage of any Religion: Be the Religion what it will, unless it can defend it self by dint of Argument, it may fall, for any help the Civil Powers are bound to give it. And let all the Religi­ons stand in equal Favor with the Higher Powers, it's not to be doubted, but suppos'd, that what's True will be found to prevail and conquer. And thus much we boldly assert, according to Christ's Doctrin, which assures us of no other destruction of all Heresies, than by the Brightness of his Coming; and no other overcoming all his Adversaries, but by the Sword that goes out of his Mouth, viz. the Word of God.

It is therefore to be observ'd very much to our purpose, what was the Practice of the first Christian King amongst the Saxons, as venerable Bede in his Ecclesiastical Story ex­presly avers. For Ethelbert (saith Bede) after due delibe­ration receiv'd Christ's Religion, and tho' resolv'd to give the greatest Countenance to those who became Christian, yet would compel none to receive the same Faith he did,Nullum ta­men cogeret ad Christia­nifmum, sed solummodo credentes ar­ctiori dilecti­one quasi con­cives sibi reg­ni coelestis amplectere­tur. Didice­ret enim & à Doctoribus, auctoribusque suae salutis ser­vitium Christi Voluntarium, non Coacticium debere esse. Bede Histor. Eccles. Gent. Angl. l. 1. c. 26. be­lieving, as he was taught, that the Service of Christ ought [Page 5]to be Voluntary, and not by Constraint. Now according to this first Record in our English History, I must aver, that after the strictest Endeavor I could make for the investiga­tion of Truth in this Particular for succeeding Generati­ons, I have been induc'd from the whole to conclude, That as Government and Religion are two distinct Things, their Subjects and their Ends distinct; in like manner as True Religion rejects all Coercive Props and Supports, as what is contrary to some special Rules given by our Lord Jesus Christ himself; So the Ancient Constitution of our Govern­ment is such, as offers Protection to all that demean them­selves like good Subjects, of what Religion soever they be; That Liberty and Property are too sacred to be invaded for the sake of an Opinion that no way hurts it; And that the Temporal Peace and Quiet, which is the result of an entire enjoyment of Liberty and Property, is so much the Englishman's Right, that no one without unjust Violence can deprive him of it for his Religion. The truth of which is so very obvious, that every particular English Spirit cannot but find it as it were engraven on his own Soul; for what People under the Cope of Heaven are more tender of Li­berty and Property than the English?

And I am sure, that the other day a great Lawyer ex­press'd himself very freely touching the Subjects Rights, affirming, That as Kings have their Prerogatives too great for an Act of Parliament to bound or limit, and as the next Heir to the Crown has so firm a Right to the Succession, that no Consideration of Religion, no, nor that of Treason it self, can be made a Bar to exclude him, for Jura Sanguinis nullo jure Civili dirimi possunt; So Subjects have their vari­ous and different Rights, either by Inheritance, Creation, or Election, answerable to their several Qualities, which no Act of Parliament can divest them of, insomuch that if a Statute be de facto made contrary to a Fundamental Right of the Subject, it's void and null; and if any one in pursu­ance of such a Statute, ravish from the Subject his Liberty and Property in one King's Reign, he may (as it has been heretofore) suffer for it in the Reign of another. I insist not [Page 6]nevertheless at this time on this Great Man's Opinion, any farther than to offer it to the Consideration of the Learned in the Law, that (if possibly I may do it) they may be pro­vok'd to an Enquiry, and to give the People some farther Satisfaction than he did, when he only told me it was so plain, that instead of confirming it by Authorities, he must defere to the known Rule, viz. In rebus manifestis errat, qui authoritates Legum allegat, quia perspicuè vera non sunt probanda. For let this Opinion be clear'd, 'twill contribute extreamly towards the ending the present Controversie, especially if the other thing he mention'd also (which indeed concludes our whole Argument) be made out, viz. That amongst the Inalienable Rights of the Subjects, we must reckon this, That no Free-Man may be depriv'd of his Liberty or Property, or any other Civil Right or Privilege, for the sake of his Religion, so long as his Religion has no influence on the Go­vernment. Let this, I say, be made good, 'twill unavoida­bly follow, that all the Penal Laws for meer Religion, and the Securing the Tests must appear to be ab initio, void and null; and a Great Charter Declaratory of so much, will put a stop to Persecution for evermore for Conscience sake, and answer all the Objections that can be brought against the Taking away the Tests.

But to return; It's my part to enquire more particularly, Whether the Damning, or Establishing the Tests, be most agree­able to what I have declared the Ancient Constitution of our Government to be? And the Solution is easie; for from the Contexture of the foregoing Discourse, we must conclude for the Taking them off, because they twist the Religion of one part of the People so closely with the Government, as to deprive the Body of the Nation of their Civil Rights, Liberty and Property, for the sake of an Opinion that hurts no Body but its Owner. There are three or four Tests, which do twist Religion and the Civil Government so un­luckily together, that whoever scruples the Religious part of the Test, is immediately esteem'd an Enemy to the Go­vernment.

The First requires, that they who take it do declare, that [Page 7]they'll never endeavor any Alteration of Government in the Church. The Second obliges all in Office to Receive the Lord's Supper according to the Church of England, and de­clare in these Words, [I A. B. do declare, 25 Car. 2. cap. 2. That I do believe that there is not any Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the Elements of Bread and Wine, at, or after the Consecration thereof by any Person whatsoever]. The Last, imposed both on the Nobility and Commons chosen to Sit in Parliament, runs thus, [I A. B. do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess, testifie, and declare; That I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at, or after the Consecration thereof by any Person whatsoever; And that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now us'd in the Church of Rome, are Superstitious and Idolatrous.]

These being the several Tests impos'd on the Subjects of this Realm, there are these several Arguments which occur to my Thoughts against their continu'd Establishment.

I. It's contrary to the Liberty of the Subject, who with­out just cause is hereby depriv'd of his Rights as an English­man. It is the Right of a Freeholder in the County,My Lord Chief-Justice Coke posi­tively affirms, That the Barons ought to have a Writ of Summons ex de­bito Justitiae, to Sit in Parliament; and its most manifest, that their Sum­mons must be either of Grace, or ex debito: If the former, it lies in the Breast of the King to call whom of the Lords he will, and so never want an House of Lords for his Pur­pose; If the latter, then my Argu­ment abides in its strength, and it's the Barons Right to be Call'd and Sit in Parliament. and of a Free-man of any City or Town Corporate, to choose his Representative in Parliament, and the Right of those freely chosen, if good Sub­jects, which they may be, tho' of a Reli­gion different from that of the State, to Sit in Parliament; and it's the Birthright of our Ancient Nobility, and the most un­doubted Right of every Peer of the Land, tho created a Peer but yesterday, to Sit in the Higher House of Parliament, and Ad­vise and Consent to the Enacting Laws. And it's a known Case, that tho' a Man be Excommunicate, yet he is not thereby divested of his Right to choose his Re­presentative; and why, but because a Man may remain a [Page 8]good Subject and a good English-man, altho' thrown out of the Church, and therefore ought to enjoy the Privilege of an English-man. And why shall not the Persons chosen, and the Nobility, so long as they sufficiently demonstrate to the World, that they are true English-men, and good Subjects, enjoy their undoubted Rights and Privileges? What be­longs to a good Subject as such, belongs to every good Sub­ject, and it's a Wrong to rob him of it. Let there then be such a Test impos'd, I mean a CIVIL TEST, which Characterizes a good Subject, and which a good Subject can­not refuse to take, and let that be all; for that surely may be made sufficient and unscrupulous, to secure the just Prero­gatives of the King, and the Liberty and Property of the Subject, which is the whole Concern in it, that a true English­man, as such, is bound to look after.

II. The Imposition of a Religious Test on the Subject, excluding the Refusers from having any Advancement in Places of Trust, is a Branch of that Doctrin on which all Penal Laws for Religion are grounded; for the excluding a Man from entring on, and a turning him out of any Place of Trust and Advantage, for the sake of his Religion, is as Pe­nal as the taking from him his Liberty and Property for Religion.

There is no difference in the general Nature of the Penal­ness of these Laws, the difference lies in the particular Kinds of the Penalty; the one is meerly Privative, and the other Positive; the one a Casting 'em out of Heaven, the other a Casting 'em into Hell. The Nonconformists there­fore judge, that the turning 'em out of their Places, was a Punishing 'em for their Consciences, and they reckon it a great part of their Sufferings for Religion as well as they do their Imprisonments. Whoever then is against the con­tinuance of the Penal Laws, if he will be consistent with himself, must be for the taking away all Religious Tests, seeing otherwise some good Subjects may suffer for Consci­ence sake, which is the thing they decry. They may suffer the loss of their Civil Rights, as most certainly those Lords do, who are excluded the House in Parliament-time. And [Page 9]how then shall we imagine that any Dissenter that is truly and considerately such, can be for the Establishing the Tests? For thereby, whilst they desire Liberty for them­selves, they cry for Vengeance on others; and whilst they desire a Prince of a Religion different from themselves, to ease them, they must have Men of the King's Religion con­tinu'd under Persecution, than which nothing can be more unreasonable; seeing, in good earnest, if they are for the Persecuting others, it's a thousand to one, but that they may tempt the Government to give themselves the worst of it.

