A DEBATE ON THE Justice and Piety Of the Present CONSTITUTION: UNDER K. William.  

In Two Parts.  
The First relating to the State,  
The Second to the Church.   
BETWEEN Eucheres a CONFORMIST, AND Dysoheres a RECUSANT.  
By Samuel Hill, Rector of Kilmington, Author of Solomon and Abiathar.  Psal. 7.8. 
Judge me, O Lord, according to my Righteousness, and according to mine Integrity, that is in me.  
Inter utrumque tene.  
Obsequium amicos, Veritas Odium Parit.  
LONDON, Printed for John Everingham, at the Star in Ludgate-street, 1696.   

Erudito Reverendo Sanctóque  
Sacerdotum Collegio,  
Diaecesews Bathoniensis & Wellensis  
Clero florentissimo,  
Post Patrum Primaevorum in causâ fidei  
Vindicias,  
ab imbelli praevaricatorum nequitiâ  
Usquequaque tutas adhuc, & inconcussas,  
Vestro quinetiam pro Authore Suffragio publico  
Invidiae adversùs & obloquii tela  
Munitas pariter, ac cohonestatas;  
Amicas hasce denuò,  
Ecclesiae pariter ac Patriae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Pacísque sacraë conciliatrices,  
Pro Justitiâ publicâ, & Pietate  
Contra Seditionis, Schismatis, & Erastianismi  
dmissi opprobrium,  
admittendíque periculum,  
susceptas Apologias,  
Integerrimâ fide,  
Summo studio,  
Conscientiâque quàm maximè castâ  
Votivas dicat,  
Perque gratas optat  Vester S. Hill.  

ERRATA.  
PRef. p. 1. l. 17. for dismissed r. discussed. ibid. l. ult. r. appear or seem. Boo● p. 21. l. 14. r. Desertion p. 22. l. 5, 6. r. Desertion p. 42. l. 32. r. Anticyrae p. 43. l. 1. r. Prosecute p. 45. l. 27. r. IVs p. 57 l. 24. r. Construction p. 63. l. 26. r. off p. 64. l. 7. for and r. an p. 65. l. 12. deal an p. 71. l. 8. County p. 82. l. 29. r. there can be p. 83. l. 34. r. at full p. 87. l. 25. for tho●… r. the oath p. 91. l. 15. r. title ibid. l. 31. r. to surmise p. 95. l. 71. r. to shi●… for p. 96. l. 33. r. the moral p. 104. l. 8. r. if we admit p. 105. l. 8. r. say p. 10●…. l. 12. for of Constitions r. of Constitution p. 110. l. 23. r. it had not been p. 15●…. l. 21, 22. for excession r. excision p. 156. l. 35. r. invert p. 163. l. 27. for fr●… r. for p. 165. l. 4. r. takes it in p. 165. l. 31. r. mart p. 168. l. 9 r. P●… p. 170. l. 27. r. imprudently p. 172. l. 3. r. I never look ibid. l. 27. r. Possess●… p. 185. l. 9 for sending r. sounding p. 162. l. 8. r. Notion p. 162. l. 37●… comes into p. 163. l. 32. for using r. refusing p. 167 l. 23. r. presumed p. 17●… l. 17. r. on evil p. 174. l. 10. r. a form p. 176. l. 10. r. was from p. 172 ●… 17. r. Office p. 8. l. 31. for excuse r. execute p. 199. l. 12. deal which p. 20●… ult. r. Frischmuth p. 205 l. 19 r. peculiarly p. 209. l. 27. r. another's p. 210 ●… 8. r. procedure p. 211. l. 30, 31. r. who thinks the Tenant for sworn for submit●… to the new Possessor p. 213. l. 30. r. all to the Secular, etc. p. 225. l. 6, 7. r. s●… any thing against him himself ibid. l. 32. r. in dubitable p. 230. l. 36. fo●… Gaze r. the Case p. 231. 32. for and r. am p. 233. l. 31. r. is it p. 235. l. ●… r. validly p. 137. l. 1. deal of p. 239. l. 18. r. Aerianism p. 248. l. 12. ●… and r. an p. 242. l. 22. for if r. is p. 252. l. 30. after etc. deal and p. 2●… l. 8. r. to do good p. 265. for but will r. that will ibid. l. 15. r. Capacity to Ecch●… p. 97. l. 13. for might r. weight.   

TO THE READER  
I Here present thee with a Book, which either Destiny or Calumny will drag out into the Public, whether I will, or no. The pretended University-man in his Remarks upon my Defence of the Fathers, having descended to the humble Glory of traducing it, and me, in his Postscript to Mr. Chiswell, by ill Characters and false Histories, has enforced this involuntary Publication. The Character he gives of it, is, that it is a Trifle, which he presumes of it of his own Sagacity, without ever seeing it; that he is told by a good Hand, that it falls on Mr. Dod— ll's Principle with great Fury, and treats the Jacobites very brutally; The Design herein is to preclude my Interest with the Jacobites, to whom he says I am relapsed. His historical Account is, that it was written, and sent up to a Bishop for Publication to divert a Storm expected on the Vindication etc. by engaging my Lord of Canterbury, and all the Bishops against my Adversary, that however finding the Trifle slighted, I earnestly desired that Bishop that it might not be printed, that so if I could get it again into my Hands, I might deny the Writing thereof to the Jacobites, as I begin to deny the other. The Intention of this is to represent me to all the Powers as an Apostate against the Government, Fool and Knave all over, that so I may have no Countenance in it, but be abandoned by all Mankind.  
Before therefore I offer my own true Account and Apology against this Slander, it is easily observable, that his Passion has marred his Art of Detraction in giving Marks of its apparent Falsehood. For what Clergyman can presume to put a servile Office on a Bishop, or what Bishop can be imagined so unresenting as to admit it, or after Admission to endure a Countermand from the vain Presumer? Besides, if it were rejected as a Trifle, the Bishop cannot be supposed to promote its Publication without Disgrace and Reproach, which none of them have reason to incur for any of their Clergy, especially against the Sense of the whole College Episcopal. And if so, then how could I earnestly desire the Bishop that it might not be printed, when it had been before rejected to me as a Trifle? He seems as vain also in hopong that that Bishop, would keep it from me to refute my supposed denial thereof, as if a Trifle were worth a Bishop's keeping, or, as if any Bishop can be so unjust as to detain from any Man what has been for a while entrusted with him. I think this is rather an unhandsome and rude Usage of that Prelate than of me, to whom I leave him to make satisfaction.  
The truth is, this Book was first written about Whitsuntide, Anno 93. before the very Oral Discourse of Warminster itself, and while the Heat of its first Conception (animated by the Advices of Learned Friends) lasted, was designed then for the Press. But that Ardour being soon cooled, I designed to review it, and procure a Friend by it (if I could) among the Fathers, not by its Publication, but by private Oblation. Accordingly after some Deliberation, I resolved not to present it any Bishop introduced into a deprived Diocese, lest at the same time I should seem to flatter, and abuse him with a pretence of bringing succour to their Cause, as if it needed any Advocateship, especially such as mine. For truly they that writ honestly for a public Constitution, must not pretend a service to Authority, but the Benefit only of those that are under it. So I resolved to seek a Patron among the other unconcerned Bishops, with whom I could hope my Principles would find favour, and so adventured it into the Hands of a Prelate, whose universal merits are superior to his Character; by him it was recommended to my own Right Reverend Diocesan, and he by Letters from London acquaints me with his desire of seeing it, and as my Duty was to obey herein, I sent it him. Upon the reading of it, he greatly inclined me to the Publication; yet withal forewarning me, that it would stir up Adversaries, he would not press me against my own Judgement. During this intercourse the other Book was in the Press, and almost finished, and as yet my Diocesan knew nothing of it. Whereupon I Wrote to his Lordship, that I was engaged for the Faith, for which I expected much trouble, and I knew not what would become of me; but his Lordship not knowing any thing more particularly in the matter, supposed my fears (as he reputed them) causeless. Upon which I conceded to what his Lordship pleased to do, or have done. He thereupon puts it under the judgement of other learned Men, and it being by them well liked, designed (with some little variations offered me) that it should be Printed. In the mean while the storm pursued me without any hopes or intermission, and it was loudly given out that it was intended by the agreement of the Bishops, that I should be suspended by my Bishop, and Prosecuted upon the ruining Statute, except I would prevent it by Humiliation, etc. The good Offices of Friendship that were really done me among several of my Lords the Bishops were concealed from me, and so I expected nothing else but an Excommunication, or such a Persecution for the Faith, as must have forced me from the present Communion, Whereupon I had many causes to stop the Publication of this Book; for having but bad Eyes to engage in long Studies, and against many Adversaries, and under such prospects of Expulsion cut of this Church, I thought it not only imprudent to draw on me more quarrels in the defence of a Communion from which I expected ejection, but ridiculous also, which I am resolved no terrors, nor Persecutions (by God's help) shall render me. But I must with Honour acknowledge, that all this Author's incentives have not been able to whet my Metropolitan (nor any others that I know of) to that Spirit of Persecution which this Postscript has ascribed to him, so that I have no need of a Sanctuary among the Jacobites; tho' I hereupon shall take occasion to let this Author know, that such as steer by their private Interest in their choice of Parties, and are as ready to change their Faith as their Allegiance, and dispose Men by the same Arts to follow them in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Turns, do make more Jacobites by their Prevarications, and thereby become more injurious to the public Peace and Powers by far than any the most important and importunate Remonstrants against the Government.  
I have but one thing more to add in a Apology for the Air and Structure of this Book. I hope there is no Man (no not the raging T. B. nor the more raging Postscriber) will be able henceforth to call the Style Brutal. I press indeed the Arguments between the Parties and their principal Authors with the utmost Vigour, as without any Incivility, so without any partiality to either side, and this not only as a Disputant but as a Casuist, which ought to drive on all considerations home through and through the Conscience. This Justice requires in a Dialogue between Parties, where not only the reasons are to be stretched to the utmost, but the Zeal of them also personated. In this T. B. pretended Solomon and Abiathar to be defective and treacherous, which Accusation, tho' false and causeless, yet has made me to carry on their Person here with much more Acrimony against their Opponents than otherwise I should have done. This may indeed displease the Learned Men concerned herein against them for aught I know, but to convert the divided I thought it expedient to show myself severely equal and indifferent in speaking for them in their own Spirit rather than my own, and freely owning their Truths as well as ours. And if this does not satisfy the great Men, whose Hypotheses are here necessarily dismissed, I hope they will consider however, that I have a Right to defend my own Principles in Solomon and Abiathar with as much strength and ardour as they have asserted theirs. And they that have particularly and by name taxed that Pamphlet, who were never touched by me for any of their Writings before, must concede me a liberty to examine what they have said against it and its Principle. It is an unhappy Misfortune that two of the greatest Ornaments of the Nation should herein run so widely to the Extremes, the one so far as to overthrow the Right of the English Reformation, the other to the prostitution of the Powers Hirarchical to Rapine and Violence, by laying Principles, which yet both of them think necessary to the Church's Preservation. I have gone the middle way between these admirable Men, (who are indeed above all the praises, that I can give them) and since I find that a new Disputation will be moved herein, I do most hearty beseech those two great Men calmly and candidly to treat of their Principles and their Consequences in private first, and equally endeavour to remove all Prejudices, and to quit whatsoever mistakes shall be jointly discovered between them, and when that is done, show such an example of mutual Charity and Self-denial, as may render them (if possible) more admirable to the World than they already are, that so we may hasten with all possible earnestness to an happy Union, or at least that the fairest grounds may be laid for it. The Edition of this Book is indeed very uneasy to me, but since necessity is laid upon me to publish it, and that as it was Written, I shall be glad, if it may prevent a reen-flamed Controversy, which is threatened in Print by a Learned Jacobite, or may offer any such notices as may contribute to their exacter considerations. But for my own part I resolve never to appear in this Controversy more, for as it may be easy for learned Men to refute and inform me, so I can bear instruction not only with ease, but with gratitude also. Whereupon I have nothing more to offer to all Authors of worth concerned, but that they will not think themselves wronged till they have throughly discussed the matters between us impartially, and if after that I shall appear to seem to have done amiss, I do hereby proleptically beg their forgiveness, and upon the discovery thereof will particularly retract it, and never run such an hazard more God of his infinite mercy give us all a temper abstracted from all partial interests and prejudices, and a sincere Charity and Equity, that may fit us for a right understanding of the things that belong to our Peace, and Duty toward God and Man. Amen.   

To his very Passionate Adversary, T. B. HEALTH and PEACE.  
SIR,  
AS I gave you no provocation to such unhandsome reflections, with which you have bespattered me, so 'tis the Opinion of wise and learned Men, that you are to be neglected as incurably rude, and disingenuous. And I truly am so far of their Opinion, that I ought not to answer you according to your Folly, lest I become like unto you. But as little regard as is due to the Voice of the Slanderer, the Cause of Truth, and the Consciences offended by involved Prejudices, deserve a tender Deference and Care.  
On which consideration I have throughly traversed all that seems pertinent in your Letters, and some M. S. Reflections sent me (I suppose) from some other Hand. And not only so; but I have examined some of the most exquisite Discourses and Principles of your greatest Authors in this Controversy, as well as those of your greatest Opponents; And I hope in all my Determinations, between you and them, I have done impartial Justice; if not, I have exposed myself unto public, just, and severe Correction.  
Of all your criminal Imputations there is but one that seems to deserve any notice, viz. that which taxes me for giving the Dialogists in Solomon and Abiathar, those technical Names and Characters. Upon which your Complaint being not only loud, but in some Degree specious, does indeed oblige me to account herein. Nor shall I decline whatsoever is reasonable. whereupon I sincerely protest, that I took the Names from the known Sense, each Party has of the others Temper. For the Conformists to the present State, thinking the Recusants thereof too hard and untractable, I from that Notion, name my Recufant Dyscheres; And the Recusants thinking the others too easy and yielding, I from that Apprehension call my Conformist Eucheres.  
And Eucheres has the Character of a Conformist for conforming to the present Constitution, and Dyscheres of a Recusant for refusing this particular Conformity. And no Man of Sense can really imagine, that I had any worse Intention, since no Man can think that I would expose the Deprived as Fanatic's, and in the Person of Dyscheres, I introduce them making a professed Renunciation of Popery in several Places, with which they are never charged by my Conformist.  
And now if there be any Grains of Candour and Human Tenderness left in you, can you imagine that you used a proper Method to heal, or settle my distressed and doubtful Spirit, who after several unanswered Letters written to some of the greatest Doctors on both sides of the Division, and others of middle Temper, was at last upon their neglect forced to turn a Public Supplicant to the learned World for succour and satisfaction? If this be the way of handling tender Consciences, if this be the Oil you pour into their Wounds, the good God have more Mercy on the Patient, and put him under gentler Hands.  
But if you had judged me an improper Object of your Humanity, yet a due concern for the Reputation of your Cause should have influenced you unto more Decency. For a good Cause needs no Supplies from a Scavenger's Cart, and ill Language ever supplies and discovers Defect of Reason as well as of good Nature, and never proselytes a calm and thinking Man, but rather seals up the Offended in their former Persuasions, and alienates mild Tempers from such sour Communion: When you have well considered the following Debate, you will have occasion for second Thoughts, to which in the Interim I leave you, and subscribe,  
Sir, Your Humble Servant.   

The Ground of the First Part. 
THat whensoever the Land is brought into a State of Anarchy by any Confusion's irremediable by the ordinary Rules of Law, through the King's Incapacity to govern it, upon Departure, Oppression, or otherwise, the Estates of this Nation may admit such a Form of Settlement for the time being, as the Exigences of Affairs shall seem to require for the common Preservation; and that such Settlement shall oblige the Conscience of the Subject, till the old ordinary Rules can be fairly recovered.  The Ground of the Second Part. 


1. THat tho' secular Laws for spiritual Censures cannot pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect without the Consent, and Executive Concurrence of the Church, yet the Conscience of the Church is bound to admit such Laws upon just, and necessary Causes.  
2. That Recusancy to civil Constitutions is a just Cause of spiritual Censures, and of Laws requiring them.      

A DEBATE ON THE JUSTICE AND PIETY Of the Present Constitution.  

