THE JUDGEMENT and DOCTRINE Of the Clergy of the Church of England, CONCERNING One special Branch of the King's Prerogative, Viz. In dispencing with the Penal Laws, Asserted by The most Reverend Fathers in God, The Lords Arch-Bishops Bancroft, Laud and Usher.  
The Right Reverend Fathers in God, The Lords Bishops Sanderson and Cartwright.  
The Reverend Doctors, Sir Thomas Ridley L. L. D. Dr Heylin, Dr Barrow, Dr Sherlock Master of the Temple, Dr Hicks, Dr Nalson and Dr Puller.  
And by the ANONYMUS, Author of the Harmony of Divinity and Law.  
Together with the Concurring Resolutions of our Reverend Judges, as most Consonant and Agreeable thereunto.  
In a Letter from a Gentleman of Oxford, to his Friend at London.  
Licenced the 2d. of May 1687.  Upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Sovereign Authority, he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis; or Essential Rights of Sovereignty, according to that Maxim, Qui dat esse, dat & omnia pertinentia ad esse; He that gives the Essence, gives also the Properties belonging to the Essence. Jovian, or an Answer to Julian the Apostate, chap. 11. 
London, Printed for J. H. and T. S. and are to be had at most Booksellers, in London and Westminster.   

SIR,  
IN one of the late Conferences you were pleased to have with me, you seemed to be somewhat dissatisfied upon the subject we were discoursing of, which was, whither the King had by Law such a Supreme Power inherent in, and inseparably annexed to his Crown, as to Dispense with Penal Laws.  
I remember I then told you, we could not resolve ourselves of this Great Point, but by these two ways.  
1. To see, how far the Judgement of our Churchmen, appearing in their Doctrines (which are for our Edification) doth Warrant this Prerogative to be in the King.  
II. To see how far the Judge's Resolutions (in declaring their sense of the Law of the Land in this doubtful Question,) do agree with such their Judgements and Doctrines.  
And as for the First, Sir, I doubt not but to make it clear, past all peradventure, that our Reverend Clergy of the Church of England have unanimously concurred in this Point of Doctrine, that it doth inseparably belong to the Kingly office to dispense with Penal Laws, when ever such a Supremacy of Power shall be thought necessary to be exerted for the safety of the King, and the Good and Ease of his People in general. And if I can prove this undeniably to You; I hope then that this nice Scruple of yours (which by the way, I suppose, you will allow me to call your tender Conscience) will easily be removed; and consequently than it may be presumed, I shall have less difficulty to Satisfy You in the other Point, that this sense of the Law of the Land in the point in Question, is no other, than what is exactly Correspondent with the Judgement and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England.  
To begin then,  
The Reverend Dean of Worcester, in his so deservedly applauded Answer to 
Dr Hick's Jovian. chap. 10.  Julian the Apostate, declares, that the English Realm is a perfect sovereignty, or Empire, and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it, is a Complete, Imperial, and Independent Sovereign. And he quotes Coke in Cawdrye's Case, who saith, that by the ancient Laws of this Realm, England is an absolute Empire, and Monarchy; and that the King is furnished with plenary and Entire Power, Prerogative, and Jurisdiction, and is supreme Governor over all persons within this Realm.  
Now it would be a contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown; to acknowledge the King for supreme over all Persons,— and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power, unless He have all Those Rights, which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Sovereignty.  
By the Rights of Sovereign, saith He, I understand Those Prerogatives, and Preeminences of Power and Greatness, which are involved in the Formal Conception of Sovereignty, and are inseparably annexed to the Sovereign.— He hath no sharers or Copartners in the Sovereignty; None coordinate with him in Government; no Equal, nor Superior, but only God, to whom Alone He is subject,— All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from Him, as supreme Head of These Churches, and Realms.  
There are some Essential Rights of the 
Sir Robert Pointz Knight of the Bath, his vindication of Monarchy. chap. 8.  Crown, which the Subjects cannot obtain from their Sovereign by any Grant or prescription, without destroying the essential and individual Rights of Monarchy. These Rights, called the Flowers of the Crown, are Regalia Suprema, or Summa Jura Imperij, regno tuendo servientia, inherent to his Royal Function, and politic Capacity, and serve for the strength and support thereof— such are the Rights of making War and Peace, of having the last Appeal unto him, or his Great Council and supreme Court; and of making Leagues, and of Dispensing with Penal Laws, granting pardons, and such like.  
