to keep them. Nay, 'tis probable we should be told too, that he had a divine right to do what he pleased, and none had a right to controul him, or to expect any concessions at all from him; and that all which has been done since, has been only successful rebellion. For what bas been too wicked or too mad, to be said upon both these occasions already, and upon both these kings?

That his father was very sincere, your Lordship takes upon you to determine roundly. Though the violation, the repeated and continual violation of his coronation oath; his passing the bill of rights, and owning all these rights to be legal and just, and thence confessing that he had broken them all; nay, his violating that very bill in all its parts, almost as soon as he had passed it, were but ill marks of a heart very upright and sincere. Of all these excesses he was guilty, at a time when his parliament were well disposed for the honourable support of his government, and free from any design to distress it, much less to alter it; nay, were ready to grant him very noble supplies, if he would but have suffered justice to be done upon public traitors, the infamous instruments of illegal power and of mutual distrust between him and his people.

Whilst I am upon this head, I would take notice that he actually comtnitted, or attempted to commit all the enormities, all the acts of usurpation committed by the late king James; levied money against law, levied forces, and obliged his subjects to maintain them, against law; raised a body of foreign soldiers to destroy the law, and enslave his people at once; dispensed with all the laws; filled the prisons with illustrious patriots who defended the law, and themselves by the law; encouraged and rewarded hireling doctors to maintain that his will was above law, nay itself the highest law, and binding upon the consciences of his subjects, on pain of eternal damnation; and that such as resisted his lawless will, resisted God, and were guilty of impiety and rebellion. He robbed cities of their charters, the public of its money and liberty, and treated his free-born subjects as slaves born only to obey him.

It is said that he was not a papist; perhaps he was not, that is, not a subject to the Pope of Rome; but he was bent upon setting up a hierarchy in England, resembling that of Rome in all its power and terrors. Nor does it avail, if men are to be persecuted and oppressed for their conscience, whether they suffer from the tyranny of a Hildebrand, a Luther, or a Laud. All persecuting religions are alike terrible to those who alike hate or dread all persecuting religions. It is certain, that of all the dissenters, none but the Papists had any mercy shewn them, and these were in high favour.

It is also certain, that for all these exorbitances he underwent much "affliction, and a severe lot afterwards, from men too who had no sort of right to inflict it. But they did by power, as he once had done, used it wantonly, and without mercy or law. This I candidly own: but your Lordship, who strongly represent his fate, says nothing of his crimes; and surely oppression and usurpation are great ones, and big with all crimes crimes of which that unhappy Prince seems not to have had a true sense, if any nor is his repentance apparent, though God knows he had abundant cause for it. Here therefore is a powerful objection against his sincerity; since it does not appear that he was struck with

any sense of his guilt. Can a man be said to own his fault, who jus tifies himself, and seems conscious of his innocence ?

It would have been but fair in your Lordship, to have shewn his errors and evil doings, as well as his sufferings. The former you scarceJy touch, and therefore are an advocate, not an instructor.

In your second paragraph there is a doctrinal passage which seems to deserve some attention: You tell us, to fear the Lord, means, to us Christians," To believe and practise the doctrines and duties taught by Christ in the scriptures, or by his ministers agreeably thereto." 1 thought it had been enough to believe and practise them as taught by him; that all farther authority was needless; and that submitting to the deductions of the clergy from thence, or to their paraphrases upon these, was no part of our duty. If such deductions or explanations appear to us true and rational, we must believe them though they came from a layman; if we think them false or partial, will your Lordship say, that we are to believe them, because they come from the clergy?

I beg your pardon, my Lord, if I mistake your meaning. But in your words there seems to lurk a sort of latent claim of right in the clergy to interpret the scriptures authoritatively. If you mean so, nothing is more dangerous, or untrue: If you mean no such thing, why do you add, or by his ministers agreeably thereto ? Who are to judge of this agreeableness? If their hearers, if the laity be the judges, then such words were needlessly added, and stand for nothing; and there is an end of all church authority, and of any pretence to it. But if the clergy be both to interpret, and to judge for others, then there is an end of all liberty, of all judgment and conscience amongst men, and the clergy are all so many Popes, infallible and irresistible; which I presume your Lordship will not say; and shall be glad to hear you talk clearly upon this subject, of itself clear enough, but often darkened and wrested by design.

