Such high claimers therefore of princely rule and opulence, (if there be any such) are the men given to change; and it is always just to oppose usurpation, to redress grievances, remove nuisances, and to attack fraud, avarice, and nonsense.

It would be endless to deduce particulars. But suppose any assuming clergyman were so extravagant, and daring, and had so little regard to conscience and public tranquillity, as to attempt to establish an ecclesiastical tribunal in our colonies abroad, to the terror and affliction of our brethren there, who were many of them first driven thither by the oppression and barbarity of such courts here, especially in archbishop Laud's reign; would not such an attempt tend to a bold innovation, and discover a busy, an arrogant, and dangerous spirit in such a clergyman; and would he not be a good subject, and an bonest man, who set himself against such a lewd attempt, and exposed its wicked tendency?

Suppose any other clergyman, such an enemy to the civil constitution, and to the church of England, or such a deserter from it, as to contend for the independency of the clergy, for their exemption from the civil laws, nay for trying a clergyman, when be is to be tried, by a jury, of clergymen ; would not such a man deserve severe animadversion and punishment; and would it not be honest and meritorious, to defend the laws, and repulse this their enemy, this innovator, this Papist?

Suppose any other designing priest, fond of promoting superstition for the ends of authority and gain, should abuse the credulity of the people, by pretending to convey holiness into ground and stone walls; as if earth, or stone, or any thing inanimate, were susceptible of sanctity, or their quality to be altered by solemn words; and all this without any colour of warrant from law or gospel, but in opposition to the spirit of both; would not such a crafty priest be a false guide, an innovator, who relinquished truth, and the Protestant religion, to promote error, and to introduce Popery and delusion? And would not he who resisted and confuted him, be a friend to society, a defender of truth, and a foe to fraud?

Suppose any clergyman so bent upon exalting churchmen and their revenue, (for, the sure way of raising them is to raise that) that he encouraged designs and schemes for transferring the whole wealth of a nation, by no slow degrees, into the coffers of the clergy; would not such a man be a promoter of change, of an universal and melancholy change, and a declared enemy to the laity? And would it not be becoming laymen, náy, incumbent on them, to be upon their guard, to secure their estates, and to preserve themselves and posterity from poverty and vassallage?

Suppose (once more) that any other clergyman should have the boldness to declare publicly, that a brother clergyman (a bishop for example) still continued a true bishop of the church of Christ, even though he stood convicted of, and deprived for the highest and blackest crimes, namely, perjury, disloyalty, conspiracy, treason and rebellion; would not such a declaration be highly insolent, scandalous, and punishable? To tell those who make priests, that they cannot unmake them, nor one of them, would be to tell them, that priests are above the law and the laity; that the clergy have a power and de

signation, which laymen cannot take away, though the laity and the law actually create them, and confer upon them the only designation. that they can have, nay, confer their whole office: nor does our con stitution particularly own, or know any character in any subject whatsoever, but what the law alone bestows; and all the clergy renounce upon oath all power whatsoever, but what they derive from hence. An act of parliament would to-morrow effectually degrade all the clergy in Great Britain; that is, reduce them all to laymen, and create so many priests immediately out of the laity, without a jot more apparatus or ceremony. Whoever is declared to be a priest by any society, is a priest to them, and ceases to be one the moment they declare him none. The strange notion of an indelible character is arrant nonsense, and true priestcraft, nay, the ground-work of all priestcraft. Would it therefore be borne by an assembly of law-makers, so tender of their liberties and of Protestantism as ours, to have this same indelible character, this root of Popery, maintained to their faces? And would it not draw down their indignation and censures upon the bold offender, I had almost said, deceiver? Surely it would; and therefore,

I mention these instances as bare possibilities, which can never be suffered in this free Protestant country, but are common in Popish countries, nay, are some of the reigning tenets, and practices which support Popery. How zealous Laud was in such Popish practices and tenets, I have not now time to explain. Read his Life and Trial. It is now high time to draw towards a conclusion, by considering briefly what produced the tragedy of this day; a consideration which will lead us to see how such tragedies are to be prevented. The immediate instruments of the king's murder were violent men, supported by a powerful army, gained and commanded by an usurper. This power in the army, and his power over it, were the effects of the civil war, which was itself caused by the misunderstanding and struggle between the king and Parliament. What originally produced this misunderstanding, which produced all the rest, is what we are principally to attend to. It is of much less moment to know by what hands the king fell, than to know how such hands, or any hands, came to be lifted up against him.

