IT is not of vanity, lucre or party, that I now sit down to make some remarks on your late very extraordinary sermon. I must confess I have read some other notable ones, and heard many more, on this occasion; but none so deserving or public contempt and censure. Your whole performance could be calculated with no other view, than to revive old heats and animosities, and to raise that spirit of strife and discord, which, as a Minister of the Gospel of peace, it is your peculiar province to suppress.

I know of nothing more repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, than for one, professing to preach it, to set up for the champion of a party; since parties are for the most part influenced by motives mean and brutal, inconsistent with that unalterable regard to truth and justice, to which all men and all parties have an invio­lable claim.

I hope you will not be offended, if, in this address, I speak my sentiments plainly. And though I shall not fail of doing so, yet, notwithstanding the provocation you have given, my intention is to treat you with the civility due to your function, without passion, or personal reproach. And if you are not very much prejudiced by a blind and serious ze [...]l, I persuade myself, I shall in some degree en­lighten your understanding and awaken your conscience; [Page 10] not by falshood and disguises, but by facts; facts that are incontestable, and that will argue for themselves.

I would take up too much of my time to enter upon all the particular falsities, absurdities, and fallacious rea­sonings, of which your sermon was made up. I shall only offer the following general remarks to your consideration; intreating you to peruse them calmly, without any party­spirit, divested of all prejudice and partiality, with a tem­per and disposition of mind becoming a Gentleman and a scholar, always determined to submit to the force of truth and evidence: And then your own conscience will presently suggest to you, that your whole sermon was a manifest contradiction to the religion, laws, government, and true history of your country.

The exalted character you was pleased to give of King Charles I. made a very considerable part of your dis­course. I must acknowledge, it was speciously drawn, and delivered with an engaging elocution and emphasis; but it had this unlucky circumstance attending it, that the picture had no affinity with the original: Light and darkness, heaven and hell, could not possibly be more opposite to each other, than your portrait was to the real character of that unhappy Prince. Therefore, permit me, Sir, in my turn, to give you his true and genuine character; which, at this distance of time can only be done, by an impartial recital of the most considerable and important actions of his life.

During the minority of this Prince he was looked on, by all that knew him, to be of a most obstinate disposi­tion. His mother greatly lamented his unhappy turn of mind, and was heard to say of him in public, that ‘she feared he would live to be the ruin of himself, and oc­casion the loss of his three kingdoms by his obstinacy.’ Soon after he came to the throne, he married a French Papist, by a dispensation from the Pope, and according to the ceremonies of the church of Rome. She was not only a Papist, but in a remarkable manner attached to all the fopperies and most absurd practices of that church. By the articles of this marriage, many liberties were granted to the Papists. A chapel was permitted to be built at Sommerset-house, where there was likewise esta­blished [Page 11] a convent of Capuchin-Friars, wh [...] together with a great number of Priests and Jesuits, walked the streets in their habits, in such a manner as had never been al­lowed since the Reformation. The King wrote to the Pope with the title of Most Holy Father.

All the honest and wise part of the nation was greatly alarmed at this match; fearing it would again bring us back to the slavery and bondage of Rome. King Charles I. was a staunch bigot, and consequently the darling of the Clergy; and having no great reach of his own, was governed by his Priests, who have always been unfortunate when they meddle in politics. His whole reign was one continued series of follies, or infringement of the rights of his subjects. He lived in the constant and open viola­tion of the fundamental laws of the realm; and conduct­ed every thing to the dishonour and reproach of the Eng­lish nation. But to descend to particulars.

He agreed with the Marquis D'Effiat, the French Mi­nister, for a squadron of men of war, to join the French fleet at Dieppe, which was fitting out against the Protes­tants at Rochelle: Thereby to destroy at once all the re­maining strength of the Reformed in that kingdom. The command of this squadron was given to Captain Penning­ton, whom he strictly enjoined, that in case his ships should refuse to join the French, in this vile expedition, he should use all forcible means to compel them, even to the sinking them, if they continued o [...]stinate: That was, to destroy the English his own people, if they would not destroy the French Protestants.

This conduct appears by far the more wicked and astonishing, as the King a little before had wrote two let­ters, signed Charles Rex, to the Peers, Burghers, and in­habitants of the city of Rochelle, engaging to assist them to the utmost. In the first letter he says, ‘My fleet shall perish rather than you shall not be relieved.’ In the second; ‘Be assured I will never abandon you, and that I will employ all the force of my kingdom for your deliverance.’

When the Parliament came afterwards to examine Pen­ [...]ing [...]on's papers, they found a letter from the King, signed Charles Rex, ‘Requiring him to dispose of those [Page 12] ships as he should be directed by the French King, and to sink or fire such as should refuse to obey those orders.’

On this proceeding, General Ludlow has this plain re­mark, ‘By this horrible treachery the strong town of Rochelle, wherein the security of the Protestants of France chiefly consisted, was delivered up to the Pa­pists; and those of the Reformed religion in all parts of the kingdom exposed to the rage of their cruel and bloody enemies ^* Again: King James was strongly bent to render himself absolute; yet he chose rather to carry on that design by fraud than violence; but King Charles immediately after his accession to the throne, pulled of the mask and openly discovered his intention to make the crown absolute and independent; and the Queen, on her part, pressed him on all occasions, to p [...]rsue the design of enlarging his power, and to mould the church of England to a nearer compliance to the See of Rome.’ At the same time, this Prince sent a decla­ration to the Lord-keeper, for granting full liberty and toleration to all Papists, notwithstanding the extreme ri­gour of the then laws against them. Upon some of the Privy Council advising him against this illegal step, he openly replied, That it was his will those laws should stand discharged.

Thus, almost in the first month of his reign, he set up a despotic power against the constitution. He granted a general pard [...] to all Papists, under prosecution; not on­ly as Papists, but as criminals. He released twenty Priests from goal. And it now evidently appeared, that he in­tended to rule and govern all by absolute will and pleasure.

The Parliament began to be greatly alarmed by these measures, and protested in form against them. They remonstrated.

1. His protecting a seditious, virulent and ignorant Priest, Richard Montague, in opposition to the sense of the Parliament.

2. The great increase and countenancing of Popery, by dispensing with all the laws against it, in an arbi­trary manner.

3. The war against Spain, without a declaration; and the sending to destroy the Protestants of Rochelle.

[Page 13] 4. The total mis-employment of three subsidies, and three fifteenths. With many other enormities, too tedi­ous to relate.

This Montague wrote a book, entitled, Apello Coesa­rem, wherein he advanced the following positions:

1. That the church of Rome is, and ever was a true church.

2. That images might be used to excite devotion.

3. That saints have patronage, custody, protection, and power, over certain persons and things, as the angels have.

This book gave great offence unto all true Protestants. The Parliament condemned it, and summoned Montague to attend at their bar; and voted his book to be contra­ry to the articles established by Parliament, to tend to the King's dishonour, and the disturbance of the church; and obliged him to enter into a bond of 2000 l. to ap­pear again on the next summons.

However, notwithstanding this book was so publicly condemned by the Parliament, as well as by the general voice and suffrage of the kingdom, yet at Court it met with applause and high encomiums; and the Author was rewarded instantly with the Bishoprick of Chichester, and soon after was translated to Norwich: Whereby the King again openly declared his encouragement of Po­pery; and that whoever, in contempt of the Parliament and constitution of England, would assert a despoti [...] power in church and state, might expect to be rewarded.

Thus, in the beginning of his reign, he lost the hearts and affections of a great part of his subjects. What con­tributed to increase the general murmuring and discon­tent, was his illegal and arbitrary treatment of a great number of leading men of both Houses of Parliament. Sir John Elliot, a famous Speaker in the House of Com­mons, was committed close prisoner to the Gate-house, with many others. The pretence was, for undutiful speech. The Commons p [...]ssed a vote to vindicate all their members at once; declaring there had been no undutiful speech in that House, from the beginning of the Parlia­ment to that day. Sir Dudly Diggs, another top speaker in the House of Commons, was hurried away to the Tower, under the pretence also of undutiful speech, at a late public conference with the Lords. This Gentleman [Page 14] protested with the utmost solemnity, that he never spoke the words he was charged with, and that no such words ever came into his thoughts; and what is more, (merely out of regard to common justice) thirty-six of the Lords, who stood close by him at the time of the said confe­rence, entered into a voluntary protestation, subscribing their names to it, viz. That the said Sir Dudly Diggs did not speak those words, nor any words that did or might trench on the King's honour: Some of the Lords who protested were

• Earl of Mulgrave,
• Earl of Cleveland,
• Earl of Westmoreland,
• Earl of Bollingbrook,
• Earl of Clare,
• Earl of Denbigh,
• Earl of Lincoln,
• Earl of Essex,
• Earl of Cambridge,
• Earl of Devon,
• Earl of Warwick,
• Earl of Northampton,
• Earl of Bridgewater,
• Earl of Montgomery,
• Earl of Nottingham,
• Earl of Hereford ^*.

Notwithstanding this public attestation of his inno­cence by To many Peers, to the Tower he must go, right or wrong. Innocence in those days was no security.

All this was done contrary to the opinion of the Judges, who declared, That such a violent restraint on so many members, was a public arrest on the whole body of Parliament.

The King, by a message to the Earls of Bristol and Arundell, forbad them to attend the House of Lords; and soon after committed the latter to the Tower. This made a mighty ferment. All the Peers began now to look on their persons and estates to be in great danger. They petitioned his Majesty in a submissive manner, humbly beseeching, ‘That the Earl of Arundell, a Member of their House, might be restored to them again; and that the same regard might he had to the rights and privileges of the Peers as had ever been.’

The King gave a rough answer, and would not dis­charge him. This produced a long and well-penned re­monstrance. The Lords exerted themselves on this occasion with a becoming spirit; they petitioned the King again and again, five different times, and came to the following remarkable resolution, nemine contradicent [...], [Page 15] "That no Lord of Parliament, the Parliament sitting, or within the usual time of the privilege of Parliament, is to be imprisoned or restrained, without sentence or or­der of the House; unless it be for treason or felony, or for refusing to give security for the peace; and that, una voce, this is the undoubted right of the Peers ^*."

Things continued for a considerable time in this situ­ation; the King committed many of the House of Com­mons, and daily breaking in upon those rights and pri­vileges of the House of Lords, which for a long time had been held sacred and inviolable, till at last he grew tired with frequent petitions and remonstrances of both Houses, in vindication of their just and legal rights: Wherefore, the better to establish his absolute power and dominion over the lives and properties of his subjects, he determined to have no Parliament at all; and sent a mes­sage to the House of Lords, signifying his intention to dissolve the Parliament, then sitting, instantly.

This alarmed both Houses, more than any thing that had yet happened; and they were under terrible appre­hensions of the consequences that might ensue such a pe­remptory and sudden dissolution, at so critical a juncture.

The Lords, the same morning, sent a petition to the King, affirming, ‘That they were really and truly his most faithful and loyal subjects; and that as they were also his Majesty's hereditary council of the king­dom, they were obliged by the duty they owed to God, his Majesty, and their country, humbly to offer their advice, that the Parliament may be continued for some time longer, whereby great and apparent dangers may be prevented, and his Majesty made happy in the du­ty and love of his people.’ This honest and memorable petition was delivered by the Lord Viscount Mandeville, the Earl of Manchester, Lord-President of his Majesty's Council, the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Carlisle, and the Earl of Holland. The King returned for answer, ‘That he would hear no motion, but would dissolve the Parliament, and immediately cause a commission to pass the Great Seal for that purpose ^†.’

But the King would not stop here; for, the day fol­lowing, [Page 16] warrants were directed from the privy-council to apprehend several members of Parliament, as Denzil Hollis, Esq; Sir Miles Hobert, Sir Peter Hayman; John Selden, Esq; Corrington, Long, Stroud, Valentine, and some others; all leading men in the House of Commons. Most of them were apprehended and committed close prisoners to the Tower.