III. This blending and twisting Matters Religious with the State so closely (as to make a Mistake in Religion to be enough to demonstrate the Man an Enemy to the Govern­ment) seems to be a Result grounded on that pernicious Notion, [That Dominion is founded in Grace]: For why else must a Man be of the Religion, that he may have a Share in, or Countenance from the Government? If Government be not founded in Grace, then Grace, or the being Religi­ous, is no necessary Step to get up into the Government. Besides, according to the present Practice of the violent Asserters of Tests, be their Principle what it will, all the Consequences of that Doctrin [Dominion is founded in Grace] do naturally issue from their Practice, seeing by the same Reason a Church-of-England Parliament excludes from the Favor of the Government all but Church-of-England Men; a Popish, Presbyterian, Anabaptistical, Independent, or Qua­king Parliament, may exclude all from the same, but Men of their own Persuasion. And what is more considerable, the Church of England, so long as she is for this Practice, that she may defend it, must insist either on her being in Possession, or on a Right only upon this account, because she is of the true Religion. If on the former, then whoever is in possession, may have the same Plea; and this is no other than what every Usurper may make: But if the later, it cannot hold good, unless the Government be appropriated to True Religion, and that none have a Right to Govern but those of the True Religion, and all others be Usurpers, and to be Deposed. And let this be once granted, it will follow, [Page 10]That, Men of every different Religion judging themselves in the Right, there is, and can be no Sect among us, but they may hereby be equally encourag'd to lay a Claim to to the Government: And what would be the Consequence hereof, but a turning the whole Nation into a Flame, a foste­ring Sedition, and all manner of Traiterous Practices against the Government (be it either Roman-Catholic, Presbyterian, or Episcopal); for there will be still some, who are of a dif­ferent Religion from it, who must esteem themselves op­press'd while kept out, and judge it their Duty to be ever Contriving, Conspiring, and Consulting how they may be possess'd of their fancy'd Right.

IV. The joyning Religious Tests with Civil Govern­ment, has occasion'd much Mischief in the Land these last hundred Years, to the impoverishing thousands of Families. All the Miseries which the Nonconformists have endur'd in this last Age, had their Rise and Continuance from this Practice, the mingling Religious Tests with the Civil: For of the Three Articles, unto which all the Clergy were re­quir'd to Subscribe (and for not Subscribing which the Non­conformists were call'd Factious, Seditious, and Rebellious) when the First touches the Just Power of the King; the o­ther Two are about the Ceremonies and Government of the Church. Subscription now to the Three was strictly enjoyn'd; and tho' the Nonconformists declar'd their good liking of the First, yet not Subscribing to the Two last, they were Cen­sur'd for refusing to Subscribe the Three Articles, and so for disowning the King's Just Power. And that the Laity might also be ensnar'd into the same Calamity, if Prosecu­ted in the Spiritual Courts, tho' if griev'd thereby they might Enter their Appeal, yet unless they did first Perso­nally Promise and Avow, that they would faithfully keep and observe all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and also the Prescript Form of Common-Prayer, and likewise Subscribe to the Three Articles formerly spe­cifi'd and declar'd, no Judge ad Quem was to admit or allow of his or their Appeals, and all that thus refus'd to Subscribe, were call'd Factious Appellants. Vide Can. 36. & 98.

The like method being observed in one of the present Tests, wherein the Takers are to promise, That they'll not endeavor any alteration of Government in Church and State: And altho' they could heartily declare they'll not endeavor any alteration in the Government of the State, yet because they could not say the same with Church-Government, they have been represented as Enemies to the State, as well as to the Hierarchy, and as such expos'd to all manner of Odi­um, Reproach and Ruin. Methinks the Protestant Dissen­ter should take warning, and have a care they be not in the present conjuncture cajol'd by their perfect Enemies to plead for a continuance of this Usage.

I will in the next place propose what may be urged a­gainst the several Tests distinctly; and so shew what rea­sons there are for the taking away all of them.

The first Test that I shall consider, is the Declaration, That they will not endeavor any alteration of the Government in Church or State.

By this Test, besides the above-mention'd Inconveni­ence, all that take it are as much oblig'd to the Ecclesiasti­cal, as they are to the Civil Government; which brings to my remembrance a passage I have met with in the Writings of a Church of England Divine, who speaking of the Power of Parliaments; as, Whether a Parliament might not change the Government of the Church? His Reply was, That they might, if they could change an Essential of our Constitution: As if an Alteration of the Hierarchy had been a Subverting the government of the State; whereas nothing can be more clear, than that this particular sort of Ecclesiastical Government, under which we now are, is but an accidental and a movable Appendage to the Civil Constitution. Thus much is known, not only to our great Lawyers, but to the Nobility and Gentry. The Bishops, as such, who are a constituent part of the Ecclesiastical Government, are not God's, but the King's Creatures; and all their Power, as distinguished from their dealings with mens consciences by the Word of God, is derived from the King. The words of 37 Hen. 8. c. 17. are, That the Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, and other [Page 12]Ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesi­astical, but BY, UNDER, and FROM the King's Royal Majesty. Thus it was in the Judgment of King James I. Queen Eliz. Edward VI. Hen VIII. and upward, amongst all the Princes of the Roman Communion, so far as I can observe. But the supposing it so essential to the Govern­ment, that a Parliament can't Alter it, as this Clergy-man insinuates, and to oblige the Subject (as this Test does) so­lemnly to declare he will never endeavor an Alteration of it, as if the Prelatic Power had its Origine from Heaven, and not from the King only; doth, as I humbly apprehend, make it necessary for the Government to take off the Test, and assert their Power, by an exercise of it in this great Instance; which, I am assur'd, is a thing the Nobility and Gentry desire to be at, and therefore I need not dwell on it any longer.

The Second, which is impos'd on all that bear Office in the Kingdom, viz. [The taking the SACRAMENT of the LORD's SƲPPER, according to the Ʋsage of the Church of ENGLAND.] Be the man ever so Ignorant or Debauch'd, if called to Office he must receive the Sa­crament. Altho' Almighty God has ordained it only for the Worthy, and most look upon it as the most Solemn and Sacred Ordinance of the Gospel; yet must this Pearl be prostitute to Swine, this Holy thing profusely given to the vilest of men, such as common Drunkards, Whoremongers, Adulterers, and Blasphemers of God, and that without scruple; for that there are many such amongst the common Soldiers, and also in Civil Offices, is beyond Controversie. Besides, let a man be a knowing and pious Christian, emi­nent for Loyalty to his Prince, and acknowledged by all to be a good Subject; yet if he cannot take it according to the Ʋsage of the Church of England, himself must be deprived of a Place of Advantage, and the Government of his Ser­vice. So that I take this Test to be directly contrary to the Laws of God, and the good of the Government; and I can­not imagine how any man that has the awe of God upon his Soul, and a love to the Government, can consent to the [Page 13]establishing of it. Especially considering, that the Ʋsage of the Church of England is to receive the Elements kneeling, which is a gesture of Adoration, and ordained to avoid Profanation, even before that Bread which is denied to be God, and esteemed only his Image, which some think (and therefore refuse to take it) to be Superstitious and Idola­trous. But how fond soever the Church of England may be for the setling this Test; yet sure the Protestant Dissenter, unless he'll offer violence to his avowed Principles, can't be for it.

To this there is added the following Declaration, which all in any Office, Civil or Military, must take in these words; [I A. B. do declare, That I do believe that there is not any Tran­stantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the Elements of Bread and Wine, at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.]

This TEST being a part of that which the Peers and those who sit in Parliament must take, I will only observe in this place how unhappily it's worded; for, unless there be some Errata's in my Statute-book, a man must declare, That in the Elements of Bread and Wine there is no Transub­stantiation after the Consecration: It's not said, [No Tran­substantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ] but more indefinitely, No Transubstantiation at all; whereas, after the Consecration, they are eaten and drunken, and after the eating and drinking them there is a Transubstantiation of them into his own Flesh and Blood, in like manner as any other thing he eats or drinks is: So that this Test being a solemn Declaration which a man is to make of his Faith, he ought to be more explicit in the wording of it. I presume farther, That had it been matter of doubt in Physics, whether the Bread be turned into the Flesh of him that eats it; yet it's not so clear, that the contrary should be made a matter of Faith, and that such, as whoever believes it not, must be made uncapable of any Office in the State.

