Let this be Printed,  
WHITEHALL, Febr. 25 th'. 1687. Sunderland P.   

THE Legality of the Court HELD BY His Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, DEFENDED. Their Proceed No ARGUMENT Against the Taking Off Penal Laws & Tests.  
LONDON, Printed, and are to be Sold by Richard Janeway, in Queens-Head-Alley in Pater-Noster-Row. MDCLXXXVIII.   

THE Legality of the Court Held by His Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, DEFENDED.  
THE Manifest Design of our Church-men's Out-cries against His MAJESTY'S Ecclesiastical Commission, being to insinuate into the Mobile, That the KING, notwithstanding the solemn Promises he has made to the Church of England, intends nothing less than Her Ruin; I cannot forbear adding some Considerations to what the Vindicator of the Proceed of His MAJESTY's Ecclesiastic Commissioners hath said on this Subject. And thus much I the rather do, because I find, that the Last thing they aim at, is the setting the Nation against the Taking off Penal Laws and Tests. But, that I may the more Successfully go through this Province, it will be necessary, that I examine what has been opposed to the Legality of the Court.  
His MAJESTY has Promised to Protect the Church of England, as by Law established, and hitherto has done Nothing that interseres with this most Gracious Promise; for, it must be acknowledged, that a Correcting the Disobedient Members of a Church, is not a Destroying, but rather an using proper methods to preserve and secure it.  
The Church of England is a Body-Politick, compact, and compounded of many, and almost infinite several, and yet well-agreeing Members, of which the KING is Head, instituted and furnished with plenary and entire Power, Prerogative, and Jurisdiction, to render Justice and Right to every part of this Body, of what Estate; Degree, and Calling soever he be.  
The Exercise of this Power and Prerogative, according to the Ecclesiastic Laws of this Realm, is the Great Engine, used for the Defence and Security of this Church. The Distribution of Justice, whether by encouraging those that do well, or punishing the Offenders, is the true way to support a Body-Politick.  
Thus much, I presume, all men of Sense will yield, from whence it is easily inferred, That on my Clearing the Legality of the Commission [for nothing has been (that I do know) objected against the Defence of its Proceed] it must be moreover granted, that His Majesty has done the Church of England no harm.  
My present Work then, is, to consider, What has been urged against the Legality of this Court? The Author of a Letter to the Vindicator will have the Question to be, Whether or no by the Laws of this Nation, as they now stand, the KING's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, may be delegated to Commissioners? Or, Whe-Ecclesiastical Commissioners derived their Authority from His Majesty, by virtue of the First Elizabeth only, and not upon the score of any Prerogative in the Crown, preceding to that Act, whereby our Kings might appoint Commissioners in such Cases, ad libitum, is the single Question, upon which the Validity or Invalidity of the present Commission will turn?  
To this the Author answers, That it is not an Expression that might drop from my Lord Coke's Pen, that will determine so weighty a point as this, especially it being a question that depends upon some knowledge of Antiquity, which my Lord Coke was very little acquainted with: Besides, he adds, That my Lord Coke never tells us, that our King's, by virtue of their ancient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, could appoint any Commissioners.  
After this, the Author goes on to let us know what the ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical was, boldly affirming, that no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was anciently delegated to Commissioners; For, saith he, Commissioners are not such Arbitrary things as some mistaken Men do fond imagine. And how plausibly soever it be said, That what Power a Man has in himself, he may delegate unto another; Yet this difference must be admitted betwixt Persons Commissionated by the KING in Matters of Government, and Persons authorized by private men, to act for them, and in their stead, viz. That private men may by Law do those things in Person, which they empower others to do for them. But the KING Commissionates Persons to do what Himself cannot by Law do in Person.  
This is the Substance of what our Author opposes to what the Vindicator had said of the Legality of this Court. And in my Reply, no more is needful, than to show, 

1. That in the Sense of the Church's great Archbishop, the KING may do by Law those things in Person, which He empowers Commissioners to do for Him.  
2. That before the 1 Eliz. the Kings of England, by the Common Law, might grant out Commissions.  
3. That notwithstanding any thing contained in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. be KING may do so still.  
4. That His Majesty may exercise this Prerogative in Matters Ecclesiastical, in a more ample manner than yet He has done; and therefore seeing he doth not, it's manifest, That His Majesty designs no Hurt to the Church of England.    