Having in so unprecedented a way dissolved this Par­liament, and calling no other during the twelve follow­ing years, he in that long period governed as arbitrarily as the Grand Seignior, and in a manner subversive of all the laws and constitution of this realm. In the first seven years of this time, he published no less than one hundred and forty-six proclamations: The chief design of which was to raise money without consent or authority of Par­liament, under the denomination of conduct-money, tunnage, poundage, ship-money, &c.&c.

Great numbers amongst the nobility and principal gentry, who had hitherto adhered to the King, began daily to fall off, and to desert the Court. Nothing was heard of but grievances and remonstrances; and persons of great note began publicly to declare, that the govern­ment was illegal and arbitrary, and that the constitution was actually destroyed. Many about the King had the honesty and courage to point out to him the unavoidable consequences of those wicked and violent measures. Sir Robert Cotton repeatedly told him in council, That what­ever reasons may be given for it, the nation would not hear the levying money without consent of Parliament; and that every tax not authorized thereby, was breaking in upon the constitution, and esteemed by the people of England as an act of tyr [...]nny, and imposing of servitude.

This wise and prudent advice did not suit the temper of King Charles. He had nothing in his head or heart, but absolute rule and government.

I may here remark, that the mischiefs and misery of this reign, must, in some measure, be imputed to that haughty ecclesiastic Archbishop Laud, and his creatures. They dissuaded the King from all moderate measures; and pretended, that by their authority and influence they would greatly promote his design of plundering his sub­jects, [Page 17] (which is certainly done, when their money is taken by force, without law and consent of Parliament) and, to do them justice, they laboured at it heartily.

One Manwaring undertook to prove out of the Scrip­ture, ‘That Kings might impose taxes without consent of Parliament, and that the people were bound in con­science to obey their will and pleasure.’ Laud sent an­other pa asitical priest (one Sibthorp) to preach an assiz [...] sermon at Northampton, wherein he asserted, ‘That the King is not bound to observe the laws of the realm concerning the subjects rights and liberties, and that his Royal will in imposing taxes without consent of Parliament, binds his subjects on pain of damnation; and that those who refuse to pay the loans offend God, and become guilty of disloyalty and rebellion.’ This wretched sycophant, instead of being punished for this wicked and and impious doctrine, was rewarded with a bishoprick. All the sermons now at Court were to the same purpose.—Ludlow tells us, ‘this was the only work of which the clergy was judg [...]d capable; and therefore, divers of them entered the list as champions of the pre­rogative, asserting, that the possessions and estates of the subject d [...]d of right belong to the King; and that he might dispose of them at his pleasure: Thereby annulling, as much as in them lay, all the laws of England that secure property to the people ^*.’

But the King soon found that the Clergy might con­tinue their preaching to eternity, without bringing any money into the Exchequer, and therefore more violent methods were taken. He began with imprisoning a great number of the first rank and quality, as well as many eminent merchants and traders in London and elsewhere, for refusing to pay those illegal taxes.

• Sir Thomas Grantham,
• Sir John Strangeways,
• Sir William Armin,
• Sir William Wilmore,
• Sir Robert Poyntz,
• Sir William Massan,
• Sir Erasmus Dr [...]iton,
• Sir Nath. Barnarbiston,
• Sir Oliver Luke,
• Sir Thomas Wentworth,
• Sir William Constable,
• Sir John Pickering,
• Sir William Chancey,
• Sir Morris Berkley,

[Page 18] I could mention many other Knights, as well as Es­quires, Gentlemen, and a multitude of the most eminent merchants and traders of the city of London, who were committed prisoners to the Fleet, the Gate-house, the Marshalsea, and the New-Prison; many of them to the entire ruin of themselves and families, for no other rea­son but their refusing the loan, as it was absurdly called; for, with what propriety could it be so termed, when pe­nalties were inflicted on those who would not pay it ^*?

Bishop Burnet speaking of King Charles I. says,—That, ‘by his illegal administration [...]e had brought himself into great distress, but had not the dexte [...]ity to extricate himself out of it; and that he loved high and rough methods, but had neither skill or genius to conduct them; he hated all that offered prudent and moderate counsels; and in his outward deportment never took any pains to oblige any one ^†.’—A true picture! Acherly, the famous lawyer, tells us, ‘The King's ministers gave themselves over to licentiousness and wanton acts of power, thinking themselves now freed from. Parliamentary inquisitions, and above the reach of ordinary justice; Proclamation supplied the defects of law; tonnage and poundage, and other im­positions, were collected by order of council; freedom of speech was in a manner extinguished. Sir John [...] was condemned and fined 2000l. Denzil Hol­lis 1000 merks, Valentine 500, (all leading men in the House of Commons) and were imprisoned till they should pay the fines: Which imprisonment was ac­companied with some arbitrary severities; for those Gentlemen were denied not only pen, ink, and paper, but in their sicknesses their wives were denied admit­tance, in so much that John Elliot, after many years imprisonment, sunk and died under the oppression. But those prosecutions and condemnations, being a [...]ound to the two estates of the Lords and Commons, in their tenderest privilege, and having raised great dis­contents, were, in the reign of King Charles II. re­versed, and unanimously declared illegal. In which [Page 19] reversal, those prosecutions and imprisonments, and the power of the Ministers, by which the privileges of Parliament, and all the Commons of England, were trampled under foot, appear to this day in colours administring a detestation of such proceedings ^*.’

Were it necessary, I could mention a hundred flagrant instances more, to prove that the Government of King Charles I. for many years was illegal, arbitrary, and ty­rannical, and that the constitution was actually subverted and destroyed.

The King began now to look upon himself as secure, and to imagine that by this barbarous usage of so many, persons of rank and quality, all others would be deterred from appearing openly for their religion, laws and li­berties.

‘The prerogative, (says Ludlow) was now wound up to a great height in England, and the affairs of the church tending to a conjunction with the See of Rome. But before any further progress was made, it was thought expedient, that the pulse of Scotland should be felt. To this end, a form of public prayer was sent them, more nearly approaching the Roman office than that used in England. The Nobility, Clergy, and Gentry, were discontented with the book itself, as well as the manner of imposing it. The Clergy of England, who had been the chief advisers and promoters of this vio­lence, prevailed on the King to cause all the Scots to be declared traitors; and they were not wanting to promoting the new levies against the Scots, contribut­ing largely thereunto: which was but reasonable; it being manifest to all, that the Clergy were the princi­pal authors and fomenters of those troubles ^†’.

This war with the Scots was looked upon by the Nobi­lity, Gentry, and Commonalty of England, as the most imprudent that could be. And indeed the King himself soon found it to be so the very officers and soldiers of the army treating it with contempt and ridicule; inso­much that he was quickly obliged to come to an agree­ment with the Scots, upon terms no way to his honour or advantage.

[Page 20] ‘The most profitable preferments in the English church were now given to those of the Clergy who were most forward to promote the new ceremonies and superstiti­ons. An oath was enjoined with an &c. Several ho­lidays were introduced, and required to be observed by by the people with all possible solemnity; pat [...]nts and monopolies of almost every thing were granted to pri­vate men, to the great damage of the public; Knight­hood, coat and conduct money, and many other ille­gal mothods were revived, and put in execution to rob the people, in order to support the profusion of the Court ^*.’

Things went on for a considerable time pretty favour­ably to the Court. By their violence and tyranny they carried all before them, and seemed to bid fair to obtain a complete victory over all the laws of the kingdom, as well as over the lives and properties of the subjects. But fresh troubles began now to arise. The city of London grew more and more disgusted at the granting monopolies and patents; and at the unparliamentary raising, as well as the violent methods daily practised in collecting several illegal taxes; insomuch, that a very great number of citizens, of rank and figure, at once refused to pay se­veral of the loans; at the same time declaring, they would pay no taxes at all, without the consent and autho­rity of Parliament.

This was a dreadful shock to the Court; they gave it the name of rebellion, and determined to put an end to it at once. An order was issued, to take away the sword from the Lord-Mayor, and most of the chief officers of the city were instantly imprisoned. Hereupon the peo­ple rose, and beset the house of Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was supposed to put the King on those violent courses; they demolished his Grace's windows, but he made his escape for that time by water. Most of the counties in England began now to send up to the Privy-Council petitions and remonstrances, complaining of the illegal taxes, and the violent methods of collecting them [...] which gave birth to many troublesome and vexatio [...] lawsuits: And notwithstanding in those suits the subject [...] [Page 21] frequently got the better of the Crown, yet it many times ended in their ruin.

The Court now found it necessary to tamper with most of the great Lawyers. Some of the Judges and Lawyers took the bait, and for the sake of some temporary pre­ferment became open and public traitors to their coun­try, by declaring in Westminster-Hall, for law, ‘that the King might impose taxes upon the people, and that he might imprison and distrain in case of refusal.’

But to do justice to the Lawyers, I must acknowledge, that the far greater part of them were, in reality, friends to the constitution. They discovered a true English spi­rit, and gladly embraced every opportunity to support the rights and liberties of the subjects; to the great mortification of the King and Laud.

This firm behaviour of the Lawyers, put the Court on making another dreadful attack on the lives and proper­ties of the subject. For finding they could not corrupt the common Courts of justice to that degree they aimed at, they created or revived arbitrary Courts, as the Star-Chamber and High Commission Courts, wherein mon­strous cruelties were daily committed, even on persons of high rank, quality, and learning.

The practice of those Courts was much a-kin to that of the inquisitions in Spain and Portugal at this day. Laud presided in both of them. His power and influence were so great, that every thing done there was esteemed as his particular act and deed. The other members were, as Bishop Burnet observes, ‘little more than mere machines, to move and act as this godly Prelate directed.’ And truly they judged right, in putting an Ecclesiastic at the head of those Courts; as nothing was intended but fines, imprisonments, cutting off ears, slitting up noses, and other such bloody work: Witness the horrid barba­rity practised on the learned William Prynne, Esq; Dr. Leighton, Dr. Bastick, Dr. Burton, and a multitude of others, by those inhuman arbitrary judicatories.

Prynne was an eminent Lawyer of Lincoln's Inn; a Gentleman of high reputation for learning and piety; he wrote a book against the obscenity of the stage, and the lewd practices of the actors, who were arrived to such [Page 22] a height as to give great offence to all the sober part of the nation. Laud pretended this was a reflection on the Queen, who was a mighty favourer of the women Actors, she having herself also acted a pastoral at Somerset-house; so without any shadow of law, reason, or justice, he pro­secutes Prynne in his beloved Star-Chamber; and pro­nounces this execrable sentence upon him: ‘To pay the King five thousand pounds; to stand twice in the pil­lory; to have both his ears cut off, one at each time; to be afterwards imprisoned during life without the use of pen, ink, or paper; and to be stigmatized on both checks, with S. L.’ denoting thereby a seditious libeller.

At the same time Laud prosecuted Dr. Bastick and Bur­ton; the former an eminent Physician, the latter a Divine.

They were both condemned ‘to pay five thousand pounds to the King; to stand in the pillory; to have both ears cut off; and to be imprisoned during life:’ All which was executed with the utmost severity; and they, together with Mr. Prynne, were banished to the re­mote Islands of Scilly, Guernsey, and Jersey, where they were incarcerated; neither their wives nor any of their friends being permitted to see them.

John Lilburn, a young Gentleman of considerable fa­mily and fortune, lived at this time with Mr. Prynne; and, having a great regard for a person of his extraordi­nary abilities and integrity, could not forbear writing something in his vindication. This soon came to Laud's ears. The Prelate hereupon immediately ordered him to be brought before him in the Court of Star-Chamber, where he sat in triumph, and condemned this unfortu­nate youth ‘to be whipped from the Fleet-Prison to West­minster-Hall, to receive five hundred lashes, with a treble cord having knots upon it, and afterwards to stand in the pillory.’ He was whipped so bloodily, that every heart bled for him; yet he bore it with a courage, that was amazing. While he was in the pillory, in this most deplorable condition, he expressed some indignatio [...] at the injustice that was done him; this was immediately carried to Laud, who sent the executioner an order [...] ­gag him; which was instantly done. The spectators were all struck with horror and amazement.

