<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-10-08</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Kate Allen</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review over structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, HEADNOTE, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, TRAILER, etc. x*Check for GAPs x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c., -- x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q, startq, endq, Q
*Correct excusable and inexcusable errors x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A87920">
<STC T="W">L1365A</STC>
<STC T="C">R42519</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">36282215</BIBNO>
<VID>150111</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>A LETTER FROM A BISHOP TO A LORD OF HIS FRIENDS</HEAD>
<P>THe pre&s;ent po&s;ture of our affaires is &s;o &s;trange, and the dan|ger which threatens the King's faithfull &s;ervants &s;o con+&s;iderable, that I should hardly have prevayld with my &s;elf to an&s;wer your letter, if I were not per&s;waded, that you ask my advice only to profit by it, and had not be&s;ides &s;ome rea&s;on to fear, you might interpret my &s;ilence for a tacit approba|tion of what the&s;e la&s;t two months was done again&s;t the King, the Church, and the State. Peradventure it were but ju&s;tice to attribute mine, as well as the &s;ilence of divers of my bret|hren, to a prudence allowable in &s;uch an occa&s;ion. But &s;ome perhaps would think otherwi&s;e, and not without rea&s;on bla|me a man, who all his life has preacht obedience to &s;overai|gns, and been brought up at Oxford, under men equally fa|mous for learning and piety, if I did not follow their exam|ple. For in the time of a rebellion wor&s;e than this, they did not only te&s;timony to the truth, when they were reque&s;ted: but had the courage to defend it before the U&s;urpers of the Royall authority; and reproach their crime with a zeal worthy of our profe&s;&s;ion, and the inviolable fidelity, which has been alwais &s;ignall in the Clergy of the Church of England till now. But now wee &s;ee Bi&s;hops &s;uffer them&s;elves to bee drawn into <HI>the ways of the ungodly</HI> and <HI>&s;it in the &s;eat of the &s;cornfull</HI> I mean, who have joined with that wretched Convention, in attempting upon the per&s;on and dignity of the <HI>Lord's anno|inted,</HI> I &s;hould believe my &s;elf unworthy of the place which I fill in our Church, and even of the name of a Chri&s;tian, if I refu&s;ed to open my &s;elf plainly to tho&s;e who ask mee an ac|count of my opinion, which, according to the rule of S. Pe|ter, wee ought bee ready to do as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ften as wee are call'd upon. To begin my an&s;wer then, I shall tell you, My Lord, that you could not do better, than to refu&s;e going to the Convention, and that your re&s;olution has been an infinite joy both to mee, and all tho&s;e of my brethren who truly love the honour of the Church of England. And you have the &s;atisfac|tion to have kept your con&s;cience cleer from a crime &s;o great as rebellion. I confe&s;&s;, My Lord I am not able to under&s;tand which way the Gentlemen of the Convention can &s;o much as pretend to wipe off that crime For you know that our Church has always taught obedience to lawfull &s;overaigns as an e&s;&s;en|tiall duty of Chri&s;tianity, e&s;tablisht by the holy &s;cripture, the doctrine of all antiquity, &amp; particularly of the Church of England. Our 37. Article declares thus <HI>Regiae Ma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;tas in ho<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> Angliae regno ac caeteris ejus dominiis &s;ummam habet pote&s;tatem, ad quam omnium &s;tatuum hujus regni, &s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">e illi Eccle&s;ia&s;tici &s;int, &s;ive Ci|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">es, in omni<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">us cau&s;is &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">rema gubernatio pertinet, &amp; nulli exter+rae juri&s;dict<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">oni e&s;t &s;ub<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ecta, nec e&s;&s;e deber.</HI> There is not a Bi&s;|hop, or Clergyman of this Kingdom who has not &s;worn to this doctrine; which is yet more full in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, taken by all the Lords and Commons, when the King c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">me fir&s;t to the Crown, and as often be&s;ides, as they got or changed employments. They have &s;worn that <HI>our &s;ouveraign lord King J<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">mes is lawfull and rightfull King of the Realm: That the Pope, neither of him&s;elf, no by any authority of the Church or &s;ee of Rome, has any power to depo&s;e him; and that the Pope, nor any other, has no power to ab<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">olve of this Oath.</HI> In the Oath of Supremacy it is declared that <HI>the K<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ng is the only &s;upreme Governour of this Realme as well in all &s;pirit<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">al or Eccle&s;ia&s;tical things or cau&s;es, as temporall. And that no forreign Prince, Per&s;on, Prelate, State, or Potentate, has, or ought to have any juri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">diction, power, &s;uperiority, preeminence o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> authority Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, or &s;pirituall in this Realm:</HI> and &s;o they <HI>renoun|ce and for&s;ake all fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">reign juri&s;dictions, powers, &s;uperiority, or autho|rity what&s;oever,</HI> and do promi&s;e from henceforth <HI>to hear faith and true a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">legiance and fidelity to the King, his heirs and lawfull &s;uc+<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;&s;ors, and to their power a&s;&s;i&s;t and defend all juri&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ictions, praeeminences &amp;c.</HI> There is not peradventure a &s;ingle man in the Convention, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ho has not taken the&s;e Oaths, at one time or other, and the|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">e is not a &s;ingle man who has not broken them. If they be|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ve that the&s;e Oaths oblige them to any thing, it certainly was, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ot to do any thing of what their a&s;&s;embly has done, but to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ntinue faithfull to the King. If they believe the Oaths ob|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ed them to nothing, they make a &s;trange laughing &s;tock <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> their King, their faith, and God him&s;elf, whom they &s;o|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">nly took witnes of the promi&s;e which they made of fide|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">y to the King. Neither according to the plaine and common <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">&s;e of the &s;ame words is there any shifting it off with fri|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">lous interpretations For hee who takes the Oaths, &s;wears <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> a &s;peciall clau&s;e that hee under&s;tands the words according <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> the plaine and common &s;en&s;e of the &s;ame words, without <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">y equivocation, or mental eva&s;ion, or &s;ecret re&s;ervation what <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ver: which naturall &s;en&s;e unexcu&s;ably involves all tho&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">o have approved the proceedings made again&s;t the King, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> the guilt of periury, and &s;uch a perjury as is not only cri|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">all before God, but de&s;troys all mutuall commerce among men. For what a&s;&s;urance of fidelity can &s;overaigns ever re|ceive from their Prote&s;tant &s;ubjects, if Oaths bee no &s;ecurity, where God is called to witnes, and the Go&s;pels ki&s;t. You &s;ee My Lord, that this, of nece&s;&s;ity brings on a ju&s;t di&s;tru&s;t, and obliges Princes to make them&s;elves &s;ure of their fidelity by other ways, and leaving them as little liberty as they can. The Papi&s;ts them&s;elves are le&s;&s; reprochable in this point, as contrary as a doctrine among them is to the &s;ecurity of Prin|ces, for you know they do not all follow it, as appears by the approbation of the Oath of Allegiance given by eight &amp; fif|ty Doctors of the Faculty of Paris in 1680, and other pieces printed by Peter Walsh in his <HI>Cau&s;a Vale&s;i na.</HI> And tho&s;e who po&s;&s;e&s;t with Bellarmin's, maximes refu&s;e to take it, make it &s;uffi|ciently appear that their refu&s;all proceds not only from the fear of di&s;obeying the Pope Paul V. Brieves, but from a per&s;wa|&s;ion likewi&s;e that if they had taken it, they were obliged to keep it. Equivocations then, and mentall re&s;ervations are no lon|ger to bee layd at the dore of the Papi&s;ts, but of the Zea|lots of the Convention, who can no way wash off the &s;tain of perjury, but by declaring that they &s;wore conditionally, that is, engaged to bee faithfull no longer, than the King should bee faithfull to them, by performing an imaginary con|tract betwixt Kings and the people; no longer than hee should bee a Prote&s;tant; or, to &s;ay better, no longer than they plea|&s;ed them&s;elves.</P>
