IN one of the late Conferences you were pleased to have with me, you seemed to be somewhat disatisfied upon the subject we were discours­ing of, which was, whither the King had by Law such a Supream Power inher­ent in, and inseparably annexed to his Crown, as to Dispence with Penal Laws.

I remember I then told you, we could not resolve our selves of this Great Point, but by these two wayes.

1. To see, how far the Judgment of our Church-men, appear­ing in their Doctrines (which are for our Edification) doth Warrant this Prerogative to be in the King.

[Page 4] II. To see how far the Judges Resolutions (in declaring their sence of the Law of the Land in this doubtful Question,) do agree with such their Judg­ments and Doctrines.

And as for the First, Sir, I doubt not but to make it clear, past all peradven­ture, that our Reverend Clergy of the Church of England have unanimously concurred in this Point of Doctrine, that it doth inseparably belong to the King­ly office to dispence with Penal Laws, when ever such a Supremacy of Power shall be thought necessary to be exerted for the safety of the King, and the Good and Ease of his People in general. And if I can prove this undeniably to You; I hope then that this nice Scruple of yours (which by the way, I suppose, you will allow me to call your tender Consci­ence) will easily be removed; and con­sequently then it may be presumed, I shall [Page 5] have less difficulty to Satisfie You in the other Point, that this sence of the Law of the Land in the point in Question, is no other, than what is exactly Correspon­dent with the Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of Eng­land.

To begin then,

The Reverend Dean of Worcester, in his so deservedly applauded Answer to Dr Hick's Jo­vian. chap. 10. Julian the Apostate, declares, that the English Realm is a perfect soveraignty, or Empire, and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it, is a Compleat, Imperial, and Independant Soveraign. And he quotes Coke in Cawdrye's Case, who saith, that by the antient Laws of this Realm, England is an absolute Em­pire, and Monarchy; and that the King is furnished with plenary and En­tire Power, Prerogative, and Jurisdicti­on, and is supream Governour over all persons within this Realm.

Now it would be a contradiction to call [Page 6] this an Imperial Crown; to acknowledge the King for supream over all Persons,—and that he is furnished with Plena­ry and entire Power, unless He have all Those Rights, which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraign­ty.

By the Rights of Soveraign, saith He, I understand Those Prerogatives, and Pre­eminences of Power and Greatness, which are involved in the Formal Conception of Soveraignty, and are inseparably annexed to the Soveraign.—He hath no sharers or Co-partners in the Soveraignty; None Co-ordinate with him in Government; no Equal, nor Superiour, but only God, to whom Alone He is subject,— ‘All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Tempor­al is derived and deducted from Him, as supream Head of These Churches, and Realms.’

There are some Essential Rights of the Sir Robert Pointz Knight of the Bath, his vindication of Monarchy. chap. 8. Crown, which the Subjects cannot obtain from their Soveraign by any Grant or pre­scription, [Page 7] without destroying the essential and individual Rights of Monarchy. These Rights, called the Flowers of the Crown, are Regalia Suprema, or Summa Jura Im­perij, regno tuendo servientia, inherent to his Royal Function, and politick Capacity, and serve for the strength and support there­of—such are the Rights of making War and Peace, of having the last Appeal unto him, or his Great Council and supream Court; and of making Leagues, and of Dispensing with Penal Laws, granting pardons, and such like.

Now if the King hath a perfection and fulness of Imperial Power in him, as Dr Dr. Hicks ut. Sup. Hicks hath clearly made out, and This Power of dispensing with Penal Laws be (as it must be, or nothing) one of those Prerogatives and Pre-eminencies of power and Greatness, which are involved in the Formal Conception of Soveraignty; Then certainly it is very plain, that This is an Essential Right inseparably annexed to our Imperial Soveraign: and to go about [Page 8] to deprive him of such an inherent Right, it would tend to the disinherison of the 4. Inst. p 14. Suprema Juris­dictio & potes­tas Regia, et si Princeps velit, se seperari non possunt, sunt enim ipsa for­ma, et Substan­tialis Essentia Majestatis, ergo manente Rege ab eo abdicari non possunt. Cavedo, Pract. observ. p. 2. decis. 40. n. 8. King and his Crown. This Phrase, he saith, of the disinherison of the King and the Crown in other Stat. of Prae­munire, 16. R. 2. cap. 5. Acts of Parliament is called, The Destruction of the King's Soveraignty, his Crown, his Regality, and things that tend thereunto, things that are openly against the King's Crown in Derogation of this Re­gality.

And, Sir to convince You, that the King hath this Perfection and fulness of Power, more especially in matters of Re­ligion, in his sacred Person, you may please to be informed, that that Great Me­tropolitan of All England, ‘Arch-bishop Bancroft, when Question was made of Dr. Richard Bancroft made Lord Arch-Bishop of Cant. 1604. what matters the Ecclesiastical judges have cognisance, either upon the expo­sition 12. Co. fo. 64. 5. Jac. of the Statutes concerning Tythes, or any other thing Ecclesiastical, or upon the Statute 1 Eliz. concerning the High Commission, or in any other case in which there is not express Authority in Law,’ [Page 9] declared, ‘That the King himself may decide it in his Royal Person; and that the Judges are but the Delegates of the King, and that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine, from the De­termination of the Judges, and may deter­mine them himself. And the Archbishop said, that this was clear in Divinity, that such Authority belongs to the King by the word of God in the Scripture.’ So that Eminent Prelate.

