Three CONSIDERATIONS proposed to Mr. William Pen, Concerning the Validity and Security of his New Magna Charta for Liberty of Conscience, by A. Baptist; which may be worthy the Consideration of all the Quakers, and of all my Dissenting Brethren also that have Votes in the Choice of Parliament-Men.  
I Desire you M. Pen, and all my Dissenting Brethren to Consider, and then Answer this:  
First, What validity or security can any pretended or designed future New Law or Charter have, when we see so many of the present Laws we already have may be, and are by the Dispensing Power Dispensed with? Have we, or can we have any Higher Power here in England, than King, Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled? The Laws that are now Dispensed with and rendered useless, were they not made by that Power? Pray tell me, can your New Charter [if you had it] be made by any Higher or other Power? And M. Pen, let your Brethren, and us know your mind honestly. Do you think there is any Temporal or Spiritual-Power here in England above the Dispencing Power? And can you make it appear to us?  
Shall your New Charter have a Penalty inserted to be inflicted on the infringers or breakers of it or no? if not, what will your New Charter signify? Not three skips of a Louse; and if it have a Penalty, Cannot any King by his Prerogative and Authority Royal, Dispense with the Penalty? And what will it signify then?  
That you need not doubt at all, but may be certain of this; you shall hear what Roman Catholics have already told us, and judged is the Law in this matter; nay, and such a Right so inherent and so inseparable from the Crown, That a King cannot divest himself of it if he would, nor is bound by his Word or any Declaration he makes, no not in or by Parliament.  
Take it in M. R. Langhorns own words in his Book, touching the Kings Right in Dispensing with Penal Laws, p. 3, 4. That this Trust, and this Power of Dispencing with Penal Laws, are inseparably united unto the Royal Person of the King, that he cannot transfer, give away or separate the same from himself; consequently it is inherent in his Royal Person, that is, in his Crown. Coke lib. 7. fol. 36.  
That the King cannot by his Grant, nor yet by Act of Parliament, Bar 〈…〉 lf of any that is inherent in and inseparably annexed into his Royal Person, for that in so doing he should cease to be King, and consequently change and subvert the Government, which our Law allows not.  
That (therefore) when ever the King to gratify a Parliament, doth Consent in Parliament to any Law, by which he seems to strip himself of, or depart from, any Prerogative, or Right, which in truth is inseparable from him as King; or when the King in Parliament or otherwise by any Declaratory Words or Speeches, seems to relinquish such Right: such Consent to such Law is no more than an Agreement on his part not to use that Right ordinarily; but only in Extraordinary Occasions, when in his Princely Wisdom he shall find it necessary, and for public good. But this Bars him not to use this Right again, when he sees just cause so to do, Nor can any Declaratory Words spoken by the King, or his assent inserted into an Act of Parliament, Estop the King in any Cause of this nature. So far he.  
Now where's the assurance then of Will. Pen's New Charter for Liberty? Who can tell what King we may have after our present Sovereign, whether so merciful or so just? Or what Sheriffs the next King may choose, and what Returns of Parliament-Men they may make; for you know the forfeiture on the Sheriffs making a false Return is no great matter, and cannot a King pardon it by his Dispensing Power or Authority Royal? What will, nay what can your New Charter then signify, when it either is or may be (according to your own Doctrine) either invalidated, disannulled, or annihilated in an instant?  
Secondly, Pray M. Pen, Consider what your New Charter can signify, so long as there is a High Commission Court, or a High Commission for Ecclesiastical Affairs set up? Cannot those Commissioners take any of your and our Preachers, Teachers, or Ministers to task when they please? Cannot they when they have a mind to it, Suspend Mr. Pen, or George Whitehead, M. Alsop, Mr. Lob, or Mr. Mead, or Mr. Bowyer, as well as the Bishop of London, D. Sharp, or D. Doughty? Notwithstanding your New Charter? Cannot the Court when they will, or shall think fit, or be commanded, Suspend, Silence, or forbid any or all the Dissenting Ministers to Preach any longer in their Meetings, if they will not read any Declaration or Order whatever, that the King shall set forth and require them to Read? Remember the Magdalen Colledge-Men, Remember also that Sauce for a Goose is or may be Sauce for a Gander.  
