A DIALOGUE Concerning the TIMES.  
Between Philobelgus and Sophronius.  Phil. 
HOw is it Sophronius, how goes the World now?  Sophr. 
Go? I believe not so well as was generally expected.  Phil. 
Come, you are so full of your Hypocondriacal Fancies? Prithee why don't you take a little Physic this Spring?  Sophr. 
Look you! I am probably as Sanguinly inclined as yourself, but my present Circumstances are a great check upon my Complexion; and I think it an unnatural imposition to require a Man to make himself merry with his own Misfortunes.  Phil. 
Your Grievances.  Sophr. 
To speak comprehensively they are the Dutch, and their Attendants, viz. Taxes, Losses, and stop in Trade: I'm sure my Estate suffered considerably by all Three of them the last Year, and you know my case was not singular: And truly at the rate that Honour and Conscience go now a days, for aught I see, a little Money is the only Thing one can trust to: Now when a Man loses his best Friend thus unhappily, I hope you will give him leave to pay a decent respect to his Memory, and put his Humour a little into Mourning.  Phil. 
Pray give over your Philosophical Cant; don't you know we have a new Parliament ready to fit; there you will have a Cure for all your Maladies.  Sophr. 
I know there will be a public Meeting at Westminster; but I'm afraid the Effects of it will not be so powerfully kind as yo● seem to expect.  Phil. 
ne'er question it! The greatest part of these Members are known to be Church of England Men, and well affected to Kingly Government; so that the Monarchy and the Protestant Religion will be effectually secured by them: For the Church of England Side being so considerable a Majority both for Numbers, Quality, and Interest, whatever is Legislatively done by that Party, must by consequence be received with the most general Satisfaction: This Expedient will silence our Political Disputes, and lay our Animosittes asleep. And when we are once thus happily united, you may without flattery promise yourself, that Ireland will be reduced in a short time.  Sophr. 
No doubt of it and France too: But pray what Measures do you think will be taken by these Westminster Lords and Gentlemen, in order to the performing these extraordinary Things?  Phil. 
Though I don't love to pronounce upon the Actions of so considerable a Body, yet since you ask me that Question, I'll venture to tell you it's my Opinion, They will confirm the Proceed of the late Convention and Parliament.  Sophr. 
That may be; but methinks you give an untoward reason for your Opinion: For why should Men of the Church of England Persuasion confirm the Proceed of Republicans and Presbyterians, for such you grant had the Ascendant over the Houses the last Year?  Phil. 
Upon Emergency of State we must bend our Principle a little; when the Necessity is once over we can return Straight at leisure.  Sophr. 
Well! I find it's a great happiness to have a Conscience with a Muscular Motion, that can stretch and contract as occasion serves. But what makes you talk about mending the Acts of the late Assembly at Westminster, Are the new Laws out of Repair already?  Phil. 
To deal frankly, I'm afraid they were never well put together; for the Writs by virtue of which the Convention met, were neither sent by the King, nor directed to the Sheriffs, both which ought to have been done according to the stated Forms of our Constitution.  
Now though I am not willing to be of the Opinion of a late Author, that these Omissions are such Essential Nullities as no subsequent Ratification can remedy, (Reflect upon Parl. Pacif. p. 1.) yet I think they ought to be supplied by a regularly convened Authority.  Sophr. 
Now you are upon Omissions, give me leave to mention another: You may remember the Convention neglected to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. Now this some People will interpret in an unfortunate Sense. Because there are Two Statutes which say expressly, That every Thing which the Lords and Commons, do before they have taken the said Oaths is Null and Void. 7 Jac. 1.30 Car. 2.  Phil. 
Don't trouble yourself, here will be swearing enough this bout.  Sophr. 
In good time! But still I am sorry to hear the late Acts at Westminster wants confirming.  Phil. 
Why so?  Sophr. 
Because if they want confirming, (especially upon such material Accounts;) they are imperfect, and consequently properly speaking no Laws at all. For Law, like moral Good, depends Exintegra Causa; if any due Circumstance be wanting it loses its Nature, and never rises into any Authorty.  Phil. 
If they are not entirely perfect, they come very little short, and aught to be regarded accordingly.  Sophr. 