But this defect being supplied in the Parliamentary Test, I will go on to that, which is in these words; [I A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testifie, [Page 14]and declare, That I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at or after the Consecration thereof, by any person whatsoever; And that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are Superstitious and Idolatrous, &c.]

The first part of this TEST, I confess, is well worded, and what a Protestant Dissenter, according to his own Principles, may safely take, tho' not impose; but how it can be exacted from every Church of England man to take it, or how they can urge the continued Imposition of it on others, is beyond me to comprehend. My reason, in short, lies here: The Church of England, in her first framing after Queen Maries Death, did, in Obedience to Queen Eliza­beth's Command, take special care to open her doors so wide, that no one for his believing Transubstantiation should be excluded her Communion: And if not deprived thereby of the Privileges of the Church, why of those of the State?

The very drift of the Church of England has been to twist the two Interests of Church and State so closely together, that none should have any Advantages from the State, but those who were of the Communion of their Church; and whoever was of the Communion of their Church, was the person qualified for the entire enjoyment of all the Privileges of the State; and what was not a bar to Church-Communi­on, was none to the being possessed of State-Privileges. Tho' they would deprive men of their Civil Liberties for not being of their Communion, yet they never denied them to those whom they thought meet to admit to her Commu­nion; and indeed, unless she will acknowledge that the Terms of her Communion, as a Church, are too wide, I cannot see how she can deny those whom she admits to her Communion an Interest in the Advantages of the Govern­ment of the Land. So that if it has been her care to open the way, that those who believe Transubstantiation may, notwithstanding that belief, be admitted to her Communi­on, [Page 15]the making this Test to the excluding all such Believers of Transubstantiation from their Civil Rights, must needs be unjustifiable in the Church of England.

But, in Obedience to Queen Elizabeth, it has been the en­deavor of the Church of England to explain the Doctrin of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, in such a Latitude of Expression as might indeed take in under it the Notion of Transubstantiation.

Thus much the Queen commanded, as Dr. Burnet in his History of Reformation reports in these words: [The Queen, who inclin'd to keep up Images in the Churches, was resolved to have the Manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament left in some general words, that those who believe the Corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an Expli­cation of it.] And, as Dr. Heylin assures us, the Church obey'd this Injunction; For, saith he, in his Hist. of Q. Eliz. In the first year of K. Edward, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper being de­livered with this Benediction, that is to say, [The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for the Preservation of thy Body and Soul to Life everlasting; The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.] This was thought by Calvin and his Disciples to give some countenance to the gross and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which passeth by the name of Transubstantiation in the School of Rome. This was alter'd into this Form in the second Liturgy, that is to say, [Take, eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with Thanksgiving. Take and drink this, &c.] But the Revisers of the Book in Queen Eli­zabeth's time joyned both Forms together, [that so, according to the Queen's Injunctions, the Corporal Presence, by the Addition of the old Form, might receive countenance.] Ʋpon this ground they expunged also a whole Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, in which 'twas declared, that Kneeling was not in Regard of any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. And, to come up closer to the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queen's Injunctions, That the Sacramental Bread should be made round, in fashion of the Wafers as in Queen Mary's Days. She also ordered, That the Lord's [Page 16]Table should be placed where the Altar stood. So far Heylin.

Besides, in pursuance of the Queens Orders, in the Com­munion, in the Catechism, and Book of Homilies, there are several Expressions countenancing the Real and Corporal Presence, which has been the occasion of Dr. Moor's brief Discourse on the Real Presence; in which it must be ob­serv'd, that the Doctor putting us in mind of the Bishop of Meaux's Judgment, which was, That the Opinion of the Real Presence is the Doctrin of all the Churches, as well Reform'd as Unreform'd; The Doctor adds, That he must confess he has been of this Persuasion (ever since he wrote his Mystery of Godliness) viz. That it is the Doctrin of the Church of England, and that the Doctrin is true; And he further assures us in these Words, I remember (saith he) this I have heard from a near Relation of mine, when I was a Youth, a Dignitary of the Church of England, and that often, viz. That our Church was for the Real Presence; but for the manner thereof, if asked, he would answer, Rem scimus, mo­dum nescimus; We know the Thing, but the Mode, or Man­ner thereof we know not. And the Assurance we have of the Thing is from the common Suffrage of the Ancient Fathers, and from the Scripture it self, which impress'd that Notion on the Minds of our pious Predecessors in the Church of God.—Nor can we, as I humbly conceive, relinquish this Doctrin of the Real Presence, without declining the most easie and natural Sense of the Holy Scripture, as it stands written in the Sixth Chapter of John. Pag. 42. Of which this Doctor saith, It is plain, that our Sa­viour's Discourse in this Chapter has for its Object or Subject, not the Manner, or Way of receiving his Body and Blood, as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross, but that it was to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner, which Interpre­ters several of them drive at, but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self, to be taken (as the Fish and Loaves were, wherewith he lately fed them) or it is Himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood, which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word.

Thus far Dr. Moor of Cambridge, if he be the Author of [Page 17]the Mystery of Godliness, from whom I observe the Doctrin of the Church of England to be this, viz. That the very Flesh and Blood of Christ is present in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the same Sense as the Fish and Loaves were present to the multitude miraculously fed by them. Of this Thing, with them there is no doubt, tho' as to the Manner, how it should be so, they are in the dark. And were not the Fish and the Loaves Corporally present? How then can the Flesh and Blood of Christ be present in the Eucharist as the Fish and Loaves were, unless Corporally pre­sent? And if Corporally present, there must be either a Transubstantiation or a Consubstantiation. And I have heard some Learned Protestants say, that of the two, Con­substantiation is the most difficult and perplexing. And this Doctor himself, unless he lays a violence on the very Words of the Text, as understood by all Men throughout Christen­dom, whether Papist or Protestant, and moreover falls into one of the greatest Extravagances of Plato, cannot escape a closure with Transubstantiation. For he offers nothing to­wards the solving this great Phainomenon but this, That tho' the Body of Christ is present, yet not the Body Broken on the Cross (tho' the Holy Ghost expresly affirms it); but a Body made of Divine and Spiritual Flesh and Blood every where present, a Vehicle for the Eternal Logos to inhabit: So that he is necessitated, contrary to express Scripture, not to make a Coat for the Moon, but (God Almighty knows, with horror I mention it) a Coat for the Godhead of Christ, a Body compos'd of Flesh and Blood, of equal extent with and for the Clothing of Divine Nature; For the counte­nancing which, he brings Gratian a Popish Canonist (whom he quotes out of Morney) distinguishing between the Body of Christ's Soul, which was Broken on the Cross, and the Body of the Eternal Word or Logos, and affirms, That the Body in the Eucharist is the Omnipresent Body of the Eternal Word, which is there Corporally present.

From the whole then I would humbly propose to the Reader's Thoughts these few Considerations.

1. That the Doctrin of the Church of England, as fram'd [Page 18]by its first Queen-Elizabeth-Reformers, is so generally ex­press'd, as to admit of a Sense owning Transubstantiation. 2. That in favor of the Papists there are so many Expressi­ons in their Liturgy, Catechism, and Homilies, that very lately a great Church-of-England Doctor,The Doctor's Book lately Licensed by the Archishop's Chaplain. the Head of a College, with the Countenance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is constrain'd to hold that the Church of England is for a Real Presence in the same Sense the Fish and Loaves were present to those that fed on them; that is, they are for a Corporal Presence. 3. They cannot escape a falling in with Transub­stantiation any other way, than by closing with a Notion ma­nifestly false and Platonic. All which carefully weighed, I advance to this Conclusion, That the Church of England has hitherto had such favorable thoughts of a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and so much compassion for the Believers of Transubstantiation, and have so far given up the Cause to the Papist, that they cannot oppose Tran­substantiation, without embracing as false, and a more ab­surd Notion; and that therefore its now become most unrea­sonable for them to make the believing of NO TRANSƲB­STANTIATION to be a Condition of our Nobilities en­joying those Civil Privileges which are theirs by Inheritance. And I doubt not, but when our Protestant Lords shall in their great Wisdom have consulted the Sense of the first Re­formers in Queen Elizabeths Reign, the Countenance our Liturgy, Catechism, and Homilies give a Corporal Pre­sence, on purpose to encourage the Believers of Transubstan­tiation to come to their Communion, they will see cause to conclude, That it's very hard (were it their own Case) to be justled out of the Rights of Peerage for an Opinion that must lie in their Judgment so doubtful. And that, whilst our Clergy are so zealous for the Name of Priests, and for the Erecting and Railing in their Altars, there is cause also, why a Son of the Church of England should not be for the Conti­nuation of this part of the Test.