Now, if we enquire into the first cause, from which all the rest naturally followed, we shall find that the violence of his reign caused his violent end. It is not to be denied nor disguised, that from the very beginning the court aimed at arbitrary power, openly pursued it, and for fifteen years together practised it, raising money without law, and against law; which was robbery in those who enforced the colleclection of it. Imprisoning men, the best and greatest men, without law, and against law; which was lawless cruelty. Seizing the lands and estates of others without right, and against right; which was flagrant oppression and violence. Assuming and exercising a power to dispense with laws, that is, a power to make and annul laws; which was manifest usurpation. And, in short, establishing an arbitrary and Turkish authority over the persons, and rights and fortunes of the peo ple; which was apparent and undeniable tyranny.

Between law and violence, between right and tyranny, there is no medium, no more than between justice and oppression. If king

Charles had no right to act thus, then his acting thus was tyranny. I he had a right, of what force are laws and oaths; and where is our constitution, the boasted birthrights of Englishmen, and our ancient Magna Charta? Why was his son king James turned out; why declared to have forfeited? And I would ask the admirers and defenders of king Charles I. how they would have liked, how borne such violences, such lawless doings and misrule in king William; how in the late reign; how in this? How would they have relished the imprisonment of their persons, taxes laid on, and exacted without consent of Parliament, arbitrary and excessive fines, their estates seized, their families impoverished or famishing? Doubtless, no men whould have been louder in the cry of tyranny; and very just and natural would bave been such a cry. No sort of men talk more warmly and frequently now in favour of liberty and law. How do they reconcile such zeal and professions with an approbation of the reign of king Charles I. which was one continued series of oppressions, bad abolished liberty and law, and established universal slavery? How would they have borne such terrible and tyrannical usage? Very impatiently, I dare say. If they say otherwise, no reasonable man will believe them, nor have they, upon trial, ever shewed much passiveness of spirit. Besides, if they justify the enslaving measures then, they are not in earnest, or utterly inconsistent with themselves now, when they extol public liberty, and are for restraining kings and their ministers to reason and law.

What we have therefore to do on this day, is not only to abhor the bloody death of the king, and wicked instruments of it, but to abhor also his evil and wicked government for fitteen years together; abhor the impious principles which were then countenanced and prevailed, with the traiterous and ungodly broachers and promoters of such; and all the evil and arbitrary counsellors then and since. And as we lament his latter end, let us detest the beginning and course of his reign, which was as enormous and guilty, as his catastrophe was mournmul and barbarous. Was it crying guilt thus to cut him off, as surely it was? Was it not also crying guilt in the crown to abandon its duty, to violate the coronation oath, to tread upon law and justice, to persecute conscience, to rob and oppress the people, and from limited and lawful, to become lawless and arbitrary? And is it not equally reasonable, equally becoming us as Englishmen and freemen, to commemorate and detest an administration so pernicious and devouring, measures so black and lawless? Is it not our duty to take warning by them, and whenever we are threatened with them, to guard against them; to watch every principle of slavery, and suppress it betimes; to rejoice that we live in happier times, live in a free government, and under the free course of the laws; to pray for the continuance of such an invaluable blessing, and be dutiful and assisting to that good and great prince, who secures it to us, and claims nothing to himself, but what cur parliaments and the known laws give him?

Let us also learn a lesson from the behaviour of the clergy at that time; and as they were then become wanton with extravagant power, and used it very cruelly, in persecuting and oppressing their fellow subjects; let us take care for the future, that they who are set apart for the purpose of holiness, be not spoiled by the unnatural possession and

exercise of wordly business and authority. Methinks it is profaning holy men as they are, to embark them in secular affairs, in the commerce and occupations of laymen and worldlings. As they miserably misled that unhappy prince, king Charles I. it may serve as a warning to other princes from being led by them. And as they promoted and justified all unlawful and merciless impositions upon the Jaity; as they contended that we were obliged to undergo all servitude, to be tame slaves to the mere will of the prince, and to obey it as our only law; we may from hence infer, that whenever they leave preaching the gospel, and turn courtiers and politicians, they are out of their elements, and thence grow more wild and extravagant, as well as more wicked and shameless, and false, than other men are.