PART I. Concerning the Civil Change.  Dyscheres. 
BRother Eucheres, I am glad I have found you at home at this time in which I have leisure to recei●●● those kind Offices, which I could not admit at 〈◊〉 time of your first Invitation: And I have a●●●●nother design in this Visit; that we may Revi●● and Reflect upon the matter of our last Conference for though you seemed then, to pinch me somewhat hard; yet having since imparted your Arguments to my Friends, and Consulted their Judgement upon them; I find them not so Herculean as you fancy them, but very feeble and nerveles, when undertaken by abler Masters.  Eucheres. 
You are doubly welcome on your double Errand; but have you examined among you, the whole web, or only some shreds or fragments of that Discourse?  Dyscher. 
Though it be not worth my while to ransack it in every part of it, yet I do not intent to omit any thing very considerable; and I will use my best endeavour not to mistake your Sense, etc. T. B's. 2d. Lett. p. 6.  Eucher. 
Be sure now be as good as your word; and withal take care not to pervert, as well as not to mistake, my Sense; for otherwise, you will expose both your Understanding and Integrity: and I am not yet so dull, but I may soon discover you, how involved soever your Frauds may be: And now upon this Premonition, I desire you to sit down, and enter upon the Debate.  Dyscher. 
When I told you nothing but truth, that the Present State is worse than a Deluge of Popery, for that now the Daughter of Zion is become an Harlot, the generailty of her Children, Apostate and Vn-churched, and that the Faith and Communion is with the few, etc. You question, Whether Submission to the Present Constitution. can be proved a Sin? As if breaking Lawful, and taking Unlawful Oaths, withholding one's Right and giving it to another, the overthrowing the constitution of the Kingdom, and violating the Laws of God, were not Sin. Then you further say, That admit it to be a crying Sin; every such Sin, doth not unchurch single Persons or Societies: But yet however, you ought to Repent, and not persevere in your Sin; since it is one of those Sins that shuts out of the true Church of God: For if it were necessary, I could prove, that its Principles destroy the Church's Fundamentals and Structure; if such Principles which destroy all Morals, and all Faith and Truth among men, can be said to do so; by which men may exclude themselves, as well as be thrown out by others, without an Authentic Act of an Ecclesiastic Judicatory; and your instance in the Roman Church is Insignificant, for we do not communicate with it; but that of the Eastern Churches is still less to the purpose; for I am not satisfied, that either they have condemned us, or we them, as Schismatics; and Dr. Basier, was desired by some of the Greek Clergy, to Communicate and Minister among them, neither did he refuse it. T. B.'s 2d. Lett. p. 10, 11.  Eucher. 
But, Brother, it is not enough to call things by hard Names; but it is necessary to show, wherein the iniquity consists, and by what Law. For submission to a Civil Constitution after its settlement is no Perjury, Robbery, Rebellion nor Impiety, if men contribute no antecedent Evil to the Change; and it is this mere Submission which I undertook to defend, as being the only thing that can be charged on the Ecclesiastic Body. And though you pretend it unnecessary, yet you can never carry your cause, that we are Self Excommunicate upon the malignity of our Principles, except you prove it, and show that our Maxims destroy all Morals, and all Faith and Truth among Men; since you load us with such an heinous and general charge; and I know not to what purpose you discoursed me last, or discourse me now, except it be to convince me of the Reality, and Anathematising guilt of our Sin in this Submission. Here than you must to the Law, and to the Testimony, and make up a very exact proof in order to Conviction; for Men are not to be harangued into condemnation, by mere unproved and general clamour, but by very articulate evidence only, which therefore I shall expect from you in the course of this Conference. In the mean time, when I alleged, that we own the Roman and Greek Churches, to be Churches, notwithstanding their far greater Pollutions and Confusions than can be imagined in our present Ecclesiastical Change (that hence I might evince us not to be Unchurched; i. e. cut off from being Members of the Church Catholic, as not having been condemned out of it by any Ecclesiastical Sentence) 'tis strange you should censure this instance for impertinent, upon these pretensions, that we refuse the Roman, but admit the Greek Communion: for by your favour, in order to Unchurching (which very intelligibly is the making us no Church of Christ) you must have proved our Change more censurable, than all the Pollutions of the Roman and Greek Churches. And since you accuse us as Self-Excommunicate, and therefore uncapable of your Communion, which yet you deny not to the Greeks, as being with you no Schismatics, the instance of that Churches. Corruptions was not less, but far more pertinent to our Cause; for if their Corruptions are far greater than ours, and yet cut them not off from the Right of Catholic Communion; I think we are as much entitled to that Communion, who have far less and fewer Irregularities: So that except you can prove our Change more Irregular than the State of the Greek Church, you cannot out us of that Communion you assert to them. Here indeed you saw yourself pinched, and so shift off the matter with a piff, as if I would be shaken off with an empty Scoff of Impertinence: No, no, I will sit a little closer on your Skirts; and though I shall not exagitate, or upbraid all the known disorders in that distressed Church; yet will I object to you the many Arbitrary Changes of their Patriarches, made by a Mahometan Emperor, and admitted by them toties quoties, whensoever the Grand Signior has a mind to ease their Purses of that money, which the new Patriarch is to tax on the Church as the price of his Advancement, without any other Provocation or Inducement whatsoever. Is not this a greater corruption than any can be imagined in our Change? This you know was what I intended, and yet you condemn not them as Schismatics; though here are frequent Deprivations, and New Advancements admitted by the Greek Church to the Will of an Infidel Prince, without any other crime of the Deposed, and only for Moneys' sake?  Dyscher. 
I did indeed in our last Conference 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 24, 29.  censure this Blemish in the Greek Church. But here I will give you the answer of one of our most puissant Advocates concerning this disorder in the Greek Church, with his Apology fo● the like frequent Depositions of the Jewis● High-Priests. 
* Christ. Commun. Part 2. cap. 3. p. 32.  In these alleged State-deprivations of the Jewish High-Priests, either of Abiathar by Solomon, or after they came under Roman subjection, of the Chief Priests by the Roman Procurators, there was only a Change of Persons, but matters of Religion went on every thing the same, in Doctrines, Practices, Prayers, Sacrifices and Services of the Temple, and the Synagogues; and when these are not corrupted, Gods▪ faithful Ministers may yield their personal claims to State-Deprivations, to secure Protection, and Civil Benefits to the Church. This also clears the instance of the Submission of the Greeks on the frequent Deprivations of their Patriarches by the Turkish Governors. The benefits of Incorporation, which they propose to secure thereby, are not the most tempting, lying not so much in being privileged and beneficed by the State, as in not being persecuted, but tolerated under it. And their submission for keeping on this State-benefit, such as it is, is not without detriment to the Church, (tho' their breaking with the State they fear would be more detrimental) the Turks making their new Advancements for Money to be levied on the Church by the new Patriarch, to the countenance and growth of great Corruption, and to the bringing of the Church in debt. But as to the course of Religious Ministrations, they are the same under both Patriarches, in the same Doctrines of Faith and Manners, Prayers and Public Offices. But now you know with us here is a change in all these parts of our Religion, in teaching men to swear falsely, to rob our King, Bishops and Priests, and to pray for Robbers and Usurpers against the just and true Proprietors.  Eucher. 
But all this Charge of Alteration in Religion is downright Calumny, uncapable of any proof in any one particular. For we preach only Submission to a Legal Change of Governors, and pray for them that are set over us by Legal Rules of Constitution. Therefore tho' Governors, like the state of all things temporal, are liable to changes, yet the Rules and Forms of our Religion and Morals are still permanent and unaltered. And here, I think, I may seasonably tell you, that the alteration of our Sovereigns was more legal than the change of the Theocracy to Chaldaean, Persian, Grecian and Roman Sovereigns; yet even for these the Jews were to offer Prayers and Sacrifices; and so is the Greek Church, to pray for the new Grand Signors brought into the Sovereignty, upon the rebellious expulsion of the former, yet surviving in Bonds and Prison, without any scruple of Allegiance to their new Master hereupon. Now if they ought to make an Ecclesiastical Opposition to such an Imperial Change, than their ready conformity thereto, puts them into that same state of sinful Religion, which you charge upon us; and how then are they in, and we out of Right to Ecclesical Communion? But to speak truth, I could not have thought, that men of such Primitive Rigour and Purity could Legitimate that great corruption in the Greek Church, which, tho' of itself it doth not actually and totally Unchurch them, yet it is a most deplorable profanation of the supremest Order in their Hierarchy, and such as a General Council, upon the perpetual Sense and Principles of the Church Catholic, cannot but condemn for impious and irregular. But now I am under a passionate concern for this Author, lest this Principle of his bring him under that Heresy, which your learned Vindicator of the deprived Bishops, if he keeps up an impregnable impartiality against all Errors, will be apt to find in it. Sure I am here is laid a Rule for our Church to admit from the State even the most arbitrary removes and changes of Bishops, for no cause at all, but only to humour the State in Tyranny, or Simony, according to Doct. Hody's Doctrine: and here is conceded far more than was by the subscription of a Popish Convocation for fear of a Praemunire, and more than the Pope, or Henry VIII. ever arrogated to their Headship, or Supremacy; and to use your former words, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 29.  a blemish not to be endured in any Church, whatsoever it incurs for the Opposition. But so it is, and so it will be, when men are pressed too hard in point of Argument, that to avoid one absurdity they run into another, which is many times worse, and more notoriously offensive.  Dyscher. 
Well then, we'll let alone the Greek Church herein to God's Judgement. But as for you, that think to shelter yourselves under their shade, you are not capable of that their Plea; For I do not know that we want an Ecclesiastical Judge. Our Metropolitan, with his Suffragans, are a sufficient and proper Judge; And if they have not lata sententia, (which there may be great Reason to forbear) yet in Praxi their Judgements are sufficiently declared, T. B's. 2d. Lett. p. ●1.  Eucher. 
That the deprived Metropolitan and Fathers are a proper Court, or Council of Ecclesiastical Judges upon all conforming Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Realm, I do utterly deny for many Reasons. In the Province of York they have no jurisdiction; nor can they make a distinct Synod from the rest of their Colleagues within the Province of Canterbury. So that had a Synod of mere Bishops been called therein before any Bishops made by King William, this had been a Synod, against which no Uncanonical Ordination or Enthronement could have been objected, and yet the Majority of these would have condemned their Recusancy, if we may judge of their Sentence by their Conformity.  
But further by our Constitution, the Body of the Clergy are concerned in our Synods; and which way think you would your Cause have gone in a full and Canonical Convocation? This your wife Author of Christian Communion well saw, and therefore would not adventure the issue 
* Part 2. Ch. 4.  to a Synodical Determination. But yet neither have these Fathers given a definitive Sentence of Excision upon us, which yet is necessary, where the actual Excision passes not merely on the uncontested notoriety and malignity of the Crime, which we suppose at present not to be our State. And let the Reasons of their forbearing Sentence be what they will, yet as long as we are not self-condemned, but stand upon our Defence, we are not yet actually excommunicate by any effectual judgement of these Fathers: Nor can their practice amount to so much, either Legally, or intentionally. Time was, and yet is, I believe, when several of these Fathers would not censure our Submission to the present Civil Government as criminal and heinous. And one of those Prelates in a public Oration to his Clergy, strictly charged them to abstain from all obliqne Reflections on each other, for refusing, or admitting the Oath of New Allegiance, but to retain Charitable Opinions each toward the other; which being a public act of that Father's at the head of his Diocese, will not (I hope) be denied as a Lie; nor may I be condemned for uncovering a secret, since this was not such, nor transacted in a corner; nor need that Reverend Father be ashamed or unwilling to own it; since it was a most Illustrious Indication of his Excellent Piety and Moderation, but withal a clear confutation of that pretended censure, which you place in their Practice. For the Practice of not Swearing, may in several Men have several causes; some may condemn the Allegiance; some may doubt only; some may have aspects on another Revolution; others to the reproach of our, and to the esteem of another Party; some to their former Writings or Pretensions, points of honour, or the Fatigues of a Public Station. So that except one unanimous Sentence against the Allegiance be judicially given, the argument from practice is very unconcluding: But besides, the Practice of the Majority, will as much condemn them, as theirs can us, if this be of any such importance toward a Judicial Excommunication: So silly it is for Men to hunt after such feeble Cavils, on purpose that they may seem to have somewhat to say, and not be born down by that Truth against which they have form a Faction.  Dyscher. 
Well, However I told you, that there is danger in your Communion; and I should have added, that the sin is unavoidable in it, because the Secession was on your side from us and Righteousness, we still continuing as we were: but see I pray, what answer you made me hereupon, that I may take off the vizor, and lay open your Hypocrisy. You say, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 6.  that though our Church Justly and Absolutely rejects the Roman Monarchy, yet she will not refuse any Lawful Communion, or correspondence with it in any good Ecclesiastical Negotiations, consistent with Integrity; saving still a Public Remonstrance to all her Pollutions. What can be the meaning of this, but that your Church is ready and willing to join in Communion with the Church of Rome, as many of your Brethren take the Oath, with a Declaration.— This, and no other can be your meaning, else your Argument and Parallel is senseless and insignificant: for thus it follows, so should you communicate with us in all that is Lawful: Now it is actual Communion in all public Offices and Worship, which you require from us, and the reason you give, why we should pay it, is in the words before cited, the sense of which must be, that your Church is ready with a Remonstrance to afford the same Communion to the Church of Rome, that is, Actual Communion in Public Worship.— So with an insignificant Remonstrance, you can go to Mass, and are willing to do it. See this and a great deal more such stuff in T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 12, 13.  Eucher. 
This is indeed a notable fetch, that I should excite you to rejoice with us for Redemption from Popery, and yet profess a readiness and desire to communicate in it; and in that very communion to remonstrate against it. This no doubt, would be a very pleasant way of accordance with the Roman Forms; and yet at last, when I invited you to Communicate with us, in all that is Lawful, I meant only, what you think Lawful, what is by us both confessed Lawful, not to what we only think Lawful against your opinion; and to this end 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 3.  that you might the better heal what you think we do amiss; and so much agreement I confess we own to all that is good in the Church of Rome, and by us acknowledged for such as well by them. But that I invited you not to any actual Communion in any thing you judge Unlawful, while you judge it so, appears in that I required not your presence to 
* Ibid. page 15.  that Prayer of New Allegiance on the 29th of May, while you are under the persuasions of its Impiety. But in truth, having (as I thought) proved us not to be actually Unchurched; I willed that you should yield us so much Communion, as may signify your acknowledgement, that we are yet of the Church of Christ, viz. in all those Offices, which you can Judge Good and Lawful, in order to an easier accommodation; for so I presume of this Church, and of you too, that you would not refuse any good Ecclesiastical Negotiations (which import some, though not a plenary Communion) with the Church of Rome, in order to a Restitution of the Churches of Christendom to a Primitive Frame, were the Church of Rome disposeable thereto. And they that will deny this to any corrupt Churches, I think are not real Christians, nor so much as externally qualified Members of the Church Catholic; and to this innocent purpose and consequence only were my words so exactly ordered, with a design to stave off all Catches herein, that nothing but an inexcusably wretched spite and bitterness could have hewn out of them so perverse and undesigned a construction.  Dyscher. 
I am not satisfied, that you will allow our Deprivation to be a Persecution, only on supposition, that it be for adherence to the Doctrines of the Church, or the Laws of God. What if neither the Laws of God nor the Church had been concerned, and they had had only occasion to stand to the Laws and Constitutions of the Land, which forbidden force against, and Deposition of Kings, and exclusion of the Heir? I think this had been no ill Cause, etc. T. B's. 2d. Lett.  Eucher. 
I did not mention the Laws of the Land; because till they are Authentically Vacated, the Laws of God, and the Doctrines of our Church, do assert their obligation on our obedience, so far as it is in our power to perform it; and a voluntary violation of the Laws and Constitutions of Civil Government, is a violation of the Laws of God, which the Church Preaches in her Doctrine. Therefore I allow you, that adherence to the permanent obligation of the standing laws of the Land is a good Cause, for the maintenance whereof, all Sufferings are Persecutions, and all the voluntary Agents in them, Persecutors. But if the reason or obligation of any Law ceaseth, or if you mis-understand Laws, and will oppose your private Judgement on them, against the received and constant Judgement and Practice of the Nation on our Laws, than your Sufferings upon such Prejudices cannot come under that black Character; which is a thing enquireable between you and me.  Dyscher. 
Then I take it for a very odd demand, that we must give in a very clear proof, that we are Ejected for adhering to the Laws of God. I pray, who are they that ought to bring this clear proof? I have heard some say, that it is an Axiom in Law, that they who expect the benefit, aught to make the Proof: Now you get all into your hands, and would you give no Reason for it? And yet it would be but to little purpose to prove to a Thief, that he has stolen my Goods. T. B's. 2d. Lett. p. 14.  Eucher. 
But do you not consider, that in Law and Reason, whoever accuses any man before a Judge, aught to prove his Bill, if the Accused plead, Not Guilty? And you by complaining to the World of the wrong done to K. James, and the Deprived; Appeal not to them, whom you account Thiefs, but to all others, to avoid their Communion: Now to draw off all People from their Communion, it is necessary to prove their actions Illegal according to the Laws of Tenure in the Crown, and the Ecclesiastical Promotions; since they whom you implead, challenge those Laws for their Justification. And further, by your leave, he that is out of Possession; but lays a claim of Right, and expects the benefit of it, aught to prove his Claim, and the Possession of the Adversary injurious. For they that are in peaceable, or legal form of Possession, have no need to make, nor consequently to prove a Claim, if not disproved. Beside, your Case is not concerned merely in your own personal Right, but in the Consciences and Salvation of other men's Souls, even of those whom you call Thiefs; and therefore you are obliged to convince them of the unlawfulness of such Changes, which they think lawful, and not only so, but in the present circumstances necessary.  Dyscher. 
But I will further examine your own Proposals and Concessions herein: 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 4.  An untainted Loyalty you approve, while the Obligation lasts, and we desire no more. But than you think the Obligation may cease, not only by Death, or Resignation, but also by Session: Nor do I think it worth while to dispute this with you, provided it be real, not forced, not falsely imputed. For so any man that is driven out of his House, or takes a Journey from Home, may be interpreted to have quitted his Estate by Session. But when Session is real, it can only affect the Party who makes it, and aught to be no injury to the next Heir.— But has that person made a Session, who, tho' to preserve his Life, he fly from fraud and irresistible force, yet all the while claims his right, calls on all persons to do him justice, and useth all honest means that may be to recover his Right. T. B. 2d. Lett. p. 15.  Eucher. 
I will freely allow you, that to a legal and effectual Session, there must be some voluntary Act of the Cedent, on which a Title in any Estate, Office or Authority is vacated. But then such Act shall have effect against the desires of retention in the Agent; as in two Benefices taken to be illegally held without a Dispensation. Nor is it a pure unmixed Act of Will, free and discharged from fear and terror, or trouble, that alone can make a Session; but receding from necessary Government for fear of Life, makes a real Session; as appears in men's quitting of Garrisons to an Enemy, (for fear of storm) either before or after he sits down before them. Upon which Session, and the Entry of the Enemy, the Dependants on that Fortress are discharged from the actual Bond of their old, upon the Enemies demand of a New Allegiance, to which they may lawfully and honestly submit for the time being. And this holds Due on the present Title of the new Possessior in the Dominion of such Place, tho' the Cedent still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a claim of Right to it, and endeavours a 〈…〉 which tho' he has Right to recover, yet 〈…〉 present Right in the actual Allegiance of the Dependants so legally transferred, till he d●●● again recover the place. Else, if you will not allow this Doctrine, you will be but mean Favourites in the French Court, whose new Conquests have all this form of Establishment. And I must remark to you, that a man's leaving his Estate upon going a Journey is not a matter parallel to leaving of Kingdoms dissolved thereby into Anarchy and Confusion. For an Estate may lie still, and unoccupied, without harm, or danger, and so a Rectoral Presence, or Actual Administration not be necessary to the Tenure; but the Civil State of Nations requires a continual Course of Government, and he that leaves it dissolved, permits it to another by a proper Session. And whereas you say, that such Session, if it be real, shall not prejudice the next Heir, this does not always, and universally hold true, as in the instance of deserted Garrisons, and the dependent Territories. But in other cases, if they, that have a plenipotentiary Right of acting for an Heir in Minority, make a Session for him, or bring him also thereinto, than the Subject people are discharged from adhering to such Heir also, were his Title to the Inheritance otherwise indubitate beyond all suspicion of imposture.  Dyscher. 
But let us see what a kind of Session you fix upon your King. 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 3.  This was, say you, such a Session, that the Estates in Convention judged it a virtual Abdication of the Sovereignty; and of 
† My Words are,— of this (being a point of Law) they were to us, at that time, and in that juncture, the most competent, etc.  this, you add, they were the most Competent, Authentic, and Final Judges. And this, you tell us, 
* Ibid. My Words are, We are the more to submit to, etc.  we are to submit to, because the Kingdom hath ratified those proceed in a second Parliament.— But Competent they could not be, who, for the prevailing part of them, were, either actually in the Conspiracy against him, or joined with the Conspirators, and refused so much as to read his Letters, or hear any Message from him. Nor could they be Authentic Judges, who had no Law to authorise them, or their proceed. Nor did I ever hear, that the natural Subjects of a Sovereign Monarch could be his Authentic Judges, unless from Precedent Bradshaw, the Regicides, and their Adherents. And if upon this score you will have the Proceed valid against the Son, you must also justify the Barbarous Murder of the Father. And then they could not be final Judges, because being neither Competent nor Authentic, they were no proper Judges at all. Nor doth it at all help the matter, that you call these your Judges the Estates; and further, to countenance the matter, place them in Convention. For how are they Estates, but with respect to the King, and Constitution? Which if they overthrew, what becomes of their Estateships? It is the King made them such, and they are so in subordination to him. Nor is their Convention any thing without him; they cannot convene without his Writ. You may remember, that your Oracle Dr. B— tells you, that a single Defect makes an essential nullity. So they must act under him; and all they resolve is nothing without his assent: And by our Law, if they act against him, they are Rebels, and so unfit for Competent, Authentic and Final Judges. T. B's. 2d. Lett. p. 15, 16.  Eucher. 
Here is an hideous Outcry, as if the whole Machine of the World were breaking into ruins. But yet methinks it should be no hard task to stay the Convulsion. First then, The Objection against the Competency is never to be proved, and 'tis almost, if not altogether manifestly false. For the prevailing part must be the major number in both Houses, all which I suppose cannot be charged as parties to the Conspiracy, or the Conspirers. The Prince in his march did not pass through above ten Counties, and touched but little of several of them, he saw not twenty Parliamentary Buroughs, nor sent any Agents to concert with them; not many Peers joined him till King James disbanded, and fled. The insurrections in the North, tho' unopposed, were far from general, and the far greater part of England, and all Wales saw nothing of it, and contributed nothing to that Commotion. How then can the Majority be all concluded into a Conspiracy against King James before their Convention, that thereby they should become incompetent? Besides, no man is to be taxed as a Criminal, in order to forfeiture, or punishment, till judicially convict, or confessed. Otherwise, if he stands upon his innocency and Capacities, his Claim is to be admitted, and his Civil Privileges secured, against which in our Convention no man found. Objection upon such surmise, or imputation, which yet ought to have been made by the Innocent against the Guilty to the eviction of their incompetency. Let us see then, whether the refusal of his Letters, or Message renders them Judges incompetent. Now this I think rather appertains to the Question of actual Justice in their Proceed than to their Competency, or Qualification for sitting in Judgement. For a Judge duly authorised may act unjustly, and yet his judgement (till reversed) shall be authoritative and effectual, which it could not have been, if the Judge had thereby become incompetent. But even in this, which, till well considered, seems the hardest case, it was necessary first to resolve the Question of Abdication before all others; which if carried in the Negative, than his Letters must in Law and Duty have been received as from their present King; but till that point were determined, 'twas necessary to deny the Letters; for the Reception of them as from their then actual King had prejudged against all the Argument for Abdication, and had been a virtual Sentence, that he had not abdicated. And they could not well have resumed that debate, without rejecting his Letters after reading, and censuring their own admission of them, which would more justly have exposed their Wisdom, and offended you, than the measures which they observed. But after judgement passed for the Abdication they could not admit his Letters under the Royal Style, because they had judged, that he was not our then King; and so the Admission of his Letters, as their Kings, had been a virtual Reverse of that their Judgement in the same Session, and Breath; by which they had rendered themselves, if not altogether incompetent, yet very injudicious Judges. And if after Judgement against his then Sovereignty they had sent to him under the style and salutation of late King, and have made him King anew, had it not been a wise Transaction, much to their Credit, Thanks, and the Nations Interest? So much then for the Conspiracy. Next for the Authority, which you say was none, since no National Subjects of a Sovereign Monarch can be his Judges. And by Mr. Johnson's leave, I will say so too, and did say so 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 4.  most expressly, tho' you in great sincerity take no notice of it, because it it seems it was not considerable enough. But is it not a very considerable Assertion, That when a King is fled from his Throne into foreign Dominions, and doth not exert any Royal Power, or presence to his People, the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestic Judges upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty, which is not to make them Judges of the King's Person, but in the want of his Person, of the State of the Kingdom, and the Rights of the Nation in Order to Settlement? And can you either disprove this saying, or charge it, or me with Regicide Principles? Clamat Melicerta periisse frontem de rebus— may well deserve your remembrance here; especially since I told you, 
* Ibid. p. 9  that King James was never in Law subject to them, or under their Power. But as to the Authority of the Estates to convene, when there is no King actually regnant, you may learn, if you please, that, tho' the Estates were created by Kings, yet their Rights and Charters are perpetual, and constituted for a fundamental Council to the Land, under the King, while we have one governing, but when we have none, authoritative of themselves to resettle the Nation the best manner they in their judgement may, or can: And this right they have in common with all the like Orders of Estates in all other Kingdoms; otherwise the Nation would not have been so earnest for a Free Parliament, when that liberty was opened to them by General Monks Conduct.  Dyscher. 
I shall talk with you about that Parliament by and by. And when I have told you, That your second Parliament hath no more Authority than your Hocus Pocus transubstantiating Convention, that riotous Assembly, (all whose Acts were contrary to Law, and censurable by Law) and so cannot confirm them: I will examine your grave Position, That when a King is fled from his Throne into foreign Dominions, or doth not exert any Royal Power, or Presence to his People, the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestic Judges upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty.— But am I bound to follow their Judgement against manifest Right, and my known Duty? T. B's 2d. Lett.  Eucher. 
No, no, by no means; but in such a Crisis you have no other known Duty toward any Settlement, but to abide by that which they establish in the Land for the time being; for that all Rights and Duties then debatable are in such junctures determinable by them to all Civil Effects and Obligations; and therefore their Judgements ought not to be opposed by any slanders or factions whatsoever, even tho' King James from abroad condemns them. Por a Foreign Censure is no Civil Judgement, and by consequence of no legal validity, or virtue. King's sometimes suffer wrong; but whensoever by these sufferings they are removed from their People, the Estates must provide for the Nation as they can, and as they do, we must be content; nor has the suffering King any Right to engage us from abroad to the contrary. And this Authority even without a King is so full in itself, that it needs no Ratification on the post-fact to make its Acts obliging or effectual; tho' such a declarative sort of Ratification, as our second Parliament made, be of use to satisfy unsettled minds, and second a former Obligation which was what I had respect to, when I said, We are the more to submit to the proceed of the Convention and first Parliament, since the Kingdom hath ratified their proceed in a second, viz. by a Declarative Recognition, and reinforcement of their legality and virtue.  Dyscher. 
After all, your considerable Assertions are but a malicious insinuation against your suffering King, as if he ran away through wantonness, and would have nothing to do with us. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 17.  
And herein Mr. Johnson seems more sincere in his wickedness than your Dawbers. For he tells your Parliament, that there was no Desertion; 
* Pres. to the Commons before his Argument. p. 16.  For King James must needs go, and leaves us to understand the rest of the Proverb by an Aposiopesis; that he was Devil driven. And so far speaks plain as to say, That he was as much driven from England, as Nabuchadnezzar was driven to Grass, and he claimed as he fled by the Rochester Letter. And he further shows, 
* Ibid. p. 19  That no advantage could be taken of a Kings withdrawing himself from the Government, (if it had been voluntary, as all the World knows it was not) without a Summons sent after him to return again in forty days. And therefore he roundly professes that the people abrogated their King after his Expulsion. And whence is it then that he exerts not his power? You know he exerts all the power he can, that he doth not more is not his fault, but yours; you may have both his Power and Presence among you too, if you please. But will you contrary to your Duty and Oaths keep him out by force of Arms, and then plead your own wickedness in your Defence? T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 17.  Eucher. 
Mr. Johnson falsely owns the fact you charge upon the Nation for the sake of his Principle which his spite to all Kings and Kingly Power, has cast him into, viz. That the People may Depose their Kings as often as they judge them Peccant, which is almost as often as they please. But 'tis notorious, that the Estates judged the Throne made Vacant not by their Act of Abrogation, but the Kings own Abdication; which if so, all the world knows it must be in some degree Voluntary. Now here will I challenge Mr. Johnson to say out; Does that claim of the then uncertain Rochester Letter, make the Abdication manifestly false, since he says it makes the Disertion so? Here I doubt his Courage will fail him, lest his Argument, and his Dedication follow the fate of the Pastoral Letter. And yet it is manifest, that though K. James made many large and previous steps to the Subverting our Constitution, yet the Final Abdication of the whole Government, consisted in his Desertion, from whence the Vacancy Commenced. and if this were not otherwise manifest, we have Mr. Johnson's own Averment, who tells us, 
* ibid. page 29.  That we have an Act of Parliament, which declares the Realm of England to have been Sovereign during that time, (of Vacancy between K. James' second flight, and K. William's Admission) by ordering all Indictments, from the time of K. James ' s withdrawing, till the 13th of February, to run in their Name. 'Tis true indeed, that mere Local Desertion of the Land, of which there may be many Causes, does not ipso facto extinguish the Sovereignty, except it be judicially interpretable to an Abdication from other concurrent Circumstances and Indications, on want of which a demand of Return becomes reasonable, and the neglect thereof, interprets the Recession to an Abdication; but when there are evident tokens of yielding up a Government in the form, manner, causes, and circumstances of such Local Desertion, than a summons of Return is not necessary in point of Law, or National Duty, upon the antecedent forms of Virtual Abdication, apparent in such Departure: If therefore his Act of Disertion in its own form, made a Legal and Effectual Abdication; his Rochester Letter imports no more, than that his words and actions are contradictory, in quitting by deed, and claiming by word, the same Right at the same time. Upon this Abdication therefore the Throne becoming actually Vacant, was by the Act of the Nation, filled up with their Majesties: And here upon whatsoever pours K. James endeavours to Exert, as they do not reach us, nor send out their virtue by legal ways of course, so are they too late and out of season; not to mention, that his late ways of Exertion under French Conduct, how honest soever you may call them, look not very natural or smiling upon English Men: If we sum up the matter, he was ruining all the Laws and Liberties, with the Religion of the Lands he Ruled, and they were just on the Precipice under his Exertions; so that the Nation needed and gasped for relief under them: Upon this the Prince of Orange having Great Interests and Legal Expectations here, comes over with a declared Intention to set all things at Right, in such order as the English Parliament should adjust, which was a fair and most equal design; this than was the time for K. James to have Exerted his Royal Power, & Justice too, in calling a Parliament for such purposes, according to the sense of the whole Nation, earnestly recommended to him by his Prelates, Nobles and Counsellors, for a long time, by sundry Addresses, even to the last: and he having sent out some writs thereunto, seemed a while inclined, but upon Romish Advice recalls that purpose, and instead of doing us that Justice, was resolved to contest it with the Sword: Hereupon his Army, which, had he called a Parliament to have healed the Nation, would have secured him against all Foreign and Domestic Violence, sunk their Affections, as having no maw to Fight for him against their Native Country, Liberties and Religion, disperse by degrees, and great part go over to that which they knew to be the Juster Cause; and he, being thus daily weakened, retires & disbands the rest; and even not then calling a Parliament to help himself and us out of the Confusion, he flies away to the Grand Enemy and Terror of this Nation, and leaves us to shift for ourselves under those Aspects and apprehensions of dangers that lay before us: If then, he would not exert a Legal Power when he might, 'tis too late to offer at any Foreign ways of Exertion after a New Settlement; or 'tis at lest unreasonable, to demand our Reception of them to the destroying of our Redeemer after a National Allegiance given him, for his sake, who ever pursued our general Ruin against the Laws; his Oath, the ties of Natural Affection, and the Sighs, Groans and Requests of his Loyal People. And whereas you say, we may have his Power and Presence too, if we will, as lovely as that may be fancied, 'tis more than you can warrant. For, if we were disposed to accept your offers, if he should come with a French force, are you secured, that the French would permit him to be as free and independent a Monarch as before? 'Tis possible they might erect him for a Vassal titularly Royal, till their strength were fixed, and then upon demand of Expenses, or other pretexts, pick a quarrel with him to annihilate him for their Master's Glory. Or supposing the French King, for once a true Friend to King James, would not his Forces make King James an Arbitrary Monarch here, to exert more than a legal Power over all the Bodies, and Souls, Estates, Coffers, and Purses of the Nation? If we had had any maw for such Power, we might easily have had it, while he was here, and not have been beholden to the French for the Commodity. But if King James should concert privately with us to return without any French measures, or services, can you assure us to keep this secret from the French King? Or if you fail in point of secrecy, are you sure he will let King James go, or treat with us in neglect of his Interests, and Pleasure? Or would he not rather Bastile him for Ingratitude, and treat him hereupon after his usual methods of humanity? Thus pretty are your Projects to expose the Fate and Fortunes of Nations upon, and discover such a distemper in the Brain, as requires the Law of Bedlam rather than any other consideration.  Dyscher. 
When we deny the Authority by which your Estates sat, you ask us by what Authority was that Free Parliament called, or sat, that voted in King Charles the Second? Sir, if you please, let another be called, and vote in King James the Second. When things are out of Order, and good men set them to Rights again, I do not think any man will oppose it upon the score of some small niceties; but when subjects rebel against their Prince, and drive him away, and make that the ground of their going on, and doing farther wickedness, I cannot understand the Authority of this. There is certainly in every man an innate natural Power and Authority to wish well to, and vote for Right. By virtue of this, when things were in confusion, the Subjects of King Charles the Second, returning to their Wits and Allegiance, send a convenient number to act for the whole, who recall their rightful King, and if you should do so likewise, I should not be very quarrelsome with you. But whatever name they might give it, to put a better gloss upon the thing, they were no Parliament, till King Charles made them so; for he, their lawful King, by an Act in Legal Parliament, might stamp on them that Character and give them that Authority, and Force, which they had not before; and thus several of their Acts might become Laws by virtue of that after Ratification, not by any force of their own. But as for calling back the King, that was not making any new Law, but enforcing the old, and was not so much an Act of Authority, as Obedience and Duty. And if you could find out the same way, you would be the best Friends to your Country, and yourselves. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 17, 18.  Eucher. 
To answer according to the way and order you lead me, as I have before told you, we are now under no obligation to call in King James, so being under another settlement, things are not out of Order, and Unsettled, as they were upon the convening of that Free Parliament; and as there is no occasion, so there is no opportunity to attempt it. But whereas you charge the Subjects in general with Rebellion, and Expulsion of their King, 'tis a broad slander and falsehood; for beside the far greater numbers of the people that never moved, it seems that very few, that actually went over to the Prince, ever designed the expulsion of King James, but only the secure reduction of him and his exorbitant claims of omnipotent Prerogative to the just limits of Law and Reason by Parliamentary ways of Composure. Which, tho' they could not procure, yet did they not expel him, but he went off himself, either for fear of Life, or obstinacy against a Parliamentary Discussion, or because of the fatigues of an unsuitable Government. But as to the Convention itself, it rebelled not against him; for had he continued his Presence, they would have desired to meet by his Call, and then I believe not an Hair of his Head had fallen to the Ground, whatsoever his too conscious fears and apprehensions were, since the only Argument for the Vacancy of the Throne was founded in his Abdication, and that in his Departure from us, and leaving us in a state of Anarchy; upon which it was not possible that they could rebel against him without his Presence. As for your innate Authority to wish and vote for Right, I allow your meaning, tho' not the impropriety of your words; for an inward Right of wishing well is no proper Authority, which imports a Superiority over Inferiors, nor are private wishes formal votes in Civil Matters, in which an Authority to vote is not a natural Right of every man, but a positive Power of constituting Orders. And in Civil Negotiations all private wishes must concede to public Suffrages, and Determinations, And the Land sent up that Free Parliament, not on their Natural Rights, but Civil Capacities of voting, and doing the best Right they could. And tho' they did well in bringing back the King de jure, having no other King de facto established, nor any impediment to the Reduction of the Heir Lineal, yet if there had appeared to them any such obstacle, as would have rendered his Reduction destructive to the Nation, and its Fundamental Liberties and Constitutions, according to the Aspects of our Case, they would have made some other provision for the time being, with which the Nation would then, and aught to have acquiesced, and so would a good Prince too; but there being no difficulty in that Juncture, they did their Duty in restoring the King. And as for the Name and Character of Parliament, whensoever the jure enstamped on them, it matters not; for they were in that Juncture, and those Circumstances a Legal and Authentic Council of the Land, tho' extraordinary; and whatsoever Settlement they had made for the time being, had been valid from their Authority, as well as what they did had also authority both from their Duty, and the King's consequent Ratifications; for single Acts may have sometimes plural Authorities, and Confirmations. But to convince you, that Conventions of Estates in such Junctures and Confusions are by themselves authoritative to resettle, I will discuss it with you, and I pray answer me fairly.  Dyscher. 
Pray try your skill.  Eucher. 
First then in such a State of Confusion, as that in which King James left us, has the Nation any Right or Reason to consult for some security, order and settlement?  Dyscher. 
It seems reasonable that this be allowed.  Eucher. 
By whom then should a National Consultation be transacted? Or who should, or can be so regularly and efficaciously entrusted, as the old standing Council of the Land?  Dyscher. 
I must confess I cannot assign any Council so proper as that, and none else, that can be pretended legal.  Eucher. 
Must the Determination of this Council be allowed any public Efficacy, or Virtue to oblige?  Dyscher. 
Yes, if it pass according to Right.  Eucher. 
But if they judge their Determination to be right, must their Judgement take place to all Civil Effects, against all private and extrajudicial Objections, or no?  Dyscher. 
Yes, except the prevarication is notorious.  Eucher. 
Notorious! To whom notorious?  Dyscher. 
To all men, to the whole Nation, to their own Consciences, as the Exclusion of King James was.  Eucher. 
Then no Notoriety less than National shall justify a Recusancy to such public Decision?  Dyscher. 
I were as good as allow it, for it seems so.  Eucher. 
But how shall we discern such a general Notoriety?  Dyscher. 
By the general and unanimous Censure of all Orders of Men, that adhere to the ancient Laws of the Government, and fundamental Principles of our Constitution.  Eucher. 
This will become such an intricate and endless debate, whose are the Legal Principles that it will create an intestine War in order to a Decision. You must therefore admit a notorious generality, or majority of the People, or all Orders in it comprehensively, or else we shall never get out of the brake, or be relieved by any National Consultation, if such indeterminate Surmises, or Pretensions shall interrupt its Obligation.  Dyscher. 
Be it so, what then?  Eucher. 
Then I think I have fairly gained my Points; for these Concessions admit, in a State of Anarchy, upon an Abdicant Desertion, a Convention of Estates to be Lawful and Authoritative without a King's Commission, or Presence. Secondly, That the Acts of our Covention were, and are valid, as not being censured for other, but admitted as such by the generality, or notorious majority of the Nation, which is sensibly apparent by comparing the numbers conforming with the Recusant; Conformity and Recusancy being the only proper and legal Tests of men's Senses hereupon: Tho' the Authority of our National Council is such, as needs no after Ratification from the disfusive Multitude, or the original Freeholders, or Burghers of the Land; because, as the Lords are primitively Councillors for themselves, so the Trust signed to the Representative House is total and absolute, without need of any subsequent Ratification, or Power of Revocation by their Principals.  Dyscher. 
But notwithstanding all pretences, they ought to have recalled King James; and it being in their Power to do it, 'twas piacular wickedness to omit it, and erect his Adversary; this is obvious to common Sense, and the first simple Notions of Right and Wrong, against which no civil forms, or combinations can oblige.  Eucher. 
You are no competent Judge upon them or us, what Right required them to do in their then exigencies; and if in truth they could not do what you would have had them, nor well and safely do otherwise than they did, than all this black Charge turns to a blank, and comes to nothing. Now 'tis true, the Prince had no settled, or proper Jurisdiction, or legal Authority (strictly taken) to enforce a Convention, or any thing upon it; nay, they had liberty before the judgement of Abdication to have voted King James' Revocation. But if they had done so, and the Prince in bar thereto had pleaded the Desertion to have been an Abdication devolving the Title to his Princess according to the ordinary and legal course, and so had required them to dissolve; if they had dissolved, what could such vote have effected? If they had not dissolved, the refusal might have opened a Scene of War between the Prince and the two Houses. And considering how great the even minor number in the Houses, which might have sided with the Prince, would have been, and the vast and zealous Army which he had about him, with all the form advantages and preparations of War, together with the hearts of at least the general multitude, are you sure that the naked Majority of the Convention could have safely adventured the dispute with cold Iron? Or if upon a casual adventure they had been conquered, how could they have evaded the Prince's Arbitrary Power? Or if, during the War, King James, or the French had supervened, and carried it, had not all the Laws and Liberties of the Nation, dipped and sunk under Absolute and Popish Power, and that most probably French, or a la mode de France? All this is obvious to common Sense, and was undoubtedly much more so to that National Assembly, which otherwise wisely composed all Domestic Riots, as well as secured us from foreign Inroads, and little deserve the reproach of Riotous, or Jugglers; which manners to your own deprived Fathers, and other your Friends that sat there, should have taught you to forbear.  Dyscher. 
Whereas you tell us, 'tis a prodigious peevishness to require a King's Presence, or Commission, when he is gone, and hath left all in Anarchy; I hope, Sir, you do not think I require a King to be present, when he is absent; and then, with your good leave, I think it no such peevishness to act by his Commission in his absence, but that it is a thing which (if it can be had) ought rather to be done. Richard the First was engaged in the Holy War, when his Father died; 
* This is false, for he was King before he went, and deputed the Bishop of Ely Chief Governor: It was Edward the First that was proclaimed King while in the Holy Land, but he was never Prisoner.  so that he was far enough from his Throne, and unable to exert any Royal Power, or Presence to his People: And to make the matter worse, in his return he was taken Prisoner, and detained in Germany. In this Case, had you been one of the Estates, you would have been for setting up another King, that would exert his Royal Power, and Presence to his People; but they had another sense of their Duty; they mourned under the common Calamity, caused all proceed to pass under his Nane, and stretched their Purses to redeem him, etc. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 18.  Eucher. 
But here, currente Rotâ, you have omitted something considerable, and inconsiderately offered what is not so. For I only state the Case, when a King, that was actually in the Throne, goes off from it, and resigns all to Anarchy, which is justly interpretable to an Abdication of Government; which was not Richard's Case, which is therefore instanced altogether impertinently. Yet in that 
* See Sir Richard Bakers Reign of Richard the First.  very Case, whatsoever had been the procedures of the then Estates for the time being, the subject people must have acquiesced in their judicial determinations, and presumed them Legal till reversed in as Legal and Authentic Forms of Judgement, tho' Richard had lain for ever unredeemed; because the multitude are uncapable of judging our National Laws, Rights and Capacities, and cannot act regularly to the recovery of Right, or performance of a National Duty: Yet it is bold in you to say, that my Vote would have passed against Richard's restitution, since I, that have well known the motions and sympathies of my own Soul through all this Revolution, should certainly have been carried by my Bowels for that unfortunate King James against the wiser and major part of that Assembly you traduce. But besides your insincerity in this parallel, and your Censoriousness on me, you seem to pervert, or misunderstand my meaning, when I said, it is prodigious peevishness to require a King's Presence, or Commission, when he is gone, and hath left all in Anarchy. For tho' it is then only proper to require a King, or any person, to restore his Presence, when he is absent, when during his Absence his presence is needed; yet I never was so silly as to think Presence, and Absence compatible, and connecessary at once, or that a Commission in time of Absence was improper to supply the desect of personal Presence, according to that ridiculous guise you clap upon my words; but my apparent palpable intention was, that it is prodigious peevishness to require a King's Presence or Commission, as necessary to make the Session of Estates Authentic, when he affords neither Presence, nor Commission; for want of which all is left in supine and gasping Anarchy, which were my express words, on purpose set to obviate this, and other like Cavils, tho' honestly omitted by you for inconsiderable, tho' therein lies the main force and form of my Argument, which is like to stand unmoved, notwithstanding all the impotent flurts of unmanly peevishness.  Dyscher. 
At last you say, the Estates of any Nation being 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 4.  invited by a victorious and unresisted Power, may come together, and treat with him that thus calls them, tho' he hath no antecedent Authority (strictly taken) to call them. Here is a pretty fetch in the word [unresisted Power;] for irresistible you knew it was not; and if it was unresisted, whose fault was that? May they refuse to resist an invading Power, when they are able? And may they make that disobedience the reason of their Compliance with him, and casting off their own Sovereign? But if, without daubing, you had put the Case as it was, it ought to run thus; The Estates of any Nation, or the natural Subjects of any Sovereign Prince may combine with, and invite in a foreign Prince, and when he comes, tho' with a contemptible force, they may forsake their lawful Prince; and then by their Treachery having left him helpless, and hopeless, may treat with a Foreigner, drive away their own King, give his Crown to the Foreigner, and maintain it with their Swords and Purses, without which he could not keep his illgotten Goods. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 18.  Eucher. 