<P>If &s;uch di&s;tinctions and clau&s;es were new, they should yet have been propounded to the King, when the whole King|dom promi&s;ed him fidelity, at his coming to the Crown, and hee made acquainted with the conditions of the Oaths taken to him. For no body was then ignorant that hee profe&s;t the Romish religion. But all England believed then, that this was no ju&s;tification of refu&s;ing to pay him the obedience due to him. All the Citys and Burroughs declared as much by their Addre&s;&s;es, when the memory was yet fresh of the endea|vours u&s;ed by &s;editious men in the Parliaments of We&s;tmin&s;ter and Oxford, to exclude him from the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, upon pre|text of Religion. The whole Kingdom then abhorred the ma|ximes which the Convention has made foundation of their proceedings. They publikly dete&s;ted the A&s;&s;ociation-pro|je<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters"> drawn up by My Lord Shaftsbury, and his complices, th&ocirc; it were le&s;&s; pernicious, than the Votes of the Convention. In fi|ne all the rea&s;ons, pretended to ju&s;tify that A&s;&s;ociation, were condemned in 1683. by the famous Cen&s;ure of the Univer&s;ity of Oxford. No body then appeared in defen&s;e of the dange|rous maximes of the con&s;pirators: every body condemned them as contrary to the word of God, the &s;ecurity of &s;acred per|&s;ons, the good of the State; and as directly oppo&s;ite to the doctrine of the Church of England. Which way then could it come to pa&s;&s;, that what was abhominable in 1683. should bee agreable to the laws of God and of the Land in 1689. but that the Convention has taken up other principles; equally &s;ub|verted the laws of the Church and State; and after having &s;o much declamed again&s;t arbitrary power, endeavours to &s;et up one incomparably greater: for it would force us to break our oaths, and receive a forreigner whom in con&s;cience wee can|not obey.</P>
<P>The&s;e principles of the Convention cannot bee &s;aid to bee new, and &s;o to furnish tho&s;e with an excu&s;e, who &s;uffered them&s;elves to bee &s;urpri&s;ed by them. All are reduced to one principall head, the originall contract betwixt the King and his &s;ubjects, to which they piece two members; I. That as often as the King fails on his &s;ide, they are no longer bound by their oaths to obey him: II. That if a lawfull power change into tiranny, or bee not exerci&s;ed according to divine and human laws, it may bee abrogated. And the&s;e are ju&s;t the 2. and 3 of tho&s;e propo&s;itions which were &s;olemnly conde<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">|ned by the Univer&s;ity of Oxford 3. July 1683. They were never taught, but by Buchanan, Knox, Dolman, Milton, Goodwin, and &s;uch &s;editious men, and have alwais been condemned by the Church of England, as hereticall, &s;editious, tending to Anarchy, and the &s;ubver&s;ion of lawfull powers, whereof none can bee &s;afe, if 15. or 20. Fanatics take a fancy that the origi|nall contract is broken&punc; and Magi&s;trates act not according to the law of God. The&s;e maximes are but too much known, and the Nation has &s;een by a fatall experience what the con&s;e|quences are. For the&s;e hurried on our furious rebels into an execrable Parricide, which wee cannot dete&s;t enough, and which the Church of England every year bewail by a &s;olemn office. It is therefore unconceivable which way they can bee alledged in ju&s;tification of an enterpri&s;e, in the eye of our law, very little inferior to the former, for &s;o it is, to pluck off that lawfull authority from the King, which the right of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion has ve&s;ted in him. Whether the&s;e maximes bee reconciliable to Chri&s;tian morality, is not now to bee examined. The Church of En|gland
<PB N="2" REF="2"> has alwais been of a contrary judgment, not only while shee enjoyed her liberty, but even while she groaned under the oppre&s;&s;ion of her greate&s;t enemys. D. Hammond, D. Heylin and &s;everall others writ in the time of the long rebellion, and their books are in the hands of every body. She has &s;ince divers times explained her &s;elf without, and beyond conte&s;t, among the re&s;t, in the Hi&s;tory of the late troubles, and of the Treaty at Uxbridge, to &s;ay nothing of the Cen&s;ure in 1683. a little af|ter the di&s;covery of the Newmarket con&s;piracy. None of the&s;e public declarations met with any check in behalf of tho&s;e who are now leading men in the Convention. All approved them, and there are few who&s;e hand was not to &s;ome of the&s;e Addre&s;&s;es of fidelity which flowd in upon the King from Shires, Towns and Corporations. Wherefore there is no excu&s;ing them from an hipocri&s;y abhominable before God and men, if believing then, as they do now, they declared the contrary: or from manife&s;t rebellion. In following tho&s;e maximes at this time, which they formerly dete|&s;ted. But, tis not hard to unriddle this different carriage &s;o generall of theirs. For if they had owned tho&s;e damnable maximes, before the laws have been &s;u&s;pended by the generall revolt of the kingdome, tho&s;e laws would doubtles have punisht them for traitors. They we|re &s;topt then, by the fear, not of God, but of punishment, which fear nevertheles ought not have &s;waid with them, if the doctrine, which they are now &s;etting up, bee a part of their religion. All danger ought have been de&s;pi&s;ed, to draw us out of the error, in which wee were, and &s;till are, if it bee one to believe our &s;elves oblig'd by the law of God to obey tho&s;e Kings and Princes, to who&s;e authority hee was pleas'd our birth should &s;ubject us. But that prodigious di&s;|&s;imulation, which alwais kept the venom of their doctrine clo&s;e co+<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">red, only to &s;pread it abroad when lawfull authority was oppre&s;t, will not &s;uffer us ever to tru&s;t tho&s;e unhappy Fanatiks more. None were more eager than they to preach up obedience to &s;overaigns when time &s;erved: what invective was &s;pared to reproach the Pa+pi&s;ts in a hundred occa&s;ions with their Italian depo&s;ing doctrins? vhat zeal appeared in the con&s;piracy di&s;covered by Oats, and Bed|loe: which by the way, after judgment given again&s;t the principal actors in that bloudy Tragedy, I rather believe feigned than true. But after all what was this zeal? why, now wee &s;ee. All took alarme at fancyes, and chimeras, and the danger threatning England from the whim&s;y'd inva&s;ion of a forreign army commi&s;&s;ioned by the Pope. But when with their own eys they &s;aw a forreigner, who has yet no more right than the Pope, come armed into the King|dom; declare again&s;t the King; actually &s;eize his per&s;on, and re|venue; and do all the acts of a &s;overaign without any lawfull au|thority: they forgot the old doctrine of their mother the Church of England, and failing in all the dutys which shee enjoyns, fa|vour'd the attempt of an u&s;urper by their &s;ilence, and by that favour made it &s;uccesfull. And I &s;peak of tho&s;e who are the mo&s;t innocent, tho&s;e who had no hand, &s;ave indirectly, in the doings of the Prince of Orange. They can no longer make this pa&s;&s; for a chimericall entrepri&s;e, as the Papi&s;ts &s;aid of Oates's plot, and have at la&s;t brought the mo&s;t &s;en&s;ible part of the Nation to be|lieve. This la&s;t is found but too reall. They approv'd it, then in their hearts, and believed it lawfull, and agreable to the word of God, and con&s;equently betrayd the truth, and acted again&s;t their con&s;cience, when by &s;olemn Oaths they a&s;&s;ured his Maje&s;ty that they acknowledged no authority on earth &s;uperior to his, and one way or other fell in to execrable perjury.</P>