Under favour you are out, they are certainly either complete, or null: For we must observe that an Act of Parliament is not like Cloth and Ribbans, valuable in Nails and Remnants; there is no such Thing as half, or three quarters Law; either it must hold out to the end of the Measure, or it's good for nothing. Now do you think your Arguments, which prove the Defects, and consequently the Nullity of the late Westminster Proceed, has not brought us into a fine Condition? What has the Habeas Corpus Act been shackled, New Oaths framed, the Clergy Suspended and Deprived, the People's Pockets drained, a Court Martial set up, etc. and all without Law? For it seems the late Ordinances have no sufficient Authority till they receive it from the next Meeting. Has not Liberty and Property been admirably secured all this while? Why were not those Members as you call them Dissolved, as soon as their Head was Chosen, to make room for a legal Assembly if it could be had; for to what purpose should they sit, when they were under an incapacity of doing any Parliamentary Act? This I mention to let you understand what an odd Opinion the People will be apt to have of the Westminster-Transactions, and by consequence of the whole Revolution, if you pretend to mend, and strengthen the Authority upon which they stand.  Phil. 
I conceive you; but after all I must add that how singular soever a Confirmation may look, it's an Expedient absolutely necessary: For besides some other Defects in point of Form, the King's Writs and their omitting to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy above mentioned, are such invincible Objections that there is no getting over them.  Sophr. 
As you say the Objections press very hard; but are you sure they will be removed by the Confirmation you expect from the ensuing Meeting  Phil. 
Yes, what should hinder their removal? Are not the Royal Writs Issued out according to the Formalities of the Law? And as for the Oaths you need not fear the Members will forget to take them.  Sophr. 
Right! but Oaths are sometimes so unfortunate as to prove their point no more than Wagers. For the purpose, suppose for Arguments sake a Man is about to swear himself into some post of power or advantage, and Confined to a particular Object well enough known, if he would but take day light along with him; but the Man for Reasons best understood by himself, chooses to swear in the dark, and and so stumbles upon a wrong person. I desire to know what his Oath signifies in such a Case?  Phil. 
Not much to his Business: but I'm afraid your Instance has no kind Application in it. To come out of the Clouds therefore, I would gladly understand what Objection can be fairly made against the Authority of the ensuing Parliament.  Sophr. 
Excuse me there, I am not willing to meddle with that point! But if you have a mind to put a feigned Case, and lay the Scene in Utopia, I don't care if I discourse with you upon a resembling Argument only to support Conversation a little.  Phil. 
Pray let us hear what a Talon you have at Romancing.  Sophr. 
Well then to take Sir Tho. Moore's Liberty, let us suppose the Utopians under an Hereditary Monarchy, and that as long as the Royal Line continues, the People have no more right to choose their King than their God; suppose that the Laws of that Kingdom expressly declare it Unlawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatever; and that bare Possession against Right, has no countenance from the Utopian Constitution. Suppose a Monarch thus invincibly fortified by Law, Opposed by one part of his Subjects, and Deserted by most part of the rest, so that he is obliged to retire out of his Kingdom for the security of his Person and Honour. Upon this some part of the People, who were either instrumental in the Change, or wanted leisure to recollect themselves, or courage to stand by the Laws; put themselves under the Protection of a Foreign Prince, who had lately made a Descent upon the Kingdom without premising any Complaint by his Ambassador, or demanding Satisfaction in a public way. This Prince at the instance of some obnoctious and engaged Persons, assembles a Select, and in some places a preconcerted number of the People, which the Utopians call a Convention. This meeting having neither the Essence, nor so much as the form of Law, tells the Nation (though by a very slender Majority) that the King had Resigned the Government; though besides other demonstrative proofs, they had his Letters on the Table to convince them on the contrary. These Men as the Utopian History informs us, notwithstanding they had no Right to dispose of sixpenny worth of Property, made no difficulty to deseise their King of his Crown and Dignity; to the maintenance and support of which they are obliged to swear before they can enter upon any part of the Legeslative Authority. After this remarkable beginning they proceed to choose the aforesaid Foreign Prince their King, though every body knows Utopia is no Elective Monarchy. This Prince of their own making, and who by Consequence could have no Authority but what they gave him; yet to make them some return for their kindness, gives them a Power vastly greater than they pretended to before, and sublimates them into a Parliament (which signifies the same Thing in Utopia, it does with us.) This Meeting after some Trial, he dissolved probably among other Reasons, because he saw the People were not generally satisfied about the Legality of its Constitution. Since, they say, he has summoned a New one, in which the usual Preliminaries will be punctually observed; and yet some People fancy all this won't do neither.  Phil. 
Why so?  Sophr. 
Because the Convention, which is the Foundation upon which the late Utopian Revolution stands, had no Authority to transact public business, and therefore their Proceed though much more moderate might justly have been excepted against.  Phil. 
Your Reason.  Sophr. 
Because they Convened themselves by virtue of a Foreign Authority without the King's Summons; neglected to make those solemn Tenders of Duty and Allegieuce to their Sovereign which the Law requires, and wanted the Royal Assent to give life to their Votes. Now if the Convention was an Unlawful Assembly, the whole Foundation is Sapped, and then all the Superstructure must tumble into Rubbish.  Phil. 
