Reasons for this Address may be Two.

FIRST, That it may continue His Majesty's Favor; and the Omission may irritate the Treasury to demand a Review of the First-fruits, to the full Ualue, upon the Fifth Bond.

The CLERGIES ANSWER.

As to the Kings's Favor, if the known Loyal Principles and Practices of the Church of England, which evidenc'd themselves (one would think) so acceptable to this Prince in the Instance of the Exclusion, and Monmouth, will not secure us, so not this Address (which only copies out Fanatical Loyalty and Gratitude) can continue it.

Yet our Thanks at this time might not seem improper, if the Favor of continuing the Laws to us (which perhaps with all the Endeavors to the contrary cannot be Repeal'd) were as great as the Repealing those for the Dissenters Sake; which the Presbyterian and Independent Addresses say, His Majesty will engage His Parliament to, and for which they principally give Thanks.

OUR REPLY.

1. These Gentlemen think they have done enough already to merit the Continuance of His Majesty's Favor, because some of 'em were against the Bill of Exclusion, and endeavor'd the Suppression of Monmouth; not considering, how many of our Communion were the Active Persons both in the Matter of the Exclusion and Monmouth. It's true, at that time some were very Loyal, and but some. Consult the late King's Narrative, and observe the Rise and Progress of that Conspiracy, and you will find, 'twas from First to Last begun and carried on by Church of England Men: For, tho the Fanatics had their Hand in it, yet they were not the Only, nor the Chief Actors. If you go back so far as the Excluding Parliament, they were, Five to One, Church of England Men. Or, if you look on the Contests about the Sheriffs, you will find the Church of England to be the Chief in that Transaction; and in truth, no one that had been a Dissenter, could act as a Sheriff or Common-Council-Man, until he had forsaken his Communion with the Dissenters, and incorporated himself with our Church: So that whatever they did in these Public Capacities, they did it not as Dissenters, but as Members of the Church of England. Come nearer home, to the late Rebellion, and consider who were the Heads of it, and 'twill appear, that they were of the Church of England: Or go down to Winchester, where were above Four hundred of the Meaner sort, and, except Twenty or Thirty, all declare themselves to be of the Church of England: Or read Julian, a Church of England Divine, in which the Doctrin of Non-resistance is so much exploded, and you may soon be convinc'd, that the whole is said for Resistance, is only for the Encouragement of Church of England Men to fight in Defence of the Religion by Law Establish'd; not a Word to affect a Dissenter, whose Religion is by Statute-Laws condemn'd.

So that our Church must take the Shame of all these things to her self, and confess, she has more reason to insist on his Majestie's Grace, than her own Merit, for the continuance of the King's Favour. But,

2. It is granted by these Gentlemen, That if the Favor of continuing the Laws to us were as great as the repealing those against the Dissenters, it might not be improper to give Thanks. So that its confessd to be but just in the Dissenters to make their Addresses. And we doubt not but that we shall make it manifest, that such is the present State and Constitution of the Church of England, that it's as much in the Power of the King to humble our Clergy, as 'tis to comfort the Dissenter; and that our Clergy are as much owing to the Kings Grace for the present exercise of their Religion, and Enjoyment of their Possessions, as the Dissenters are for the Indulgence. We mention not this to lessen his Majestie's Favor to the Dissenter, but that you may see the Transcendency of the Kings Grace to our Church.