For, as it is well observed by that Learn­ed Knight, and Doctor in the Civil Law, Sir Thomas Ridley. ‘His Majesty, by Ridley's View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law, dedicated to King James 1. 3d Edition, part 4. chap. 1. Sect. 1. communicating his Authority to the Judges to expound his Laws, doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself, but that he may assume it again to him, when, and as often as he pleaseth, whose Inter­pretation in that is to be preferred be­fore Theirs.’ For, as he saith in another place, ‘He is both by the Ordinance of God and Man, [...], (as the Id. part 2. ch. 1. sect. 7. Apostle terms him) among them, that is, One who is Supream Soveraign above the 1 Pet. 2. 13. [Page 10] Rest, and whom they ought in all things to obey, so it be not against the Law of God, and Common Justice; for himself is insteed of the whole Law, Yea, he is the Law it self, and the only INTER­PRETER thereof, as in whose Breast is the whole Knowledg of the same.’

Now, Sir, what Answer can you give to all This? if it be clear in Divinity, that such Authority belongs to the King by the word of God in the Scripture, with what Colour of Reason can you deny the King's Imperial Soveraignty in dispensing with Pe­nal Laws?

But to proceed more clearly to the Point in Question, The most Reverend, Renown­ed and Religious Prelate and Patriot, Dr W. Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘A man of such Eminent vertue, (as the Author Cyprianus Ang­licus, by Dr Hey­lin, D. D. and Chaplain to Charles the 1st and Charles the 2d, 2 part. of his life writes of him) Such an Ex­emplary Piety towards God, such an un­wearied fidelity to his Gracious Soveraign, and of such a Publick Soul towards Church and State, that he lived the Ho­nour, and dyed a Martyr of both. I say, Epist. Dedicat. [Page 11] this Great, but at last unfortunate Pre­late, thus delivers his Considerate Opini­on, Arch-Bishop Laud against Fisher, Printed 1673. that the Supream Magistrate in the Estate Civil, may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament, though he may dis­pence with the Sanction or Penalty of the Law, quoad hic & nunc, as the Law­yers speak.’

The next I shall give You, is, that Learned and moderate Primate and Me­tropolitan of all Ireland, Dr. James Ʋsher, late Lord Arch-bishop of Armagh, who in his Book entituled, The Power communica­ted by God to the Prince, and the obedience required of the Subject, composed purpose­ly for the Rights both of Princes and Sub­jects, Vid Epis. de­dicat. to King Charles 2. by James Tyrr [...]l Esq and for the comfirmation of stag­gering Loyalty, assures us, that POSI­TIVE LAWS, being (as other works of men are) IMPERFECT and not free from many discommodities, if the STRICT OBSERVATION thereof should be pursued in EVERY PARTICULAR; it is fit the SUPREAM Governour should not himself only be EXEMPT­ED [Page 12] from SUBJECTION thereunto, but also be so far LORD OVER THEM, that where he feeth cause he may ABATE, or TOTALLY REMIT the PENALTY incurred by the Breach of them, DIS­PENCE with others for the NOT OBSER­VING of them at all; yea, and generally SUSPEND the EXECUTION of them, when by experience he shall find the Incon­veniences to be greater then the profit that was expected should redound thereby unto the Common-wealth. PLUTARCH setteth Plutarch, in Comparat. Fla­minij et Philo­poemen. this down as a chief point of that natural skill which PHILOPOEMEN had in Go­vernment, that he ‘did not only rule ac­cording to the Laws, but over-ruled the Laws themselves, when he found it con­ducing to the weal-publick.’

And he saith a little before, by the LAW OF THE KING, I understand such ordi­nances as are MEERLY CIVIL and PO­SITIVE; the COACTIVE POWER whereof being DERIVED from him who is the SUPREAM LAW-GIVER UNDER GOD ON EARTH, He himself cannot [Page 13] properly be said to be tyed thereby. For as with the Grammarians, the Imperative mood hath no first Person, so with the Civilians, Marcian in l. si de re sua, de recept, arbit, vid. et Ʋlpian in l. ille a quo, Sect. Tempesti­vum, D. ad Se­nat. Trebel. et in l. Quod au­tem, Sec. Ʋxori quis D. de donat inter, viz. no man can command or forbid him­self; at least wise, no Hermog, in l. si quis Sect. 1. D. deleg 3. man can impose such a Law upon himself, but that he may re­cede from it when he pleaseth. And with the Schoolmen▪ a Law hath power to direct such Acts as belong to those who are sub­ject to the Government of Thom. 112. quest. 93. artic. 5. another; whereupon no man, if we speak properly, doth impose a Law upon his own Acts. As no man therefore is superior to himself, so no man hath Jurisdiction over himself; because none can oblige a man against his will, but only his Superiour, and the Jurisdiction over a man's self may be dissolved at Pleasure.