Your Lordship tells us, (p. 6.) that "to fear the king, is to obey him that is in a limited and legal government, to observe the laws and that this is the certain rule of obedience, which leaves all men without excuse, who pretend ignorance." This is true. But did not this very rule leave king Charles I. also without excuse? For, if he were to be exempted from the rule, your just distinction of a limited and legal government had been absurd. He therefore having the laws for his guides, sinned against knowledge: nor, had he been ignorant, would it have excused him; since it was his duty to inform himself. Nor is my lord Clarendon's plea of his ignorance, a good plea. Besides, I think the king declared at his trial, that he understood law as well as most private gentlemen in England.

Your Lordship, repeating again the words of your text, tells us, that "we are advised by it not to mix, or familiary converse with such as are given to change, lest we be seduced by them to idolatry,”. &c. An advice entirely applicable to that king, though your Lordship makes no such application. It was from him, and his evil counsellors, the change began. Why did he converse with such; why did he nourish and employ them? Why was he governed by them? Why did he listen to them more than to the voice of his duty, and of the laws? Had not his Popish queen, weak and bigotted as she was, prodigious

influence over him? Had he not Popish ministers of state, Popish counsellors? And had he not about him hot-headed and arbitrary bishops, continually instigating him to innovations? So that had he observed this, or any sober advice, he must have banished all the Papists from his court, and all other parasites, ecclesiastical and civil.

Your Lordship well observes, That one of the best preservatives against vices of all kinds, is to avoid bad company; for that there is a strange contagion in ill example. But you have not told us how much king Charles 1. was corrupted and misled by bad company, by arbitrary ministers, and flattering prelates. Very true likewise is what you say, that there is a specious outside in every vice, which flatters our senses, and is but too agreeable to one or other of our passions.” But the application of this truth to that prince is again forgot. Were not the principles of lawless rule dressed up to him in very alluring colours, and was he not entirely misled by them?

Every vice, you say, has its party, who dress it up in the most attracting colours, and represent its opposite virtue to the greatest disadvantage you add, that vice, in their account of it, is sociable and good natured; 'tis manliness, good-breeding, pleasure, and liberty. Now, my Lord, (after I have assured your Lordship, that I never heard any of my acquaintance make any such encomiums upon vice) give me leave to ask, what is a more horrid, a more complicated vice, than lawless power; than abrogating the laws, and robbing nations of their liberty and rights? Did not king Charles do this? Was not violent power his darling? Was he not bewitched with the wicked doctrines that support it? Were not these doctrines recommended in the most pleasing lights, and even in the name of the Lord? Was it not become the common theme of the pulpit, especially in the king's pulpit, to represent servitude as duty, and tyranny as the ordinance of God?

These observations, my Lord, fell naturally in your way; and why you made them not, you can best tell. But, to apply to the king what your Lordship applies to vice: he found in the end, that all such representations in favour of unlawful power, were mere delusion; that the pleasures he was flattered with, were false pleasures; sweet indeed in the mouth, but all bitterness within; that no two things are at a wider distance, than lawful power, and power usurped; that submission to the laws is the most perfect freedom; and that those flatterers and preachers, who seduced him from his oath and his duty, whilst they promised him monarchy without controul, were themselves aiming at uncontrouled power over the monarch.

Thus they dazzled him with the lustre of power, and he blindly pursued it; till, by grasping at too much, he risqued, and at last lost the whole.

What you say further of men given to change, page 7, is too general, and may serve for any party, and any time; but may be very justly applied to that king and his counsellors; as, "That they acted from motives of avarice or ambition, from disappointment or revenge, or to mend a bad fortune-from vanity and self-conceit, from a levity and fickleness of temper, from a scheming head, and a love of innovating in religion and government for innovating sake, &c." What follows is true in some measure, but very loose and declamatory.

If, for example, " some men are against whatever is uppermost,

and seem to dislike what is established, merely because it is so;" are there not others, who know no other reason for liking what is established, but purely because it is established? Are there not some who have particular and large interest and advantages in being for the establishment, and must seem either to like the thing, or lose the pay? And will they not always have something very plausible to urge in favour and defence of their gain?

"What religion, you ask, what establishment of religion; what church in any country is so perfect, as not to leave room for finding fault?" Give me leave to say, my Lord, that the less room there is, the better it is; and that if there be any faults, they ought rather to be mended than defended. This I presume your Lordship will allow; and I should likewise be obliged, if you would please to inform me, whether the clergy have ever been remarkable for mending their own faults, or for thanking others for mending them, or even suffering them to do it. I doubt it will be found, that wherever religion has been defaced or debauched, it was the clergy who did it; that wherever religion has been reformed, it was the laity that reformed it." In the opinion of religious men, (says Sir Francis Bacon,) the church never wants reforming as if castles and houses might want repair, but chappels and churches never do." The use I would make of this is, that we cannot always depend upon the word of the clergy, whether the established church, any where, be perfect or defective, or how far she is so.