<P>All divines, both Prote&s;tant and Papi&s;t, agree, that the only ca&s;e, in which it is not only lawfull not to obey Princes, but un|lawfull to obey them, is when they command a thing contrary to the law of God. By this principle the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the &s;ix Bishops, who by his exemple, refused to publish the King's declaration in their Dioce&s;es, ju&s;tifyed them&s;elves, decla|ring they could not obey in con&s;cience. I will not take upon mee either to condem or quit them, that bu&s;ines &s;eeming to mee very di&s;putable. For &s;ince the Church of England lodges the &s;u|preme power of governing this Church in the King, &s;ubject to none but God, I do not &s;ee that the right is altogether &s;o cleer on their &s;ide as &s;ome pretend. For the que&s;tion was not of ad|mitting &s;ectarys into Communion, whom the Church of England had formerly excluded, but only of publishing a declaration of their Prince, by which the rigour of the laws was &s;u&s;pended with re&s;pect to Di&s;&s;enters, which is a matter purely temporall, and in which by con&s;equence the Bishops have no more authority than the temporal Lords, that is, to propo&s;e in Parliament what they judge mo&s;t for the public good. Neverthele&s;s I willingly yeld them the glory of having done the part of good Pa&s;tors, by hazar|ding them&s;elves for their flocks, a glory with which &s;ome flatter I fear, more plea&s;ingly, than &s;incerely. The inward per&s;ua&s;ion of their con&s;cience may ju&s;tify their intention, and, I have wond|red a hundred times how the King could bee brought to meddle with that bu&s;ines. But yet mee thinks that good con&s;cience of theirs might have oblidged them to explain them&s;elves cleerly when they were examined before the Council, or try'd at We&s;tmin&s;ter-hall for a &s;editious libel. Had their petition, which was the ground of all, mentioned the Originall contract between the King and his people; the incon&s;i&s;tence of Popery with a King of En|gland, or a counterfait Prince of Wales: had it declared, that it is lawfull to take up arms again&s;t their Prince, in defence of Re|ligion; that a parcel of men meeting without authority, has po|wer to di&s;po&s;e of the Crown, voyd the old, and make new laws; and &s;uch things as are now abetted by &s;ome of them: do you, My Lord, believe they would have been &s;o ea&s;ily acquitted by the Jury? Certainly no. As the Law is expre&s;&s;, they would have been condemned for Traitors, and no body in a condition to help them. Here they ought freely to have brought forth tho&s;e preten|ded truths, wich they concealed in their hearts, (tho&s;e who did conceal them) and have preacht upon the hou&s;e tops, what they whi&s;pered in one anothers ear, and not deceive the King and the world with perjurys, and feigned prote&s;tations of inviolable fideli|ty to his &s;ervice&punc; and their adhering to the doctrine of the Church of England. Let not tho&s;e men, then, banter us longer with their pretended zeal, but think of asking God, and the King, pardon for the mo&s;t dete&s;table perfidiou&s;nes which ever blackned the reputation of our Clergy.</P>
<P>I had rea&s;on to tell you that the maximes of the Convention, and of tho&s;e Bishops, who &s;it with them, are not new. They began to &s;pread in this Kingdom under Queen Eli&s;abeth. The Divines whom the per&s;ecution of Q. Mary drove out of England, fled for the mo&s;t part, to Geneva, Suitzerland, and the Palatinate. From thence they brought us back this unfortunate doctrine, wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">h which &s;ome Clergymen has already done &s;o much mi&s;chief in the three Kingdoms, and began to corrupt our two Univer&s;itys. For it is certain that Calvin and his di&s;ciples never approved our reforma|tion ab&s;olutely. They were not pleas'd with our Liturgy and Di&s;ci|pline, and he found in it, <HI>divers tolerable follys</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="foot">In liturgia Anglicanae qualem mihi de&s;cribitis multas vid<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters"> tolerabiles ineptias.</NOTE> His di&s;ciples endea|voured to make a kind of &s;chi&s;m in the English Church, upon oc|ca&s;ion of the Ceremonys which have been retained. To the&s;e men vee ow all the mi&s;chiefs which have &s;ince fallen upon her for neare 120. years, as D. Heylin cleerly shews in his Hi&s;tory of the Refor|mation, and of the Presbyterians. If they did le&s;&s; harm in the reigns of Ed: 6. and Q. Mary, the rea&s;on was, becau&s;e they had not time in the fir&s;t: and in the &s;econd, feared to expo&s;e them|&s;elves to the danger, which then hung over the heads of all, who publicly ownd the Prote&s;tant Religion in this Kingdom. Queen Eli|&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">beth hindred them from corrupting the hearts of her &s;ubjects not only by &s;everall whole&s;om laws, made for uniformity in Reli|gion and outward worship, but, which was more, by executing them &s;everely. They never thought our religion in England could bee &s;ecure, but by punctually executing them, which has made them &s;o very odious to the Presbyterians. And therefore t'is no wonder that one of the fir&s;t cares of the Convention, was to pluck this thorn out of their &s;ides. In the works of King James I. about the beginning of this age, wee find abundant evidence of what hee &s;uffered from the &s;ame Presbyterians. They began the trou|bles which la&s;ted to the reign of Charles I and ended in the rui|ne of Monarchy, and an execrable parricide upon his per&s;on. All the world knows that tho&s;e rebels, who, like our modern gent|lemen, covered their treachery under the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, publisht then without re&s;erve what they had at their hearts, whereas they approved the doctrine of the Church of En|gland only with their lips: which is ju&s;t what the Zealots of our time do. They cannot &s;ay that the Church of England approved at that time what they brought upon the &s;tage, of an originall contract between the King and his people, and authority in the people to reform the State; no more than the following po&s;itions faithfully collected by the Univer&s;ity of Oxford: That <HI>people may give the governement to whom they please: depo&s;e bad Princes, re&s;i&s;t, and take arms again&s;t them:</HI> and <HI>are di&s;charged from all oa hs of fidelity, when Princes act again&s;t God and the truth.</HI> No body is ignorant that the Church of England, oppre&s;t by rebels, could not at that time make any authentik and &s;olemn declaration ag|ain&s;t the&s;e damnable maximes. But her honour was &s;upported by &s;everall great men who opposed them openly. D. Hammond, not content to have refuted them, writ about this matter to Fairfax him&s;elf, and his letter printed in the collection of his works, will &s;erve to inform po&s;terity of the true &s;en&s;e of our Clergy. D. Heylin appeared again&s;t them with the &s;ame zeal, as well as divers other faithfull &s;ervants of the King, to who&s;e works you are no &s;tranger. Our Church which found zealous defenders of her doctrine even at that time, declared her &s;elf more vigorously, when shee had recovered her liberty by the Kings re&s;toration. There was hardly a particular Church, which by Addre&s;&s;es, or other public Acts, did not declare their abhorrence of the&s;e Presbyterian maximes. The fir&s;t Parliament held after the return of his late Maje&s;ty con|demned the Covenant, and all the Acts made in pur&s;uance of it we|re abolisht by the la&s;t Act of Uniformity in 1662. and tho&s;e which had been pa&s;t to that purpo&s;e, under the reigns of Elizabeth, Ja|mes and Charles I confirmed, and revived. All attempts again&s;t the per&s;on of the King, his heirs, and lawfull &s;ucce&s;&s;ors were declared Trea&s;on: and the &s;ame Act &s;everely forbids preaching, teaching, writing, &s;aying, or any way declaring that the Parliament begun in 1640 had any authority; that the oaths then taken obliged any body; and above all that either, or both Hou&s;es of Parliament have any legi&s;lative power without the King. Th&ocirc; our laws have this advantage above tho&s;e of other nations, that none is, or can bee made, without the con&s;ent of the people: yet this may bee &s;aid to have a particular &s;tamp of liberty upon it and the au|thority wherof ought bee greater to all true Englishmen. For it was one of the fir&s;t acts pa&s;t after the happy re&s;toration of his late Maje&s;ty and of all which ever the nation did, the action the mo&s;t free, &s;ince nothing prevayled with them to acknowledge their lawfull &s;overaign, and shake of the yoke of a tiranny, a hundred times more grievous than the reign of any of his predece&s;&s;ors, a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;pecious a cover as it had of Protection, but rea&s;on, and con|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ence
<PB N="3" REF="2"> and the true intere&s;t of the Nation. And this wee, or tho&s;e who come after us will &s;ee again, th&ocirc; I cannot an&s;wer they shall <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">nd it altogether &s;o ea&s;y, to throw off the fetters, with which they <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ave loaded them&s;elves to avoid an imaginary danger of lo&s;ing our unvaluable liberty, &s;o unthinkingly now depo&s;ited in very <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">angerous hands.</P>