KINGS therefore, as he affirms in ano­ther place, are said to be ABOVE THE LAWS whereby they govern their People, partly in respect of Themselves, partly in respect of Others: Of OTHERS, in as­much as they have POWER to JUDGE Cynus in l. rescript, Cod. de precib. Im­per. offerend. according to their own CONSCIENCE, [Page 14] and not according to the Letter of the Law; as also to DISPENCE in some Cases with Thom. in 1. 2. quest. 96. artic. 5. ad 3. the very OBEDIENCE, in some with the PUNISHMENT required by the LAW.

For, he quotes Aeneas Silvius a little after saying, ‘ Equity is that which is just beyond the written Law: Now if the Law doth command one thing, and Equity perswade another, it is fit the Emperor should temper the Rigour of the Law with the Bridle of Equity, as He who alone may and ought to look unto that inter­pretation which lieth interposed between Law and Equity. Especially seeing no De­cree of the Law, although weighed with never so considerate Councel, can suffici­ently answer the varieties and unthought on plottings of Mans Nature. And see­ing the Condition of human Law is such, that it runneth always without stint, and there is nothing in it which can be at a perpetual stand; it is manifest, that in tract of time the Laws which before were just, prove afterwards to be unjust, and be­come now unprofitable, now harsh, now [Page 15] unrighteous: for the moderating whereof there is need of the Prince, who is Lord of the LAWS. For if it fall out, that any thing hath been more obscurely de­livered therein, it is fit the Emperor should clear it, and amend that harshness of the Laws, which he shall find to be contrary and disagreeable to his humanity. For where it is said, that a Law, although it be hard, should yet be observed; that respecteth the inferiour Judges, and not the Emperour; in whom is that Power of moderating the Laws which they call [...], or Equity, which is so annexed to the Supremacy of the Prince, that by Aeneas Silvi­us de Ortu & Authoribus Im­perii, cap. 20. 21. no Decrees of man it can be pulled from it. Thus far Aeneas Silvius out of him.’

‘In regard of Themselves Kings are said to be exempted from Subjection to the Laws, both because they are not tyed’ (otherwise than for conveniency and good Example's sake) ‘to the observance of such as are meer positive and tempo­rary Laws; and because they are not [Page 16] liable to the Civil Punishments set down for the breach of any Law, as having no superiour upon earth that may exer­cise any such Power over them.’

And again, saith this Great Prelate, while the Laws do stand in force, Justin Ju­nior, Imp. in praefatione con­seit 3. it is fit ‘that somtimes the King's Clemency should be mingled with the severity of them; especially when by that means the subjects may be freed from much detriment and dammage: Symmach, l. 10. Ep. ult. The Condition of the Ma­gistrates, whose Sentence is held corrupt, if it be milder than the Laws, being one thing; the Power of Princes, whom it becometh to qualifie the sharpness of them, a far different matter.’

To this Eminently Reverend and Ju­dicious Primate, I shall next subjoyn the In his Pre­face and Life by Dr Isaac Walton. humble, patient and learned Dr Robert Sanderson, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln, that you may see what his Opinion is in this matter. But before I give you his Words, let me beg your favour to hear what the Modest and Holy Writer of his Life, Dr Isaac Walton says of that Book from [Page 17] whence I produce them. How much the Learned World stands obliged to Him for his Lectures de Conscientia, I shall not attempt to declare, as being very sensible, that the Best Pens must needs fall short in the com­mendation of them: So that I shall only add, that they continue unto this day, and will do for ever, as a Compleat Standard for the Resolution of the most material doubts in Casuistical Divinity. And now Sir, pray observe what the Bishop says.

Ʋpon a Doubt, how may that be understood which so commonly is spoken, Salus Populi Bishop Sander­son's Cases of Conscience, translated by Robert Codring­ton, Master of Arts, Printed 1660. ninth Lecture. est Suprema Lex, the safety of the Peo­ple is the Supream Law; he, among other things, thus declares, ‘There is no sober man will deny, that the Safety of the Peo­ple, that is, of the whole Commonalty, as that word comprehends the King, to­gether with the Subjects, is the Supream Law; but that the Safety of the People, that is, of the Subjects, the King being excluded, is the Supream Law, there is no man will affirm it, unless he be a Fool, or an Imposter; a Fool, if he doth [Page 18] believe what he himself saith, and an Imposter, if he doth not believe it. But if any man will seriously look into the O­riginal of this Aphorism, I do believe he will more easily grant, that it ought more precisely to be understood of the Safety of the Prince, than of the Safety of the Subjects. This Saying, so tossed up and down in the Mouthes of all Men, came to us from the Romans, and was then used by them when their Re­publick did flourish most of all under a Popular State: And there is no great Reason that any man should wonder, that the People's Safety was the Supream Law with them, with whom the People themselves were the Supream Power; In the Judgment therefore of those wise Antients, who were the first Authors of this Aphorism, the Safety of the Supream Power was the Supream Law, of the Peo­ple indeed in a Democracy, but of a King in Monarchy.’