Your Lordship goes on to ask, what forms of "words so compleat and unexceptionable; what discipline so well framed, or so well executed; what system of faith and doctrine so wisely drawn up; where a national clergy so well qualified for virtue and learning, so pious, so prudent in the discharge of their offices, as to leave no place for exceptions, for objections, for scruples, for censure, for reproach ?" I doubt, no where; and if churchmen and churches be thus imperfect, thus fallible and frail, every man must be left at perfect liberty to leave them wholly, or to join with them in part, as to himself seems most rational and fitting every man ought to be free to discourse or write concerning these churches and churchmen whatever he judges fit; to urge his objections, to defend his own different opinions, if he has any, and to propose amendments where he thinks he sees faults. To deprive him of this liberty, would be unjust and unchristian; since bis conforming against inclination is hypocrisy; and surely the clergy would not commit such a heinous sin, as to make or encourage hypocrites: and if he conform by choice, he wants no other motive.

What therefore can be said for arch-bishop Laud, and the clergy of that time, who plagued and persecuted all men (but the papists) for not submitting blindly to their arbitrary and selfish injunctions as to so many institutions? Were not they the men given to change, to a change fatal to conscience and civil liberty? And is not this the natural result of blending power unnaturally with religion, which resides wholly in the soul, is the effect only of conviction, and can never be subject to force? Nor was it the only time when religion was banished, to make room for the hierarchy.

It is very true what your Lordship says, that no forms of words, no systems can please all men. This you ascribe to the love of change.

My Lord, I will give you a reason worth a thousand of yours. In inatters of religion, all men have a right to judge for themselves; and as the variation and difference in the opinion of men is endless and infinite, the sentiments of some men can never be the sentiments of all men; and 'tis notable folly to aim at fixing a general standard of thinking; and notable wickedness and tyranny to force men to submit to it. Do they who compose such systems and forms, maintain that they are all derived from the word of God, and virtually contained in it? Then he who believes the word of God, believes these; and this would be sufficient, if the composers meant no more. The truth is, (and your Lordship knows it well) that their meaning has too often been to subject men not to Christ's authority, but to their own.

Can no systems, no forms, please all men? What then is to be done? Even to leave all men at full liberty to take them, or to reject them. Knows your Lordship a better, or indeed any other Christian rule? We all know that Christian rules and ecclesiastical rules, have often been very different, in truth, very opposite things. Neither is your reasoning just, when you arraign the people, especially the bulk of the people, with being addicted to change in matters of religion. I believe the truth is on the other side; and that they are rather apt to be persevering and obstinate, as in all their habits, so particularly in their religious habits, be the same right or wrong; as the clergy themselves, when such habits do not please them, are apt to contend. They therefore who would force or persuade the people into new forms, or out of their old forms, are the men given to change. Pray, who are they that have every where or any where introduced changes and adulterations in religion? Who are they, who in too many countries have converted religion into a monster? Not the people, 'tis well known; your Lordship knows it well. At one time, and indeed for several ages, Christianity was almost lost in the world; lost in the gross forgeries and impostures of the priests. Or if it was found any where, it was chiefly found amongst the Albigenses and Waldenses, who had no priests at all, at least none pampered with wealth, and intoxicated with power. Let others declare, whether if our clergy do less harm, than in popish countries the clergy do, and observe some circumspection, such their behaviour and forbearance be owing to our constitution, to the spirit of the legislature, or to their own spirit. What changes, what dangerous and ridiculous changes were made, or attempted, by Laud and his brethren, I shall take notice by and by.

As to forms and ceremonies, 'tis certain, that if they are about things indifferent, 'tis a shame to argue in their defence with such men as think them sinful, and consequently not indifferent. 'Tis as certain, that whatever is not really a part of religion, ought to be kept out of the church; not only for fear of offence, though even this be a good reason: but for fear of creating superstition in the common people, who will for ever take whatever is joined to religion, to be part of religion, though declared over and over again to be matter of indifference. To multiply therefore such causes of superstition, is sinful and scandalous, wherever 'tis done; and Laud and his adherents were continually doing it, to the seducing of many, and to the disgusting of Are there no forms of words, no systems, that can please all min? Surely there are not and this perhaps is an unanswerable

more.