Now if the King hath a perfection and fullness of Imperial Power in him, as Dr 
Dr. Hicks ut. Sup.  Hicks hath clearly made out, and This Power of dispensing with Penal Laws be (as it must be, or nothing) one of those Prerogatives and Pre-eminencies of power and Greatness, which are involved in the Formal Conception of Sovereignty; Then certainly it is very plain, that This is an Essential Right inseparably annexed to our Imperial Sovereign: and to go about to deprive him of such an inherent Right, it would tend to the disinherison of the 
4. Inst. p 14. Suprema Jurisdictio & potestas Regia, et si Princeps velit, se seperari non possunt, sunt enim ipsa forma, et Substantialis Essentia Majestatis, ergo manente Rege ab eo abdicari non possunt. Cavedo, Pract. observ. p. 2. decis. 40. n. 8.  King and his Crown. This Phrase, he saith, of the disinherison of the King and the Crown in other 
* Stat. of Praemunire, 16. R. 2. cap. 5.  Acts of Parliament is called, The Destruction of the King's Sovereignty, his Crown, his Regality, and things that tend thereunto, things that are openly against the King's Crown in Derogation of this Regality.  
And, Sir to convince You, that the King hath this Perfection and fullness of Power, more especially in matters of Religion, in his sacred Person, you may please to be informed, that that Great Metropolitan of All England, Archbishop Bancroft, when Question was made of 
Dr. Richard Bancroft made Lord Archbishop of Cant. 1604.  what matters the Ecclesiastical judges have cognisance, either upon the exposition 
12. Co. fo. 64. 5. Jac.  of the Statutes concerning Tithes, or any other thing Ecclesiastical, or upon the Statute 1 Eliz. concerning the High Commission, or in any other case in which there is not express Authority in Law, declared, That the King himself may decide it in his Royal Person; and that the Judges are but the Delegates of the King, and that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine, from the Determination of the Judges, and may determine them himself. And the Archbishop said, that this was clear in Divinity, that such Authority belongs to the King by the word of God in the Scripture. So that Eminent Prelate.  
For, as it is well observed by that Learned Knight, and Doctor in the Civil Law, Sir Thomas Ridley. His Majesty, by 
Ridley's View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law, dedicated to King James 1. 3d Edition, part 4. chap. 1. Sect. 1.  communicating his Authority to the Judges to expound his Laws, doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself, but that he may assume it again to him, when, and as often as he pleaseth, whose Interpretation in that is to be preferred before Theirs. For, as he saith in another place, He is both by the Ordinance of God and Man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as the 
Id. part 2. ch. 1. sect. 7.  Apostle terms him) among them, that is, One who is Supreme Sovereign above the 
1 Pet. 2. 13.  Rest, and whom they ought in all things to obey, so it be not against the Law of God, and Common Justice; for himself is instead of the whole Law, Yea, he is the Law itself, and the only INTERPRETER thereof, as in whose Breast is the whole Knowledge of the same.  
Now, Sir, what Answer can you give to all This? if it be clear in Divinity, that such Authority belongs to the King by the word of God in the Scripture, with what Colour of Reason can you deny the King's Imperial Sovereignty in dispensing with Penal Laws?  
But to proceed more clearly to the Point in Question, The most Reverend, Renowned and Religious Prelate and Patriot, Dr W. Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, A man of such Eminent virtue, (as the Author 
Cyprianus Anglicus, by Dr Heylin, D. D. and Chaplain to Charles the 1st and Charles the 2d, 2 part.  of his life writes of him) Such an Exemplary Piety towards God, such an unwearied fidelity to his Gracious Sovereign, and of such a Public Soul towards Church and State, that he lived the Honour, and died a Martyr of both. I say, 
Epist. Dedicat.  this Great, but at last unfortunate Prelate, thus delivers his Considerate Opinion, 
Archbishop Laud against Fisher, Printed 1673.  that the Supreme Magistrate in the Estate Civil, may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament, though he may dispense with the Sanction or Penalty of the Law, quoad hic & nunc, as the Lawyers speak.  
The next I shall give You, is, that Learned and moderate Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland, Dr. James Usher, late Lord Archbishop of Armagh, who in his Book entitled, The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the obedience required of the Subject, composed purposely for the Rights both of Princes and Subjects, 
Vid Epis. dedicat. to King Charles 2. by James Tyrr●●l Esq  and for the comfirmation of staggering Loyalty, assures us, that POSITIVE LAWS, being (as other works of men are) IMPERFECT and not free from many discommodities, if the STRICT OBSERVATION thereof should be pursued in EVERY PARTICULAR; it is fit the SUPREME Governor should not himself only be EXEMPTED from SUBJECTION thereunto, but also be so far LORD OVERDO THEM, that where he fee cause he may ABATE, or TOTALLY REMIT the PENALTY incurred by the Breach of them, DISPENSE with others for the NOT OBSERVING of them at all; yea, and generally SUSPEND the EXECUTION of them, when by experience he shall find the Inconveniences to be greater than the profit that was expected should redound thereby unto the Commonwealth. PLUTARCH setteth 
Plutarch, in Comparat. Flaminij et Philopoemen.  this down as a chief point of that natural skill which PHILOPOEMEN had in Government, that he did not only rule according to the Laws, but overruled the Laws themselves, when he found it conducing to the weal-public.  