It confessedly seems, as I stated the Proposition, you cannot deny the perspicuity of its Truth, and therefore you invert it to an invidious Paraphrase, which in many parts of it is not truly applicable to that which was the Subject of my Apology, viz. the Authority of the Convention. For all your aggravated Invitations, Combinations, Revolts, Treacheries, and Derelictions, allowing, or supposing them to be no other than you describe them, are not chargeable on the whole Estates of the Land, especially when in Convention. And even thus I will renew my Position, That by the Laws of Nations, if a foreign Prince procure the Revolt of a vast part of another Prince's Subjects, through the terror of which the helpless Prince leaves his Kingdoms in Anarchy under the Army of the foreign Potentate, who thereupon calls the Estates of such, deserted Nation to treat for a Settlement, they may convene, and treat with him upon such invitation. For it is the necessity, the subject Nation stands in for a Settlement, that warrants and legitimates such Treaties, by what means soever those exigencies are introduced, whether by foreign Force, or intestine Commotions, jointly, or severally, throwing all into Anarchy, and Disorder. But if the charge of the Revolt preclude the legality of any man's Session, that incapacity ought to have been objected, and if overruled, protested against in Convention, as I have already told you; which not being done, they were all in Law, Reason, and Civil Construction, lawful Agents, and Councillors. As to the word [Unresisted Power] I confess I used care indeed, but no trick; for it was too hard for me to judge whether the Prince's Power were irresistible or no; and so it is in many cases, in which Parties yield rather than run the hazard of a Battle. But every one can tell when it is, or is not actually resisted; and the Proposition is as true of an unresisted, as well as irresistible Power. Thou take you all the Forces foreign and domestic, joined to the Prince when the Convention was called, you will think it hard for any Subjects to have resisted them, when the King himself long before durst not, but disbanded, and quitted thereby all pretensible Duties in the Subjects to take Arms. And the Conventioners deserve to be your humble Servants, for putting them upon such an Essay. But if you will require, where the fault of this nonresistance really lies, I think you may find it in him, that neither could be induced to call a Parliament, nor to fight it out. After which double miscarriage, and flight out of the Kingdom, I think no man was obliged to resist, or take up Arms, but to desire such a Settlement as the State of Affairs would admit. As for the Wars we maintain with our Purses against all the Enemies of our present Settlement, they are just according to all the Rules and Forms of Civil Laws, to which you yourselves contribute as well as we, only with more Crime, as doing that against your Consciences, which we admit upon Principles to us appearing good. But if you think your Exigencies legitimate, your payment of Taxes to prevent new danger, so we think the general Exigencies of the Nation did legitimate this Settlement, and do still justify our plenary Submission thereunto, according to the Sense, Laws, and Usages of all Nations. As for those you call Revolters, they were not the Subject of my Discourse, whom I therefore leave to God, who, as he saw the provocations, so did he also every man's purposes, and trains of thought in that Insurrection, according to which at the last day they shall each man be judged. But for those that lay still, I know no legal summons they had from King James to rise in Arms, to make that quietness a breach of Allegiance, in which certainly you Jacobites are as culpable as the others, and in one degree more, in that when you might, and upon your Principles ought to have taken Arms for him, you would not, and now when you neither can, nor aught, clamour for new Seditions and Commotions, by which we must inevitably fall a prey to France, and a Burnt-Sacrifice to Rome.  Dyscher. 
I will now for the present intermit the Remarks I collected at Gilman's Coffeehouse, and bestow some other impartial Reflections on your Grand State-Principle, on which you raise your other Arguments. Here than I must tell you, That you set up new Principles, which the Church of England hath always declared to be erroncous, and grounds of Rebellion; viz. you set up the Parliament above the King, and that we must take our measures of obedience only from the Parliament, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 31.  to whose Judgement, say you, in all Civils, all Subjects must submit. And upon this you Ground all your Superstructure, as that King James' 
* Ibid. p. 8.  Tenure has been publicly judged by this Natition to be extinct; 
* p. 9  and that this Nation hath justified King William 's Cause, which is to conclude upon us. Beyond this you allow no no man to look, or inquire; The whole Body of the Church are to be taught by the Parliament, and to have an implicit faith in them against the King in all Cases whatsoever, so that 
* Ibid. p. 4.  the Church's Loyalty is to follow the Civil Judgement concerning the Object of our Allegiance, and the Tenure of Sovereignty. And by this Rule, if a Parliament change a King every day, the Church is bound to swear to every one; the Parliament can solve their Oaths. But there was a time, when the Church thought it their Duty to be Teachers, and particularly as to Loyalty, as being a principal part of Religion, and even [against a Parliament; 
Here unfortunately four or five lines were broken off the MS. Reflections, but, as I well remember, the sense was such as is included within these brackers [].  and their Doctrine was owned by all true Sons] of the Church of England, I mean the Old Church of England in the Reign of King Charles II. This was their Doctrine and Practice, and generally of the whole Church of England ever since the Reformation, as is plain in her Homilies, Articles and Canons, etc. And you do not attempt to disprove these, but only assert the contrary, and so leave it as a thing settled, and sure. MS. Reflections. That the Church's Loyalty, as to the Object, is to be guided by the true Constitution of the State, I deny not; but I shall never yield, what you would thence slur upon us, that it is to follow every. Civil Judgement, much less the uncivil Judgement of any Sett of Conspirators, and Traitors, into whose hand you so liberally and piously dispose it. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 19  Eucher. 
I am resolved, that no calumnious usage shall storm or transport me into any indecent, or uncharitable passion. But tho', for my own part, I might reject your imputations of disloyalty with scorn and silence; yet for your conviction I will calmly remind you, that I ever told you, that the Estates of this Land are not Judges of the King's Person, who is not under their Power; nor in Law subject to them. And all that I any where said of their Judgement about the Throne, amounts to no more than this, that in a state of Anarchy on a King's Desertion, or in Arbitration between two, or more Competitors, the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestic Judges, and Arbiters upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty, and the Rights of the Nation in order to Settlement. And that in case an irresistible, or unresisted Potentate 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  enforce himself upon the Nation for a new King, and the Subject people cannot help it, our Laws in this concur with the Laws and Practice of all Nations, in allowing (our Estates to determine for us in such Exigencies; 
* Ibid. p. 4.  that in extra-ordinary interruptions, and convulsions of State, our Laws, and Constitutions allow the Estates) such a King, as can actually be had for the time being, for which 
* Ibid. p. 5.  I refer to our Histories, Acts of Parliament, and Judgements of Law, under hereditary Kings, since the Reformation, without any Remonstrance of King, Church or State to the contrary, and at last to Bishop Overals Convocation Book. So that if a Question arise in the disordered Kingdom, who is my King, to whom my Allegiance is legally payable, I refer to their Judgement as the then Supreme in all our Civils; and if you can assign any Superior, or more Legal Judgement, to decide, and determine such national Questions, and Controversies, I am content to give up fairly to you. And if you can produce any Homilies, Articles, Canons or Monuments of this Church contrary to these my Positions, than I will yield, that the Church's Authority, as far as that can go upon Civil Questions, will lie against me. But a man's Eyes shall sooner drop out of his Head, than discover any such counter-principles in the public constitutions of our Church, which you would have quoted, if you could, particularly, but since that could not be done, 'twas very feeble to make such an hollow and causeless noise about it. And yet, if the Church in Civils had interpreted the Laws contrary to the Judgements of the State, she had given a null and incompetent Judgement, since we are no Authentic Doctors in these matters, nor the Church a Court of Civil Judicature, prohibitions always justly lying on her, whensoever she admits the Pleas, and assumes the Judgement of Civil Causes. As to the Rebellion against King Charles the First, it comes not near our Case, for there was a King actually Regnant, who in Parliament had redressed all their Grievances, and whose Tenure was indisputable, and undisputed, the very Rebels owning their Arms to be for King and Parliament. But neither was that Rebellion a judicial form of proceeding of both Houses, (of which only I spoke as Authentic in the Actual Vacancy of the Throne, and a state of Anarchy) but a military one, by a divided part of the Houses, assuming the Style and Title of the whole Parliament, against a King actually Regnant, which I had no occasion to mention, much less to justify, the Nation having since condemned it by Act of Parliament. Nor had it been entered into by the unanimous Vote of both Houses, had it obliged as a Law, as wanting the Royal Assent of the King then Regnant. And the Rights of the Crown, and Duties of our Allegiance are still the same, tho' Milton will still have Successors to his Villainies arise, when their Sovereigns are involved, to tamper with popular and seditious humours and ambitions, in order to new projected commotions. But they who make the Convention to have proceeded on principles of Rebellion contrary to their enacted Judgements, that hence they may draw Arguments to whiten the Old, and to inflame New Rebellions, deserve they, and their incendiary Pamphlets to be burnt together. Nor need you fear any such consequence from any my Positions, as if upon these the Parliaments may change their Kings every Day, and thereupon our Oaths; For I have asserted no Convention of Estates to be in Name, or Thing a Parliament, if they mect contrary to the Fundamental Laws of their Constitution. And while a King is actually Regnant, they 
* The Triennial Act was not pasied when this was written.  yet meet, sit, are prorogued, and dissolved at the King's Order only. And this being yet the form of our State, no Votes, or Bills of the Houses can pass into an Act, or Law without the Assent of the King Regnant, at whose pleasure they immediately are, and are not, and so can make no Legal Assembly, or public Change, without, or against him, over whose Person they are neither Lords, nor Judges. For tho' Causes of the King may come before the Lords, and be overruled in Justice to the Subjects Right, against which they are brought thither, yet this is no more than what we see in other Courts, which yet pretend no Sovereignty over the King's Person, by whose Commission they sit in Judgement. So far am I from such wicked Principles, as Plat-thorns in the Crowns of Kings, and set them in the most unsupportable Bondage, that Art, or Ill-nature can contrive, but withal provoke great spirited and designing Princes to seek avenues to an Arbitrary Power, who would have gladly been contented with a regular and equal Sovereignty, if they could have been secured in it from the fears, and incentives of popular insolence. But to return from this Digression, if a King through any fear, or cause whatsoever, utterly deserts his Kingdoms, and leaves all in Anarchy, and Confusion, that the Estates of the Land, if they can, should then Convene, and settle the Nation the best way they can, is so far from Rebellion, that it is most certainly both their Privilege, and their Duty And if they are first to determine our Settlement, I am sure the Church's Loyalty is to follow their Judgement, except we challenge an Appeal from them to the Church, to ratify, or vacate our Civil Constitutions. And if you call this Duty of Submission to their Civil Settlements implicit Faith in the Parliament, it will be prone to retort, that you challenge an implicit Faith in the Church, and that in matters not Ecclesiastical, in a latitude more Exorbitant than any Pretensions of the Church of Rome. But the Truth is, our Duty to any such established Settlements is not founded in an implicit Faith, whose proper Objects are things not seen, Heb. 11.1. but in an apparent, explicit, and authentic Determination, as all other Duties pursuant to Laws and Public Judgements are, and no otherwise. And you that will allow the Church's Loyalty, as to the Object, to be guided by the true Constitution of the State, but not by every Civil Judgement, have need to explain yourself, what shall he the Supreme Civil Judgement for you concerning the Laws and Constitutions of our State in rare, unusual and dangerous Cases of Desertion, and Anarchy. For if you assert to every man a practical Judgement upon our Laws and Rights in such Cases, and that even against a National Judgement, the Confusions must be eternal; If there must be a Civil Council, I pray assign me any other like that of the Estates in Convention, who indeed, as often as such Cases call upon them, are the Supreme Judges of the Constitutions and Rights of the Nation, and Arbiters of our Settlement concluded thereupon. And if you will not yield to every such Civil Judgement, you may as well say, you will yield to none, excepe it comports with your private Humours, or Persuasions, which is the true and plain English of your Answer herein, if I may use the freedom you take with me, of being your Paraphrast, or Interpreter, and is a wonderful Expedient to settle us by eternal and unreconcilable discords in Opinion and Practice.  Dyscher. 
Let us now see, what a fine account you give us of the Laws and Rules of our Succession; and hereon you tell us, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 4.  That the general and ordinary Rule of Succession to this Crown is Hereditary, but in extraordinary Interruptions and Convulsions of State against the ordinary Course, our Laws and Constitutions do allow the Estates such a King, as can be actually had for the time being, till the ordinary Rule can be fairly recovered. Now if a man were to speak this in plain English, it would be thus; By our Laws and Constitutions the Crown is Hereditary; but if any Usurper, or Traitor will not suffer it to be so, but puts by the Right Heir, and gets possession himself, the Laws and Constitutions allow him to be King; yes marry, and a Lawful King too; i. e. the Crown goes in a Lineal Succession, while people are peaceable and Obedient; but if they be troublesome and rebellious, it is catch as catch can, and he had Right and Law on his side, who gets Possession, and so will another, and another without end, who can successively wrest the Possession from those, who had the Right whilst they could keep Possession. Did ever any Body hear of such a Constitution as this? Or was any thing better fitted to produce eternal Confusions? Certainly you have a mind to persuade us, that our Constitutions were made by the Wise Men of Goatham, or the Wiser Men of Bedlam. T. B's. 2d. Lett. p. 19  Eucher. 
You frequently use a suspicious Artifice of travesteering, what cannot be plainly answered, into farce and misshapen figures, and then expose it in Ridicule. By which however you call upon you the Sentence of the Psalmist, What shall be done unto thee thou false Tongue? Mighty and sharp Arrows, with hot burning Coals. For if I may be my own Paraphrast, my Sense is, that all Estates and Subjects are to their utmost obliged to preserve together the Sovereign and the Sovereignty, and the established forms of Government, according to the precise constitution of the Laws; but if these be irresistibly overborne, or the Sovereign abdicates all to Anarchy, than it is Lawful for the Estates to settle under such Sovereigns, as can be actually had for the time being, till the old Rules can be fairly recovered; which being positive, must give place to a temporal necessity. But did I ever say that Tyrants or Traitors, getting into Possession by mere Force, had Right, and Law on their side? No sure; for they may break all Law, Right, and antecedent Rules of Obligation, and yet the oppressed Estates may lawfully admit the Oppressive Power, when it appears too formidable under prospects of further inevitable Ruins. This I expressly and cautiously told you in these words; 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  And even an unjust Potentate, tho' he cannot according to Legal Justice out a King, against whom he hath no Legal Cause, or right of War, yet if he doth do so, and the subject People cannot help it, and he enforce himself on the People for a new King, our Laws in this concur with the Laws and Practice of all Nations, in allowing our Estates to determine for us in such Exigencies,— and the sin shall lie only on the injurious, and not on them that submitted to an inevitable fate of things; and again, 
* Ibid. p. 6.  Wars and victories are many times unjust, yet they, that suffer the wrong, lawfully submit to the unlawful and injurious demand of Submission, as in Piracies, and other like Tyrannies. And could such a Confessor for Conscience, Truth and Piety put lying Senses on my words without any remorses or touches of Conscience? More integrity was due and becoming such starched or sacred pretensions. But I have well learned, that Faction leavens the Soul, not only with sourness, but with insincerity also. But as I truly stated, and have now explained the Nature and Duties of our Constitution, I assert it a Fundamental Law to all Civil Societies, except perhaps that pair of dissyllable Signories, which you mention, where the Politcks, Logicks, and Ethics suit with your, and where, unless you'll to the Antyceryae, I must leave you. And since all Kingdoms, and Empires are by the just and adorable Counsels of God's Providence subject to such various Turns of Fate, all Princes, that take Crowns upon them, take them with the Laws of their fortune, and a concession to the regular consequences of such Change, under which they acquit the innocent Subjects under new submissions, tho' they condemn, and (being reduced) prosecuted all those that enforced the Change. But as long as the Duties of Subjection are such as I have described, intestine changes and disorders cannot arise from them. And while Princes minister Justice and Judgement to their People, and make their Prosperity the Royal Care, they are seldom threatened with Commotions. But yet it sometimes happens, that for unsearchable, tho' Just Reasons, the Judgement of God permits the most innocent Princes to intestine as well as foreign troubles, which yet however they that promote, shall not escape Divine Vengeance. And yet after the determination of such Wars, it can be no sin to acquiesce under those forms of Settlement, which our Estates can procure for the time being, tho' different from the ordinary Course. And there is no other Rule to recover the Civil Felicity of Nations but by these Principles, which every Princely Spirit must be presumed to allow, in equity and compassion to all his good Subjects, to rescue them from utter extirpation, or perpetual misery.  Dyscher. 
At last you are willing to qualify the matter, and to suffer this only, till the ordinary Rule can be fairly recovered. If this be so, why is it not recovered? Sure you will not plead that in justification of a People, which is notoriously their Fault, and such a Fault, as is in their Power to mend, when they please. Let them unanimosly, as they ought, return to their Duty and Loyalty, and the thing will do itself, and without any great pains, trouble or danger. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 19, 20.  Eucher. 
But I thought I had long before strangled the life and force of this Objection, having abundantly proved our Submission to this National Settlement faultless. And so a breach of National Contract is no fair way to a recovery; for an opportunity only of doing a thing legally can put us into a fair capacity of recovering the ordinary Course, which is not, as you ●ancy, the business of a moment, but an expectation of years and proper Conjunctures at the hands of God, whose leisure we are to wait for without our own too violent anticipations. Thus the Nation behaved itself thro-out all the Reigns of Henry IV, V and VI whom you would have challenged for Rebels, in lingering too long in the restitution of the Right Line. But whereas you propose to us an universal unanimity in reversing this Constitution, I will dare undertake the Affair for you sub poena. Capitis, when you can find me out an effectual Expedient of making us all unanimous. Otherwise what shall the unanimous do, that are the far less numbers, unarmed, and in no public Capacity of acting for the Kingdom, against those settled and form Powers, that can easily squeeze all our little unanimities to pieces? Shall there be no end of strife? No yielding to legal forms of Determination? And when there is but little hope or twisting the Sand-rope, can your thing do itself, and that with little trouble, pains or danger? And yet if King James Abdicated by a real Session, as the Nation judged, and I have proved, your project would violate, not only this extraordinary Settlement, but your ordinary Rule also, by which in the moment of Session it devolves on the next Heir Lineal; and the Course cannot turn retrograde, without the Consent of all the Heirs in being, or their proper Curators for them.  Dyscher. 
But I see you relapse again, and become a zealous Advocate for your extraordinary Kings, in whose behalf you plead Acts of Parliament made by Extralineal Kings, which were confirmed (submitted to, you subtly phrase it) by the Lineal Heirs, and these were approved by Lawyers, nor did the Church ever remonstrate against them. And what of all this? Let the Usurpations and Confusions be what they will, still men will eat, and drink, buy and sell, and such like Acts. Nor do I think such a State doth acquit men from the Obligation to do (what in them lies) such things as seem absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Society, and the real good of Mankind. And if any such things, as are necessary for the maintenance of human Affairs, and which are accompanied with common Justice in themselves, should now be done, or enacred, and hereafter be confirmed by King James, I know no reason to remonstrate against this; but I think the need of such a confirmation is a demonstration where the Right and Authority lies. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 20.  Eucher. 
Since I am bound to follow the way you lead me, the first thing I am to observe, is your mistake, or per●●●●ion of my words about the submission of Heirs Lineal, by which you say I subtly mean their confirmation of the Statutes of Extralineal Kings, which is no part or glance of my meaning, and no man carefully heeding the Order of my words could think it to be so. For I mention their submission to somewhat mentioned before those Statutes. And I truly meant the long and frequent submissions of the Heirs Lineal as Subjects ●o Kings Extralineal actually Regnant, particularly under the Lancastrian Reigns. And even your Edward the IVth Father Duke of York swore Allegiance to King Henry the VIth, and kept it, till new ●●a●ses of Rupture arose between them. So that it is a very impertinent importunity to clam●●r a●or● 〈◊〉 subsequent confirmations, which I ●ever ●●●tioned; And instead of subtle, it had beer too silly in me, to have called a Confirmation of an invalid Act, a submission to that feeble thing, which is thereby enlivened. And yet, by your leave, all After-confirmations do not suppose always an antecedent Nullity in the Act confirmed, for they sometimes secure, sometimes continue, and sometimes double an antecedent validity, which all the Statutes under Extralineals had in themselves for the time being, before there could be room for those subsequent Ratifications, and the perpetuity of their Virtue stands not in those Ratifications, but in the Non-repeal of them. And yet however had it been otherwise, by parity of Reason all our Acts obliged the Subject now during this present Reign, and we are thereby acquitted in our present submission, whatsoever nullities it may fall under in your next Revolution. But there is a Famous Act, viz. the 11th of Henry the VIIth Chap. 1. made in an Extralineal Reign, that declares it for Law and Equity, that Subjects pay their Allegiance to the King for the time being, and indemnifies them herein against after punishments. This Law was never since confirmed, censured or repealed by any succeeding Prince, or Parliament, and yet stands firm in the Body of our Statutes to all Civil Effects and Judgements, which pass ever since according to the importance and tenor thereof. And you yourself grant me enough for the time being, that the Estates may sit in Parliament under Extralineal Kings, to do, and enact things necessary for the preservation of the Society, and the real good of Mankind, and are not acquitted from an obligation to do so through the disorder in the Succession, and such Acts in this Reign, when hereafter confirmed by King James, you will not condemn. Sir, your humble Servant. But can you tell, how such Acts could, or can pass in such Parliaments, without an Oath of Allegiance taken to such Extralineal Kings by all the Members? I doubt this will put you out of your good humour again; and that is a great pity, because you are so seldom in it. But however these honest Acts must be valid, for the time being, upon us, till King James returns, or else the Obligation of the present State to preserve the Society, or promote the real Good of Mankind by them, will be but of little Virtue, or Use.  Dyscher. 
But, pray Sir, upon such extraordinary interruptions, did all men ever think themselves bound to approve them? Did not they still, as opportunity served, assist Right? Did not such proceed cost a world of Blood and Treasure, to none, or very ill purpose, while no Peace, or Ease could be had, till things were brought to rights again? When matters are in trouble, or confusion, wise and good Men think it the best way to put an end to them, as soon as can be; But you cast out that Right that only can restore our Peace; and when you have conjured up most horrid confusions, plead for their continuance. I know not what could be done more by an Advocate for the Prince of Darkness. As for what you say concerning Bishop Overals' Convocation Book, I am sorry, that a pretender to so much modesty should be guilty of such an impudent Assertion, when that matter hath been fully cleared by so many learned and judicious Pens. T. B. 2d. Lett. p. 20.  Eucher. 
This is a very paronymous Caress indeed, but such as convinces me no more than your Arguments. But I know who has taught me to give place unto wrath, while I encounter your Reasons. First then, Is it not a Question profoundly wise, whether all Men did ever think themselves bound to approve Extralineal interruptions? For did you ever know all men in the same Opinion, that they ought to approve any one State of things? But this is not your only Lapse of Sense. It is not the Interruptions and Convulsions of State that I would have you approve, for no good man can approve Interruptions in settled Government, as such. But I require you only to submit to such National Settlements as close up our Confusions, and so far only to approve them, as they are Ends of Strife and War, it there appear no other Good in them. As wise also is your second Question, Did they not still, as opportunity served, assist Right? I pray, who are these They, but your All men just before mentioned as the Antecedent to this Relative? But did all men, as opportunity served, assist Right? How then came there any to be in the Wrong? Or how came all men together to want an opportunity to do Right? Or how came there in any Disorders, and such a general Expense of Blood and Treasure to very ill purposes? But what think you of those, that enforced these fatal Expenses? Were they of the All men, or no? Or did they act aright in breaking down the Settlements of the Nation, in order to what you call Restitution of Right? For my part I would not vindicate an Inheritance by the slaughters of poor harmless people in the prostration of their Civil Settlement, to gain the most absolute Empire in the whole World; For I think no one man's mear personal interest in any external privilege is worth one innocent man's life, whatsoever your, or other Martial Opinions may be in these Matters. But if you justify those Sanguinary Commotions, and Barbarities against the Public Settlements heretofore for the reduction of the Heirs Lineal, and can tell us, that we can have no Peace in our present State, I hope henceforth your Party will not say, that I enrage the present Powers against them, since you openly proclaim an irreconcilable War against the Established Constitution, and blow the Trumpet for your own destruction, if the Government were not gentle, and compassionate to your very Rave. But whereas you charge us for having conjured up Confusions, and pleading for the continuance of them, I shall reply, that all the Evil, that hath been done against our Constitutions, from the time that King James began to vacate our Laws, and to embroil us in discords, in order to an Arbitrary and Popish Government, until the day of the new Settlement under their present Majesties, contributed to our Confusions, and every Party to those Evils, of what Character soever, must account to God for it, who will admit no Plea for those Evil Actions, or Confusions. But on the Day, in which the Prince became King, our Confusions ended in an orderly, peaceable, and (were it not for your unquietness) an entirely happy Settlement, for the continuance of which we plead against those unsupportable Confusions, to which your bitterness would reduce us. And now (as ill luck would have it) we are fallen in on Bishop Overal's Convocation, who can have no ease neither, because of our Confusions. But now, I pray, what have I said of that Monument they have left behind them? No more than this; And Bishop Overal 's Convocation Book comes up to it. To what? Why to this, that a full Settlement under Extralineal Kings must be submitted to both by the Clergy and the People. And doth it not come up full to this in their First Book and 28th Chapter and Canon? Where it assigns this Obedience to the full Settlement even of ambitious Princes, and Rebels, procuring that through Settlement by wicked means. And in the 27th Canon of the same Book it is resolved, If any man therefore shall affirm;— that any person, born a Subject, and affirming by all the Arguments, that Wit or Learning could devise, that God had called him to murder the King do facto, under which he lived, yea, tho' he should have first, procured himself to be proclaimed, or anointed King, as Adonijah did, etc.— he doth greatly err. Now a King de facto with this Synod is one that is in by full and legal Forms of Settlement, as by Submission or Continuance, Lib. 1. Cap. 30, tho' attaining thereto by unjust means. And such Submission to such through Settlement is what alone I quoted this Book for; and whatsoever fate other men's Theories hereupon have incurred, sure I am I have not declined the least from the Sense of that Synod, who in those passages had an undoubted aspect on our several Revolutions, and actual Settlements under those Extralineals, whom the Lawyers have styled Kings the facto, by a Distinction from those that are de jure, whose terms herein the Convocation used. Otherwise their Determinations herein could be of no use to ratify any Settlements past, nor to direct us in time to come, how to end our Confusions, or when to be at peace.  Dyscher. 
At last you very gravely give us your Opinion, that in the late Oath of Allegiance the word [Successors] was added after [Heirs] on this very self same Ground, that tho' Heirs by the Ordinary Course are the Legal Successors, yet others legally may succeed in Cases extra-ordinary. This it is for men to give their Opinions without Book, and without any other consideration than to pervert the State of the Case. Had you given yourself the small Trouble to read over the Oath, you could not for shame have put this interpretation upon it, for the express words of it are [Lawful Successors] which follow the word [Heirs] by way of Limitation, or Restraint, to show that none shall succeed but the Legal Heir. And thus, Sir, the words of the Oath, instead of admitting, plainly and peremptorily exclude your extra-ordinary Successors, and extralineal Kings. Thus your new invention hath added a fresh absurdity, instead of being a remedy to those many others, which your Party run into upon Discourses of this Matter. And tho' you mince the matter, yet you might have been so bold to say, the Oath requires Allegiance to unlawful Successors, as what you have said; for while there is one in being, and claiming, to whom the Right really belongs, what can your extra-ordinary Successors be but Tyrants, and Usurpers? T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 20, 21.  Eucher. 
This, I confess, is an amazing Circumvention, if my Memory hath in truth beguiled me. And 'tis a challenge enough to shock a greater confidence than mine. To prove this therefore we must recur to the Form Enacted by the Statute, Anno Tertio Jacobi Regis, etc. Also I do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any Sentence of Excommunication, or Deprivation, made, or granted, or to be made, or granted by the Pope, or his Successors, or by any Authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him, or his See, against the said King, his Heirs, or Successors, or any absolution of the said Subjects from their obedience, I will bear Faith, and true. Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend to the utmost of my Power, against all attempts whatsoever, that shall be made against his, or their Persons, their Crown, and Dignity, by Reason, and Colour of any such Sentence, or Declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavour, to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his Heirs, and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know, or hear of to be against him, or any of them. These are all the times the words Heirs, and Successors are mentioned in the Oath, and in these here is no Character of Lawful set at all. So that here you fall under the same fault you charge upon me, of not reading the Oath, and another added in a bold interpolation thereof at all adventure; or if you have read it, 'tis the greatest of all prevarications consciously to misrender it; but whether it were the one, or the other, it is the most frontless, and unparallelled impudence to down-face an obvious Truth with notorious Falsehood. And yet have a little patience to see what you had gained by this remark, if it had been true. You had said, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 3.  That the Oath of Allegiance binds to the King, his Heirs and [Lawful] Successors; and I taking it for granted, that you interjected the word [lawful], not as a part, but an interpretation of the Oath, denied it not, but without any cavil candidly admitted it; but because I form an Inference from that Oath, that you like not, you interpolate the Text of the Oath by foisting in the word [lawful], that hence you might draw a pretence, that Lawful Successors limitedly denote the Lineal Heirs. But neither would this have held; For had the word [lawful] been found in the Oath, my Argument had still been good, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  That in the late Oath of Allegiance, after the words [Heirs] the words [Lawful Successors] were added on this very self same ground, that tho' Heirs by the ordinary Course are the Legal Successors, yet others legally may succeed in Cases extraordinary. Nay this legality of such extralineals had been more fully acknowledged, had the word [Lawful] been inserted, than now it is. For now if a man would be perverse, and were there no other Reason upon other Bottoms, he might argue, that this Oath simply setting all Successors, without any express Qualification of Lawful to exclude unlawful, requires Allegiance to all Actual Successors indiscriminately, without any reserved respect to any legality, or illegality. But whether we suppose the Quality of Lawful as intended by the Sense, or no, the addition of [Successors] after [Heirs] denotes, that their may be Successors, to whom our Allegiance is by Oath secured, that are not Heirs in the strict sense of Lineal Descent; or else after [Heirs] no word of that Importance ought to have been added. But as I was at first candid in the Concession of the Legality, so will I here give you the reason of that Candour. Having then observed, that all Duties respect Laws, and that what is not Legal, can have no Legal Obligation, and withal that the Oath obliges to the Successors of the very same Legal Sovereignty established here, it appeared to me, that he that comes into any other form of Sovereignty over us, hath no right to our Allegiance by virtue of that Oath, or the old standing Laws, whatsoever Title thereto he may acquire by virtue of New Laws and Constitutions. But if he assumes a Sovereignty that is in no wise Legal, 'tis Tyranny in Form and Nature, and while it is barely such, the man is an Enemy, and no Allegiance can be due to him. Now the Legal Forms, by which Extra lineal Kings are invested with the English Sovereignty, stand in Admission and Recognition of our Estates, when insuparable Exigencies, or just Causes incapacitate the Heirs Lineal to reign over us, or us to be reigned over by them; of which Obstacles in a state of Anarchy the Estates are our Supremest and Final Judges.  Dyscher. 
But what have you to say to an Impartial Reflection, which I shall here offer you from another hand, viz. that you maintain, 
* See Sol. & Ab. p. 6.  That by our Oath to King James we are bound to pay Allegiance to King William, which seems so strange a Paradox, that the defending of it must serve only to let the World see, that there are no Words, nor Oaths possible to be framed, for which men may not find Distinctions and Salvoes, to turn them which way they think fit, even directly opposite to what they were at first intended. MS. Reflect.  Eucher. 
Truly, Brother, this looks rather like whining under an Argument, than an Answer to it; for men seldom make a moan under any Objection they can solve. Yet is your Reflecters Complaint herein as little sincere, as manly. For I said not that our Oath to King James alone obliges our Allegiance to King William, as you from him represent me, but that 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 4. to p. 6.  putting all together, that I had said, my concluding Opinion was, that our Old oath of Allegiance (supposing it still in force) to the King, his Heirs, and Successors, binds us to pay Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, as the present actual recognized Successors to King James upon extinction (though not of his Life, yet) of his Sovereignty. And this you can never disprove, except you either show, that in that Oath the word [Successors] so distinctly set after [Heirs] three times in the same Paragraph, was purposely set to exclude all Extralineal Kings for the time being, whereby all the Statutes, and former ties of Allegiance actually owned under the past Extralineals will be repealed by this Enacted Oath, and all Judgements ever since passed accordingly vacated; or else that King William and Queen Mary are not actual Successors to King James in this Sovereignty, by the same, or as legal forms of Constitutions, as other Extralineals were before them, by a National Admission and Recognition; tho' somewhat more than Extralineal Forms may be challenged to Queen Mary upon her Father's Abdication. Now when you, or your Prompters perform either of these Exploits, then use your invective Powers even unto hoarseness; but till then 'twill not be prudent at the same time to be censorious, rude, and insincere too. But I will not discourage you from going on; I pray proceed in your Charge.  Dyscher. 
When you had asserted, that Extralineal Successors may in extra-ordinary Cases be Legal, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  I pressed you to show, how he can be Legal, that thrusts out the Legal King, or Legal Successor? And you strained a point to make him so.— But let us see your fine Art of proving Right Wrong, and Wrong Right. Your Discourse of Kings thrusting out Kings is a direct thrusting out Right, and encouraging, and justifying Ambitious Persons in embroiling the World in perpetual Wars and Confusions. But I shall not expose it as it deserves, because it is nothing to the purpose of a plain known Right, and no Right. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 21.  Eucher. 
Sir, I think myself obliged to scrape a Leg once or twice to you for your eminent tenderness in exposing my designs in inverting the Characters of Right and Wrong. But, I pray, what fouler exposition had you behind the Veil, than this, that I thrust out Right, and animate men to embroil the World in Blood and Ruins? If your Razor be tender, yet you have a pretty close Hand, which yet I am willing to bear, considering that your Cause is in ipsâ acie novaculae. But if I may expound your word [Expose] in your true sense, it will signify [Answer], and then on my Conscience you were in the Right of it. For to answer it as it deserves, is either to confute, or confess it; but you are not ingenious enough to do one, and less ingenuous than to do the other. But perhaps it was an inconsiderable piece of Impiety. Let us see then what was this Draconick Incendiary Mormo of mine? Why this verily; 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  One King by a Legal War may thrust out him, that, till he was thrust out, was Legal King of his own People. For the first offending Prince loses not his Sovereignty to the offended, merely by the offence, till actually thrust out by the offended. This, I think, is the general Law of the Trumpet, and allowed for valid among all Nations. But if you doubt, let us refer the point to the French King, whom You cannot suspect of Unfaithfulness to You, or Your Cause. But if the War be altogether Legal, upon Offences that will warrant all the process of it, till the Offender leaves his Dominions in the hands of the injured Conqueror, a Just Change may follow here without justifying Illegal Wars and rapines of unprovoked and injurious Powers. Which tho' it be a Truth most clearly innocent, yet a calumny was necessary to keep up the Ball, and use a Talon. But let this be. I pray, Sir, how show you, that this is nothing to our purpose?  Dyscher. 
If you would make a fair answer here, you ought to give a direct Answer to this Question; If a Person, having really no Right, doth disclaim any Right to a thing, and by public Declarations doth profess, that he makes no Pretensions to it, nor hath any Design to disturb another in his Right, I say, if this Person shall by ill Arts seize it, doth this, notwithstanding all his Protestations and Declarations to the contrary, even against all Right and Reason, create him a Right, whether he will, or no? etc. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 21.  Eucher. 
Here, I confess, you have taken a secure way to enclose my Answer to your side. And as you have set the Question in learned light, I answer to your Heart's content, that such a Person shall hereby have no Right, either with, or against his will. And to all such Questions I had given you a round and comprehensive Answer before to the same purpose, tho' it so often escapes your notice, belike for its inconsiderableness. Yet it being a right Answer, you shall have it in both Ears, whether you will, or no. And it was such; 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  And even an unjust Potentate, tho' he cannot according to Legal Justice out a King, against whom he hath no Legal Cause, or Right of War, yet if he doth so, and the subject People cannot help it, and he enforce himself upon the People for a new King, our Laws in this concur with the Laws and Practices of all Nations, in allowing our Estates to determine for us in such Exigences, as is manifest in the long Contentions, and many Turns between the Houses of York and Lancaster; and the sin shall lie only on the injurious, and not them that submitted to an inevitable fate of things. And again, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 6.  Wars and Victories are many times unjust, yet they, that suffer the injury, lawfully submit to the unlawful and injurious demand of Submission. So that taking Right for a Title founded in real Justice, no man really can have Right in the sight of God by a mere unjust Act, or Acquisition. And yet, tho' the preparations to acquire new Kingdoms or Dominions be unjust, if that very constituent Act, which transfers the Possession, does at the same time infringe no man's present and permanent Right, such possession becomes Rightful. But all this is nothing to the purpose. For our Question is only of who, or what is formally legal, not what is in real honesty morally Rightful. For all Possession, which a man obtains by legal forms of Process, either in War, or Peace, is formally and apparently Legal to all Civil Purposes and Constitutions, tho' the Cause obtaining be far from being really and morally right. And a man by legal Judgement may de facto be put into possession of what another man hath a real Right to, so that the possessor shall have the Legal Form of Title in what is really another's Due. And in all such Cases all Affairs belonging to such Estate follow the Legal Tenure of the Possessor, who is therefore in Law taken as bonae fidei possessor. And even antecedently to Judgement quiet possession in a private Estate, tho' slipped into by cunning Frauds and Artifices, against which there is no Civil Law, is taken by the Law for formally Legal, till the Occupant loses it, either by Art, or Judgement. Now all independent Persons, and Princes, that are subject to no Judicial Tribunal, contend by War, not Law, and what they settle themselves in by the forms consequent upon War, they have such a formal Title to as the Laws of War and Revolutions yield them, and no other; tho' whether Cause is just, and consequently thereupon whose Possession is honestly rightful, none can effectually judge but God amidst so many pretensions. And in such Turns the Subject People must, or may lawfully yield to the formal Titles, or Fates of War, since they are not authoritative Judges on the Causes, or Rights of the Quarrel, of which men's private Opinions are most times very contrary, but can hardly ever be sure, or unanimous. And by this Rule all Nations go, and there is no better; tho' God forbidden, that any man should be obliged to think all the Spoils of War and Law to be really honest, and morally rightful. Now according to these Rules and Distinctions I asserted that Extralineal Kings may be Lawful Successors in Cases Extra-ordinary; and I will add, upon Causes really Just, Rightful Successors too. And lest you should quarrel at this Distinction, as of private Invention, but no public Character, I refer you to the late Oath of Allegiance in the first Paragraph, where our late Sovereign Lord K. J. is declared Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm, etc. that he might be taken for not only de facto, but de jure, King. But amidst all this Dust, of what use is a General Question or Position, except it properly affects our particular Cases? So that in order to the Censure you design upon King William, you ought to have charged all the Facts in your stated Question, directly upon him in the Course of the Revolution, with exact congruity and accuracy; that you might have evinced his Illegality, or Incapacity of Right in the Possession of this Crown. But this you perhaps fancy every body can do. But I will in truth try, whether it can be done, or no. I allow you then in the foundation, that the Prince of Orange at his Descent, as he had no Right, so he pretended none to this Crown, and declared his Intentions not to injure King James in any his Personal, or Royal Rights whatsoever; but then I deny that the Prince seized the Crown by ill Arts, or any breach of public Protestations. For when he came in the Head of an armed Force, he declared, that he came not for the Crown, but a Decision of his Cause in Parliament, to which end he sent the King fair Articles of Truce and Treaty during the Session. But the King refuses, or neglects the Proposals, and leaves the Kingdom in Anarchy. Now all such Declarations in War have this natural, obvious, and perpetual intention, that if the matters in Controversy be adjusted as demanded, the Prince demandant will be fully satisfied, as having no design to seize his Adversaries Dominions, if he will right the Causes of Hostility in the manner claimed; but otherwise the very form, and Face of War, and Arms is in Fact an open Declaration to vanquish, out, dethrone, and crush the Adversary by all Martial and Hostile Methods whatsoever. So that King James nglecting his Demands in not calling a Parliament to satisfy the Prince, cannot complain, that he has broken his Faith, or Declaration in taking his Crown. And further, when the King was gone, there appeared no Force, or Fraud in the Prince's Actions with the Convention, to whose Judgement he fairly left the whole Cause and State of Affairs; and they, having maturely and peaceably debated all things, judge King James' Desertion, with respect to all antecedent passages, to be an Abdication of the Government; and withal they judge the Prince's Succours to have merited the Crown, which, with the amicable Concession of the two next Heirs, they cheerfully offer up to him, which he then accepted, when a fair Capacity and title was thus legally opened to him. So that tho' at first he had no form of Title, Pretensions, or Designs for this Crown during King James his Right, yet when this determined, and no other Legal Obstacles interposed, there was a fair Reason to accept that then, which it was not lawful in Conscience for him before to covet, or design.  Dyscher. 
Your instance in the Houses of York and Lancaster comes not up to so plain a Case as this. Where things are obscure and dark, (as that Title was, and perhaps still is to most men) great allowance is to be made. Lancaster had the more obvious, York the better Title. 
* Here T. B. very charitably makes the excellent Bishop of Worc●ster to deserve a Gallows instead of a Bishopric. p. 22. — But what means this preaching up Confusion? The Nation then weltered in Blood and Gore, till an undoubted Title put an End to that quarrel. But you would have us obstinately maintain a bad Title, that our Miseries might have no End. A rare Example of Justice, and Love to your Country. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 21, 22.  Eucher. 
It seems then, it was lawful for the Nation to admit the House of Lancaster against the better Title in the House of York, or else what allowances do you make upon the Obscurities of the Title? But does it follow, that the House of Lancaster had a real Right? If so, than an extralineal King may be Rightful; If not, than Allegiance may be lawfully yielded by the Nation to extralineals, who are in by legal Forms of Settlement and Recognition, though not really Rightful, or Lineal Heirs. For so upon your great allowances the House of Lancaster, when enthroned, was visibly Legal though not lineally Rightful; and does not this then come full up to all the purpose I designed? For it was not mere obscurity of the Descent, tho' much involved before the common World by contrary Pretensions, that warranted the People in these Submissions, but the necessity of ending Spoils, Rapines and effusions of Blood. For if the competitor Houses would have acquiesced in the judgement of the Estates, they could well have determined for the better title upon a fair Heraldry, or production of Descents. But the Families, as opportunities offered themselves, were generally restless under the Superior House; but those stirs were legally ended toties quoties by Parliamentary Recognitions. But the final end was not procured by the clearness of an undoubted Title, but by the Marriage of the Lancastrian King Henry VII. with the Lineal Heiress of the House of York, by which all competitions closed; but Henry stood upon his own bottom in the National Recognition through all his Reign, and neither yielded subjection to, nor derived his Title from his Queen. But yet let us see in dubitable cases how great your allowances would be, and particularly in the Lancastrian Reigns? Supposing then the Title between the two Houses dubitable, or doubted only with one part of the Nation, but certain to the rest, shall both these Parts swear one Allegiance to the Title, which is doubted by one Part, against that Title which the other Part is certain of? If so, than you allow one Part of the Nation to swear against a Title, which they know to be certainly Right; Or must the doubting Part concede to the Title, which others know to be Right? If so, than the Lancastrian Line cannot be admitted, or capable of any your allowances. Or must there, in this Case, be two Kings for the two Parties, and two Allegiances in this one Realm? Or what if the Competitors, and Doubts multiply, where shall these, and their Divisions end? But suppose the whole Nation to doubt of the Lineal Right, will you require them to swear Allegiance to a doubted Title? If not, than what allowances do you concede under these doubted Lancastrian Reigns? Or what Judgement pass you on the Allegiance then always given? For so there must have been none sworn at all. But if you will require a Nation to swear to a doubted Title, does that Oath import an assertion of Right, or no? If it does, than you will require a Nation to affirm that upon Oath, of which confessedly they are not certain, and that is one degree of Perjury. If such Oath does not (implicitly at least) assert Right, than it is no acknowledgement of Right, nor founded on the presumption of it, which yet however you all contend for, to render our present Allegiance in this point perjurious. But it is hardly possible to suppose a whole Nation in doubt, when there are Competitions; For the Competitors, and their Complices, or Parties use absolutely to assert their Right without any doubt, or pretence of doubting, and then they that doubt, tho' the generality, must either suspend, or go over upon uncertain Trust, whereby they may exclude the Right unawares. But if you will make allowances in doubtful Cases, then what think you of the Questions arising upon King James' Desertion? Did they afford any possible occasion, or ground for disputation, and scrutiny? If so, than it ministered doubts to be discussed, and the Case was dubitable; But 'tis a vanity for you to say, that it gave no possibility of disputation, for they that disputed it thought otherwise, and between their and your Opinions doubts must arise herein among the multitude, to whom therefore your great allowances are to be made in their present Allegiance. But to deal plainly with you, I think no Man, or Nation is to swear upon what is to them dubitable, as what is honestly rightful may be; but what is visibly, formally, and judicially Legal cannot be, as coming home to the Senses of the Subject by public ways of notice, and operation; and therefore all suspences and personal doubts must herein concede to such judicial Determinations, to put an End to all those Miseries, with which you unjustly charge us, and maliciously threaten us.  Dyscher. 
As for the Session you mention, you would do well to prove it a little better, before you thus run away with it for granted. You know we deny it, and have given our Reasons for it, to which I know no Answer returned, unless it be Goals, Fines, and Pillories, and threaten to help it with Hemp. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 22.  Eucher. 
I think upon recollection you may find very full proof of the Session already made; but at your demand I will offer you another, which, tho' not better in itself, yet will be better for you, because it is of your own approbation.  Dyscher. 
I pray, what is that?  Eucher. 
Do you not excuse the Desertion from being a Session, because he went away to save his Life?  Dyscher. 
Yes, I do. See T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 15.  Eucher. 
Did you not tell me at our last Conference 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 22.  that Abiathar at Solomon's command went of to Anathoth to save his Life thereby? And yet that his Priesthood determined by his own voluntary Session herein?  Dyscher. 
I have indeed owned, 
* T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 36.  that it was a manifest Session on Abiathar's part, and I think it was well proved; but then Abiathar did not oppose a claim, as King James does?  Eucher. 