‘But I say, it being admitted, but not granted, that this Aphorism is properly [Page 19] understood of the Safety of the People, that is, of the Subjects, it is nevertheless perversly wrested to the Prejudice of Re­gal Dignity, which even so doth render its Power more Ample and Illustrious in this sence. A King that gives Laws and Statutes to his People will not be so bound up by his Laws, that it shall not be law­ful for him, the safety of the Common-wealth being in an apparent danger, to provide for the safety of Kingdom and People committed to him by God, even against the words of the Law; not that it is lawful for Subjects under the pretence of the defence of their Liberty to break all the bonds of Laws and Fidelity, and by an intollerable presumption to trample on the Authority of their King, but that it is lawful for the Prince, in the Preservati­on of his own and his Subjects Safety, to lay aside for a while all strict observance of the Laws, and to make use a little of an Arbi­trary Right, least by too unseasonable and superstitious Reverence of the Laws, he may suffer both his own Person, and his People [Page 20] that are subject to him, and even the Laws themselves, to fall into the Power of his Enemies.’

I will close up this Christian Doctrine of our Bishops with one Authority more, and that is of our Present Right Reverend Father in God, Thomas Lord Bishop of Sermon preach­ed upon the a­niversary so­lemnity of the happy Inaugu­ration of our dread Soveraign Lord King James 2. by Thomas Cart­wright, D. D. Dean of Rippon, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty. Chester, in his Sermon on the 6th of Feb. 1685/6;. in the Collegiate Church of Rippon, where you will find him thus to inform you, and all other good Subjects; ‘So that the King may, it seems, make use of his Prerogative, as God does of his Omnipo­tence, upon some extraordinary occasi­ons: For as my Lord Hobart well ob­serves, The Statute Laws are made to ease him of his Labour, not to deprive him of his Power, and that he may make a Grant Colt and Glo­ver against the Bishop of Litch­field. with a Non-obstante to them: And indeed the Power of dispensing with particular Laws, in some Emergencies, is such a Lex Coronae, such a Prerogative, without which no Kingdom can be well govern­ed, but Justice will be turned into Worm­wood. For there never was yet, nor ever [Page 21] will be, any human Law, framed with such exact Skill and Policy, that it might not, on some occasion or other, be bur­thensome to the Subject, and obstructive to the publick good of the Common-wealth: There being particular Cases and Exigencies, so infinitely various, that 'tis impossible for the wit of man to foresee or prevent them. And therefore in all Government there must be a Power Paramount to the written Law; and we have good reason to bless God, that this is lodged but in One, and in him whom he hath set over us, to be his Vice-ge­rent; by whose Authority, they who break the Letter of the Law, in pure Zeal and Loyalty, to serve the ends of Government, and to uphold the Crown on the Right Head, that does and ought to wear it, may be relieved, and pardoned, and rewarded too.’

Thus Sir, have I given you in short the Sence and Judgment of our Spiritual Guides, the Great Fathers of the Church of England in the Point in Question be­tween [Page 22] us; I will now discend to men of less degree in the Church, but they shall be men of great and eminent Learning, sober Understandings, and of examplary Piety and Gravity, and you shall hear how they All concur in the same Judgment as concerning this Point of Regal Soveraignty.

‘The First shall be the Reverend Dr Pe­ter Heylin. whose knowledge was ex­tensive as the Earth, and who had a par­fect familiarity with the present State In the Account of Dr Heylin's Life. of all the Countries in the World,’ (as the Ingenious Author of his Life informs us) and ‘one who is honoured by all true Sons of the Church of England, with a due veneration for his Learned and Elabourate Works. And He speaks thus.’

‘He (viz. the King) hath Authority by his Prerogative Royal to dispence with the Rigor of the Laws, and sometimes to pass by a Statute with a Non-obstante.’

The Learned and Judicious Dr Isaac Barrow, late Master of Trinity Colledge in [Page 23] Cambridge, in his Treatise concerning the Popes Supremacy affirms thus— ‘It is indeed a proper Indowment of an ab­solute Soveraignty, immediately and immutably constituted by God, with no Terms or Rules limitting it, that its will declared in way of Precept, Proclamati­ons concerning the Sanction of Laws, the Abrogation of them, the Dispensation with them, should be observed.’

And says he a few Leaves futher, ‘The Power of enacting and dispencing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching exteriour Discipline did of old belong to the Em­peror. And it was reasonable that it should; because old Lawss might not conveniently sute with the Present State of things, and the publick welfare; because new Laws might conduce to the good of Church and State, the care of which is incombent on him; because the Prince is bound to use his Power and Authority to promote Gods Service, the best way of doing which may be by fra­ming Orders conducible thereunto.’