[Page 23] Three years afterwards, a Gentleman of the House of Commons exclaimed with great force and eloquence against the diabolical practices of this Court; and taking notice of this Mr. Lilburn's sufferings, concludes with the following words: ‘By imprisonment he was made a dead trunk, by whipping a rogue, by pillorying a cheat, by gaging a beast; they had better have hanged him out-right.’ Rushworth says, ‘When once the Star began to swell big, and was delighted with blood (which was not till Laud's time, who [...] spring out of the ears, noses, and shoulders of the punished) and nothing would satisfy some Clergymen, but cropt'ears, slit noses, whipped backs, gaged mouth [...], and withal to be thrown into dungeons, and some to be banished from their native countries to remote Is­lands, and by order of this Court to be separated from their wives and children; then began the English na­tion to lay to heart the slavish condition they were like to come into, if this Court continued.’ The learned Lawyer Acherly says, ‘The cruelty of those corporal punishments, which were arbitrary, and imposed for no offence against the laws, bound down all the Gen­tlemen of England under a servile fear of the like treat­ment.’ The people of England had a general abhor­rence of these acts of tyranny, which one can neither write nor read of without trembling.

The Parliament, some years afterwards, voted the pro­secution of those four Gentlemen to be illegal and tyran­nical, and obliged these unrighteous judges to make them reparation. After the Parliament ordered them to had he set at liberty, they came to London, and were received with loud acclamations; they were met near the city by a hundred coaches filled with Gentlemen of rank and fi­gure. At the same time, one of the members of the city of London presented to the Parliament a Petition, sign­ed by more than fifteen thousand hands mostly persons of note, complaining of the wicked and tyrannical Go­vernment of Laud and the other Prelates, who had treat­ed some of the best men in England, more like slaves at Morocco, than like Christians, Protestants, or Englishmen.

I cannot dwell on this barbarous scene; so will give you but one instance more of the horrid cruelty of this [Page 24] most impious Court. The Rev. and learned Alexander Leighton, Doctor of Divinity in the two Universities of St. Andrew's and Leyden, was arrested by two russians belonging to the Court of Star-Chamber, who dragged him with force and violence to Laud's house, where they told him he was to be examined, Laud being then at home; but, instead of that, they carried him through a [...]terraneous passage to a place not opened since Queen [...]y's bloody reign; from whence having fettered him [...]ere with heavy bolts, they hurried him to Newgate, where in the entry his wife was almost killed; he was there cast into a nasty dog-hole full of rats and mice, with no light but from the uncovered roof, with no meat from Tuesday night 'till Thursday noon. In this doleful place and plight they kept him fifteen days, suffering none to come at him, not even his wife, in all that time. Four days after his commitment, Laud's officers, or ra­ther russians, came to Dr. Leighton's house in Black Fri­ars, under a pretence of searching for books. Here they laid violent hands on his poor distressed wife, and used her with so much inhumanity as is a shame to express. They rifled every one in the house, and held a cocked pistol to a boy's breast, not above five years old, threat­ning to kill him if he would not discover where the books were; at which the poor child was so frightened, that he never recovered afterward. At last they carried off all the Doctor's books, houshold goods, furniture and wear­ing-apparel. During his confinement, he almost pined away, and was so ill, that an Attorney and four Physici­ans certified his case to be desperate ^*. Yet, absent and sick, he was sentenced to undergo the dreadful punish­ment of which we have an account as follows in his own petition to the Parliament: ‘This horrid sentence was to be inflicted with knife, fire and whip, at and upon the pillory, with ten thousand pounds fine; which some of the Lords of the Court conceived could never be inflicted, only that it was imposed on a dying man, to terrify oth [...]rs. But Laud and his creatures caused the said sentence to be executed, on the 29th of No­vember following with a witness. For the hangman [Page 25] was animated with strong drink all the night before, in the prison, and with threatning words, to do it cruelly. Your petitioner's hands being tied to a stake, besides all other torments, he received 36 stripes with a treble cord; after which he stood almost two hours in the pillory, in cold, frost and snow; and then suf­fered the rest, as cutting off the ear, firing the face, slit­ting up the nose.’ Here the clerk of the House of Com­mons, when the petition was reading, was ordered to stop; and when he was going on again, he was ordered to stop a second time, till the auditors recovered themselves a little; for the House was melted down with tears, tender­ness and compassion. The petitioner proceeded: ‘He was made a theatre of misery to men and angels; and being so broken with his sufferings, that he was not able to go, the warden of the Fleet would not suffer him to be carried in a coach, but hurried him away by water, to the further endangering of his life. And on that day se'nnight, the sores upon his back, ears, nose, and face not being cured, he was again whipped at the pil­lory in Cheapside, and there had the remainder of the sentence executed by cutting off the other ear, slit­ting up the other side of the nose, and branding the other cheek.’ My hand trembles, my heart bleeds, I can go no farther. The Parliament, nemine contradicente, voted Dr. Leighton six thousand pounds, and made him warden of that prison where he so long lived in loath­some confinement.

This hellish cruelty, which the Parliament could not bear the hearing of without being moved with tears and compassion, does Bishop Laud, in his closet, write down at large in his diary with delight. Yet this is that very Bishop of whom that zealot Arch-deacon Eachard says, ‘No man in the world was so fit to make a Chancellor of the University of Oxford, considering his religion and charity.’ When this sort of men speak of reli­gion and charity, the words must be taken in a sense di­rectly opposite to their meaning in the New Testament.

Dr. Juxon, a haughty Ecclesiastic, of mean abilities, had been very assisting to Laud in his wicked doings, who in return, got him advanced to the Bishoprick of London; [Page 26] and soon after prevailed on the weak and infatuated King, to make him Lord High-Treasurer of England, which gave great disgust to all the Gentry and Nobility; or, as Clarendon expresses it, set them in a flame.

When any one was brought into the Star-Chamber, they had always one general charge brought against them, viz. That they were enemies to the church. Thus branded, without any regard to age, rank, or quality, they were treated with the utmost rudeness. Laud would make a speech of half an hour long, in favour of the divine right of Archbishops, and Bishops, Deans, Chan­cellors, Arch-deacons, mitres, copes, &c. which he would call the true primitive constitution; and would generally conclude with some silly and ill-natur­ed ignorant reflections on all the foreign Protestants, particularly the churches of Amsterdam and Geneva. By such mis-representations he prevailed on the King to shut up the Dutch and Walloon Churches in London, con­trary to the law of God, and the law of nations, and against the interest of ours in particular; great numbers of sober industrious persons being thereby driven out of the kingdom.

Laud's speeches, what influence soever they had on his own tools and instruments, had no other effect on his auditors in general than to expose himself; for thereby he discovered his utter ignorance of all history, both sa­cred and profane.

Things again, for some little time, went on pretty calmly. The Court carried all before them. The cruelty of the Star-Chamber (as Acherly expresses it) bound down all the Gentlemen in England under a slavish fear. The King openly avowed a despotic absolute government, by declaring that he would be accountable for his con­duct to none but God. Nothing can be more foolish and ridiculous: Is not every Prince upon earth accountable for his actions to reason and justice? Sure I am, a King of England is in a particular manner accountable to the laws and constitutions of the realm. In one of his speeches to the Parliament, he has this very remarkable expressi­on, ‘As it is blasphemy to dispute what God may do, so it is sedition in subjects to dispute what a King [Page 27] may do.’ In the height of his power (Burnet says) he was so possessed of the divine right of Kings, that he could not bear that even an elective and limited King should be called in question by his subjects.

The ty [...]annical power exercised by the Crown began now to grow daily more and more grievous; insomuch, that a multitude of people began to take refuge in our foreign plantations; and numbers of families actually transported themselves, from different parts of the king­dom. The Government at length took umbrage at it, and published a proclamation, to restrain his Majesty's subjects from transporting themselves to the plantations in Ame­rica, without a royal licence. The Court at the same time was greatly alarmed, by an information from the Custom­house, that eight large ships were then in the river Thames, taking in passengers for New-England; which immedi­ately produced the following order of council: ‘That the Lord Treasurer of England should take a speedy and effectual care for the stopping of eight large ships now in the River Thames, bound to New-England; and should likewise give orders for the putting on land all the passengers and provisions intended for the voy­age.’

The providence of God appears very conspicuously in this order of Council; for the famous Mr. Hampden, Sir Matthew Poynton, Sir William Constable, Sir Arthur Hasleridge, with many others of the same stamp, and, above all, Oliver Cromwell, were actually embarked, and would have sailed the next day, had they not been pre­vented by this order. When liberty is lost, let slaves and cowards stay. True Englishmen could not bear the dole­ful sight. Religion, laws and liberty were then no more!

The murmurings and discontent of the people increased daily. The King was at last prevailed on to call a Parlia­ment; and accordingly a Parliament was summoned to meet on the 13th of April, 1640, after twelve years in­termission. The Commons presently began to talk of re­dressing grievances. Whereupon, to the surprize and concern of the whole nation, the King suddenly dissolved them, after a session of three weeks. And, to make the matter still worse, he at the same time continued the [Page 28] convocation by a special warrant; who, in complaisance passed a canon, wherein the divine right of Kings, and unlimited obedience to them, were most strongly asserted.

By this preposterous conduct, the King soon found himself reduced to greater straits and difficulties than be­fore. He was obliged to summon another Parliament, to meet on the 3d of November following. In this Parlia­ment he may be truly said to have reversed his former arbitrary proceedings, (tho' without any such intention) by a more unaccountable step than any he had yet taken; and to have degraded his authority beneath every thing even his adversaries could have hoped for: I mean, by his passing a bill, whereby he divested himself of the power of dissolving, or so much as proroguing them, without their own consent. Thus he subverted the con­stitution of his country, to his own prejudice; as he had before violated it in numerous instances, to the detriment of his subjects.

The English constitution is originally free. We do not owe our liberty to the concessions of our Kings; as some ecclesiastical writers have laboured to prove. No, Sir. In England there has ever been a constitution; that is, a sy­stem of laws, institutions and customs, according to which the King is obliged to govern, and the subject to obey. The King, in his coronation oath, as much swears to the people, as the people swear to the King. When the Prince acts in conformity to the laws, he ought not, he must not be resisted, under any pretence whatever; but if he violates the fundamental laws of the realm, and actually subverts the constitution, he virtually unkings himself, and may then not only be resisted, but even de­posed, by his injured people. Lineal succession, and he­reditary right, have no foundation in nature; and to say they are appointed by God, is so groundless and ridicu­lous a position, as to merit no reply. There is no form of Government in the world of divine appointment: Every nation and kingdom under heaven is left to settle that form of Government which is most agreeable to their genius, and most conducive to the sole end of all Government, the happiness of the community. Even where kingly Government prevailed, hereditary fight [Page 29] was first introduced by communities, to prevent strife and confusion. In England this right is acknowledged and stands firm, at this day; but subject to certain re­strictions: that is, there have ever existed in the com­munity certain laws founded on reason, tending to the public tranquillity and welfare: these laws are the rule of the Governor's administration, as well as of the peo­ples' obedience; these laws are the constitution of the realm; and whenever it happens that a Prince endeavours to subvert that constitution, and substitutes an arbitrary power in its room, then it becomes just, reasonable, and necessary, not only to resist, but even to depose such a Governor. And if the circumstances of his descendants are such as will not comport with the interest of the nation, the lineal succession may be altered, or the Crown trans­ferred from one branch of the family to another; or to a new family, when the supreme law, the safety of the people, calls for it. By a statute as far back as the thir­teenth year of Queen Elizabeth, it was made high trea­son for any one to affirm, that the reigning Prince, with the authority of Parliament, is not able to limit and bind the Crown, and the descent and inheritance there­of. This plainly shews the Legislature's opinion of he­reditary right in those days.