Though I can't say I am pleased with your Entertainment, yet pray go on, and be as clear as you can; for since we are discoursing about a Subject which is Visionary and Romantic, we may speak as intelligibly as we please.  Sophr. 
I say then if the Convention was a private unauthorised Meeting, if they had no Power to set aside their Old, and make another King; then their New Governor can have no Right to to the Regal Style and Authority. Nihil dat quod non habet: A man cannot receive that from another, which he has no power to give. Nothing but a Nullity can proceed from a Nullity, for no effect can rise above the Virtue and Efficacy of its Cause. Such essential Defects in the Principles of Government are like Errors in the first Concoction, never to be rectified: And therefore the assuming the usual Forms, and appearing in the shape of the Old Constitution, is to speak softly, but Pageantry and Varnish, at the best.  Phil. 
I am told that about the year 1660, in the Reign of Don Carlo's, there was a Parliament made out of a Convention, which was soon after dissolved, and another convened according to Law: In which the Acts of the former were confirmed. Which confirmation passing upon them they were always looked upon as unquestionable Law; though I grant you they would have been null and unauthoritative without it. And pray has not a Parliament as much Authority now, as it had Thirty years since.  Sophr. 
No doubt on't. But you mistake the point horribly; the case is by no means the same.  Phil. 
Where lies the difference?  Sophr. 
I wonder you don't perceive it! Pray was Don Carlo's a Conventionary King. Did he derive his Power from the Election of the People? on the contrary was not his Title and Authority wholly founded upon Hereditary Right according to the known Laws of the Monarchy? I confess if his Father had been then living, or he had broke in upon the Succession your precedent would have held, but now it's nothing to the purpose.  Phil. 
Make it clearer if you can.  Sophr. 
Clearer still! Why don't you know there can be no Parliament in Utopia without a King; for there, Rexest caput, principium, & finis Parliamenti; as a great Lawyer has it.  Phil. 
And have not the Utopians made themselves a new King, what would you have more?  Sophr. 
I perceive you have forgotten what we have discoursed already concerning the incompetent Authority upon which their present Establishment is founded, and that they have nothing but Air for their Basis; however I shall only refresh your memory with Two Questions, your Answer to which will I suppose give you full satisfaction. Pray can a Prince forfeit when the Laws expressly declare him , and that his People have no Authority to call him to an account.  Phil. 
No.  Sophr. 
Then if he was once King, he must continue so as long as he lives, except he is pleased to Resign.  Phil. 
I don't see Princes are very willing to do that; but your other Question.  Sophr. 
The next thing I ask you is whether it be not a contradiction in Terms to choose a King in an Hereditary Monarchy?  Phil. 
I am sorry I am obliged to Answer yes; but the reason is so plain that there is no help for it.  Sophr. 
Very well! I suppose by this time you are sufficiently convinced that this next Utopian Parliament as you call it is no more than a second Edition of the Convention; and appears with all the great Errata of the first Impression.  Phil. 
You have an unlucky hand at telling a Story; for though we have made a long Voyage, and cut the Line for Conversation; yet methinks the case of the Utopians is so like our own that I cannot help being uneasy at the Resemblance.  Sophr. 
You seem to have a tender Sense of things; which I hope is no ill prognostic.  Phil. 
Since you say so much, I must freely own to you, that in my Opinion the late turn of Affairs was very indefensible, and I would not for the World have been engaged: But since it's brought about without my assistance, I think myself obliged to stand by it, and not go murmuring about, and unhinge the public Settlement.  Sophr. 
How well we are, or are like to be Settled, upon our new Bottom, is pretty apparent: but granting the present Establishment was never so firm and agreeable, yet let me tell you that the abetting an obnoxious Interest, and uniting in un-maintainable Designs, is no better than a Confederacy of—, it's an open Defiance of Justice and Honour; and the Settlement of those Quos dicere nolo. I perceive you are so good natured as not to throw a man out of his House; but if he is once dispossessed, though by never so remarkable a violence, none more forward than yourself to Garrison it against him; and if he offers to return at his peril be it. You are a little squeamish about beginning an ill thing, but an admirable second: for rather then right should take place, and oppression be obliged to refund, you are bravely resolved to venture your all. I desire to know whether success can change the nature of good and evil; or right is founded upon wrong? if not, what a monstrous inconsistency is to practise that which we condemn, and maintain that which we abhor? will you engage your Advice, your Person, and your Interest, for the support of violence? and embark Body and Soul in a Cause which you own to be unaccountable? This is to be a partaker of other men's Sins with a witness.  Phil. 
I grant the Cause was unaccountable at first but—  Sophr. 