To the First, I will only insist on what is affirmed by Archbishop Bancroft, the Malleus Puritanorum, the great Champion of our English Church, who was Precedent of the Convocation called in the First year of K. James 1. and stiffly insisted on the imposing the three Articles, and on a Depriving all that disobeyed. This Great man, the Church of England's Darling, expresses himself most fully in these Words, 
Lib. 12. Mich. 5 Jac. Prohibitions de l'Roy.  as Sir Edward Coke reports.  
Upon Sunday the 10th. of November, the KING, (upon Complaint made to him by Bancroft Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning Prohibitions) was informed, That when question was made of what Matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have cognizance, either upon the Exposition of the Statutes concerning Tithes, or any other thing Ecclesiastical, or upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning the High Commission, or in any other case, in which there is not express Authority in Law, the KING Himself may Decide it in His Royal Person, and that the Judges are but the Delegates of the KING; and that the KING may take what Causes he please to determine, from the Determination of the Judges, and may determine them Himself. And the Archbishop said, It was clear in Divinity, that such Authority belongs to the KING by the Word of GOD.  
Nothing can be more expressly opposite to what the Author of the Letter affirms: He saith, that The KING cannot by Law do that in Person which He empowers others to do. But the Archbishop is positive, That the KING can do it in Person, yea, that thus much is ratified by the Holy Scriptures, and therefore is out of the power of humane Laws to alter. If then there be any Truth in this Church-man's Divinity, there is no force in what the Author offers for Law. But,  
Secondly, The thing I chief insist on, is this, That before the First of Elizabeth, the Kings of England might grant out Commissions.  
In Caudries Case, 
Coke Rep. Lib. 5.  after great and long Deliberation and Consultation, the Judges resolved, That the Act of the First year of the late Queen, concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, was not a Statute Introductory of a New Law, but Declaratory of the Old; which appeareth as well by the Title of the said Act, viz. An Act restoring to the CROWN the Ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, etc. As also, by the Body of the Act, in divers parts thereof. For that Act doth not annex any Jurisdiction to the CROWN, but that which in truth, or of Right, aught to be by the Ancient Laws of the Realm, parcel of the KING's Jurisdiction, and united to his Imperial Crown, and which Lawfully had been, or might be exercised within the Realm.  
Thus you see the Judges are clear in their Opinion, that the First of Elizabeth is not Introductory of a New Law, but Declaratory of the Old: And thus much in the General the Author of the Letter will grant me, but then he will by no means yield, That our KINGS, by virtue of their Ancient, Inherent, and Primitive Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, might Delegate to Commissioners the Exercise thereof: However, if we observe what was further resolved by these Judges, we shall find that 'twas thus:  
If that Act of the First Year of our late Queen, had never been made, it was Resolved by All the Judges, that the King or Queen of England, for the time being, may make such an Ecclesiastical Commission, as is before mentioned, by the Ancient Prerogative and Law of England.  
Thus you have the Resolution of all the Judges, against the Opinion of one unknown Gentleman, whether Lawyer, or no, is not clear; but had he been (though he discovers no such thing) Learned in the Laws, I presume, his Opinion is not to be regarded, in a Matter wherein the Judges are so plainly against him. And, though this be enough, yet ex abundanti, I will add one Resolution more of our Judges. 
Coke Rep. Lib. 12.  Mich. 4. Jacob. post Prandium; There was moved a Question amongst the Judges and Sergeants at Serjeants-Inn, If the High Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes may, by Force of their Commission, imprison any man, or no? First of all, it was resolved by all, that Before the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. The KING might have Granted a Commission to Hear and Determine Ecclesiastical Causes.  
To return to our Author, on this Question, Whether our KINGS, by virtue of their Ancient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, might Grant out Commissions, or Delegate the exercise of their Power to Commissioners? I say, on this Question (as this Gentleman grants) the Validity or Invalidity of the present Commission will turn: that is to say, If by the ancient Laws our KING'S might Grant out Commissions, than the present Commission is valid; But it has been Resolved by all the Judges again and again, that by the Ancient Law before the First of Elizabeth, the KING might Grant out Commissions. Ergo, the present Commission is valid, the Court is a Legal Court.  
Though this be so very clear, yet our Gentleman is still of the Opinion, That the Statute of 16 Car. 1. has taken away the Commission itself, Root and Branch. I will therefore proceed to the Third point, viz.  