The several Acts of Parliament recognizing the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical; See. 1. Eliz. c. 2. towards the End. The Queens Majesty, by the Advice of her Commissioners or Metropolitan, may ordain and publish such Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the Advancement of Gods Glory, &c. Rex potest novas Leges condere circa Caeremonias & Ritus, cum Concilio Metropolitani vel Commissariorum in Causis Ecclesi • sticis. Zouch. Descrip. Jur. Ecclesiast. par. 1. Sect. 2. Cosin. Tab. c. 1. the Doctrin of the Church of England seen in her Articles, and the Histories of Queen Elizabeth, and King James, and Charles I. relating to this very thing, do sufficiently declare, that such is the Plenitude and Fulness, of the Kings Power in matters Ecclesiastical, that he can by his Ecclesiastical Commissioners make new Laws concerning Rights and Ceremonies, and impose new Articles on the Clergy, requiring their Subscription on pains of Suspension and Deprivation. Before the 13. Eliz. c. 12.Subscriptions requir'd before the 13 Eliz. c. 12. Heyl. Hist. Q. Eliz. an. 5. pag. 331. Subscriptions were enjoyn'd by the Regal Power, and tho this Statute requir'd Subscription, yet it being to the Articles of Religion, which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrin of the Sacraments, compriz'd in a Book Imprinted and Entituled, Articles, &c. 'Twas deemed by the Bishops to be insufficient, who therefore apply themselves to their Prince, that by her Majesties Power Ecclesiastical, they might enjoyn a fuller Subscription, which, accordingly they did, appointing Subscription, not only to the Articles of Faith and Doctrins of the Sacraments;Not only the Complaints of the Nonconformists in their Prints, but our Histories so frequently mention it, that 'twould be troublesome to quote 'em all. We'll therefore, mention what the Lawyers say of it, and it is this, A Subscription to the 39 Articles, so far forth, as the Articles do agree with the Law of God and the Land, is not good, as was adjudged in 33 & 34 Eliz. B. R. Clark against Smithfield. So Godolph. Abridg. Eccles. Laws. c. 13. §. 8. Besides the Canon 36. enjoyns this fuller Subscription, That the King as Supream Head, may do whatever the Pope might formerly do within this Realm by Canon Law, is asserted by all our Lawyers generally. See Cok • 4. Instit. 341. Cawley. 1. Q. Eliz. c. 1. Godolph. Abridg. c. 1. §. 5, 6, 7. Zouch. Descrip. jure Eccles. p. 1. §. 1. Cosin. Tab. c. 16. but unto the Government, the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, and such as refused this larger Subscription, tho they would readily subscribe as by the Statute requir'd, were suspended and depriv'd. And has not his present Majesty the same Power Queen Elizabeth had? Why then may he not make new Laws about Ceremonies, and require Subscription to new Articles? Besides, i'ts acknowledg'd, that whatever Power Ecclesiastical the Popes did de facto exercise in this Kingdom according to the Canons, that same Power de jure belongs to our Kings; and 'its also granted, That the Canons of General Councils, and the Decrees of the Roman Pontifs, so far forth as they have been receiv'd by the Permission of our Kings, and ancient Custom, are still in force; and that these Canons are daily violated by our Clergy, cannot be denied, especially in the matter of Pluralities, which cannot be held but by a Dispensation from the King,The Lord C. J. Hobart asserts, That altho the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. c. 21 doth say, That all Dispensations, &c. shall be granted in manner and form following, and not otherwise, yet the King is not thereby restrain'd, but his Power remains as full and perfect as before. Colt and Glover against the Bishop of Covent. and Lichfield. Godolph. Abridg. c. 26. §. 12. Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi. or at least by his confirming the Archbishops. And will any say, that tho the Dispensation, by which any of our Clergy hold their Pluralities, is deriv'd from the King, yet the King cannot revoke them? Or may not his Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissoners, make Enquiry after those who have above 8 l. per Annum, and by a Dispensation hold a Second Benefice, and judge of the First Benefice, not according to the Value in the Kings Books, but according to the very Value of the Church, as has been formerly adjudged; or as is in the Argument for addressing, may not the Treasury demand a Review of the First Fruits according to the full Value? In a word, may not the King send out a Quo Warranto against the Bishops, and demand by what Power they hold Courts in their own Names, and finding nothing but Prescription to be their Plea, which can be no Bar against the King, sufficiently humble our Clergy? And, seeing his Majesty, notwithstanding the many Provocations he has met with, from some of our Clergy, is so far from Exercising this Power against our Church, that on the contrary he is so unexpressibly gracious as to promise his Protection, have we not the greatest Reason gratefully to acknowledge it to the King?

Their affirming these Addresses to copy out only Fanatical Loyalty, and Gratitude, is so very indecent, that we think it unworthy of further Notice, judging their Confidence also about the Impossibility of Repealing their Laws to bear some Proportion to the Extravagance of their Censure.

The PAPER.

SECONDLY, That it seems our Duty to maintain Unity with our Bishop requiring it, and perhaps expecting it upon our Canonical Obedience, there being nothing praeter licitum & honestum.

ANSWER.

As to the Bishop, 'tis conceiv'd, that this is no Instance of Canonical Obedience; nor is the Duty of our Unity with him apprehended to be such, as disunites us from the most, the best and soundest of the National Clergy, who we think ought not, and we believe will not move in an Affair, which concerns the whole Church equally without their Metropolitan and his Bishops. Neither hath our Bishop shewed any Pastoral Regard to us, unless it be in a treating us like Children in a very weak and passive Minority, by requiring our Submission to an Address formed and worded to our Hands, without our Knowledge, not leaving us the Liberty, and thinking us able to express the Sense of our Acts (or Hearts) • nd therefore till Bishops upon their Consecration declare what Faith they are of, as they did in the Primitive Church, for which the Reasons are the same as then; to maintain Unity with a Bishop without Caution is a Principle, that may lead us further than we ought to go.