It would never have entered into the heart of a layman, that the merciful God authorized iniquity, perjury, perfidiousness, and tyranny; and that any miserable wretch, who had all these crying sins to answer for, was still sacred, and the vicegerent of God; or that God, who hates wickedness, had forbid to resist, that is, to remedy the highest and most complicated wickedness, nay, damned all who had sense and virtue enough to do so.

These positions were monsters, formed by clergymen out of their sphere, and in high fashion with Laud and his associates. Was it very natural for the laity to love and reverence such clergymen, or these monstrous positions? "The Lord said unto me, the prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them. They prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their hearts." Jer. xiv. 14. Would it not therefore be prudent to keep all clergymen from thus exposing themselves to hate and ridicule, and from promoting mischief and misery amongst the laity? And is not this their guilt finitely more heinous and aggravated, than that of the greatest private sinner can be, as it affects and involves whole nations, and is impiously covered with the veil of religion?

According to this rule, and I think it a true rule, the blackest felon that ever suffered, was an innocent in comparison of Laud, and those of his leaven; and had Laud consumed his time in debauchery, he could have done but small hurt, compared to what he did as a troubler and seducer of the world. His morals as a private man, did but heighten his credit to do mischief. With what an ill grace must such men rebuke private vice, and the detail of sins, they who vend and commit sins by the gross ? This is indeed to swallow camels, and strain at gnats. Crimes are to be measured by their consequences; and he who persecutes men, he who misleads them and enslaves them, is the most guilty, the most monstrous and gigantic of all criminals. Had Laud been a parish priest, and confined himself to the duties of one; or, being a bishop, had he done so; he, who was a man of learning and morals, might have been an innocent, nay, a useful man. But as he and his brethren would needs sway the court and the nation, they overturned both by the wickedest of all means, even by an excess of tyranny and oppression. It was they who raised, or at least increased the storm, which at last ruined the public, and overwhelmed them in the public rains.

These therefore are the things and persons now proper to be commemorated. From these we are to take our marks and warnings, against a relapse into the like evil days and calamities. And if there be any curse still subsisting, derived from the king's blood, it must justly lie upon them who approve the men and measures that first rendered him arbitrary and oppressive, and thence unpopular and distrusted. Here the evil began, and from hence it was propagated like a train. Had he always ruled as he afterwards too late proposed to rule, when men were irritated and engaged, and full of distrust, there had been no civil war, nor a conquering army, nor an Oliver, nor conse quently royal blood spilt. His design and promises to govern better afterwards (when he found that the laws and constitution would prevail) have been often urged and repeated, and are a confession that he had governed ill before. Perhaps he meant to perform them. It is certain his misrule had been sadly felt; nor is there any proof but his word, that he intended to change that word had been often and egregiously broken, especially in the bill of rights, which he solemnly promised to observe; yet be afterwards openly violated that just bill.

How this prince comes to be still so extremely popular amongst many of the clergy, and consequently amongst many of the laity, influenced by them, is obvious enough. He was a very great bigot to the church, to ceremonies, and shew in religion, and to the power and pomp of churchmen. These he cherished, and exalted, and obeyed; invested them with his own power, and surrendered to them almost the whole supremacy; and not only suffered them to enjoy the use of it as a present from him, but suffered them to seize it for themselves, and even to deny his title to it. For such court and favour to them, for humouring them in their persecution of the Puritans, for his glutting them with power, and becoming their creature rather than sovereign and head of the church, they promoted and consecrated all the excesses, oppressions, and lawless measures of his reign, because all these violences were exercised over the laity; and the churchmen were so far from feeling them, that they shared in his domination, and acted the king too in their place and turn. This is the true source of so much merit and praise; for this he is adored and sainted; for this he has been often compared to Jesus Christ in his sufferings; and for this the guilt of murdering him has been represented as greater than that of crucifying our blessed Saviour.

These their panegyrics are, in truth partial and shameful in all respects, as well as impious and profane; since thence they who utter them make it evident, that they care not how a prince abuses his trust, and oppresses his lay subjects, if he will but humour and aggrandize the clergy; else why so much incense and applause bestowed upon a prince who actually did so? This is partial and dishonourable: nor can there be a greater insult upon the laity, than to desire or even hope, that they should join in such praises and applause. They who feel oppression, cannot extol bim who commits it, nor reckon him a good king, who uses them like slaves.

No sort of men are more tender than the clergy, when their property, or persons, or privileges are touched, or more severe and resenting, or even more unforgiving towards such as meddle with either. I fear much, that had the clergy been then used as the laity were, treated