Thirdly, That notwithstanding any thing contained in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. the KING may still Grant out Commissions. For, if the Power of Granting this Commission be, as our Church-of- England-Lawyers declare, a part of the Ancient Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction, it is, notwithstanding any thing in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. still so. For it is expressly declared in this 13 Car. 2. c. 12. That Neither the said Act, nor any thing therein contained, DOTH, or Shall take away any Ordinary Power from the Arch bishops, Bishops, etc. but that they, and every Person abovenamed, exercising Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, may proceed, and execuce all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, belonging to the same before the making of the 16 Car. 1. And if we look back, and observe who those Persons are that are abovenamed, we shall find them to be not only Archbishops, and Bishops, but Vicars-general, or any other person or persons whatever, exercising Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power by any Grant, Licence, or Commission of the KING's Majesty; and if the Ecclesiastical Power be restored to Vicars-general, and to the KING's Commissioners, than the Power extraordinary is restored too, for 'twas an Extraordinary Power that belonged to them, which can no sooner be yielded, but 'twill follow, that no more Power is taken from Vicars-general, and the KING's Commissioners, than what was taken from Archbishops, Bishops, etc. which is further confirmed by that Clause, in which it is Declared, That the KING's Supremacy in Ecclesiastic affairs shall not be abridged or diminished; On which I thus argue: That that Sense of this Law, by which the KING's Ecclesiastic Supremacy is abridged or diminished, is not the true Church of England Sense. But the holding that all extraordinary Jurisdiction is taken away, abridges the KING's Supremacy; For, as our Churchmen will have it before this Statute was Enacted, it's most manifest, that the Power of making Vicars-general and Commissioners, for the exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction, and summoning Men out of their own Diocese, belonged to the King's Supremacy Ecolesiastical, and therefore it still doth appertain to it, which cannot be satisfied by Commissioners of Delegates, and Commissioners to visit in places exempt; For as I have already observed, Vicars-general, whose Jurisdiction is Extraordinary, are named amongst the rest. But to follow our Author,  
If we inquire after the Special Reason that moved Queen Elizabeth to set up the High-Commission Court, we shall find, that though it was to the end she might Deprive the Popish Priests, yet, by the Instigation of the Clergy, it was, for many years together, turned against the Protestant Dissenters; and, according to Church-of- England-Law, it may as well be turned against themselves: For the Powers, Authorities, and Jurisdictions annexed to the Imperial CROWN of England, were for the Redressing, Ordering, Correcting, Restraining, and Amending any Offences, Contempts, and Enormities whatsoever, which by any manner of Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction, aught to be reform; and therefore, if a Church-of- England-man be guilty of any such Offences, Contempts, or Enormities, he falls under the Ecclesiastic Censure, as well as a Roman Catholic, or Protestant Dissenter; and for the same Reason, One Prince exercises this Authority against Offenders of one sort, another Prince may use the same Power, for the amending the Offenders of the other Denomination.  
And, Who can consider how our Churchmen, that they might the more severely handle the Protestant Dissenter, have exalted the Prerogative, and not wonder that they should complain on the milder Exercises of it? But whatever they may think, it's impossible for them to open their Mouths in this matter, unless they bring upon themselves the greatest Odium and Contempt imaginable; for when they blame the present Commissioners for what they have done against the Bishop of London, and Magdalen College, they do condemn themselves for exercising the greatest Severities against the Puritans, contrary (as now they themselves will have it) unto all Law; For from what has been already said, it is apparent, That the same Power His Majesty's Predeceffors exercised, belongs unto His Majesty, and that gives Strength to each Horn of the Dilemma.  
In a word, than our Churchmen must confess, they have been guilty of a very great error, in turning the Royal Thunder against the Old Puritans, in Q. Elizabeth's and K. James the First's days: Or, that they acted very Righteously in what they have done against them. If the Former, why do they not publish so much to the World? Why do they not confess, that their Forefathers have sinned, and gone astray, and that the Puritans were most Unjustly persecuted by their beloved Mother? If the Latter, if the Church of England in those days did but what was Just, seeing many Hundred of the Puritans were spoiled of their Benefices by the Royal Power, the KING may as Righteously proceed on the same bottom.  
Fourthly, The Fourth thing to be done, is this, viz. That His MAJESTY may exercise His Prerogative in Matters Ecclesiastical, in a more ample manner than yet He has done.  