The design of this letter, Sir, is to convince you, and all into whose hands it may fall, that King Charles was the very person who did deliberately and strenuously en­deavour to subvert and destroy the constitution of this kingdom, and to substitute in its room a wicked, lawless and tyrannical power over the lives and properties of his subjects; and consequently, that the opposition, of his subjects, or the attempts of the people to depose him, cannot, with any colour of reason or justice, be called [...] rebellion. No, Sir; it was a necessary opposition, found­ed on the justest principles: It was an opposition per­fectly consistent with our holy religion, with the com­mon sense of mankind, as well as entirely agreeable to the particular laws and constitution of this realm.

Government, I will allow, is a sacred thing, as you so often repeated; and to resist Goverment is certainly un­lawful, and may be reckoned among the most heinous [Page 30] crimes: But Tyranny is not Government. And as, in case there were no civil polity, men would not, however, be destitute of a natural right to defend their lives and properties, but might personally resist, or, if they found it necessary, destroy the invaders; so, as the nature of things does not allow of any established umpire to deter­mine between a Prince and his people, the community has a like natural right of defending itself against an ar­bitrary or cruel administration. Nor is the exertion of this right liable to so much objection as is that of pri­vate men, for the matters in dispute between those are often of such a nature, as makes it very difficult to judge of the aggressor: The offence is oftentimes secret; or, immediately affect the aggrieved. Self-love may magnify it beyond its due measure, or prompt to revenge, when prudence or good-nature may dictate otherwise in vain: Moreover, in certain cases one may serve a present inte­rest, by claiming redress where no real injury has been offered. But a constitution can be no secret, nor can the violations of it be concealed. Self-love can never influ­ence the society to resist legal Government; for the soci­ety can consider that as no other than its own security and support, and will be ever ready, for its own sake, to maintain and defend it. In short, as those in authority have greater inducements to become tyrants, than sub­jects can have to resist or revolt; so, in fact, while it has been the almost constant aim of all governments to make themselves absolute, and the generality of Princes pro­ceed by no other rule than their own caprice, with no other view but that of gratifying their lust of power, some, or pleasure; no people, on the other hand, as a [...]ion, ever revolted, 'til their oppression became intole­rable; nor have their been many (hardly any) lesser in­surrections, or rebellions of a few, that have not been warrantable in point of equity, tho' not of prudence.

Again, private men in society, however injured and abused, must not be their own judges; but must seek re­lief from the equitable and impartial laws of the land. But King Charles had deprived them of that resource; laws and appeals were no more; he had a hundred times broken his coronation-oath. In the very nature of Go­vernment [Page 31] is implied public safety and protection; King Charles's Government was public destruction and cala­mity. He had taken from his subjects every thing that was dear and valuable: Their peace, their rights and possessions; all which he had publicly sworn, at his co­ronation, to defend and maintain: Their properties he had unrighteously invaded, their liberties infringed. All this he did by means the most arbitrary and tyrannical; by repeated acts of horrid cruelty and barbarity, even on the best and wisest of his subjects.

What was now left for the people to do? He was now no Prince of theirs; he had forfeited their allegiance. Liberty and laws were a jest; he treated their very name with contempt. Mr. Locke says, ‘That in a state of nature every man has a right to vindicate himself; and when society is dissolved, the same right returns. Men can never be deprived of public safety and private defence.’

The people of England had no quarrel with King Charles, who had taken an oath to rule and govern by the laws and constitution of the realm; but when this King, by a conduct of many years, had discovered in spite of oaths and laws, that he would rule by violence, and abide by no law, he was degenerated into a tyrant, and become a different person; then it became necessary for the people to repel force by force. They saw no­thing but chains and fetters on one side, and arms on the other; and they wisely flew to their arms; which is what the people of England have ever done, and ever will do, in such direful circumstances. King Charles had no more right to what the law did not give him, than the Grand Turk had; and therefore they did not oppose an English Governor, but an invader and a tyrant: For, as Mr. Locke justly observes, ‘Wheresoever law ends, tyranny begins.’ Had King Charles conquered his subjects, what would he have gained, but the detestable glory of a triumphant oppresso, and the horrid satisfac­tion of seeing his kingdom reduced to poverty and ser­vitude! Do but look into the kingdoms of France and Spain, naturally the finest in Europe, and see the migh­ty difference between their inhabitants and ours! And, [Page 32] pray what makes that difference? Nothing but their sub­mitting to have all their laws reduced into one short one, that of Royal will and pleasure.

Would Princes live and die in peace and security, let them rule by the fixed and prescribed laws of their re­spective countries, and not grasp at more than is given to them. If Princes will never encroach, subjects will ne­ver rebel. How much more desirable, how much more safe and easy is the condition of a Prince, who lives and rules by law over a free people, by their own consent? The laws are their mutual defence and guard. Sir Wil­liam Temple, in his admirable Essay of Government says, ‘The safety or firmness of any frame of Government de­pends on the breadth of its bottom; the broader the bottom, the less liable to be shaken or overthrown.’ The ground upon which all Government in England now does or ever will stand, is the consent, the interest, and the affection of the people; therefore a monarchy, where a Prince governs by the affections, and according to the opinions of the people, makes of all others the safest and firmest Government. It is a poor and contemptible ambi­tion in a Prince, that of swelling his prerogative, and per­petually catching at advantages over his subjects; it dis­covers a mean spirit. A Prince of a generous turn of mind will not look on his subjects as his property, and as slaves; but considers them under the amiable and endear­ing title of his children, and himself as their father and protector, and will ever chearfully consent they shall hold their lives, liberties, and estates, by certain fixed and pre­scribed laws, and not by the mere will and pleasure of any single man. The universal experience of all ages, kingdoms, and nations, directs, that no mere man ought ever to be entrusted with absolute power and dominion.

Power of itself, without a proper check and controul, naturally makes men wanton, cruel and restless; it intoxi­cates the mind: In short, it has something in its very na­ture too great for the human soul to bear; it is fit for none but God, who is infinitely wise, just and benevolent.

I apprehend the facts already recited are abundantly sufficient to prove that King Charles did actually subvert and destroy the constitution: However, to put this grand [Page 33] point out of a possibility of being ever more disputed, I will mention two or three more.

He published a book of sports, requiring it to be read in all churches, thereby to promote and encourage a hor­rid profanation of the Sabbath.

But before I enter upon the particulars of this act, and the wicked design of the Court by it, I would say a word or two relating to the ends of the original institution of the Sabbath; from whence it will appear to be still obli­gatory upon all Christians.

The belief of a God is the foundation of all religion. It is necessary we should know whom we are to worship, and in what manner. It is likewise necessary that some portion of time be allotted for the instruction of mankind in the knowledge of their duty: Hence there is and ever will remain an eternal reason for the fourth command­ment having a place among the unalterable precepts of the moral law. Indeed, the preserving serious religion would be almost impossible without such an institution. On the other hand, the setting apart some periodical sea­sons for the more public and solemn worship of God, when mankind may be instructed in all those duties that are required of them, in order to their present and eter­nal happiness, has a tendency to exalt the soul, to puri­fy the heart, to qualify us for the purposes of this life as well as of a better; in a word, to promote our temporal as well as our eternal felicity. The Sabbath was institut­ed, that men might continually commemorate the works of creation, might offer up their grateful acknowledgements to God, of all his mercies and goodness vouchsafed towards them, and might openly declare themselves the worshippe [...]s of the one true God, the Author and Lord of the universe, in opposition to the infidelity of Atheists, and the impure and ridiculous rites of idolatrous nations. The worship paid to God in heaven is thus represented in Scripture: The whole multitude of the heavenly host fell down before him that sat on the throne, saying. Worthy art thou O Lord, to receive glory and honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created. This is the employment of saints and angels in the eternal Sabbath in heaven; and the original [Page 34] foundation of the institution of a Sabbath on earth was, the celebration of the praises of God. And that this so­lemn and public worship should be performed in an ac­ceptable manner, it is requisite it should be done when the mind is most calm and serene, abstracted from the noise and hurry of the busy world: Therefore it was, that when God at first sanctified the seventh day, or appointed it for a day of worship, he prohibited all manner of work thereon. Gen. ii. 1, 2, 3. Exod. xx. 8, &c. But the business of the Sabbath is not confined to public worship alone; there are various other duties to be performed, thereon; it is then a proper time for reading the Scrip­tures, and endeavouring to understand their true meaning; for those that are masters of families to be assisting and in­structing their children and servants in the knowledge and practice of their duty: In short, 'tis to be spent in what­ever tends to the honour of God, and the true interest and advancement of religion, virtue and sobriety in the world. Besides it ought to be considered that the circum­stance of a great part of mankind, particularly those in the lower class of life are of such a nature, that they have no other time for improving themselves in the know­ledge of God, and in the practice of true religion and [...].

I am sensible that this is a digression from my main de­sign; but really, Sir, I could not enter upon the recital of a [...], whereby it will appear, how the Sabbath was, by the express command of King Charles I. and the wicked compliance of a corrupt and worldly-minded Cler­gy, profaned throughout this kingdom, in a most noto­rious manner, without saying something of the morality of its institution, and the unspeakable advantages arising to societies, as well as private persons, by a religious ob­servation thereof; and consequently of the obligation in­cumbent on all men to sanctify it. To proceed then,

The Court being now determined to be restrained by no laws, either human or divine, and wanting to render the common and lower class of people more ignorant and profane, that they might suc [...]ed the more easily in their favourite design of moulding our church to a nearer com­pliance with that of Rome, (a [...] Ludlow expresses it) they [Page 35] published a book of Sports and Pastimes, to be practised on Sunday; and all Ministers, who refused to read this impious book, were imprisoned and suspended. Besides this, they published a particular declaration, encouraging dancing, leaping, vaulting, shooting, May-games, Whit­sunals, Maurice-dances, May-poles, all on Sabbath-days. ‘It is sad to recount, says Doctor Fuller, what grief and distraction was occasioned by this declaration in the hearts of all honest men. For, this Sabbath-breaking gave great offence to the people in general, and was a vast increase to the Puritan party, who cried out against it as a national sin.’ Some time after was published a second book of Sports, with many enlargements, com­manding wrestling, and cudgel-playing, &c. &c. on Sun­days. The good, the pious, the most religious King Charles was so intent on this second publication, that to hasten it, he wrote the following order or warrant to Laud.

CHARLES REX.

Canterbury, See that our declaration concerning recrea­tions on the Lord's day, after evening service, be printed

This was afterwards produced by Laud in his defence. Dr. Fuller again observes, ‘Many moderate men were of opinion, that this abuse of the Lord's day was a principal procurer of God's anger, afterwards poured out on this land in a long and dreadful civil war.’

Soon after this second publication of the book of Sports, Lord Chief Justice Richardson went the Western Circu [...]; and at the assizes in Somersetshire, the Gentlemen in that county complained to his Lordship, that an inundation of wickedness, profaneness, and impiety, had lately seized the common people; that it was wholly occasioned by the Sunday's revels; and that the enormity was so great, that in many parishes, on Sunday evenings, nothing was to be seen but drunke [...]ness, lewdness, and riot, which frequent­ly ended in fighting and bloodshed, with such other scenes of wickedness, and deb uchery, as is a shame to express. Yea, they go farther, and say, ‘That many persons had been indicted for murdering bastards, begotten at these revels, and for other grand disorders committed at [...]ose intemperate meetings.’

[Page 36] The Lord Chief Justice Richardson (thinking proba­bly that the people were now become more vicious than their Governors intended they should be) made an order hereupon to restrain in some measure this horrid abuse of the Sabbath. Upon hearing this news, Laud ran imme­diately to the King and complained, that Judge Richard­son, in his Circuit, had endeavoured to hinder the pro­sanation of the Sabbath. Richardson, on his return was immediately summoned to appear before the Council; where his Majesty, in person, commanded him to reverse the [...], at the next Assize, as he would answer the [...] at his peril. Lord Chief Justice Richardson [...] from his next Western Circuit, was again [...] before the King and Council, for not revoking [...] Sunday's revels; where he was so [...] Archbishop, that when he came from the [...], [...] Earl of Dorset meeting him, with tears in his eyes, and asking him how he did, the Judge replied, ‘Very [...] my Lord; for, I am like to be choaked with [...] [...]eeves.’