This Consideration is further grounded on the Words in their late Order set forth in the Gazette, For Contempt of his Majesty's Authority Royal; Now let us see before we leap, whether that will run no farther than just M. Pen will have it. Can he stop the Current of it when he pleases? If he could we are not sure he would, for formerly he had no great kindness (we know) for us Baptists and other Dissenters and if he could and would, we are not sure of his life how long. Therefore it will be the greatest piece of weakness and folly in the world for us to dance after his and the Jesuits pipe alone, contrary both to all common sense and reason, and our own general interest.  
Thirdly, And above all Consider what Security or Validity this New Charter can be of, when there is a standing Army kept on foot? Do Guns hear Reason, or regard Laws? Will Dragoons mind Charters, or Arguments do you think? Pray M. Pen tell us whether they have done or do now so in France? We need not go far off for an Instance, it is so near us as fifty or sixty miles, which one would think is nigh enough to open our Eyesight, if we are not strangely infatuated and given up by the Almighty to ruin and destruction, which the good Lord 〈…〉.  
M. Pen, How have the Dragoons minded our Properties (in these early days) in divers places here in England already? What think you of their Carriage and Quartering, will it agree with your New Charter for Liberty? The Innkeeper's and Victuallers beside many other can give you an account, now if you were truly A Friend for Liberty for Liberty's sake, as you publish and pretend to the world, you would mind and inform us, and your Brethren of these and the like things, and not mincingly pass them over, and both delude and deceive us and them.  
Many particulars more might be enlarged here, but a word to the wise is enough.  
I desire M● Pen only to weigh seriously, and give an honest, clear and satisfactory Answer to these three points; in the mean time it appears to be highly the duty of all Men, as well Dissenters as others who have Votes in choosing Parliament Men; above all to choose such faithful Patriots as will take care of these things already hin●ed, and others that may be brought before them; that our Liberties, our Laws, and our Lives may be preserved from ill designing men, add from future Quowariauto's; and all the high Violators and Infringers thereof called to an account, and justly punished. This will well become them and secure us, more than any titular Charter whatever.  
Liberty is indeed a fine word, but remember (Brethren) what the Apostle Peter hath told us, That some there were that while they promise them Liberty, they themselves are the Servants of Corruption, and observe what follows, for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in Bondage: how do you, how will you like that Word? The Name of Liberty signifies nothing without the Substance, and the Continuance, Certainty and Security of it.  
Let us endeavour to secure our Substantial Liberties, our English Liberties we have and aught to have, rather than to get the Name of New ones, which may fatally bring us into greater Bondage in the end.  
Did you never hear of a certain Act or Bill for the Repealing of a Penal Law, that was lost (when the late King was to have Signed it) betwixt the House of Commons, and House of Lords, by a strange Trick of an honest Clerk of the Parliament.  
Do not part with a Goose, for the sticking down a Feather.  
Children know, and can tell us, A Bird in the Hand, is worth two in the Bush.  
Finally Brethren, Let us be of one mind in our great Concerns, though we may differ in some Circumstances, and small trivial things.  
Let us not in revenge (though it be sweet) put out both our own Eyes, to put out one of our Brothers. Let us not be so silly, to destroy ourselves, to hurt others.  
But let all Protestants Unite in mutual Condescension, Affection, and Interest; it is high time: Remember our Saviour hath told us, a House divided against itself cannot stand. Nothing will Save us but Union. Let Brotherly Love and Charity continue.  
Farewell and be wise whilst you may, lest you repent where 'tis too late. and your repentance will do you no good.