And he saith a little before, by the LAW OF THE KING, I understand such ordinances as are MERELY CIVIL and POSITIVE; the COACTIVE POWER whereof being DERIVED from him who is the SUPREME LAWGIVER UNDER GOD ON EARTH, He himself cannot properly be said to be tied thereby. For as with the Grammarians, the Imperative mood hath no first Person, so with the Civilians, 
a Marcian in l. si de re sua, de receipt, arbit, vid. et Ulpian in l. ille a quo, Sect. Tempestivum, D. ad Senat. Trebel. et in l. Quod autem, Sec. Vxori quis D. de donat inter, viz.  no man can command or forbid himself; at least wise, no 
b Hermog, in l. si quis Sect. 1. D. deleg 3.  man can impose such a Law upon himself, but that he may recede from it when he pleaseth. And with the Schoolmen▪ a Law hath power to direct such Acts as belong to those who are subject to the Government of 
c Thom. 112. quest. 93. artic. 5.  another; whereupon no man, if we speak properly, doth impose a Law upon his own Acts. As no man therefore is superior to himself, so no man hath Jurisdiction over himself; because none can oblige a man against his will, but only his Superior, and the Jurisdiction over a man's self may be dissolved at Pleasure.  
KING'S therefore, as he affirms in another place, are said to be ABOVE THE LAWS whereby they govern their People, partly in respect of Themselves, partly in respect of Others: Of OTHERS, in as much as they have POWER to JUDGE 
a Cynus in l. rescript, Cod. de precib. Imper. offerend.  according to their own CONSCIENCE, and not according to the Letter of the Law; as also to DISPENSE in some Cases with 
Thom. in 1. 2. quest. 96. artic. 5. ad 3.  the very OBEDIENCE, in some with the PUNISHMENT required by the LAW.  
For, he quotes Aeneas Silvius a little after saying, Equity is that which is just beyond the written Law: Now if the Law doth command one thing, and Equity persuade another, it is fit the Emperor should temper the Rigour of the Law with the Bridle of Equity, as He who alone may and aught to look unto that interpretation which lieth interposed between Law and Equity. Especially seeing no Decree of the Law, although weighed with never so considerate Council, can sufficiently answer the varieties and unthought on plottings of Man's Nature. And seeing the Condition of human Law is such, that it runneth always without stint, and there is nothing in it which can be at a perpetual stand; it is manifest, that in tract of time the Laws which before were just, prove afterwards to be unjust, and become now unprofitable, now harsh, now unrighteous: for the moderating whereof there is need of the Prince, who is Lord of the LAWS. For if it fall out, that any thing hath been more obscurely delivered therein, it is fit the Emperor should clear it, and amend that harshness of the Laws, which he shall find to be contrary and disagreeable to his humanity. For where it is said, that a Law, although it be hard, should yet be observed; that respecteth the inferior Judges, and not the Emperor; in whom is that Power of moderating the Laws which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Equity, which is so annexed to the Supremacy of the Prince, that by 
Aeneas Silvius de Ortu & Authoribus Imperii, cap. 20. 21.  no Decrees of man it can be pulled from it. Thus far Aeneas Silvius out of him.  
In regard of Themselves Kings are said to be exempted from Subjection to the Laws, both because they are not tied (otherwise than for conveniency and good Example's sake) to the observance of such as are mere positive and temporary Laws; and because they are not liable to the Civil Punishments set down for the breach of any Law, as having no superior upon earth that may exercise any such Power over them.  
And again, saith this Great Prelate, while the Laws do stand in force, 
a Justin Junior, Imp. in praefatione conceit 3.  it is fit that sometimes the King's Clemency should be mingled with the severity of them; especially when by that means the subjects may be freed from much detriment and damage: 
b Symmach, l. 10. Ep. ult.  The Condition of the Magistrates, whose Sentence is held corrupt, if it be milder than the Laws, being one thing; the Power of Princes, whom it becometh to qualify the sharpness of them, a far different matter.  
To this Eminently Reverend and Judicious Primate, I shall next subjoin the 
c In his Preface and Life by Dr Isaac Walton.  humble, patient and learned Dr Robert Sanderson, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln, that you may see what his Opinion is in this matter. But before I give you his Words, let me beg your favour to hear what the Modest and Holy Writer of his Life, Dr Isaac Walton says of that Book from whence I produce them. How much the Learned World stands obliged to Him for his Lectures de Conscientia, I shall not attempt to declare, as being very sensible, that the Best Pens must needs fall short in the commendation of them: So that I shall only add, that they continue unto this day, and will do for ever, as a Complete Standard for the Resolution of the most material doubts in Casuistical Divinity. And now Sir, pray observe what the Bishop says.  