This [...] began to be much talked of. Laud, to jus­tice [...] the King, shewed about at Court a let­ter wro [...] [...] him by Dr. Pierse, the then Bishop of Bath [...] Wells, signed by seventy able Clergymen, in favour of Sunday's revels; signifying that they were in them­selves innocent and laudable; (than which nothing could be more untrue;) and that they were grateful to the [...]ergy; (which very probably was true:) But they were [...] wicked as to go further, and say, they were also ac­ceptable to the Gentry of that county; which was ab­solutely false. A copy of this famous letter was sent [...] Somersetshire, at which all the Gentry were greatly [...]raged; or, to use Rushworth's own words, ‘were highly [...],’ and immediately sent up a position, praying that the order of Lord Chief Justice [...] might be continued. This address was signed by

• John Lord Pawlet,
• Sir William Portman,
• Sir John Starell,
• Sir Francis Popham,
• Sir Ralph Hopton,
• Sir Edward Radney,
• Sir Francis Dodding [...]
• Sir John Horner,
• Edward Pawlet, Esq.
• George Speeke, Esq.

[Page 37] What will the reader now think of Archbishop Laud, of Bishop Pierse, and his seventy able Clergymen? I shall for­bear to make any reflections of my own on such a beha­viour of men, assuming the sacred character: But give me leave to recite the plain, the honest remark of the great Mr. Locke, relating to their conduct on a like im­portant occasion: Speaking of the act of uniformity, and the wonderful compliance of the Clergy with it, he says, ‘So great was the zeal in carrying on this Church-affair, and so blind was the obedience required, that if we compute the time allotted for the Clergy to subscribe the book of Common Prayer, we shall plainly find it could not be printed and distributed, so as one man in forty could have seen and read the book they did so perfectly assent and consent to. The Clergy readlly com­plied with it; for they are a sort of men taught rather to obey than understand; and to use what learning they have to justify and not to examine what their superi­ors command.’ It is reported, that the late Sir Joseph Jekyll concluded his speech in favour of the mortmain act, with the following words: ‘It hath ever been a great unhappiness, that the Clergy of our established church have been no better acquainted with the reli­gion, laws, government, and true history of their country.’

I could produce a cloud of witnesses, to vouch in this manner, for the honesty, prudence, and piety of the Cler­gy, in past times: Or in other words, to shew, what goodly tools of lawless power they have been, and how thoroughly qualified they are for such an office. But the testimonies of two such eminent persons, as the foregoing, are equivalent to those of a multitude: Mr. Locke, most illustrious for learning and virtue; Sir Joseph, a man of [...], inflexible integrity, and impartial justice.

[...] this time Laud had also a quarrel with Mr. [...] Mayor of London, for his shutting up [...], and brandy shops, on the Sabbath.

I am now come to the period of this wicked Ecclesi­stic's carreer; for, in the year 1644, he was brought to the bar of the House of Commons, and, after a fair and [...] trial for his life, the House came to the follow­ing [Page 38] resolution, (with but one dissenting voice) viz. ‘That he had traiterously endeavoured to subvert the religi­on, laws, rights, and liberties of this kingdom; that he had usurped an arbitrary and tyrannical power; and that for the same he should suffer death, as in cases of high-treason, To be drawn, hanged and quartered.’ They afterwards sent him up to the Lords, who voted him guilty of the treason, without one dissenting voice. The manner of his death was changed from what the sentence denounced, as it usually is in the case of persons of qua­lity; and he was beheaded on Tower-hill, the 10th of January, 1644—5.

This is but a small part of what I might have said of the violent and impious proceedings of this Archbishop. What can one then think of such historians as Clarendon [...] Eachard, who are so lavish in the praises of this great er [...]inal.

I [...]ow come to that horrid and lamentable scene, The Ma [...]cre of the Protestants in Ireland, in 1641. The [...] first rose in the province of Munster. A particu­lar account of their barbarities would be too long and [...] shocking. Cutting of throats, hanging and drown­ [...] were the mildest treatment the Protestants met with. [...]any had their eyes plucked out, and were then burnt or buried alive. Mothers were hanged on the gallows, with their children about their necks. There was no regard to women great with child, nor to insants. One Protestant Lady was delivered while in the hands of the tormentor, who flung the new-born infant to be eaten by a hog. These insernal monsters carried their inhumanity so far, as to oblige fathers and mothers to murder their own children, husbands their wives, and wives their husbands. There was such an excess of Popish cruelty, that my nature shrinks and recoils; I can repent [...] more of it. It was allowed on all hands, that [...] one hundred and fifty thousand persons were butchered and murdered in this inhuman manner.

I am sensible, I tread here on slippery ground; so shall make use of the words of others, as much as possible. General Ludlow, vol. I. p. 17. writes, ‘The King [...] in Scotland, when the news of this Irish rebellion was [Page 39] brought to him; and, as I have heard from persons of undoubted credit, it was not displeasing to him.’ Shocking! shocking beyond expression is it, to be told, (if true) that this dreadful and bloody massacre should not be displeasing to the King, when one can scarce [...]d it without trembling, even at the distance of more than a hundred years. Pray, dear Sir, don't be angry with my military historian. Give me leave to tell you, he was a Gentleman of quality, learning, experience, and con­duct: he commanded armies, fought battles, and go­verned the kingdom of Ireland. He was a University scholar, a man of sense, and ever esteemed to have an in­flexible regard to truth and justice. He was a man of bet­ter family and fortune than Clarendon, and was Knight of the shire for the county of Wilts, when the other was only a member for Wotton Basset, a small borough in the same county. Tis true, indeed, Ludlow was forced into exile, and driven as it were from place to place, to avoid assassination, or falling into the hands of an [...]apo­state party, while the other was advanced to office, estate, and title; but it must be said to his real honour, that he never betrayed the constitution, or deserted the interest of his country.

The news of this dreadful massacre alarmed all the people in England to a great degree; and the more so, because those bloody Papists confidently [...]irmed they were abetted by the King, and had a commission under the the Great Seal for what they had done. Ludlow tells us ^*. ‘A great number of Protestants flying from the bloody hands of the Irish rebels, arrived in Eng­land, filling all places with sad complaints of their cruelties to the Protestants of that kingdom; where­upon the Parliament earnes [...]ly pressed the King to pro­claim, them rebels, by a proclamation, but could not [...] it till after many weeks; and then but forty of these proclamations were printed, and not above half of them published.’

The backwardness of the King, to declare the Irish [...] be rebels and traitors, by a proclamation under the [...] Seal, made a mighty noise in the House of [Page 40] Commons; and it was there observed by many, that those concerned in the late tumult in Scotland, about a prayer-book, were forthwith declared rebels, in every parish church in the kingdom of England.

The proclamation published in Ireland, by Sir Phelim Oncal, at the head of those bloody traitors, began with the following words: ‘Be it known to all our friends and countrymen, that the King's most excellent Ma­jesty, for many great and urgent causes him thereunto moving, and reposing confidence in our fidelity, has signified to us by commission under the Great Seal of Scotland, bearing date the first of this instant October.’ Then follows the Commission itself, ‘To arrest and seize the goods, estates, and persons of all the English Protestants.’

As the rebels pretended the King's authority and com­mission, in so public and open a manner, it gave great offence to the Parliament, that they were not declared rebels and traitors by proclamation. At last, to satisfy them, it was promised, that on the first of January a proclamation should be published, declaring the Irish Papists in arms to be rebels and traitors. But before this time came, Sir Edward Nicholas, one of the Secretaries of State sent a special warrant to the Printer's, directing that only forty copies should be printed, and those not published till [...]is Majesty's further pleasure was signified. This gave a just foundation for all the jealousies and sus­picions that were afterwards entertained on that affair. Dr. Calamy, in his life of Baxter, page 43. says, ‘The Irish declared they had the King's commission for what they did; and many even at that time, weighing all circumstances, believed as much; while others repre­sented it as an unjust and scandalous aspersion on his Majesty. But, as Providence ordered it, a certain me­morable particularity helped to set this matter in [...] light: The Marquis of Antrim, who was a noted man amongst the Irish rebels, having had his estate se­qu [...]stred, thought fit, upon the restoration of King Charles the Second, to sue for the restitution [...] it. The Duke of Ormond and the Council judged against him, as being one of the rebels; whereupon he [...] [Page 41] his cause over to the King, and as [...]i [...]med, that what he did was by his Father's consent and authority; and the King referred it to some worthy members of the Privy Council, to examine what he had to shew: And upon examination, they reported, That they found he had the King's consent, or letter of instruction for what he did; which amazed many. Hereup a King Charles wrote a letter to the Duke of Ormond, and the Council, to restore his estates; because it appeared to those appointed to examine it, that what he did was by his father's order and consent. The Lord Mazarine, and others in Ire­land, not fully satisfied with this, thought fit so far to prosecute the matter, as that the M [...]rquis of Antrim was forced to produce in the House of Commons a letter of King Charles the First, by which he gave him an order for the taking up arms; which being read in the House, produced a long silence. The whole ac­count of it, with a great many surprizing particulars, was published in a pamphlet, entitled, Murder will out.’ Thus far Calamy.

Let us now see what Bishop Burnet says of this bloody business, History of his own Times, page 58, &c. ‘I will relate some particulars, concerning the Earl of Antrim; I had in my hands several of his letters to the King, writ in a very confident style. Upon the Resto­ration, in the year 1660, Lord Antrim was thought guilty of so much bloodshed, that it was taken for granted, he could not be included in the act of Indem­nity, that was to pass in Ireland. Upon which he came over to London, and was lodged at Somerset-House. He petitioned the King, to order a committee of Coun­cil, to examine the warrants he had acted by. As it seemed but just to see what he had to say for himself, so a committee was nam [...]d, of which the Earl of Nor­thumberland was chief. He produced to them some of the King's letters, but they did not come up to a full proof. In one of them the King wrote, he had not then leisure; but referred himself to the Queen's letter, and said, That was all one as if he wrote himself. Upon this foundation, Antrim produced a series of letters, writ­ten by himself to the Queen; in which he gave her [Page 42] an account of every one of those particulars that were laid to his charge, and shewed the grounds he went on, and desired her directions; to every one of these he had answers, ordering him to do as he did. So a re­port was prepared, to be signed by the committee, set­ting forth, That he had fully justified himself in eve­ry thing that had been objected to him, and that he ought not to be excepted out of the Indemnity. This was brought first to the Earl of Northumberland, to be signed by him; but he refused it, and said, he was sorry Antrim had produced such warrants, but he did not think they could serve his turn; for he did not believe any warrant from a King or Queen could ju­stify so much bloodshed, in so many black instances as were laid against him. Upon his refusal, the rest of the Committee did not think fit to sign the report; so it was let fall; and the King was prevailed on to write to the Duke of Ormond, telling him, that Antrim had so vindicated himself, that he must endeavour to get him included in the indemnity: That was done, and was no small reproach to the King.’

Neither Burnet nor Calamy takes notice of the date of this famous letter of King Charles the Second, to the Duke of Ormond, but it was dated at Whitehall, the 10th of January, 1663.

Upon my word, Sir, this bears hard upon the memory of your holy martyr. Had I time, I could produce a variety of other instances to convince you, that you are guilty of a most notorious mistake, when you so repeated­ly affirmed, he suffered martyrdom for the Protestant re­ligion. I do not believe, indeed, King Charles the First gave the Irish Papists a commission to cut throats, to rip up women with child in cold blood, and other such hor­rid cruelties; but from a strict and impartial enquiry into the best histories of those days, there is really too [...] ground to believe he did countenance and give a com­mission to the Papists to take up arms against the Protes­tants; and if a horrid and bloody massacre was the con­sequence of this commission, was not the King then [...] least a [...]essory to it? And in the business of murder, I ap­prehend our common law, as well as common sen [...] [Page 43] knows no difference between the accessory and the prin­cipal, but deems them both equal in guilt and punishment.