<P>There is another very undeniable proof of the horrour which <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">he whole Nation had for tho&s;e pernicious maximes, upon which <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">he Convention proceeds, and alledges for rea&s;ons &s;ufficient to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">y the turning all our laws top&s;y turvy. Is the Tryall of the Regicides in 1660. By the procedings very particularly drawn up, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">t appears that tho&s;e abhominable Parricides went upon principles much what the &s;ame with our originall contract, and &s;upreme au|thority of the people. They pleaded that acting under the autho|rity of Parliament, they acted by an authority which ought to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ear them out: and that the Parliament of 1640. was a lawfull Parliament, as being a Convention or A&s;&s;embly of the people. This was the plea of Scot, and his fellows. The Judges overruled <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">t with rea&s;ons pa&s;t reply, grounded on the laws, and uncontrover|&s;ible pre&s;idents. Sir Orlando Bridgeman then Lord Chief Baron in his charge to the grand Jury in&s;tructed them to proceed upon this unque&s;tionable maxime, the re&s;ult, or rather ground of all our laws; <HI>That no authority, no &s;ingle per&s;on, community of per&s;ons, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">t the people, collectively or repre&s;entatively, have any, coercive power over the King of England:</HI> A maxime which intirely over|throwes all the principles, and by con&s;equence all the proceedings of the Convention. This was not all: The Judges declared to the pri&s;oners, who had a mind to enlarge upon this matter, and with their chimericall rea&s;ons ju&s;tify the &s;overaign authority of the Commons, that the Court could not hear them, and that this very defence was a new Trea&s;on. All England was acquain|ted with, and approved the&s;e proceedings&punc; nor has there appea|red a &s;ingle man &s;ince who had the confidence to be&s;patter tho&s;e Commi&s;&s;ioners of <HI>Oyer</HI> and <HI>Terminer</HI> with the condemnation of innocent men, or proceeding on fal&s;e maximes contrary to law and ju&s;tice. Now would I know of the Gentlemen of the Conven|tion, how they can pretend to thru&s;t in to &s;olemn acts, and take for a ground of new laws, what the Judges could not endure in the mouth of pri&s;oners at their tryall; when they have liberty to &s;ay all they can for their defen&s;e, &s;ave what tends to Trea&s;on: as even Members of Parliament, notwith&s;tanding freedom of &s;peech in the Hou&s;e, may bee called to account if they pu|blickly maintain &s;uch po&s;itions.</P>
<P>To the&s;e proofs, taken from Acts of Parliament, and Tryals upon record, it &s;eems u&s;eles to add matter le&s;&s; important, only to make it appear that the whole Nation has condemn'd the pernicious doc|trine, which is now, not only brought into play, but topt upon us for the Common law of all nations, and ours in particular: e&s;|pecially &s;ince without &s;o much as examining them, which they cannot do neither without trea&s;on, our Convention upon the&s;e &s;inking foundations, builds laws tending to the de&s;truction both of Church and State. And yet there remains evidence enough be&s;ides that the Church of England was under no con&s;traint, when she explain'd her &s;elf cleerly again&s;t this infamous Presby|terian doctrine, which shee has alwais lookt upon as the root of all our mi&s;erys. At that very time came out &s;everal pieces of D. Heylin, approved by Bishops, and e&s;teem'd and prais'd by every, th&ocirc; hee was very &s;mart upon the Presbyterians in making out that they had &s;tirrd up broyls, and civil wars every where. Divers ot|hers work<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> of the &s;ame nature were likewi&s;e publisht of which the Church of England was &s;o far from shewing any di&s;like, that on the contrary, the &s;olemn approbations of tho&s;e books, shewd she equally e&s;teemed the Authors and their doctrine. About that ti|me came out a pamphlet called <HI>Philanax Anglicus,</HI> wherof the au|thor had a mind to pa&s;&s; for a Prote&s;tant. Hee &s;trove to prove, that the doctrine of the greate&s;t part of the reformed Churches was contrary to the obedience due to lawfull &s;overaigns. D. Peter du Moulin Canon of Chri&s;t's Church at Canterbury, confuted this pamphlet, in an Apology for the doctrine of Prote&s;tants in this matter: and concludes with defying his adver&s;ary to &s;ub&s;cri|be &s;everall propo&s;itions, which hee had alledged as conformable to the doctrine of good English Prote&s;tants; the la&s;t of which is this: <HI>The Peers and Commons of England have no power to judge th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ir King, much le&s;&s; to depose him, or put him to death, or to choo&s;e another King or to alter th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> government of the State.</HI> Hee is not li|ke to have the thanks of the Hou&s;e, who should move the Con|vention to &s;ign &s;uch an Article now. And yet this was then the doctrine of the whole Kingdom: and the Nonconformi&s;ts, particu+larly the Quakers were &s;martly handled, for not conforming to it, and not taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. Not that the&s;e &s;ectarys were bad &s;ubjects, the greate&s;t part of them. They were more &s;et upon their whim&s;ys, than malicious. One cannot &s;ay &s;o much of the Presbyterians, who have alwais &s;truggled all they could to get tho&s;e Oaths abolisht, and when they could not prevayl, took them again&s;t their con&s;cience; as the French Mini|&s;ters who fled hither, as great enemys as they are to the Hierarchy and Epi&s;copacy not being able to take the&s;e Oaths con&s;equently to the principles of their doctrine, yet &s;urmounted all &s;cruples, which &s;tood in their way to English benefices. But the Bishops, who made &s;o many others taKe tho&s;e Oaths, and let the law loo&s;e upon refu&s;ers whether Papi&s;t or Prote&s;tant, could they believe tho|&s;e oaths obliged to nothing. In kindnes to them, wee will think they did not: And then they unavoydably did, or &s;eemd to be|lieve, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, that the Oaths obliged them to bee faithfull to the King, and ack|nowledge no authority above him, neither in &s;pirituals, nor tem|porals. How then could they shake of the obligation contracted by tho&s;e Oaths, taken by them&s;elves, and by them exacted from others? and by what authority take them quite away, and &s;ub|&s;titute new in their room?</P>
<P>Alas! their &s;in is manife&s;t, and manifold: again&s;t God, who&s;e name they have taken in vain in oaths &s;o shamefully broken; a|gain&s;t our laws which they have abolisht; and again&s;t the whole na|tion, on which they take upon them to impo&s;e new ones. Tis a certain principle, and agreed by all Chri&s;tians, that every man is oblig'd to conform him&s;elf to the laws of his country, his part being to obey, not to reform them. Our Conventioners then, and particularly the Bishops, were obliged to lay for the ground of their proceedings, the laws of the Kingdom, for the governement both of Church and State. The oath by which they acknowledged the King &s;upreme Governor of the English Church, engag'd them to &s;ubmit to all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall laws, of which in that capacity hee is the &s;ole executor, and di&s;pen&s;er. For there is no other Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall authority, but that which proceeds from the King, nor have Parliaments ever pretended to share it with him. When the Bishops then con&s;ented to the repeal of the old oaths, and other things concerning Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall matters, they admitted a kind of Supremacy above the Kings, which has alvais pa&s;t for High Trea&s;on, before the Judges, and before God for abhominable perjury. For a King of England mu&s;t be depo&s;ed from his Crown, before he can be depo&s;ed from his Supremacy. Now as our laws never &s;ettled any &s;uperior authority to deprive Kings of the po|wer, which they receive from God by a lawfull &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, the crime of our Conventioners is &s;till the greater, becau&s;e having &s;worn obedience to the King according to tho&s;e very laws, as Englishmen and as Chri&s;tians, they ought not have done any thing, which was not conformable to the laws recorded among us, and according to which Ju&s;tice is admini&s;tred in all Courts. There is not one pre&s;ident which allows the force of law to the violent proceedings of &s;editious men, who have ri&s;en at &s;everall, and particularly the later times, nor, till the goverment bee entirely changed, can attempts of this nature pa&s;&s; for any thing, but High Trea&s;on.</P>