Upon a Doubt, how may that be understood which so commonly is spoken, Salus Populi 
Bishop Sanderson's Cases of Conscience, translated by Robert Codrington, Master of Arts, Printed 1660. ninth Lecture.  est Suprema Lex, the safety of the People is the Supreme Law; he, among other things, thus declares, There is no sober man will deny, that the Safety of the People, that is, of the whole Commonalty, as that word comprehends the King, together with the Subjects, is the Supreme Law; but that the Safety of the People, that is, of the Subjects, the King being excluded, is the Supreme Law, there is no man will affirm it, unless he be a Fool, or an Imposter; a Fool, if he doth believe what he himself saith, and an Imposter, if he doth not believe it. But if any man will seriously look into the Original of this Aphorism, I do believe he will more easily grant, that it ought more precisely to be understood of the Safety of the Prince, than of the Safety of the Subjects. This Saying, so tossed up and down in the Mouths of all Men, came to us from the Romans, and was then used by them when their Republic did flourish most of all under a Popular State: And there is no great Reason that any man should wonder, that the People's Safety was the Supreme Law with them, with whom the People themselves were the Supreme Power; In the Judgement therefore of those wise Ancients, who were the first Authors of this Aphorism, the Safety of the Supreme Power was the Supreme Law, of the People indeed in a Democracy, but of a King in Monarchy.  
But I say, it being admitted, but not granted, that this Aphorism is properly understood of the Safety of the People, that is, of the Subjects, it is nevertheless perversely wrested to the Prejudice of Regal Dignity, which even so doth render its Power more Ample and Illustrious in this sense. A King that gives Laws and Statutes to his People will not be so bound up by his Laws, that it shall not be lawful for him, the safety of the Commonwealth being in an apparent danger, to provide for the safety of Kingdom and People committed to him by God, even against the words of the Law; not that it is lawful for Subjects under the pretence of the defence of their Liberty to break all the bonds of Laws and Fidelity, and by an intolerable presumption to trample on the Authority of their King, but that it is lawful for the Prince, in the Preservation of his own and his Subjects Safety, to lay aside for a while all strict observance of the Laws, and to make use a little of an Arbitrary Right, least by too unseasonable and superstitious Reverence of the Laws, he may suffer both his own Person, and his People that are subject to him, and even the Laws themselves, to fall into the Power of his Enemies.  
I will close up this Christian Doctrine of our Bishops with one Authority more, and that is of our Present Right Reverend Father in God, Thomas Lord Bishop of 
Sermon preached upon the aniversary solemnity of the happy Inauguration of our dread Sovereign Lord King James 2. by Thomas Cartwright, D. D. Dean of Rippon, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.  Chester, in his Sermon on the 6th of Feb. 1685/6;. in the Collegiate Church of Rippon, where you will find him thus to inform you, and all other good Subjects; So that the King may, it seems, make use of his Prerogative, as God does of his Omnipotence, upon some extraordinary occasions: For as my Lord Hobart well observes, The Statute Laws are made to ease him of his Labour, not to deprive him of his Power, and that he may make a Grant 
Colt and Glover against the Bishop of Litchfield.  with a Non-obstante to them: And indeed the Power of dispensing with particular Laws, in some Emergencies, is such a Lex Coronae, such a Prerogative, without which no Kingdom can be well governed, but Justice will be turned into Wormwood. For there never was yet, nor ever will be, any human Law, framed with such exact Skill and Policy, that it might not, on some occasion or other, be burdensome to the Subject, and obstructive to the public good of the Commonwealth: There being particular Cases and Exigencies, so infinitely various, that 'tis impossible for the wit of man to foresee or prevent them. And therefore in all Government there must be a Power Paramount to the written Law; and we have good reason to bless God, that this is lodged but in One, and in him whom he hath set over us, to be his Vicegerent; by whose Authority, they who break the Letter of the Law, in pure Zeal and Loyalty, to serve the ends of Government, and to uphold the Crown on the Right Head, that does and aught to wear it, may be relieved, and pardoned, and rewarded too.  
Thus Sir, have I given you in short the Sense and Judgement of our Spiritual Guides, the Great Fathers of the Church of England in the Point in Question between us; I will now descend to men of less degree in the Church, but they shall be men of great and eminent Learning, sober Understandings, and of exemplary Piety and Gravity, and you shall hear how they All concur in the same Judgement as concerning this Point of Regal Sovereignty.  
The First shall be the Reverend Dr Peter Heylin. whose knowledge was extensive as the Earth, and who had a perfect familiarity with the present State 
In the Account of Dr Heylin's Life.  of all the Countries in the World, (as the Ingenious Author of his Life informs us) and one who is honoured by all true Sons of the Church of England, with a due veneration for his Learned and Elabourate Works. And He speaks thus.  
He (viz. the King) hath Authority by his Prerogative Royal to dispense with the Rigour of the Laws, and sometimes to pass by a Statute with a Non-obstante.  