[Page 24]And in another place he declares that ‘it is a Priviledge of Soveraigns to grant Priviledges, Exemptions, Dispensations.’

Thus sayes the Reverend Dr Sherlock, Master of the Temple, in a positive man­ner, ‘it does not become any man, who can think three Consequences off, to Dr Sherelock's Case of Resi­stance, chap. 6. talk of the Authority of Laws, in deroga­tion to that Authority of the Soveraign Power.’ The Soveraign Power made the Laws, and can repeal them, and dispence with them, and make new Laws: the ‘ only Power and Authority of the Laws is in the Power which can make and exe­cute Laws. Soveraign Power is inseper­able from the Person of a Soveraign Prince.’

I shall in the next place give you the words of the Ingenious, and most pain­ful Searcher into Truths, John Nalson, Dr. of Laws, whose indefatigable Industry hath sufficiently appeared in those Vo­lumes of Historical Collections he lived Dr Nalson's Common Inte­rest of King & People, chap. 6. to see published to the World, his words are These.

[Page 25] ‘In the Kings Power it is to remit the Severities of the Penal Laws, whereby he may manifest his Goodness and Cle­mency as well as his Greatness and Justice, by graciously pardoning the Smaller Breaches of his Laws, and the more Capital Offences which he might most just­ly punnish.’

And who in the World can dispute this? When, as Dr. Hick's in his Jovian tells us for certain, that upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Soveraign Authority, he must also be understood to be­stow upon him all the Jura Majestatis, or essential Rights of Soveraignty, according to that Maxime, ‘Qui dat esse, dat et omnia pertinentia ad esse; He that gives the Essence, gives also the Properties belonging to the Essence.’ And doth not all mankind consent in this, that the King is the fountain of mercy as well as of Ju­stice? Surely then the Penal Laws, especial­ly those made meerly for diversity of Opi­nions in Religion, which (not to call them unchristian; since our Saviour never offered [Page 26] any external force and Compulsion to make Case of Re­sistance. men obey his Laws, as the Learned master of the Temple assures us, but however) are in themselves by experience proved very unreasonable, ought at least to be Subject to the Goodness and Mercy of the Prince, to dispence with them, when He in his Wisdom shall judge it most necessary for the Good of his People in generall. For as ‘the Aegyptian Hieroglyphick for Government was an Eye in a Scepter: So the chief Magistrate is like a watch­man De jure Unifor­mitatis Ecclesi­asticae: by Hugh Davis, L. L. B. lib. 3. chap. 15. upon a Tower, who is to look down and view the general state of his People, and to conduct himself ac­cordingly.’

The Reverend Dr Puller, in his most extraordinary Book concerning the Mode­ration os the Church of England, saith, ‘that [...], Moderation, as it is now generally used, is a word borrowed from the Law, and is used by the Masters Chap. 1. thereof, to denote such a gentle and be­nign temper, as disposeth those who have the Administration of the Laws’ (which, [Page 27] You see, is the Imperial Soveraign, who hath the Supream Jurisdiction over all others, Davia's ut sup. lib. 2. chap. 6. and Jurisdiction is defined by the Civilians to be, Potestatem Juris dicendi, a Power of giving Laws to others) ‘to remit of their Rigour, where either (first) they press too hard upon particular persons; or else (secondly) to supply the defects of the said Laws, where they provide not sufficiently for particular cases; in order thereunto, squaring their Determination by the natu­ral rules of Justice and goodness, rather than by the Letter of the Law.’

And a little further, the same Doctor Dr Puller's Mo­deration of the Church of Eng­land, chap. 1. goes on, saying, ‘moderation, in the Forensick sence wherein we take it, is de­fined by Aristotle to be the Correction of [...]. Arist. Eth. l. 5. chap. 14. the Laws wherein because of their Ʋniversa­lity they are deficient. From whence, as it must be supposed, to be confined to those to whom the Administration of the Laws is committed, who Alone can have the Power of correcting them: So nothing therefore will be further requi­site to shew, than that it disposeth them; [Page 28] where the Laws press too hard upon particular persons, to relax the Rigour of them; as on the other side, where they do not sufficiently provide for them, to supply their defect.’

‘All Laws, we know, are for the pu­nishment of Evil Doers, or for the praise of them that do well: but it be­ing impossible so to provide for the pu­nishment of evil doers, as not sometimes to bring even the Innocent within the compass of it; because what, general­ly considered, ought to be lookt upon and censured as evil, may yet upon sun­dry considerations and circumstances have nothing of evil in it, or at least be worthy of pardon; either the Innocent must suffer together with the nocent, (which so benign a vertue as that we treat of cannot allow) or it must dispose those to whom the Administration of the Laws is committed to remit of their rigour in such particulars, and exempt them from the undergoing of it: it being in like manner impossible for Laws [Page 29] so to provide for the incouragement of those who deserve well, as that some­time such may not be past over or neg­lected; partly because all cases cannot be foreseen by the Law-giver; and partly by reason of the shortness of his expressi­ons; either some who may deserve in­couragement may be excluded from partaking of it, (which so benign a ver­tue Est Scriptum Legis angustum inter pretatio diffusa. Senec. l. 4. controv. 27. as we speak of cannot casily permit) or it must dispose those to whom the Administration of the Laws is committed to ampliate their favours; and to take such within the compass of them.’