The last Clause of the Test runs thus, [And that the In­vocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now us'd in the Church of Rome, are Superstitious and Idolatrous.]

And that the Church of England hath no reason to urge the Continuation of this other part of the Test, will appear, I humbly conceive, pretty manifest to those, who will cast off old Prejudices, and impartially weigh the following Con­siderations.

I. That seeing the Church of England has taken more than Ordinary care to give such a general Explanation of the Real Presence as may admit of a Corporal Presence, and thus much she hath done with a Design to encourage the Be­lievers of Transubstantiation to joyn with them in the Sacra­ment, she cannot esteem the Adoration of the Sacrifice of the Mass to be Idolatry; for it's well known, she would be thought to abhor the holding Communion with Idolaters; and to this she must stick, or give up the Cause to the Pro­testant Dissenters, who say, that they dare not hold Commu­nion with that Church that will admit known Idolaters into their Communion. But such doth the Church of England admit, in admitting the Believers of Transubstantiation. That the Church of England is for admitting the Believers of Transubstantiation, who adore the Sacrifice of the Mass, has been abundantly prov'd; whence it follows, That the Church of England must either give up the Cause to the Dis­senter, or declare that the Believers of Transubstantiation, tho' they adore the Sacrifice of the Mass, are not Idolaters, and that the Adoration of the Sacrifice is not Idolatrous; and if not Idolatrous, how can they oblige all to declare it to be Idolatrous, or part with their Civil Rights and Privileges, for not making such a Declaration? But

II. There are some great Doctors in the Church of En­gland, who affirm, That the Worshiping what is believed to be God, tho' it be not God, wants the Formal Nature of Idolatry; and it's not to be doubted, but that the Believers of Transubstantiation do verily believe, that what they wor­ship is God, how can they then insist on their Idolatry? For altho' these Doctors are in a Mistake, yet before it be so po­sitively determin'd as in the Test, the Matter should be fully debated amongst themselves; for it's not agreeable to the Rules of Wisdom, for any Church to impose what is mat­ter [Page 20]of doubt to some of her own Sons, who are Men of great Learning and Vertue.

III. As to the Invocation, or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, it must be observed, that Prote­stants themselves have different Apprehensions about the Na­ture of the Sin; and tho' all judge it an Error, yet all don't esteem it Idolatry; and seeing here is not a word of Images in the Test, the Church of England will be hard put to it to prove it Idolatry; for if it be Idolatry, it must, in the Sense of a Protestant, be either Idolatry against the First, or against the Second Commandment: Not against the First; for who are there of the Church of England that make the Invocation of Saints to exceed the Idolatry of the Heathen? The Author of Julian parallel'd it with Heathenish Idolatry, but who makes it more absurd and gross? And if it be an Idolatry only against the Second Commandment, seeing Images are not mentioned, how can it be made out, unless they fall in with the Protestant Dissenter, and say, that as the First Command forbids all False Objects, so the Second all false Authors and Means of Worship, tho' directed Ul­timately to the True God; and so grant, that what part of Worship soever has not God for its Author, is Idolatrous Worship, and thereby for the same Reason they make Invo­cation of Saints Idolatrous, they make a great part of their own Worship to be so too. And seeing they are so hard put to it to prove it Idolatrous, they should not impose the Belief on't with so much Severity, as they have done it in this Case. But

IV. Altho' there were Reasons for the making those Tests when under a Church-of-England Prince, yet there can be none for the continuance of 'em under a King who is for the Invocation of Saints; for it's a putting all those No­bles, who enjoy their Birthrights, and the Representatives of the Nation, to pronounce his Majesty an Idolater, which is not according to the Duty of a Subject, nor indeed Civil. But if the Sons of the Church, who are for the fixing this Test, should be treated by this present Government, as the Clergy treated some Brownists in Queen Elizabeths Days, [Page 21]it would be made a Crime no less than Capital;The Brownists condemned the Church of En­gland for no Church, ensna­red many in the Nets of their new Schism. Neither could they be restrain­ed, tho' their Books were prohibited, and two of the Ring-leaders Execu­ted at St. Ed­mundsbury. Baker's Chron. for the Brownists asserting, That the Church of England was no true Church, and that their Ministry was no true Ministry, the Clergy immediately made use of their Inferring Faculty, and Argued thus, to the destruction of some Mens Lives: If the Church of England be no true Church (as you affirm) then the Queen, the Head of it, is no true Christian, but must be ranked among the Infidel and Heathen; that is, you do your utmost to expose her Majesty to the Odium, and at last to the Rage of the People, and do what in you lies, to depose her Majesty from the Throne; And thus it was made a Capital Crime, and some were Executed on this Account.

But we need not Reason it thus with the Church of En­gland; for without such far-fetcht Consequences, the very Principles and Practices of his Majesty are called Supersti­tious and Idolatrous, and his Majesty by a most immediate Inference publickly declared to be an Idolater: And there­fore I think it the Wisdom of the Sons of the Church now to call to mind what they have done to their own Brethren in the Case above, and take heed that they continue not in a worse Crime by a zealous sticking to those Tests: For unless she will give up the Cause to the Dissenter in some mo­mentous Instances, and be moreover guilty of that Brown­istical Practice, which she has so severely condemned in Queen Elizabeths Days, she cannot be for the Establishing the Tests. And this I would leave with the Sons of the Church of England, that they may fix it on their Minds, and take heed, that above all Men they be not too eager in pressing for a Continued publishing to the World that his Majesty is an Idolater. It's requisite, that they remember, how tender they have been of the Honor of those Princes, that were of their own Religion; and if they will be as Loyal, as they profess, they must shew as great a regard to their Prince now, tho' of another Religion.

When they had a Prince of their own Religion, not only the Brownists were condemned for exposing the Queen to the rage of the Mobile, by their affirming the Church of En­gland [Page 22]to be no true Church, and thereby making their Prince worse than an Atheist; but at last they began to draw the same conclusions from Non-subscribing, as Mr. Nichols, Vide Nichol's Plea for the In­nocent. an humble Servant of the English Church, declares: I have (saith he) heard it objected in a Sermon by a Reverend man, who now is a Bishop, that by refusing to subscribe we make the Queen's Majesty to be an Atheist, worse than Papists, and namely of No Religion. For (saith he) you refuse to subscribe to the Book of Orders, then do you make that we have no good Ministry; you refuse to subscribe to the Book of Common-Prayer, then make you that we have no good Liturgy and Service of God; you refuse to subscribe to the Book of Articles, which contain the sum of our Faith and Doctrine, then do you make that we have no sound Doctrin. But these be the Books which her Majesty by her Authority doth set forth, and by them sheweth what Reli­ligion she is of, and what she holdeth and maintaineth; there­fore, if there be no good Liturgy, no good Doctrin, no good Ministry, then it follows, that you make the Queen to be of no Religion.

And thus much was urged to prove the Old Nonconform­ists to be Seditious, Rebellious, and implacable Enemies to the Queen's Majesty; and I would fain know, whether it be not as mischievous to represent any other Prince under the most odious Characters, as it is to expose one of the Church of England's Communion. If it be not, then there can be no Security in England while our Church-men pre­vail; for that Prince, whose Right it is to reign over us, is of a Religion different from theirs; that is, in plain English, our Church-men are resolv'd to be Loyal no long­er than the King is for the Church of England's Religion. But if it be as pernicious to represent our Prince, of what Religion soever he be, under an ill Character to the People, then do all those of the English Church, who are for a continuing this Test, out-do the old Brownists; for what they did was by a remote Consequence: They denied the Government of the Church of England to be good, but granted that there were many good Christians of their [Page 23]Communion; and seeing the Government of the Church is considered distinctly from their Doctrins, and is not of the same Necessity to Salvation with their Doctrins, the saying, that an asserting the Government of their Church, and consequently their Ministry, to be naught, is a Damn­ing their Doctrins, must be by a very remote Consequence. But in this Test, tho' it be the known Practice of a Roman Catholic to invocate the Saints, and adore the Sacrifice of the Mass; yet it's not only affirm'd by a few more private­ly, but must be publicly declar'd by all that will have any Interest in the Government, that this is Superstitious and Idolatrous, and consequently whoever is for this Practice is guilty of that Idolatry that is to be abhorr'd of all men.

Thus you may see the tendency of Establishing the Tests, how much it exposes His Majesty to the contempt of the Mobile, and consequently how much it endangers his Person and Government; and therefore how necessary 'tis to take all off. However,

To add one thing more; I humbly think that I may be bold in asserting, That such is the present case of England, thro' the multiplication of Tests, that a great part of our Gentry must be necessarily involv'd in the Guilt of Swearing one thing, and Declaring another; or it must be recogniz'd, that His Majesty, without the Aid of Parliament, may alter Oaths and Tests, and so vacate them; or, to prevent the King's doing it, 'twill be necessary that a Parliament concur with His Majesty in taking off all Tests.