The Learned and Judicious Dr Isaac Barrow, late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, in his Treatise concerning the Pope's Supremacy affirms thus— It is indeed a proper Endowment of an absolute Sovereignty, immediately and immutably constituted by God, with no Terms or Rules limiting it, that its will declared in way of Precept, Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws, the Abrogation of them, the Dispensation with them, should be observed.  
And says he a few Leaves further, The Power of enacting and dispencing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching exterior Discipline did of old belong to the Emperor. And it was reasonable that it should; because old Lawss might not conveniently suit with the Present State of things, and the public welfare; because new Laws might conduce to the good of Church and State, the care of which is incombent on him; because the Prince is bound to use his Power and Authority to promote God's Service, the best way of doing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereunto.  
And in another place he declares that it is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges, Exemptions, Dispensations.  
Thus says the Reverend Dr Sherlock, Master of the Temple, in a positive manner, it does not become any man, who can think three Consequences off, to 
Dr Sherelock's Case of Resistance, chap. 6.  talk of the Authority of Laws, in derogation to that Authority of the Sovereign Power. The Sovereign Power made the Laws, and can repeal them, and dispense with them, and make new Laws: the only Power and Authority of the Laws is in the Power which can make and execute Laws. Sovereign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Sovereign Prince.  
I shall in the next place give you the words of the Ingenious, and most painful Searcher into Truths, John Nalson, Dr. of Laws, whose indefatigable Industry hath sufficiently appeared in those Volumes of Historical Collections he lived 
Dr Nalson's Common Interest of King & People, chap. 6.  to see published to the World, his words are These.  
In the King's Power it is to remit the Severities of the Penal Laws, whereby he may manifest his Goodness and Clemency as well as his Greatness and Justice, by graciously pardoning the Smaller Breaches of his Laws, and the more Capital Offences which he might most justly punish.  
And who in the World can dispute this? When, as Dr. Hick's in his Jovian tells us for certain, that upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Sovereign Authority, he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis, or essential Rights of Sovereignty, according to that Maxim, Qui dat esse, dat et omnia pertinentia ad esse; He that gives the Essence, gives also the Properties belonging to the Essence. And doth not all mankind consent in this, that the King is the fountain of mercy as well as of Justice? Surely then the Penal Laws, especially those made merely for diversity of Opinions in Religion, which (not to call them unchristian; since our Saviour never offered any external force and Compulsion to make 
Case of Resistance.  men obey his Laws, as the Learned master of the Temple assures us, but however) are in themselves by experience proved very unreasonable, ought at least to be Subject to the Goodness and Mercy of the Prince, to dispense with them, when He in his Wisdom shall judge it most necessary for the Good of his People in general. For as the Egyptian Hieroglyphic for Government was an Eye in a Sceptre: So the chief Magistrate is like a watchman 
De jure Uniformitatis Ecclesiasticae: by Hugh Davis, L. L. B. lib. 3. chap. 15.  upon a Tower, who is to look down and view the general state of his People, and to conduct himself accordingly.  
The Reverend Dr Puller, in his most extraordinary Book concerning the Moderation os the Church of England, saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Moderation, as it is now generally used, is a word borrowed from the Law, and is used by the Masters 
Chap. 1.  thereof, to denote such a gentle and benign temper, as disposeth those who have the Administration of the Laws (which, You see, is the Imperial Sovereign, who hath the Supreme Jurisdiction over all others, 
Davia's ut sup. lib. 2. chap. 6.  and Jurisdiction is defined by the Civilians to be, Potestatem Juris dicendi, a Power of giving Laws to others) to remit of their Rigour, where either (first) they press too hard upon particular persons; or else (secondly) to supply the defects of the said Laws, where they provide not sufficiently for particular cases; in order thereunto, squaring their Determination by the natural rules of Justice and goodness, rather than by the Letter of the Law.  
And a little further, the same Doctor 
Dr Puller's Moderation of the Church of England, chap. 1.  goes on, saying, moderation, in the Forensick sense wherein we take it, is defined by Aristotle to be the Correction of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Eth. l. 5. chap. 14.  the Laws wherein because of their Universality they are deficient. From whence, as it must be supposed, to be confined to those to whom the Administration of the Laws is committed, who Alone can have the Power of correcting them: So nothing therefore will be further requisite to show, than that it disposeth them; where the Laws press too hard upon particular persons, to relax the Rigour of them; as on the other side, where they do not sufficiently provide for them, to supply their defect.  