The Author of the Letter affirms, That the Power of making Canons, for the Government of the Church, was not otherwise in the CROWN than the Power of making Temporal Laws; But the mistake in this place is as great as some others he is fallen into, about Appeals and Investitures; the first of which, notwithstanding what he saith to the contrary, is to the KING without a Parliament, and decided by his Delegates or Commissioners of Review; the Last by the KING solely, who, by the delivery of the Staff and Ring, did usually invest, as our Histories abundantly confirm. In like manner touching Laws about Rites and Ceremonies, it lies in the KING's Power, without a Parliament, to make 'em. So saith Dr. Zouch, and Dr. Cousin, and there is an Act of Parliament, 
Rex possit novas Leges condere circa ceremonias & ritus cum confilio Metropolitanis vel Commissariorum in Causis Ecclesiasticis. Zouch. Descrip. Jur. Eccles. Par. 1. Sect. 3. Cos. T. 6.  expressly recognising this Power to be in the KING; the Words of which are, If there shall happen any Contempt or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church— the Queen's Majesty, with the Advice of Her Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical, or Metropolitan, may Ordain and Institute such further Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the Advancement of GOD's Glory, the Edifying of His Church, and due Reverence of Christ's Holy Mysteries and Sacraments. 
1 Eliz. c. 2.   
And as the KING, with His Ecclesiastical Commissioners, may make New Laws about Ceremonies, so, without a Parliament, He may make Orders or Constitutions, for the Government of the Clergy, and deprive the Disobedient.  
Thus much is affirmed by those Protestant Divines, who have Written in Defence of the KING's Supremacy, particularly by Dr. Harris, in Answer to Becanus the Jesuit, where he is express in assuring us, That the Right and Power by Regal Authority to make Church-Laws, as, that GOD should not be Blasphemed; that GOD should be pacified in a Fast, and Honoured in a Festival-day, and all such as we read to have been made in the Code, authentics, and Capitulars by Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, and Carolus Magnus, belongs to our Kings.  
Moreover, to Delegate such as should judge of the Laws so made,  
Touching Persons  
To administer Justice to all of all sorts— To deprive the Highpriest (if he do deserve) of his Priesthood.  

These by Divine Right, are the Rights— of Regal Primacy, viz. whereby the KING may  
1. Be called the Supreme Head of the Church.  
2. Call Councils, and preside in them.  
3. Make Laws Ecclesiastical.  
4. Constitute, and Depose the Highpriest.  
5. Bind His Subjects, by Oath, to Keep the Laws by Him made.   
To conclude, Hereby may the Adversaries see that Regal Primacy is founded on the Scriptures, and propagated from the First Religious Kings under the Old, to the First Religious Emperors and Kings, and so to Our Sovereign Lord K. JAMES, under the New Testament, and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished. So far Dr. Harris.  
But before many Noblemen, Archbishops, and Bishops, and the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer, it was agreed, That the KING, without a Parliament, may make Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy, and that such a Deprivation, Ex Officio, without a Libel, is good.  
Besides, it must be further observed, That as it was held both by the Church-of England-Divines, and Lawyers, 
Noyes Reports, Fol. 100  to be in the Power of the KING to make Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy, and Deprive the Disobedient: In like manner our KINGS acted accordingly, and imposed a Subscription to the Three following Articles.  
I. That the KING's Majesty, under GOD, is the Only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other His Highness' Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal; and that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, have or aught to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual, within His Majesties said Realms, Dominions and Countries.  
II. That the Book of Common-Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of GOD, and that it may Lawfully be used, and That He Himself will use the Form in the said Book, prescribed in public Prayer; and none others.  
III. That He alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops, and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden in London, in the Year of our Lord God, 1562. And that He acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained, being in number Nine and Thirty, besides the Ratification to be agreeable to the Word of GOD.  
To these three Articles all Persons received into the Ministry, were bound to Subscribe in these Words;  
I N. N. do willingly, and ex animo, Subscribe to these Three Articles abovementioned, and to all things that are contained in them.  
This Subscription was imposed by the Regal Authority, without a Parliament, and many Hundreds who could not Subscribe, were, to the Ruin of them and their Families, actually deprived. And although this Subscription was exacted, during the whole Reign of James I. and Charles I. yet until the Restauration of Charles the 2d. it had never a Parliamentary Establishment.  