<P>Nay even &s;uppo&s;ing, what cannot bee, that there were a dor|mant authority &s;uperior to the Kings, the law &s;till ought direct the manner of exerci&s;ing that latent authority, as it does all other proceedings, whether again&s;t Peers, or Commons. The Con|ventioners them&s;elves, I &s;uppo&s;e, will agree, that there is no glimps of any &s;uch matter in our law books; for whichs rea&s;on the Par|liamentary Regicides were fain to contrive a method of their own heads. A method wich the Convention mu&s;t needs di&s;liKe, &s;ince they thought not fit to taKe it them&s;elves, whether that it was thought too palpably naught, or too provokingly odious, and therefore likely to open the eyes of tho&s;e, who had any fear of God left, or any re&s;pect for the law. For the Peers were no part of their Hight Court of Ju&s;tice, the Upper Hou&s;e was di&s;&s;olved, and the whole authority of the Nation lodg'd in the Commons; the grea|te&s;t part of who&s;e members too, were thru&s;t out of the Hou&s;e, &s;o that of 500. and more which ought bee there, one could &s;ome times har|dly count 50. But the Convention has pre&s;erv'd the prerogative of the Peers, and di&s;tinction of the Hou&s;es; and &s;o the forme at lea&s;t is regular, and wants nothing but lawfull authority for their mee|ting, and that fails them. For they met of them&s;elves, without other authority than of bare circular letters from the Prince of O|range, who has no more him&s;elf, than private men, who have none at all. A generall a&s;&s;embly of the Nation to have any authority, mu&s;t bee a Parliam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">nt: and there can bee no Parliament, unles it bee convened by the King <HI>Prin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ipium, caput &amp; finis Parlia|menti.</HI> All the world knows that the right of calling a Parliament re&s;ides only in the Kings per&s;on, which, th&ocirc; it were not other|wi&s;e notorious, is evident in the very Writs of &s;ummons. Tho|&s;e which i&s;&s;ue out to the Peers, call them <HI>(Con&s;ilium impen&s;uri</HI> And the Commons in the writs directed to the Sherifs &amp;c. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">d faciendum &amp; con&s;entiendum.</HI> Evidently therefore neither the one, nor the other are called to judge the King: but the Peers to coun&s;el him, and the Commons to con&s;ent to, or di&s;&s;ent from the motions made there, as they judge expedient for the good of the Nation. No record mentions any writ which gi|ves either or both Hou&s;es any authority beyond this. They come to a&s;&s;i&s;t the King with their coun&s;els: but t'is not to bee found they ever came to taKe information of his actions, and pa&s;&s; &s;en|tence again&s;t him, as the Convention has done, or to declare the throne vacant, and the Crown forfeited. Had our law furnisht us with any pre&s;idents of &s;uch irregular proceedings, to bee &s;ure they had never &s;cap't the prying diligence of the long Parliament which yet could never fish out any one.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides it is an undeniable maxime in our law that <HI>the King can do no w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ong.</HI> None of his &s;ubjects therefore can complain of him much le&s;&s; impeach and judge him. But they may by law demand ju&s;tice of him again&s;t tho&s;e who have abus'd his authority in their &s;everall &s;tations. This is what our Lawyers have alvais delivered for Law without any contradiction, and which ought therefore have been a rule to the Peers and Commons in their proceedings, &s;ince neither their number, nor the face of their a&s;&s;embly exempts them from &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the laws, to which every man is &s;ubject Had they followed this rule, they might have repre&s;ented their grie|vances mode&s;tly to the King, and demanded ju&s;tice: in which their failing is the more inexcu&s;able, becau&s;e his Maje&s;ty had him&s;elf
<PB N="4" REF="3"> actually &s;ummoned a Parliament, where they might have freely dra+wn up any bill of complaint; prayd execution of the laws whether upon Papi&s;ts, or evil coun&s;ellors; and by unblamable ways obtained whatever they could rea&s;onably pretend. This way had &s;ecured them from tho&s;e misfortunes, into which they have now of &s;et purpo&s;e ca&s;t them&s;elves headlong, and which in all appearance will have very trouble&s;ome con&s;equences. For they have thrown their liberty into the greate&s;t hazard it has run the&s;e many ages, by chu&s;ing a ma&s;ter who by ways, &s;weet in appearance, but full of violence and cruelty, has already robbed one people of their li+berty, which got it by a long war, with the expence of infinite trea&s;ure, and more bloud than money. They have put our Religion in to the hands of a Presbyterian, who has already given it a fa|tall blow, by removing the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; and is about burying it, in the abolition of penal laws again&s;t Pro|te&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters, in altering the Book of Common-prayer and in a comprehen&s;ion, to which, whatever arts have been u&s;ed Parliaments hitherto would never yeeld. They have left our laws at the mercy of an U&s;urper, who has a &s;trong intere&s;t in their ruine, &s;ince, if they &s;tand, hee cannot avoyd his own. Succe&s;+&s;ion by right of inheritance, firmly e&s;tablisht without interruption for &s;o many ages, barred the gate at the very fir&s;t to his entrance in to this Kingdom, and much more &s;trongly &s;ince the birth of an heir apparent. And &s;o hee was fain to begin with breaking this law and oblidge a Convention at his beck, to declare him King: in which too hee has betrayd the rights of his Wife and &s;i&s;ter in law, and &s;acrificed both to his ambition. Hee is altogether as carele&s;&s; of the general intere&s;t of the Nation, which if hee dye without i&s;&s;ue, as yet hee has none, is like to fall in to confu&s;ion, and &s;ome body as ambitious as him&s;elf &s;et up for King, with a declaration of the Commons, and &s;ome Lords gained by promi&s;es or frighted by threats. No precaution can &s;ecure our quiet, now oa|ths oblige us to nothing, and wee make and unmake them at plea|&s;ure, as the fancy taKes us. The Church of England was a little gra|ting, with her doctrine contrary to Rebellion. And &s;o hee begins early to pull her doun, by pulling doun her props, all laws which are not favourable to his dear Presbyterians. The Nation was &s;u&s;pec+ted for its naturall ficklenes, and above all its jealou&s;y, which &s;o often &s;ets us at odds with ours lawfull &s;overaigns. And hee has taken good order, by bringing over forreign &s;oldiers enough to hold our no&s;es to the grind&s;tone. The too great liberty of every private man &s;tood not with his de&s;ign of &s;etting up arbitrary power here, as hee has in Holland, by impri&s;oning men, right or wrong, by denying ju&s;tice; and the like legall proceedings. And his rhe|torik has per&s;uaded his creatures that the publick good requires our too great liberty should bee re&s;trained, and for his &s;axe to &s;u&s;pend a law, as dear to us as the apple of our eye. I &s;ay no|thing but what is publicly known, neither is any body ignorant, that the pretexts, upon which wee revolted from the King, are &s;o very frivolous in compari&s;on of the infractions of the U&s;urper, that the hi&s;tory will hardly find belief with po&s;terity. For it is very apparent that all which has been objected to the King, and taken by the Convention for a &s;ufficient ground to vote the Throne vacant, is nothing to the tenth part of what the P. of Oran|ge has already done. The King, they &s;ay, has been ruled by evil coun&s;ellors; hee has endeavoured to &s;ubvert the fundamentall laws, hee has di&s;pens't with oaths enacted by Parliament; hee has attempted upon the liberty of the &s;ubject by extraordinary pro|ceedings; hee has di&s;pen&s;ed with the laws; hee has design'd a|gain&s;t the religion e&s;tablish't by law; hee has exerci&s;ed an arbitra|ry power. Why, tho all this were true, wherof half can never bee made out, his M. had done nothing which is not done by the Prince of Orange every day. Hee has &s;ubverted funda|mentall laws, and one or other I dare &s;ay made bold with a hundred; hee has layd by oaths enacted by the authoriy, of King and Parliament; hee impo&s;es others: hee is ruining Re|ligion: hee makes Fidelity, Trea&s;on, he impri&s;ons us again&s;t the Law; hee refu&s;es us what the law allows: hee overwhelms: us with taxes: hee is engaging us in a cruell, and infinitely char|geable war; and all this while our Gentlemen of the Con|vention are well content: do his drudgery for him, and has take it upon them&s;elves when they have done. The King has done, nothing of all this: hee has only di&s;pens't with what they have taken quite away, the laws