If you mean a verbal owning the Right of the High-Priesthood, 'tis a hard matter to judge what Abiathar might say hereupon at Anathoth. Yet admitting his silence under Solomon's Sentence, and his Recession to Anathoth, to be a real Session from his Office, in Law, this being once effectually past, and after claim could not have nulled this Session, any more than he 
* Vindic. of Depr. Bish. p. 70.  that quitted his See by leaving the Omophorion, could null that Act of Resignation by a verbal Protestation to the contrary. For such Session, being a positive Act, consists in quitting an Office thereby vacant, and when that is filled with another Officer, 'tis too late for the Cedent, or Deserter to renew a Claim, and say his Desertion was no Session, which is nothing else but a vain Protestation against manifest fact, which is perfectly King James' Case.  Dyscher. 
He had need of a Case-hardned Face, that will undertake to defend what you say, that 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 5.  the Hereditary Succession was not violently broken, but altered by the Consent of the next Heirs. Sir, it was broken with a witness, for there were four before your Idol; and now there are six; and will you say, there was no violence, when our Native Prince was close confined in his own Kingdom?— But now you will needs persuade us, that this was done with consent. Now you would have done well to have produced the consent of King James, and the Prince of Wales, who ought to be served in the first place. And then as for the two Princesses, whom certainly you mean by those, whom you falsely call the next Heirs, they may dispose of their own, as they please; but they ought not, cannot give away another's Right. Only as to the Princess Ann of Denmark, if she have given up her Right, it will concern her for her safety, to make it as public as she can; but if she have not given it away, it then perhaps may concern her to make as much haste after her Father as may be, and to carry her Son with her out of Herod 's Clutches; for if her Sister should die, 'tis ten to one it comes too late, T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 22.  Eucher. 
I thought, when you and I began Conferences on this Subject, we should have only talked of Casuistical Points in order to the information and conduct of our Consciences, and not have deviated into such an Unchristian and Seditious Rail▪ And it grieves me on your behalf to the very bottom of my Soul, to experience so much disingenuous bitterness in a man of your Character. But since you are so unhappy as to know no bounds of moderation, I must touch your miscarriages a little lightly. After the Session of King James, I said the Succession was not violently broken. And in answer to this you mentioned the Dutch Guards assigned by the Prince to attend King James before his Session; And this you falsely call a close confinement, for had it been such, how had he so easy liberty of going off? But whatever this was, it was before the Session, and then what is this to the after proceed of the Convention, of which alone I was speaking as not violent? Then you as improperly require the Consent of King James, and your Prince of Wales, who must be served first, as antecedent in the Course of Descent. Now I must tell you, that there are among us, some, who, through joy of our Deliverance, having forgotten that Compassion, which I deeply have for all Royal Tragedies, would be apt to make a jest of this, and reply upon you, that they have been served well enough in the first place, before the Prince and Princess of Orange, who are well enough served too, and all as they deserve. But I shall only observe your inconsiderateness of discourse in bringing in King James into the Catalogue of his own Heirs after his Session, upon which I said the Succession was not violently broken, but altered by the consent of the next Heirs. And this, I think, I may still defend without breach of modesty, even tho' I should allow the proceed of the Convention to have been violations of his Right. For a violent Expulsion of a Possessor may consist with the true Succession of the next Reversioners. But admitting the Session, or Abdication for real, what need was there to solicit his further consent to our Establishments? And for your Prince of Wales, beside the doubt of the Nation concerning his Descent, the late Queen brought him into a Session before the Session and Abdication of the King, nor were there any Claims entered for him before the Convention, and so he might be legally neglected for want of Claimer. I know this has been charged on the Prince, and the Convention for not admitting the Discussion of that Descent. But, I think, no Law could oblige them to move it ex officio, when he was absent, and no Promoter appeared on his behalf. But further, to inquire into the Equity hereof, if King James at the Prince's demand had called a Parliament, that had been one of the Principal Articles to have been judicially determined by the Parliament between them. But King James not calling a Parliament, nor allowing the Convention power of Judgement herein, there was no reason such a Question should be admitted there, which, if determined against King James, and his Prince of Wales, should not have concluded them, but, if given against the Princess of Orange, should have confined and excluded her. As to your politic stroke upon the Princess of Denmark, I shall reflect no more than this, that if she will permit you to the Conduct of her Counsels, she is like to thrive mightily by it. For you will advise her either to present flight, or sedition, only to make way for I know not what, or how many new Princes of another Venture, whose real Descent no one should ever know but the Men of the Mysteries. Perhaps your Agents have laid the Seeds of Discontent between the two Princely Ladies already, in order to form your other Projects; but I hope that God, that has hitherto preserved them in their natural Rights, against all the Arts of those who would have illegitimated, or intercepted their Sucession, will still preserve her Royal Highness from the Snares you lay for her. And since you have blurted out the Secret to the Public, she, and the whole Kingdom have reason to take close notice of it.  Dyscher. 
When we object the immoralities of these proceed, you tell us, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 6.  That the internal immorality of all Actions must be carefully distinguished from the Civil Consequences of them.— A Son, say you, by fraudulent Arts gets judgement in Law, and seizes his Father's Estate, and Body by Execution, and starves his Father in Prison; this man's immorality is damnable;— Yet the Judges, Sheriffs, and other Officers are innocent. It may be so, while they act as Officers of Law, and according to the directions of Law. But if your Judges, Sheriffs, or other Officers join with, and assist such a wicked Son, or Daughter, to effect such an Evil Act, or do applaud and approve it, when they know it be done by such wicked and unlawful Acts, than their being Officers of Law will rather increase than diminish their Gild. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 23.  Eucher. 
Now all this I allow too, whether done judicially, or in forms of Law, or no. But if it be done in private, and not in Legal Forms, it is nothing to our purpose, or my objection. But if the Judges sit in Judgement between the Father and the Son, and very wickedly cast the Father in his Cause, yet it being done in form of Law, the Judgement will pass into such Execution, as will be taken for formally legal, tho' the Judgement be morally unjust, and contract an heinous Gild on the Conscience of the Judge. So that still the Subject People are innocent in admitting the Acts of the Convention as Legal, tho' really before God they had been Unrighteous Judges. Yet because you herein sharpen a Dart against the King and Queen, tho' I never intended my Objection to such a Reflection, the Case you set is not parallel to ours. For the Convention sat not in Judgement between the Father, and Son, and Daughter, the Father not being subject in Law, nor submitting his Cause to them; but when the Father had left his Royal Estate, the Prince calls them together to settle the forsaken State of the Kingdom, which they did as it now stands. And as this Judgement was in Form, Legal, and Authoritative, so you cannot prove it immoral, or injurious. For as the Estates were not concerned to inquire into the temper of Spirit in the Contest between the Father and the Children toward each other, which was not of Civil Cognizance, so they debated only the Civil Purposes of King James' Actions, and how the state of this Land might be legally and securely fixed after his Desertion, in which they acted as Legal Judges, and no otherwise. What was done before, or out of Convention by any of the Members, and the inner motions, and aims of particular men's minds there sitting during these agitations, these are extrajudicial, and so not chargeable on the whole Court as a Council of State, as being no parts of their formal Determinations.  Dyscher. 
So for your Robbers, and Pirates; a man may lawfully suffer by them, tho' it were better, if he could escape it. But if you will plead, that their Robberies and Piracies are lawful; if you say, they acquire a just Right to what they get by such wicked means, or if you actually join with them, and rob, and share in their Booties, you will be as very a Rogue as they; and which is most like the Case, I leave others to judge. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 24.  Eucher. 
This, it seems, is your reply to what I said, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 6.  That Wars and Victories are many times unjust, yet they that suffer the injury, lawfully submit to the unlawful and injurious demand of Submission, as in Piracies, and other like Tyrannies. And is not this a pretty Refutation of that Assertion, to say, that all that assert, assist, and share in Wrong, are Rogues? The reason of my instance was, that such Pirates, and Tyrants often seize on such as they have no Right of Dominion over, and may perhaps threaten to torture, or destroy them, except they submit, and contract a perpetual Servitude by Oath, or other forms of engagement, which they under such Exigences may lawfully yield to. And proportionably the Estates of any Nation may be thus pressed by an irresistible Prince, and thereupon lawfully submit to that injurious Demand of such Prince. Nay, if any Prince and the fiduciary Council of any Nation concert to oppress the Subject People by an unjust demand of Submission, they, being, not only in Fact, but Legal Constition, uncapable to resist, may for the same reason contract Submission, or Legal Allegiance, when their former Lord hath left them without order, to shift for themselves, and acts not within his Sphere as heretofore. For herein you do not injure him, but save yourself, which he has no right in such cases to deny you. And this at least is the Case of all those, who have taken the Oath of New Allegiance, without doing any thing else in the Revolution, tho' the Prince and our Convention had really done King James and us wrong. For we could neither in Right, nor Fact, oppose it; for our Representatives, and the Lords having determined upon the Nation, we were inhabil to censure their Judgement, and consequently to oppose or subvert, what we had no Authority to condemn.  Dyscher. 
Much such another instance is 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 6, 7.  your Lord of a Manor. Let him look how he came to be so. I may treat with him as Lord of the Manor, whom the Law declares to be so. But if the Lords Tenants conspire against their lawful Landlord, and dispossess him of his Manor, and invite a Stranger, and say, and swear he shall be Lord of the Manor, and accordingly pay Homage and Fealty to him, Sir, you may determine for their swearing and lying too, if you please, but I shall have nothing the better opinion of your honesty for it. T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 24.  Eucher. 
I observe two grand defects in this Reply; One, that 'tis not supposably legal, that all the Tenants in the Manor can by Legal Forms of Judgement dispossess a Lawful, and possess a wrong Person into the Lordship of a Manor, because these Tenants are not Judges in Law. And any other violent and illegal Forms of Expulsion, and Admission quadrate not with our Case.  
But Secondly, 'Tis a very silly supposition, and never any where exemplified in Fact, that all the Tenants (under a state of National Government) should violently out a true, and put in a wrong Landlord vi & armis, and swear, and pay the wrong Possessor all the Duties of the Homage accustomed, when the Lord that is in by Law, will bring the strength of the Country to reduce them.  
And Thirdly, You cannot duly apply this to our present Case of Allegiance. For all King James' Subjects did not concur to out him, either violently, or judicially, nor consequently to bring in the Stranger, which is the form in which you state the Case of Rebellious Tenants. Otherwise however my parallel holds good, that if a great many of the Tenants conspire with a Stranger, and bribe the Judges to a corrupt Judgement against the old true Landlord, who being thereby ejected, the Stranger comes in by forms of Law, I say still, the rest innocent Tenants, tho' conscious of the Wrong, may swear Homage, and Fealty to the New, de facto, Landlord. And so here put the Case, as you would have it, at the worst, that never so great a part of King James' Subjects had with the Prince of Orange actually conspired against him, and made him fly, and thereupon a National Court assembling to sit upon the Tenure of his Estate, had been corrupted to give wrong Judgement against him for the Prince, yet the form of Process being legal, the innocent Subjects may, or must take him for their Royal Landlord, that is in by Forms of Law, and swear him the customary Homage, and Fealty. But for the justice of that Judgement I have fully advocated already, and so in this place shall have no need to make repetition.  Dyscher. 
But let the Fifth Commandment look to itself; for it was never so hardly beset. You say, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 7.  That from the Fifth Commandment we cannot charge King William with subjection to King James, etc.— But does a Nephew, or a Son in Law own no Duty, if he own not that which is properly called Subjection? Or may a Man, because he is not his Subject, spoil another of all he has? And must all persons applaud, and approve the Act, and swear he is in the Right? T. B's 2d Lett. p. 25.  Eucher. 
Since I must bear the penance of answering your lose and impertinent Questions so often inculcated, know you then, that as to the point of Duty, a Nephew owes an Uncle, and a Son in Law owes his Father in Law, Reverence on the account of those Relations, if the Superior Relation loses not his Title to that Reverence by ill usage, For if an Uncle shall misuse a Nephew, or a Father in Law the Son in Law, without Cause, and will not fairly adjust, or refer their differences upon demand, the Nephew, and Son in Law own no respect at all, for that such Uncle, and Father in Law is worse than a stranger, and a most unnatural Enemy; And therefore the Nephew, and Son in Law having not derived their Being, Maintenance nor Education from the Uncle, and Father in Law, and being under no present dependence on them, are free to vindicate their Gauses against such Uncle, and Father in Law, by those ways of defence, that they are legally capable of, either by Law, Arbitration or War. As for injustice, you know I am no Advocate for it, and therefore your Interrogation hereupon, with your Reflection upon his Majesty, is as invidious toward me, as injurious towards his Majesty, as I have before abundantly showed.  Dyscher. 
The Case of an own Daughter is still more severe; but for that you say, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 7.  she is in Duty bound to follow her Husband's Fortune, Order, and Authority, even against the Will of her Father, and that with a more plenary consent, if she judges her Husband's Cause to be just in itself.— But, Sir, I am not satisfied with your bare word, that a Woman is thus bound to follow her Husband through thick and thin;— let her have a care how she becomes partner in his sins.— But doth the Duty of a Wife take away the Relation of a Child? They may indeed limit each other, so that the Father may not command the Daughter any thing inconsistent with the Duty of a Wife; nor the Husband the Wife any thing inconsistent with the Duty of a Child to a Parent. But yet the great end of these Relations is to strengthen, and support, and not to destroy each other.— Besides your Reason is a mistake in itself as to this Case; for could you with all your tricks of Legerdemain remove both King James and the Prince of Wales out of the way, than there would arise another Relation, and then he in these Dominions must follow her Fortunes, not she his.— But to let this pass, all that has been done is contrary to the Duties of those Relations, which they were, and are under by the Fifth Commandment. T. B's 2d Lett. p. 25.  Eucher. 
But all this is but noise and shuffle. For why had you not openly denied, or yielded the truth of my Proposition, that a Wife is to follow her Husband's Fortune, Order and Authority, against the will of her Father, if she thinks her Husband's Case to be just? For tho' you will say, 
* These words I unawares omitted in the last Citation of T.B.  This Judgement is not worth a Farthing, except the Cause be just in itself; Yet be it just or unjust, she must act upon her own judgement of it. And to what purpose have you such a care that she follow him not through thick and thin in his sins? Did I ever assert that liberty to a Wife, or to the Princess of Orange? Do not I expressly except out of this Case, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 7.  all violations of all those Decencies, that are yet, notwithstanding her Marriage, due by the Fifth Commandment to her Father, which are consistent with her Husband's Rights and Interests, and in her Rightful Power to perform? But this was another inconsiderable, which you in great sincerity have omitted, that it might not justify my piety to the Fifth Commandment, and prevent all occasion of reproach. But I think you are a very lose Casuist for a Wife between the Authorities of Husband and Father, if you think that the Husband's Power limits the Wife only in those Commands of the Father, that are in themselves inconsistent with the Duties of a Wife, whether the Husband's prohibition intervene or no; (for except this be your meaning, 'tis nothing to the purpose, nor against me.) For it is not the Husband's Power, but the Law of God, that binds the Wife from the violation of her Duties to her Husband, as it does bind her to keep her Duties to her Parents, and all other persons, even Subjects, that have no power over her. But by your favour, if a Father commands a Married Daughter in any indifferent thing, importing in itself no ill to her. Husband, she has no absolute Authority to promise, or do it, but on grant, or just presumption of her Husband's leave; for if he forbidden it at any time before it is done, the Wife's hands are in duty bound up from the performance, and how faulty soever the Son in Law be in his perverse and needless inhibitions, the Daughter is discharged of all Gild in the noncompliance to her Fa-Father. So that, strictly speaking, all Imperial Power, merely human, is in things, that in themselves are left at liberty by the Laws of God. And now whether I have said any thing more, or worse than this, speak out without wriggling, and subterfuge. And yet to deal openly with you, and piously (I hope) with the Laws of my Creator, I think there is a great latitude of equity in this Fifth Commandment, and that it consists not in a mere indivisible point, nor is founded merely in the Relation, but the Causes and Designs of it by the Ordinance of God and Nature. For Parents being Vice-Gods to their Children, while under their Family and Dominion, the more they Resemble God in their Offices of Piety, especially toward God and their Children, the more their Children are bound to honour them, even when they are sent off from the House of their Parents, to found new Families, and to subsist freely by themselves. For tho' the ties of proper subjection are then loosed, yet the Duties of Honour still remain uncancelled. But if the Parents recede from their Piety toward God, the common and Supremest Father of all, the greater this impiety of Parents is, the less Honour is due to them even from their own Children. And I truly am of Opinion, that if such Impiety grow up to perfect Atheism, or Defiance of God, from which all the long and tender Supplications of the Children cannot reduce them, the Chidrens are discharged from all the Offices of Personal Honour toward them, tho' not of Pity and Compassion for them. And upon this ground the Law of Moses does not exempt Enticers to Idolatry from the Vengeance even of the nearest Relations, Deut. 13.6, to 11. If thy Brother, the Son of thy Mother, or thy Son, or thy Daughter, or the Wife of thy Bosom, or thy Friend, which is as thine own Soul, entice thee, saying, Let us go, and serve other Gods— Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine Eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; But thou shalt surely kill him; thine Hand shall be first upon him, to put him to death, and afterward the Hand of all the People. And thou shalt stone him with Stones, that he die, because he sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, etc. So that all such Persons were by the Law of God looked on as a common Pestilence, not to be honoured, loved, or cherished, but destroyed by the nearest Relations.  Dyscher. 
But Parents here being omitted out of this exact Catalogue of other Relations, it shows them to be not within this Law; and therefore that this Law does not derogate from the Honour due to Parents by the Fifth Commandment, tho' they entice their Children to Idolatry; the Reason being grounded on the Authority of Parents over Children, which would be nulled, if Children might prosecute this Law upon their Parents. And for this Cause also by this Law the Wife is not required to destroy her Idolatrous Husband.  Eucher. 
If you will literally interpret this Law only of the very Relations that are expressed, than all other, even less Relations, will be exempt, which is unreasonable. But if you will argue a majori ad minus, that if none of these Relations are exempt, surely no less Relations ought to be judged discharged; then the relation of Parents to Children being less than that of the Wife to the Husband, and no greater than that of Children to Parents, will be concluded within this Law. Nor could their Natural Authority indemnify them, for all that was from, and under God, and was ipso facto forfeit, whensoever they rejected God for Idols. Otherwise such an exempted Authority of Parents must have been a Snare to the Children, to draw them from the Lord their God, or at least to restrain them from asserting their God impartially against all his Enemies. And in the same Chapter, Idolatrous Cities were to be utterly destroyed by all the rest of the People, without regard to any Relations dwelling in them; for when the Judgement of God was passed upon them, all Natural Relation and Authority ceased as to all consequent offices of Respect, Love, or Honour, when the impious Apostates were convict, and doomed to excision. 'Tis true indeed, that Law, being in its penal sanction but positive, local, and judicial, does not oblige us, but the natural reason substrate thereto supposes, and indicateth all obligations of Duty from all Relations whatsoever forfeited by Atheism, and avowed Irreligion. And accordingly Asa dishonoured his Mother in divesting her of her Royal Dignity, because she had made an Idol in a Grove, 1 King. 15.13. 2 Chron. 15.16. Nor is this any breach of the Law of Nature, but the observation of it, for the Law of Nature being nothing else but pure Abstract Reason and Equity, whatsoever is consonant to this Equity, comports with the Laws of our Nature. By these Laws the sins of Men-rescind their Rights in many benefits, which had been due to them in a state of Innocency. The Law of God requires us simply to honour all men, it being the natural due of our beings framed after the Image of God; and yet wicked and ungodly men are to be shunned as spots and blemishes by the Law of Nature, and to be made Anathema by the Censure of the Church. For the Foundation of all Authority whatsoever is God, and all Obligations to all Duties, Civil, Moral, and Religious, are founded in him; so that an avowed rejection of God, puts men out of all claims of Authority, which alone is originally Gods, for a renunciation of God is an effectual renunciation of all just and real Authority whatsoever. The Fifth Commandment therefore being not a mere positive Precept, but a dictate of Natural Equity, is interpretable to particular Acts according to the Rules of Equity, and must concede to superior and more important Obligations, which will sometimes require us to hate Father and Mother (that is, to disregard their Commands, and forsake their Persons) to keep God's Commandments, Luke 14.26. If a Son be a King, and the Father a Subject, he must deal with his own Father as a Subject in Civil Causes, nay as a Malefactor, if necessity requires. A Son is bound to defend (even by the Sword, if there be no other way) his Wife and Children from the Sword of his Father, and to save his Country by the Detection of his Father's Treasons. And many such Cases more there may be, wherein intolerable wickedness on one hand, and greater Obligations on the other, cut off the Ties of Honour and Union, between Parents and Children, Husbands and Wives, and all other Temporal Relations; since what separates men from God, may well disengage them one from another. And to put a particular Case, if a Prince marry a King's Daughter and Heiress, and the King after becomes suspected of an Imposture, to pervert that Daughter's inheritance, and upon demand will not refer that doubt to the Arbitration of his own Senate, but to elude the Hopes, and just Expectations of his Son in Law, Daughter, and his own People, in this, and other momentous Concernments, he puts all the Laws, Liberties and Religion of his Kingdoms in a Course of Subversion and ruin under Arbitrary and Foreign Powers, may not such a Son in Law endeavour to put a stop to these Measures, and to force such a King to do right? And is such Prince's Wife bound to oppose her Husband in these just Causes, to abet her Father's injustice and unnatural Impiety? And if the Father being thus pressed by the Son in Law, rather than do the justice demanded, will fly for the succour of his injustice to another unjust King, the Enemy of his People, and in the mean time leave his Kingdom in Confusion, which shall subject it more effectually to his Scourge upon his return with Foreign Forces, may not such Prince, and such King's Daughter, and a confused Nation unite, and settle it against the ruins otherwise inevitable to them all? For if Natural Ties sometimes give place to Civils of greater weight, here surely is as fair, and just an instance for it, as well can be imagined, or alleged out of History. And that Civil Obligations of greater moment do preponderate against Natural, you yourself confess, when you rightly say, had not the constitution been for the time being lawfully altered, the Crown coming to the Princess of Orange by mere Descent, the Prince here must have been her Subject, tho' by the Matrimonial Laws of Nature he is her Lord. It is indeed a melancholy Speculation, when the impieties of such near Relations break off all the Natural Links of Duty and Union, which must never be receded from as long as the Union is tolerable, and consistent with Superior Obligations; but of two Evils the least is always to be chosen, and where two Offices are incompetible, the more important is to be prosecuted. And yet, tho' this be lawful and necessary, 'tis sometimes a Tragical Scene, under which even the Righteous Parties are to mourn, and lament their infelicity in falling into such Straits and Temptations, and are incessantly to pray, that God would put a just and good End to the Disaster, and in the mean time to make necessary Justice and Piety the only Rule and Reason of their Actions in such a State of Division, and inevitable Contention. And such being the form of the present Affairs, if you needs will censure the Morals of your Sovereigns, you ought to allow their Measures all the Charity the Case will bear, which hitherto seems the Care of God's Especial Providence for us; And if it be so; it is a dangerous thing to Curse whom the Lord hath Blessed. But I have told you, these things concern not us in our Civils, and it is therefore best to leave things secret, and above us, unto God, the Lord and Judge of all men. But as to the Change itself, it is an apparent delivery and blessing to the Nation in the best manner attainable by any means less than supernatural. For a deliverance it is plain we needed, which could never have been secured, had King James continued undisturbed in his Reign. Now if an unrelated Prince had desired to help us, yet he had had no Civil Interests to have grounded a defence, or rescue us from any Civil Laws, or Laws of War. Then the Sovereignty given to a Stranger had been a cutting off the Line Royal, which neither Atwood, or Johnson have 
* Since Johnson will give Richard Rich a Right.  yet asserted lawful by our Rules: It would also have been a punishing the sins of the Father upon the Children, and inevitably have involved us in intestine Wars. Then again, if the Princess of Orange had invaded her Father's Kingdom and Crown by any Hostile Forms, this would have looked more violent and unnatural, and seems more than the Princely Lady in Temper or Duty could well or easily have attempted. Time was, before a calm and thorough consideration of things, that matters seemed hard; but I am now convinced, that no other Person under Heaven could in human prospect be so proper a Redeemer as his present Majesty, nor any Form of Settlement devised to forefend the Ruin of this Nation, upon whose Strength the Security of all Christendom at this day principally seemeth to depend. And this, and all that I have said to you, I speak with all sincerity, which if it persuade not you, I cannot help that, but I think it is a reasonable ground for that Allegiance, which I have not carelessly or inconsiderately given.  Dyscher. 
You do us manifest injustice, when you suppose, or feign, that we admit no Settlement under Powers procured by the breach of God's Commandments. And this in all reason you must do knowingly, and wilfully; because I think there is not one, who on our behalf hath concerned himself in the matter of the Convocation-Book, but hath stated this Question, and always admitted a thorough Settlement whatever were the means whereby it was procured. 'Tis true, we neither commend, nor encourage such wicked do; but on the other hand we do not think Dominion to be founded in Grace, and that a man cannot have a good Title, unless he be a good Christian. We can mourn over the bad man, whilst we submit to the good Title. But we complain, that we have no Settlement, nor any thing like a good Title, to which we may submit. For who can own that to be a good Title, against which there are prior, and better Titles in being, contesting, and claiming? Or who can take that for a Settlement, where a bad Title by bad means is maintained against a just and good Title? 
T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 25. — We say, that a full Settlement in one, while another, who has Right, claims, and endavours to recover his Right, is contradictory nonsense. T.B. ibid. p. 40.  Eucher. 
I very well know, and freely own, that all your Disputations upon the Convocation-Book do in terms allow a full Settlement, however procured, tho' you contradict the Convocation in your notions of a thorough Settlement. But it does not therefore follow, that all of your Party think so. The most, that I have orally discoursed, stand upon the breach of the Moral Laws, as the grand exception against the Right, on which only they can swear Allegiance; since, say they, Allegiance follows Right, and Right cannot be founded in Acts morally Evil, 
Note, That in Sol. & Ab. p. 8. I did not make Dyscheres positively to deny Submission to all Settlements procured by breach of God's Commandments, because I know they do not all deny it; but because it is the common Objection with most of them in point of Conscience, I made Dyscheres reply, not should say No?  and essentially injurious, and consequently by such there be be no full, or thorough form of Settlement. And if you will give me leave to deliver my Opinion, I think, if God's Providence had not so disposed of things, as to bring that absolutely No, but what if I Book into public Light by the hand of my Lord Archbishop Sancroft in this very Juncture, all your Pleas would have chief stuck in the Laws of God, whose violation with you should have been alone sufficient to have nulled all Rights, and Titles. But now as it is, you are pinched by the Authority and the Edition of that Book, and forced against your wills to own it, and have no relief but in forced Arts of Evasion. Such is that demure Protestation, that you do not think Dominion founded in Grace, which you know was, and is a pretence toto coelo distant from our matter, as claiming all Secular Rights by virtue of their Religious Character, or Election. But will you allow, that a full and legal form of Settlement can be founded in any Act really injurious? I would have you speak out without boggling, or clouting your Tongue. If not, than the Defect of Plenitude in such Settlements stands in the iniquity, and breach of moral Justice, and Gods Commandments. And in truth this at last is the true English of all those Reasons, on which you complain, that we have no Settlement, nor any thing like a good Title, tho' those Reasons are wrapped up in forms of words chief relating to Civil Laws. For the sum of all is; the Possession of another man's Right is no full Settlement, because it has no good Title, as being a violation of Right, and Gods Commandments. Of which I shall have occasion perhaps to discourse more anon. In the mean time, as I have already given you part of my sense herein, so will I now deliver and settle it as full; viz. That when several persons claim Right, then pendente lite, either in Law, or War, the Legal Presumption of Right must be for the quiet Possessor; but after judgement given to be in the person to whom it is adjudged, till reverse of judgement, and all other antecedent Titles and Pretensions are to be deemed null and cessant to all Civil Effects and Constructions, whatsoever the Errors, or men's private Senses herein may be; and the condemned Titles must not be taken to be good, and still in being, tho' new claims and contestations may be promoted by the outed Party. Which being premised, I can easily yield you, that that can be no good Title, against which there are prior or better Titles [apparently] in being, contesting, and claiming, and that it is no full and Legal Settlement, where an [apparently] bad Title is by bad means [apparently] maintained against a Title [apparently] just and good. But this is not to be taken in a judged Cause. But who was Judge between King James and King William, while the former disputed the new Possession of the later with the Sword, to determine the Civil Practice of the Nation? If none, than were we to abide by King William's quiet form of possession; If there were any Judge, it was foreign, or domestic; Now there neither was, nor could be a foreign Judge to oblige us; if domestic, it was either private, or public; if private, that cannot oblige the whole Nation; if public, than it was in the Estates convened; but they have judged King James' Title void and Cessant, and not in being, and so, tho' extrajudicially claimed, neither just, nor good. But if you will neither allow quiet Possession, nor public Judgement as a Rule to State Titles Legally, but will throw up all to private Opinions, or Humours, you dissolve all the ties of Civil Society into Eternal Wars, and Commotions. But because you clamour that we have no Settlement, I will make further Advances, and prove the Admission of their Majesties by the Estates of this Land to be a full and proper Settlement, tho' against King James' claim and contest, from the Laws of this Land, the universal Usage of all Nations, natural Reason and Holy Scripture.  Dyscher. 
This is a teeming Promise; have a care lest the Production be ridiculous.  Eucher. 
First then I begin with the common Laws of this Nation, which are nothing else but the constant and general Customs of England, which Lawyers justify for good and binding upon a fair presumption of their Descent to us from some immemorial Compositions Real and National made by our Forefathers; whose Acts and Contracts for future Ages do by the Laws of all Nations bind their Posterities, (that are yet in their Loins, as in the lowest degree of minority) till they are validly vacated. And such Obligations are justified by sacred Instances, as in the Oath of Jacob's Children to carry Joseph's Bones out of Egypt, in the Covenants between God and Noah, Abraham, Moses, in the League of Israel with Gibcon, and all other their National Contracts, and the Laws of Jonadab on the Rechabites, etc. So that fidelity to the Contracts, Ordinances, and Compositions Real of our Fathers, and Ancestors obliges us to the Customs, that yet continue as the Common Laws of England from that supposed Original; And thus their Legal Obligation is founded not in Force, but in Truth and Honesty. Which being premised, I add, that our Nation in these two last Parliaments, after a full Debate hath judged their Admission of King William and Queen Mary according to our Laws, Legal, and the second Parliament hath moreover recognized them King and Queen of Right according to those Laws. And the first Parliament upon this Constitution fixed on them the full Allegiance of the Subject to be secured by Oath as much as to any other Kings whatsoever, that so they might thoroughly make this present Settlement full and entire, which therefore they judged to be such according to our Laws, without any concurrence, and notwithstanding the opposition of the Late King, which on his Session, or Abdication could in their Judgement create no defect in this present Settlement, since the Confusion and Anarchy, we were put into thereby, did in their Judgements give them a Legal Right to resettle as they could under the then Exigences for the Common Preservation; nor did they judge us tied to a State of continued Anarchy during King James' pleasure, that while he provided for himself in France, by his own private Counsels, without the consent of the Nation, we should be at no liberty at home to provide for ourselves against a Ruin otherwise impendent and inevitable. And if we look back to all the Changes in the Succession ever since there have been two Houses of Parliament, the full and final Settlement after all Ruptures, Disorders, and Disputes hath determined in the Recognitions, and Allegiances enacted by these Parliaments, even without the consent, and against the presumed claim of the outed Competitors, tho' these were sometimes Lineal Heirs, and present in the Land. Much less than is such consent, or cessation of pretence, or claim in the relinquishing and absent Competitors necessary to the fullness, and validity of such Settlements. And tho' the Dispossessed afterward moved Stirs and Wars against those past Settlements, that becomes no Argument against their real plenitude for the time being in form of Law; for by those new Commotions they designed to reduce themselves into such a full form of Settlement by Parliamentary Recognitions, out of which, by present Wars they designed to eject their settled Adversaries; for to a fuller Advancement they could never raise themselves by the greatest force and successes whatsoever. Thus all the precedent Usages in such cases lay before our Estates, first in Convention, and since that in Parliament, and according to these have they made this Settlement as legally full and Obligatory as 'twas possible, as judging it to be so full in its own Nature and Reason, without any present Defects, or Capacities of addition.  Dyscher. 
I wonder you cannot observe here, what you readily can, when it makes for you, that the first Constituting Parliament did not recognize King William and Queen Mary to be de jure, but excluded that Assertion out of the Oath. But the second Parliament recognized their Right, tho' hereby, as you will say, they added nothing of that intention to the Oath. Now than the first Settlement, to which those being tacked, bears proportion, going no further than a Constitution de facto, was not at the full, because it came not up to the fuller Recognition de jure; which being judicially apparent is with you the Legal Form of Title, and Ground of Allegiance. And so the Oath being required to a Settlement that was not thro'ly full, cannot by Bishop Overals Convocation Book be proved due from both Clergy and Laity, for that the Settlement to be sworn to was herein defective. And herein even Mr. Johnson is more sincere and honest than you, who scorns to pay 
* Pres. to the Argument, p. 12, 13, 14.  Allegiance upon any kind of Success, or forms of Settlement, except they are really founded upon Legal Right.  Eucher. 
It will be as easy for you to observe, as for me to remark, that the Recognition is but a Declaration, not a Constitution of Right; and so adds nothing of Right, that before was really wanting; but more fully declares the Right, that stands and is founded in the first Constitution, which actually was at full before, tho' not so fully declared; this Recognition being designed not only to repress the Contradictions of their Majesty's Right and Title, but to compose, as much as might be, men's Doubts and Surmises, and perhaps this your very Objection hereupon. But whatsoever be the Rights, Titles, or Pretensions of Princes to Crowns antecedent to the actual Settlement, they may be fair preparations, and grounds of claim, but they enter not into the essential form, and constituent Reason of a full actual Settlement, which commences and consists purely in a Legal Form of Admission by the Estates of this Realm judging for themselves, that they may lawfully admit this, or that Pretender or Solicitor, even when they are not permitted to judge any thing on the Right of his demand of such Admission, which belongs to the Question de jure. And to those that are thus the facto settled, whether they had any real antecedent Right of claiming, or no, the National Allegiance is by public Contract always given to the full, without any distinguishing Measures, Forms, or Abatements. And this is not only otherwise evident, but is made more so by this present Recognition. For this second Parliament, that enacted this declarative Recognition of Right, gave, and could give no further Allegiance than had been before given on the mere Legal Form of Actual Settlement, which they in their zeal would have done undoubtedly, had they judged the first Settlement any wise deficient in itself, or its Obligations to a plenary Allegiance, which yet however is of no other form, or virtue than that Allegiance which is always given even to mere Kings de facto. Which shows the sense of our Nation to be, that by our Law Allegiance is given to Kings, not on the account of an antecedent real Title to the Crown, but on the account of the Legal Form of Settlement into the Actual Possession thereof, upon which there is no superior Judge to hear, nor determine Quarrels, and Claims of Titles. And you that require more to the nature of a full Settlement, require more than the Convocation has done, which assigns your Allegiance to the 
* Lib. 1. Can. 27.  King de facto, 
* Ibid. Chap. 28.  tho' he come into the full Settlement by wrong and injurious means, and requires only a National Submission, or a continuance of quiet possession to the form of 
* Ibid. Chap. 30.  a full and thorough Settlement, owning the original wickedness of the seizure to be no Legal Bar or impeachment to the Authority of their Government, into which they are formally and fully settled. And such was the State of the Caesars in the Empire, when the two great Apostles required Christian Subjection to them, not on the moral justice of their Titles, of which they could be no Judges, but on their actual settlement in the Concession and Submission of the Senate, and other popular Powers. And such also was the reason of subjection in those instanced Changes, on which that Convocation wisely grounded this their now celebrious Determination. But since you have again upbraided me with Mr. Johnson, I cannot choose but observe how naturally men, that run into contrary extremes, do meet in the other side of the Sphere, as you and your greatest. Adversaries do in this present Controversy; And you both therefore fall into the same absurdities. Now here Mr. Johnson either understands not the formal Nature of a full Settlement, of if he does, he is inconsistent with himself. For if (as I have proved) a National Admission constitutes a Settlement, how can Mr. Johnson explode Settlement, when he places the Right of Kings in the Admission of the People? But if he requires any moral justice, to make the Act of the People Rightful, then if the People fail in that moral Justice, how can their Constitution be really Right, by which Justice itself is violated? And such failure in a People is no impossibility, except you will entitle them to an infallible Sanctity in all popular Actions. As for example; Mr. Johnson produces but one Authority 
* Arg. 1. p. 50, 51.  out of Knyghton, to prove, that Kings acting perversely against the Laws may be deposed, and some one of the Royal Race advanced by the Peers, and People. I will not now strive to weaken the Authority and Credit of the Author herein, nor the Truth of that Power, which the then Lords and Commons claimed against their King, neither will I allege the many Changes and Statutes since, that seem to have abrogated the popular right of Abrogation; but suppose that this still is the Right of the Nation against their Kings, yet if the People should on false pretences and imputations abrogate their King, this Act could not be morally Just and Right, tho' it were in form legal; and if the Subjects, that are innocent, are not to admit what is thus externally Legal, except it be also altogether Rightful, then are they not bound to stand by any Popular Abrogations, which they know, or judge to be morally faulty, and consequently may oppose all new Titles, if they are founded in the real Right of such Abrogations. And to come close home to the Case, if King James were not really guilty of every one of those Enormities to a Title, upon which such Statute did legitimate the Abrogation, and the Convention had really abrogated their King without accurate conviction of all those guilts recited by that lost or undiscoverable Statute quoted by Knyghton, then had their Abrogation been a nullity, as not being Rightful. But further, if men shall object, that Knyghtons' relation of a Statute, not seen by himself, but only said to be objected by the Peers and the Commons, is not a Record, nor a valid Testimony to any Civil Consequences, as being not upon Oath, liable to Error, and uncapable of judicial forms of Discussion, besides its singularity, where shall we find a bottom to authorise King James' abrogation? For 'tis not enough to a Judicial Conviction, or effect or surmise, that Richard destroyed that Statute in the Tower, upon such a general crimination that he defaced Statutes, of which there is no particular form of Conviction extant, no not in Knyghton, who yet is the only Traditor of this Transaction; but you must bring us legal proof for what must legally concern us. And yet nothing else that Mr. Johnson hath cited out of Law Books, nor King John's Charter in the Pastoral Letter, doth amount to a Popular Right of Abrogation, but only to a limited power of resisting Kings on their oppression of the Laws and Constitutions. So that whatsoever has in fact been done toward our several Changes, must not all be taken, or sworn to as Right, but the consequent Settlements, by National Acts must be taken for formally Legal for the time being, and submitted to under that Notion, leaving the real Right of the procedures to God's judgement, because there is none other under Heaven to adjust it above the National Sanctions.  Dyscher. 
I did not interject the mention of Mr. Johnson to justify all his Principles, but only to allege for our Cause those Right Concessions of our greatest Enemies, as more candid and clear from juggling than you, even in his greatest bitterness. I will now dismiss him, and produce you what a Friend of mine impartially reflected on this pretended Authority in the Judicial Opinions of Parliaments, viz. that you cannot but know, that this Power of Parliaments is absolutely denied by that Party, against whom you dispute; and we do not think it reasonable to be convinced without proof, viz. that what is thus done is agreeable to the Laws of England. MS. Reflect.  Eucher. 
If you are not inwardly convinced of the truth of their Judgement upon their Power, and of the lawfulness of their Constitution founded thereupon, I cannot help that. Neither is the Care of the State so much concerned to enforce such an inward conviction, tho' it is to persuade it, and to silence Contradictions. But, as I have often told you, Judicial Opinions must overbear all private ones to the contrary as to all Civil Consequences. This the peace of mankind, the necessity of ending Controversies, and the fundamental Reasons of Government do universally require; so that you must assign some Superior Court, or Judge within the Kingdom to be determined by, if you will not stand to their Judgement, or expose all to private judgements; the first of which is impossible to be sworn, and the later impracticable in a Society. And to turn the dull point of this Objection on yourself; the Parliament doth not think it reasonable to be determined by Private Judgements, especially those of the professed Enemies of their long-settled and immemorial Authority. And what if I oppose the general Trust of the Nation in Civils to the public Judgement of our Parliaments, rather than the contrary Decisions of some private Zealots and Casuists, whose Senses are seldom uniform, often impracticable, and always inauthoritative? Will you here set your Private Judgements in battle array against the Authority and Judgement of the whole Nation, and the Public Estates thereof? Or whether Opinion must concede in order to Public Peace? So that here your imprudent Zeal on false Notions of Loyalty hurries you into Principles absolutely Seditious and Destructive to the Legal Constitution of all Governments, and particularly that, which the Kings of England have themselves established.  Dyscher. 
Well, to put an End to this Disquisition upon our own Laws, what have you to say for the Legality, or fullness of your Settlement from the Usages, or customary Practice of Nations?  Eucher. 
I hope you do not require me to corrade a vast heap of Historical Instances, National Decrees, and Determinations of Civilians hereupon. This would be to repeat whole Libraries to an evidence of one particular Custom. But your own reading will inform you, that under the pressing exigences of Anarchy and Ruin, the Superiors, or Agents of all People have ever authentically contracted a change of Government, and Governors, as to them then appeared necessary to the Common Preservation.  Dyscher. 
'Tis so indeed upon Conquests, which some have pretended here to the shame, reproach, and forfeiture of their Country, as well as in contradiction to common Sense, the pretences of your King, and the Sense of your Parliament. But where there are no Conquests, 'tis not so easy to adduce such Custom of Nations.  Eucher. 
That the Nation was not conquered is most evident, yet that King William in the Military Course grew stronger than King James, who disbanded all his Forces, and stooped to the prevailing Prince, is as evident; nor was this any False Doctrine in the sense of the Nation. But to assert, that hereby alone the Right of the Crown accrued to King William, even without the consequent Admission and Contract of the Nation, had he pleased to have taken it on the mere Right of the Sword, is what is indeed contrary to all Law and Reason. For the mere force, or victory of the Sword gives no Right, or Authority even over a vanquished People, till they federally resign to the Conqueror, and then much less doth it so in a Nation not conquered. But to omit the Laws of pure Conquests, there are instances enough of Abdications, Cessions, and Desertions (as many, I believe, and more than of simple and proper Victories) to set out the sense of all Nations by. For upon all such the places quitted admitted such consequent Settlements, as the straits, they were cast into, would permit, as is manifest in the leaving of Garrisons, Holds, or Countries. And the truth is, there is the same reason upon all proper Conquests, and other Surrendries, that legitimates the admission of a Change, viz. the necessity of preserving the Public Body from ruins and devastations.  Dyscher. 
I do not remember indeed any ininstance to the contrary in the practices of Nations; for they perhaps have been, and are as bad as we, ready to for shift themselves upon any pinch, but generally careless of, and perfidious to their unfortunate Prince's Interests. But what Reason can you show for it in our Case, which is so very plain and obvious, that we were at liberty to have preserved our Sovereign, and ourselves together, and if so, how can this Settlement be admitted for legal, or be reputed full against the so just Claims of our real Sovereign?  Eucher. 
Here again you transgress the proper limits of a private Judgement, when you take upon you to say, that we, (i. e. our Convention) could have secured King James in his Throne, and this Nation in its Rights, and Properties. But in the main point, where you stick, viz. the Consent of King James, and your Prince of Wales, you are very unreasonable. For shall he, who at last put all his Subjects into confusion by his leaving the Government, hinder us from settling, till he give us his Consent? Or must the Consent of a Infant be waited, who, if he ever was, or yet is, is in the custody and disposal of an Enemy King, who would settle him, and us too with a witness, if he had but a lucky Wind, and a fair Opportunity? It is possible, that an offended Prince may meditate revenge on a People, that will not yield up all to the insatiable claims of boundless Prerogative. And Desertion would be the cheapest, surest, and severest way of revenge, if they must never settle again till he please to authorise them; and this truly would be the strangest of all Prerogatives. There are also that say, that King James' Priests counselled, and his Queen engaged him to go off, on this very account, that we might fall into such Plagues through our Divisions, and unsettled Looseness, as should enable him to return with an absolute plenitude of Arbitrary Power. But not to depend on uncertain fames with their obliqne constructions, what can the legal language of that Session speak to his Loyal People but this? I have disbanded my Army, and will not contest it with the Sword. I shift for myself, and must leave you to shift for yourselves and settlement as you can. Since I yield to my fears and necessities, so may you. If even a Natural Parent, to save his own life, leaves his Son to the mercy of his Enemies. the Son may contract Peace, and subjection to that his Father's Enemy for his own preservation, nor can the mere Natural Relation and Interest of the Father in the Son vacate moral Obligation of such Contract, till that power of his Enemy over his Son be otherwise legally dissolved by the Laws of War, Redemption, or otherwise. So that, tho' we should allow you, that all King James' Enemies sinned in procuring this new Settlement upon us all, yet his most Loyal Subjects may most innocently submit, from the reason of the thing, and the virtual Concession hereunto in the voice of his Desertion, which must be supposed as made to his faithful Adherents, tho' not to his Enemies. So that should he ever return again, he could not in any justice punish the mere submission to this new Settlement in those, who contributed nothing to it. And you that refuse it, refuse that liberty, which his Desertion legally gave you by all Civil Interpretations. All which put together should be of great might with you to admit the present submission as Legal. Nor ought his resumed Contests to be taken as Legal, or just bars to the contrary. For if there were such a Virtual and Legal Concession in his Desertion, the Estates of his People, taking the benefit of it, have provided for us a Settlement upon that Concession, which being passed and confirmed, the supposed revocation of that Concession, by a new War, or Inauthoritative Declarations, is null, void and unobliging. And so here was, tho' not a Verbal, yet a Legal Censent of King James, which is as much as you yourselves can in reason require to the justifying our present Submission, and to the plenitude of our present Settlement.  Dyscher. 