Once again, ‘ Equity and moderation, saith He in the next page, is the publick honesty of the Laws; without which, Justice often would be turned into Wormwood: it contains the excellent Spirit ( [...]) the mind and reason of the Law, and is the most Sacred and vene­rable part of it: As it is the honour and perfection of the Laws, so it is the Sanctua­ry of such as happen to be oppressed by the Rigour of the Letter.’

[Page 30] I will now, Sir, trouble you with but one instance more upon this Subject, (though I could multiply, I am confi­dent, Authorities of this kind even be­yond your patience) and that is of One, that will needs be Anonymus, and there­fore so he shall pass for me, but his words are These.

‘It is the Prerogative of the King, to The Harmony of Divinity and Law, in a dis­course about not resisting of Soveraign Princes. dispence with many Acts of Parliament by a * Non-obstante, or clause of notwith­standing, especially such, as bind him from any Prerogative, that is solely, and inseparably annexed to his Sacred Person, and Royal Power.’

And even to the Asterick *There is this marginal Note, viz. ‘44. Eliz. in the house of Commons Sir George Moor said; We know the Power of her Majesty cannot be restrained by any Act. Why there­fore should we thus talk? admit we should make the statute with a Non-obstante, yet the Queen may grant a Townsend's Collect. pag. 234. Patent with a Non-obstante to cross this Non-obstante.’

[Page 31] I have done, Sir, now with our Rever­end Prelates and Doctors of the Church of England as to this Particular, and hope, I have sufficiently proved to you, that their Judgment and Doctrine doth clearly warrant this Great Prerogative of dis­pencing with Penal Laws, to be in the King.

Let us see in the next place what were the Reasons that induced the Reverend Judges in Westminster Hall, (who (the Law sayes) are the Expositors of Acts of Parliament, and are likewise Custodes jurati ss. Praerogativae Regiae,) so openly and so­lemnly, after mature deliberation, to de­clare their Resolutions in this Point for the King.

The Reasons that perswaded them were These that follow, viz.

• I. That the Kings of England are So­veraign Princes.
• II. That the Laws of England are the King's Laws.
• III. That therefore it is an Incident [Page 32] Inseparable Prerogative in the Kings of England; as in all other Soveraign Prin­ces to dispence with Penal Laws in parti­cular cases, and upon particular necessary Reasons.
• IV. That of these Reasons, and these Necessities, the King himself is the sole Judge. And then which is Consequent upon all.
• V. That this is not a Trust invested in, or granted to the King by the People, but is the antient Remain of the Sove­raign Power, and Prerogative of the Kings of England, which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.

Now, Sir, if such hath been the Do­ctrine of our most Eminent Clergy of the Church of England, (and in it they have delivered to us nothing but the words of Truth in Righteousness) that the King by his Imperial Soveraignty, when he shall see the Necessity of the State to require it, (of which he is the only Judge,) may dispence with Penal Laws; How can you, [Page 33] or any man, who is a sincere lover of the Church of England, be dissatisfied with the Resolution of our Reverend Judges in this matter, seeing the Reasons they went up­on were only such as were exactly corres­pondent with the avowed Doctrines be­fore recited; and that by this Declaration of theirs, the Law of the Kingdom of England concerning this soveraign Power in the Crown, is no more, than what was before publickly asserted to be the Divinity of the Kingdom.

Besides, Lex vigilat pro Rege, saith the Law, and the Judges are sworn to main­tain all the Kings Prerogatives; which are part of the Law of England, and com­prehended within the same; therefore it Co. 2 Inst. f. 496. is said, that Imperij Majestas est Tutelae Sa­lus, the Dignity of the Prince is the Peo­ples 1. Inst. 64. b. Security. The Kings Prerogative and Priviledges, are incident to his Crown, and He need not prescribe in any Prerogative, for it is as ancient as his Lane. 26. Crown is, and is not only the Law of the Exchequer, but the Law of the Land, [Page 34] as that which is his by the ancient Laws of the Land. Wherefore the Judges of the N. Bendl. 117. Courts of Westminster are to judge in mat­ters of Prerogative by this Rule, that what­soever may be for the Benefit and Profit Sheph. tit. Pre­rog. of the King, shall be taken most largely for him, & whatever may be against him, and for his disprofit shall be taken strictly: and it is the Duty of every Judge of all Courts, High and Low, to take great care to preserve the Kings Right, and for that purpose to take every thing at the 2 Ro. rep. 508. best for him.

And, Sir, unto the Judges the People are bound lastly and finally to submit them­selves for matter of Law, according to the Royallists de­fence chap. 5. pag. 49. opinion of the Learned Author of the Royallists Defence.