which enjoynd the taking of the Oaths and very lately the Te&s;t; and this is enough to va|cate the Throne, and break the order of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion. The King had only a bare de&s;ign upon tho&s;e laws, which hee would not execute neither, but in a legall way, by exorting the members of the approaching Parliament to con&s;ent to a repeal of the Te&s;t; and liberty of con&s;cience. The Conventioners too had their de|&s;ign to remove them, for the &s;ake of Presbyterian Di&s;&s;enters. And this de&s;ign they have executed, and by &s;o doing vio|lated all our laws. For they met without authority; they attem|pted upon the prerogative, the liberty, and &s;afety of the per|&s;on of the King; they took up arms again&s;t him and joyned with his enemys; they broke their Oaths of fidelity; they brought in forreign forces in to the Kingdom: They have made a great &s;eal; they have leavyed mony upon the people; they have im|pri&s;oned free born Englishmen, over whom they had no man|ner of power. Let our law books bee con&s;ulted and it will bee found, that every one of the&s;e acts is High Trea&s;on; and that no law admits &s;overaign authority any where but in the King, nor allows &s;ubjects to redre&s;&s; all pretended abu&s;es and grievances of the Nation, by way of fact, or <HI>a&s;pert&egrave;,</HI> as the &s;pencers called it; but grants them the bare way of remon&s;trance.</P>
<P>Th&ocirc; wee should then &s;uppo&s;e, what never came in to the heads of our Ance&s;tors, that the King our ma&s;ter were to give an account of his actions to his people, and that the proceedings of the Con+ventioners could bear &s;ome shadow of ju&s;tice, I would ask tho&s;e graceles lawyers, who like Herode and Pilate took upon them to judge the <HI>annointed of the Lord,</HI> how they would regulate the form of proceeding. The truth is I cannot make the &s;uppo&s;ition wit|hout tears, when I remember what I &s;awe with my young eys, our ble&s;&s;ed King Charles the Martyr hurryed before tho&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">udges of iniquity, tho&s;e infernal &s;ouls, who condemned him to death with the mo&s;t execrable villany, of which a Nation was ever guil|ty, and which will di&s;grace us with eternall inf<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">my. Alas who can hope that our wretched Conventioners would not have u&s;ed the &s;on, as tho&s;e traytors u&s;ed the Father, now wee &s;ee that no re&s;pect of human, or divine laws is able to &s;top them: and who can chu&s;e but thank God with all his heart, for infu&s;ing in to his Maje&s;ty the re&s;olution of withdrawing out of the Kingdom in ti|me? But to return to my purpo&s;e, &s;uppo&s;e * who if they had had their due, would long &s;ince have had a halter, had, with their double portion of Bradshaw's &s;pirit, drawn up articles of impeachement again&s;t the King, and the Convention would try him, and his Maje&s;ty would &s;ubmit to make his defence: &s;ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">l hee mu&s;t bee allowd what cannot bee refu&s;ed to the meane&s;t man in the nation, to bee tryed <HI>By God and his countrey.</HI> To bee try'd <HI>by God</HI> &s;ignifys that the Judges, the Jury, and Witne&s;&s;es shall have God before their eys and do nothing but according to their con&s;cience, and the duty of a Chri&s;tian. For I do not think the Conventioners mad enough to under&s;tand tho&s;e words in the &s;en&s;e of that de&s;perat regicide Harri&s;on, who would bee try'd <HI>by the word of God,</HI> interpreted, that is, by a FanaticK. The whole a&s;&s;i&s;tance houted, when tho&s;e words came out of his mouth; and yet they were not &s;o ridiculous, according to the principles of the Convention. For if <HI>tryed by God</HI> do not &s;ignify, the im|pious interpretation by which the word of God is corrupted; the litterall &s;en&s;e of the word of God as it has been alwais under&s;tood by the Church of England, plainly is that wee are &s;ubject to Prin|ces <HI>not only for fear</HI> of what may befall us from their anger, <HI>but for con&s;cience</HI> of our duty: and that wee ought to look upon their power as received from God, and e&s;tablisht by him <HI>whom they that re&s;i&s;t, re&s;i&s;t God.</HI> &s;o that, bare Fanatici&s;m, a tryall between the King and his &s;ubjects will &s;oon bee ended. Tis but to act accor|ding to the word of God, and the rules of con&s;cience, which obli|ge us to keep the faith which wee have plighted, and our Oaths, in the naturall u&s;uall &s;en&s;e of the words, without the conditionall equivocations and re&s;trictions, which are propt in, from con&s;e|quences &s;erved out, of a pretended originall contract never main|taind by any but rebels. The Oaths wee have &s;worn to the King are ab&s;olute not conditionall. And &s;o by the fir&s;t clau&s;e <HI>by God,</HI> and likewi&s;e by the &s;econd <HI>by my countrey,</HI> which can &s;ignify nothing but <HI>by the laws of my country,</HI> all the&s;e pretended judges, who have declared the throne vacant, being the Kings liege men, ha|ving &s;worn obedience to him, and being in all things &s;ubject to his &s;overaign power yet bounded by the laws, cannot bee his Judges.</P>
<P>Ask the laws, and they will tell you that the King has his po|wer by a naturall right, ve&s;ted in him by birth, God, nature, and the law: that this power cannot bee &s;eparated from his per&s;on, in which the body naturall and politic, make but one body: that hee is the only &s;upreme governor, and no per&s;on has any authori|ty but by patent, or commi&s;&s;ion from him: that hee has ab&s;olute authority to make peace and war, leagues and alliances; to ap|point all officers civil, and military, to pardon all offences again&s;t the law: and full authority in matters Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall. This is what our laws teach of the King 's power without any contradiction, according to which it is ea&s;y to perceive that even the collective body of the Nation, whatever power it may have otherwi&s;e, has none over the per&s;on of the King. <HI>Omnis &s;ub rege, &amp; ip&s;e &s;ub nullo ni&s;i tantum Deo: non e&s;t inferior &s;ibi &s;ubjectis, non parem habet in regno &s;uo. Rex non habet &s;uperiorem ni&s;i Deum: &s;atis habet ad poenam quod Deum expectat ultorem.</HI> The&s;e are the words of Bracton, one of the greate&s;t Lawyers which England ever had, which no body yet ever contradicted, and wherof the truth is very evident. For if the King could in any ca&s;e what&s;oever, bee &s;ubject to his &s;ubjects &s;ome law mu&s;t needs bee producible in the point for the Conven|tion to alledge. But where should this law bee, of which no body ever heard a word, &s;ave from &s;ome criminals, who having un&s;uc|cesfully endeavoured to enact it by the &s;word, ownd it likewi&s;e at the gallows, like men without hone&s;ty, or fear of God, as they were. No mortall man can shew us a law, which makes the e&s;cape of a King, forced by rebellion and violence upon his per&s;on, to provide by that only means for his &s;afety, a forfeit of his right to the Crown. No mortall man can fur|nish us &s;o much as with one pre&s;ident, which authori&s;es that di&s;loyal maxime. And much le&s;s is the law di&s;coverable, which depo&s;es a King who has harkned to bad coun&s;el, or who&s;e mini&s;ters have done things worthy of punishement.</P>
<P>But that, which is in truth the great principle, and funda|mentall maxime of the Commons, the incompatibility of Po|pish religion with the quality of King of England, is yet more extraordinary. Strangers, who know nothing of our Law<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> can do no le&s;&s; than imagin, by their trayterous and abhomi|nable Vote, that in that plenty of laws made &s;ince the reign of Henry VIII. &s;ome one excludes Papi&s;ts from &s;ucceeding to the Crown. And yet there is not one. The mo&s;t famous in all
<PB N="5" REF="3"> our hi&s;tory, and the only one, is that, which authori&s;ed Henry VIII to di&s;po&s;e of the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion. And hee ordered the Crown should de&s;cend fir&s;t to his &s;on Edward VI. next in default of Heirs from him, to Mary his elde&s;t daughter, th&ocirc; born of a marriage declared by him&s;elf ince&s;tuous and null: In default of i&s;&s;ue by her, to Elizabeth born of Anne Bullen: and then to his own right heirs, that is, the children or de&s;cendents of Margarite Queen of Scotland. Here is no exclu&s;ion of Papi&s;ts, nor &s;o much as mention of Religion; which the truth is was not altogether changed at that time; Hee had only broken with Pope and &s;ee of Rome. According to this di&s;po&s;ition, Mary &s;ucceeded her brother Edward. Oppo&s;ition was made upon pretence of a will &s;ugge&s;ted to him by which hee conve|yed the crown to Jane Gray, and confirmed by an Act of Counci<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> under the great &s;eal, &s;et to it by order from the King: To all which &s;o little regard was had, that tho&s;e who had &s;igned the act of Counci, and in pur&s;uance of it proclaim'd Queen Jane, were pro&s;ecuted for High Trea&s;on. And &s;o all England acknowlegd, that notwith&s;tanding all the Acts of Henry VIII. for withdrawing obedience from the &s;ee of Rome, and tho&s;e of Edward VI. for &s;etling the Reformation, they could not exclude Mary on the &s;core of religion. Jane Gray, the Duke of Suffolk, the Marquis of Northampton, and &s;eve|rall others, who had &s;igned the order of Council, for the exclu&s;ion of Mary upon account of her religion, were im|peach't and condemn'd of High Trea&s;on, <HI>for having leavy'd War again&s;t the Queen, and con&s;pired to &s;et up another in her place.</HI> The Parliament in 1554. confirmed this &s;entence, and &s;o it is palpably law, by which they may bee pro&s;ecuted in the &s;ame manner, who pretend to exclude a Popish Prince or Prince&s;&s;e from &s;uccee|ding to the Crown For being never repealed, it is &s;till in force.</P>