* T. B's 2d Lett. p. 21.  These are pretty tricks to catch Dotterils. But above all your most amazing pretence for your Cause is that, which you promise me from the Scriptures. I pray out with that too, that I may either reply to it, or send it to the Censure of Gilman's Coffeehouse, or the Impartial Reflections of a Private Friend.  Eucher. 
I cannot be sullen to you, to whose Felicity and sound Judgement I wish with all my Soul I could contribute. And you being men of Religion, that can dare to suffer for what you think right and sacred, will be like to have greater respect to good and clever Arguments from the Holy Oracles. We will therefore consider the several Settlements of the Children of Israel under Civil Forms of Government; and try whether their actual plenitude consisted in a National Contract, or any other bottom. And in order hereunto I shall observe two sorts of Settlements among them, one Consequent to an Antecedent Right and Title, the other constituent of the Title to, and in the Sovereignty. And according to this Order I begin with the former.  
First, Then God, upon a good original and antecedent Title, actually settles himself in the political Royalty, and Government of that People, (hence by Divines usually called the Theocracy) by that Covenant at Sinai, by which he properly and peculiarly became their God and King also, and they his peculiar People, not only under a Religious and Ecclesiastical, but also a Civil Relation, Exod. 19 Exod. 24. & alib. passim. When God himself, and Samuel the Prophet in God's Name, had entitled Saul to the Throne of Israel by a sacred Unction, yet was he afterwards actually, and fully settled therein by the Popular Engagement of true Allegiance to him, and was hence said to be made, and chosen King, as well by the People, as by God and Samuel, 1 Sam. chap. 9 Chap. 10. Chap. 11. Chap. 12. Thus tho' David's Title to that Succession was divinely originated in the Unction of Samuel, 1 Sam. 16. yet his full and actual Settlement over Judah consisting in his Unction by the People in Hebron, 2 Sam. 2. and after the death of Ishbosheth he was thoroughly and actually settled over the other Tribes by their Covenant and Unction transacted by their Elders, 2 Sam. 5. And Solomon, tho' designed by God, and advanced by David, and anointed by Zadock into the full Title unto that Sovereignty, was yet finally and completely settled in that Throne of the Lord by the consequent Acts and Unction of that People, as an Induction on an antecedent Presentation, and Institution, 1 Kings 1. 1 Chron. Chap. 24. Chap. 25. And thus to Rehoboams Paternal Title, the People were to add their Actual Consummation of his Settlement in like manner, 1 King. 11. 2 Chron. 10. And last of all Jehu, who by a Prophetic Unction, and God's Designation had a Divine Right and Title to the Sovereignty of the Ten Tribes, and began to make way to his Actual Settlement by the slaughter of Joram, Ahaziah, and Jezabel, yet sends to the Council at the Royal City Samaria, and bids them settle the best and meetest of their Master's Sons on the Throne of their Father Ahab, as knowing that that had been the usual Office of the Senate. But they, not daring to oppose Jehu, tho' perhaps they knew nothing of his Prophetic Unction, reply, that they would not make any King, i. e. any but himself; but they contract a total submission to him, and sealed that Contract in the Blood of Ahab's Sons, and so actually admitted him into the full Settlement and Possession of that Sovereignty, 2 Kings Chap. 9 Chap. 10. So that tho' these Titles to the Sovereignty were not founded in the Grant of the People, but of God, yet the full Settlement of all these New Kings, consequent to their Titles, did consist in the Public Contract and Recognition of the People.  
Secondly, The People's Concurrence was sometimes constituent of a Title merely human, as well as a full and formal Settlement.  
Thus the People would have given Gideon an hereditary Monarchy, Judges 8. as the Elders of Gilead made Jephthah their Captain, Judges 11. and as the Shechemites did, what in them lay, entitle Abimelech, Judges 9 The Ten Tribes made Jeroboam King, which God, that had preingaged it by his Prophet, ratified by an inhibition against Rehoboams recovery, 2 Kings 12. 2 Chron. Chap. 10. Chap. 11. But Zimri, who reigned but seven days in Tirzah, without the full consent of the whole People, wanted a good Title, as well as a full Settlement thereupon, and so was opposed by the Camp at Gibbethon, who set up Omri against him, and so he perished in a Fire of his own kindling, 1 Kings 16. And this was that perhaps which Jezabel objects to Jehu, 2 Kings 9 Had Zimri peace, who slew his Master. Did the people permit him a full and peaceable Settlement in the Throne, who slow his own Sovereign? Which Omri however obtained after the extinction of Tibni his Competitor, 1 Kings 16.22, 23. Thus in the Kingdom of Judah, after Josiah's death, the People of the Land took Jehoahaz: (probably the younger Brother to Eliakim) and made him King, And in that Act of the People the fullness of his Title, as well as his Actual Settlement, seems to have consisted, 2 Kings 23. 2 Chron. 36. So that in short, the Regular Constitution of their Native Kings was, that subordinately to God's Election the People should settle each New Line according to the direction of the Law, Deut. 17.14, 15. When thou shalt say, I will set a King over me, thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose, etc. But in the degeneracy of the Ten Tribes they set up Kings by their own Act alone without waiting, or consulting the Will of God, as he complains, Osee 8.4. They have set up Kings, but not by me; they have made them Princes, but I knew it not. Yet God's permission hereof made the usage valid to a Title merely human, tho' done contrary to the Law. And therefore to Baasha, who came in this way, God says, 1 Kings 16.2. I have exalted thee out of the Dust, and made thee Prince over my People Israel. Now these things in fact were done as well in injury to the Heirs-Royal, as to God; and yet the full and actual Settlement by the People, according to their modes, gave them a form of human Title, which was civility valid, tho' not, otherwise, and especially Sacred. And to conclude, since it is recorded, that God at first granted them Kings at their request after the manner of the Nations, 1 Sam. 8. it intimates, that this was then the Formal Rule of New Settlements, at least among all the bordering Nations. However this Office of the People, being always the final Act, must needs give the last plenitude to the Settlement; and God surely, in the admission of these Forms, must be granted to know, and judge them to be full, and final, whatsoever else was, or might be sometimes constituent of an antecedent Title, which the Convocation-Book does not make essentially ingredient to a full Settlement, or the Obligations to Allegiance founded thereupon. For if a Nations Settlement be not full under New Powers, till all the former lineal Heirs be Extinct, or cease making their claims from Foreign Dominions, I know not how many Ages may sometimes be necessary to fill the Settlement; and it will be very hard, if submission thereto, for want of such a ground of plenitude, should be Treason, and all Sanguinary Commotions against it Pious and Loyal, till the claim of all the Succeeding Heirs Lineal shall surcease for ever. Or if you will allow a term for Prescription against all after claims, than you must allow that a Settlement attaining to Prescription may exclude a Native Right, or that a Native Right ceases by such a Tract of Continuance. If it excludes Right only, than you are no more to comport with it, than with present Settlements exclusive; if the Right ceases, I pray show me by what equity mere time can destroy a right in me Anno. 93. which was whole and within Memory Anno. 92. especially since the Regestries of Lines Royal usually endure as just Records, that will outlive the longest ocular Testimonies, and personal Memories whatsoever? For the reason why Prescription passes Title is, when there is no Authentic Evidence, or memorial to the contrary. And I will further note, that the same Laws of Nations, which admit prescriptions as a form of Title, do not therefore assert the Title really right in the original means of procuring it, but only externally Legal for want of better Evidence; Prescription in itself being the weakest form of Title, that must give place to all others, if verified in foro; and its ground, or reason is only a supposed Composition Real, I say supposed only, not Asserted. And those very Laws of Nations do not always suppose those Compositions every way right, but only Legally Authoritative, and Settling, and do indeed allow such present Settlements within memory to be as Legal and Valid as those, which being out of record and beyond memory, can but be supposed Legal, and this with more reason, because men can better judge of what is present, than of what is passed into a Tohu, an Age in which all things are forgotten.  Dyscher. 
You are very long, and I am almost tired, considering the Zeal that is in me.  Eucher. 
I have kept you so long under the Fatigue, because what I ever thought has lately appeared in your Prints, that the total ground of the Schism between us, lies in this point of Right. For you all say, that Allegiance follows a thorough Settlement, but a thorough Settlement is founded in the Right of him that Reigneth. So that if admit the wrong, then immediately all our Prayers for him are Immoral, Polluted; and Abominable, as containing Imprecations against the right and justice of him that is wronged, and giving God Praise for the Advancement of the Usurper, which we blasphemously attribute to God. Whence there follows a necessity, that all good Bishops, Priests, and People renounce Communion in these Liturgies, and with all that use them; and that, if hereupon they be deprived by the Usurpers of all the Public Advantages of their Ministry, they must keep up holy Ministrations among themselves; for so the Rule is set, and agreed for with most prodigious Zeal, and no less Accuracy and Learning, by your admirable Author of Christian Communion. But I wonder this great Man did not see, how Tottering and Casual the visible State of Religion than must be upon every turn of the secular State, and the various Competitions for the Sovereingty. For how is it possible that Godly Pastors, and their Flocks, can be all unanimously certain at all time's whore the real Right and Justice lies, when matters of Fact and Law are so remote from their Cognisance? Nor will your evasion of doubtful Cases, which you allow much to, heal the matter. For in all such cases some will assert an indubitable Right, others a dubitable one, and that on both sides at the same time: And thus your indubitable Men must fall into a state of Schism or Separation from each other, upon their contrariant confidences in the Right of the opposite Claimers: And your dubitable men must either be neuter to all Communion, or choose a Communion with one, or other of the indubitables at all adventure, which to do with a doubting mind is a Sin and Snare. And so it is in our present case. Some says, 'tis indubitable, that K. James is King de jure, and that K. William is not King at all; others say as indubitably, that K. James is not King at all, but K. William is King de jure; others own K. William to be King only de facto, and K. James de jure; others that are indubitably for his being de facto, doubt his being de jure King. And a great number through ignorance confide, or doubt, more, or less, in all these points, which they cannot reach. Now since Practice must follow Principles, and rules of Conscience, how shall we settle all these under one Religious Communion on that Author's Maxims? There is no possible way, but by following the direction of the Convocation Book in Obeying the thorough Settlement of the King de facto, made by public Submission, or continuance, the form of which being a point of Law, not Religion, must be determined, and defined by the Supremest Domestic Judgement we have in Civils, which Certainly is that of Parliament, after whose Decisions we need no further Torment ourselves in vain about Antecendent questions, but consider the Right we have, as well as Duty, to Live quiet under Public, Formal, and Judicial Settlements, which we are to take as God's Ordinance for the time being. By which Rule we shall secure ourselves from both Extremes, either of owning forcible Entry for Legal Title, or proper Settlements, or of Asserting all Change of Government to be Invalid and unobliging, as Contrary to the Law of God, who, we know, changeth Times, and Seasons, and all the Kingdoms of the Earth, and Dissolves, and Resettles all the States of Men under proper Laws of Constitions, according to the Just and Unsearchable Counsels of his Will. And now I will only apply your Rules of Communion to our Case, and so dismiss this Theory. If this present Settlement be full, and the Judgement of the Nation herein against your Right, than all your Prayers and Execrations against the present State are Irreligious, Immoral, Polluted, and Abominable, and under an ipso facto Anathema, upon which all Christians must abhor your Communion, even without any Ecclesiastical Sentence, as being self-condemned, and cut off. And if all these Dangers and Snares await us upon every Civil Change, upon men's Private Cross Opinions about Right, and Plenitude of Settlement; Christian Religion, Ecclesiastical Union could not have continued a Twelvemonth under the Changes of the Empire from Nero to Vespasian, but must have Expired, before it had been Exposed to the World. And I desire the Learned Casuist to Suit his Principles, if he can, with the Conditions, and Capacities of Human Life, and after Good endeavours this way he will find, that these Civil Questions are not of Private Determination. But if there be such Dreadful Dangers of Immoral Devotions on such Contested Rights of Government, they Naturally lie on them, who in Civil matters Oppose their Private Conceptions and Practices to Public and Judicial Constitutions, which is a Course in its own Nature formally Seditious, and for that cause Un-Christian, and may too truly and sadly Corrupt their Communion, and Defile their Devotions, who will not know the ways of Peace.  Dyscher. 
You will needs suppose, that if it be the Life of King James, than it is not the Breach of God's Commandments, that Incapacitates the Prince of this Crown. But why may not both do it? For because the Lawful King is Living and Claiming, therefore the Commandments of God require of all his Subjects, that they Pay him their Dutiful and Loyal Obedience. They ought by all means to Support him in his Throne, or Restore him to it, as his Condition requires. T. B. 2d. Let. p. 20.  Eucher. 
In the Murder of a Parent King by his Son and Heir 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 8.  I proved, that the sin did not Incapacitate the Parricide, but that our Constitutions admit him to the Crown, which you not being able to deny, I conclude, that Breach of God's Commandments Nulls not a Title procured thereby. And then you Assign the cause hereof, that the Parent, and all his Rights are Extinct by his Death, but King James' Life, and Contestation Diversifies his Case. Then I rejoin, that it is not the Breach of God's Commandments, that Incapacitates the Princes of this Crown, but the Life, and Contention of King James. And is not this an Accurate, and an undeniable Observation? For if Breach of God's Commandments, either alone creates, or with other Causes concurs to a Civil Incapacity, than such Breach doth, either partially, or solely, obstruct such capacity. And if so, the Murder of a Royal Father must be some Bar to the Succession of the Parricide: But if it be none at all in that Case, why should a less Sin against God Preclude a Title in another Case in Conjunction with another Cause, which yet yourselves will not dare deny to be alone Enclusive of King William's Title? Here than I will sift you upon this Point. Would the continued being, and Claim of King James Incapacitate King William of the Royal Title, if King William had never broken any Commandment of God, or No? If you say, Yea, than the Breach of God's Commandments Contributes nothing to King William's Incapacity, which alone ariseth by itself from the Life and Claim of King James, it being Naturally impossible for two Men to be Total and Separate Proprietors of the same Right at one time; a truth not at all belonging to Ethic's, or Divinity. If you say, No, than you yield, that King William may be Entitled to King James' his Throne without breaking Gods Commandments, even during the permanency of King James his Life and Right. And han't you hereby well amended the matter? But such are the results of affected Sophistries, especially when they are Impertinent also. Now that yours are so, will be hence Manifest; For our Question last was whether no Settlements procured by Breach of God's Commandments must be Submitted to, and particularly such, as follow the Extinction of the former Proprietors' Tenure, and Title, through such ill means? And now you Answer me, that God's Commandments do Incapacitate King William of King James' Crown, because King James' Title is not Extinct, but Lives with him. Which if it had been true, I should also have denied King William a capacity to the Title, not from the Moral Law, but from Natural and Legal Impossibility. And therefore I suppose King James' Tenure first Extinct, when I say, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 8.  But if His Tenure be Extinct, as it hath been Publicly judged by this Nation, our Oath to him Ceases, tho' be contend never so much for the Recovery. And there I take it for necessary, that the Judgement of the Nation must overbalance all your contrary private Opinions as to all our public Duties and Obligations. Now when your words are disinvolved, they amount to no more than this, that the Law of God forbids one Man to seize on another Man's Permanent Right, and Title, in which as it is nothing to the Rhombus, so you have no adversary. But this is not your second, or single Failure, but here appears a third point of Ignorance, for our Question was not, what Gods Comments do forbid, but whether the doing what God forbids, in order to the procuring formal Titles, and Tenors in Law, by the real, or Judicial Extinction of another Man's Tenors, does Create a Civil Incapacity or Nullity in the Tenure so acquired This is what I deny, and I defy you to Prove. The instance of a Royal Heir upon the Murder of his Father is an unmovable Argument for me; for tho' the Laws of God forbidden him to procure the Crown that way, yet if he violates those Duties, the Laws of God do not null the Tenure acquired by forbidden Wickedness. The Law of God forbade David to Usurp Vriah's wife, while the Hittite's Title in her continued with his Life, and the King might actually keep her, but by no Legal form of Tenure. The same Law of God forbade the King to Murder Vriah with the Sword of the Children of Ammon in order to a Matrimonial Tenure of his wife; Yet when that wickedness was completed, the Title of the King in Bathsheba was Legal, and valid, even by the Judgement and Ratification of God himself. Nay, when Ahab had slain Naboth by Judicial Condemnation for falsely imputed Blasphemy, the form of Title, by which he after enjoyed Naboths Vine yard, was Legal by Judicial Forfeiture, tho' it were Morally unjust in the sight of God; for had there been a Civil Nullity therein, it had been necessary for him to have compassed Naboths Death by Capital Sentence in order to a Civil Title, which Jezebel procured for him this way, to avoid the Odium of open, and formal Un-entitled Usurpation. So that had your Loud Obloquys against their Majesty's morals been never so true, Yet, King James' Tenure, being Extinct, doth not preclude a Civil Title in their present Majesties, which we are now to abide by, and defend by the greatest Suffrage of God's Laws, Reason, and the Laws of Nations; at which expression I have heard, that your Friend T. B. winds up his Mouth, and 
* T. B's 2d. Lett. p. 26.  thanks God he hath not so Learned Jesus Christ; And it is like to be true; for he seems to have Learned but little of him, at least in his Doctrine, Learn of me, for I am Meek, and Lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest to your Souls.  Dyscher. 
To the Objection, that Allegiance seemeth to imply Right, which is a Tender Point to be Sworn to, You answer, 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 9  that the Oath expresses no form of Affirmation concerning Right. But what if it doth not, as long as it expresses what manifestly includes Right? And this Allegiance directly, and manifestly doth. For it is the proper duty of a Subject to his Lawful Sovereign, and contains an Obligation to the Performance of all those Acts, which are required from every Subject, as he stands Related to his Rightful Sovereign; It is the immediate Result of that Relation, So that where you deny your Allegiance due, you in consequence deny the Right of the Prince; where you Pay your Allegiance, it is as owning him to be your Prince. And therefore when you swear Allegiance, you Tacitly swear a Right. For tho' there is a sort of Obedience, or Observances which may be paid to Usurpers, Robbers, and Pirates, yet Allegience may not be paid to them, as being the Natural duty of the Subject, which The Laws and Constitutions have Appropriated to their Legal Prince, and made Inseparable from him; And now I hope you will not tell us, that the Oath doth not express Allegiance. T. B's. 2d. Let. p. 26.  Eucher. 
The giddy ramblings in your forms of expression Create in me a just suspicion of either your Ignorance, or Insincerity, or both. For First you Confound the Terms Lawful and Rightful as Synonymous, even thereby to equivocate. Secondly, You say, that Allegiance manifestly Includes Right; and yet that he that swears Allegiance, doth but Tacitly swear that Right, that is manifestly Included in Allegiance. But if we manifestly swear a manifest Allegiance, it is manifest that we manifestly (not Tacitly) swear all that is manifestly Included in it. But if we do Tacitly swear the Right, then is that Right but Tacitly Included, and prehaps so Tacitly, that the Swearers themselves do not perceive it. But as to the distinction between Lawful and Rightful, I have but just now explained it at Large, and 
* Sol & Ab. p. 7. The Actual Landlord who is visibly Legal tho' not Honestly Rightful.  offered it to you in our first Conference; which makes your Neglect of its Observation so much the more Disingenuous, and Culpable, as proceeding from a design to Ensnare.  
So again you Prevaricate when You say, Where I deny Allegiance due, I in consequence deny the Right of the Prince. For there may be two sorts of Right, immediate and mediate; the former without, the latter upon an intermediate and qualifying Condition. Again, an immediate Right to a Crown to be enjoyed, must be distinguished from an immediate Right to Allegiance founded in the actual possession of the Crown. Now he, that hath a just immediate Right to a Crown not possessed, hath no immediate Right to my Allegiance; and no more at the most can be assigned him than this, that he, having a real Right to the unenjoyed Crown, hath a real, but mediate Right to the Allegiance on the condition of Possession, for want of which he cannot as yet claim the Allegiance of the Subject; for whatsoever materials Right he has, the legal Title to Allegiance consists immediately in the legal State and Forms of Possession. Wherefore I do not deny always a real Right to a Crown, where I deny may Allegiance legally and immediately due; for this denial of Allegiance so due, denies only a formal Title thereto, consisting in a legal actual Settlement in the Sovereignty; except I declare, that the Reason, why I deny a Prince Allegiance due, is, because he in my Judgement, has no just and real Right to the Crown he has; but then that Reason is my own private, not the public Reason of the Law, or of legal denial of Allegiance due, which is the want of legal Settlement. So when you go on, and say, where you pay your Allegiance, it is owning him to be your Prince; 'Tis true indeed, it is always owning him to be my Prince formally Legal, but not always Morally and Honestly Rightful. So that it is not in your Sense always true, that when we Swear Allegiance, we tacitly Swear a Right. But I doubt, here you forgot the dubitable Case of the Lancastrian Reigns, to which the Nation oft, and long Swore Allegiance, and to which you have given great allowances. But did they all Swear the Lineal Right of that House to that Crown, which it enjoyed? Or was not such a Sense of the Oath perjurious? And if it be so, will you vouchsafe it your great and gracious allowances, and dispensations? You have need here of a new Rubbing-brush to cleanse your Senses, and clear up your Memory.  Dyscher. 
But for all this you are certain, no such thing [as Right] was intended [in the Oath.] For, say you, 
* Sol & Ab. pag. 9  your Estates in Parliament rejected the Motions made for an Assertion of Right. And yet you immediately add, that they, and the ensuing Parliament judged their admission of King William and Queen Mary, rebus sic stantibus, to be in their Lawful Right, yet they bond not us to Swear so; T. B Sect. Lett. Pag. 26. What! if we are bound to Swear according to their Intention, and they, as appears by the Act of Recognition, intent, and declare them to be de Jure; and so have put the distinction of de facto, and de Jure out of doors? Which if it be so hard for you to apprehend, I will put it into this fair Syllogism; The Sense of the King and Parliament (the Imposers of the Oath) is, that King William is King de Jure; But we must take the Oath in the Sense of the Imposers; Ergo, we must take the Oath in this Sense, that King William is King de Jure. Do you think, that King William and Queen Mary did intent, that you should esteem them as a King and Queen, that had no Right? If not, than all are perjured, who Swear to them only as King and Queen de facto, (i.e. all, that acknowledge that Rule of Swearing according to the Intention of the Imposers.) For the Oath was chief made for the satisfaction of King William and Queen Mary; and they were the Supreme, at least the chief part of the Imposers; but if they were only a part, (as none deny them to be in an Act of Parliament) than their Sense is included in the Sense of the Imposers, and consequently we must take the Oath in their Sense, or not take it according to the Sense of the Imposers. M. S. Reflex. Or did your Conventioners, or those that followed them, intent to bind you to any thing? If they intended to bind you to nothing, they laid their wise Heads together to such a purpose, as never yet any Men did. But if they did intent to bind you to your New Governors in any thing, what can that reasonably be supposed to be, other than what they admitted them in? And that, you say, was in their Lawful Right. They were indeed ashamed at that time to put it into the body of the Oath; and besides, they knew it would have made many Persons abhor it; but it is plain, this they designed, and tricked upon you. Hence you may perceive, that your slippery Remark will not deliver you from the Intention of the Imposer. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 27.  Eucher. 
This Discourse is so involved, and you talk of an Imposer so like an Imposer, that it is somewhat difficult to trace out your Sense. Yet this I will endeavour, and if I can be lucky, I will give you my Sense of it. Here than we are to consider the Intentions, first, of the Constituting Parliament, or Convention; secondly, of the Recognising Parliament; and thirdly, of their Majesties, in the Imposition of the Oath. First then, 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 9  I acknowledged, that the Constituting (as well as ensuing) Parliament did judge it in their Lawful Right, rebus sic stantibus, to admit King William and Queen Mary. And so they always judge▪ that they for their part, act Lawfully and of Right, when they admit only a King de facto, either when unlawfully forced, or otherwise necessitated thereunto, by insuperable Exigencies. And so Men may Honestly for their part, contract faithful Obedience to their Piratic Masters to preserve themselves, tho' unlawfully brought into that Necessity. This being done by the first Parliament, and that in their Judgement on their part lawfully, and justly, they consider for an Oath of Allegiance, always usual upon such new Constitutions. And hereupon a Motion was made for an Assertion of Right to be inserted into the Oath, but it was rejected. This must therefore in legal construction evince, that their intention in the Enacted Oath, did not imply an Assertion of Right. For, tho' you can, according to the Temper you are of, opprobriously tax the Wisdom and Gravity of that Great Assembly, yet we are obliged only to an open and sincere Intention, not a tricked one, especially that, which you would trick upon them, and us too, that you might blacken and reproach our Innocency; tho' yet how we could be tricked out of our Senses, if Allegiance manifestly includes Right, as you say, I cannot divine. However, herein are two points of Right observable, one in their Majesty's taking the Crown, and another, in the Convention, in the admission of them thereto. And in both these, they obliged us to Swear no Assertion, but only, as 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 9  I told you, to promise that Allegiance due by our Laws to Kings thus actually admitted, without any other charge upon us to Swear the Justice and Rectitude of their Proceed, of which there is no competent or superior Judge, or Witness, but God. Secondly, After the Constituting, comes the Recognising Parliament, who added a Declaration of their Majesties Right, in taking and possessing the Crown, as well as of the Rectitude of our Admission; for this makes up the Title de Jure in their Majesties. This might be the mental intention of the first Parliament, but it was not by them promulgate, or recognized, which omission was therefore supplied by the second Parliament. But notwithstanding this Recognition of Right, they neither added, nor altered any thing as to the Oath, but that still stood, and yet stands in its first Intention, which it received wholly and solely from the first Parliament. So that the first Parliament discharging us from an Assertion of Right, in their and their Majesty's Proceed and Settlement in that Oath, and the second Parliament doing nothing to the Oath, it does not by its Recognition charge us to Swear more, or otherwise than the first had done. So that all the Right, that can fairly be supposed, owned, and imported, in taking and imposing that Oath, is, that private Subjects have a Right to Swear, and pay that Allegiance, which the Estates have thus fixed: And here also we must distinguish between the Intentions of Judgements, and Acts of Parliaments in all those Parts, Points, and Articles, which the Subject Swears nothing to, and those particular words, or points, which are directly set in the Oath, and so proposed to common Observation. For the former only oblige the Conscience of the Subject to exterior and civil Duties, without involving any interior Censure, or Sense, upon the Moral Integrity, and Conscience of our Masters. But an Oath, asserting the Moral Justice of Humane Intentions, or Procedures, is a dangerous snare in all Cases above a Man's understanding, liable to debate, doubt, or question, as all public Politics generally are, especially with the Vulgar. And if a Man may be allowed with Modesty to guests at the Piety of his Superiors, it seems it is such a snare, as the Parliament never intended to lay for themselves, and therefore not for us, for whom they must have began the Example. For 'tis rational to believe, that most of the Members, that really were of, and for the Opinion de Jure, as well on their Majesty's Measures, as their own in this Settlement, would not willingly have Sworn that Right absolutely, tho' they would have Sworn their belief of it. For Matters of Fact, of which alone, we can be certainly conscious, either by our outer, or inner Senses, are the only proper Matter of Assertions, and especially legal Depositions. But Points of Law and Right, concerning Matters of Fact, are more remote from that evidence and clearness of Sense and Perception, than to be given upon Oath; and are delivered by Courts as Judicial Opinions only, that pass into a Civil Effect, tho' the Judges (if put to it) would not always (not any time willingly) Swear the Infallibility of such Judgements, especially the doubtful, or dissenting Judges, against their own private and personal apprehensions. Thus then in Parliament the Matters of Fact appeared evident enough to the Houses; but the Points of Law, arising upon the Facts, underwent much and long discussion, upon which at last the Judgement for Abdication, and an actual vacancy passed; so that in their Opinion they for their part, might in that State of Affairs, proceed to this Settlement, and upon these Opinions they acted, as taking them for True, Legal, and Right. Yet, considering that most of both Houses were not Lawyers, it is not imaginable, that they could willingly have Sworn the certain and absolute Rectitude of these Opinions, especially they, who were of contrary Sentiments, but overruled by the majority. And hence the Assertion of Right was rejected from the Oath. And I wish all Projectors of Oaths in points of Law, Title, and matters without our reach or power, would follow, and reverence the Exemplary Wisdom, and Tenderness of our Parliaments herein, that no tricks, nor traps may be laid for Consciences in a State, and Age, in which we have given them so profuse a liberty. But to return from this Progression; the alteration from the old, or last Form, made in this Oath by the designed omission of asserted Right, argues an intentional discharge of that difficulty, or doubt, in this present Oath, which has nothing in it Testimonially affirmative of other men's Morals, but only promissory of each Man's legal Subjection, which implies no positive Assent to the Moral Justice of the Constitution. For Allegiance is not only personal, but local also, due in great measure, as well from Foreign Sojourners, as from Natives, and what may be as well required upon Oath of Strangers during there abode here, who yet however, are not engaged to maintain the real Rectitude of our Establishments. And tho' a Native Allegiance be a closer, and more perpetual Tie to several especial Offices and Duties, yet while the Form of its Engagement is purely promissory, it obliges us to look back to no further dark Originals, than the legal Forms of actual Settlement, and Recognition. So Sheriffs by their Oath, are obliged to Execute Royal and Judicial Orders and Decrees of State, and Courts in legal Forms directed to them, yet do they not Swear the Rectitude of all such Mandates, or Judgements, (which they Swear to Execute) tho' declared right by the Superior Authorities. So a Tenant, Swearing Homage and Fealty to a new Landlord obtaining by Law, doth not assert the reality of his Right, tho' the Jury in Verdict Swear it to be his in their Judgement, and the Judges give Judgement accordingly upon sworn Engagements to Justice. For the Tenant may justly suspect the Errors or Injustice of the Process, even while he Swears the Fealty, because his Oath is not concerned in, or depends on the Original Merits of the Cause, but the legal Forms of Judicial Assignation. But if you will take Rightful and Lawful, for mere Civil and Regular forms of Introduction, I will grant you, that an Oath of Native Allegiance, imports an acknowledgement of such a kind of Rightful and Lawful Settlement, and Form of Title. To conclude this Discourse, since Intentions do not explain the words they utter, but words intentions; especially in obliging and legal Formularies of Contracts, we are obliged to no more by them, than their express words do openly propose to our apprehensions, and so pass all Judgements in Law, upon Pleas of Contract, according to this Rule of expounding Words, Oral, or Written, in Bargains, Testimonies, and Covenants. If then a Recognition, or Assertion of Right, be not expressly tendered in the very words of the Oath, or jointly with it, by some determinate Rule of Explication, we are not concluded in such Oath, to such an Assertion, much less, if such Assertion be openly excluded from the Oath, to prevent suspicion. But let us see, whether the Assertion of Right, so manifestly precluded, be yet tricked into the Oath by any surreptitious Implication: Now if it be so, it must be involved, either in the Style of King and Queen, or in the Terms of Faith and Allegiance; but neither can be justly pleaded, since the known Judicial distinction of Kings de facto, and de jure, shows the Title to be in common given both to those, who come in without any violation of our Laws, and so are in Right, and to others, who have injuriously got, without any antecedent legal Capacity, into the legal Forms of Settlement, and so are in Fact only Kings. And true Faith and Allegiance, is by our Laws always given in the same, or like promissory Forms of Oath to the mere Kings in Fact, as well as others: But this is not all; I will further ex abundanti show you, that this closeness to the mere Sense of express words, is the interpretative Rule of obligation in Oaths, and Contracts, not only by the Laws and Reason of Mankind in common, but is particularly justified by precedents in the Divine History on the sacred Judgement of God's own People. The Case I refer to, is mentioned, Judges 21. There the Israelites in Mizpeth make this Oath, There is not any of us shall give his Daughter unto Benjamin to wife. Here by the word Us, they intent all the People beside the Benjamites, as presuming all the rest engaged there against Benjamin, and really intending that Benjamin henceforth, should never have one Wife from among the rest of Israel. After this, it appeared, that the Men of Jabesh Gilead, had not concurred in that Expedition, and therefore they destroyed all the Jabesites, except the Virgins, and these they gave for Wives, to Benjamin contrary to their real Intention in the making that Oath. Now what shall be said hereupon? Did they violate the Oath of God, or take upon them in their Sanhedrin, to dispense with it on a reserved Right of the Imposers? No, there was yet no Popery, nor such dispensing Power under that Pontificate. For it appears by their Care in a second instance, that they were very tenderly sensible of their indissoluble obligation by the Oath, nor does the Scripture Censure them for any such prevarication. How shall we then untie this Knot? Thus, whereas they had sworn None of us, it was literally interpretable to a valid Obligation on those only, (and their Daughters) who were actually present, or engaged in that War; so that the Jabesites, tho' at first comprised in the general design and intention, on presumption of their Concurrence, yet in fact not being engaged, were easily judged not actually included in the Oath, as not really being within the express term of the Us in Mizp●h. Moreover the Jabesites did not give their own Daughters, as being all before 〈…〉 the Elders gave them; and herein they, that gave them, gave not their own particular Daughters; and they were given, though not as the Daughters of mere Heathens, yet as Daughters of Men aliened by the public Anathema and excession from God's People, and so not of the Us, collectively taken for the united Community or Society of the Children of Israel. Thus not all intentions had in the conception of this Oath did oblige, but only what the Words thereof did expressly include. Again, when this Expedient was found insufficient for the surviving Benjamites, a further Consultation arises in the Sanhedrin, how to furnish them with Wives consistently with their Oath. And at length they find this lawful Evasion from, and contrary to their first intention. They direct the Benjamites to surprise their Daughters in the Dances of Shiloh, and promise to pacify the Parents and Kindred of the surprised Damosels. And herein they judged themselves free from Perjury, because the natural Parents did not give their respective Daughters, nor did the Sanhedrin manually deliver them as the Daughters of the People, but only contrived, directed, consented to, and after confirmed the Surprise. Which shows, that in the sense of that sacred Court, Oaths do not tie the Conscience beyond the necessary Sense of the Words, tho' more be actually intended by the Persons instituting, and taking the Oath in their first Conception. And then the Rule holds much more clear, when the Swearer intends no more than the words simply signify, and is directed by the very Imposers to use that freedom, and discharged from all other collateral, or consequential Constructions as we are by the rejection of the Proposals for an Assertion of Right. But I presage, that all this procedure of the Sanhedrin, or my Accounts of it, will pass with you for pretty juggling, who are so dextrous and hardy to reproach whole Nations, as if you had been another Elias; tho' herein I would advise you to premit your Reasons to your Censure. In the Interim we will in the third place ascend to their Majesty's intention herein. Of which I shall in general say, that no Man can evince, that they intended any more in their imposition of the Oath than the Estates; but if they did, those personal intentions came not into the Act, or Oath, and so can be of no public cognisance, or obligation, the Oath being made to satisfy their Majesty's intentions indeed, as far as they were uniform with the intention of the Estates, but no further, or otherwise. And the Estates did indeed desire to satisfy their Majesties as far as justly they could without crucifying the Conscience of the Subject which could contribute nothing to the interest of their Majesties, nor to the Honour of their Tenderness and Clemency. So that the Question properly is, whether the joint and complex intention of their Majesties, and the Parliament in the Oath was, That we should judge them to be a King and Queen that had no Right? And here I answer, that they never intended, that we should deny the Right of their Title in Thought, Word, or Deed. Nay, I add, that in the Recognition they designed to create an Opinion, and Belief in us of their Majesties Right, as far as the public Judgement of a Nation can morally conduce thereunto; and also to silence all Tongues, and Pens to the contrary; but of what they gently willed Men to believe, they did not presume to require a peremptory Oath, through their excessive Tenderness for liberty of Conscience. Now the intention we are upon, by the good leave of the Syllogism, is not the inclining will to persuade us to a Belief, nor the authoritative will of silencing contradictions, but that will which imposes the Oath, i. e. what they willed, and intended peremptorily to be sworn? And this does not import so much as an assent, or Belief, much less an absolute assertion de Jure, tho' King William is de Jure in the public Judgement of the Nation. And what ground have you to fancy that this is not satisfactory to their Majesties? Their Right is publicly recognized, a full Allegiance of the Subject upon Oath given, with sufficient Laws for the Coercion of Recusants, and all that is necessary to secure them in the Throne; and can you dare to say, they are not hereby satisfied, because every Man is not bound to swear the Jus, which many feeble Senses may not understand? I hope you never heard of any Complaint made hereupon by their Majesties, and if not, 'tis a bold and indecent Suggestion to object, or surmise it; but the most frontless rudeness of all is, to say, that the Nation was Tricked, and open Nonsense to assert this of a project of concealing an intention of Right, in words, which you say manifestly include it.  Dyscher. 
No doubt both Parliaments had the same intention; and the Recognition was but a fuller Declaration of the Sense of the former Parliament in the Constitution. And for such Bodies to ensnare us to a Belief of K. William's Right, while we are taking Oaths to him, is, if not to command, yet to insinuate Perjury; since they, that are hereby tricked into that Opinion, intent the assertion of it in the Oath; and the Opinion of Right being the Public Doctrine, the public taking of the Oath, without an express Denial of the Right, doth either really, or seemingly, at least import an Assertion of Right, and so gives a just Scandal to all Men of Integrity, as looking like an Exemplary consent to, and Profession of the Right, and is as Exemplary a Snare to the Consciences of the Ignorant. 
* T. B. Sec. Lett. p. 22.  For has not William ravished away the Rights of all the Royal Heirs in Being? Has he not violated the standing Laws of our Succession in seizing the Crown before his time?  Eucher. 
To humour you for once, let us suppose, that K. William and Q. Mary had violated the Laws of Succession, and so were not every way de Jure Sovereign; yet the Assertion of Right being rejected at the framing of the Oath, a little Care will remove all prejudices in ourselves, and others, by observing that we swear no more than was expressly imposed in the form of the Oath, with an explicit exclusion of that Assertion of Right; and that other points, and Acts consequent fall not under our intention, by the will of the imposers against their Will. But 'tis in truth a bold thing, but like you, to take it for evident, that their Majesties have broken the Laws of Succession, when the whole Kingdom hath judicially determined otherwise. 'Tis indeed possible for a public Opinion to be Erroneous, and a private one on the contrary true; yet nothing but an undeniable (as it were Meridian) Evidence must practically confront a public Opinion against its Civil efficacy, which I suppose you have not gotten against the Civil Judgement de Jure. I will not here proceed on such Originals of Royal Title, as will justify Changes of Kings every day; I will not cast in my Lot, nor mix my Counsels with those seditious Men, who by cajoling the Subjects into false Notions and aims of Power, coke's them thereby into endless Ruins and Commotions. I will only follow the good, Ancient, and constant Rules of Order, Peace and Righteousness, which alone can make us an happy People, and Advocate for their Majesty's Innocency toward these. The ordinary Rule of Succession I still grant you to be Lineal, or properly Hereditary; so that if a Prince's Tenure be extinct by Death, or otherwise, the next Heir of ordinary Course should succeed. But if a Question arise upon the Tenure, whether permanent, or cessant in a state of Anarchy and actual vacancy in the Throne, or who is the next Heir, this is most properly determinable by the Estates of the Kingdom, as being our Masters and trusties, to oblige, and direct our Allegiance. Here than they judged King James' Tenure cessant by a virtual Abdication, and the Princess of Orange the next Heir. But considering the then state of Affairs, they judged it absolutely lawful and necessary for the time being, with the smooth concession of the two next Heirs apparent, to invest the Order during the Prince's Life. It was therefore changed but not violated, and a temporary Change in the Course was admitted to secure the true Descent in a just Line for ever, as appears by the settled and determined Series of Successors.  Dyscher. 
Very well; I see you and your Estates make nothing of the Prince of Wales. But your Prince of Orange had before not only assaulted our Law, but overturned the Government, and the Sovereign too; and can you say, that he violated not our Laws in his way to the Crown?  Eucher. 
The Prince of Orange being no Subject of England, the process of his Expedition was in him no violation of Duty by him owing to our Laws, which is the only form of Gild that could have attainted his Right. If then he cannot be charged with the breach of Civil Duties incumbent on him, he is not incapacitated of Rights by any passages in that Expedition. But moreover he came to preserve our Laws and Forms, Liberties, and Religion, when they were all in a fervent Course of subversion. And therefore, tho' during his Marches, the Execution of the Laws for the time being was interrupted in particular Cases, and Military Officers were by him constituted in the Countries, through which he passed, all this was necessary, as methods of Medicine for the time to recover the diseased state of the Patient, to the Ancient vigour of its Laws, and soundness of Constitution. But when King James left the languishing Nation unhealed, the Prince left all to be legally Cured, and firmly settled to the great Council of the Land; that so no Man might have a Colour for Complaint; that he affected our Conquest, Vassalage, or Suppression in our Civil Rights by any Arbitrary Power. For which great Service they found out a fair way, without Violence to any ones Right, to gratify, and honour him with the Crown, or rather to secure all we had by such a Constitution. If then the Prince of Orange was no Subject, nor Enemy to the Nation, but Friend, and Patron to us, and our Laws, how can he be charged with an injurious violation of them? And her present Majesty, tho' more obliged to her Husband than her Father by the ties of Nature, being a Native of England (and so the King's Subject in this Land) never appeared here to disturb her Father, or break her Native Allegiance. But when her Father had fled out of the Kingdom from before her Husband, as not daring to abide a Parliamentary discussion of their Causes, and the Estates of the Nation determined to settle her Highness with her Husband in this Sovereignty, she, being thereupon sent to, comes over, and accepts that Settlement, which the Nation thought so just and necessary, and to which (as such) the Princess Ann conceded without any Remonstrance. So that neither can her present Majesty, be charged with any breach of our Constitutions herein, which might obstruct her Civil Title of being Queen de Jure, upon the Session of her Father, and her next Place in the Succession. Which is I think so fair a Plea for the Recognition de Jure, that if it cannot annihilate all prejudices to the contrary in all Persons, yet is a just Reason to inhibit Contradictions in private Men, who have very little Authority to Censure Public Counsels and Determinations. But tho' we have thus defended the Title de Jure, yet, as I said before, we were not obliged to Swear it. Nor did I ever hear of any Courts, that loaded the Oath with such an Assertion of Right, when their directive Judgements were required thereupon.  Dyscher. 
This last is a lucky Hit. I am glad you have awakened my Memory of some of your former Passages upon Interpretations of Courts, for which you ought to be a little chastised. For you say, 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 10.  That if they took not the Oath as the Parliament intended, they took it as directed by their Majesty's Judges. What? did their Majesty's Judges direct the Oath to be taken otherwise than as the Parliament intended? I desire that may be made out. Did they do it judicially in Court? I think that will not be so much as pretended. If it be, I desire to know when, where, and how. If you say, that a Judge did only discourse it privately, that is no more than if any private Man had said so. But to take off the pretence of this Salvo, the Judges are not, nor do pretend to be the Imposers. And the Imposers (King William and Queen Mary and both Houses of Parliament) have declared what their Sense of the Oath is, viz. that King William and Queen Mary, are King and Queen de Jure. M. S. Reflex.  Eucher. 
This is no fairer in one respect, than it is convincing in any. For you repeat me, as if I had asserted some general Sense of the Judges, given to the Nation, plainly contrary to the Sense of the Parliament, according to which Judicial contrary Sense, all Conformists had Sworn; and so require me to make this out. But my Senses are not so easy to be imposed on in my own Sentiments. My Discourse therefore, was 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 9, 10.  of the Senses of some particular Courts, given, or admitted to particular Persons upon occasional Consultations. And I allege, that these Persons, who were allowed an innocent Sense to Swear to, did not prevaricate with the State, tho' the Courts perhaps had really misinterpreted the Law. But so far am I from the positive Charge of any Court herewith, that I profess, I neither know, nor believe any Court to have incurred such a failure, tho' this I have heard some of them burdened with, by some of your greatest Worthies. And upon supposition of Truth in that impu●●tion, I yet assumed the Cause of the Swearers, notwithstanding such supposed Error in such Courts, according to whose Interpretation of the Oath if they Swore, they could not be perjured, or prevaricate. For tho' the Judges of those Courts, be not the Legislative, yet are they Ministerial, and Executive Imposers, Judges, and Interpreters for the Legislative, to particular Persons, on all emergent Questions in Law; and what they herein do is valid to all Civil Constructions, and Effects, and to be taken as their Majesties own legal determinations, of whom you too unwarily, as well as untruly, say, that they and the Parliament have declared the Assertion, or sense de Jure to be in the Oath; for tho' that be the recognized Sense of their Title, yet it is not their declared Sense of the Oath. Which being cleared, I need no Succour from the private Opinions of any Judges out of Court, of which I made no mention; which can indeed have no judicial obligations; tho' by your Favour they may be of great weight to the satisfaction, or Ease of a doubting Conscience towards its Conformity with the Laws.  Dyscher. 
Indeed if the real Sense of the Imposer could be avoided, and what Sense others please, imposed, the Oath might be taken in a thousand several Senses, and not one come up with the Sense, and design of the Imposers, which in this Case always is the security of the Government. Besides a thousand other Mischiefs would follow vacating all Oaths, and destructive to all Governments, and Human Society. For if Oaths may be thus eluded, Promises and Contracts would soon follow their Fortune, as being less Sacred. Now Sir, you would do well to answer these, and the like Reasons, before you so peremptorily assert any inferior Courts to be the Authentic Interpreters of Public Oaths. You had best have a care that you be not followed with a Cry of Privilege of Parliament. And indeed that Legislative power is little better than Ridiculous, which may be authentically evaded, and be made quite another thing by the inferior Ministers of it. And after all, the Interpretations of those Courts will not excuse you from insincerity, and prevaricating with the State, as you seem to fear. For if those Courts did give a lower, and more easy Sense than could reasonably be thought was in ended by the Imposers, you ought not to catch at that for an Advantage, which they had no power to give. Nor ought you to join with them in eluding the Oath, but to take care of yourselves, that they neither cousin you, nor you others. For an Oath ought to be taken in Judgement, Truth, and Righteousness, in all which points you will fail, if you take this Course. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 27.  Eucher. 
One would think by this clamour, that I had laid Gunpowder for the ruin of the whole World, to which however I dare appeal for my Innocency. First then, if the Sense of the Imposer be in all Cases uncapable of ambiguity with even the meanest, or unskilled People, than I confess my self on the wrong side of the Hedge. But you were best have a care of asserting this, lest you draw upon you the general Cry of Westminster-Hall. If then some words in any enacted Formulary happen to become ambiguous to particular private Subjects, which are clear enough in themselves, to Men of Judgement in such matters, must the inferior Court, where these Forms are administered, resolve the Sense of the Law upon Questions therein moved, or no? If not, they are no Court of Justice to direct the Subject in his Civil Duties, Rights or Obligations. If it must determine such Questions, than that resolution must pass for Law to all Civil Effects upon that particular Case, till reversed. But whereas all Courts are subject to a possibility of Error, especially where the Case is rare, or intricate, or the Courts through haste or heedlessness, take not the matter into sufficient Consideration, if such mistake judicially pass, yet is it formally valid in Law. But such Cases rarely happen, and the ambiguities of form Words in short Oaths, Contracts, or Declarations cannot be many, or manifold, except we fancy them made on purpose to puzzle our Faculties, and Consciences both together. And now I would fain have you produce any such short Oath liable to your thousand wrong Senses. In our Oath the only Question is, what it is to bear true Faith and Allegiance? This Courts generally interpret faithful performance of all those Duties, which the Laws of our Subjection require to our actual Sovereigns, the particulars of which are determined by our Common, and Statute Laws. Now to exercise your Skill, I pray make a brisk Essay of fixing one half thousand Senses of these words alien from this Explication, which has been given by several Courts. Or if your Courage lours herein, I pray show this very interpretation to be either insidious, or erroneous. But whereas you think the Errors of Inferior Courts may vacate all Contracts, and Authorities; I had provided an Atlas to support them against this Ruin, had you thought it considerable, when I offered you this Maxim, 
* Sol. & Ab pag. 10.  that in such emergent Cases, What such particular Courts determine, must be taken for Law till condemned by a Superior Court, or nulled by the Legislative, which will secure our Lawgivers from the Ridicule, and leave that Character to its own Proprietors. As dismal a Speculation is that, which you raise about Courts, and Swearers Clubbing together to elude the Oath, which amounts to this importance, viz. If a Knave ask a whole Court of Knaves, to play the Knave, in interpreting the Oath, and the authorised Knaves have no more Wit, nor Honesty but to do so, than the suborning or Consulting Knave, finding their Judicial Knavery, must be converted to Honest of a sudden, and take no advantage of their Knavery, but tell them they are arrant Knaves, ay, that they are. For such I dare swear is the Judicial Interpretation of your Mystery. But a plain unintriguing Head would have thought, that I had spoken of Honest Men of tender Conscience, consulting the Sense of Courts, from the just Information and Direction thereof, upon their doubts concerning the intention of the Oath. And as such a Man would use no Arts to Corrupt a Court, so could he not easily conceive their Opinion fallacious. And after all, if he judged it good, he would approve it, if naught, reject it; if probable, accept it as legal: But if a Man knew the Sense before, he had no need to try, or tempt the Judgement of a Court, nor ought he to follow it into Immorality, if he knows it false. And I surely never told you, that a Man, conscious of Error, or Prevarication in a Court, might have an Advantage to elude, but in doubtful Senses to follow that, which the Court has given to honest and innocent purposes. And all my 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. pag. 9, 10. Several Courts have given, and admitted such Senses, as the most tender Recusant might have sworn to. What prevarication is there in these tender Consciences, that Religiously took care to have an innocent Sense authoritatively admitted, on which and no others they would take the Oath? If these Men had made reservations in the Oath they took, Insincerity might have been justly chargeable on them. If their Majesties by their Courts declared their Sense, in passing the Act, in favour to all innocent and tender Consciences, I hope it was no insincerity to accept that lenity and Ease.  Discourse ran upon the supposed tenderness and innocency of the Swearers in such Consultations. Next I took care also for the Innocency and Reputation of 
* Ibid. Whether Courts prevaricate in their judgements, or no, private Persons cannot judge to any Civil effect, or Obligation.  the Courts too, against all Calumnies upon their Judgements in such Cases given. And yet all this was purposely overlook by you, that so you might revile the innocent tenderness of Men, and Courts, with the imputations of Fraud and Villainy. And yet after all this Rant, you yourself seem to grant, that Men might admit a probable Interpretation, when you say, If the Court give a lower and more easier Sense of the Oaths, than could reasonably be thought was intended by the Imposers, you ought not to catch at that for an Advantage. So than what Interpretation the Swearer thinks reasonably given, he may Swear to, if the Subject matter of the Oath so interpreted to him, seem lawful. Nay, if a Man doubts the exactness of an Interpretation, may he not tell the Court his suspicion of their Error, but let them know that since their Opinion is authentic, and the Oath which they accept for their Majesties, under that Interpretation, contracts no Evil, he thereupon takes in their Sense, as judicially Legal and no other? This I think is no Cozening of the State in the Swearer, but a fair sincerity before God, and the World, and answerable at any Tribunal whatsoever. Have you any thing more to say upon this Point?  Dyscher. 
My Friend T. B. suggested no more matter of Arguments to me hereupon; but only huffed and laid about him, what that innocent Sense might be, and the double boiled Crambe of Swearing to Usurpers to maintain their Usurpations, that while you make such a Pother about Senses, your Conscience lies snarling within, as he does without, when he scorns your Pity, and styles you meek Forswearers, meek Rebels, meek Traitors, meek Turks, meek Jews, meek Renegadoes, and taxes your Merciless Highpriest for want of Bowels to a poor Boy, whom, it seems, some of his Party had employed in carrying Seditious Libels. I will not tell you the manner of his Fury, but it so startled me, that I thought verily I must have sent for the Doctor. Ser. J. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 27, 28.  Eucher. 
But what say you to the danger of the Law, even when King James returns, if you treasonably break your Allegiance to King William?  Dyscher. 
In this I find you are a Man tam Marti, quam Mercurio, otherwise called an Ambidexter. For if you cannot persuade us, you will affright us into the Oath, or any thing else. For you endeavour to possess us with an Opinion, that King James (if ever he returns) will hang all them that do not Swear and pay Allegiance to William. An hard Case, that a Man can't be Wise and Honest without Hanging! But why this extreme Severity? Why? Because the Lineal Heir may hang a Man as a Traitor for breach of Allegiance to an extralineal King. Well but if King James should hang up all that did not pay Allegiance to William, one would think he should not spare those, who would not pay Allegiance to himself, and this would make clear Work. When Edward the Fourth first joined Battle against Henry the Sixth, did not you think this would have made a powerful Speech for him to his Soldiers; Gentlemen, go on courageously, your Cause is good, the Crown is evidently my Right; and if I can recover it by your assistance, I will certainly hang you up every Man for fight against the extralineal King, Henry Sixth, who here appears in the Field against us, and keeps me from it?— Sir I do not believe there is any Law to hang a Man for Loyalty, and of all Men living I least fear it from King James, T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 30. And I appeal to yourself, whether you can believe that Interpretation you put upon our Laws, 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 12.  viz. That King James may Hang Men as Traitors for breaking their Allegiance to King William? This is the same, as if King Charles the Second should have Hanged Men as Traitors to the Commonwealth of England, who restored him to his Crown. M. S. Reflex. But in Truth, all this Hanging stuff seems to have another Design, not to tell what K. James may do, but what you would have others to do, as if they were excusable for any severity towards those, who deny them that, for which even King James himself may punish them. It is a pious hint to your Government, and your Mob. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 30.  Eucher. 
I was willing to have saved you, if it had been possible, out of Error, that so I might have kept you out of Danger. But if there be no such Danger, I am very glad of it. What King James will do I am no Arbiter, nor did I ever assume upon me to discover his Intentions. I only minded you what by our Laws he may do, if you are guilty of Treason against Allegiance required by our Laws to the present Sovereign. But you, according to the sincerity of a Zealot, repeat me to have said, that King James may hang you for not taking the present Oath, that I may stir up the Powers, and Mobb to do so presently. But I thank God for your sake, that tho' the Laws are severe upon unhappy Clergymen, that cannot conform to the Oath, yet such Recusancy does not by any Law make Men Traitors, as not being made Treason. If you live otherwise quietly, and contrive no Seditions, neither I, nor the Laws can touch your Lives, either now, or hereafter in any Revolution. But if you will incur Treason against extralineal Kings, the Law since Henry the Seventh may be in force against you, under the recovered Reign of the Lineal, however they stood in the Days of Henry the Sixth. 'Tis true, Heirs Lineal, that promote such Treasons, may, and no doubt always do stake Faith and Troth, not only to indemnify, but prefer their Adherents. But in Edward the Fourth's Age and Army, the Soldiers were not Lollards and Heretics, with whom the most Holy See, and the more Holy Society will keep no Faith, especially to secure and secure their Heresy. He that hath seen what has been, may easily see what will be, if he will not shut his Eyes. 
* See the state of the Protestants in Ireland under the late King James. And in England, among all other advances, remember the Fanatic Commissions for enquiry into past, tho' legal, Prosecutions against Conventicles, on purpose to enrage them to join their Skeems with the Papists, to cut our Throats, who had but just before saved the Kings own Throat from the same Hands.  But if the Old prudent Caution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will produce no faith in you, I leave you to your own Paradise Dreams, and Dotages; since the sagacious Observation of the Poets never quadrated so well to any person, or purpose as me and mine upon this occasion, invitum qui servat, idem facit occidenti. And yet for all my good will, the sport you make with me, in your Edward the Fourths Martial Oration, exposes your Principles perhaps more than my Law. For by the strai●s you have made upon the Duties of Christian subjection, which Custom has named Passive Obedience, Edward the Fourth's Soldiers had been bound to have fought for him, tho' he had made them such an Oration, which could not have been imprudent upon your Principles of Christian Loyalty. But if such an Oration would have justified the consequent Revolt, or recession of his Army, then is this Nation, and all the Protestants of King James' Army justified in their leaving him, and going over to the Prince, since his assumed Dispensing Power, and superlative Prerogatives, the Obedience contracted to the Sec of Rome, and the Society of Jesus, and all his hasty steps he made to the dissolution of our Laws, Liberties, and Religion, were a Proclamation as fatal to this Kingdom, and his Protestant Soldiers, as the Speech you have framed for King Edward. And they took the Language and intention of his Actions accordingly, as if he had said; My Protestant Nobles, Clergy, Magistrates, Officers, and Soldiers, do you actually fight for me, execute all my Commands, be passive under all my Contrivances against your Religion, Laws, and Liberties, and when I have gained my ends, I'll make you all sworn Slaves, and Papists, or else I●le melt your Grease for you. But to return from this pertinent Sally; as to the Law, that I set it rightly, as it stands at this Day from a long Descent, is notorious to the World, from the Judicial and received Determinations in Parliament, and the King's Courts, so often pleaded, and alleged by the Advocates for our present Allegiance, to whom, and to whose Originals I therefore refer you. Only I think fit here to relate the yet unpublished sense of a most judicious and excellent Person, sent me before any Prints appeared on this Subject. His words are these; What I principally insist on is, That our Law requires Subjection, and Obedience to the Powers in being. To prove this, I shall here set down the words of Sir Edward Coke, and in the Margin note the Authorities to which he refers. Sir Edward Coke, speaking of the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third concerning Treason, saith, that this Statute is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom. 
Vid. 11. Hen. 7. c. 1.  For if there be a King Regnant in possession, altho' he be Rex de Facto, & non de Jure, yet is he Signior le Roy, 
4 Edw. 4.1 Instit. part. 3. fol. 7.  within the Purview of this Statute. And the other, that hath Right, and is out of Possession, is not within this Act. Nay, if Treason be committed against a King de Facto, & non de Jure, and after the King de Jure cometh to the Crown, he shall punish the Treason done to the King de Facto; and a Pardon granted by a King de Jure, that is not also de Facto (mark this, for it concerns the Nation against wheedling Declarations) is void. So to the same effect, Judge Hales his Pleas of the Crown. pag. 11. This Argument (saith my invaluable Friend) I take to be of great force; because the measures of Subjection are not the same in all countries', but must be taken from the Laws and Customs of every Country. Thus he. And if you will impartially reflect upon your own Words, in which you blame me for inferring, that King James, when he returns, may punish Men for breaking Allegiance to King William, these words concede it. For if you admit unto me a breach of Allegiance in facts committed against King William, you then presuppose an Obligation for Allegiance to him so broken; and to break a Duty is punishable by the penal Sanction, or virtue of that Law that makes it a Duty; and therefore if not punished, nor pardoned before the return of the King de Jure, he may punish it as a Crime against his Laws. And your taking the instance of the Oliverian Commonwealth to this your concession, impudently admits Allegiance due thereunto, and makes the Opposers thereof Traitors, and Legally punishable by King Charles the Second for High Treason. But in Truth, no Laws had engaged Allegiance to O. C., or his Commonwealth, as they have to King's de facto. And moreover if the Estates themselves in free and (at that time, and case extraordinary) legal Parliament upon the antecedent Expiration, and in utter Renunciation of that Commonwealth, and all other Forms of Democracy recalled him, it had been Treason to have opposed, and Loyalty to have concurred in that their Restitution. But I stated the Case of O. C. so clearly in our last Conference, that I fancy it beyond the power of T. B. himself, as spiteful as he is, to parallel the Tenure of O. C. with that of King William, whatsoever he may without Argument rant and rave to the contrary. As for the Reproach of stirring up the Powers, or the Mob against you, I reply, that you prevent me in that Intrigue yourselves; and I will give you any Form of Security, either Sacred, or Secular, upon Soul, or Body, or Goods, that I will never provoke them against you, as much as yourselves have done, and still, for aught I see, persevere to do.  Dyscher. 
We are very luckily fallen in again, upon the mention of O. C.'s Authority and Settlement over us. I pray let us review that Article. For tho' T. B. for want of Argument, cries out stark shame upon you, and is once (oh wonder!) ashamed for you (in such a sort of Civility as he never vouchsafes himself, how much soever he needs it) because you will not be confuted by his Brass and Impudence, and our Learned Pens, I will see what Grace may be wrought in you by some Impartial Reflections of a softer Metal, but of great weight. You make a pretty sort of disparity between the Tenure and Settlement of King William and O. C. 
* Sol. & Ab. g. 12, 13.  Because O. C. was not King; as if the Charm lay in a word. Call him Hospador, if you will, for me. Is not the Duke of Muscovie King of that Country, because he is called Duke? It is the Authority and Power we are speaking of, not by what Names it is called M. S. Reflex.  Eucher. 
I took myself for a Conjurer, nor will I endeavour to enchant you with words instead of things, since your Temper will not hearken to the voice of the Charmer, charm he never so wisely. And therefore without troubling the Peace of that great Duke, you may please to remember, that there is an old, received, and approved distinction between the Titles, and Characters of King, and Tyrant. The former, is he that Reigns according to the Laws, and Forms of Civil Constitutions, and his Character, and Authority, is Grateful, and Honourable. The latter, Rules by mere force, oppression, and bondage, without any Civil Form of Tenure, or Settlement, by a power only potential, not potestative, and therefore without a proper Authority. And this Character is in most especial manner given to Usurping Rebels, as well as to Foreign Invaders; to destroy which Tyrants, the Universal Sense of Nations ever judged it lawful, because they have no Form of Title, but that of the Sword, Violence, and forcible Entry. Now King William holds this Sovereignty by the former legal way of National Contract, and Civil Establishment; but O. C. had not other Mode of Profession, but Tyrannical; and so had no legal (which is the only Form of) Authority. And yet beside, perhaps the very Style of King is necessary to the real Sovereigns of England, in order to their Claims of Allegiance, by virtue of the old Oath and Laws; tho' when new Laws and Constitutions extinguish the old, a new Allegiance may be due to a new Sovereign under any other Titular Style. But if this Style be thus necessary to oblige our Allegiance by the old Laws, then for want of that very Character, no Allegiance was due to O. C. by our old Laws, which was the first thing in question. But then I proceeded further, and shown, 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 12, 13.  that he had no legal Form of Settlement in the Sovereignty by any other Laws, to which I refer your Memory and Consideration. For the improvement of which I will further demonstrate, that he was no King, either in Name, or Thing. For first, he was Created even by his own Faction, not Sovereign, but Protector only of the People. And that Office was not Royal, as appears by the third and fourth Articles of the Instrument of his Government, instituted by his Officers first, and after again pretendedly confirmed by his pretended House of Commons, which he had first purged of all suspected Persons, and this, after he had refused the Style of King, which he saw would not pass Muster in his Army. Tho' therefore he Ruled by the force of his Confederacy, yet not as legal Sovereign, nor according to any Law, or lawful ●orm of Constitution, even in that false Authority. But if you will allow mere Force to be sufficient to a Settlement and Constitution, than all the little Elves and Goblins of Power, that after him pretended to sit at Helm in the whole course of those Changes, till the Return of the Royal Family, were all worshipful Mushroom Sovereigns forsooth. And what I have heard a Person of great Parts, Honour, and Authority, sometimes say, that though he is no very Old Man, yet he hath seen five and twenty Governments in England, was perhaps as severely true, as it seemed pleasantly spoken. Have you any more Straws to pick in this Matter, or will you dismiss me in peace?  Dyscher. 
No, no, Friend; you must not think to slip your Collar so. You say, that O. C. did not, and could not pretend a National Contract, as having no House of Lords, nor free House of Commons. Whatever he might do, I am sure, that he did pretend, that he was advanced to the Government, by the Consent and even Grant of the People of England. What was it else he did pretend? M. S. Reflex.  Eucher. 
Tho' I mentioned his Non-pretension, as well as incapacity to pretend a National Contract, to argue thence, that really he had none, yet the intended force of my Reasoning, lies in his real want of such Contract, of which his Non-pretension, in his Case, and care for Pretensions, is a Moral Argument. For had he really had it, the Civil effect had been the same without a Pretention, which alone can have no Civil Efficacy, or Obligation. But however, that I may not seem to neglect your Pretences, let us examine his. I allow therefore, that he made some Pretence, but none to the Lord's House, which he utterly cashiered, which yet however had been, and still is, necessary to a National Contract. I allow you also, that he pretended his Advancement by the People, as the word restrainedly signifies the Commons of England; and he had a small Colour for this, in the acknowledgement of the Usurping Pack, that pretended to sit for the Common People of England, against all the Laws and Rights of the People. And yet, had these been a free, fair, and full Representative, they could not have given O. C. a Legal Dominion over the superior Estate of Peers, because the Commons never had it themselves. But as the word People properly comprehends all subject Orders, Estates, or Persons of the Realm, so neither did, nor could he pretend an Advancement by the People. But the main point we are concerned in, and which you can say nothing for, pertinent to our Debate, is, to what State, Stile, or Character he was advanced, or pretended to be advanced by them, whom he called the People? Was it to a real Royal Sovereignty? No, no; his Mouth Watered, his Bowels hankered at it, but he was however forced to sit down, and pretend only to a Protectory Trust for the Commons of England.  Dyscher. 
This, I confess, reduces me to some difficulty and unexpected Surprise. Yet will I repeat to you the remainder of what my reflecting Friend remarked, that, in the next place for the justice of his pretence, that he had no House of Lords, I suppose he made that no pretence against himself, as you would have me believe. MS. Reflex.  Eucher. 
Truly I never persuaded, or tempted you to believe that O. C. made any pretence against himself: I only told you, that he neither did, nor could pretend the Contract of the Lords House; and can you prove the contrary?  Dyscher. 
But he did not think a Lords House necessary to make a National Representation. It could not be so originally. And therefore they as Lords are no Parties in the Original Contract. We know an 
* This is false, for there were near 200 excluded Members that could not sit to make it an entire House.  House of Commons hath Voted them useless. And at this Day the Lords do not pretend to the Right of granting away the Money of the People; And I suppose it is upon this Account, that they do not look upon themselves as the Representatives of the People. MS. Reflex.  Eucher. 
Here I think myself obliged to do your Party right, that these are not their common Sentiments. This was a singular Nostrum of your assuming Empiric, to heal a diseased Cause. But by the good leave of the Lords and Commons, whom I have no mind to set at variance, we will sift these odd Politics. Is it then first of all likely, that O. C. did not think a Lords House necessary to a National Contract? If he did, it's no matter, if he did not think them National Representatives. The Language of Men herein is various; many Men commonly assert the whole Parliament to represent the Nation, since what is Enacted by them and the King altogether is taken for the Act of the Nation. But strictly speaking, the Lords are no formal Representatives, nor did I ever say they were, tho' you would trump the term of Representation upon me, to ensnare me to a concession that the Lords represent. But I am not so to be tricked. I know the Lords to be an Estate Originally Principal, acting Personally for themselves in their own Right, and Name, not in the Name, or on the Mission of others; and under the King they are the upper part of the Parliament and People in the most comprehensive Sense of this word. But the lower House only are the Representatives of their Respective Counties, Cities, and Burroughs, in whose Name, and Right they Act for all the Commons of England. But if O. C. knew the Lords House necessary to the King himself to Enact the Bills even of the Commons into Laws, could he think them needless to the legitimating his Order, or his Acts? Surely he could not, except upon this one only supposition, that he thought nothing could legitimate it, which is indeed not improbable; but then that exauctorates the Commons also of that Power, by which he pretended himself advanced. But could O. C. otherwise think the Lords needless to his Legitimation, upon this empty and impertinent Speculation, that there could be no Lords in the Original Contract? Which can be true neither in any other sense but this, that in the first Constitution of Civil Government in this Land, there could be no House of Lords. No, verily; for before, or till then, they were in a mere rustic, Pastoral, and agricolarian Habit, Quality, and Condition. But since that there have been many Changes of Governments, and in them of Sovereigns, by National Contract. And hence, I say, ever since there have been Baronies, and Peerage in England, in every settled Change of Government, and Sovereigns, made by National Contract, the Lords were in those Acts that originated those Settlements, Titles, and Sovereigns, and so would have been originally necessary to an Original Contract for O. C's Constitution, though once in a state of Rebellion, a seditious Party of the Commons voted them useless. But I ask you fairly; Was that Vote of theirs Truth, or Law? If so, why have the Kings and Commons ever since admitted their Use, as well as Right? If not, why did you allege it in Bar to the Rights of Peer rage? But supposing that wicked Vote had been at that time true; yet who had made them so useless but they by seditious Violences? Now would you think it reasonable to cut off a Man's Hands, and then reproach him, and cast him out as useless? But I will beat back this dull Weapon on your own Head, and mind you, that these County, City, and Burrough-Charters of sending Representatives, could not be in the first Original Contract for Civil Government, as being also of later Extraction. So that upon your Theory, O. C. must think them also needless in order to his Constitution, who pleasantly new named Magna Charta, Magna F—ta. And so at last the Truth will come about unawares, that O. C. had not form of Title from King, Lords, or Commons of England. Again, if the Lords House should upon a critical Juncture turn Demagogue, and rabble the Commons out of Heart, and House, would it be fair for the Lords hereupon to vote them off as useless? 'Tis scandalous therefore to draw Arguments from Confessed and notorious Violences to justify a wrong Cause; and therefore henceforward give us in Truth, what you seem to Challenge and glory in, just Weights and Measures; at least be not so shamefully disloyal, as to dry up in the King that Fountain of Honour by which he Creates the Peerage, and who is the original Founder of all Charters. As for the Lords not assuming to give away the People's Money, as not being their Representatives, 'tis nothing to the purpose against their concurring Interest in Contracting for new Constitutions; tho' neither House can separately give away the People's Money, altho' those Bills are by regular custom prepared in the Lower House. Nor are these Rights of the Peerage so alien from the good of the general Body, but that we and the better part of the lower House have sensibly owed our Peace, and Preservation to the Integrity, Care, Wisdom, and Honour of that Upper House, when many of our own overheated Charioteers have been furiously driving on all to the Precipice.  Dyscher. 
We will then dismiss the Lords in peace, and come to the Commons, on whom O. C. relied, and Whereas you say, O. C. had not free House of Commons, I answer first, he did not pretend that, which is a sufficient Answer thereto. MS. Reflex.  Eucher. 
Are you awaked in good sober sadness, or have you almost talked yourself into sleep, and Dreams? For tho' your Answer be sufficient to some purpose, yet 'tis so to mine, not yours. For not having a just freedom, as well as Title to act for the Interest and Sense of the People, their Acts were not the Acts of the People, but either private Acts of Cowardice, or rather the Acts of him that forced or managed them to his own Counsels, and had no more legal validity, than what mere Force and Fraud could give them.  Dyscher. 
All that I will further say to this point, is, that they called themselves free, and no Man durst say the contrary. While they had the Power, O. C. owned them, and they owned him; and he had as Universal and seeming a Consent of the Nation, as can well be imagined; he was obeyed at home, and owned abroad, if not in all, yet in most of the Courts in Christendom.  Eucher. 
How your Discourse consents to itself, I do not well understand. Just now you said O. C. did not pretend to have a free House of Commons; now in the same Breath you say, they called themselves free, and no Man durst say the contrary, and O. C. owned them. Now did he own them to be free, as they called themselves? If so, than he pretended to have a free House of Commons contrary to what you say. If he did not own them as free as they owned themselves, he must then either not own them at all, or only as Vassals, and I leave it to your Choice to take either of those Handles, for there is no way to extricate you from the ties of Contradiction. But whatsoever freedom this knot of Men had, it could amount to no more than the freedom of Banditi, or Rapparees, or any unsuppressible Rout, which is but a mere impunity to do Evil, and wrong the innocent. But the freedom we are speaking of is Civil, consisting in the Popular liberty of Election, Session, Debates, and Votes. Yet the very House, that Constituted him Protector, was first purged of all suspected Members, and upon their after admission, his Constitution began to be questioned as much, and for this O. C. dissolved them in most sacred Rage. And for the truth hereof also I call in Testimony the Sense of the whole Nation, who, as soon as opportunity offered itself by Monk, declared for, and after met in a free Parliament, which before they had long wanted. And hence it appears also the Sense of the Nation, that neither the Rights of Peerage, nor the Freedom of Corporations had been Legally vacated by the former Tyranny. As for the Negotiations of Foreign Courts, they are no Demonstrations of a National Contract, or Form of Legal Settlement here. For as Foreigners are no Judges of our Tenors, so they meddle not with them, but only treat with the actual prevailing Powers, whether Legal or Usurpant, Tyrants or Rebels, it's almost all one to Strangers. They give them all good words to serve themselves of them, but if disgusted, they then change the Tune into all the juster Names and Titles of Oppression and Villainy, if they can do it safely. So that there is no concludency in this sort of Reasoning, tho' yet at the best, his Complices and Strangers owned him no otherwise than he styled himself, not the Sovereign, but the Protector only of the People. But the boldest stroke of all is, that he had as universal Obedience, and seeming a Consent of the whole Nation as can well be imagined. For the formal consent of both Houses, sitting free from terror, may easily seem, and be imagined much more properly, formally, and validly National, than mere enforced silence, and patience under irresistible domination. Nay, we as yet have no other way of National Consent but the Parliamentary, without which all Personal Contracts, or Engagements to intruding Powers are null, and not legally interpretable to any Civil Form, or Obligation, and so not to be drawn into a pretence for a National Consent. But now at last see, I pray you, the Issue of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and eager desire of Contention. For to make King William's Title no better, but worse than O. C's, to the end that the then legal and Loyal Recusancy may legalize this of yours, (which is the one and raging Clamour of you all) you forsooth outpitch yourself, and would prove O. C. fully settled by a N●tional Consent, as great as can well be supposed, and by the general acknowledgements of Foreign Courts to his real Sovereignty, tho' not nominally Regal. Now were this true, all the Loyal Worthies Recusant to O. C. are Condemned for Rebels by the Convocation Book. And then if O. C. were throughly settled upon such Acknowledgements at home and Abroad, much more is King William so, and consequently by the Rules of that Convocation, you must yield him your Allegiance. Thus Brother, in Politics, as well as Poetics, In vitium ducit culpae, fuga, si caret arte.  
Upon which let T. B. blush for you as well as for me, and then we shall be even.  Dyscher. 
Well then, let us pass from these Debates about the Oath to the Office of Prayers for your King William and Queen Mary against all their Enemies. Of which you tell us, 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 14.  That the Prayers were consented to by all the Recusant Bishops, and by them (
* [For their Officers] was a misprint.  or their Officers without any Prohibition) sent to the Clergy of every Diocese, and by them generally received. The Bishops were present at them, directed their Clergy upon Consultation to use them; and thus things stood till the Day of their Suspension, and no blowing of the Trumpet against Perjury. Now if this were true, yet if the Prayers are truly chargeable with something unlawful, and wicked; that is such a daring affront to God Almighty, that neither any Act, or Neglect of theirs can justify either your or my Concurrence in them. And therefore I wonder why you should make such a Lie, when it will not serve you for a Reason. For it is well known to all, who frequented their Communion, that they never read or used those Prayers, and that is no improbable Argument, that they neither consented to them, nor sent them abroad. But the truth is, that they were so far from either consenting to them, or sending them to their Clergy, that they had no opportunity of the thing, till it was done and passed. And whether some Body told you this Lie, or you made it yourself, if you please to consult the Printer in the Savoy,— he can tell you how they were sent, and who sent them, and that those whom you call Recusant Bishops, were purposely kept ignorant, that they might not be able to give any obstructions to the business. And now, Sir, do not you think, that you have acted a very mannerly Part to our Reverend Fathers, in exclaiming against them, and comparing them to winking Watchmen, and dumb Dogs, because they do not get up o'th' top of the Monument, and bawl out against a thing, which they knew nothing of? It could not be done before, and since it hath been cried out against sufficiently. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 31, 32.  Eucher. 
If what I said of the Bishops, or Clergy herein be a Lie, I own it to be as Villainous a Calumny as ever your malevolent Tongue, or Pen framed; but if it be true, I think it a just Plea, not to Reproach those excellent Fathers, God forbidden! but on an undoubted presumption of their Sincerity, to infer, that they then as well as we, did not judge those Prayers unlawful. And it is a fair Argument in Moral Charges, used and allowed by all Orators, that we had the Consent of those, who now dissent from us, if at least those Fathers do yet descent from us. But now I am brought in upon an uneasy Stage, upon which we are not so much to Argue, as to give and take the Lie; and not only so, but to be under Provocation to discover Secrets against Moral Inclination, or otherwise to undergo the Censure of a Lyar. Whether of the two Evils I shall choose I wots not well. Yet, let whatsoever Opinion fall upon me, I will never discover Persons, nor the tenth part of what I know in fact to be true herein, to prevent all Obliquities of Censure, and Reflection. But yet notwithstanding this necessary Civility, I think myself obliged to vindicate the Truth of what I have asserted. Immediately upon admission of their Majesties to the Throne, an Order of Council passed for setting their Names and Royal Character in the Liturgy instead of King James, and this Order was sent down to every See, and from thence to every Parish in all the Dioceses of England. Now can any Man think, that all this was done in Corners, and managed in the Dark, to keep the dissenting Bishops ignorant hereof, when it was impossible to conceal the Design from the Sense and expectation of the meanest Idiot, who must know, that the change of Sovereigns draws after it such a certain change in the Prayers? I cannot say this Order was sent directly to the Bishops by Name, but if not, it was to their Officers and Registers. And were they also so much in the Secret, as to keep their Watchful Lords in ignorance, and so closely to send the Form to the Cathedrals, and Parishes, that these deluded Fathers should know nothing of it? But when however these surprised Fathers were alarmed in their Cathedrals with these new wicked Prayers, why did they continue to frequent them, without sending the Classic to their Prohibition; till the Day of their Suspension in Aug. 89? And in that interval, administer the Sacrament at the Cathedral Altars, where these Sovereigns were then prayed for? Why hereupon had there not been some public Remonstrance to the Dioceses, or Rural Deaneries, that the Bishops knew nothing of that Order being sent them, and that they did not allow, but forbidden it by a firm Injunction? None of this was done to undeceive the Clergy, who received the Order as sent them by their Bishops. And I could produce you Instances of Recusant Clergymen, who then read those Prayers on that presumption, and allege it for their Apology, when Taxed hereof upon their present inconformity. Here was half a Years time to have repressed, or at least to have condemned this Service, yet all past in silence, and in their visible Communion. During this Tract of time can any Man think, that no Clergy Men had any Conferences with their Dissenting Bishops hereupon? And in those Conferences did those Fathers Condemn, and forbidden these Prayers, at which themselves were daily present? No, I believe not where; and somewhere in several instances I know the contrary, that directions have been given to use our present Forms. But one thing I will further tell you, that these innocent Fathers were not so gulled, as you pretend, in the first motions. For upon the Enthroning of their present Majesties, and the Change of the Prayers, and Oath of new Allegiance; the Recusant Bishops met together in Consultation, how to act in these Affairs, and after all Debates agitated, they came to this Resolution, that they would not oppose the Prayers, for that it would seem too invidious and uncharitable, to deny their Majesties our Devotions, but determined only to stick at the Oath. This I presume those Fathers will not deny; and if any of them should hereafter challenge me for this Report, I will give them my Author, whom I presume no Man can Impeach of falsehood, or Detraction. But I would not have mentioned this, had not you reproached me with the Lie, even while you endeavour to cover the most evident Truths with Clouds and Darkness. Nor do I mention this to cast a blemish on them. For did not their Deprivations seem to them Schismatical, I believe they would not have repudiated our Communion upon the mere account of our Prayers, as neither did your great Coryphaeus till the Deprivation of the Primate. All which is open Truth, tho' these Fathers never read these Prayers, which I never charged on them, since 'tis otherwise very rare to hear Bishops reading the Prayers in any Church whatsoever. And this Concession to these Prayers being passed on their most serious considerations, there was no Cause why they should blow the Trumpet against what they judged lawful. But had they really judged the contrary, this concurrence had been worse than the neglect of winking Watchmen, or the silence of dumb Dogs, to which I never compared them, tho' your Censorious Rigours must brand this moderation with more infamous Characters, as is evident from this Discourse of yours, and the second Chapter of the first Part of your Treatise of Christian Communion. And having thus vindicated their Equity and my Reverence thereof, methinks such a Man of Manners, as you have approved yourself hitherto to be, should have besprinkled our Fathers also a little more decently, and not (as generally you do) with Tinctures drawn from the Lake of Sodom. But to leave you to the felicity of your own good Humours, I shall only observe, what a silly innuendo you flirt upon the Secretaries, or Council of State, that they were in great fear, what stirs these Bishops would make, had they not concerted with Mr. Jones at the Savoy, to carry on this Religious Intrigue in the Blind, whereas these Fathers expected their determined Fate with all imaginable calmness, and serenity, as Men that well understood the patience of Saints. And in that exemplary Patience they were impatient at those, who through too great bitterness, called our Conformity, the Apostasy of the Church of England; for the truth of which, if you will not believe me, I hope you will Mr. Dodwell, to whom I therefore refer you for satisfaction. And therefore you, that would raise you a Monument out of those Flames you kindle, by reproaching us with infamous Imputations, recede from the pattern, and act without the direction of your Fathers.  Dyscher. 
Another Reason why we may lawfully join in those Prayers, is because (as you would Persuade us)  
King James and your King William are very good Friends. 
That King James is not among the number of King William and Queen Mary's Enemies. MS. Reflex.  And you prove it, for that the Prayers express him not;— and that you rank him not among the number of King William and Queen Mrry's Enemies. For an Enemy is one that designeth to injure a Man, and we are not sure that King James doth so design against King William.— 
But do you not verily believe, that K. James would willingly regain his Crown, if he could, and consequently dispossess King William? Or do you think this no Injury to K. William? And no more say you, can be intended in those Prayers (of the Liturgy for King William) than to defeat him (King James) in that Injurious intention. For we pray for no Man's, nor King's Destruction, or hurt. These are * 
Sol. & Ab. pag. 14.  your reasons why no Jacobite ought to Scruple to join with you in the Common-Prayers for King William, viz. To strengthen him, that he may Vanquish and overcome all his Enemies, because King James intends him no Injury. Transubstantiation is easy to this. This is persuading us out of all our Senses at once. King James and King William appear upon the Head of two Armies, [
* These two words might well have been spared, to cover, etc.  and Fight] and each calls those Rebels that adhere to the other; and yet they are not Enemies. It is no hurt to the one, if the other get the Victory, and therefore you may Pray for Victory to King William, without meaning any hurt to King James. Why then are you offended at those that Pray for Victory to King James against King William? Here is no Injury intended to King William, only that King James may have a Victory, that is all. Is this the Argument to persuade men's Consciences to join in your Common Prayers? Is this the strength of your Cause? The strong and solid Conviction of the sincerity and plainness of your Dealing? MS. Reflex.  But supposing he will do no Wrong, yet sure he may demand and endeavour to recover his Right. And I am apt to think, that your little ambitious Dutch Saviour would think no Man in the World so much his Enemy, as he that demands three Kingdoms from him. Nor do we call only those Enemies, who design Injuries, but even all, who actually oppose each other, or between whom there is any Contest, let their Designs be what they will, or their Cause right or wrong. And after all your daubing, he certainly is accounted the greatest Enemy, for whose sake all others are judged Enemies. Now tho' the King of France be such an abominable Enemy, he should soon he esteemed the best Friend, if he would but renounce the Interest of K. James, and support the Usurpation of the Prince of Orange. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 32, 33.  Eucher. 
In this Triumphant and fastidious Harangue, these things severally offer themselves to our Consideration.  