During the King's stay in Scotland, he endeavoured to prevail on that people to invade England, but without effect. On his return to England he was observed to grow daily more violent and tyrannical. He countenanced a company of loose dissolute fellows, frequenters of ale­houses, taverns and gaming houses, and kept a table for them in his own palace at Whitehall; and at the head of this rude mob, all armed, he entered the House of Com­mons, sat down in the Speaker's chair, and demanded the delivery of five of the most eminent members, Pym, Hampden, Hollis, Stroud and Hasleridge: Names that I cannot mention without a peculiar reverence; their memories will be always dear to every honest Briton, for that noble stand, that brave defence they made, in favour of the religion, laws, and liberties of their country. Lud­low says, page 21. ‘The King encouraged a great num­ber of loose and debauched fellows about the town, to repair to Whitehall, where a constant table was pro­vided for their entertainment. And again, page 24. The King went in person to the House of Commons, attended not only with his ordinary guards of pension­ers but also with those desperadoes, which for some time he had entertained at Whitehall, to the number of three or four hundred, armed with partizans, swords▪ and pistols. The King not finding any of the five members there, left the house; many members cried out Privilege, Privilege, and were pleased to call it an outragious act against all the peoples' rights and pri­vileges; and, after a short debate, they unanimously voted, That the King's entering their House was in a warlike manner. And therefore they, in great fear, trouble and confusion, adjourned to the Guildhall, in the city, for their better security. The same evening the King went into the city; but his coach was at­tended by multitudes, crying out, Privilege of Parlia­ment. This happened on the 4th of January, 1641▪ and from this day we must date the beginning of the civil war. The King doubled his guards at White­ [...], collected a great quantity of fire-arms, and gun­powder, [Page 44] sent several persons into the country, to raise officers, and soldiers, and dispatched his Papist Queen to Holland, who carried with her privately the Crown jewels of England, which she pawn'd to Mr. Webster, a noted Banker of Amsterdam, for a great sum, and laid it out in arms, to enable his Majesty to make war against his own subjects.’

By all accounts, and in all shapes, the King himself was the beginner of this dreadful civil war.

The pretension of both parties being submitted to the decision of the sword, the only dispute now was, Whe­ther the people of England should again recover their laws and liberties, or be governed by the absolute will and caprice of a single person? Whitlock, speaking of the Par­liament forces, says: ‘Most of them were freeholders, and freeholders sons, who upon matter of conscience engaged in the quarrel; and then being armed within by the satisfaction of their own conscience, and without with good iron arms, they would as one man stand firmly, and charge desperately.’ Ludlow says ^*, ‘Things be­ing brought to this extremity, the nation was driven to a necessity of arming, in defence of the laws, openly and frequently violated by the King, who now resolved to do that by force of arms, which he could not do by the strength of argument. I thought it my duty, as an Englishman, to enter into the service of my country, in the army commanded by the Earl of Essex, under the authority of the Parliament.’ A true English spi­rit! O how far different this from Clarendon and Eachard!

At last, after a dreadful civil war of many years, re­ligion, laws and liberty prevailed, as they ever will do in England, sooner or later. The King, by the fate of war, was taken, and afterwards made a prisoner at New­Port, in the isle of Wight. Here he entered into a treaty with the Parliament, commissioners being appoint­ed for that purpose by both parties. The King entirely despairing doing any thing more by force, made a great many concessions, viz.

(1.) To indemnify the Parliament for all that [...] [Page 45] been done by them during the late war, which the King acknowledged they were necessitated to do in their just and lawful defence.

(2.) He agreed, that Archbishops should be abolished, and that the Bishops who remained, provisionally, should not exercise authority, jurisdiction, or ordination, but with the advice and assistance of their Presbyters, that the Presbyterian Government should be established for three years, at the end of which the Assembly of Divines, his Majesty naming but twenty more, should determine the form of Church Government for the future; and that the Common Prayer should be taken away out of all churches and chapels.

I mention these particulars to shew the ignorance and presumption of those who annually affirm, the King was a Martyr for the church.

During this treaty the Parliament received letters from Colonel Jones in Ireland, giving an account of the arri­val of the Marquis of Ormond in that kingdom, with a commission to conclude a peace with the rebels, at the very time when the King was treating with the Parlia­ment to carry on the war against them. Jones also in­tercepted a letter of Ormond's to the chief of the [...] Massacrers; it was signed Ormond, and directed ‘To our loving friend Sir Richard Black, Chairman of the Assembly of the confederate Catholics at Kilkenny.’ Lilly speaking of the veracity of King Charles I. says of him: He had so much of self-end in all he did, it was a most difficult thing to hold him close to his word or pro­mise; so that some foreign Princes bestowed on him the character of a most false Prince, and one that never kept his word except for his own advantage. Again, though in time of Parliament he often promised to redress grie­vances; yet the best friend he hath cannot produce one act of good he ever did his subjects in the vacancy of Par­liament. Does this agree with the King's strict justice, piety, and devotion, that Clarandon speaks of? This discovery put an end to the treaty at once.

The King's death was a thing now resolved on, by [...] in the army who had power to put it in execution. [...] [...]ey obliged the Commons to concur in the design, [Page 46] placed a guard at the door of the Parliament-House, to prevent any of those members going in from whom they apprehended any opposition. The number of the exclud­ed was about one hundred and forty: Only some of these were voluntarily Seceders, in disgust for the force put upon their brethren. The secluded members imme­diately published a solemn declaration, signifying, that all the votes and ordinances of Parliament since their exclu­sion, and during the continuance of the army's influence upon the House, were null and void, and no ways obli­gatory. The sitting members, on the other hand, [...] this declaration to be scandalous and seditious.

Cromwell and a few more of the army had now the majority in Parliament, and court was made to them ac­cordingly. They abused that power they found they had, both in the army and the House of Commons, to execute the base design they had formed against the King's life. I have no reserves; I love a fair and open represen­tation of things. I can see wickedness, tyranny, and a flagrant breach of trust on both sides. I will readily grant that the King had hard and cruel usage; that he was murdered; that he was destroyed by a faction! The constitution was now again trampled upon, the laws were violated; tyranny and a wicked military force usurped their room! But still let us trace this lamentable state of things to its first cause. It began from the Court and [...]. It was the Monarch who created a disgust to [...]. It was the insolence of churchmen that made the church odious. You detest the murder of the King; so do I altogether as much. But I likewise detest the murder of the constitution, in which he and his wicked C [...]sellors were principals, and which for many years [...] been effecting. You mentioned the murder of [...] and the abolition of the Monarchy as the most wonderful events that ever the world produced. But, Sir, give me leave to tell you, that there was nothing wonder­ful or surprising therein. Any one that had been [...] all acquainted with the History of kingdoms or states [...] easily have foreseen them. Cromwell, Ireton, and [...] others of the army, had by invincible courage subdued [...] the enemies of the constitution; and this they performed [Page 47] by troops not only hardy and brave, but the most sober also, and best disciplined, that this or any other na­tion had ever seen. What wonder is it, if the leaders of such as these, if they had an inclination to subvert the laws of their count [...]y, to set up for themselves, and erect a new tyranny in their own persons, in the place of that from which they had just delivered her; I say, what won­der is it, if a set of men thus qualified accomplish their purposes. It was the best of the Roman troops that were the instruments of Caesar's usurpation. Soldiers are inured to implicit obedience. Whatever their officers com­mand they seldom scruple. It is their profession to dis­pute by force, and the sword. Cromwell, Ireton, and a few more of the army, having succeeded in that bold and impious attempt, of secluding by force one hundred and forty members, or purging the house, as it was termed, found themselves, by accursed experience, able to over­balance and controul the civil authority. They lost no time, they exerted their strength, destroyed the King, and seized the sovereign power at once. Men naturally desire dominion, and riches; and it is ridiculous to pre­sume they will not endeavour to attain them, when they have opportunity and power. I could mention many parts of Europe, that have been enslaved by their own troops. This has been and ever will be the case of all countries, that subsist by standing armies. When those have conquered the enemies of their country, they will subdue their country for themselves. Instances of this are too numerous, to allow ours to be wondred at.

You was all along grossly mistaken, in presuming the death of the King to be a national act. It was merely the act of the army. Ireton was the person who drove on the King's trial and death. Cromwell was a long time in suspence about it. ‘Ireton (says Burnet) had the principles and temper of a Cassius in him, he stuck at nothing that could have turned England to a [...] and he found out Cook, and Bradslaw, two bold [...], as proper instruments for managing it.’

[...] likewise sadly conso [...]n [...] the proceedings of the [...] with as [...] as the very [...] of the King's [...]

[Page 48] I could say a good deal in vindication of the Long Par­liament, from the first session to the last moment of their existence; which was when the army by force secluded above one hundred and forty members, as aforesaid.

They were after that no Parliament; nor could they in any shape be deemed the representative body of the na­tion. No, certainly. They were then under the terror, awe, and influence of a wicked military power, which would admit of no check or controul. I chuse here to make use of the words of others. Wellwood, in his Memoirs says, ‘No age ever produced greater men than those who sat in that Parliament. They had suffi­cient abilities and inclinations, to render the King and their country happy. They set down a scene of grie­vances under which the nation had long groaned; the many cruelties and illegal practices of the Star-cham­ber and High Commission Courts were now laid open; and it was insisted on, that those two arbitrary tribunals should be thrown down.’

The intentions of this Parliament were certainly just and noble, and tended to the equal advantage of King and people. But the King urged on his own ruin, step by step, and at last came to an open rupture with the Parlia­ment, which made the gap too wide to be again closed. I am sensible, Clarendon and Eachard every where treat this Parliament as a parcel of rebels and scoundrels, and represent their proceedings in a base and injurious man­ner. But I have a greater authority than that of any pri­vate man, to support and vindicate their proceedings: That very convention that brought in King Charles II. though ready to run mad with loyalty, would not suffer any reflection on the conduct of those illustrious patriots, except only in the article of beheading the King. Mr. William Lenthal, who had been Speaker of the Long Par­liament, and was a member of the restoring one, hap­pened to drop this expression in the debate about the general pardon, ‘He who first drew his sword [...] the late King, committed as great an offence as he [...] cut off his head.’ For which expression the Ho [...] [...] Commons ordered him to be seized instantly by [...] Serjeant, and directed Sir Harbottle Grimstone, [...] [Page 49] Speaker, to reprimand him in the following manner▪

‘Sir, the House hath taken great offence at some words you have let fall in this debate, which in their judge­ment contain as high a reflection on the justice and pro­ceedings of the Lords and Commons of the late Par­liament, in their actings before 1648, as could be ex­pressed. They apprehend there is much poison in the said words, and that they were spoken out of a design to inflame, and to render those who drew the sword to bring delinquents to punishe [...]t, and to assert their just liber­ties, equally culpable with those who cut off the King's head.’

Do not Clarendon and Eachard stand unanswerably condemned in the most solemn manner by this declara­tion of the House of Commons, pronounced by their Speaker? after which all future Critics on them would be superfluous.