Seeing then, it's past doubt, That His MAJESTY's Supremacy is as ample as that of any of His Royal Predecessors, what Q. Elizabeth and K. James the First have done, that His present MAJESTY may now do, and without a Parliament, Command a Subscription to other New Articles, and Deprive the Disobedient.  
To instance in one Article: His MAJESTY may Command all the Clergy throughout this Kingdom, to give in their Assent, and Consent to every thing contained in His late Gracious Declaration of Indulgence, and Deprive all that Disobey.  
The power of Making new Articles, and requiring Subscription, His MAJESTY'S Royal Predecessors have exercised, and the same His MAJESTY may as well now do. For the Matter of His Majesty's Declaration has greater Countenance from Scripture, than the Ceremonies can pretend to. Ay, the very Dispensing Power itself, is no more than what many of our Clergy have, for many Years together, preached up for Sound Doctrine.  
Thus you see how the KING may stretch His Prerogative to an higher Peg than yet he has done; but, Would there not then be a Brave Work among our Clergy, who, on such an occasion, would be obliged to give in Assent and Consent to Liberty of Conscience, or submit to a Deprivation! I will say it again, If His MAJESTY by His Regal Authority, should impose a Subscription to His late Gracious Declaration, He might most Righteously, according to Church-of- England-Law, Deprive all that refuse to Obey.  
I know that of late, some have very confidently said, That Deprivation is no Ecclesiastical Penalty, for the Benefices of which they are Deprived, is a Property, and by Magna Charta, no one can be disseized of it, without a Trial by a Jury of his Peers; I will therefore, in short, give you the Resolution of our Judges in this matter, and leave it to the impartial Reader to judge, as he shall see cause.  
Robert Cawdrey, the Parson of the Rectory of Northluffenham, in the County of Rutland, was, by the Queen's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, deprived of his said Benefice, for preaching against the Book of Common Prayer, as also for that he refused to Celebrate Divine Service, according to the said Book; which said Sentence of Deprivation was given by the Bishop of London cum assensu A. B. C. D. etc. collegarum suorum. But whether the Deprivation was void in Law, was solemnly and ofttimes debated at Bar by Council, and at the Bench by the Judges, and after great and long deliberation and consultation had with the rest of the Judges, the Case was in the Term of St. Hilary, in the 37 Year of the Queen, adjudged. It was argued by Cawdrey's Counsel, That the Deprivation was void, for his Offence was against the First of Elizabeth, and therefore aught to be punished according to the moderation of that Act, which was not for the First Offence an ipso facto Deprivation, but only the Loss of the profits of his Ecclesiastical Live for One year, and Six months' Imprisonment. But Deprivation was for a Second Offence, committed after he had been judicially convicted of Record by Verdict of Twelve men, or by Confusion, or notorious evidence of the Fact. But although this was the method prescribed by the Statute of 1 Elizabeth, yet, because there was a Proviso in the said Act, [That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops, and every of their Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, should have full Power and Authority, by virtue of that Act as well to inquire in their Visitation, etc.— of all and every the things abovementioned, done and committed, or perpetrated within the limits of their jurisdiction and Authority, and punish the same by Admonition, Excommunication, Sequestration, or Deprivation, and other Censures and Process, in like Form as heretofore had been used in like cases by the Queen's Ecclesiastical Laws,] It was adjudged, That the Ecclesiastical Judges might Deprive such Person, Vicar, etc. as shall deprave or not observe the said Book, as well for the First Offence, as he might have done by the Censures of the Church, and the Ecclesiastic Laws, as if no form of punishment had been inflicted by that Act, and are not bound to pursue the Form prescribed by the said Act, which is to punish the Offender, according to the Temporal Law.  
Thus the Judges have Resolved it, That Deprivation is one sort of Ecclesiastical punishment, and may be inflicted without an Observing the Form prescribed by the Temporal Laws: Which is enough to silence the Clamours of those Churchmen, who now cry up Benefices to be such a Property, that the punishment by Deprivation cannot be justly inflicted, unless the process be in like Form as is used by the Temporal Laws.  