All Laws, we know, are for the punishment of Evil Doers, or for the praise of them that do well: but it being impossible so to provide for the punishment of evil doers, as not sometimes to bring even the Innocent within the compass of it; because what, generally considered, aught to be looked upon and censured as evil, may yet upon sundry considerations and circumstances have nothing of evil in it, or at least be worthy of pardon; either the Innocent must suffer together with the nocent, (which so benign a virtue as that we treat of cannot allow) or it must dispose those to whom the Administration of the Laws is committed to remit of their rigour in such particulars, and exempt them from the undergoing of it: it being in like manner impossible for Laws so to provide for the encouragement of those who deserve well, as that sometime such may not be passed over or neglected; partly because all cases cannot be foreseen by the Lawgiver; and partly by reason of the shortness of his expressions; either some who may deserve encouragement may be excluded from partaking of it, (which so benign a virtue 
Est Scriptum Legis angustum inter pretatio diffusa. Senec. l. 4. controv. 27.  as we speak of cannot easily permit) or it must dispose those to whom the Administration of the Laws is committed to ampliate their favours; and to take such within the compass of them.  
Once again, Equity and moderation, saith He in the next page, is the public honesty of the Laws; without which, Justice often would be turned into Wormwood: it contains the excellent Spirit (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the mind and reason of the Law, and is the most Sacred and venerable part of it: As it is the honour and perfection of the Laws, so it is the Sanctuary of such as happen to be oppressed by the Rigour of the Letter.  
I will now, Sir, trouble you with but one instance more upon this Subject, (though I could multiply, I am confident, Authorities of this kind even beyond your patience) and that is of One, that will needs be Anonymus, and therefore so he shall pass for me, but his words are These.  
It is the Prerogative of the King, to 
The Harmony of Divinity and Law, in a discourse about not resisting of Sovereign Princes.  dispense with many Acts of Parliament by a * Non-obstante, or clause of notwithstanding, especially such, as bind him from any Prerogative, that is solely, and inseparably annexed to his Sacred Person, and Royal Power.  
And even to the Asterick * There is this marginal Note, viz. 44. Eliz. in the house of Commons Sir George Moor said; We know the Power of her Majesty cannot be restrained by any Act. Why therefore should we thus talk? admit we should make the statute with a Non-obstante, yet the Queen may grant a 
Townsend's Collect. pag. 234.  Patent with a Non-obstante to cross this Non-obstante.  
I have done, Sir, now with our Reverend Prelates and Doctors of the Church of England as to this Particular, and hope, I have sufficiently proved to you, that their Judgement and Doctrine doth clearly warrant this Great Prerogative of dispencing with Penal Laws, to be in the King.  
Let us see in the next place what were the Reasons that induced the Reverend Judges in Westminster Hall, (who (the Law says) are the Expositors of Acts of Parliament, and are likewise Custodes jurati ss. Praerogativae Regiae,) so openly and solemnly, after mature deliberation, to declare their Resolutions in this Point for the King.  
The Reasons that persuaded them were These that follow, viz.  

I. That the Kings of England are Sovereign Princes.  
II. That the Laws of England are the King's Laws.  
III. That therefore it is an Incident Inseparable Prerogative in the Kings of England; as in all other Sovereign Princes to dispense with Penal Laws in particular cases, and upon particular necessary Reasons.  
IV. That of these Reasons, and these Necessities, the King himself is the sole Judge. And than which is Consequent upon all.  
V. That this is not a Trust invested in, or granted to the King by the People, but is the ancient Remain of the Sovereign Power, and Prerogative of the Kings of England, which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.   
Now, Sir, if such hath been the Doctrine of our most Eminent Clergy of the Church of England, (and in it they have delivered to us nothing but the words of Truth in Righteousness) that the King by his Imperial Sovereignty, when he shall see the Necessity of the State to require it, (of which he is the only Judge,) may dispense with Penal Laws; How can you, or any man, who is a sincere lover of the Church of England, be dissatisfied with the Resolution of our Reverend Judges in this matter, seeing the Reasons they went upon were only such as were exactly correspondent with the avowed Doctrines before recited; and that by this Declaration of theirs, the Law of the Kingdom of England concerning this sovereign Power in the Crown, is no more, than what was before publicly asserted to be the Divinity of the Kingdom.  
Besides, Lex vigilat pro Rege, saith the Law, and the Judges are sworn to maintain all the King's Prerogatives; which are part of the Law of England, and comprehended within the same; therefore it 
Co. 2 Inst. f. 496.  is said, that Imperij Majestas est Tutelae Salus, the Dignity of the Prince is the People's 
1. Inst. 64. b.  Security. The King's Prerogative and Privileges, are incident to his Crown, and He need not prescribe in any Prerogative, for it is as ancient as his 
Lane. 26.  Crown is, and is not only the Law of the Exchequer, but the Law of the Land, as that which is his by the ancient Laws of the Land. Wherefore the Judges of the 
N. Bendl. 117.  Courts of Westminster are to judge in matters of Prerogative by this Rule, that whatsoever may be for the Benefit and Profit 
Sheph. tit. Prerog.  of the King, shall be taken most largely for him, & whatever may be against him, and for his disprofit shall be taken strictly: and it is the Duty of every Judge of all Courts, High and Low, to take great care to preserve the Kings Right, and for that purpose to take every thing at the 
2 Ro. rep. 508.  best for him.  
And, Sir, unto the Judges the People are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law, according to the 
Royalists defence chap. 5. pag. 49.  opinion of the Learned Author of the Royalists Defence.  