But I remember likewise you seemed to startle at the thoughts of this Power; and were afraid, if at any time the King should think it necessary and convenient to exert it, and to grant a general Liberty of Conscience, that the Church of England would be extreamly shaken in her securi­ty. [Page 35] What strange Jealousies and Suspiti­ons some weak men may have, I suppose it will not be here worth while to consider; but certainly our Great Supporters of the Ark of God can never allow themselves in so feminine a passion. They know they have an infinitely wise God, and a most Gracious King to trust to: this hath been their Doctrine, and ought we not to practice it? They say,

‘1. They have the Care and Providence of God for their Security, who is King Jovian chap. 12. of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the only Ruler of Princes; and that the Hearts of Kings are in his Rule and Governance, and He doth dispose and turn them as seem­eth best to his godly Wisdom: according to what Solomon said, and perhaps upon his own experience,’ That the Kings Heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the Ri­vers of Water, he turneth it whithersoever he will. ‘SO THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE SECURITY THAT ANY PEO­PLE IN THE WORLD EVER HAD, HAVE, OR OUGHT TO HAVE. Be­sides,’

[Page 36] 2. They have a most Gracious King to trust to. For,

1. They have his Royal Word, that he His Majesties most Gratious Declaration, &c. will protect and maintain the Church of England, in the free exercise of her Religi­on, as by Law established; ‘and can she ever be trusted in safer Hands than his? Bishop of Ches­ters Sermon ut sup. He hath done more than ever any of us durst ever venture to look for, to give us Confidence in him; enough to puzzle our Understandings, as well as our Gra­titude: And how can he give us better security than he has done? Shall we sus­pect him without cause? or remain dissatisfied when he hath given us the best security that our Cause admits of? To suspect our Prince, where we can­not help our selves, is of all fears the most unreasonable.’

2. Again, ‘We have the Conscience of the Prince for our security, who hath Jovian ut sup. all the moral Obligations, and the fear of God, to keep him from oppressing us, so long as we keep our selves within the Conscience of the Duty which we owe unto him.’

[Page 37] ‘The Common Principles of Huma­nity, Justice and Equity, are engraven by the Finger of God upon the Minds of Kings, as well as upon other Mens; and they cannot do wrong upon any parti­cular Person, much less to great num­bers of their Subjects, without under­going the same uneasie remorse that o­ther men do, when they injure one ano­ther. This hath been found by sad ex­perience in Pagan Princes.—And if Conscience be a restraining Principle in Heathen Princes, if they cannot without such Soul torments pervert Justice, and violate their Oathes, and the Laws, it must needs much more be a powerful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings, who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers, and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppres­sing his People over whom he set them: And shall not the fear of God's Anger and Judgments keep the Soveraign from injuring of them?’

3. But further still, ‘As the Church of [Page 38] England hath the Prince's Conscience, for her Security, so she hath his honour too. For Princes (like other men) are tender of their Honour, and good Name, and are powerfully restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Sub­jects.—Though they may be desir­ous for their honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests, yet the same Principle of Honour will ordi­narily make them ashamed to have them computed from their Massacres, and Persecutions, which will but get them the Surname of the Bloudy, or the Tyrant, unto the end of the World. Honour, as Moralists observe, is a Secondary, or Civil Conscience.’

And as for our Prince, ‘who was ever so exceeding tender of his Honour as He?’ so just to all, and hath He not Bishop. of Ches­ters Serm. ut sup. promised to uphold and maintain this Church, and her Legitimate Children? ‘—He knows, that ours is a Religion that hath alwayes asserted the Rights of the Crown, with life and fortune: and [Page 39] how chearfully the Members of it have spent their Blood and Treasure in his Own, his late Majestie's, and his Father's Service, and how they stand affected to his Prerogative.’

‘And He is very well content, we should be as faithful to God, as we are to him; as true to our Religion, as to our King: God preserve and prosper him for it.’

Now since our own Religion (as to the free exercise of it) is thus Secured to us, and seeing that by his Majesties Gracious Declaration he is willing that no man should be forced to his Religion, or drove against his Conscience from the Religion he professeth; and seeing it is manifest­ly necessary, that, as Sails, so Laws, are to be turned, and as Occasion, time and circumstance, and reason of state shall direct, either to be altered, or revoked: And if Acts of Parliament formerly made to try what good effects they could work in the state, do apparently prove mischievous and ineffectual by their too [Page 40] great rigour and violence, and by the Great Numbers of those that are of dissen­ting Judgments?

What dishonour can it be for the King to lay them asleep for a while to stay those passionate heats, and fierce oppositions of such as seem adversaries to his Grace, or for any Parliament to repeal them, for the same Reasons, non coercet sed provocat violentia, For too heavy a hand upon those whom the Law casts down, shews the will rather to oppress the Offender, then to cure the offence? 'Tis the greatest honour to Kings, that their mercy, like that of the Almighty, is more eminent than their Justice, and that their Benches, and Courts, can witness more compassion than severity; for He that sets open the Prison doors in so wise and gracious a manner, meaneth not to conquer the Hearts and Consciences of his People by Torment, but to winn them by mercy and sweetness. Clemen­cy is a virtue sometimes of as great poli­cy as Piety, because it begets Love, and [Page 41] Love breeds Loyalty, commands the very Soul, and lays the Body at the Feet of the obliger: Mercy kindles Fire and Zeal in the Hearts of Subjects.