1st. Whether the Strength of our Cause lies in this Account of our Prayers?  
2dly. Whether this be not the Sense of many Jacobites?  
3dly. What is the full importance of the word Enemy?  
4thly. What the importance of Vanquishment and overcoming?  
5thly. What really is the lawful Sense of these words in the Liturgy?  
6thly. What is the Reason why Kings are particularly Named in National Prayers?  
7thly. Whether our Prayers for King William must inevitably strike at King James?   
1. Then the strength of our Cause lies not herein, nor fails in the Defects of this Account. For in blunt Truth, if King William and Queen Mary be our Sovereign Lord and Lady, the same Prayers in the same full Sense, are to be used for them, in which they were used for all their Predecessors. So that if King James comes into the Number of their Enemies, against whom the perpetual Sense of those Prayers lies, we cannot help that, while we innocently perform our Duties. The greatest Objection against this that I know is, what your great Author of the Christian Communion herein offers, that they that look upon new Sovereigns only as King's de facto, do herein pray for the Subversion of Right, and him that has it, and these make up a great Number of the present Conformists. But that question properly comes under dispute upon the Notion of Enemies, and Victory in our Prayers, and on that Head it shall be considered. The only question here is, if a King de facto can be our Sovereign Lord? This I know you deny, and if your denial be good, it presses our Prayers much, if offered for a King by us taken for de facto only. But if the Nation hath a lawful Right upon great Exigences to admit a Person into the Sovereignty, who had no Right to enforce them thereto, then as to the Nations part they have lawfully admitted him to be their Sovereign Lord, and have yielded him all that Authority over us, that the Laws of the Land in such Necessity allow us to concede. And such is the Case in all Submissions upon new Conquests, tho' injuriously gotten. For in such Cases the submitting People, being no Authentic Judges upon the Cause of the new Potentate, can only judge for themselves what they may lawfully do, and leave his Cause to God, whether he on his Part takes the Crown de jure, or no. Thus before the Recognition this Nation had de facto admitted K. William, and every Person was bound to receive him at least for such, and had there never been any Recognition de jure, no Man was an habil Judge to have condemned the jus, whatsoever men's various Opinions in private might have been, on which they ought to have laid no stress, but to have received him as their actually settled and constituted Sovereign Lord, and required no more; since no more was determinately required of them. If a Captive in Algiers, etc. be required to pray for his Lord and Master, that is so only de facto, he may certainly do so under those Titles, and is bound to do so upon command, if he has contracted Service. I know you will here say, this Contract gives the Tyrant Right; But than you must grant, that the Submission of a Nation passes Right ipso facto, and then you put the Nation de facto only clear out of doors. Here you will reply, that such Submission cannot be the jure, as being injurious to the present Right of another; But then so will I say, the Captives Submission and Contract is against the permanent Right of his Parents, or former Master, who thereby may lawfully rescue him by force of Arms. And yet notwithstanding this the poor Slave, may thus pray for the Captivant as his Lord; nay, even that he may vanquish and overcome all his Enemies, even while the former Proprietors are fight for his Rescue, in the same Sense we intent in our Prayers for our most rightful Sovereigns, as shall clearly appear on the fifth Head of this Answer. King William therefore being actually our Sovereign Lord, even by our own warrantable Contract, we may lawfully use these Prayers for him, and on his Command are bound to do so, even tho' he were only King de facto in the legal Sense of this Term, and not altogether, as we have owned him, de pleno jure; because it will appear, that these Prayers are not leveled against any Man's Right, tho' they are against all his Enemies. Now the truth is, the Relation, we lately stood in to K. James as our then Sovereign, makes tender hearted Men pity his whole personal History, and consequently unwilling to pray against him, if there be any fair, or lawful way to avoid it, which there is not, if he comes not into the Number of those Enemies, which we are to pray against. Such also is the Temper of poor People under new Conquests toward their former Sovereigns, when obliged to pray for the new (that appear not otherwise than de facto such) against all their Enemies. Yet this is only an Operation of Bowels and good Nature, but not of strict and impartial Reason, (tho' it influences much upon Men's Spirits) but is to be guided, and corrected in its Excesses thereby. Hence upon the beginning of this Change an excellent Person, that was easily satisfied in owning their Majesty's Title Sovereign in the Prayers, yet stumbled at the Passages about Enemies, till he received with much pleasure this very Answer, for which you deride me. But, as I have now said, the only material Question here is, if K. William and Q. Marry actually are our Sovereigns? for this being granted, all the rest follows of due Course without respect of Persons, whosoever be their Enemies without exception. But I confess I was willing to give you as healing a Lenitive as I could, that I might not widen the Wound, nor exasperate the Division; but, it seems, while I labour for Peace, you make you ready for Battle.  
Secondly, This seemeth to be the Sense of many learned Jacobites, without which I see not how their Practices can be justified. For, not to repeat the Consent and Communion of the Deprived Fathers in these Prayers before the Day of their Suspension, there are yet many moderate Men among you, that read these Prayers, tho' deprived for filing the Oath. Now do you think, that these Men direct their Prayers against K. James? If they do, then upon your Principles they break their Allegiance and Oath to him, which they judge oblige them to this very Day. Which methinks should make you less lavish of your perjurious Imputations upon others, whose Principles acquit them from wilful and intended Perjury. Yet there is no way for these Men of yours to avoid this Charge upon your Principles, but by such a Sense of Enemies, in which it is possible K. James may not be included. But if they intent not their Prayers at K. James, how are we charged for praying against him, when we and these Jacobites in the same Words may sincerely use the same Sense? so that in good truth, the Account I gave of these Prayers becomes a Plea necessary, not so much to us, as to your own more moderate and equal Brethren, against whom therefore for the future you must turn your Style, and Acrimony.  
Thirdly, I will now proceed to justify my Sense to be the only allowable Sense of our Prayers under any the justest Reign whatsoever, and not merely accommodated by me to the present Juncture. This will first require me more fully to open the principal Notions of the word Enemy, than for reasons private to myself I did in my last Conference. The word Enemy therefore has two known principal Acceptations, moral, and military. Morally an Enemy is one that intendeth Injury, or Hurt; and so this Sense carries Malice in it. Militarily an Enemy is an opposite of War, which innocent Princes, People, and Persons may be forced to be, who have no Malice, or moral Enmity; as in Self-defences against Oppression, in which it is possible, that the Defendants would not willingly hurt any of the Oppressors, nor engage even in an advantageous Battle, if it could be avoided, but gladly close up the War. And yet both the injurious Aggressour, and all Neuters in the Cause by custom call these just Defendants Enemies to the other Opposite, not charging them with moral Injury, but respecting their military Opposition. The Greeks and Latins have two proper distinctive Names for these two sorts of Enemies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and inimicus for the Moral; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hostis for the military Enemy. Other Opponents are most properly called Adversaries, as a Term of a more comprehensive Latitude, reaching to the general Nature of all sorts of Contention, serious, or sportive, good, or bad.  
Fourthly, We are to examine the importance of Vanquishing, and Victory. For this indeed seems to admit a far greater, and benigner Latitude of signification, than you in your Reflection seem to allow. For you seem to apprehend no Victory but in Butcheries, Ruins, and Desolations. Whereas many successful Expeditions, (as that of General Monk) have been victorious without Hurt; since simply, and in general to overcome is no more than to prevail against any Opponents, or Oppositions, whatsoever fort they are of, even where there is no Enmity, as in Games, Wagers, Votes, and Competitions. And there is one sort of Victory more noble than any other, the overcoming Evil with Good, which is God's especial way of vanquishing the Powers of Evil. And even in War those Victories are most noble, where least Hurt is done, and most Mercy shown; and thereupon the best and most noble Desires of Victory are those, whereby we wish to prevail against our Enemy, if it be possible, without hurting him, or his Party at all, and more than this we are not absolutely to wish, or pray for, even against the greatest Enemies, by the Laws of our most compassionate and holy Religion, which allows Wars only to be waged against our Will, not with delight and bloody Affectations.  
Fifthly, We are to consider against what Enemies it is lawful to pray for even the gentlest Victories. First, than it is not lawful to pray for any Victory against the Innocent, in the Innocency of his Cause; no, tho' when he stan● 〈…〉 in his own Defence, the Custom of military Language calls him Enemy. For if I regard Iniquity in my Heart, the Lord will not hear me. Thus 'tis not lawful for Pirates to pray for success against innocent Merchants standing on their own Defence; because here Victory in the Pirates side doth not import the Defeat of an Injurious Intention, but an Injury. It was not lawful for K. Saul to pray for Victory over his Subject David, tho' at the Head of an armed Band for Self-preservation, for the same reason. Whence it follows, that no injurious Prince may 
† So the fifth Senior bids Ptolemy Philadelphus to expect Victory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ap. Arist. Edit. Oxon.  pray for success against the Innocent, whom he designs to oppress. And if so, neither may his Subjects pray for his Victory over the Innocent, for that they may not petition more for him, than he may for himself. Otherwise Prayers as directly contrary as just and unjust, would be allowable and acceptable with God. And here indeed starts up a doubt, how the opposite Devotions of warring Nations against their respective Prince's Enemies, can at the same time on both sides be justified for lawful and religious, since one at least of the Princes must be unjust, and for the Success of such a Prince in his Injustice all Prayers are unjust? To the solution of which doubt it is necessary to observe, that no religious or lawful Prayers for Temporal benefits are, tho' never so earnest, simply absolute, and peremptory, but always conceived with a deference and resignation to God's Will, either expressly, or implicitly, after our Saviour's Example in his most earnest Prayers at the Approach of his Passion, Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me, yet not my Will, but thy Will be done. So then our Prayers for victory to our Prince import a reservation to God's will, if he sees fit to admit them; but we knowing that all injustice is contrariant to the will of God, refer our Prince's cause to God's judgements, and will, against which we intent no Prayers, but ground them all on a tacit and presuming supposition, that our Cause is right. For it would be a very impious form of Prayer to say, give success, O Lord, to our Prince in all his designs of ravage and oppression. So that, tho' the supposition of Justice at the bottom of all such Prayers be not usually expressed to prevent common jealousy in the Subject, yet it is reserved by decent presumption as the proper duty of the Subject toward his Sovereign, over whose Counsels he has no judgement. And accordingly all our public Prayers in time of War propose the malice, pride, and oppression of our Enemies as the just causes of our supplication, and ground of our zeal, and object of God's Indignation,  to the standing Forms of such devotions in the holy Scriptures. And so a moral enmity supposed in our military Enemies, with our own presuming innocency, with a virtual or open appeal and reference to God the Judge of all, is the only Foundation of such Prayers, and the only Reason, that can reconcile such opposite Liturgies of warring Nations with Religion and Innocency. And if you think this too disloyal and cold a form of Devotion, I pray think again, what an odd sort of Loyalty it is to your King, to contend even with God for his injustice, and to offer him your Sacrifices after the impious manner of the Heathen, to accept and promote the abominations of yo●● Prince. But now upon the Rules by me 〈◊〉, a Captive may pray for his Master's Victory ●●er all his enemies, and yet not execrate those that are in just arms against him, as being guilty of no moral Enmity, or injury in their wars against ●●m. And so accordingly the Case of all people under new Conquests is to be resolved as to the like changes in their public Services, on the change of Sovereigns.  
Sixthly, it is to be considered; why Princes are so particularly named above other Orders in these national Prayers against Enemies? And the reason is obvious, because the interest of the whole Nations is summed up in the Felicity of their Kings. So that they that are his Enemies, are taken for the Nations Enemies also in these Prayers. In praying therefore against K. William's Enemies, we consider him not merely as a single solitary Person, but as our Sovereign Head, on whose welfare our own also depends, and so in his Enemies we pray against our own also.  
Seventhly, we must inquire whether K. James must in our Prayers inevitably come into the number of K. William's enemies, and so by civil Construction the Nations enemies? Now when these Prayers were first ordered and received, K. James was in no part of his old Dominions, nor in any actual sensible military Hostility against K. William any where. For tho' the Irish were in Commotion, yet K. James was not there, nor does it appear that they acted on his Commission, but mere presumption, and that not against K. William, till his Armies came thither, but their domestic Protestants only. It seemed a while as if K. James had sat down, and yielded up to his fate, and state of desertion. After the settled course of these Prayers reanimated by the French King he enters ●●●land, and K. William follows. In the mean time ●he course and sense of the Prayers was still the same, r●●ning in generals, and not altering by those changes b●yond the Irish Channel, as there was no reason they should. And so K. James was no more particularised after than before this in our Prayers. Yet if his personal behaviour toward K. William at the Boyne doth not evince the contrary, I will allow you, that then he was a military enemy. But still the grand question is, whether also he was a moral enemy (and so within the intention of our Prayers) by his then present breaking it off from England, and his designs thereby to recover England? And plain it is, that the sense of our Nation, which is valid and cogent to all Civil obligations, doth conclude him an injurious, and moral enemy to K. William, and this Realm. For Ireland belonging through a long fixed Right to the Crown of England, it must appear injurious, after an effectual Abdication of this Crown, and a Settlement of a Title therein upon K. William, to invade Ireland, and so to reduce us here under war for a recovery thereof, and a defence of our own land from his illegal claims, and pretensions. And whereas without any sense of modesty you say, that I assert K. James and K. William not to be enemies, but good friends, viz. that K. James is so friendly to K. William, for that he intends K. William no injury, you may resume your forehead, and remember, that I only said, we are not sure that K. James designs K. William injury. But what we are not infallibly sure of, we may verily believe, and presume from all the Rules of humane Judgement upon acts of Hostility. And in all humane opinion his Invasion of Ireland was injurious, but since all judicial Determinations must be left and referred to God's Judgement, we, not mentioning K. James in the number of K. William's Enemies, do not pass our internal and personal Censure on the Conscience of K. James before our God, but remit that to God the Judge of all Kings and Nations. But if private Persons will intermix their own personal opinions upon such superior Causes where they need not, than they, who think K. James a moral Enemy to K. William, do use our forms against him on that presumption of his injury; they that do not think so of K. James, do not in this form of Liturgy pray against him. And the Liturgy, not compelling us in the acts of our Religion to condemn K. James as morally injurious, does not oblige any man determinately to involve him under any of our imprecations. And whereas our Prayers are upbraided in the second Chapter of your first Book of Christian Communion as directed against Right for the maintenance of wrong, it hereby appears, how much mistaken that great Author was; for whosoever can but comport with the Sovereign Style of their present Majesties, may use these Prayers without prejudice to any real Rights of K. James, or his own private opinions concerning it. As to K. James' Personal hurt, or injury, let them, that can feed an evil, wish it for me. God hath disabled him from overturning our Constitutions, and hath settled us under good and equal Governors, and that is enough; and if K. James be elsewhere happy, as long as he hurts not us, we need no further trouble ourselves, or him. And I do verily believe, their present Majesties as little require my Prayers for his hurt, as you do. For time was, when he was in the hands of K. William, who, had he designed to hurt him, might have done it, and thereby have prevented all the pretensions, that have cost so much Blood and Treasure in Ireland. But 'twas piously done to abstain his hands from Royal Blood, and leave the Issues of his undertake to the Rules of innocency, on which only he could dare to pray for, and expect God's blessing. But further you have forgotten one Argument, perhaps because it was inconsiderable, whereby it appears, that our prayers are not pointed against any Rights of K. James, or to any hurt of his Person, for that we pray for all Christian Kings, Princes and Governors, even th●se, against whom we wage open war. And out of these Prayers we do not except even the most Christian King, but pray for the preservation of him also in all his Rights, our war not obstructing this practice of Piety even to our greatest enemies, which we observe from the precept and example of our most blessed Saviour. And therefore, though it were true what you would seem to prove in form of Argument, that K. James is accounted a greater Enemy (and if you please, add a greater King too) than the French King, yet no Enmity ought to be great enough to overcome our Religion and Charity in praying for our very greatest Enemies, even while we pray against their Enmities. But let us however see, whether K. William and his Subjects do take K. James for a greater Enemy than the French King, who it seems to you is accounted an Enemy only for asserting K. James' Cause. First then, if we take the moral notion of Enemy, no man can judge, whether K. James or K. Lewis has the greater internal enmity against K. William. If we go upon the military notion it is apparently false that K. James either is, or is accounted a greater Enemy than he, that is the greatest in Arms of all the Christian Monarches. So that your axiom, from whence you form your Argument, Propter quod unumquodque est tale, id magis est tale, tho' true in Physical Causalities and Operations, yet fails in moral Influences, and Inducements, such as are the reasons of humane Confederacies. And truly if K. William himself would, upon reference made, deliver his sense, he would declare K. Lewis more injurious than K. James in this war; for K. James seems to have some colour for provocation; but K. Lewis had none to engage in K. James' quarrels. But if he engages on other Reasons, than he is not an enemy on K. James' account, but his own. And if K. James and K. Lewis should ever happen to come into K. William's hands, there would be so sensible a difference in his respects toward them, as would discover his resentments of French injuries as greater than K. James', tho' unquestionably he would show a Royal compassion to them both.  
And now I am provided with a Reason, why I dislike your Prayers for victory to the late K. James against K. William. First, because your Prayers assert the late K. James to be our present King, and import K. William to be the Nations Enemy, whereby you condemn, and pray against the present Constitution, of which by our Law, and consequently God's Law, you are subjects, not Judges, nor de jure Adversaries. Again, you confess you pray absolutely against K. William, as K. James' Enemy. And this you must judge of him either in the moral, or military sense. If in the moral, you must then do it, either of infallible certainty, or opinion only. The former the matter is not capable of, because of the darkness of men's interior passions, and the disputable nature of Civil Titles. But upon mere opinions you ought not to pass absolute Censure upon any man's Conscience, and become his utter Enemy by your own choice. And yet were K. William infallibly and certainly injurious to K. James, yet since K. James' Cessation of war to pray for such victories of blood, which you alone account victory, is to pray for a return of a Cessant War in order to a sanguinary Victory, and its Consequences. If you take K. William only as a military Enemy, he was then innocent, and so your Prayers then aimed at the ruin of the innocent, and his Cause. But now he is no military Enemy to K. James, 'tis more impious to pray for his Ruin, which K. James himself does not now attempt. Upon which even K. James himself has opened our Church-Doors to you to join with us in our Prayers for King William and Queen Mary. But if you take the French War to be K. James', we have all reason to thank you kindly for your Prayers, in a time of such a dangerous War, as not only affects all our Temporals, but our very Church, and Religion, the noblest Structure, and Bulwark of the Reformation; Of which God in mercy make you truly sensible, and even in this respect turn the hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just. Amen.  Dyscher. 
Yet I find you are not so confident for all your forms of Devotion. For 
† Sol. and Ab. pag. 15.  You think there is one Prayer on the 29th. of May so dangerous, that you graciously give us leave to forbear to be present at it. But, Sir, who gave you Authority to dispense with terms of Communion? You have done more, I fear, than you will receive any thanks for. None you are like to have from us, who have no ●eed of your Licence; and you ought not to expect it from those, who will think their Authority hereby invaded. T. B. See Lett. pag. 33.  Eucher. 
This I confess is a dangerous foil. Nor was I well ware of that nasute quickness, which appears in this Stricture. But as argute as you are, was it I that thought this Prayer dangerous, or my brother Dyscheres? Was it not you, that complained, that in that Prayer, there is a vow of Allegiance to K. William and Queen Mary, which upon your Principles you cannot be present at, or concede? Well then, this was so; and what said I? Then forbear to be present at it. But must this presently be interpreted to an Act, or Power dispensing with the Duty? Truly I intended no more but to yield, that therein you must be left to act according to your own Principles, and Convictions, and adventure the Displeasure of the Powers, and legal Consequences thereupon; whom, and which I believe you would not much more exasperate by this one omission once a year, if you constantly joined in all our other daily Prayers, and otherwise live inoffensively. So it is ordinary to use the Imperative in a bare permissive, without a concessive Sense; as, Do if you will; since you cannot be persuaded, take your own Course, run your own risks, play your own game, take your own fortune, counsels, etc. And though I confess this is form of permission, that merits no thanks, so neither did I court any thanks herein, either from you, or the Public. For as for you, in this hard time you are not very liberal in point of gratitude, as I have found by my own experience. And I pray God you fail not in this Duty towards God for his mercies to the Nation, as you do towards those that wish you well, because they run not with you into your unaccountable excesses. But as to our Governors, if I have not hereby arrogated the dispensing Power, I hope I have not much offended them; If I have for your ungrateful sakes, I will endeavour to atone for this one offence, and have a Care how I ensnare myself again upon your Score.  Dyscher. 
But yet you think we need not be so very coy as to this Prayer. For you say, that you have been assured by a good Author, that the Recusant Bishops did not all stick at it; but that some gave directions, and consent to the use of it; and also before their Suspension deputed Persons to administer the Oath in the Execution of the Authorities and Offices Episcopal. Sir, If I should say your good Author was an arrant lying knave, I hope you would not only pardon my bluntness, but also be more careful for the future, how you gave any credit to such Persons. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 33.  Eucher. 
Indeed, Sir, if you prove that excellent Person, whom you know not, to have deceived me with a lie, I am your humble servant. But I cannot but smile within myself, to think how, when this your treatment comes to his knowledge, that religious and prudent person will entertain the blunt Character, considering his most tender Compassions to the Condition of the Deprived. But in truth the reasons of his discovering this advice and consent were not calumnious, but conscientious, as exhibiting matter in a religious Conference for consideration and practice in these various turns of things, humours, and sentiments. But I have been told, that in Law negatives cannot be proved but by inference from positives, which I doubt will hold you a tug, tho' your tongue be all teeth and jawbones.  Dyscher. 
As for this pretended Deputation, I will set before you the true story; and than you, and all men may judge, how candidly our suffering Fathers are dealt with. On the 28 of January 1689 the Bishop of London, and St. Asaph, and some others presented themselves before your mighty K. William with a mournful address in the behalf of our Reverend Fathers then drawing near to a Civil Suspension, and since more than uncivilly deprived. This was the pretence; but it is reasonable to think, that it was a complotted thing, and that the design was to get their Authorities deputed in such sure hands, as might effectually promote perjury, and the thrusting good men out of their Estates, etc. and so the Addressers got themselves into their several jurisdictions, etc. This is the real truth of the matter; and is so far from being a deputation of their Authorities, that it doth not imply any Consent, more than what is always unavoidably extorted from every man in the like Circumstances, etc. T. B. pag. 33, 34, 35, etc. Vide.  Eucher. 
I wonder why a man should raise such a tempest about what is nothing to the purpose of my discourse, and, besides the greenness of the spite, discovers much ignorance. For the day of suspension was passed near half an year before your 28th. of January 89, viz. on the beginning of the precedent August; and the time near drawing on your 28th. of January was the Day of Deprivation in the beginning of the following February. But the time, that I was speaking of from the admission of their Majesties in Feb. 88, till the day of suspension in the August following, during which interval these Bishops were in full unsuspended jurisdiction. But in that time upon all incidental occasions of collations, and institutions to Ecclesiastical Promotions, the Oath of present Allegiance was to be ministered by the ordinary and primary Officer of the Bishops, and by no others, while they were present at their Sees, except by their especial Deputation. So that were there no particular instance producible for me, the truth, which I Spoke, is self-evident and notorious, that the Oath was administered in all such Cases by the Bishops, or their Deputies. For no person, or power could herein impose any officer upon them, while all the Course of Ecclesiastical affairs proceeded yet in their names. But I know where deputations were then given, and the Oath administered by those Deputies by virtue of that Deputation. And is it not a very pertinent account to the contrary, to tell me, what was done just before, and then after the day of Deprivation, to disprove what I had said was done by the Bishops before their actual Suspension? And was it not very accurate to mistake the days of Suspension and Deprivation for one and the same, between which there was half a year distance? But there had been no occasion for your reproaching Talon against the Reverend Fathers of London and St. Asaph, notwithstanding their great merits against Popery in the last Reign, if you had not fooled in this impertinence for a show of Contradiction. But when you pervert the kind intentions of that Address to so horrid and calumnious surmises, you ought with grief and repentance to remember, that he that rewardeth evil for good, evil shall never departed from his House.  Dyscher. 
I see one fire kindles another, by the heat my freedom hath cast you into; to cool which I know no present expedient, but intermission of discourse for this time. And besides, the day is at an End, and I must retire to my lodging, and respite the remainder of our debate till to morrow, when with your leave we will renew our Conference, and examine the Case of the Ecclesiastical Change.  Eucher. 
I would not have you take my seldom ardours for uncharitable, nor withdraw upon any such surmise; if you please to repose yourself and your passions under my roof this night, you shall be truly and hearty welcome to a thrifty, but friendly Hospitality.  Dyscher. 
I thank you, Sir, but as I am not otherwise very flexible, so my business requires me to take leave, and wish you good Night.    