REPLY.

1. There being so much Reason why our Clergy ought to make their Address of Thanks to the King, it would be very strange if such a Practice cannot be found amongst the Licita and Honesta of our Church; and if it comes within this Pale, and the Ordinary commands it, it's beyond us to conceive how Disobedience in the Clergy can escape the Guilt of Perjury. For the Oath express'd in the Instrument of the Clergies Institution is in these words, Te Primitùs de legitima & Canonica Obedientia nobis & Successoribus nostris, in omnibus licitis & honestis Mandatis per te praestanda & exhibenda, ad Sancta Evangelia ritè juratum admittimus. So that they are sworn to perform Lawful and Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary in all his lawful and honest Mandates. The Bishop then commands 'em to thank the King for his Grace and Clemency in a matter for which once heretofore they did it. Is this Lawful or Unlawful? Honest or Dishonest? Not Unlawful nor Dishonest; because when the King declared only to the Council he would protect the Church of England, they then judg'd it their Duty; now the King doth but make the same Declaration to the whole Kingdom, and if not Unlawful, and their Ordinary commands it, they are bound by their Oath to obey, how then can they disobey and not be at least forsworn? But,

2. How comes it to pass, that their Obeying their Ordinary disunites 'em from the most, the best and soundest of the National Clergy? What! are the whole Clergy so insensible of the Kings Grace, that they'll not acknowledge it? what a prodigious Change is this? And why must they not rather regard their own Ordinary, than the Sense of others? If the matter requir'd, be (as we have prov'd it to be) Lawful and Honest, do they make nothing of an Oath? and is Church-of England Unity in danger of being broken? That surely is ominous, and no doubt will open the Mouth both of Papist and Protestant Dissenter. Is the Church of Englands Case so desperate, that they must either be ungrateful to their Prince, or be divided amongst themselves? Furthermore,

3. Their Bishop shews no Pastoral Regard to 'em, They declare, That the Book of Common-Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, &c. containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that it may be lawfully used, and that they will use the Form in the said Book prescribed, in Public Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and none other. Can. 36. Art. 2. unless it be in treating 'em like Children, by requiring their Submission to an Address worded to their Hands, not leaving 'em the Liberty to express the Sense of their Hearts. So the Paper. And what hurt in all this? It's to be presum'd, they'l make more bold with their Prince than with God; and therefore seeing they are not to be trusted, when they make their Addresses to God, how can they expect to be trusted when they apply themselves to their Prince? Are not their Prayers all worded to their Hands? Have they Liberty to express the Sense of their Hearts in Publick? No, they have solemnly promis'd, they'll use the Church-Prayers, and none other; why then should they expect a Liberty of expressing their Sense when they are to address to the King? Ay but,

4. Bishops upon their Consecration should declare what Faith they are of, as they did in the Primitive Times. What's this but too high a Reflection upon our Church, an Accusation that we are fallen from the Primitive Purity? Tho it must be acknowledg'd, that all the Clergy Subscribe, Assent, and Consent to the Thirty nine Articles, &c. And is not that enough? Or, have they forgotten how solemnly they did swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary; that they now tell us, they must maintain Unity with their Bishop with Caution; thereby encouraging even the Nonconformists in their Dissent?

But to the Arguments against Addressing.

THE PAPER.

Reasons against it are Many; under the present Circumstances, to instance in Four.

FIRST, As to our Possessions, it either equally concerns all Estates of Men in the Kingdom, and ought then to be most particularly consider'd in Parliament; or, it supposes our Possessions less Legal, and more Arbitrary than other Subjects.

ANSWER.

As for their Possessions, they are setled on them in no other manner than they were on the Clergy in Q. Elizabeth's and K. James the First's Days, when, for not subseribing to Articles never then enjoyn'd by Act of Parliament, many hundreds of the Clergy were suspcnded, and depriv'd of all their Ecclesiastical Possessions: And should a strict Enquiry be made into our Clergy, it's to be fear'd, that too many of 'em would be found so very guilty, as to deserve not only a Suspension, but also a Deprivation; and we therefore cannot think it to be the Wisdom of our Clergy to provoke the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make a close Search after their Miscarriages, especially seeing Deprivations have been anciently for Dilapidations, and such like Offences.