At first! Then it is so still: For undoubtedly that which its unjust to get, it's unjust to keep; unless Impenitency be a Virtue, and fresh Injuries a sufficient Satisfaction for old ones.  
In the Name of Reason consider the weight of the Case, the singularity of the Gild, and the extent of the Mischief, and then keep your old Opinion if you can.  Phil. 
I confess if I thought the former Government could recover without bringing Popery along with it, I could hearken to what you say.  Sophr. 
Pray can you be made a Papist against your Will?  Phil. 
No. Religion of what denomination soever supposes choice and conviction of Judgement.  Sophr. 
Good! Then you may secure one, and every Body else by God's Grace may do as much: So that in fine there is no fear of losing our Church, unless we betray it.  Phil. 
But though our Protestant Faith cannot be wrested from us, yet are we not like to suffer for adhering to it?  Sophr. 
I'm afraid rather for not adhering to it. God grant our Practice may be as regular, as our Profession will be undisturbed: Of all Nations we are most unlikely to have Experiments made upon us; you remember how Passive Obedience went in Eighty eight. But I am not at leisure to argue this point any further with you; if you are unsatisfied you may consult a late Book, called Vindiciae Juris Regii, which I am told will cure you of your Fears, if you are not overgrown with Spleen, and Prejudice. However at present granting (which I don't believe) that your Apprehensions were reasonably founded, What are we the better? Would you have us keep out Popery right or wrong, or is nothing wrong which tends to so Sanctified an End?  Phil. 
Truly, I think, Religion ought to be our principal Care, and secured by all Means.  Sophr. 
That is by all good Means and ill Means: Does St. Paul tell us that we may do Evil that Good come on't. Pray, what Church is that which we used to charge with such Doctrine as this, with Deposing Kings, and making Holy Wars to suppress Misbelievers? Which is so rank a Principle, that not many of the Jesuits themselves will own it.  Phil. 
When you have said all, I'm afraid the Beast in the Revelations should prevail, except we make a vigorous Opposition.  Sophr. 
How can that be, when we have so much modern Prophecy against him? But setting aside this mystical Divinity, give me leave to ask you a Question. Suppose you owed a Roman Catholic a Sum of Money, could you find in your Conscience to pay him, or would you cheat him for the Protestant Religion?  Phil. 
Cheat him no, God forbidden!  Sohpr. 
Very well! And for the same reason if you own him Allegiance ought you not to pay it? you know the Title of the Kings of England depends only upon Birth right, and Lineal Descent: so that let their Creed be what it will, their Authority is the same: And therefore the obedience of the Subject aught to be proportionable. Nay when we have a Prince of a different Persuasion, we should rather oblige ourselves to a greater exactness of our Behaviour upon this account, to prevent all suspicion of Disaffection, and to preserve the Honour of our Religion.  
For the Love of God, therefore Philobelgus, let us hear no more of this horrible Cant. Let us not give the World an occasion to belive that Protestancy teaches us to break our Faith; and to be guilty of those Crimes, which modest Heathens would blush at. Let us not defend the best of Churches, with the worst of Practices. Nor damn one Age to secure the next. To use such Expedients as these, is the way to ruin that which we would Support; and to make our Communion Nauscious and Contemptible; for there is no Man of Natural Probity, none that is Generously Inclined, but will scorn a Religion which obliges him to be a Knave.  Phil. 
You know our Religion does not give this scandalous Liberty.  Sophr. 
True: but if it be taken, how then?  Phil. 
You grow warm: But for my part I hope all will be well, because as I observed to you, the Parliament consists mostly of Church of England-men.  Sophr. 
I wish they may show themselves truly such. I'm sure their Quality, the Principles they avow, and the State and posture of Affairs, may justly raise the expectation of the Nation: so that a disappointment now, would be much more unaccountable then formerly. For a Man to mistake his way in a Tempest, and to be over born with Tumult, and general Distraction; though it's very unfortunate has something of excuse in it. But to pursue the same steps upon thought and deliberation; when we have Light and Demonstration to guide us. To choose confusion for our Model; to persist in so remarkable an error, when the mortal consequence stairs us in the Face, must mightily inflame the guilt, and make the blemish indelible. 'Tis in the Power of these Lords and Gentlemen you speak of to make a noble Stand: to revive the Interest, and retreive the Honour of their Country and Religion: God grant them Resolution to act up to the Opportunity.  Phil. 
Hold! I have enough; and that you may not suspect your Discourse i● thrown away; I give you my word, I will consider what you have said.  Sophr. 
Very well! if all People would do so impartially, it's easy to guests the effect: but I'm afraid it's the way of too many to hearken only to one side; or to think upon neither. Adieu.   
FINIS.