A DEBATE ON THE Justice and Piety Of the Present CONSTITUTION: UNDER K. William.  

The Second Part.  
The First relating to the State,  
The Second to the Church.   
BETWEEN Eucheres a CONFORMIST, AND Dyscheres a RECUSANT.  
By Samuel Hill, Rector of Kilmington, Author of Solomon and Abiathar.  Psal. 7.8. 
Judge me, O Lord, according to my Righteousness, and according to mine Integrity, that is in me.  
Inter-utrumque tene.  
Obsequium amicos, Veritas Odium Parit.  
LONDON, Printed for John Everingham, at the Star in Ludgate-street, 1696.   

A DEBATE ON THE JUSTICE AND PIETY Of the Present Constitution.  

PART II. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Change.  Dyscher. 
ACcording to my yesterday promise, I am returned to continue on the Debate, which the supervening night interrupted. Let us therefore now begin where we left off, and pursue the matters of our last Conference to their just and utmost Issue.  Eucher. 
You are hearty welcome; and so let us closely apply ourselves to the Business.  Dyscher. 
Pass we then from the Civil to the Sacred War, in which we are engaged by the contrariety of our Principles. And first I pray you, wherein do you found the just and regular Right of the Ecclesiastical Deprivations?  Eucher. 
This I often and very expressly told you, that as to the merits of Deprivation, they stand in the enormities of your practic principles against the present Civil Constitution, by which you are brought into an incapacity of a public Trust over men's Consciences, which your opinions will sharpen into Civil Seditions, and religious Schisms. And as to the Canonical form of your Deprivations, I placed it in the customary right, the ancient Churches used against Bishops of false principles, by separating from them, and Appealing to other Social Churches, and Bishops for their assistance in new Consecrations; which course our Church has also used against the Recusant Fathers, upon the just Commands of the State.  Dyscher. 
Indeed I do remember now the nature of that Charge you loaded us with, 
† Sel. and Ab. pag. 16, 17.  and it might have made an excellent Argument for Julian, or Dioclesian, by traducing our Bishops as imposturous, and comparing them to Idolaters, for which my friend T. B. hath so sufficiently requited you, (Sec. Lett. pag. 36) that you cannot say he is in your Debt, or is so indigent, as to run upon tick for calumnies and slanders.  Eucher. 
I was never skilled in T. B's Arts, or Conversations, and do decline the lists, and pretensions to the faculty of evil speaking. I shall only say, that I ever looked on those Fathers to be too rigorously pious in their unhappy Errors in the notions, and rules of English Loyalty, tho' I ever acknowledged their undoubted sincerity. But because I was ware, that you exempt all Episcopal Causes, and Authorities from all Civil, and Laic Cognisance in matters, and censures purely Spiritual, therefore to draw you off from that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I put the Case upon the worst of Crimes, 
* Sol and Ab. pag. 19, 20.  as Apostasy, Heresy, Schism, etc. and demanded, whether the Clergy and People may desert a Bishop under such pestilential crimes, and impostures, and procure another from Social Bishops? For if they may Canonically do this in such Cases, than perhaps they may canonically do so in other, which tho' not so designedly malignant, yet necessitate an exauctoration, tho' founded in mere infirmities, and too pious prejudices, as I explained myself in those very passages, at which, it seems, the gall of T. B. is exasperated.  Dyscher. 
Well; I think it not decent for us to draw hard on this invidious subject; let us, if you please, discuss the Canonical forms of your procedure herein, which your party generally defends from pretended precedents of Civil Authorities over the Jewish High Priests, and the Practice of Christian Churches in submission to Imperial Orders, especially the Greek Church under Turkîsh Changes made in their Patriarchal See. Now the most famous instance among the Jewish High Priest is that of Solomon's deprivation of Abiathar. Which tho' you endeavoured to parallel to our present Case, yet herein I brought you such just exceptions, as neither you, nor all your Party will be able to take off. For if the Crime was nothing like, if there was such a difference between the Constitutions of the Jewish and Christian Churches, if it was a manifest Session on Abiathar's part, (all which I well proved) then that Instance can by no means come up to this Case. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 36.  Eucher. 
Tho' I could not deny the force of your reasonings upon this instance, yet have I consulted my friends upon it, as well as you have done upon me. And the chiefest of their senses I will lay before you, to which if you can make any weighty reply, you must not thence conclude a vice, or fault in the Cause; for if I cannot defend it myself, perhaps its proper Patrons may, who as they have singular Opinions, so have they as singular abilities to maintain them.  Dyscher. 
This is a secure Caution for your own Reputation, tho' it betrays an inward suspicion of the Arguments you intent to produce. But however, since it is but just, that no personal defects should prejudice a good Cause, and that one man's Errors should not affect another man's Estimation, I grant you your Demand, and therefore I pray proceed.  Eucher. 
Have you not seen the Book entitled, The Case of Sees Vacant, etc. whose learned Author's felicity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This great man pretends to dissolve all your machines against this grand Precedent for a Lay-Deprivation, and I will exhibit you his Argumentations according to your, and his Order. First then he observes, that 
* Case of Sees Vacant, etc. Chap. 2. § 2.  this perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries, in answer to the examples of the Jewish Highpriest, that the Office of a Bishop amongst us is much more Spiritual, than the Office of those High-Priests. To that Plea I answer, that he that considers the true and full import of the Question now before us, will find it to be no other than this, whether a Person, duly invested with an Ecclesiastical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance, being deposed by the Lay-power, any other can lawfully succeed in that Office? Now as to God's particular Institution and Appointment, whatsoever otherwise the difference may be, (which is needless for us to contend about) it is certain, that the Jewish High-Priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops. 'Twas by God himself, and that too in an extraordinary manner, that the Office of the Highpriest was instituted, and it was from God alone that he received his Authority. If therefore a Person was accepted by God as a true and real Highpriest, tho' put into the room of another deposed by Civil Authority, than a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop, and accordingly ought to be received, tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power. To this I add, that the annual Expiation for the Sins of the whole People was to be performed by the Highpriest. This was the chief of the federal Rites of that Religion, and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this they did ex opere operato, so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the Jews to have this Divine Institution performed by one appointed to it by God. And tho' no provision was made for Cases of necessity, yet necessity was understood to be a provision for itself. And it is certain, these annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days. For that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant with God, since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant. Nor can any of the performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this, unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating. These examples of the Jewish Highpriest alone, were there no other to be alleged, would sufficiently warrant our submission to our present Possessors.  Dyscher. 
This Doctrine of that learned Doctors is very new, and amazing in every Sentence of it, as also is his original Principle. But whether it be of sincere Metal, or no, must be tried by the proper Touchstone. First than it is strange, that he should affirm it certain, that the High-Priests are rather Superior to our Bishops as to the Divinity of their Institution. For are not Bishops instituted originally by God himself, and in a manner more extraordinary than that of Aaron's Consecration? For this appears indeed in the Levitical Law to be divinely solemn, and glorious, as far as external Pomp and Ceremony could adorn it, and an Oracular Power of Judgement in things Temporal sanctify him, but yet as the Agent for God in this Consecration was a Servant only, viz. Moses, so the Oracular Sanctity was not purely Spiritual. But the first Bishops were the Apostles, made so, not by the Hand of a Servant, but the Son of God himself in our own Flesh, ordaining them with an extraordinary Power of Miracles of all kinds, with the insufflation of the Holy Ghost, in order to the remission, and retaining of sins upon the Soul, by the Acts of an Authority to be ratified in Heaven. To them the Sacraments were committed, the Laver of Regeneration, and the Mystery of our Incorporation into Christ, and Participation of his Holy Spirit, besides the glorious Effusion of the Spirit on them at the Feast of Pentecost, consecrating them Preachers of the Resurrection of Christ with an amazing Glory in the sight of all Nations gathered together at Jerusalem, in a manner more superlatively divine than any the meaner Forms of Aaron's Investiture. Besides the Doctor may as well prefer the Institution of the meanest Levites to that of the Highest Apostles upon the same grounds, on which he hath so superexalted the Jewish Pontiff, who was no more divinely instituted than the lowest Orders of Levi, tho' he was to higher Services. Nor is the Doctor less mistaken in his extraordinary Esteem, and Elegy of the Annual Expiation, as more noble than any Episcopal Functions. For notwithstanding all its Solemnities and Operations, yet its highest Excellency was but Typical of that Grace, which was not given by Moses, but by Jesus Christ. And all its actual present Energy reached no further than a legal imaginary Cleansing of the Body of the Jews, and this only for one Year past, and that only for the securing him in the Temporal benefits promised in that Law. But our Priestly Functions are not merely Typical of Grace not yet given, but both commemorative, and exhibitory also of that Grace, which hath already appeared for the Salvation of all Men, and consecrates the Souls and Bodies of Men unto Immortality; not to mention the extraordinary Measure of the Spirit collated in the especial Acts of Episcopal Ordinations. In all which interior Sanctifications, tho' there is no Transubstantiation, yet is there a mystical Union betwixt Christ and his Members by the illuminating Communion of the Holy Spirit. For which truth it is needful that we contend, tho' I confess it was needless for him to contend against it. And yet further, supposing all this had been right, which the Doctor hath dictated, yet here arises another Infelicity in his Logic. For tho' God might admit an intruded Highpriest, yet it does not follow, that Men may admit an intruded Bishop; for can Man pretend to all the Authorities of God? God is indeed superior to all his own Institutions, and may dispense with them, or ratify Violations of them, as he did the violent Successions in the Kings of Israel. But does it follow, that Men can lawfully, without any Divine Dispensation given and granted, admit the Violations of his Laws, and the perverters of that Hierarchy, which he has made organical to the Sanctity and Salvation of his Church? Nay, further yet, the Doctor is very unaccurate in his very State of the Question, which properly is not, whether any Man may lawfully succeed an Ecclesiastic deposed by a Lay-power; for if we grant that there can be any such Lay-deposition, no doubt the Succession may be lawful; but the Question is, whether there can be any Ecclesiastical Deposition inflicted on Spiritual Orders by a Lay-power? This is that we, and our Fathers complain of, that the Lay-powers enact Spiritual Censures of Suspension, and Deprivation, which your Ecclesiastics admit as regular, and valid, which were they so, we should not quarrel at the Successions. This I am sure is our Question, whatsoever that of the Baroccian Treatise is; if this differs from ours; then in that respect the Treatise is impertinently adduced in our Case. Besides the Question is not, whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastic Office of God's Institution may not be deposed by any Lay power? For if God in the Jewish Church did subject their Ecclesiastics to a Lay-deposition, no doubt in the Nature of the thing it might be lawful. But the Question is, whether first God did so subject the Jewish Ecclesiastics to such a Lay-authority? And secondly, supposing that God had so subjected their Ecclesiastics, the next Question is whether he hath in like manner so subjected the Christian Hierarchy? For if there be any specific Difference, or intentional Disparity in the Nature and Purposes of the Jewish and Christian Religions, if there have been such Changes admitted by God in the Authorities of one, which have not been so conceded upon the Authorities of the other, than the Argument from the Jewish doth not conclude upon the Christian Hierarchy. And therefore by the Doctor's leave, not only the Divinity of the Institution, but the Nature of the Offices, and the Rules of Tenure, and Succession instituted by God in his Church, are to be considered in this Debate. For to put the matter into a short Theory, I think it fairly possible to conceive, that the Jewish Religion, in what it was peculiarly Jewish, was only of a carnal Sanctity, in Order only to Temporal Fruitions, and so might be under the Conduct of Temporal Powers, that are the Supreme Guardians of all Temporal Enjoyments; but the Christian Religion is purely Spiritual, not subordinated to Temporal Ends, and so not under the like Authority of Temporal Powers. Now whatsoever are the civil Authorities about matters Christian, I suppose the Essential Differences of our Religion from the Jewish, will bar the Argument for the same Rules of Subjection. And if you please upon another Consultation to propose the matter to the Doctor's second Thoughts, I will be at the pains of repeating my Observations hereupon. 
† Sol. and Ab. Pag. 21, 22.  First, that the whole Institution of the Levitical Law was not of a Spiritual, but carnal Sanctity, yielded them by God, somewhat in opposition, and somewhat in conformity to the Egyptian, or other foreign Religions, among whom the Priesthood had been long subjected to, and perhaps first instituted by the Sceptre. And herein the Supreme Judgements in Civils upon the Law, and Oracular Responses upon Consultations about Peace, War, and Temporal Actions, and Successes, were essential to the Authority of the Pontificate. And yet we find this Highpriest not subject to any ordinary Power, till Kings were also given this People after the manner of the Nations, among whom the Mitre was subject to the Crown. All which put together makes Abiathar 's Deprivation by a Temporal Power under that Constitution Legal. But from the beginning it was not so. Then there were Priests who till the Flood had the Government of the World, without any Civil or Military Power; and that Priesthood was in all its Intentions Spiritual. So that when our Saviour came not only to restore, but even to refine upon the primitive Rules, he restored the Priesthood from Vassalage, and founded his Hierarchy, not in Princes, but Apostles, not inarmed, but in unarmed Powers. But if among the Nations of old the carnal Priesthoods were subject to Arbitrary and Imperial Powers, and God conceded the Jews Kings with such Power after that Gentile manner, the Jewish High-Priests thereupon became Subject, not only to a Judicial, but Imperial Authority, and so legally deprivable at the pleasure of the secular Prince, so far at least, that these Censures might be effectually valid, tho' not always good, and just. And hence all the Changes of the High-Priests, violently and arbitrarily made by heathen Princes in the Jewish Pontificate, seem to be legally and regularly valid, ex jure Imperii toties quoties, and so are nothing at all to the Case of an uncanonical Deprivation, or the Doctor's purpose. But our Priesthood has nothing Civil in it, nor is by God subjected to the Arbitrary Empire of Princes, that so we should think ourselves obliged to bow down our Faith and Freedom to such feeble Principles of Spiritual Bondage and Pusillanimity.  Eucher. 
But a little to interrupt you, did you not deny 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 23.  Zadok's Title to be derived from the King's donation, tho' the Scripture expressly affirms, that K. Solomon did put Zadok the Priest in the room of Abiathar? I Kings 2.35. And do you now on a sudden put all the power of disposing that Priesthood in the arbitrary will of their Sovereigns, that so you may oppose the Drs. Principles?  Dyscher. 
What I delivered then can well consist with my present Sentiments, which I offer not in an itch of contradicting the Doctor, but upon the reasonableness of the thing itself. For in Solomon's time the Genealogies were extant, and the due course of Succession obvious; on which account I take it, Zadok had before in David's time been admitted under Abiathar into the communicable Offices of the Pontificate, in order perhaps to the next plenary Succession after the death of Abiathar, which Succession now commenced on Abiathar's remove before the time preintended, by the actual introduction of him by King Solomon into the possession of what he had an antecedent Title to upon the next vacancy, either by the right of Primogeniture, which the ancient Jews have owned, from the first Patriarches, and the Law Leu. 16.32. or upon an ordination by the Ecclesiastic Powers of the Sanhedrin, as men of Talmudic learning have conjectured. Now it is certain, that their native Kings of God's own appointment were obliged to keep the Law, and every man's Rights established by it, and the doing otherwise was really sinful and offensive, tho' such unjust acts of Kings had among them the effectum juris, as appears in the sentence of David between Ziba and Mephibosheth. If therefore Solomon had rejected Zadok as well as Abiathar, such causeless procedure in my opinion had been unjust, but yet valid, as being not subject to any Tribunal, and presumable for just, and done upon reasonable, although secret Causes. But when the Sovereignty fell into the hands of gentile Princes, not tied to the Mosaic Constitutions, as their native Kings were, and the Genealogies were lost, and the Legal Successors unknown, or absent the necessity of some high-Priest made the person upon each such vacancy Elective by the Supreme power, or (with the permission thereof) by the priests and people, as appears in the Maccab●ic History, and Josephus. Amongst which instances there is one above all most considerable, viz. that of Simon, who was made high-Priest by the Jews, and Priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful Prophet, 1 Maccab. 14.41. to discover the lineal Successor, as also to show them, what to do 〈◊〉 the defiled Stones of the Sanctuary. 1 Maccab. 4.46. Whence it appears the sense of that people, from the constitution of that Priesthood in Simon and his heirs, for want of the true Proprietary Family. First, that there was an absolute necessity of the high-priesthood; Secondly, that it legally belonged to Aaron's lineal heirs; Thirdly that in want of them, they, if they had freedom, were to elect another Family for that Succession. All which set together discovers Zadok to be the next regular Successor to Abiathar, since the Scriptures impeach not the King of any irregular and despotic injuries against the Laws of the high Priesthood.  Eucher: 
But what say you to that note of the Dr that it was of the greatest consequence to the Jews to have the annual Expiation performed by one appointed to it by God? Does not this argue the Deposition of such a one null? and yet upon necessity God permitted the Jews to own the Successor coming in by mere intrusion.  Dyscher. 
To this I answer, that if God himself allowed the Jews to admit such intruders, than it appears, that it was not of the greatest consequence to the Jews to have the Expiation performed by one, to whom it belonged by the constitution of the Law. For if the Intruders Expiations were effectually acceptable, they did the business as well as the Liturgy of the legal Proprietor. But further, God's admission of the Intruder after Intrusion takes off his irregularity, ratifies his Title, and vacates that of the ejected, and so is of God's particular occasional appointment for the time being, tho' not by the original designation of the Law, and so this is nothing to the Drs. Hypothesis, or Cause. And this is in fact the real state of that Case in such Changes. The State Civil first intruded Successors into the room of the expelled, but this not creating any Plenitude, or Sanctity of Title, God made up this defect by giving the Intruders the Spirit of Prophecy, which supervening made them also God's high-priests to all Sacred, as well as Civil purposes. Which act of Gods was not a mere acknowledgement of their antecedent Authority, but an efficient thereof to all the intents of the Levitic Law, tho' the Dr. would fain persuade us to a contrary notion herein. Yet had it been a mere consequent acknowledgement of their Priest hood held only by Intrusion, as 
* Case of Sees etc. Ch. 3. § 3.  the Dr. intimates, it had been nothing to his purpose, because upon the Extinction of the Genealogies, and Ignorance of the lineal Heirs, and the more plenary Subjection therefore of that pontificate to the Gentile Sovereigns, who were despotic, and free from all the ordinary Rules, that obliged their native Kings, this had made these Changes of High-Priests in the potificate (being an office carnal, and temporal even in its Religious acts) formally valid, and authoritative, for that these Gentile powers came into the Sovereignty of their native Kings, (or perhaps a greater) to whom God at their request had subjected the Hierarchy after the manner of the Nations. And a great deal of this I told you 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 24.  in our last Conference, which no doubt you consulted your Dr. upon. tho' he takes no notice of it. And I than dropped another note perhaps worth a second Rumen with you, that those Intrusions, tho' thus admitted by God, were signs of a broken Church and State, hastening to its last Dissolution, and so no just Precedent for the Christian Church to follow, which is to continue to the End of all things, except we must yield to methods of Violation, that lead to our Extinction. And I leave it to the pious consideration of every Religious Conscience to judge whether those servile Submissions to Imperial violences in the instances of the Baroccian Treatise, and the others produced by the Learned Dr. against his Opponents, did not properly lead to the ruin of the Church, into which the Greeks from these precedents are fallen under Mahometan powers? all which had been effectually obviated, had the Church stuck to the Laws and Canons of the Christian Hierarchy and Communion against the encroachments of wicked Emperors, against which it is the Duty of all Churches, obstare principiis, in contempt of persecutions. Hereby, and hereby alone shall we be able to stifle all Erastian and Antichristian Arts, with which their concomitant persecutions will all cease and sink of Course, when once men see we scorn them. For Shame, Conviction, and Reproach of Conscience, upon the sense of our magnanimous and meek Patience, will naturally quench the Spirit of persecution, and open a glorious liberty and venerable Authority to the Church of God. But our base fears of worldly greatness on one hand, and the base affectation of it on the other, hath universally effaced all the glories of Religion and Piety throughout the world, and looks like a gloomy prognostic of Ecclesiastical Ruins and Confusion.  
But that 
† This is the strain of Dr. Hody's great adversary.  Clergy men themselves should court and invite an Hierarchical servitude, and apply the bowstring to the throat of their holy Mother, by Principles contrived to strangle all her Apostolical Powers and Authorities, is such a daring presumption, as needs a greater than the annual Expiation. And if the Dr. should live to see his Principles pursued, by either Civil, or Tyrannical Powers to the arbitrary Subversions of God's Priests, or if otherwise he shall live to think feelingly of that most holy Authority vested in Bishops by God himself, whose Ambassadors, Vicegerents, and Representatives they are, the contempt of whom affronts even Christ himself, he will not think every violent Intruder, that like a Robber comes not in by the door, to be a regular Messenger of the Lord of Hosts, and that the most audacious Sacrilege hath entitled him to a Divine Character, and consecrated his Authority and Communion. He will then with sighs and unappeasable groans of Spirit anathematise the instances and design of his Baroccian Treatise, and the ill use of his own infinite reading, and diligence, to recommend the baseness and villainies of degenerous Churches, concerning which at present I leave him and his Adversaries to fight it out at Argument. In the mean time I will only note, that tho' Civil power, or force may put intruding Bishops into the Palaces and Revenues of the Bishopric's by un-canonical Violences, yet they cannot be possessed of Spiritual Authorities by any mere secular, or incompetent Power, or Authority, and so we on our part deny the Drs. Intruders the present possessors of the real Episcopacy in the abused Dioceses.  Eucher. 
If the Dr. should hear you talk at this rate, he would not take it very kindly, I believe. But I will make proof of your prowess against him in the famous instance of Solomon and Abiathar. For the Dr. having asserted Abiathar properly deposed by the mere Royal act, and power of Solomon, refutes five or six principal opinions to the contrary, and among them yours of Session with such a contemptuous turn of hand, as exposes it for ridiculous. For he utterly baffles you with the bare repetition of the LXXII. version, on which you seem to lay the greatest stress and force of your opinion. And it is no small impeachment of your understanding to take that as an Argument for your Cause, which it notoriously condemns. Let me therefore clear up your eyes with some of the Doctor's Arguments. You therefore say, that 
* Sol. & Ab. pag. 22.  King Solomon did not properly and judicially deprive Abiathar of the High-Priesthood, but only commanded, or required him to quit it on pain of death. And to this purpose you quote the words of Solomon to Abiathar according to the Hebrew, and the LXXII, which latter you paraphrase so as to infer an option in Abiathar, whether he would with dishonour retire from his Office, or suffer death, this latter being in the rightful Power of the King, if Abiathar would not yield in the former. So that Abiathars' Priesthood determined on his own volutary Session, not the King's Ecclesiastical sure. Now how does the Dr. cut off this? 
* Case of Sees. pag. 18.  In answer to this, saith he, I need but produce the words of the LXXII, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This, excepting the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which are removed from the latter Clause to the antecedent) agrees exactly with the Hebrew, and the natural Sense of these words is no other than what we have in our English Translation, with which all Interpreters agree, Josephus, (as is plain 
* Case of Sees. pag. 18.  from his words above produced) the Chaldee Paraphrast, the Syriac, and the Arabic, and the old Latin Translators, who, all understand the Texts of a Positive and Authoritative ejectment. And that it was a positive command not an Opinion proposed to Abiathar, but an absolute Deprivation, is yet more plain from the words which immediately follow, so Solomon thrust out Abiathar, in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. So the Doctor.  Dyscher. 
'Tis strange, that so Learned a man could fancy this to be an answer, especially since I see not how he can clear himself from inconsistency, or open error. For if it were a positive command to Abiathar, as he grants, how could it be an absolute Deprivation, which he asserts? I owned it to be a command as positive and requiring as the Dr. but for that very reason denied it to be a proper Act of Judicial Deprivation, because judicial Sentences are not direct commands on the Offenders to excuse their own punishments, but decrees of punishments to be executed by other hands, as in Joabs' Case, which so apparently differs in Form from this of Abiathar. Besides a command of self-execution, as it may actually, so may it lawfully be disobeyed, and rendered ineffectual, and it is in any such man's choice, whether he will submit to it, or no; and the truth is, no man will yield thereto, but for fear of greater Danger. Now if there had been no other prospect of Danger, Abiathar would not have obeyed this so positive command of Solomon, and if he had not actually obeyed, the mere command, being frustrate by his neglect, had not been an absolute Deprivation; that then, which in itself was no absolute Deprivation without Abiathars' consent, and obedience, which was not alone so, as the Dr. contends, and his office became void by Session, not mere Deprivation. For it is a great mistake in the Dr. to imagine that positive commands destroy Option. For tho' the commands of God upon our Practices are all as absolute as possible, yet are they proposed to our option. Thus, saith God, in his * Deuteronomy, Ch. 30. v. 19 I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. The Law and Gospel, though in the preceptive part they are most properly Laws, yet have also, the nature, and form of a Covenant in them and the punishments inflicted by virtue of them are justified, not only from the nature of the crimes, but our own option. But let us see, whether this command were so positive as these Laws? whether it were so much the declaration of the Kings own will, as a concessive indulgence to the will of Abiathar? It is plain then herein K. Solomon offered him an easier condition than his crime deserved, tho' the Dr. to serve his Hypothesis extenuates the guilt of his Rebellion. And if this be in fact so, than it seems rather a Concession with a mixture of Counsel, than a mere austere command of Retirement; for so verbs of the imperative Mood very ordinarily signify, and Solomon's kind reflection on his Liturgies, and Sufferings in the days of David fairly appear to intent so much. If a Traitor were thus spoken to by his Prince; never see my face more; get the out of this place, for this shall satisfy me instead of thy forfeited life; or [else] thou art a dead man even to day, the Traitor would interpret the recession to be a condition of Life, rather than a precept of Civil Duty. And his submission would be rather his choice for himself, than any Service to his King. And certainly he might refuse such offer at his choice and peril, as Malefactors sometimes chose the Gallows rather than Transportation. This option proposed to Abiathar in this Form the whole Text in every version sufficiently exhibits; but the Septuagint most expressly in the citra position of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the first Clause; and comes more up to the Hebrew than our Translation; for the Hebrew and the Septuagint by [a man of death] intent the sense of a [dead man,] and this signifies rather a Menace, or Sentence of actual death especially when joined with these words [in this very day] than a mere merit of death, as we render it. But such a Menace with a Concession of voluntary exile to Anathoth, must be conditional, if he went not thither, and so admits option. And moreover according to the Hebrew Structure of the words we must admit this interpretation from the Drs. own Authorities. For thus Abravanel, alleged 
* Case of Sees. pag. 21.  by the Dr. out of Areschmuth, gives his formal sense upon this place. Solomon commanded Abiathar not to stir a foot from the place assigned him, i. e. Anathot. For otherwise, if he should dare to sally out hence, his Blood should be on his own head, as he had also intimated unto Simei the Son of Gera. And this is manifest from the words of Solomon; but to day I will not slay thee, as if he should say; but I will slay thee on that day, on which thou shalt dare to go from thence any whether. Now if hereupon the Blood was to be on his own head, if he stirred, was it not put to his option, in the sense of Abravanel, whether he would confine himself within Anathot, or die? And if there were such option in his Continuance, there was so in the first Recession. There are 
* Vindic. of Depr. Bish. pag. 71. Christ. Com. part. 2. ch. 3. p. 31, 32.  some of us make this act of solomon's a Banishment, and not a proper Deposition; the natural consequent of which Banishment was the debarring him the exercise of the Pontifical Office, which Abiathar must be supposed to accept as a Favour, and not insist upon his Right. But then this Exile must be voluntary, and that makes the Session. And I desire the Dr. if he can, to discover any other form, or importance in the words of Solomon. For tho' he says the following words, so Solomon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrust out Abiathar, make it more plainly to appear a mere absolute Deprivation by the alone act of Solomon, without any Session in Abiathar, yet he cannot but feel a conviction within himself, that this note is far from Cogent For he well knows, that in all Languages verbs Actives have a great Latitude of signification as to the Forms and Manners of action, and denote as well a moral as a natural influence. And here the manner of solomon's ejecting Abiathar is at full declared moral only by enjoining him to retire from Jerusalem to Anathoth on pain of death, and it is in vain to strain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to any other conception. And truly since so many Learned men, not concerned in our Case, have had various notions of this procedure, I wonder why the Dr. is so earnest, to force this instance to an absolute Deprivation. Why should he be fond of multiplying examples of Lay, or Invalid Depositions? Are there not too many such injurious Attempts at the fewest, but we must needs rake, and hale in more than really are, to swell the number, and improve the mischief of ill Precedents, only to give colour to an odd and invidious Hypothesis? Is the Baroccian trifle tanti? Is there so much of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it as to inflame the Church of England? I am afraid there is, and nothing hinders the present accension, but dearth of paper, scarcity of money, and the danger of unlicensed Printing. But however I hope I shall stifle it in this instance, in which I only am engaged, let others try, and take their Fortunes in the rest.  Eucher. 
But by your good leave, Sir, you shall not escape so; for your Arguments and the Drs. drawing me contrary ways, I would gladly see my way clear between you, and get me out of the maze, if possible.  Dyscher. 
Then go you on as you think fit.  Eucher. 
The Dr. then first of all tells us * that whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, aught to be made use of, 
† Case of Sees, etc. Chap. 1.  provided it is not in itself Sinful, and the ill Consequences, which may possibly attend it, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid.— Upon this Maxim the Ancients always preferred the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other things, the Essentials of Religion excepted. There was no Custom, or Law of the Church so Sacred, or inviolable, but what they readily sacrificed, (whensoever necessity required) to the Peace and Tranquillity of it. And in proof hereof the Dr. brings you several full Instances, and Authorities, to which I refer you; and on which I demand your Opinion.  Dyscher. 
I may allow every jot of this to be true; but who shall judge for the Church's Practtice, concerning the necessity, and the Exigences, the Evils, and the Dangers thus to be balanced?  Eucher. 
For a Province the Metropolitan, and Bishops, and where the Clergy have a Canonical Right, they also are to be admitted. In a single Diocese the Bishop, and his Clergy, especially the Chapters; and if the Laity be concerned, it is fit these Debates be managed in the presence of such standing and communicant Laic's, as shall there appear in their own concernments.  Dyscher. 
Can any resolves be valid against the College of Bishops in a Provincial Synod, or against the Bishop in a Diocesan Consultation?  Eucher. 
No.  Dyscher. 
Will not the College of Bishops, and the body of the Clergy think it Essential to Christian Religion to preserve the Hierarchy and Authority of the Priests Sacred, and inviolate against all routs and tyrannical confusions? Will not they think a temporal distress, incurred for adherence to the fundamental Laws of Catholic Communion, less hurtful than a general and causeless deturbation of the pious and regular Priests of God Almighty? Can they think it sinless to permit an arbitrary divorce of themselves from their relation to God, and the Souls of their People, and to let in greedy wolves, who covet nothing but the promotions of the Church, and for that Cause will pretend an outside Orthodoxy in all other points? For put the Case in Fact, that once again an O. C. should oppress all by the Sword, and turn out at once all the Bishops and Clergy of this Realm, and bring in another Set into their Places, must the Christian Laity renounce their Canonical relation to the former, and embrace that of the imposed and irregular Ministers? Or let us look up unto God, and inquire within ourselves, whether of these will God accept for his Servants? Must God submit to an irresistible Mob, or Hector too? Or must we admit those for God's Messengers, whom God never sent, and will never own? And must this be yielded by us toties quoties, whensoever our too mighty Enemies will sport themselves upon us with such a form of persecution? I am afraid, if this mysterious Secret had been known in the three first Centuries, the Heathen Powers, when baffled in their other methods of hostility against the Church, would have took up this as the most successful, because most Orthodox, and Christian way of persecution. Now suppose such a design had been projected against the Apostles, to deprive them of the places, and exercise of their Apostleship, and to fill their Room with other Orthodox pretenders, would the Apostles in Council have allowed people to reject them, and receive the intruding Apostles? Or could any intrude, by the help of the Secular Powers, without Sin, and Schism, and Sacrilege? Or would the Apostles have censured these Invaders, and have still maintained their own Functions?  Eucher. 
As to the Office, which was peculiar Apostolic, necessity was laid upon them, and woe had been unto them, had they not preached the Gospel, in obedience to God, rather than man. But in that Office, as such, there could be no successor, and so they were to be continued as foundation stones, whereas the Episcopal Office is not peculiarly personal but successive.  Dyscher. 
I will not here except against the validity of this Distinction in these Offices, but will put the Case, as you set it, Suppose the Heathen Powers had passed Se●●ence on the Apostles, that being permitted the functions distinctly Apostolical, they should not execute their Episcopal Authorities any where, nor be received by the Churches as their Bishops, but that others provided by the Heathen Enemies should be vested in their Episcopacy, would the Apostles have quitted their Episcopacy, to which Christ gave them Commission? When St. Paul bids the Elders of the Asian Church, to take heed to the Flock, of which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, Act 20.28. must that Authority, received from the Holy Spirit, have conceded to an enstallment of Nero, or Domitian? Or would the Holy Ghost have truckled under the persecuting Powers, and have hallowed the Intruders, and deserted those of his former constitution by Apostolic designation? And would the Apostles, and their first successors, with their flocks, have judged persecution of their bodies greater than this of their Spirituals, that so they should concur in this, to avoid the other, and be content to submit to the Conduct and Communion of Neronian Bishops, that had dethroned the Apostles of our Blessed Saviour, and by the heathen sword assumed a Spiritual Jurisdiction over them? When Ignatius says, that the Bishop, and his Presbytery are to be received as Christ, and his Apostles, with several other earnest and Seraphic Eulogies, would he have allowed them to be forsaken at the pleasure of an Heathen Mob, or Tyrant, in exchange for others set up by Idolatrous craft, and force? Clemens Romanus would not allow this in a domestic Mob in the Church of Corinth, and would he concede it to a Mob of aliens and Pagans?  Eucher. 
I cannot tell how to answer this; but perhaps the Dr. may, when it shall be offered him.  Dyscher. 
In the mean time than I take the Bishops to be the Supreme Ecclesiastic Judges, as well in the dispensation with, as the execution of all secondary Canons, whensoever exigences unforeseen, or more important than those Canons, require their present Relaxation. But such dispensing Power lies not upon the fundamental Rules of their Order and Union, to dissolve their own being, and Authority at the pleasure of the Church's Enemies, for no other motives but those of secular terror, for mere fear whereof no Bishop can dispense with his union towards his Colleagues, nor Clergy, or People be dispensed with as to the Laws of their subordination in the Ecclesiastic unity.  Eucher. 
Why then you must bring this admission of new Bishops, etc. violently obtruded, upon the violent expulsion of the former, into the Catalogue of Sins, which the Dr. excepts out of his Principle. But he withal denies such admission to be sinful, because they are not against the Law of God, nor do they make us accomplices to the injustice, nor violate the Obligations to our Canonical Obedience, nor is the Ordination of the obtruded a mere nullity.  Dyscher. 
As to the two last Suggestions I shall say nothing to them, if the two former are not provable against the Doctor. For my Canonical Obedience belongs to my proper Bishop, whoever he be, and the Ordination of Anti-Bishops is 
† Treat. of Ch. Com. Part. 3. Ch. 6.  not censured for a mere Nullity by all our Worthies, tho' it is by our Vindicator. Let us then begin with the first Consideration, whether, it be not a Sin by the Law of God? I pray how does the Doctor make out the Negative?  Eucher. 
He says, That the Scripture in our Case is altogether silent. 'Tis true, it bids us be obedient to our Governors, and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual, as to the Temporal. But when there are two that stand Competitors, and both claim our Obedience; to which of these two our Obedience ought to be paid, it leaves to our Wisdom to determine.  Dyscher. 
You ought here to observe, that our Question runs about the Duty, or Lawfulness of admitting Intruders, upon an open and contested Expulsion of Right, not where the Title, or Right is dubitable. Now when an Intruder contests for the holding an Ecclesiastical Function against the Rightful Proprietor, that is invalidly and uncanonically thrust out, doth the Law of God leave it to our Wisdom, and not to our Justice to determine, or does it leave it to our Wisdom, to determine according to regular and confessed Justice, or according to irregular and confessed Wrong? For the Law of God requires us to render suum cuique every Man his due, and there is no Wisdom against Right. But the Phrase of leaving things to our Wisdom imports a Liberty undetermined by God, which we may use as we judge expedient, and what God hath so left by the Silence of his Word, is under no Divine Law, and consequently by this Law we are at liberty to take, or choose whether of the two Competitors we in our Wisdom think most convenient to the good of the Church, and hereupon as many violent Competitors, as any Illegal Rout shall obtrude against Right, may draw after them so many several Parties, according as they in their Elective Wisdom shall determine. And is this the way of Ecclesiastic Peace, Unity, and Happiness against the danger of exterior Persecutions? For if force shall put in Competitions, I doubt the Competitions must be ended by force; where divided Wisdom cannot fix a determinate Unity. But the Eighth and Tenth Commandments expesly forbidden men to take, or covet another's Right, and leave us no liberty to determine otherwise. So that no man ought to intrude into another's Bishopric. For a Deprivation, that is apparently invalid, cuts off no Right, or Title before Rightly, and Authoritatively vested. And he sins whosoever puts himself into possession of such Right, which is canonically permanent in the former Possessor. Had the Emperors pretended a Deprivation of the Apostles Episcopacy, had it been lawful for any other Bishop to have rejected them, or seized their Archiepiscopacy and have subjected the Apostles to their Ecclesiastical Government? Or will the fear of force necessitate a Man to admit an injurious consecration to another Divine Authority? But what shall be done, if no Bishops will confer the Sacred Order on him? What must they be also obliged by a Rout to give the Holy Ghost to qualify the Intruder? If not, than this is what they may refuse to sacrifice to the present secular Tranquillity of the Church. And if the Bishops may refuse to ordain, a man may refuse to be ordained to an Intrusion, because it is an Intrusion: And if so, the whole Church may refuse the Intrusion. But if the Bishops are obliged hereto for fear of force, then even the injured Bishops may be bound to consecrate others into their own injuriously deprived Authorities; and so the Apostles had likewise been obliged against their own Divine Commission. But if this be allowed, the result will really be, that the Apostles, and all Bishop's Authority either actually ceases, or aught to be quitted by their own Session, or Concession, at the command of mere Force; out then the producer is not invalid, unjust or uncanonical in the Ejection, and consequently agrees not with the Drs. Hypothesis. But God, that is a God of order, not of confusion, would not permit the deturbation of Aaron, nor the Substitution of any Intruder by the Mob, or Princes: Numb. Ch. 16. Ch. 17. Nor would the Ancients have confirmed Novatian, had he driven away Cornelius from the See of Rome, upon a presumption that they were left at discretion, or obliged to sacrifice the Laws of the Sacred Union. For they had other Senses, and Wisdom, when they so severely provided against such forcible Entries by the 30th. Canon Apostolic; If any Bishop, (says that Holy Canon) making use of worldly Princes, does by them get himself possessed of a Church, let him be Deprived, and Excommunicated; and all that Communicate with him. Now if necessity vacates the obligations of all Canons, not excepting those of Episcopal Constitutions; how came these Wise Men of the East to make a Canon against irresistible necessity, if the terror of Temporal Persecution be such? And why does Athanasius, and other Father's object this Impiety to the Arian Intruders? For if there were no fault in the Intrusion, but only the Arianism, than those Fathers ought only to have upbraided them with the Arianism, not the Intrusion. But if the Fathers justly condemn the Intrusion, than they were not to admit what they righteously censured. And if the Fathers were not to admit Intrusions, neither were the people to admit them, for by so doing they would become accomplices to the Evil, and for that cause are Excommunicate by the said Apostolic Canon. And what I pray has the Doctor to evince the contrary?  Eucher. 
If, saith he, a Landlord, be unjustly, and invalidly dispossessed of his Estate by an incompetent Authority; who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice to the injustice, because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor? Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession, it could only serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves; it cannot restore those whom the State has Deposed. It is not our Submission to the present Possessors, that ejects the former, for they are already irretrievably deposed, and more to this purpose Chap. 1. Pag. 5.  Dyscher. 
Here the Dr. hath out-pitched you two bars length between Lord and Tenant; for 
* Sol. & Ab. p. 6. 7.  you assign Rents, and Homage to the actual Landlord, who is visibly Legal, tho' not honestly Rightful; since all Lords, and Tenants must be admitted for such, that are in by Law. But the Dr. requires no Forms, or Formalities of Law to warrant the payment of Rents, or Oath of Fealty. For he says, 
* Case of Sees etc. p. 6.  If a Lord be dispossessed of his Manor by an incompetent Authority, that cannot be resisted, (a Conqueror suppose, or an unlawful Court) who thinks the forsworn for submitting to the new Tenants Possessor? Who makes a difference there between a Competent, and Incompetent Authority? Why does the Oath, which he took to the Rightful Lord, cease to oblige him? 'Tis because, when he took the Oath, he took it only on this Supposition, that the Lord was possessed of the Manor. The Peace, and Tranquillity of the Public, and the good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath. Now here I must set you upon the Dr. who would never allow forcible Entry, or Possession to be legal, or valid, and thereupon assert the Resistance of O. C. to be just, whereas the Drs. Principles justify the Engagement to his Government against King and House of Lord's. But now for the present I will assume your Notions, and reply upon the Dr. First of all, that upon all Conquests a Public Settlement gives a legal form of Title; and secondly in a Government full settled there cannot be an Unlawful Court, nor can any Man be ejected by an Incompetent Court, if he will legally except against the Incompetency. Otherwise, if an Alien get in by a mere Formal Rout of Robbers, the Tenant owes him no Duty, and pays it on Peril of Repayment, or Penalty to the Legal Proprietor; And Men are always wary upon the Competitions of several pretending Landlords to be secured in their Payments from the other Claimers, from which they know the mere present Possession is not a Legal Security always. But beside, this is not a Parallel Case; nor is there the same parity of Reason in a Real Estate, and the Personal Authority. Here is a Man, that really was, and still Asserts himself Christ's Ambassador, Residentiary Vicar, and Vicegerent; Comes a Tyrant, or a Rout, and violently expels this Ambassador; This is a Crime against the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Royal Majesty, and is a direct affront to our Lord Christ. But this is not all; This Tyrant, or Rout corrupts a few of other our Lord's Ministers, and they in their Lord's name give Credential Commissions to an impostor set up by these Enemies of our Lord, to supply the defect of the ejected Ambassador; this augments surely, not lessens the insolence, and no Prince whatsoever can connive thereat without severe and vindicative Resentments. Now whether shall the Church own for Christ's Messenger, him that he sent, but others barbarously, expelled, or him, that he sent not, but others impudently obtruded? Doth not our Saviour say to them, whom he sent, as his Father sent him, He that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth 〈◊〉 despiseth him that sent me? And can we admit this contempt upon his Messengers without being Accomplices therein? And what if this is necessary for the Clergy at present to save their promotions? Must we value these before the Divine Laws of the Hierarchy and Communion? Are we thus taught to contemn the World indeed, as to quit all the Authorities of our Lord's Dignation rather than lose a little Worldly Interest? When our Lord saith, He that loveth the World, or the things that are in the World more than him, the love of the Father is not in him, nor can he be Christ's Disciple? But however, if the Clergy be not degenerous, they can preserve their Bishops in the exercise of their Spiritual Authorities, tho' not in the Enjoyment of their Estates and Temporalities. For from what is Spiritual no Secular force can alone Depose them, without C●us●, and the concurrence of the Church. Shall outward force force us into Intestine Schism, or Disorder, or can no Division from our Fathers be Schismatical admitted for fear of Temporal force? But one thing more will I ask the Dr. whether we must admit such Deposition, as violent Power pretends to, before a new violent filling of the Sees with others? If not, then are we not to Sacrifice all the Secular Peace, and then the See being not vacant by such pretended Deposition, either the Deposition formally consists in the new Intrusion, and so the Intrusion must on the Drs. Hypothesis be invalid, and so cannot oblige us to admit it; or if the Intrusion be not the Deposition, than the former Bishop, etc. is not Deposed, and the latter, either is not possessed, or two Anti-Bishops can be, and are jointly possessed of the same Episcopal See, and Authority. But if we may, or must abide by the pretended Secular Deposition before a new Intruder; then what if the Secular Tyranny will not concede us any Bishop? Must we Sacrifice here too? No, here the Dr. is tender, and will not Sacrifice, he will have some Bishop, or other by Mr. Mobs' favour, whether his Irrestibleship will, or no. Now then let us reduce this Prudential Principle into Practice, and if you can bear a little teizing, I will discuss its Virtue.  Eucher. 
Proceed.  Dyscher. 
Suppose then upon an Irretrievable Deposition of Bishops by mere force, the Tyrannic Powers neglect to new furnish the Churches, what course must they take for a Supply?  Eucher. 
Petition those Powers thereunto.  Dyscher. 
What if these Powers, Conscious of this your Drs. Principle, always give fair Promises, but never intent to repair the Breach; how long must the Church wait?  Eucher. 
Till such time as they see no hope of relief, and as long as the Church can forbear, without damage to the Substance of Religion.  Dyscher. 
Well then, suppose the Church can forbear no longer, or the Tyranny absolutely denies to fill the Sees, who shall then provide for the Church?  Eucher. 
The other Undeprived Bishops, and Clergy.  Dyscher. 
But while, or before they go about this the Irresistible Irretrievably deprives them also, how shall the Cut go then?  Eucher, 
Then the Churchwardens must try what they can do for their People.  Dyscher. 
But let them be Irretreivably Deposed too, and how then?  Eucher. 
Then the multitude of Christian Churches.  Dyscher. 
Tho' here I could demand, how an unorganized Multitude can Act Uniformly, yet I will not pinch you that way, but what Priests must or can they provide, the Old that are Deprived, or New?  Eucher. 
The old. Case of Sees, etc. pag. 41.  Dyscher. 
What upon their Old Title, or your New Investiture?  Eucher. 
Here I am in a straight; but let it be on their Old Title, what then?  Dyscher. 
Then they may not abide by the pretended Forcible Deposition, till a new Intrusion; nor is that Deposition Irretrievable, as the Dr. sometimes supposes it, for an Irretrievable Deposition is an effectual one, whose effect cannot be vacated, or reversed, while yet at another time the Dr. allows the Deposition to be Invalid, but an Invalid Deposition is null, 'tis no Deposition, whereas an Irretrievable Deposition is a most effectual and real one as I have said.  Eucher. 
Well then, what if, to avoid these difficulties we allow the reinvestiture of the former Priests by a new Title?  Dyscher. 
But they will not accept it, as knowing that their old Title is permanent, and unimpaired by the nats' pretended Deposition, and consequently, that a pretended new Investiture is null, because needless, and anticipated; besides, we know, that the acts of mere Laity cannot Canonically erect an Hierarchy.  Eucher. 
Let them then procure a new Sett.  Dyscher. 
But where will they find Persons qualified, or willing to enter into such a deposable Office, or to ordain them against Mr. Irresistibles will, who will presently Irretrievably Depose them? To this issue of Absurdity and Contradiction the Drs. Principle must of necessity bring him. And he were better resolve, that the Church may admit an open and utter Dissolution of the Hierarchy, than dwindle it away after this poor precarious manner of Sophistry. Have you any thing more to allege from the Doctor?  Eucher. 
Yes, yes; If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Authority of a Conqueror, and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror, I desire to know of you, whether the Clergy of that Town are Perjured if they own that Bishop, whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over them? Case of Sees p. 6.  Dyscher. 
I smell your design well enough to bring me into a snare; but I can answer the Dr. upon your Principles. For if the Conqueror be not settled in Form of Law, all he does is of no Validity, and the Clergy are to have no regard to his violences upon the Bishop, nor his Illegal intrusion of another. But if he upon Conquest hath attained to a Formal Settlement, there is a just Cause, on the Merits of which, the Recusant Bishop at the Command of the Conqueror, may be ejected by the Church, and give way to a Successor of the Conqueror's Nomination. But this the Church is obliged to, not for mere wrath, but also for Conscience sake towards the reason of the Cause, and the Law of God, that requires Subjection to humane Constitutions. But the Drs. Hypothesis puts the whole Proceeding against the deprived as injust, and formally invalid to all intents whatsoever, and makes the act of Deposition simply Secular, without any Concurrence of the Church.  Eucher. 
If a Bishop should be by the Civil Power Condemned to perpetual and close Imprisonment, or be banished for ever from his Country, so that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop, or should he be carried away Captive, we know not where, or from whence we cannot redeem him;— Nay, suppose the Banished, the Imprisoned, the Captive Bishop should expressly require them, upon their Duty o● C●●onical Oath, never to accept of any other Bishop, as long as he by the common Course of Nature may be supposed to be living, or till they be assured he is dead,— what must be done in such Cases, & c? Case of Sees, pag. 6, 7.  Dyscher. 
The Church must abide by the Government of their Clergy in such Cases; and in all Cases, where the peculiar Office of the Bishops is wanting apply to other Bishops for their Succour, and Aid.  Eucher. 
But what if the Diocese be so set, or restrained, that the Church cannot have recourse to other Bishops, (as suppose in the Isle of Man) or any other impediments preclude a Capacity of such Negotiations with other Bishops, who can bear such an hard saying, that the Church must not admit a new Bishop of her own, when she may, merely because the ejected Bishop, with whom we can have no correspondence, is ill natured, and grudges that benefit to the Church?  Dyscher. 
I am hard pressed here; I pray how will you steer in this dangerous difficulty, between the quick Sands that lie on both sides, on the Drs. lose Principles for your Cause, and the strict Rules of ours?  Eucher. 
Why truly I must so far concur with the Dr. as to grant, that the Church has a Liberty to admit a new Bishop in such Cases, if he be otherwise Canonically qualified.  Dyscher. 
Does Banishment, Imprisonment, or Captivity, cutting off all capacity of commerce, vacate the See, and exauctorate the injured Bishop?  Eucher. 
It does render the See actually empty for the time; but yet I will allow you, that the Bishop is not exauctorated, but that upon removal of the impediments, his Authority would immediately exert itself, and run on in its old Channel, and aught to be received on the Original Title, as being still Bishop of his Diocese, except his supposed prohibition of another substitute Bishop forfeits his Right, Title, and Authority.  Dyscher. 
This is odd Doctrine; If the Bishop does not forbid the Church to substitute another, which not to do may be presumed for a Session, than he still continues Bishop; if he forbids a Substitution, than he quits it by forfeiture; I pray how can you make out these Paradoxes?  Eucher. 
Thus; if a Bishop shall enjoin Orders to the Dissolution of Discipline, he ipso facto becomes irregular, and forfeits. And such would be the effect of this supposed Prohibition of a Substitute. But if he admits a Substitute upon the necessity of Discipline not otherwise to be supported, he still continues Bishop, and is to be received for such in full Authority immediately upon his enlargement, and recovery.  Dyscher. 
This does not extricate, but involve, and double the Paradox. For thus there may be two Bishops of the same See at once, and a Successor to a present Proprietary; which Successor is to be again thrust out as uncanonical, and no Bishop of such Diocese on the return of the former.  Eucher. 
Two Bishops there then will be at the same time of one and the same See, though not in it. But the second will not be a proper Successor, but a Sagan, or Vicar to the absent, and so to give place to the returning Proprietary, till the See shall become wholly vacant of the Proprietary Bishop by death, or otherwise, except there be some other exceptive provision in such extraordinary Cases. For according to this Rule of Prudence the Church of Jerusalem proceeded in the case of Narcissus 