But I remember likewise you seemed to startle at the thoughts of this Power; and were afraid, if at any time the King should think it necessary and convenient to exert it, and to grant a general Liberty of Conscience, that the Church of England would be extremely shaken in her security. What strange Jealousies and Suspicions some weak men may have, I suppose it will not be here worth while to consider; but certainly our Great Supporters of the Ark of God can never allow themselves in so feminine a passion. They know they have an infinitely wise God, and a most Gracious King to trust to: this hath been their Doctrine, and ought we not to practise it? They say,  
1. They have the Care and Providence of God for their Security, who is King 
Jovian chap. 12.  of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the only Ruler of Princes; and that the Hearts of Kings are in his Rule and Governance, and He doth dispose and turn them as seemeth best to his godly Wisdom: according to what Solomon said, and perhaps upon his own experience, That the King's Heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the Rivers of Water, he turneth it whithersoever he will. SO THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE SECURITY THAT ANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EVER HAD, HAVE, OR OUGHT TO HAVE. Besides,  
2. They have a most Gracious King to trust to. For,  
1. They have his Royal Word, that he 
His Majesty's most Gracious Declaration, etc.  will protect and maintain the Church of England, in the free exercise of her Religion, as by Law established; and can she ever be trusted in safer Hands than his? 
Bishop of Chester's Sermon ut sup.  He hath done more than ever any of us durst ever venture to look for, to give us Confidence in him; enough to puzzle our Understandings, as well as our Gratitude: And how can he give us better security than he has done? Shall we suspect him without cause? or remain dissatisfied when he hath given us the best security that our Cause admits of? To suspect our Prince, where we cannot help ourselves, is of all fears the most unreasonable.  
2. Again, We have the Conscience of the Prince for our security, who hath 
Jovian ut sup.  all the moral Obligations, and the fear of God, to keep him from oppressing us, so long as we keep ourselves within the Conscience of the Duty which we owe unto him.  
The Common Principles of Humanity, Justice and Equity, are engraven by the Finger of God upon the Minds of Kings, as well as upon other men's; and they cannot do wrong upon any particular Person, much less to great numbers of their Subjects, without undergoing the same uneasy remorse that other men do, when they injure one another. This hath been found by sad experience in Pagan Princes.— And if Conscience be a restraining Principle in Heathen Princes, if they cannot without such Soul torments pervert Justice, and violate their Oaths, and the Laws, it must needs much more be a powerful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings, who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers, and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People over whom he set them: And shall not the fear of God's Anger and Judgements keep the Sovereign from injuring of them?  
3. But further still, As the Church of England hath the Prince's Conscience, for her Security, so she hath his honour too. For Princes (like other men) are tender of their Honour, and good Name, and are powerfully restrained by shame from doing Evil to their Subjects.— Though they may be desirous for their honour to have the Times computed from their Conquests, yet the same Principle of Honour will ordinarily make them ashamed to have them computed from their Massacres, and Persecutions, which will but get them the Surname of the Bloody, or the Tyrant, unto the end of the World. Honour, as Moralists observe, is a Secondary, or Civil Conscience.  
And as for our Prince, who was ever so exceeding tender of his Honour as He? so just to all, and hath He not 
Bishop. of chester's Serm. ut sup.  promised to uphold and maintain this Church, and her Legitimate Children? — He knows, that ours is a Religion that hath always asserted the Rights of the Crown, with life and fortune: and how cheerfully the Members of it have spent their Blood and Treasure in his Own, his late majesty's, and his Father's Service, and how they stand affected to his Prerogative.  
And He is very well content, we should be as faithful to God, as we are to him; as true to our Religion, as to our King: God preserve and prosper him for it.  
Now since our own Religion (as to the free exercise of it) is thus Secured to us, and seeing that by his Majesty's Gracious Declaration he is willing that no man should be forced to his Religion, or drove against his Conscience from the Religion he professeth; and seeing it is manifestly necessary, that, as Sails, so Laws, are to be turned, and as Occasion, time and circumstance, and reason of state shall direct, either to be altered, or revoked: And if Acts of Parliament formerly made to try what good effects they could work in the state, do apparently prove mischievous and ineffectual by their too great rigour and violence, and by the Great Numbers of those that are of dissenting Judgements?  
What dishonour can it be for the King to lay them asleep for a while to stay those passionate heats, and fierce oppositions of such as seem adversaries to his Grace, or for any Parliament to repeal them, for the same Reasons, non coercet sed provocat violentia, For too heavy a hand upon those whom the Law casts down, shows the will rather to oppress the Offender, then to cure the offence? 'Tis the greatest honour to Kings, that their mercy, like that of the Almighty, is more eminent than their Justice, and that their Benches, and Courts, can witness more compassion than severity; for He that sets open the Prison doors in so wise and gracious a manner, meaneth not to conquer the Hearts and Consciences of his People by Torment, but to win them by mercy and sweetness. Clemency is a virtue sometimes of as great policy as Piety, because it begets Love, and Love breeds Loyalty, commands the very Soul, and lays the Body at the Feet of the obliger: Mercy kindles Fire and Zeal in the Hearts of Subjects.  