I now come to that part of your sermon, wherein, ac­cording to the usual custom, you laid the trial and death of the King at the door of the Presbyterians. Most true it is, on the contrary, that of all our different parties, none had the honesty and courage to appear openly for the King but the Presbyterians. They exerted themselves in public and private, and omitted no one thing that was possible to be done, to prevent the execrable fact of put­ting his Majesty to death. No sooner was he taken and confined as a prisoner, but Mr. Calamy, Mr. Marish [...] ▪ Mr. Ash, Mr. Whiteaker, Mr. Sedwick, and many other Presbyterian Ministers waited on the Lord General Fair­fax, testifying their dislike of making the King a prisoner. A few days after, above forty of the Presbyterian Mini­sters joined in a letter to the General, and officers in the army, freely declaring against their seizing and imprison­ing the person of the King. This was about the latter end of December, 1648. About the middle of January it began to appear, that the death of the King was a matter fixed and determined by the army. On the 18th of January there was another meeting, of more than sixty of the principal Presbyterian Ministers in and about London, wherein it was instantly agreed, that, in behalf of themselves and their respective congregations, they [Page 50] should by some public act declare, before God, angels, and men, their abhorrence of the seizing and imprison­ing the person of the King, and their detestation of put­ting him to death; which they apprehended would be the issue of the trial then depending. In consequence of this resolution, the following representation was immedi­ately printed and published, in the form of a letter, di­rected to the General and Council of war:

"That they appeared at first for the Parliament, on the propositions and orders of the Lords and Commons, June 10th, 1642, for bringing in of money and plate, wherein they were assured it should be no otherwise em­ployed, than to maintain the Protestant religion, the King's authority, his person in his Royal dignity, the free course of justice, the laws of the land, the peace of the kingdom, and the privilege of Parliament, against any force that should oppose them. That they were wholly unsatisfied with the proceedings since the exclusion and imprisonment of the Members of the House of Com­mons, and held themselves bound in duty to God and religion, the King, the Parliament, and kingdom, to pro­fess before God, angels, and men, that they verily believ­ed, the taking away the life of the King, in the way of trial then depending, was not only not agreeable to the word of God, the principles of the Protestant religion, (never yet stained with the least drop of the blood of a King) or the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, but contrary to them; as also to the oath of allegiance, the protestation of the 5th May, 1641, and the solemn League and Covenant: From all which, or any of which engagements, they knew not any power on earth, able to absolve them or others. They warned and exhorted in the name of the great God, all that belong to their charge and ministry, to keep close to the ways of God, the rules of religion, the fundamental constitution and government of the kingdom; not suffering themselves to be seduced from it, by being drawn to subscribe the late models or agreement of the people, which directly tended to subvert the fundamental government; and to mourn bitterly for the sins of all degrees of men, and beg of God that he would restrain the violence of [...] [Page 51] that they might not dare to draw upon themselves and the kingdom the blood of their Sovereign." This was subscribed by

• Cornelius Burgess, D. D.
• William Gauge, D. D.
• Edmond Stanton, D. D.
• Thomas Temple, D. D.
• George Walker,
• Edmond Calamy, B. D.
• Jeremy Whitaker,
• Daniel Cawdrey,
• William Spurstow, D. D.
• Lazarus Seaman, D. D.
• Simeon Ash,
• Thomas Case,
• Nicholas Porosset,
• Thomas Thorowgood,
• Edward Corbet,
• Henry Roborough,
• John Downham,
• Arthur Jackson,
• James Nalton,
• Thomas Cawton,
• Charles Offspring,
• Samuel Clark,
• Joseph Wall,
• Francis Robert,
• Matthew Haviland,
• Samuel Bolton,
• John Sheffield,
• William Harrison,
• William Jenkyn,
• John Viner,
• Elidad Blackwell,
• John Crosse,
• John Fuller,
• William Taylor,
• Peter Witham,
• Francis Peck,
• Christopher Love,
• John Wallis, D. D.
• Thomas Watson,
• William Wickins,
• Thomas Manton, D. D.
• Thomas Gouge,
• William Blackmore,
• Robert Mercer,
• Ralph Robinson,
• John Wells,
• Jacob Tice,
• Paul Russell,
• John Glascock,
• Benjamin Needler,
• John Stileman,
• Joshua Kirby,
• Thomas Whately,
• Nathaniel Staniforth,
• Josias Bull,
• Arthur Barham,
• Jonathan Lloyd,
• Steven Watkins,
• John Devereux. ^*

Some of the subscribers delivered it to the General, and Council of war; which, as Calamy observes, was running a great hazard, as things then stood; and may be justly reckoned as an evidence of the great integrity and hones­ty of the persons who subscribed it. Yea, the day the King was beheaded, Mr. Calamy, and some others ap­plied to General Fairfax, and persuaded him to rescue the [Page 52] King; but he was full of regret and uneasiness, and saw that he had been trick'd and overpowered by his under officers, so that soon after he laid down his commission, and never had to do with the army more, whereby Cromwell became head of all.

What sort of mortals must those vicars, curates, doc­tors and dignitaries be, that pass sentence of damnation, every 30th of January, on those Ministers and their bre­thren, for killing this very King, whom, with so much boldness, truth and courage, they laboured to save? Strange and surprizing infatuation, egregious ignorance and baseness, which no age or history can parallel!

And here, Sir, you did not only seem to expatiate on the faults of the dead, with a bitter and malicious plea­sure; but was pleased to cast many severe and indecent reflections on the present generation of Presbyterians; ‘and did call on them aloud, to repent and mourn, in sackcloth and ashes; to weep and fast, with the utmost contrition and self-abasement; that so they might not bear the abominable iniquities of their forefathers; but by their extraordinary humiliation and sorrow might avert the just indignation and wrath of Almighty God.’

Considering all this, I was quite astonished at what you advanced on this head In truth, it was not only con­trary to reason and justice; but directly opposite to all divine revelation. It is from thence incontestably plain, that every man shall stand upon his own bottom, shall be condemned or acquitted hereafter, agreeable to his own conduct and behaviour; or as the New Testament ex­presses it, shall be judged according to the actions done in the body, whether they be good or evil. It is no where said, that any shall be judged according to the actions done or performed by their great-grandfathers, sixty or seventy years before they were born. No, the very sus­picion of it carries an injurious reflection on the justice and goodness of the Deity. And it can never enter into my held to conceive, that I can be properly punishable for the sins of my parents. Of my own sins I ought to repent, and to be filled with shame and indignation at the remembrance of them; and I am certainly liable to pu­nishment in proportion to the degree of my guilt; But of [Page 53] my grandfather's or great-grandfather's sins I can no more repent, than I can of the sins of my grandchildren yet unborn. It is impossible for me to prevent what shall be done after I am dead, so it was equally impossible for me to help what was acted before I was born.

You also hinted at the political principles of the pre­sent dissenters. I take the liberty to say, they are not ashamed of them. They are the same now as in the days of their forefathers. Upon their principles the late glo­rious revolution was founded. Their principles have been confirmed by many and repeated Acts of Parlia­ment, and have often had the suffrage and sanction of the most august assemblies upon earth. Upon the [...]r principles Sir, stands the parliamentary succession of the Crown of these realms, in the present reigning family; and God Almighty grant it may there ever stand. Yea, I could tell you a time when the clergy themselves were glad to borrow their principles.

I cannot finish my remarks on your sermon, without taking notice of what you was pleased to advance in the close of it, relating to the title King Charles had to the Crown of England, which you called an absolute, inde­seasible, hereditary right, and consequently not liable to cavil or dispute, by party or faction. This is what I think should never he said in pulpits, as it seems to imply a dis­trust of the validity of the parliamentary establishment.

I told you in the beginning of my remarks, that as far back as the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, it was made high-treason, for any one to affi [...]m, that the reign­ing Prince, with the authority of Parliament, is not able to limit or bind the Crown. I doubt not but you imbibed this principle of hereditary right at Oxford, forty years ago; and having never suffered yourself impartially to examine its foundation, it is become to you as a demon­strated truth. But the present age is given to reasoning; they do not so implicitly submit to absurdities, though they have the sanction of a convocational decree.

You was pleased to dress up the principles of the pres­byterians in a frightful shape; but let me tell you, Sir, in my turn, that the principles of your party have been burnt, not by a rude and lawless, rabble, but by the com­mon h [...]ngman, in broad day-light, before the Royal Ex­change [Page 54] in London, and by authority of Parliament. Per­haps you never have heard of this contemptuous treat­ment of the Oxford principles, and therefore I will give it you from the Parliamentary records. ‘ Anno Domini 1710. The House of Lords taking into consideration the judgment and decree of the University of Oxford, passed in their convocation, 21st July, 1683. It was resolved by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Par­liament assembled, that the said judgment and decree shall be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, before the Royal Exchange in London, between the hours of twelve and one, on Monday the 17th instant of March, in the presence of the Lord Mayor of the city of London, and the two Sheriffs of London and Middlesex.’

In this decree were strongly asserted the doctrine of passive obedience, the absolute, indefeasible, and heredi­tary right of succession to the Crown; and Revolution principles were called damnable. Bishop Burnet, speak­ing of this detestable decree, says, ‘The University of Oxford asserted the King's prerogative in the highest strain of the most abject flattery possible, both in their addresses, and in their wild decree; in which they laid together a set of such highflown maxims, as must esta­blish an unaccountable tyranny.’.

I will readily grant, it is an action worthy a Minister of the Church of England, to discover a proper zeal for the supremacy and prerogative of his Prince; but then, Sir, it should be with such limitations, and restrictions, as are consistent with our known and established laws, and agreeable to the settlement of the Imperial Crown of these realms. Under this head you might have testified some love to your country, some little attachment to the liberties of your fellow-subjects. But the advancing or the bare hinting that impious doctrine, of an absolute, indefeasible, hereditary right, is not only weak and fool­ish, but may be attended with dangerous consequences; as it may so unsettle the minds of some of his Majesty's subjects, as to make them suspect the validity of his Par­liamentary title: A title by far the best and most glori­ous, and will be found by experience to be the most durable. An absolute Prince is of all others the most in­secure; [Page 55] as he proceeds by no rule of law, he can have no rule of safety. He acts by violence; and violence is the only safe-guard against him. It was the advancing this slavish doctrine from the pulpit, in the latter part of Queen Anne's reign, that greatly contributed to the re­bellion which broke out on the accession of the late King, to the throne of this kingdom. This, with great propri­ety might be called the Grand Rebellion. It was a re­bellion, the most wicked and diabolical, that ever the world produced; a rebellion against King, Lords and Commons; against religion, laws, and liberty; in favour of chains, fetters, slavery, blackness and darkness both of body and mind. An event that will leave an eternal mark of infamy and disgrace on the British nation, as many of the nobility, gentry, and commonalty, were ei­ther openly engaged therein, or secretly favoured it. I have often wished, for the honour of the nation, that an hundred of the most considerable of the rebels had been confined in Bedlam, during their respective lives, that after-ages might have concluded, none but fools and madmen were engaged in that most wicked and impious attempt.

And here I cannot omit taking notice, not only to the everlasting honour of the Presbyterians, but of all the different denominations of Dissenters, that there was scarce a single man of them to be found, at that critical period, but what openly declared for the Parliamentary succession of the Crown in the House of Hanover; and were preparing to venture their lives and fortunes in its de [...]ence.

The invader, you know, Sir, claimed under the notion of an absolute, indefeasible, hereditary right. Whether he was, or was not, the son of King James, is quite out of the question; it is of no consequence at all to any one man in England, Scotland or Ireland, who was his fa­ther, or who was his mother; he is a person attainted by law, and therefore cannot reign; and all his aiders, and abbettors, or whoever holds any correspondence or intel­ligence with him, are deemed and judged guilty of high treason ^*.

[Page 56] I assure you, Sir, was I in possession of the mines of Mexico and Peru, together with all the other riches of those vast and mighty empires, I would most chearfully sa­crifice all, to the very last shilling, to preserve and transmit to posterity, the present Parliamentary succession of the Crown, with which are connected religion, laws, liberty, and independency; and should, in my most calm and serious moments, esteem my conduct to be just and pru­dent. And I persuade myself, I here speak the lan­guage of every true Briton. Most surprising then it is that any one who has bound himself by the strongest en­gagements religion can lay men under, and has tied down his soul by an oath, to defend and maintain the present settlement of the Crown in the illustrious House of Ha­nover, should be so wicked and profane, as to hint any thing in favour of an absolute hereditary right.

Thanks be to Heaven for this Parliamentary settlement of the imperial Crown of Great Britain: A settlement, which our religion, our country, our liberty, and our pro­perty, oblige us to maintain: Yea, without the solemni­ty of an oath, we are bound to defend this establishment, by every motive that can influence the mind of men; honour, conscience, and the love of our country, con­strains us to it.

We should certainly have been chained down, in the most abject condition of servitude, in the reign of the late King James, had not the Almighty, in mercy, given us that glorious instrument of his Providence, the late and memorable King William; by whose seasonable in­terposition we are now in a condition of enjoying life, liberty, religion and property.