Liberty of Conscience is a Natural Right, and therefore our Saviour com­pelled none to receive his Doctrine, but est Dominus non Cogens, he is not a con­straining Lord, but committing his Liber­ty Grotius. to the will, said publickly to all, if any man will come after me; and to his Apostles, Will ye also go away? and his Disciples were not Commanders, but Instructors and Teachers, which was their Commissi­on. Compulsion and terrene Penalties are out of his Jurisdiction, whose Kingdom was not of this World, which he acknowledgeth not only in speech, but in practise: For when the Disciples would have commanded Fire from Heaven to have consumed the Luke 9. 54. Samaritans, he rebuked them; and when he was apprehended by the Chief Priests and Elders, he could have commanded Math. 26. 53. Legions of Angels, but would not. It is [Page 42] Irreligion to take away the Liberty of Re­ligion; so Tertullian, ad Irreligiosiatis Elo­gium Chap. de Act. Imp. f. 139. concurrit, this concurreth to the com­mendation of Irreligion, to take away the liberty of Religion, &c. and therefore, saith the Apostle, we have not Dominion over Your Faith. 2 Cor. 1. 24.

Sir, I cannot tell how well to shut up this Discourse without the words of that Learned and most Reverend Dr. Gerard Langbaine, who was Provost of Queen's Col­ledge in Oxford, so well known to all, not only at home, but abroad, that the Fa­mous Rhetorician, Longinus, could scarce speak any thing beyond the merit of so ex­cellent a Person: This Doctor in his Judi­cious Refutation of the Damnable League & Covenant, (which was then so furiously contended for) to be imposed upon the Con­sciences of those who expressed their Zeal to his Majesties righteous cause, in which, without all peradventure, he spoke the in­ward Sentiments of all the Loyal Suffering Clergy of England, doth there most admi­rably [Page 43] instruct us, what a sandy Found­ation that is, which supports Persecu­tion for Conscience sake. His words fol­low.

‘Persecution in matters of meer Reli­gion is a Course against the Nature of Langbain's Re­view of the Co­venant, Printed 1661. Religion it self, for Faith, the Soul of Re­ligion, is an inward Act of the Soul, which all the Tyranny in the World, that the malice of the Devil can invent, or the wit of man can exercise, can neither plant where it is not, nor extirpate where it is. It is the gift of God, freely begot­ten in the Hearts of Men, not by threats and Terrors, not by Tortures and Mas­sacres, but by the quiet still voice of the word preached, Suadenda, non cogenda. And therefore St. Paul, though a Lawful Governour in the Church, flatly dis­claims any domineering Power over the Conscience. As for the outward pro­fession of Religion, neither is that Sub­ject to force and violence: A man may confefs Christ, and his Faith in him, as [Page 44] freely in bonds, as at Liberty; as glori­ously upon the Cross, as upon the Throne. Fear indeed may incline a weak Consci­ence to dissemble his Opinion, but can­not constrain him to alter it: Fire and Faggot are strong Arguments of a weak Cause, undeniable Evidences of Cruelty in Those that use them, but slender, mo­tives of Credibility to beget faith in those that suffer by them. Lastly, for the ex­ternal, free, and publick practise of Re­ligious Duties, that I grant may be re­strained by the outward violence of man, but when it is so, it is not requi­red by God, who never expects to reap what he did not fow.’

In another place, he says, ‘the most Antient Apologists for the Christian Faith, use this as an Argument to prove the Religion of their Persecutors to be false, and their own true, That stood in need of humane force to maintain it, but theirs stood by the sole Power of God.’

‘It is against (sayes he a little further) [Page 45] the Innate Principle of the Law of Na­ture, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. Those, who plead most for ex­tirpation of Hereticks, when it comes to be their own Turn to be under the Cross, stand for Liberty of Conscience, and declaim against Persecution for Re­ligion, as a thing utterly unlawful; and surely if we will not suffer it from others, we may not use it our selves.’

Therefore, as Dr Puller rightly sayes, ‘if ever the Practice of Moderation, as Puller's Mode­ration. To the Reader. well as any Discourse thereof, were sea­sonable; it may be supposed now, when, for ought we know, the lasting happiness of the Kingdom and Church, may depend immediately upon this rare and desirable Temper, acknowledged of all most excellent.’

I will conclude all with that Admira­ble Sentence of Dr Barrow in his fore­mentioned Treatise, that Relief of the Op­pressed, or Clemency to the distressed, are no­ble Flowers in every Soveraign Crown.

[Page 46] Thus, Sir, You see how ready I am, as far as my Abilities will extend, to contribute to the Satisfaction of Your Judgment. I shall be as zealous still to go on in so pious a Duty, if there be any remaining doubts and Scruples you will make known to,