Furthermore, as His Majesty may exercise this ample Power, and not recede the least from Church-of- England Law; even so, his Doing it would not interfere with his Promise: And, if we may judge of things by the Sentiments our Churchmen have heretofore had of Deprivations, no hurt is hereby done unto their Church. For when the old Puritans, in Q. Elizabeth's and James the First's days, and the Nonconformists in Charles the Second Reign, were Deprived, these Deprivations were esteemed by the Governing Clergy, no Damage, but a great Advantage to the Church; for, by them She was delivered from all those that differed from Her in a Ceremony. On the other hand therefore, if His Majesty should impose Subscription to the Late Declaration, though many be thereupon Deprived, yet no more harm can be done the Church of England now than by the former Deprivations. And if the Opinion of a very Learned and Moderate Churchman may be of any value, the Difference between these and the Old Deprivations, must be only this: By the Old, the most Pious, Learned, and Peaceable, that scrupled the Ceremonies, were turned out, to the prejudice of Religion; But by this New one, none but the Debauched, and Persecuting part of the Clergy, to whom we may impute all our Late Miseries, will be laid aside, to the advancing the Nations Peace.  
If then the KING may exercise his Prerogative, and go so far, as is here said, without doing any hurt to the Church, What ground is there for the present Noise? His MAJESTY's Commissioners have indeed suspended One Bishop for his Disobedience, towards whom they have exercised the greatest patience, in not proceeding to a Deprivation; And what have they done more, than amove the Fellows of one College for their insolent oppugning His Majesty's Supremacy, and a making 'em uncapable of compassing their bad designs? Where then is the least Colour for the Jealousies these men endeavour to beget in the minds of His Majesty's Subjects?  
On the whole, Whoever will consider how much, according to Church-of- England-Law, the KING may do, and yet notwithstanding the many Provocations some Hot-Church-men have given Him, How little He has done? I say, whoever will carefully observe thus much, will see cause enough to conclude, That His Majesty's Clemency in the Exercise of His Supremacy, bears proportion to His Greatness.  
It's amazing to observe, how industriously some of our Clergy, and their Creatures, struggle; how strenuously they labour to misrepresent His Majesty's most Glorious Designs, how many Seditious Pamphlets they do daily emit, and at what charges they are to propagate 'em. But yet His Majesty, with the greatest steadiness pursues His Royal Purposes of Grace to the whole Kingdom, to all Parties in it, even to the Church of England, that She continue in the Enjoyment of all that is dear unto Her, so far as it's consistent with the true peace and quiet of the other great parts of the Nation.  
Let things be restored to the Ancient Constitution, let all Englishmen, as such, enjoy the Privileges that belong unto 'em: Let them all sit down with peace under their own Vines, and be equally concerned in the Services the Government calls for, and Encouragements it gives, and His Majesty is satisfied.  
The enclosing the Government, and narrowing it so, that none but Men of one Religious Persuasion can have a share in it, hath (as woeful experience teaches us) proved fatal to this Nation. It hath spoiled our Trade, depopulated the Kingdom, and exhausted the Nation's Treasure, carrying it unto a neighbouring People.  
Let us then be content, that His Majesty broke down the Enclosures, and set the Government on a larger bottom, that all True Englishmen may have a share in it. Let Liberty and Property, and every man's Religion, be secured, and we shall soon be the happiest People under Heaven.  
I say, Let every man's Religion be secured, as much from Violence, as the most Sacred part of our Civil Liberties, for this is the thing His MAJESTY Desires; and, Where then is our danger?  
His MAJESTY offers to do what never any of His Royal Predecessors ever did before him, towards the establishing his People's Peace, And shall we be so unsensible, as not to Bless GOD, and accept of the Offer?  
Here is no Trusting in the Case. His MAJESTY discovers so much Sincerity and Integrity in what he saith, that he will leave no room for Trust.  
It is but to accept of a Magna Charta, in which our Religion is secured from all danger, (which can never be so long as Penal Laws, and those Tests, whose matter is merely Religious, be kept up,) and we are immediately possessed of all we can reasonably desire.  
Let the same Instrument that takes away Penal Laws and Tests, secure our Religion, and by the very Breath, that the one is destroyed, the other will be established.  
That a Sufficient Security may be found out, is not doubted by the most wise and thoughtful. What that is, is the part of a Parliament to consider; but if we have as good, or better Security for our Religion; to be content to part with Penal Laws and Tests, is both the Duty and Interest of every true Englishman.  
That His Majesty will give us as good Security as can be reasonably desired, is the Import of His Late Gracious Declaration, which, he has, on divers occasions, oft publicly repeated, and it hath been fully proved, That His Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners have done nothing that is inconsistent with It. Whence it clearly follows, That there is nothing of Argument in our Hot-churchmens' Clamours, about this Courts Proceed against the Taking off Penal Laws and Tests.  