I shall not content myself with remarks only from the different historians of those days; but let us see the calm and deliberate resolutions of the Lords and Commons, the representative body of the whole nation: In the first year of King William and Queen Mary, an Act of Par­liament was made, entitled, An ACT declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the Crown: It begins thus, 'Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in Parliament assembled at Westminst [...]r, lawfully, fully and freely representing all [Page 57] the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thir­teenth of February, in the year of our Lord 1688, pre­sent unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and stile of William and Mary, Prince and Prin­cess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing, made by the said Lords and Commons in the following words, "Whereas the late King James II. by the assistance of divers evil Counsellors, Judges and Ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom, by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with, and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without the consent of Parliament, &c. All which are utterly and directly con­trary to the known laws, statutes, and freedom of this realm: And the said late King, having abdicated the Government, and the Throne thereby being vacant, they the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Com­mons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, That Willi­am and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared King and Queen of England, France and Ireland, and all the dominions thereunto belonging, &c. &c." Then they enjoin the following oath to be taken, "I A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So help me God."

In the declaration presented by the Lords and Com­mons to King William and Queen Mary, on their ac­ceptance of the Crown, after having ascertained the rights and liberties of the people in the strongest terms, we have the following words: "And it is hereby-de­clared and enacted, that all and singular the rights and liberties, asserted and claimed in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubit [...]ble rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom; and so shall be esteemed, al­lowed, and adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration."

Let us now step into Scotland, and see what was trans­acted there at this important juncture, in a grand and so­lemn [Page 58] convention of their Lords and Commons, they de­clare, "That whereas King James VII. by the advice of wicked Counsellors, did invade the fundamental consti­tutions of Scotland, and altered it from a legal, limited monarchy, to an arbitrary and despotic power, and exert­ed that power to the subversion of the Protestant religion, and to the violation of the laws and liberties of the king­dom, &c. &c. All which miscarriages of King James were utterly and directly contrary to the known laws, freedom, and statutes of the kingdom of Scotland. Up­on these grounds and reasons the estates of the kingdom of Scotland did find and declare, that the said King James had forfeited the Crown, and the throne was be­come vacant, and the estates of the kingdom of Scotland had resolved, that William and Mary, King and Queen of England, be declared King and Queen of Scotland, &c."

In these Acts of Parliament the causes and reasons of the late revolution are fully set forth.

The people of England and Scotland, when they had gone so far, plainly saw the work was but half done. They had only delivered one generation from Popery and Slavery, and knew that in case King William, and Queen Mary, and the Princess of Denmark, left no issue, some Popish Prince or other, under pretence of being next in descent, might set up a claim to the Crown. This con­sideration gave birth to another Act of Parliament, made in the thirteenth year of King William, entitled, "An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and for the better securing the rights and liberties of the sub­ject." By this act "the most illustrious Princess Sophia, Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants, were declared the next in succession in the Protestant line, to the Crown of England, &c. &c. after the late King William and the Princess Anne of Denmark, and their respective issue; and it is enacted, that the Crown should be, remain, and continue to the said Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body being Protestants; and there unto the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the name of all the people of this realm, did most humbly and faith­fully submit themselves, their heirs, and posterities, &c.

[Page 59] About this time a little Popish Jacobite party began to peep up; upon which another Act of Parliament was framed, entitled, "An Act of attainder of the present pretended Prince of Wales of high treason." This Jaco­bite faction still subsisting, our Great Deliverer, and his glorious Parliament, having a dread upon their minds, of that Popery, Slavery, and Arbitrary Power, from which they had been so lately delivered, were now resolv­ed to do the work effectually; and for that purpose they passed another Act for extinguishing the hopes of the present pretended Prince of Wales, and all other preten­ders whatsoever, and their open and secret abettors. And, to clinch the nail and make thorough work of it, they framed the Adjuration Oath, and thereby tied down the people, body, soul, and estates, to maintain and defend the settlement of the Crown in the House of Hanover.

By these means our glorious Deliverer compleated his work, and handed down to us the most pure religion and the best constitution in the universe; guarded, and fen­ced about by oaths, and laws, as unalterable as human affairs can be.

When I consider how we stand as to the Pretender, that we have all personally abjured him in public courts of justice, and have in the presence of God, angels, and men, declared the same to be without any equivocation, or mental reservation; really, when I consider and reflect on these many solemn ties of laws and oaths of religion and conscience, of duty, interest, and inclination, me­thinks all fear vanishes in a moment, and an invasion in favour of the Pretender, appears to be a most wild and romantic chimera, unless supported by a wicked restless faction within our own bowels; he may otherwise with equal reason, and probability of success, attempt to in­vade the moon, as to invade and conquer the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland ^*. His present Ma­jesty, and the next successor to the crown, we know full well, will always rule agreeable to the laws and consti­tutions of the kingdom; and God Almighty grant, their [Page 60] successors may ever follow their glorious example: and then they will stand, eternally stand, on Sir William Temple's broad bottom, viz. The affection, interest, and inclination of the people, against which the united pow­ers of France and Spain, Hell and Rome, will never prevail.

I have often wished that the sundry Acts of Parlia­ment, for limiting and setting the succession of the Crown, were more universally known and understood; and that the most significant clauses of them were engraved on monuments of brass or marble, erected for that purpose in every parish church in England; that so the most wicked and impious of all doctrines, that of an absolute, indefeasible, hereditary right, might stand publicly and perpetually condemned.

I have only one remark more, and then shall have done with your famous sermon. You was pleased largely to insist on the obligation all men are under, to pay a due and proper regard to the national religion, and national faith; and endeavoured to prove, that the legislature is at all times truly and properly invested with a power, not only to support the national faith and religion, but to enforce it, and even its different modes and ceremonies, by civil penalties.

I would not be understood here, to be running down all establishments, and particularly that of the Church of England; but the establishing a national faith and reli­gion, and enforcing the same by civil penalties, does not appear to be reasonable and just, or quite consistent with the nature and end of civil society. Religion, I mean true and real religion, in its own nature is incapable of being established by any law. It is not subject to hu­man inspection, nor can it be controuled by any human authority. It consists in the reverence and love of God, in constant submission to his divine will, and in a regu­lar and devout obedience to his Laws. This is truly re­ligion; but it cannot be infused into the mind by any other means than by argument and persuasion. There­fore I submit it to the consideration of the public, if it be just or reasonable for the Magistrate to enforce the nati­onal religion and faith by civil penalties. The different [Page 61] modes and ceremonies of worship indeed may be establish­ed by the magistrate, but this is not the establishment of religion; these modes and ceremonies are, at best, only forms of godliness, and are often destitute of real devo­tion, reverence and love of God. Mahometanism is certainly an imposture, and its di [...]erent modes and cere­monies of worship are foolish and ridiculous; the esta­blishment of them does not alter their nature, or make them a jot more reasonable and just. Upon the whole, there is something in the nature of true and real religion inconsistent with any civil establishment whatsoever. But the contending for, and establishing a national faith, is still more unaccountable. With respect to faith, every man must believe according to the evidence that is exhibited to him; he cannot help it. Such is the frame of the hu­man mind, that it cannot withhold its assent or belief from any proposition that shall appear to be true or probable. I evidently perceive, two and three make five; was I to gain the world, I cannot think otherwise. I have never been at Jamaica, yet I believe there is such a place; and that it lies in or near the particular latitude described in our maps: The testimonies I have received of it are so strong, as force the belief of it, whether I will or not▪ Transubstantiation, the Athanasian creed, and many other things I could mention, are truly mysterious and unin­telligible, and therefore cannot be properly the objects of the assent of any reasonable man. Was I to be threaten­ed with the severest tortures, if I did not believe these doctrines, yet the fear of those severe punishments could not force me to the belief of them; it would be impos­sible for me to consider them any otherwise than as ab­surd falsehoods. The dread of pain might induce me outwardly, to acknowledge them a [...] true; but this would be no other than a wilful deliberate act of hypocrisy, for which I should stand condemned in my own conscience.

I will grant, the belief of a God is the foundation of all religion; there is no man who makes any use of his reason; but will conclude, that from eternity there must have existed some one, unchangeable, independent, ne­cessary, self-existent Being, from whom all other be­ings, and all other things, that are, or ever were, have [Page 62] received their original. It is demonstrably true, that all things could not have risen out of nothing; nor can they have derived from one another in an endless chain or succession. Whatever exists must have a cause, a reason, a ground of its existence; therefore, it is one of the most evident truths in the world, that something must have existed eternally and independently: That is, (as Dr. Clarke very justly observes) to exist by an absolute ne­cessity, originally in the nature of the thing. This is the most natural idea of the Supreme Being; therefore I am forced to believe, that there is One only living and true God, a most pure, glorious spirit, necessarily possessing all possible perfections, eternal, immense, immutable, al­mighty, omniscient, independent, infinitely holy, just and good.

Thus far the light of nature, unassisted by revelation, points out and directs; and the more we consider and contemplate this subject, the stronger we shall find it im­pressed in our minds: yea this truth is so evident and demonstrable, that it comes with an irresistable power; so that our assent to it is necessary and unavoidable.

Let us now examine the pretensions of revelation, and we shall find the case exactly the same.

It is undeniably true, and we have all the proof and evidence that any reasonable man can desire, that there really was such a person as Jesus Christ, and that he appeared in the world about 1700 years ago; that he was Jesus the Messiah; and was sent out from God, and acted by the authority of God; that he came into the world to establish a pure, spiritual and undefiled religion▪ in its nature simple and perfect, freed from superstition and idolatry, not loaded with sacrifices or ceremonies, but every way adapted to make mankind wiser and [...]et­ter. The sublimity of its doctrines, the purity of its pre­cepts, the spirit of love, charity, and universal benevo­lence, that runs through the whole Christian system, obliges me to believe it has God for its author. Besides, the mi [...]les our Saviour wrought, in confirmation of his doctrine, were many, and uncontestable; performed in open day-light, in presence of many hundred people; so that there could not be the least suspicion of any fraud or juggle.

[Page 63] I am very sensible, 'tis natural for all men, to have a [...] over-bearing opinion and esteem of that particular reli­gion they were born and bred up in; but Christianity will bear the strictest enquiry, and stand firm, when the mind is freed from all the b [...]ass and prejudice of educa­tion. It calls on all its votaries to prove and examine it; and it has this particular distinction from all other religions whatsoever; that the more it is inspected into, the more its purity, rationality, and divine authority will appear: So that I am obliged, whether I will or not, to acknowledge the truth of our Saviour's mission, and the divinity of his doctrine: The proofs are so incontestable and conclusive, that it is not in my power to withhold my belief or assent; so that this faith also, like all others, is in its own nature necessary and unavoidable. These pre­mises make it extremely difficult for me to conceive, that any one can be properly punished or rewarded, either here or hereafter, merely for believing or not believing; and abundantly demonstrate, that the power claimed by the civil magistrate, to establish a national faith, is inde­fensible on rational principles, and not agreeable with the nature and ends of civil society.

With regard to Christianity, it is purely a practical thing, not a speculative one. The Scriptures declare, that faith without works is dead. It avails not. It signi­fies nothing. Let a man believe by the lump, let him swallow creeds by dozens, let him believe all the ortho­dox established notions, or all the orthodox opinions of the other different parties, yet, if he is an immortal man, he is worse than an infidel. A good life infers good prin­ciples. Living well is the best evidence we can give that we believe well. Certainly, an honest, sober, virtu­ous Heathen, must be more in the favour of God, than a wicked Christian. A Pagan who observes the laws of truth and peace, is infinitely more religious, than a pro­fane, turbulent, ava [...]itious Christian Priest. Cornelius was a Heathen; yet, observe, it is declared of him in Scripture, That he was a devout man, and one that feared God, with all his house; who gave much a [...]ms to the peo­ple, and prayed to God Almighty.

[Page 64] I have now done with your sermon, and shall conclude, with repeating a few of my favourite lines:

I beg leave to entertain the reader with an admirable Poem, very well adapted to the present subject.