My reason is this; Those Sheriffs, that have been Par­liament-men, must take an Oath contradictory to the Par­liamentary Test: For by the One he must declare, That he believes that there is no Transubstantiation, and that the Invocation of Saints is Superstitious, &c. and by the Other he must swear, That he will endeavor the Extermination of all those who do thus believe as just before he professed to do. For the Sheriff's Oath runs thus: Ye shall do all your pain and diligence to destroy and make to cease all manner of He­resies and Errors, commonly called LOLLARS, within your Bailiwic from time to time, to all your power.

Now,Tritem. chron. Hir. Saug. vit. Sigism. an. 5. whatever may be the reason of the name Lollardy, as whether it had its Rise from one Walter Lollard, who was burnt at Cologn for an obstinate Adherence unto his Opini­ons, as Tritemius in his Chronicle reports; or from Lolium, a Tare or Weed,Lollardiae sic dictae à Lolio, quia sicut Lo­lium inficit segetes, sic Lol­lardi multot [...] ­es inficiunt fi­deles simplices inter quos conversantur. Lindwood. Provinc. de haeret. c. fina­liter. ver. Lollardiae. that proves prejudicial to the Wheat, as our Lindwood has it; it's past doubt that the Doctrins of Wickliff were called LOLLARDY, and whoever em­braced them were called Lollars; that is, whoever held, That Images ought not to be worshiped; that the Relics of Saints ought not to be adored; that after the Consecration in the Mass there remained Bread; and that the Natural Body of Christ is not there; whoever held these Propositions were LOL­LARS. Here then lies the Opposition between the Par­liamentary Test and the Sheriff's Oath; by the former you declare to believe, That there is no Transubstantiation, and that Invocation of Saints is Superstitious; by the other you swear, That to the utmost of your power you will en­deavor to exterminate all such as do not believe Transub­stantiation, or do hold that Invocation of Saints, or Ado­ration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is Superstitious. So that, as the matter is thus stated, the Protestant Gentry who carefully consider these things must needs be marve­lously perplex'd in their thoughts about it, and afraid lest they contract on them the odious Guilt of swearing they will do what they declare they ought not to do.

There are, I confess, two ways taken by some to solve this difficult appearance; but whoever insists on either, will find himself still more and more involv'd.

Nostro aevoac. cipiunt Lollar­dos pro Institu­tae Religionis adversantibus, eoq. vetus Sa­cramentum Vicecomitum ad prosequen­dos Lollardos juratorum, ho­die attrahunt. verb. Lollardiae.The first is what Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary sug­gests, who tells us, That some by LOLLARDY un­derstand any Religion contrary to what is by Law established; and consequently the Popish Religion, whereby the diffi­culty is removed; for by this Interpretation the Sheriffs do swear they'll extirpate the Religion of those who believe Transubstantiation, and are for the Adoration of the Blessed Virgin: But then it must be added, that besides the ill ten­dency the Oath, thus interpreted, may have on the Go­vernment, especially with reference to the Sheriffs of Lon­don [Page 25]and Middlesex, within whose Bailiwic His Maje­sty resides, this way of altering the genuine sense of words necessarily introduces and justifies the grossest Equivocations: For Lollardy did never in any other Wri­tings heretofore, nor at this day, signifie any such thing as is here pretended, and this sense of the Oath is quite contrary to the natural and genuine import of the words. And if Church-of-England-men may take an Oath in a sense so contrary to the true intent and meaning of it, why may not the Papists, and whil'st they are taking Church of England Tests intend a Popish sense? For thus 'tis with our Sheriffs; they take a Popish Oath in a Church of England sense, and whil'st they swear to endeavor the Extirpation of Church of England Doctrins, they mean Po­pery. Methinks it's past doubt, that if our Popish Gentry had been so profligate as some represent 'em, they need not be so much concern'd for the Taking off the Tests; were it not sufficient that they could write after this Church of England Copy? And as Protestants by Lollardy under­stand Popery, so by [Transubstantiation] might not our Gentry mean [Consubstantiation,] and by [Superstitious and Idolatrous] mean [what is agreeable to the mind and will of God?] and then take the Parliamentary Test in the following sense, thus: [I A. B. do declare, That I do believe that there is no Consubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are agreeable to the mind and will of God.] For by the same Rule that [Lollardy] signifies [Popery,] [Transubstantiation] may signifie [Consub­stantiation;] and the words [Superstitions and Idolatrous] may signifie [what is agreeable to the mind and will of God.] And if the one may be without an Equivocation, so may the other; so that this Hypothesis solves not the Phai­nomenon; it only opens the way to make all TESTS of no use, and then no matter whether they continue, or are taken away.

We will therefore, in the next place, consider the other attempt, which is made by some to remove this difficulty, and it is this; That some time after Sir Edward Coke, when prick'd for Sheriff, scrupled this part of the Oath, care was taken to reform it, and this passage about Lollardy has been ever since left out; and that therefore now there is no inconsistency between the Sheriffs Oath and other Tests. And in Answer unto this, I must acknowledge, That in the year 1625. this Oath was alter'd, and this Clause left out. But by whose Authority? Did any Parliament take this thing into consideration, and make this amendment? No, it was done by the direction of the King's Council. How, by the King's Council? Then by the Regal Power sure; which once granted, what need we trouble our heads any longer about the Parliaments taking off the Tests? For if, according to the Constitution of our Government, it belongs to the Pre­rogative to ALTER an Oath, by expunging any momen­tous part of it; no doubt it's as much within the Circle of Prerogative to make an Alteration on Tests too.

Whence then I thus argue; The expunging this part of the Sheriffs Oath is Valid, or not: If not, then it must be restored, and all Sheriffs stand bound to swear, That they'll endeavor the Extirpation of those Doctrins they professed to be for, when they took the Parliamentary Tests, and so must, as but now I prov'd, be either involv'd in the Guilt of Swearing one thing, and Declaring another, or must counte­nance the worst of Equivocations; but if Valid, then the Regal Power can make alterations on Oaths, and so far change the controverted Tests, as to divest them of all their supposed strength: And if the Subjects will not concur with His Majesty, who most graciously designs the setling the Peace and Quiet of the people in a Parliamentary way, do they not provoke him to the exercise of his Prerogative? And would it not be more agreeable to the Prudence of the Asserters of our Liberty and Property, to assure the King, That they will endeavor their utmost to choose such to sit in Parliaments as will be for the Establishing Liberty of Consci­ence on a sure Foundation, and secure the Civil Rights and [Page 27]Privileges of the Subject in such a manner, that they may not be touched for the sake of Religion?

Thus I have laid down a Scheme of those Reasonings which, in my Opinion, are strong for the Taking off the Tests, and have, I hope, with some Clearness evinced, that the Con­tinuation of Penal Laws, by which, good Subjects are de­prived of their Civil Rights for the sake of their Religion, (and such are the Test-Laws) is contrary to the Ancient Constitution of our Government, which secures our Civil Rights, Liberties and Properties, from the Assaults of those who would for Religion divest us of them; and that there­fore it's his Majesty's Interest, which very much consists in the Ease and Quiet of his Subjects, to be for the removal of all those Laws: And such are the Principles of Protestant Dissenters, sufficiently discover'd by their many Complaints against Persecution for Conscience sake, that they cannot be for Penal Laws, nor for the Test Laws, which are of the same kind with them; and indeed, such is their Interest, that unless they improve the present Overture, they may never have the like Opportunity more, and so be expos'd to the Curse of their Posterity, for entaling on them a last­ing Persecution. And as for the Church of England, if she doth not hold, that Dominion is founded on Grace, and de­sire to be delivered from the Odium of abetting so pernici­ous a Principle, or of doing the very thing for which they condemned the old Brownists as Traitors, she must be for the Taking off those Tests.

And now there remains nothing but the Objections against the Contents of this Discourse, which are to be set down with fairness and faithfulness, that is, with that open­ness and ingenuity which becomes an English Heart, and to be Answer'd accordingly. These Objections may be drawn together in a little room, as they are very happily by the Hand of a Learned and worthy Person, that hath sent them me, (unto whom these Papers have been shewn); and be­cause I cannot draw them up more short and full, I will give them as I have them.