<P>Queen Elizabeth might likewi&s;e have met with oppo&s;ition from Prote&s;tants. For during the reign of her &s;i&s;ter Mary, shee went to ma&s;&s;, and was outwardly a papi&s;t<NOTE N="*" PLACE="foot">Burnet. Hi&s;t. of the Reformation. l. <HI>2.</HI> p. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> Shee would bee crowned according to the Roman Pontificall by Owen Ogle|thorpe, the Popish Bishop of Carlisle: shee made Sir Edward Karne her agent at Rome give Paul IV an account of her coming to the crown: shee had a &s;olemn exequy performed for her &s;i&s;ter, and for Charles V with all the ceremonys of the Romish Church, and whatever shee had in her heart, did enough outwardly to exclude her &s;elf, if the Law had excluded a lawfull heir for difference in religion. But t'is plain there was no &s;uch lavv, and t'is very certain there has none been made &s;ince. When the Parliament in 1566 pre&s;t her to declare her pre&s;umtif heir and &s;ucce&s;&s;or, shee refus'd it, and would not have this matter toucht, which belonged not to the Parliament. Af|ter her death the nation obliged them&s;elves by oath to James I. and his po&s;terity, in vertue of who&s;e right the &s;ucceeding Kings have reigned, and the oath taken to the head of the family by our ance&s;tors, obliges us to obey his po&s;terity. Nor is there any glimps of any thing in our law, which shocks their right, &s;ave the proceedings of the long Parliament, which attempted to take the monarchy quite away; but which can no more bee drawn in to example, than the Vo|tes of the Commons in the Parliaments of We&s;tmin&s;ter and Oxford, when they &s;trove to obtain the con&s;ent of his late Mty. to the exclu&s;ion of the Duke of York. No body is &s;o little a lawyer not to know that the Votes of one, or both Hou&s;es are not law, nor more than body without &s;oul, till they get life by the Royall a&s;&s;ent. There is no force, nor life, nor form in all that was done at that time, no more than in divers attempts of that nature heretofore, which never exemp|ted tho&s;e from the rigour of the laws, who broke them: neither do they &s;erve for any thing, but only to shew that the Convention is animated by the &s;ame fanatik &s;pirit of re|bellion, which has alwais been the character of Presbyterians, of whom the Lower Hou&s;e is full. But King Charles II remai|ned firm again&s;t the Addre&s;&s;es of the Commons in this bu&s;i|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">es, and &s;uddenly di&s;&s;olved the Oxford Parliament, and &s;o all they may have done, was intirely null. The Commons them|&s;elves were far from being unanimous in this point. My Lord Dartmouth then no Peer, nor rebell, and divers others made <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">iff oppo&s;ition: and Sir Leoline Ienkins, &agrave; man never &s;u&s;pec|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ed of betraying the intere&s;t of the Nation, who under|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ood the law as well, as any other in the whole Kingdo|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">e, delivered him&s;elf to this &s;en&s;e. <HI>No Bill was ever offred a Parliament of the like nature, &s;o much again&s;t the ju&s;tice of the Nation. It condemns a man never heard and then t'is a Law made</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters"> po&s;t facto. <HI>Very extraordinary! Again&s;t the fundamentall ju&s;tice <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">f the Nation, and will introduce a change of the Governement. <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">f the Duke will try to cut this Law with his &s;word, if he over|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">me, he will have the &s;ame power to &s;et a &s;ide all Laws both <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> Religion, and property: the power will be in the hands of the Conqueror, and certainly, he will change the governement. 'Tis <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">gain&s;t the Religion of the Nation, which teaches us to pay obe|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">nce to our Governours whether good or bad, never &s;o faulty or <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">minall. In primitive Chri&s;tianity obedience vas paid to Heathen <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">rinces</HI> in licitis &amp; hone&s;tis, <HI>and we are not to do evil, that good <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">y come of it, nor on the pro&s;pect of any good. I shall &s;ay one word <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">re, 'tis again&s;t the Oaths of the Nation, of Allegiance and Supremacy. <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> Duke is the Kings lawfull heir, if he have no &s;on, and in the eye</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="foot"><HI>Heylin p.</HI> 98. 102. 105. 106.</NOTE> <HI>of the Law I am &s;worn to him, and every oath is in the &s;en&s;e of the Lawgiver. If this de&s;inheri&s;on pa&s;&s; now&punc; into a new Law, who di&s;pen&s;es me from that oath to the King?</HI> This was the judg|ment of that great man, and which &s;topt the mouth of the other party to all, but fopperys. They are to bee &s;een in the Deba|tes of the Hou&s;e, which whoever will read, without prejudice, I am certain will find that never were things &s;aid more impertinent, nor more contrary to all our laws, to our religion, and common &s;en&s;e. For tho&s;e Parliaments, keeping &s;ome mea&s;ures, the thought wherof troubles not the heads of our Conventioners, were not able to ground their motions upon any firm principle, becau&s;e in reality there is no fundamentall maxime, which has the force of Law, to abet the exclu&s;ion of a lawfull heir. They were for it then to talk in the air of the pre&s;ervation of Prote&s;tant Religion, as a &s;ufficient an&s;wer to all that had been alledged, and this they turned a hundred ridiculous ways. But &s;aid not a word of the obligation of their Oaths; the laws of the Land; the doctrine of our Church; and the in|conveniences of their project, which was found &s;o ridiculous at la&s;t, that, as Sir H. Coventry put them in mind, while they excluded the Duke for his Religion, the Bill was &s;o worded, that if the Duke should turn Prote&s;tant, he will be excluded, and if the Prince&s;&s;e of Orange turn Papi&s;t she will be not excluded. You may remember, my Lord, that divers &s;uch reflexions were at that time made upon that mon&s;truous bill and among the re&s;t, that all went upon the pre&s;ervation of Prote&s;tant Reli|gion, which they pretended could not bee &s;ecure with a Po|pish &s;ucce&s;&s;or: as if God, and the Laws allow all that is done upon pretext of maintaining Religion. But the Presbyterian Religion has privileges which others have not, and lights which wee blind good men want, who hardly &s;tirring out of our Univer&s;itys and Churches, have no in&s;ight in the affairs of the world. And yet wee can &s;ee that the ancient Chri&s;tians believed they ought to pray for the lives of even infidel Prin|ces: and that the Presbyterian Mini&s;ters, with their pure word of God, prayd in Queen Marys time that God at his choyce, would either take idolatry out of her, or her out of the world This was the zeal of tho&s;e furys, who flying out of England, &s;candali&s;ed good Prote&s;tants, almo&s;t every whe|re, &s;o that they were banisht from &s;everall places, at the re|que&s;t of their Conformi&s;t countrymen, for making open &s;chi&s;ms, and following a doctrine and di&s;cipline, directy contrary to our Church. Melancton is a witnes that &s;ome called them the Devil's martyrs. <HI>Vociferantur quidam Martyres Anglos e&s;&s;e martyres diaboli.