Liberty of Conscience is a Natural Right, and therefore our Saviour compelled none to receive his Doctrine, but est Dominus non Cogens, he is not a constraining Lord, but committing his Liberty 
Grotius.  to the will, said publicly to all, if any man will come after me; and to his Apostles, Will ye also go away? and his Disciples were not Commanders, but Instructors and Teachers, which was their Commission. Compulsion and terrene Penalties are out of his Jurisdiction, whose Kingdom was not of this World, which he acknowledgeth not only in speech, but in practice: For when the Disciples would have commanded Fire from Heaven to have consumed the 
Luke 9 54.  Samaritans, he rebuked them; and when he was apprehended by the Chief Priests and Elders, he could have commanded 
Math. 26. 53.  Legions of Angels, but would not. It is Irreligion to take away the Liberty of Religion; so Tertullian, ad Irreligiosiatis Elogium 
Chap. de Act. Imp. f. 139.  concurrit, this concurreth to the commendation of Irreligion, to take away the liberty of Religion, etc. and therefore, saith the Apostle, we have not Dominion over Your Faith. 
2 Cor. 1. 24.   
Sir, I cannot tell how well to shut up this Discourse without the words of that Learned and most Reverend Dr. Gerard Langbaine, who was Provost of Queen's College in Oxford, so well known to all, not only at home, but abroad, that the Famous Rhetorician, Longinus, could scarce speak any thing beyond the merit of so excellent a Person: This Doctor in his Judicious Refutation of the Damnable League & Covenant, (which was then so furiously contended for) to be imposed upon the Consciences of those who expressed their Zeal to his Majesty's righteous cause, in which, without all peradventure, he spoke the inward Sentiments of all the Loyal Suffering Clergy of England, doth there most admirably instruct us, what a sandy Foundation that is, which supports Persecution for Conscience sake. His words follow.  
Persecution in matters of mere Religion is a Course against the Nature of 
Langbain's Review of the Covenant, Printed 1661.  Religion itself, for Faith, the Soul of Religion, is an inward Act of the Soul, which all the Tyranny in the World, that the malice of the Devil can invent, or the wit of man can exercise, can neither plant where it is not, nor extirpate where it is. It is the gift of God, freely begotten in the Hearts of Men, not by threats and Terrors, not by Tortures and Massacres, but by the quiet still voice of the word preached, Suadenda, non cogenda. And therefore St. Paul, though a Lawful Governor in the Church, flatly disclaims any domineering Power over the Conscience. As for the outward profession of Religion, neither is that Subject to force and violence: A man may confefs Christ, and his Faith in him, as freely in bonds, as at Liberty; as gloriously upon the Cross, as upon the Throne. Fear indeed may incline a weak Conscience to dissemble his Opinion, but cannot constrain him to alter it: Fire and Faggot are strong Arguments of a weak Cause, undeniable Evidences of Cruelty in Those that use them, but slender, motives of Credibility to beget faith in those that suffer by them. Lastly, for the external, free, and public practice of Religious Duties, that I grant may be restrained by the outward violence of man, but when it is so, it is not required by God, who never expects to reap what he did not fow.  
In another place, he says, the most Ancient Apologists for the Christian Faith, use this as an Argument to prove the Religion of their Persecutors to be false, and their own true, That stood in need of humane force to maintain it, but theirs stood by the sole Power of God.  
It is against (says he a little further) the Innate Principle of the Law of Nature, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. Those, who plead most for extirpation of Heretics, when it comes to be their own Turn to be under the Cross, stand for Liberty of Conscience, and declaim against Persecution for Religion, as a thing utterly unlawful; and surely if we will not suffer it from others, we may not use it ourselves.  
Therefore, as Dr Puller rightly says, if ever the Practice of Moderation, as 
Puller's Moderation. To the Reader.  well as any Discourse thereof, were seasonable; it may be supposed now, when, for aught we know, the lasting happiness of the Kingdom and Church, may depend immediately upon this rare and desirable Temper, acknowledged of all most excellent.  
I will conclude all with that Admirable Sentence of Dr Barrow in his forementioned Treatise, that Relief of the Oppressed, or Clemency to the distressed, are noble Flowers in every Sovereign Crown.  
Thus, Sir, You see how ready I am, as far as my Abilities will extend, to contribute to the Satisfaction of Your Judgement. I shall be as zealous still to go on in so pious a Duty, if there be any remaining doubts and Scruples you will make known to,  
SIR, Your humble Servant, etc.  
FINIS.