In all Laws (saith the Gentleman) the great or chief Thing [Page 28]which is to be attended, is the End of their making, or the Inten­tion of the Lawgiver. If the End of these Tests were to get all, who are concern'd to take them, they were the most wicked Laws that could be made; for what could be more openly profane, than for a Man to renounce the Religion he thinks true? But this is not the End of the Law; the End is, that by the refusing the Test, such and such Men may be hindred from such and such Offices and Employments, which they could not possess without Danger to the Publick: And there can be no Complaint here, but of their Grievance in being kept out of those Advantages, which else they might enjoy. But as for that, an Answer is in every Month, that this is the Nature of Laws in general, to restrain Particular Persons from some Conveniences (which were else their Right) for the sake of the Community, that the Pub­lick Emolument be promoted, or Detriment prevented. There is no Government could stand but on this Foundation. That which is not profitable to the Bee-hive, is not good for the Bee, as Antoninus has it. Now if the Test be Repealed, it is sup­posed we shall in due time have a Parliament trumpt up that may be most Papists, and the Popish Religion, consisting in the Decrees of General Councils, confirm'd by the Pope: The Council of La­teran (we know) hath decreed the Extermination of all Here­tics, by which Means, the Nation being generally Protestants, may come to Destruction. Popery under Toleration may Strengthen, but Popery in Dominion Ruins this Nation. And what can be now said to this with any satisfaction, I see not; seeing really there is but one thing could secure us, which is, if the King would lodge so much of his Power in the Hands of some Great Men (whom He and his People both durst Trust), as when an Act for Accommodation shall Pass, might capacitate them to be effectual Guardians of it. In the mean time this being a thing not likely, I apprehend the Condition of the Dissenter to be much at one with that of the Lepers at Samaria. If the Penal Laws continue of Force, they perish; if the Test be Repeal'd, they may perish too upon the Account mention'd. If they stay in the City, the Episcopalian will Famish them; if they go out, the Papist may knock them on the Head. What they will do, God knows, it is but being Persecuted to Death, whether it be by the one, or the other.

This is the Objection thus set down, wherein are these Things to be consider'd. Here is one Argument against the Taking off the Tests, drawn from the Nature of Human Laws; another from the State, and Constitution of the Popish Religion, with an Insinuation, that nothing, but one un­likely Expedient, can be found out for the securing us a­gainst our Fears, and in the close, a forced Acknowledgment, that such are the Circumstances of the Dissenters, that whose Interest soever it may be to Resolve on the Establishing the Test Act, yet it's theirs to be for the Repealing it.

To begin then with what is said in regard to the Nature of Human Laws; I grant, that in the composing all Laws, the good of Private Men is to give place to the good of the Public; for it is a Principle at the root of all Politics, that Ʋniversi praesunt singulis, & singuli universis subduntur. But I deny that to be good here, which is supposed. Here is cer­tainly a Mistake, and a dangerous one in the Case. The Good supposed is, that the King must be thought to intend the Ruin of all his Subjects, but they that are, or will turn Pa­pists; and to prevent this Ruin, the Rights of the Lords and Commons, which depends on the very Constitution of the Realm, must be subverted. I will answer therefore, that such a Thought of the King, as this, is a wicked Thought, for it is against Charity. It is an Injurious Thought, for it is against the King's constant Profession, both in his Declara­tion, and to every body, that he will not have Conscience to be constrained; and to say he is not of that Principle which he avouches, is to make the most stedfast and faithful Prince, to be the deepest Dissembler in the World. It is also a Foolish Thought, as if the King had a Purpose like to that in the Apologue of the Sea, determining with it's Waves to invade the Trees upon the Hills. If the main Body of the Nation were Papists, there were some Sense in these Fears; but when it is so exceeding contrary, in that regard there is no reason for them. On the other side, it is to be thought rather, and verily to be believed, that there are many wor­thy Gentlemen and Lords, that are Roman Catholics in the Land; and as they are English Subjects, they have English [Page 30]Hearts, and English Estates, who being sensible of the Frailty of Human Life, are willing to provide for themselves and their Posterity, by doing that to their Fellow-Dissenters now under the Reign of a Catholic King, as they would have done to them under the Reign of a Successor, who is like to be a Protestant; And an Act for Universal Liberty of Con­science, in Repealing all the Penal Statutes about Religion, being their Interest in common with other Dissenters, and Interest being a thing that will not lie, they may be trusted in this Matter.

But it is added by the Objector, That the Popish Religi­on consisting in the Decrees of General Councils, confirm'd by the Pope, and the Council of Lateran having decreed the Extermination of all Heretics, we shall soon after the Taking off the Tests have a Popish Parliament trumpt up, who, to escape Damnation in the next World, will be necessitated to destroy all Heretics within their Compass in this.

And here lieth the strength of the Objection, which I shall endeavor with all the clearness I can to enervate; and to this end must beseech the Reader in the first place, to ob­serve the great Difference there is between the English Pa­pist, and those of other Countries; for the English would never pay that Respect unto Foreign Councils, nor that Ho­mage to the Roman Pontiffs, which other Nations have done, and consequently, that our Country-men of the Romish Com­munion are not under the like Obligations of submitting un­to the Decrees of General Councils, which other Papists are.

Our Histories and Law-Books do furnish us with Instan­ces innumerable, that our Forefathers of the Romish Com­munion, boldly asserted the Kingdom of England to be an Absolute Empire and Monarchy, consisting of one Head, which is the King; and of a Body Politic, Compact and Compounded of almost Infinite several, yet well agreeing Members, viz. the Clergy and Laity, both of them next, and immediately under God, Subject and Obedient to the King their Head.

And amongst the Laws of St. Edward the Confessor,Spelman Conc. p. 622. Rex au­tem qui Vica­ [...]us summi Re­gis st. it is declar'd, ‘That the King, who is the Vicar of the highest King [not of the Pope] is ordain'd to this End, that he [Page 31]should Govern and Rule the Kingdom and People of the Land, and above all things the Holy Church.’ And when the Pope would have William the Conquerer recognize his Su­premacy, the King's Reply was, That he could not find that any of his Predecessors did ever part with that Jewel of the Crown, and he was therefore resolv'd to keep it. And Wil­liam Rufus, his Son and Successor in this Kingdom, declar'd, That he would rather part with half his Kingdom, than with the Supremacy. Nor would Henry the First, as Wil­liam Warlestwast, elect Bishop of Exeter, told the Pope, lose the Authority of Investing his Prelates for the Crown of the Realm.

King Stephen had the Courage to seize into his Hands the Bishop of Salisbury's Castles and Goods; and altho' a Synod was call'd by the Bishop of Winchester, the Pope's Legat, and Complaint made to the Synod, yet the Clergy were at last compell'd to a Submission to the King. Henry the Third would by no means yield, that his Clergy were so much un­der the Pope's Conduct, as not to be Prosecuted by the Se­cular Powers for Matters Criminal. King John also, till forsaken by his Nobles, was a valiant opposer of the Pope's Power. And the several succeeding Princes maintain'd their Supremacy with a like Courage, especially Edward the Third, and Richard the Second; And, what is worthy of Observati­on, the severest Laws against Suing unto the Court of Rome without the King's leave, were Enacted in the time of Rich. the Second, even the Statute of Provisors and Praemunire. And that the Statutes made in the Reigns of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, were not Introdu­ctory of any New Law, but Declaratory of the Ancient Law of the Land, viz. That this Kingdom is Imperial, is too plain to admit of the least doubt.

And, as our Kings were ever tender in the point of the Supremacy, and would never part with it, nor pay that re­gard to Foreign Laws that other Nations have done; in like manner it has been adjudged by a Popish Parliament,25 Hen. 8. cap. 23. That no Laws of any Foreign Powers are of force in this Realm, unless they have been devised and obtained within it, or un­less [Page 32]by sufferance of our Kings the People have taken them up at their free liberty, and by their own consent let them be used amongst them. The words of the Statute run thus: ‘Whereas these your Grace's Realms, recognizing no Su­perior under God, but only your Grace, have been, and are, free from Subjection to any man's Laws, but only to such as have been devised and obtained within this Realm, for the Wealth of the same; or to such others as, by sufferance of your Grace, and your Progenitors, the Peo­ple of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them, and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to the Observance of the same; not as to the Observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince, Potentate, or Prelate, but as to the Customed and Ancient Laws of this Realm, originally established as Laws of the same, by the said Sufferance, Consents and Custom, and none otherwise.’

So far the Statute, declaring the Judgment of Roman Catho­lics, in Henry VIII's days; whence I thus argue, That no Decrees of any Foreign Powers, whether those of a General Coun­cil, or of the Pope, are of force here antecedently to our receiving them; And that the saying this is a Decree of Rome, or of any General Council, confirmed by the Pope, is not sufficient to oblige us to conclude that therefore an English Papist must submit unto, and act in pursuance of it; for until that Canon, or De­cree, be by the Authority of the Land placed amongst our Laws, it doth not oblige the Roman Catholic of this Kingdom.