</HI> But our modern Presbyterians mu&s;t, to their confu&s;ion, look upon them&s;elves as very short of the zeal of the fir&s;t. For they at lea&s;t &s;uffered for Prote&s;tant Religion: ours are all for troubling the peace of our Church, and, &s;ince the beginning of this age, for making others &s;uffer. No &s;uffering them&s;elves, they thank you, nor any thing which may lead lo martyrdom. They have de&s;troyed more good Prote&s;tants the&s;e la&s;t 50. years, than the mo&s;t cruel per&s;ecutors of the Reformation have cut off in more than hundred, and vee find few in whom there is any di&s;po&s;ition to &s;uffer for religion. Tis true, that as one of their articles of faith is rebellion, and re&s;i&s;tance of lawfull powers, many have &s;uffered death upon that account, and they are the martyrs of the party, who&s;e good name I expect will bee re&s;tored by the Convention, th&ocirc; to their own eternall infamy. I expect the mourning anniver&s;ary which wee keep with too much rea&s;on the 30 of January for the mur|ther of King Charles I. should bee &s;uppre&s;t, and another ap|pointed in it 's place, to deplore the innocent bloud of the Duke of Monmouth, Earl of Argyle, My lord Ru&s;&s;el, and the like mar|tyrs, who dying impenitent in a manife&s;t rebellion, have a fair title to martyrs of the Devil, the father of lyes, and perjury, and a homicide from the beginning, who alone could in&s;pire men with tho&s;e abhominables maximes of rebellion, which have overflowed England with bloud, armed brother again&s;t brother, and &s;everall years maintained tirants in the thrones of their lawfull &s;overaings.</P>
<P>But I hope that God at la&s;t will let his ju&s;tice loo&s;e, ho|wever the &s;uccesfull beginnings of their rebellion flatter them, which by a horrid bla&s;phemy they attribute to a &s;peciall ble&s;|&s;ing. They are not content to publish their pretended miracles of delivrance from the bondage of Popery and Arbitrary power at home, but have their trompets abroad to &s;ound them be|yond &s;ea, and heighten them by reflexions in which the &s;pi|rit of &s;edition and anarchy is vi&s;ible, but not the &s;malle&s;t &s;park of charity. The mo&s;t &s;ignal of them all is that extrava|gant Commentator upon the Apocalip&s;e, that millenary Here|tic, who makes &s;uch a din in Holland, where hee is admired, becau&s;e hee finds fanatiks and fools like him&s;elf, and where, &s;ince the Prince of Orange raign there, one mu&s;t preach rebellion to bee endured. Nothing is more plea&s;ant then to &s;ee how this man of vi&s;ions heaps up miracles for us to take notice of the &s;ucce&s;&s; of an U&s;urper, and to prove that wee ought to look upon him as our deliverer, and obey him as our law|full King. But this is ju&s;t Presbyterian con&s;cience. What has not this extravagant man &s;aid and written to prove again&s;t the reproaches of the Papi&s;ts, that the Reformed in France have alwais taught, and alwais practi&s;ed obedience to lawfull Kings and Princes? How often has hee tired the patience of his readers with his tedious amplifications upon the prai&s;e of tho&s;e of his
<PB N="6" REF="4"> &s;ect for fidelity. And yet this is the very man who is now becom the panegyri&s;te of Rebellion, the man who teaches that &s;ubjects may take up arms again&s;t their Prince, upon pretext of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">eligion; hee who in the marks hee gives of the certain character of Antichri&s;t, which hee will needs find in the Pope, a&s;&s;igns and particularly reflects upon the authority, which the Italians attribute to him, of ab&s;olving &s;ubjects from their oaths of fidelity to their Princes. Another would have reflected that this bids fair to expo&s;e the Prote&s;tants in France to the utmo&s;t rigour, in a Kingdom where the power is very ab&s;olute. But what others &s;uffer, never troubles the&s;e mer|cenary Pa&s;tors, provided they bee &s;afe them&s;elves. Hee has pre|acht obedience to the Prote&s;tants of France; hee has bragged of the obedience of tho&s;e in England, as long as the King reigned peaceably: now an u&s;urper has &s;eized the crown, the note is changed, and hee preaches the direct contrary: and if the u&s;urpation, which God forbid, should &s;tand, hee will &s;ee new vi&s;ions, and dream new dreams, to prove, that wee ow more to a Tirant, than our lawfull Kings ever pretended from us. When the Hollanders shall at la&s;t becom &s;en&s;ible that they are wholy oppre&s;t, by this public enemy of liberty, who has already, reduct theirs to a wor&s;e slavery, than that could bee wherof they shook off the yoke, he will have his vi&s;io+nary rea&s;ons ready cut and dry'd, to convince them, that re&s;i&s;ting the Prince of Orange, is re&s;i&s;ting God. But the &s;crip|ture loads tho&s;e with cur&s;es who go different ways, as our Conventioners, and this Fanatik, who are provided wherewith to content Princes, and wherewith to ju&s;tify U&s;urpers, and Ti+rants. T'is but what they learnt from Calvin, and his fellow reformers of Geneva, who&s;e doctrine has alwais been like the two basKets of figs, the one good, the other naught &amp; di&s;relishing, which according to the application of Dr Hey+lin, God shew'd the Prophet Jeremy.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="foot">Heylin Stumbling-blok. c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> For, as hee well ob|&s;ervs none ever e&s;tablisht the doctrine of obedience to Kings &amp; Princes, and the unlawfulnes of taking up arms again&s;t &s;ouveraigns, more po&s;itively, and expresly than Calvin; and at the &s;ame time none opens a gate to di&s;obedience and re|bellion more dangerously. But truth is one, &amp; unchangea|ble, particularly when it has relation to the public &s;afety And if it bee ill to di&s;gui&s;e it, tis unpardonnably criminall to betray it, and cover the di&s;&s;embling of it by fal&s;e oaths, as the Huguenots in France, and Convention-Presbyterians in this Kingdom have done. Tho&s;e, who will, may abu&s;e the name of God, by attributing with intolerable &s;acriledge, the &s;ucce&s;&s; of the mo&s;t damnable attempt that has been heard of this long time; to his ble&s;&s;ing; according to which fal&s;e ma|xime, which the Parliament rebels of 1640. likewi&s;e inhan|ced, Mahumeti&s;m is to bee &s;aid more precious to God than Chri&s;tiani&s;m, and &s;o many martyrs, who shed their bloud in the primitive Church, were men abandon'd by God, and the per&s;ecutors his favourites. Who does not know that God makes u&s;e of the wicked, and reprobates to cha&s;ti&s;e his children? And who can chu&s;e but acknowledge that his almighty hand is become heavy upon this nation, which has de&s;erved new cha&s;ti&s;ements by new rebellions? But good Chri&s;tians will not for this lo&s;e the confidence they ought to have in his mercy, but hope the ungodly man who is now <HI>exalted like the Cedars of Libanus,</HI> will di&s;apear, without leaving any trace behind him; that the cha&s;ti&s;ing rod will bee ca&s;t into the fire; and that the <HI>peaceable man</HI> our good King who&s;e retiring &s;pared a great deal of his &s;ubjects bloud, will yet find fidelity enough to pay him the obedience due to him, and re&s;eat him upon the throne of his Ance&s;tors. This &s;eemingly head of Gold, is not yet &s;o &s;trongly cemented to it's feet of mingled iron and clay, that it may not fall in a moment. I know not what will come of all this, but without pretending to the prophet, I dare venture to a&s;&s;ure you, that this new rebellion will draw new misfortunes upon the Nation, of which wee of the Clergy are like to have the fir&s;t &s;ad experience. But whatever hap|pen, being &s;trongly per&s;waded of all I vrite, and not finding my con&s;cience di&s;pos'd to allow mee to change my mind, and acknowledge an u&s;urper, I am preparing for what may follow, and have already taken order for my little concerns, to bee ready, as &s;oon as our new oaths come to choak us, to retire, and perhaps without expecting that extremity, to slip out of the Kingdom, if I find oportunity. I hope you will favour mee with your good advice on this occa&s;ion, and bee pleas'd, if I should bee forced to dislodge &s;uddenly, to find mee out a &s;ecure retreat &s;omewhere for a few days. At lea&s;t I be&s;eech you to believe that I vrite nothing but what my con&s;cience dictates, and which I am ready to maintain, even before the Convention, at the hazard of martyrdom. <HI>J am pur|po&s;ed</HI> according the words of the p&s;alm<NOTE N="*" PLACE="foot"><HI>P&s;alm.</HI> 17.</NOTE>, <HI>that my mouth shall not tran&s;gre&s;&s;e</HI> my oaths: and <HI>concerning the works of men</HI> hope I shall &s;tick clo&s;e to the word of God, and <HI>keep me by the word of his lips, from the ways of the de&s;troyer</HI> of royall authority. If you my Lord bee of opinion that this letter which my zeal and affliction has lengthned beyond my intention, may bee u&s;efull towards keeping or confirming any of our friends in their duty, you may shew it to whom you plea&s;e: but I be&s;eech you name mee not, but to my Lords *** and *** and to Sir *** I am.</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><HI>From my hou&s;e of</HI> *** <DATE>30 <HI>March</HI> 1689.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