In a word, from what has been already urged, it's most apparent:  
I. That the Court, held by His Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is, according to the Sentiments of Church of- England-Lawyers and Divines, a Legal Court.  
TWO That the Prerogative, recognized by the Church-of- England to be inherent in the CROWN, is much larger than what His Majesty has yet exercised. For, 

1. The KING with His Commissioners Ecclesiastical may make New Laws about Ceremonies; and instead of Three, impose Thirty more. The Power being lodged in the KING, He is the most proper Judge of their Decency, and Number; and for the same Reason, that Three are imposed, if His Majesty judges it meet, Thirty more may be added to the present Imposition.  
2. The KING with His Commissioners Ecclesiastical, may enjoin a strict Subscription unto New Articles, and in the present juncture, require the Clergy to give in Assent, and Consent unto them, on Pain of Deprivation. And if His Majesty should oblige our hot Church-Doctors to Subscribe, Assent, and Consent unto Liberty of Conscience, What a condition would these Violent Men be plunged into? They must either renounce their persecuting Principles, or part with what is as dear unto them, viz. their Benefices.  
3. His Majesty may proceed against the Bishop of London to a Deprivation; for, when ever any one falls under Suspension, it has been the Custom of the Church of England, stiffly to insist on a Submission; and where that could not be obtained, they never stopped one point this side a Deprivation. Now it's plain, that it was the Bishop's Duty to obey the Mandate of his Supreme Ordinary, and suspend Dr. Sharp; and seeing he refused to Discharge his Duty, he was by their own Laws, justly suspended; and it's as certain, that His Majesty exercises the greatest Clemency, in waiting so long for his submission.  
4. If His Majesty should deal with some of the Magdalen-Fellows after that manner, the Church-of- England-Judges advised King James the First, to proceed against the Old Puritans, He might handle 'em more severely than yet his Commissioners have done. For their endeavouring to fill the Minds of His Majesty's Subjects with Discontents, and Jealousies, is an Offence, Fineable at discretion, and very short of Felony, or Treason in the Punishment.    
By all which it's manifest, that His Majesty has not stretched his Prerogative to the utmost length he might, and yet keep within the Church-of- England Circle, and it's also as clear, that by reason of this Power His Majesty has all the Conformable Clergy under His Girdle; to which we may add, that on the account of the many Penal Laws against Protestant Dissenters, They also are as much under the Power of their PRINCE; for which reason, we may be assured, that if His Majesty designed any thing more than the Peace and Quiet of all His People, if he had further resolved to have set up Popery in Dominion, to the Ruining His Protestant Subjects, the only time of doing it would be before the Penal Laws and Tests are taken off, and a Magna Charta, for Liberty of Conscience is Established. For Now, the KING can either Muzzle all the Clergy, or Ty●up the hands of Protestant-Dissenters, and get a Parliament, that shall set up Popery.  
It's not to be doubted, but that 'tis more easy Now, than it can be after a Magna Charta for Liberty of Conscience is obtained; for Then, the persecuting principle will be Damned, the Church of England will have fresh security for her standing, and the Protestant-Dissenter be delivered from the Awe, and Dread of Penal Laws. And every Man, whose desire is more for Peace, than Broils and Confusions (be they Protestant or Roman Catholic) they will be for a continuing the Magna Charta.  
To deliver freely my Conscience in this case, it is this: His Majesty designs to make us happy, by setting us all at ease under His Government; and the utmost he desires, is, That the Roman Catholics with His other Subjects, may enjoy the Free Exercise of their Religion, and have an equal share with others in the privileges of Englishmen: and that thus much may be compassed, the King would have Matters so settled, that it may never be in the power of any one Party to hurt the Religion of the other, and that all Parties may be secured from Fears and Jealousies, His Majesty calls for the help of a Parliament, that in a Parliamentary-way, Men of every Religion, may have the greatest security the Wit of Man can invent for Liberty of Conscience.  
All those Pamphlets therefore, that are daily spread abroad, chief by those, who had the greatest hand in the late Persecution, do hinder the Nations Peace, so far, as they obstruct this His Majesty's most Gracious Design, and are to be considered as such, by all good Men, who, when they weigh things, will, I doubt not, see cause to do their utmost, that We may have such a Parliament, as will concur with His Majesty in making us Happy.  
FINIS.