And that this has been the sense of the English Roman Ca­tholic before Henry VIII. is easily evinced out of Sir Edward Coke, Part 5. Cawdrey's Case. who, in his Reports, declares, That by the ancient Canons and Decrees of the Church of Rome, the Issue born before the Solemnization of Marriage, is as lawfully inheritable (Marriage following) as the Issue born after Marriage. But this was never allowed or appointed in England, and therefore was never of any force here. And this appeareth by the Statute of Merton, made in the 20th year of King Henry III. where all the Earls and Barons with one voice declare, That they will not change the Laws of England, which hitherto have been used and appro­ved. [Page 33]Besides, it's further to be observed, that in Henry VIII's time it was by the King, the Lord's Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, who were all of the Roman Catholic Religion, declared, That the Body Spi­ritual, (namely the Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ecclesia­stical Officers, resiant within this Kingdom, and) called the English Church, hath always been reputed, and also found, of that sort, that both for Knowledge, Integrity, and sufficiency of Number, it hath been always thought, and is also at this hour, sufficient, and meet of it self, without the intermedling of any Exterior Person or Persons, to declare and determine all such Doubts, and to administer all such Offices and Duties as to their Rooms Spiritual doth appertain.

So far the Statute 24. Hen. 8. c. 12. From which I infer, That as the English Papists differ from Foreign Papists, so the reason they give for what they hold in contradistinction to Foreign Papists is very cogent and powerful. They need not apply themselves to any Foreign Power, because they have always had at home persons every way qualified to determine all their Doubts.

And this was not only the Judgment of the Papists at this time, but, as they declare, this has been the sense of their Forefathers; for, say they, it has been always reputed, it has been always found, it has been always thought, hereto­fore as well as at this hour: and whoever will look back to the first words of the Statute, may see cause to conclude, that thus much they gathered out of the divers Authentic Histories and Chronicles, which they consulted. And that this must be esteemed, especially by the Church of England, to be the sense of the English Papist, is manifest from the whole scope of Archbishop Bramhall's arguing against the Papists in Vindication of the Church of England, when he charges the Papists for making the first Separation from Rome. The first Separation (saith he) was not made by Protestants, but by Papists; and he endeavors to justifie the Separation, by proving, that always the English Papists esteem'd themselves a Church that did ever renounce the Pope's Supremacy, and that what Henry VIII. did, was no [Page 34]more than an acting in pursuance of the ancient Law of the Land.

To this of the Archbishop's I add, That if the first Sepa­ration from the Church of Rome was made by Papists, then it's the Judgment of English Papists that they do not stand oblig'd to any Foreign Councils; 'tis their Judgment, that tho' they grant the Pope a Primacy of Order, yet that he ought not to have a Supremacy of Jurisdiction; for the Crown of England is Imperial, and the English Bishops are suffici­ently qualified to determine all matters of doubt within themselves: And this has been always their Judgment, and is so at this time; for our King, by a continued Exercise of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy, asserts it to be a Jewel inherent in his Crown, and not to be parted with.

This then being the avowed Principle of the English Pa­pists, the mentioning the Decree of the Council of Lateran as what obliges them, before it is prov'd to have been re­ceived amongst our Laws, cannot affect us; for until it be taken in amongst our Laws, it obliges not an English Papist, nor are they bound to take in this Decree amongst our Laws, any more than they were anciently obliged to receive the Canon about Bastardy.

Furthermore, whoever will look into this Objection, he must needs see it to be ill, as well as weak in the Foundation: For to give strength to their Argument, it must be pre­sumed, That either the Body of the People will turn Papist as soon as the Tests are taken off, and choose none but Pa­pists to sit in the following Parliament, (for to say some few may, for Preferment, does not reach the Case;) or a Parliament contrary to all Laws shall be imposed upon us. To presume the former, is to insinuate, without the least colour of Reason, that the Body of the Kingdom have nothing to say for their being Protestants, but this, That their Reli­gion is uppermost, and established by Law; and that there are such Tests imposed on those who sit in Parliament, that Popery is like never to be established. But whatever may be said of the Church of England (of whom yet I have bet­ter thoughts) the world knows, that a great part of the [Page 35]Nation, notwithstanding the severity of the Penal Laws, could not be persuaded to close with the Church of England, because there was so much Popery in it; and it's to be sup­posed they'll abide so firm to the Protestant Religion, when they are in no danger of Sufferings, as they did when they suffer'd so very much: And it must be further considered, That these Dissenters, when Penal Laws hung over their heads, and they were in constant danger of being immedi­ately destroyed by them, did even then appear so vigorously in the choosing their Representatives, as to carry it for three Parliaments successively, against the Papist and Church of England too; and it's not to be doubted but that when the Penal Laws are taken off, they'll not be less Able, nor less Industrious, to choose such to sit in Parliament, as shall be far from introducing the Lateran Decree into their Laws for extirpating the Protestant Religion.

If, on the other hand, it shall be urged, That a Parlia­ment contrary to the Fundamentals of our Constitution shall be imposed on us by Regal Authority, (which is a thing, the thoughts whereof should be abhorr'd by every good Sub­ject); it cannot be apprehended to be more Legal hereafter, than such a Parliament presently chosen, & made up of whom­soever He pleases without taking the Test: And, conside­ring that our King is aged, if such a thing were design'd, would it not be the Papists Interest to take that course im­mediately? And seeing they take it not now, may we not conclude rationally, that they'll not do it hereafter? And yet farther, if this were supposed as to the House of Com­mons, the House of Lords, for all that, are so many of 'em Protestant, and out-ballancing the Papists, that, unless we will reflect on our Nobility as well as on His Majesty, and the Body of the Nation, and say, That as soon as the Tests are taken off they'll be all Papists also, there is no fear of such a matter.

Again, the Papists also must be presum'd to be all fallen under the most strange deliration and madness imaginable; seeing otherwise they must know, that if they declare them­selves to be for violent Methods, or make any such attempt, [Page 36]it must be with the greatest disadvantages to themselves; for it is as if Five men would encounter a Thousand: And they must consider how much such an Attempt would en­rage the whole Kingdom, and how uncertain they are of compassing their end in this King's Reign; and how easie is it for the Protestants, under a Successor of their Religion, to destroy the Papists? So that the very Attempt would but prepare their Families and Posterity for a Sacrifice un­der a Protestant Successor.

If then there be any wise men of Estates among them, that can influence, they'll see it their Interest, and make it their Endeavor, if possible, to Establish Liberty of Consci­ence on a Rock that can never be moved. And altho' some may say, that the Priests and Jesuits are a Fiery-spirited People, who are for pushing on to violence; yet it's mani­fest that our Popish Gentry heretofore were never so Priest-ridden as to regard the Priests Humor more than their own Safety, and on all occasions have demonstrated so much: For, even in Richard Il's Reign, when Braybrook the Bishop of London (being then Lord Chancellor) sent out, among the Statutes then to be publish'd by the Sheriffs of Counties, a Statute for the persecuting the Lollars, the Commons, being the year following called to sit in Parliament, pre­ferr'd a Bill, reciting the said supposed Act; and, to use Sir Edward Coke's words, constantly affirmed, That they never assented thereunto, and therefore desired that the supposed Statute might be aniented, and declared void; for they protested that it was never their intent to bind them­selves and their Successors to the Prelates, more than their An­cestors had done in times past; and hereunto the King gave his Royal Assent in these words, Ypleist au Roy. And as the Commons would not then consent to the making Laws against the Lollards, so they endeavor'd, both in the Reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. the dispossessing the Clergy of Church-Lands; and in Henry V. prevailed so far, as to suppress the Friers Aliants, whose Lands were united to the Crown; and, had it not been for their War with France, and the Contention between the two Houses of York and Lan­caster, [Page 37]it's probable, that before Henry VIII's time, the insolence of the Clergy had been so severely check'd, as it was done by that Great Prince. We must not therefore judge of our King and Popish Gentry by Fo­reign Papists, nor by hot headed Priests at home; but must remember, as a little before I noted, that English Blood runs in their Veins, and that they'll labor to excell all their Progenitors in those Vertues that have raised them to an Honor and Glory Immortal; especially conside­ring 'tis His Majesty's Principle to be for Liberty of Conscience.

But if the English Papists had been so Bloody as the Objection sug­gests, I cannot see how the continuing the present Tests can indubita­bly prevent the seared mischief; for in the Tests there is not one word against Persecution, and a man that takes these Tests may, notwith­standing any thing in them, be as severe in fetching Blood from Dissen­ters in Religion, as ever any of the Heathen Persecutors have been: And the whole that can be said is this, That the Church of England would engross all Persecuting Power into her own hands; for all her care is to keep all others out of the Government, but no care taken to pre­vent the making Laws for the extremest Persecution. And if, as a Book, lately publish'd by one of the Church of England, affirms,An Historic Treatise touching Transubstantiation, by a Roman Ca­tholic. there be an innumerable Company amongst the Papists, who believe not Transubstantiation; why may it not be supposed possible for our English Papists to fall in with them in this point,The Author of the Answer to the two Discourses of the Real Presence, &c. primed at Oxford, doth in his Preface mention many Roman Catho­lics, Men of great Learning, who did not believe Transubstantiation, viz. Pichereliu [...], Da Perron, Fa­ther Barns the Benecict ne, De Marca Archbishop of Paris, Father Sirmond the Jesuit, De Marolles Abbot of Ville-Loyn. and with some others of that Communion, who judge the Invocation and Adoration of the Virgin Mary, as generally used in the Church of Rome, to be Superstitious and Idolatrous, and so take these Tests, and leap into the Government, and enact Bloody Laws against all those who won't submit unto the Pope, and receive the other controverted parts of Po­pery? It's manifest that our English Papists are for the sweetning methods in most points of Doctrin; and tho' I think that this is not very probable, yet it being as probable as what the Objection intimates, it may be as fairly urged. And we have the greatest reason to say, that if it be only extermina­ting Laws that the Church of England are afraid of, another Test against all such Bloody Principles and Practices will more effectually secure us.

This is enough to give Satisfaction to the Objection; however, I will ex abundanti add somewhat more, and consider what may be said to it with reference to an Expedient to prevent the Mischiess that are invent­ed, and suppos'd to follow from the taking away the Tests, and then fear'd, unless One only Way be taken, which is so high a One, as cannot be ho­ped, and I must answer, that I doubt not but there are many Ways to be found out by the Wisdom of a Parliament, to anticipate any Design of getting a future Parliament of Papists that shall set up Popery by a Law. For what if it were offered to His Majesty, that they will com­ply [Page 38]to have all the Laws against Papists and Dissenters to be totally re­pealed, reserving the Test only upon the Two Houses during the King's Reign, and that then the Test shall cease also? If the King would con­sent to this, which is a great deal less than what this Gentleman hath hinted, might we not be sure that the Papists shall never be in a capa­city to make Laws for the Extirpation of Protestants? If the King would not be pleas'd with this, but propose something himself in ex­change of the Test, which should be a better Defence against this sup­posed Danger than that is, should we not be willing to have the Mud-wall thrown down, so long as we may have a Brick-wall for it about our House? Nay, what if upon such an Act once pass'd, as gives Quiet to the Land, the King should afterward see no need of another Parliament, and resolve to have none till he saw need, would not this Objection be then solv'd and confounded alone by that? Besides, who is there certain, let him be what Contriver he will, that he shall live to see another Par­liament after the next? Are not the Lives of Princes in God's hand, as well as those of the meanest men; and are there not a thousand Acci­dents that may intervene, and prevent the deepest Machinations of such as think themselves most wife? Is there nothing to be allowed to the Volubility of Human Affairs, and the Providence of God? Let an Indulgence be enacted; and is it not good that there be Peace and Truth in our days? (as Hezekiah said.) Again, if another Parliament be called, let but free Election be secured, and false Returns prevented, and that alone will go far to do the Business.

But the great thing I insist on, is the King's solemn and oft repeated Declaration, that it's not only the giving us Ease during his Majesty's Reign, that he designs, but that a Parliament, in Concurrence with him, may Settle Liberty of Conscience on such a Bottom, as may never be mo­ved. For let any thing be invented by the Wisdom of Parliament, that may be but equitably offer'd for the securing such an Act never to be infring'd, we may be sure he will grant it. The King would fain leave with his Subjects such a Magna Charia for the securing them the Li­berty of their Consciences, as they have for their Civil Liberties, and Property. His Majesty has observ'd the doleful Effects of Persecution for Conscience sake, and the Mischiefs of Penal Laws for Meer Religi­on, and finds no way so likely to Establish an Universal Peace and Tranquillity amongst his Subjects, as the taking off all Penal Laws for Religion. But there are a sort of Men in the Nation, I mean some of the English Clergy, who think they can live no longer than they have leave to Persecute others; and they insinuate into the Minds of Men all that is bad of his Majesty, and make dismal Outcries, as if Persecution was the only Bulwark of the Protestant Religion. And that the Protestant Dissenters (to their own hurt) may be ensnar'd to an Agreement with them in this Point, they tell 'em, Take off the Tests, and Popery will break in as a Flood. And altho' the Church of England can more easily destroy the Protestant Dissenter in one Year, and probably will, [Page 39]if ever a Church-of-England Successor enters the Throne before the Pe­nal Laws be vacated, than the Papists can in twenty Years: Yet this Noise of a Popish Persecution is made use of to frighten the Dis­senter into so fatal an Infatuation, as to be content with the bearing on of a certain and grievously-complain'd of Burden, for fear of one un­certain and improbable.

And if this can't be helpt, so that neither the Church of England men, nor Protestant Dissenters will exercise any Patience in giving the King Cre­dit, when he expresses the Sense of his Soul, and his Desires of such a Parliament, and such an Expedient, that may answer the great Ends both of himself and all good Subjects; If meerly, I say, to escape a fancy'd Danger, our Nobility and Gentry will be Resolute in their Adherence to the Penal Laws and Tests, and will not attend to any Offers to be made for an Accommodation, unless such a one of this Gentlemans, as perhaps cannot be granted, I would humbly propose to their Consideration, what have been the fatal Mischiefs of such a prevailing Obstinacy a­mongst the Subjects, with regard to our two late Kings, Charles the First, and Charles the Second, and do pray Almighty God to prevent the like amongst us, who are under the Government of so Excellent a Prince. It cannot be yet forgotten, that in Charles the First's Reign, after a Cruel Bloody-Civil War, Propositions were sent the King, to which his Majesty of Blessed Memory, gave an Answer so full, as could not but give Satisfaction to the most unreasonable Men of the Parlia­ment Party; yet those who design'd the Death of that Great Prince, blew off all with this Reply, It's true, the King has granted all we can desire, but as soon as he is setled again in the Government, he'll recall all, and all that he has granted will be to little purpose. And thus they brake off all Trea­ties, and brought the King to the Block, and the whole Kingdom into Confusion. But because many are yet alive, who have drunk deep of the Miseries our Nobles and Gentry were then expos'd unto, I need not stay on a particular rehearsal of these things.

Again, in the Reign of his late Majesty, there was a Party most Re­solute in their Adherence to the Bill of Exclusion, which the late King saw cause to be as firmly against: But to prevent their Fears and Jea­lousies, he would grant 'em any thing they should Present unto him for the securing the Protestant Religion, and the easing the Protestant Dissenter. And what was the issue of the Adherence unto that Bill, but Ruin to the whole Kingdom? For from this Bill all the Confusions, Conspiracies, and Rebellions, to the Destruction of Thousands in the Nation, had their Rise.

His present Majesty sees as much reason to be for the taking off all the Penal Laws, and so the very Tests themselves; and I cannot but be of Opinion, that the Nobility and Wise Men of the Nation, will there­fore weigh the Matter in all it's Circumstances, and learn from the Two last Reigns, not to fall into the same obstinate Opposition to his Majesty. But considering his Majesty gives us the strongest Assurances to settle [Page 40]LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE on a Rock that cannot be shaken, that so not Papist, nor Church of England, nor any other, may Persecute the rest of the People for their Consciences, will wisely Con­sult on an Expedient that may compass so Noble a Design of Good to the whole Kingdom, and fully demonstrate to the whole World, that there is nothing of Argument in the Objection; That there is nothing but Groundless Jealousie and Ill-design in those that stick so very much on it. For if there be any Truth in the King, and Prudence in the Nation, there can be nothing in all this Noise. And because his Majesty is known to the whole World to be most Resolv'd in Keeping his Word, and the Nobles and Gentry of the Nation are Renown'd for their Wisdom, how comes it to pass that our Jealousies don't cease? Surely the Gentleman that has sent me the Objections, cannot but reflect on it, who having compar'd the Case of the Protestant Dissenter to the Lepers of Samaria, must be also suppos'd to prefer their Wisdom, who shall be ready to venture upon Present Relief from a Parliament concurring with his Majesty, tho' of the Roman-Catholic Communion, rather than expose themselves to the assur'd Misery that mast attend the Continuance of the Penal Laws and Tests. Especially if we consider the Advantages this is like to bring to all Parties: in the Peace and Flourishing of our Country, wherein every one is equally concern'd, and which therefore made the King deliver that Saying (with which I shall conclude my whole Argument) thus, That Person cannot be a true Englishman in his Heart, who is not for Liberty of Conscience.