* Case of Sees, etc. Chap. 1. pag. 6.  alleged by the Dr. which is much like this supposed Case before us. Oppressed with calumnious Perjuries Narcissus retires from his See to deserts, and unknown Fields for many years, not plainly renouncing his Station however. Upon this the Prelates of the bordering Churches fill his Place with other Successors, in all three, before his return, never undoubtedly designing to exclude Narcissus, if he should return, whose Glory and Innocency Heaven itself had signally vindicated. But so it happened, that after the death of the third intermediate Bishop Gordius, Narcissus returns, and the Church requires him to resume the Throne Episcopal, not on a new, but his old Title. But because through the great infirmities of his old Age he could not bear the fatigue of his Office, it was agreed, that one Alexander should be his Sagan, or Partner in that Prelacy, the original Authority of Narcissus being thus derived to Alexander, and by him to be administered in ease to Narcissus.  Dyscher. 
But this does no Service in our case; for our former Proprietaries are ejected, and others set in to exclude them, though present, and claiming their proper Relation to their Dioceses. Nor does this account of yours reach the design of those instances given by the Dr. in which the Intruders asserted a Title against the unjustly and invalidly expelled Proprietors.  Eucher. 
I am not yet come to those Instances; I only tell you what may be done in the Case of a Banished, Deprived, or Captive Bishop hereby rendered uncapable of his Functions, which I here proposed from the Dr. though I confess to you as a Friend, that this Plea, and Case of the Drs. as well as all his Lay-instances throughout his Book, are far more Impertinent to our present Case, than (as he says) your Vindicators discourses were to the Baroccian Hypothesis.  Dyscher. 
This is pretty Inadvertency, if you can make it out.  Eucher. 
Why, look ye; Deprivation, or Deposition, in our Sense, and Case, is the Divorce, or Dissolution of the spiritual Relation between Priest and People, but Banishment, Imprisonment, and Captivity makes no such divorce; And this the Dr. Fundamentally grants in supposing his Lay-ejections to be invalid Deprivations, or Depositions; and though he generally calls these Lay-ejections, and Banishments by the name of Depositions, yet upon a cogent pinch he grants, that Banishment from a Bishopric, though inflicted on purpose to part the Bishop from his people, is no Deposition; for so he 
† Case of Sees, etc. Ch. 4. pag. 56.  expressly asserts of S. Hilary, that he was never Deposed, but only Banished, and allows him to be still actual Bishop of Poitiers, since there was no other Orthodox Bishop there. Now our enquiry, as the Dr. sets it, is of an unjust and invalid Deposition by a Lay-power, or Irresistible Force, and the Admission of a Successor consequent thereupon. Now if Banishment (and by parity of Reason Imprisonment, and Captivity) is not a Deposition, how are these pertinently alleged for such in our Question? Then again, if upon Banishment the Deposition consists in the intrusion of another, and this be unjust, and invalid, how is the intruded a right Successor to whom the Church's obedience is due? Or if he be not right, (i. e. Canonical) how is this obedience due? Must we pay obedience where it is not due? Or is there any due, where there is no form of Right? Or is there any form of Right created by an Act not only unjust, but even invalid, and consequently null? Then again, every one of the Drs. instances of Lay-deprivations are nothing but mere Banishments, and Imprisonments, and so no Depositions from their Spiritual Powers or Relations, as he confesses in St. Hilaries case; though elsewhere he commonly calls them Depositions without thinking of it. But if the Depositions consist in the consequent intrusions, these being invalid, as well as unjust, oblige to nothing, but Repentance and Restitution. And so his infinite expense of Reading and Criticism is all at once unfortunately thrown away. But there is one thing farther considerable in the last Question of the Dr. and that is the impossibility of performing the Episcopal Functions, consequent to these Lay-Banishments and Imprisonments. For if this incapacity gives those violences the forms of Depositions, than it appears not, that all the Lay-instances produced by the Dr. were Depositions; and perhaps none of them, since the Episcopal conduct might be carried on by Communicatory Letters to the Dioceses, and other Social Bishops to act for them, according to the constant practice of Exiled and Imprisoned Bishops from the days of the Apostles. But if the persecution be so strait as to preclude all capacity of such Pastoral care, a new Bishop may be set to supply the defect, but not to exclude the Right of the ejected, to govern for him, not against him, and to resign upon the return of the Proprietor. On this account it must be resolved how the ejected Bishops retaining their Claim or Right, mentioned by the Dr. or his Baroccian Treatise, owned those Orthodox Persons that filled their places in their Absence. Thus 
* Case of Sees, etc. pag. 59  Briccius might call Armentius Brother, and Bishop of Tours, while he was returning to lay Armentius aside, upon a Presumption that Armentius never set up against him nor would oppose his Restitution, if yet there be any credit due to the Story. On some such confidence 
* Case of, etc. Ch. 7. pag. 82.90. etc.  Elias might Communicate with John, and his Communicants at Jerusalem, not only because John was Orthodox, but because he kept not the See from Elias as a Rival, or Anti-Bishop, but only continued that Care for the Church during Elias' Incapacity. For their Mutual Friendship is a demonstration, that John did not still oppose Elias; and Elias ratified John's Present Government by his Communion; which was, if not a Session, as your Vindicator conceived, yet a Valid Concession for the time being. For tho' John was one of Elias' Expellers, yet after John had opposed, and baffled the Emperor, and therein seconded Elias' Cause: This, with the Mediation of those Martial Monks Theodosius and Sabas, might cool all Elias' former Resentments, and procure his Peace, and Ratification of John's Government. That Elias was not obliged by Canon to acquiesce is manifest, not only from many Canons to the contrary, but the practice of many others produced by the Dr. who endeavoured to recover against the Orthodox Intruder received by the Church on the Drs. Fundamental Law of Necessity. If then Elias acquiesced not by Law, but Choice, this made a Ratifying Concession to John's Government, and hereupon Theodosius and Sabas might well Communicate with both, since they both held Communion one with the other, either by the Session, or Concession of Elias. But here a shrewd hard Question Intervenes; If the Church always owned the Orthodox Possessor of another's Chair without Schism, how could the Orthodox ejected Bishop rival and contest the Intruded Possessor without Schism or injury done in challenging; his Right, while yet his Right would be taken for quitted; if he should not challenge it? Now during the Challenge he must renounce the Possessor, and all Communion with him as such, whom yet the whole Church according to the Dr. lawfully receives for the Diocesan: Now if the Ejected will be in the Communion of the whole Church, they must own their Anti-Bishops, and so it will be their Duty to lose their Right to Intruders, or if they may refuse the Anti-Bishops without Fault, how can others lawfully own them, and their Possession of other Men's Sees never validly vacated? Methinks Apparent and Confessed Right should obtain in Judgement against possession manifestly without Right; nor is it a Rule of Conscience, or Religious Peace, but Carnal Fear, and base Interest, that inclines to the contrary. Hereupon I conclude, that the best Title, John had to the Church's Communion, was from the Concession of Elias. And your Vindicator had great reason to suppose something done on Elias' part, to the confirming of John's Prelacy; from the Communion, that is asserted to have been between them. For being apparently no Anti-Bishops, the Natural and Legal Presumption must be, that Elias allowed him, and that was a Canonical ground for the Churches regular Communion with him, tho' before there seems none, except Elias had been removed beyond all Capacity of Communion, which its plain he was not. So than it is not the Substitution of a New Bishop in the Chair of another, utterly latent, or removed from all possible Communication, that makes a Schism, but when one is set up to Exclude the other, (Violently and Invalidly Ejected) from the Administration of his Office, either at present, or hereafter, while in a Capacity, and Readiness to perform his Functions. Thus Pope Martin, whom the Dr. hath also instanced, pronounces it Unlawful for the Church of Rome to admit another Bishop during his Life, and Spalatensis alleges that Authority and Rule for Canonical and Good. Yet when he was Condemned at Constantinople, and the Church of Rome had taken him for dead, and so chose Eugenius, no wonder that Pope Martin, receiving News of this before his death, prayed for Eugenius thus chosen, because he knew the Romans had not set him up as an Anti-Bishop, and could not doubt, had his return been possible, but that his Church, and Eugenius too, would have joyfully re-inthroned him. But in cases of Competition, as in the Ignatian and Photian War, if the Church or the Competitors can be on both sides excused from Schism, upon every turn and invalid Act of Lay-Power, against which a good and valid Title is still asserted, while the people turn to both sides with the Secular Wind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And I believe no body can make it out. And I think we must make the Proceed of the Church at the best to follow the pretended measures of Right and Rule, or condemn them for wrong in every Instance produced by the Dr.  Dyscher. 
What course then will you take to excuse the Churches, in admitting and maintaining Anti-Bishops against the Invalidly ejected Proprietors still claiming?  Eucher. 
Upon what particular Motives they did Act, it is impossible for me to determine; but I think I can set such Rules, according to which they might act validly, not otherwise. First then I admit, that all the Imperial Ejections were not proper Depositions, but either Antecedents, or Consequents of them. Now if the standing Councils of the Churches find the Bishop wickedly ejected by the Secular Arm, or without any declared Cause, they ought not to admit any other Bishop, without the consent of, and during a capacity of Communication with the Ejected, or his Deputies. But upon defect of such Capacity they may admit an Orthodox Bishop, as a Sagan, not as an Anti-Bishop to the absent, to resign and concede at his return. Much of this Photius engaged to the Ignatians under his hand, (if the Drs. Metrophanes be true in this particular, 
† Case of, etc. Ch. 14. Pag. 148. ) * that he would carry himself toward Ignatius as towards an unblamable Patriarch, and neither spoke any thing against himself, nor approve of any that should do so. But being hereupon received, 'tis said, he took away the Paper he had so Subscribed, and then deposed Ignatius. He was therefore sensible, that such a Subscription would have engaged him to Resign, whenever Ignatius should return. It being a Contract not to stand as Antipatriarch against Ignatius. But in Case the Expulsion be for Notorious Villainy incompatible with Episcopal Sanctity, then, even without a Synodical Sentence, the Councils of the Church may establish another Successor, as in the Case of 
† Vindic. of Dep. B●sh. Pag. 71. etc. Case of Sees, etc.  Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople, banished to Rome for open and effectual High-Treason; in whose stead Cyrus was admitted. And here your Vindicator acknowledges, there was no need of a Synod to deprive him upon the notoriety and heinousness of the Gild, and the Dr. rightly observes against him, that there was no need of a presumed Session in Callinicus, but then the Church, if she acted Piously, looked on more than bare possession in Cyrus, namely to the ill Merits, as well as Fortunes of Callinicus, as the just ground of quitting him for Cyrus. Indubitable charges of the Secular Powers removing the impeached Prelate beyond the reach of Ecclesiastical Communication, the standing Council of the Church may admit another for the present, reserving the Cause of the Ejected to Ecclesiastical Cognisance, whensoever there shall be opportunity; and Equity binds the Ejected to admit these Ecclesiastical procedures, because just and necessary. And with this Design the Councils of the Church might admit new Bishops, when the former had fallen under Imperial, or Civil Condemnations to remote Exiles, for Crimes charged on them by the solemn Credit or Averment of the Secular Powers, to whose Proceed and Declarations in the mean time we own a just Defference and Veneration. And if in all those the Drs. Instances, wherein heinous crimes are pretended as the true causes of the Exiles, the Churches had admitted the new Ones with such a Reservation of trying the Causes perfectly upon a fair opportunity, I think their new Admissions had been not only valid, but just too, and a charitative Presumption of such intention in the Church's Admissions of the New Bishops, will I believe excuse those Admissions at our Tribunal from Schism and Invalidity. But when all comes to all, none of this Hypothesis, these Questions, or instances are applicable to our Case; for our ejected Fathers are not removed from the free presence of, and Communication with their Dioceses; so that they need not any other Substitute for want of their Presence and Authority, from whom, if there were no other Cause or Reason, we could not recede without their Concession. And this is conclusible from 
† Case of etc. Ch. 4. §. 1. Pag. 41.  the Drs. own words, and instances. For, saith he, should our Magistrates, like the Persecutors those Ages, viz. the three first centuries endeavour to destroy Christianity, by depriving us of our Bishops, and by suffering none to be substituted in their Rooms, than those Bishops, would be our own Bishops, and as such we should still adhere to them; As the Church of Antioch stuck to Eustathius ejected by an Heretical Synod, and banished by the Emperor, 
† Case of Sees, etc. 〈◊〉. 4. §. 1. Pag. 41.  till the Catholic Bishop Meletius was settled in his See, upon which Eustathius quitted his Episcopal Care and Government, and not before. Now from hence 'tis plain, that Civil Separations are not real Deprivations, or Depositions, and that the Admission of an Heretical Intruder thereupon does not create a Deprivation of a Catholic Bishop from his Church. So that all the Question remaining herein is, whether the Introduction of an Orthodox Bishop be an effectual Deprivation? For if so, the Orthodox Church, introducing the New Orthodox Bishop, must intent to deprive the former Good, Persecuted, Confessor Bishop, but who can think, that an Orthodox Church will, or can do this according to the Rules of Orthodoxy? But, then again this is no Lay-Deprivation, and yet on the Drs. Hypothesis must be Unjust, Invalid and Uncanonical, and yet, I pray, must it be done by an Orthodox Church according to the Rules of Orthodoxy? Even so it must be according to the Drs. but not the Catholic Principles. But if the Church by the introduction of a New does not intent to deprive the Old, than the Old Bishop's Title and Relation to his Church is still retained, and permanent, and the New is no Anti-Bishop to the Old, but must resign upon the return of the former, except it be otherwise Canonically contracted. And in the Drs. own instance, who can think, that the Catholic Church in Antioch by admitting Meletius did depose Eustathius, to whom they ever had so firmly adhered during all the Arian Persecution? It must therefore be resolved, that Eustathius directed, or admitted the Introduction of Meletius, in that hereupon he omitted, and quitted his Episcopal Care; or that the Church admitted him not against Eustathius but in his stead, until his Return, and Restitution, upon which Eustathius wholly Resigned, or discontinued, and gave place. And so the same may be well judged 
† Case of, etc. Ch. 17.  in the Succession of Macedonius to Euphemius in the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, even as the Case is Stated by the Dr. especially since Macedonius, besides other good Offices, would not wear his Omophorion in the presence of Euphemius, showing thereby, that he neither was, nor would be an Anti-bishop to him, tho' Euphemius in begging his Protection, in his way to Exile seems to have conceded without Remonstrance, that Macedonius should supply the Church for him during his Exile, but not against him; upon which joint accord they continued saithful Friends even unto Death. And hence well might those, who refused to subscribe Euphemius' Condemnation, fairly Communicate with Macedonius, as being no Anti-bishop to Euphemius, but in perfect Charity and Communion with him. All which procedures are grounded on that Maxim owned by St. Chrysostom, that the Church cannot be (viz. well) without a Bishop. So that it is the actual want of a Bishop for the time being that Justifies new Admissions, not to exclude, but to supply the defect of the Proprietor till his Recovery from Banishment, or Bondage. And to apply the Drs. Concession to our present State, If their Majesties had not filled the Sees with New Bishops, the Old ones had been our Bishops still; and then how were the Sees before vacant by the Statute of Lay-Deprivation? And how long should we have waited their Majesty's leisure, had they continued longer the Diocese in Suspense, before the Dr. would have remonstrated for the Old Bishops? Or how shall the Church know, when their King's design to destroy the Church by not yielding it Bishops, while the crafty Persecution is carried on under false promises, and fair pretences of care for the Church's Interest? These are pretty hard Morsels to digest, and I leave it to the more judicious to resolve them.  Dyscher. 
But to what Rules can you reduce the usage of the Greek Church in admitting new Patriarches erected by the Grand Signior upon his Arbitrary Dethroning a former, who yet is present to his People, and capable of his Pastoral Care? For the Dr. puts us this strict Question; 
† Case of, etc. Ch. 15. Pag. 174.175.  whether an ejected; Patriarch of Constantinople would do well, if after he was deposed, he should separate from the Communion of his Successor, and make a Division in the Church? To this he adds another Questions; It is certain, saith he, that when the Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed by the Sultan, the Church submits immediately to the Successor without ask the Old Patriarch leave.— Is now the Greek Church herein Schismatical? If the ejected Patriarch should actually lay claim to his See, would the Church be Schismatical for adhering to the present Possessor?  Eucher. 
In this point I find the Dr. and some of you very well agreed, to excuse, and in a manner to justify this Submission in the Greek Church. This the Dr. observes in one of his Opponents, and so have you and I in your learned Author of Christian Communion. But herein my opinion is, that the whole Greek Church was culpable in the first Admission of such Changes, and still is so in continuing such submission, whic has nothing in it to Excuse it but fear of persecution. It is true, it would be odd for one single Patriarch to refuse such Ejection against the temper and humour of the whole Church, especially if himself were advanced so upon the Imperial Expulsion of his Predecessor; for if a whole Church will perversely urge her Bishop to yield to violence, and lay down his Mitre, I think in many Cases he may do well to yield to an unjust and inflexible importunity, as Gregory Nazianzen did; but the Churches are to blame, that do not animate and maintain their Bishops against such Tyrannies in their Spiritual Authorities, which ought not to lackey it to Simoniacal and barbarous insolences. For since the Greek Churches are, as to their Temporal Condition, in the same State with the Primitive, they ought to do as the Primitive Church would have bravely done, and to follow the rules of Succession, that were observed in those purest Ages. It is true, the whole Greek Church, having by a long and consuetudinary consent and prescription made this Usage to themselves, as it were Canonical, would not seem Schismatical in neglecting the claim of an Ejected Patriarch, because he himself in his first advancement came in by the pleasure of the Sultan, and assumed the Patriarchate under the same servile Terms and Conditions. And therefore that first Consent, tho' faulty, and vicious, incapacitates him to reform, and reverse the ill custom singly by himself, without the concurrence of his Episcopal Colleagues, or the general Councils of that Church; at least he cannot condemn them as Schismatical in this Customary Servility. And here I must put this Quaere, whether this Submission of the Greek Church to such Changes be simply Sinful? If so, than the Dr. ought not to prescribe from them, as exemplary, or excusable. If not sinful, than Custom, and Ecclesiastical Consent hath made those deprivations and successions Valid, and Canonical, and then they are alien to the Drs. Hypothesis, and are impertinently alleged. But as if Case of the Greek Church now actually stands, the ejected Patriarch making no challenges, 'tis no domestic Schism within themselves, though it be a wretched Dehonestation of that Church's Sanctity. And so, if, as the Dr. confesses, these Patriarches, do not merit by their Learning, or Wisdom to be guides, and patterns to the Bishops of England, he should not urge us with their corrupt and profane examples, to sacrifice our Hierarchies to the arbitrary lusts of Secular Powers. For if it be not a formal Schism in the Greek, 'tis a radicated vice and corruption there, and which for that reason we are to oppose, and prevent here against all imprudent perils, that it may not become an irremediable and common Evil.  Dyscher. 
You are a strange thing of a man; you will neither side with us, nor our Adversaries, but pick out between us matters of dislike, as if you would be of neither interest, but a certain mixed kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but this is the ready way to lose yourself with both Parties.  Eucher. 
I have long since learned from the Apostle, that if in such Cases of Conscience I should seek to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. And truly you on your part, and those of the Baroccian Principles seem to me to be equally in such extremes, as are destructive to the true happiness and integrity of the Church. By which means you have the advantage of reproaching each other for your manifest absurdities, which the defence of your principles hurries you into, and thus are in a fair way for an eternal wrangle, but never like to settle in a grave and impartial temper, ease, or satisfaction. And therefore I, that have been so long a seeker between you, and but little the Wiser amidst your contentions, and so must make the best use and practice of my own Sentiments, till I can experience between you others more improving or convincing.  Dyscher. 
I have been very calm all this while we have been upon the Speculation of the Baroccian hypothesis; But now you remind me of your own Principles, and Senses, I fear I shall fall into the Spirit of T. B. again, and not use you very partially in some of my Reflections.  Eucher. 
I am sensible by experience of your infirmity; And since good natured Men are sometimes passionate, I know how to bear as well as to correct a little rudeness. I pray, good Brother, let me know, what 'tis now that gins to provoke your choler?  Dyscher. 
When you had spent a great many Arguments drawn out with much Pomp and Ostentation, being basted in them you grow weary with struggling, and fairly give up all, and acknowledge that 
† Sol. & ab. pag. 27.29.  an Act of State Christian cannot alone vacate a Spiritual Charge, 
Charge, by any Divine Law, primitive Canon, or Prescription. This is as full as can be worded against the Power of the State to deprive Bishops. Now see, how you come about again in the very next words; Yet such an Act, received, and admitted by the Church, may from her concurrence have a just and legal Effect. And then upon this Notion the Statute of Deprivation ipso facto must be taken as a Law upon the Church to reject the Recusants totally from their Stations. Here you will not have the Deprivation to proceed from the Act of the State alone, but, to save some Honour to the Clergy, you make their Deprivation valid by their Concurrence to the Act of Deprivation. But I pray, how did they concur? Was it otherwise than by submitting to the Act, when it was made? And is such Submission any Authority? I thought they had been quite different things. Did the Clergy show any signs, or make any protestations for their Right, viz. that the Act of Parliament for the Deprivation of the Bishops was not valid without their Concurrence? No, not a word; but when it is done, they submit to it, and acknowledge it. And you would make a Protestation against Fact, that their Concurrence was necessary to it, that themselves did not pretend, nor dare they do it to this day.— It is certain the Parliament thought their own Authority sufficient to deprive the Bishops, and did not ask, or think they needed the Concurrence of the Clergy to make their Act valid. On the contrary not Clergymen have dared to dispute it, but those, who are deprived. And for others to imagine to come in by their Concurrence into a share of the Authority, is like the fly on a Wheel of the Chariot, that thought he contributed to the dust that was raised, for he too gave his concurrence. It is possible such Men as you should not see how contemptible it renders them, to pretend to an Authority they dare not avow? And upon this Foundation to raise Arguments to justify their proceed, which they cannot maintain any other way! For these Men to deny themselves to be Erastians'! or ever to name any Ecclesiastical Authority! I had almost said to call them a Church! Or to speak as 
† Sol. etc. Ab. Pag. 29.  you do, that the Church ought not to admit Deprivations on improper or unreasonable Demands! As if the Parliament did request it from the Convocation, or left it to their admitting, or not admitting! As if they durst dispute the validity of an Act of Parliament for want of their Concurrence! As if any of them durst let such a word come out of their Mouth! Behold the Ghost, the Echo of a Church! etc. M. S. Reflex.  and that the consent, public and actual Concurrence of the Church is necessary to give an Ecclesiastical Effect to Civil Ordinances in Matters of the Church. Now this Concession overthrows your whole Cause, and being placed after the main Body of your Arguments, is itself an Argument, that you had little faith in them.— So then our Bishops, being never Canonically Deprived, are the yet proper Bishops of their Sees.— But you come like a Spiritual Juggler, and persuade us, that this hath been Canonically done; For the Church, say you, aught to empty the Sees of such Incumbents, that are dangerous to the Civil State. But, Sir, must the Church cast out her Bishops, as oft as they will not comply with Usurpers, etc. But you say, this was done by Acts of Separation properly Ecclesiastical, the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church taking the Jurisdiction, till the Chapter elect, and Bishops consecrate another,— But, Sir, you cannot but know, that the Dean and Chapter have no Jurisdiction over their Metropolitan, and the See must be vacant, before they can proceed to Election. T. B. Sect. Pag. 37.38.  Eucher. 
I have heard with much patience, yea pleasure, all your Noble strains of Rhetoric, and need only say, " If I have spoken evil, bare witness to the evil, but if well, why smitest thou me? For if the Deprived assert the Church's Concurrence necessary to give Acts of State an Ecclesiastical Effect, and I grant it, what Cause have you to fly in my face for even that very Concession? But for you to upbraid me with my Candour, who are so heedless in attending to my words, as to take, or set them off in other Senses, than rationally can be fixed on them in their clear account of this Concurrence, is neither very courteous, nor prudential. Let us therefore again look over these oversights, and see whether we can come again to ourselves. First then I never said, that the Concurrence of the Church was necessary, either to make an Act of Parliament, or to make it valid in Ecclesiasticals, and particularly in Acts of Deprivation; But I admitted your Principle so far, and no further, that her Concurrence is necessary to give Statutes an Ecclesiastical Effect, and Issue. For an Act of Parliament may justly require of the Church some certain Ecclesiastical proceed, without any joint Session, or Consultation of the Church. And such Acts shall be just and valid of themselves to oblige the Conscience of the Church to obedience, or executive Concurrence. As suppose, an Act of Parliament, repealing all the Statutes of Praemunire, which cramp the liberties of the Church in the Episcopal Successions, and Synodical Consultations for a perfect reformation to a Primitive purity, should consequently require our Bishops, or Convocations to proceed upon such relaxation to provide, and execute better rules of Discipline on the morals, and duties of the Christian Church under their care, and to renew the Commercium formatarum with foreign Churches for a general Restitution of Piety and Order to its Primitive State, such a Law I think would valioly oblige the Church to Concurrence, without which however actually given it could not have its Ecclesiastical Effect. When King Joash commanded the Priests to employ the sacred Money to the reparation of the Lords House, it was a valid command to oblige; but while the Priests neglected it, it had no Sacred effect. 2 King 12. So when Moses spoke unto Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to eat the meat offering and heave shoulder according to set Rules, the precept was very valid, yet because of their actual Omission it wanted an Ecclesiastical Effect, Leu. 10. So when a Statute of Deprivation requires the Church to eject Recusants from their Stations, if the cause be necessary, or just, the Statute is valid to oblige the Conscience of the Church to an executive and concurrent obedience, yet if the Church will by no means yield to such command of the State, whether just or unjust, valid or invalid in its obligatory intentions, it cannot actually pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect, and Issue, and all, that the Civil Powers can do on the refusal, is to subject the Church to temporal Punishments. Nay, in the same Genus of Civil Government the Decrees and Judgements of the King's Courts, notwithstanding their perfect justice and validity, cannot have their Civil Effect, if the subordinate officers neglect, or refuse to execute them. 'tis true, there is a difference between the Civil obligations of Under-Officers to their Superiors in Secular Authorities, and those of the Church to the Civil Powers in matters Ecclesiastical. For that Civil Officers are obliged only to observe the Legal forms of process in the Orders of their Superiors, and are not tied to inquire into the inner justice of those Orders. But the Church, when under any Laws, or Commands of the State, may and aught to judge for herself, and her conscience toward God, Whether the matters, enjoined her by the Laws, be consistent with the Laws and Principles of Christianity, and the Churches fundamental Constitution, against which she is never to admit them to an Ecclesiastical Effect, but must bear the penal Consequences with all meekness and resignation. And this is not only the Right and Duty of all Churches, as sacred Corporations, toward all humane laws in matters moral, or Religious, but of every single Christian also. And if this be not admitted, up goes Hobbism, and the Civil Powers may enact Deprivations, Excommunications, and anathemas for men's refusing the Alcoran, Paganism, Socinianism, and even Atheism itself, and for owning the Scriptures, Creeds, and Sacraments. But you, that think us such a soft and waxed generation, would have found this Right asserted even unto Martyrdom against all such deprivations, had they been enacted upon causes apparently injurious, or imposed on the Church. For in the late Reign not only you, but others also opposed the growth and menaces of Popery with a burning zeal, when we had no present prospect of any thing, but Faggots, Dragons, and most Christian Bridles. And that all these Armies of Worthies, should all of a sudden grow base, abject, and irreligious, cannot easily (I am sure not fairly) be presumed. But in cases, which the Church judges equal, she may concur and submit, and when she may so do, it can be neither religious, or prudential to provoke, or incur a persecution by a needles and obstinate refusal, which is our Sense upon the Causes and Law of the present Deprivations. But is it not a pretty exception against this Concurrence, because it is yielded by Submission, not Authority? For did I ever assert of an Authority in the Church to refuse her Duty, against which certainly there lies no Authority? And I told you, 
† Sol. and Ab. pag. 28.  that the Church here concurs by Submission, as judging it her duty herein to yield to the State. But in such Cases if you will needs require the Church's Authority, I will remind you what I told you 
† Sol. and Ab. Pag. 29.  last time, that the Church has an Authoritative Right to judge in such Cases, whether she may, or must concur, or no. And hence a Right essentially belongs to it to examine all the Causes of the Secular Demands; so that if she finds there be no grave Reasons to move the Church to the required Severities, she ought to disobey, as my Lord Bishop of London well did, when required to suspend Dr. Sharp indictâ Causâ, etc. And for this I alleged out of Nazianzen one of the Noblest Instances in all Antiquity, wherein the Bishops of Cappadocia refused to depose, or reject the canonically settled Bishop of Caesarea, notwithstanding all Julian's terrors and commands, of which I wonder Dr. Hody took no notice. But I add also, that if the Church finds those Causes sufficient, she may, if necessary she must admit the Laws enforcing them, and not wantonly pretend Authority against duty, nor use her liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. And I can never imagine, that this Right of the Church was ever suspected, much less opposed by any Powers or Legislators truly Christian.  
But if Civil Powers will make irreligious Laws in matters Spiritual, will you immediately oblige the Christian Councils to invade the Senate House, or Courts of Civil Judicature with Protestations against their Procedures, before the Laws come home upon us, and press us to actual Concurrence? Surely the Primitive Christians did not so against the Edicts of Heathen Powers. For tho' Christianity will warrant meek and petitionary Apologies, yet will it not justify saucy Remonstrances and Prohibitions upon Legislators, who must pass undisturbed and unaffronted in their measures, and we must with all meekness of behaviour wait the eventual prosecution of the Laws, if we cannot divert it by fair atonement; and when it comes, refusing calmly the required Sins, commit ourselves, and Cause to him that judgeth righteously. So that all your Harangues about running into Parliament House with Proclamations, or Protestations for our against their Authority, are injudicious, immodest, and seditious proposals, tho' we had known the demands of the State to have been unlawful, which we yet acknowledge to be otherwise. And that we should cease to be a Church, because we are not officiously rude to the Legislators, who may sometimes happen to be causelessly unkind, or hard hearted to us! We are neither to precipitate our zeal, manners, confession, or sufferings, but let the will of God be done upon us, when his own time comes; Since even the vilest Laws of men have this obligation and validity upon the Consciences of Subjects, to restrain all indecencies, and disturbances against them, and the Legislative. For if the Senate has not Authority to oblige us to evil, it has to modesty, and abstinence from their Presence, and Consultations.  
But the Parliament thought their Authority alone sufficient to deprive the Bishops, and did not ask, nor think they wanted the concurrence of the Clergy to make their Act valid, very well; they did not think so. And if you confine this sufficiency to a valid Obligation on the Church to submit, and concur, this opinion of the Parliament is very true, tho' I believe they ground it, not upon any mere pretended Arbitrary Despotic Power, but upon the Weight and Sanctity of the Causes, on which they founded the Law. But if you think it the opinion of the Parliament, that their Acts can actually pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect without Ecclesiastical Concurrence, you fix an opinion on them rather to be charged with Nonsense than Falsehood. For if all the Bishops, Priests, and Christian Laity with them will adhere to those whom the Statute dooms to Deprivation, how can the Statute pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect? And so the Church ought always to do if they shall apparently persecute her Bishops for Righteousness sake, to hinder their temporal Laws from attaining an Ecclesiastical Effect against the innocent, whatsoever afflictions they may suffer for the opposition. And if ever Popery, Arianism, Socinianism, or Erastianism should (which God forbidden) press itself upon us by Act of Parliament, I doubt not but our Church also will herein become Recusant against such Laws, and seal their Integrity with their Blood. So that in our Case the only Question herein is, whether this Law upon the Church to admit the Deprivation be unjust, or no? If it be in the Church's Judgement, she ought to refuse it; if not unjust, 'tis admissible. Now this we believe, and you the contrary, and God must judge between us; but in the mean time the church must act according to her present Convictions.  Dyscher. 
But the form of the Statute is, that the Recusants shall be ipso facto Deprived, which must import the actual Deprivation to be completed purely by the mere virtue of this Act antecedently to the Concurrence of the Church.  Eucher. 
I would willingly allow you, that this is the Sense of the Parliament, if you can clear it from Nonsense, of which I am not willing that great Assembly should be impeached. And I will also grant you, that the mere Virtue of the Statute alone can deprive them of their Temporalities without the Church's Concurrence. But perhaps all Decrees of Humane Power, in things dubious, and future, have this tacit, yet necessary Supposition, quantum in nobis est, as much as in them lies; for farther certainly no Power can go. And further as to the Spiritualties, 'tis possible the Parliament might intent no more than this, that the Recusants should be ejected, or quitted by the Church upon and undoubted presumption of her submissive Concurrence, or the Recusants own Session, when the Temporalities were gone, and their Nonresistance to such necessary, and valid Laws. But the Senses of Statutes I leave to the Parliament, and the Judges, while yet you and I know our Ecclesiastical Principles and Obligations in matters truly Spiritual and Christian, and must act accordingly, whatsoever Laymen or Lawyers think hereupon. And agreeably the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church, looking upon the Sees of the Recusant Bishops de jure vacant, discharged the Recusants of their Authority, by taking the Jurisdiction to themselves, which in such Cases they judged lawful by the Laws of God, as well as Man, as also Canonical according to our Constitutions; tho' herein they assume no ordinary, or proper form of Jurisdiction over Bishops not fallen de jure from their Sees; and you may very well remember, that I noted against this expected Objection in our last Conference, 
† Sol. & Ab. pag. 29.  that this was, and might be done upon judgement of Conscience for themselves, and the Church, but not of ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop. And therefore you ought not to have charged this upon us, as if we herein own such a Jurisdiction, which we disclaim, but have proved, that the Church may not upon just and necessary Causes desert her Bishop, over whom otherwise she confessedly has no proper, formal or ordinary Jurisdiction. It is most evidently plain, that, if the Causes be just, our Canonical and Legal Constitutions not only allow, but require such a Divorce from the fallen Bishop, and assign the Jurisdiction to the Church Metropolitical. Now if this our Constitution be irregular and invalid, why did the Deprived ever, own it, till now the operation of it came upon them? And therefore, whether this imports such a formal Jurisdiction, or no, (which yet I deny) it cannot be reproached for Uncanonical without condemning our first Reformation, and those Models to which yourselves have hitherto sworn Canonical observance.  Dyscher. 
What I have said saves me the pains of reflecting further on what you say, in calling the Concurrence of some of the Clergy the Act and Concurrence of the whole Church of England. But how the whole Church of England can be represented, not only without the Metropolitan, and many of his Suffragan Bishops, by anumber, no matter how many, of the inferior Clergy, in direct opposition and rebellion against their Lawful Superiors, how this can be justified to be a true and Canonical Repre-sentation of the Church of England, I leave to you to explain, and to distinguish from the gainsaying of Korah. Ms. Reflex.  Eucher. 
Except I much forget myself, I never asserted any number of inferior Clergymen to be Representatives to the whole Church of England, nor yet that the Bishops were deprived by the Representative Body of the whole Church; but this I say, that the actual Ecclesiastical ejection is performed successively by several Representative parts of the whole Church, as first by the Metropolitical Church, and then the Diocesan Chapters representing their respective Province, and Dioceses. Now upon an Act for Deprivation, the See upon just causes becoming the jure vacant, the Course of our Ecclesiastical Polity is such; The Metropolitical Church first takes and deputes the jurisdiction, the Diocesan Chapters omit their acknowledgements of their former Bishops, and at length upon precept proceed to a new Election, Bishops upon this (except in mere Translations) consecrate the Elected, thence the whole Episcopal College own the new, as do the Cathedral Clergy in their offices, and devotions, and all the Clergy in person, and the Laity by their representative Churchwardens in admitting the Visitations of the new Prelates, and executing their precepts Ecclesiastical, and all Laymen personally own them, that receive their Confirmations, Benedictions, or any other Sacred Ordinances from them, or with them as Bishops. All which, being uniformly and peaceably promoted by these gradations, if of much more Weight and Efficacy than a mere Synodical Censure, before it has attained to such an actual consequent Reception in the whole Church. And therefore, when this Process is complete, we may truly say, the Bishops are Ecclesiastically outed, not by the Church representative, but by the Church original. And hence such a plenary consent of the Church diffusive against a few Bishops and Clergy, on the account of their Recusancy, must in legal and equitable construction be presumed to proceed from a common uniform Sense of their notorious incapacity and ineptitude, of guiding Consciences, and exercising Episcopal Functions and Authorities under the present State. And upon notorious incapacities the Church may alienate herself from the incapacitated, and recur to other Bishops for new Consecrations or Investitures, especially when justly required thereto by the offended Powers. And if any incapacity of exercising the Pontifical Authority had been upon Aaron, especially from disowning the Principality of Moses, (which is, or comes very near your Case) and Korah had opposed him purely on that account, that contradiction had never been recorded to his infamy, but his praise for ever. But as to your idle Question about complying with Usurpers, (which, like Altar against Altar, is the Incipe Maenalios of your whole Ditty) as it has received full answers already, so here 'tis nothing to our present purpose, since our discourse now is founded on a Supposition of a due and full Settlement of Legal Powers in the State, which ought not to be charged with formal Usurpation.  Dyscher. 
We will then let alone at present the Disquisition of our capacity, and proceed further in our Enquiry concerning your Church's Concurrence. For least the Dean and the Chapter should not be strong enough, 
Did they then in their Convocation make the least scruple, or vote, that their Concurrence was necessary to that Statute? No, not a syllable. But you tell us how they did it. The 
† Sol. & Ab p. 28.  Silence of the Convocation under the Statute of Deprivation argues their opinion to be, that they were in this to yield to the State. This is according to the old Proverb, Silence gives consent. And at this Rate the Statute of abolishing Episcopacy in Scotland must be supposed to have its validity from the Concurrence of the Bishops and Clergy there, for they too are silent. And some of the inferior Clergy there, 
But in good truth, have any Clergy men in England complied to an enacted abolition of Episcopacy here?  (but not half so many as in England) have complied. I pray you to answer me in plain terms, whether you do not think the Parliament in England to have as great Power as the Parliament of Scotland? And consequently might abolish the whole Order of Episcopacy in England, as they have done in Scotland? And for their Silence, it is a strange Plea. Have they liberty to assert without danger? I mean in England, as well as Scotland? And if Silence perforce argues Consent, than they are the freest Subjects of the world in France, and in Turkey, whose M●tes are happier by this Argument, and have greater Authority than our House of Commons. I thought Authority could not be exerted by Silence. Tho the Turk will have his Executioners to be mute, he cannot command them by his Silence. 
Doth the King say nothing, when he refuses a Bill? Or doth he return them a decent answer with promise of Consideration?  If the King says nothing, when both Houses present a Bill for the Royal Assent, this is a refusal of that Bill. So that it is not in all Cases, you see, that Silence gives consent; indeed in no Case of Authority. That was a saying only adapted to the grant of some private favours, and is but a Jest, or Compliment at the best. When the Church saw the Bill of Deprivation pass wholly and solely in the Name, and by the Authority of the State, they ought to have entered their Protestation, and asserted their own Right. Their Silence in that Case was an yielding up and betraying their Right, as it is if a Peer does not protest against any vote that passes, his consent to it is employed. And therefore the Church's Silence in that Case is so far from being an asserting of their Right, that it is against the common Sense and Practice of mankind so much as to allege it. M. S. Reflex.  you call in the Convocation for help. And first you tell us, what your worthy Conformists did, and what was their opinion. But this is just the Proverb, Ask my fellow, if I am a Thief? But, say you, their sending a Convocation shows their Subjection, and condemns Recusancy as an Error.— But the silence of the Convocation, you think, will work Miracles; for that argues their opinion to be, that they were in this to yield to the State. And thus we are utterly undone with the Argument of Lovers and Fools, Silence gives consent. There must be many other concurrent circumstances, before the least consent can be presumed from Silence. For otherwise it is often a sign of indignation, scorn, sullenness, yea, even of obstinate denial itself. And what they meant by their Silence you may better guests, when you have resolved this Quaere, whether you can reasonably think that they would have chosen him for their Archbishop, whom they refused for their Prolocutor? But what if they were not so silent as here you make them? 'Tis pity your memory is not better; for through forgetfulness you give in evidence against yourself; for you tell us of a motion in the lower house of Convocation for the Restitution of the Bishops, and (then) suspended Clergy.— Now would any men take petitioning for men for appearing against them? But what if there had been none of this? Were ever Bishops deposed by Slence? T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 39  Eucher. 
By what Arguments soever you are undone, that is to yourselves; but I am sure I can find in you but few Arguments of Love, or Wisdom in this clamorous Rant, which seems designed in spite to the poor Proverb, lest your Silence should seem to consent. But since it is now my turn to break Silence, I will speak to this point but this once, and, if you will not, I will for ever hereafter hold my peace. First, than I must it seems talk of Silence, of which I am taxed, as if I had ascribed to it, not only Consent, but Authority too, and actual Deprivation, which are two points beyond the lines of the Proverb. Consider we then at first the proverbial Importance here in the Carriage of the Convocation. We were 
* Sol & Ab. pag. 28.  enquiring into the Sense of the Churches in common, which you excepting against challenged a Sense of our Convocations; and I tell you, That their Silence under the Statute of Deprivation argues their opinion to be, that they were in this to yield to the State. But I, well observing, that bare Silence is Non-action, and mere nothing, and in itself simply of no determinate signification, set such other positive Acts, in 
† Grot. de Jure, etc. l. 2. c. 4. Parag. 5.  conjunction with which this Non-action, or Silence might legally and morally be interpreted to a consent of yielding herein to the State. To this purpose I premised the general Conformity of most Bishops, and Clergy, and Laity, that our sending a Convocation at their Majesty's Precept shows, that we own Subjection to them; and condemns the Recusancy as an [incapacitating] Error (for so I meant by softer forms of expression, that I might not gall you) and so I conjoin the Silence of the Convocation with those other positive indications, that it might jointly ground a legal Argument, that in their Judgement they ought to yield to the State. So that you had united Circumstances enough to have fore-strangled your Cavils, if your prejudice had not blinded you. On the Session of the second Convocation the Recusants were in a State of actual Suspension, and the Day of Deprivation drew on. Now this the Convocation in their Judgement were to yield to, or oppose, for 'tis impossible but they must judge one, or the other to be their Duty. Now if they had been of opinion for the opposition, this must have been done by Synodical Remonstrance; if their Judgements was for the Submission, than they were to break no Silence to the contrary. Now then is not their actual Silence hereupon a legal token that they thought it their Duty to yield in Silence? Except we will perversely judge them silent against the Dictates of their Conscience, which if you will, it will lie upon you to prove it out. Whensoever things are brought into such a Straight, that either Silence, or Contradiction must become a Duty, there Silence is as moral a Token of Consent, as Contradiction is of Dissent. And in all cases where either Assent, or Dissent is inevitably requisite, and the Rule is, that all Dissents must be express and protested, as the forms are in the Lord's House, and process of Actions in the Civil Law, there Silence in Law is taken for Consent. But here is yet more; the King had graciously conceded a liberty to the Convocation to propose their Grievances in order to his Royal Redress; So that tho' they had no Civil or Legal Liberty to remonstrate against the Statute, yet they had an opportunity to have presented an humble Supplication for a relaxing Expedient, or a Temperament, on just Security for the inoffensiveness of the suspended. Yet neither did they think themselves obliged in Duty so much as to break Silence in this manner herein; And must not the State then conclude, that the Church by this Silence thought it fit to yield? However I hope you do not think in good sadness, that their Silence did signify indignation, scorn, sullenness, or denial to the State. For 'tis true in cases of request and contract Silence is no grant of a Proposal, but Silence under a Law, together with a consequent Obedience to the Precept thereof, is an indubitable Token of Consent, which was the Church's case here, while silent in her Convocation, and obedient in her Metropolitical and Diocesan Bodies. So much then for Consent; next for the Authority, which you say is not asserted, but betrayed by this Silence. But neither here can I agree with you: For as I never said, that Silence asserts Authority, so neither does it betray it. For your instance from the Peers does not import a Right betrayed, but only a Vote consented to by Silence, and this confirms my Observation, and refutes you; For as the Silence of a Peer surrenders not his Peerage, so neither does such Silence in the Church forfeit; or vacate her Authority; No, tho' the Church had had Right to have entered the Parliament House with Votes, and Protestations. But suppose it for once, that the Church's Silence had betrayed her Right, see upon whom the Treachery must be most unfortunately charged. Did the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and his other Recusant Colleagues, that had a legal Right of Session in the Lord's House, enter, and enter a Protestation against the Validity of that Act, as wanting their, and the Church's Suffrage, or Synodical Concurrence? No, not a jot of this. And yet they, by their Station as well as Cause, aught to have been the first in the Protestation; which if they would not make for themseleus, and the Church's Rights, then according to you they are Proditors; and so 'tis unreasonable in them, or you, to require the Protestation of others, less concerned, or obliged by their Order, Cause, and Principles. But the truth is, we had no just Cause, or legal Authority of making such Remonstrant Protestations, and so our Silence is not perfidious, but dutiful. Now this being so clearly stated, all your childish trifling upon French Subjects, and Turkey Mutes is very idle, and impertinent, since Silence does not indeed import Authority against, but Submission under Laws. Yet even in these French, and Turkish oppressions the Silence argues an opinion, that they, either in Duty, or Prudence, are to be silent, and quietly submissive. And this certainly was the Sense of our Saviour in his Silence, when he was led as a Lamb to the Slaughter. But to deal plainly, these Instances pertain not to our present Case; for here ours was Silence, and obedient Submission to the Commands of the State, the comporting with which in Silence is a Consent to, and Comprobation of its Justice, and is more than a mere silent Patience under unjust Oppressions. So inartificial and improper is the Objection from these poor Mutes, and Vassals. Thirdly, you assure me, that Silence is no Deprivation. No verily; nor did I ever hear that it was. But, to intercept your haste, whose Silence was I speaking of? And to whom did I ascribe the Ecclesiastical Acts of Deprivation? Why truly, I spoke of the Silence in Convocation, as importing their Opinion, that they ought not to oppose the Laws of the State. But I never said, that the Convocation did deprive the Deprived. No surely; they sat not at the time, or on the Day of Deprivation. But I told you before, that the Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Acts of Deprivation consisted in the Metropolitical and Diocesan Alienations, effected not by mere Silence, but Canonical Acts, and forms of procedure. And now let us see, whether my Memory hath failed me any more than my Cause. I here assert the Silence of the Convocation, but afterward told you, 
* Sol. & Ab. Pag. 34.  that a Motion for a Petition was stifled in the Lower House of Convocation, 
† T. B. Repeats it thus, You tell us of a Motion in the lower House of Convocation; but leaves out the word [Stifled] fraudulently.  tho' you clip my words on purpose to abuse me. For a Motion may be stifled before it is offered, by one, that knows, that it is intended to be made. But however an actual Motion of one Member may consist with the Silence of the whole Body. For if the Majority Vote Silence against the Motion for a Petition, the Convocation is silent, and silenceth all its Members, as to the Petition itself, tho' some broke Silence in the silenced Motion, but keep it after, through voluntary desistence, or Canonical Order. Now here in fact a Motion was offered by one excellent Person, but, upon the report then tendered to him of my Lord Archbishop Sancroft's request to the contrary, he desisted in Silence, tho' you however in this Conference have thus barbarously bespattered him, when there was just reason for your Silence. But however herein you own T. B. has a very contracted Memory too, when 
† T. B. See Lett. Pag. 42.  he endeavours to discredit the Story of this Motion so stifled on the said Report. But you have one Argument, that will confound me into Eternal Silence or Amazement, namely, that they that refused Dr. Tillotson for their Prolocutor, would not have consented to have had him their Archbishop. Well; be it so; what then? Perhaps, if the Election of Bishops had been freely left to our Convocations, they would have admitted few, or none of those, whom our Kings have advanced, but yet the Chapters electing have consented to the Legality of those Nominations, which they have not always judged so expedient, and the Episcopal College have consented to their Communion, with the rest of the Clergy, as well in, as out of Convocation, as no doubt they will with the new Archbishop at their next meeting, without breaking any Silence against him by way of Dissent. And now at last I am come to your Questions about the Deposition of Episcopacy. And first you say, the Bishops and Clergy of Scotland are silent under the Abolition of Episcopacy itself, and twit me that hereby belike they concur to that Act of Abolition. No; Brother, this does not follow from me, but according to you their Silence is a betraying their Right. But here again, you cannot distinguish the Case of quitting a Personal Right to an Authority, which is our Case, from the Abolition of the Authority itself Universally, which is the Case of Scotland. For they that can legally do the former, may not legally do the latter. For the King can depose the Judges, but not the Courts, and dismiss other Officers, whose Offices he cannot abrogate. And the Church can depose Priests, and Bishops, but not the Priesthood, or Episcopacy. And whether any Civil State has more intrinsic Power in the Spirituals of the Church, than the Church herself ever had in most perfect Freedom, judge you. But here I must Advocate for the Bishops and Clergy of Scotland against your Calumnies; For tho' they made no formal Protestation at Parliament, yet they assert their Episcopacy by an avowed Communion of their own, and a renunciation of the Presbyterian Model. But as to the Civil Power of abrogating Episcopacy here, I answer, 'tis as great as 'tis any where; but I find not our Parliaments to pretend to the same Opinions here as they do in Scotland, and I hope you will not require me to justify Scottish Pretensions. I think the Constitutions of our Orders are founded on Divine Rules, and have descended to us by Traditions truly Catholic and Primitive, which here we are not so rude to profane, or violate by any wanton Claims of Arbitrary Power; and in my Opinion the Scots will never acquit themselves well to God, his Church, and the King, till they copy after us, where Episcopacy is as well secured as the Scriptures, and Sacraments, and all the most essential Parts of Christianity. But if any of these ever happen to be persecuted here, I hope we shall remember Him, who on all such Occasions requires us to take up the Cross, and follow him. And now we are upon this melancholy Speculation of the Church of Scotland, I fear the Presages you have made from their fall, have been most influential with you to your present Recusancy to those Powers, from whom you expect our Dissolution. This, I confess, is a very deplorable jealousy, for which if there had been sufficient ground, (as there was not) yet this will not justify Recusancy to the Civil Powers. But the mischief of it is more than Personal, and Temporary, For hereby the Deprived Fathers, who by their glorious merits in the last Reign, might have been useful Mediators for the Scotch Church, and Promoters of our own, are now become uncapable of this second Glory, and useless to the Church's happiness by this unfortunate Recusancy. But herein I charge no man's Conscience, but only bewail the infelicity. And shall pray, that the Goodness of God will so graciously dispose our Tempers, and Affairs, as in his own good time to set all things at Right, and show us at length the Light of his countenance.  Dyscher. 
But let me put these things closely to your Conscience, do you verily believe, that your Church, and Chapters admit the Ecclesiastical Change upon the merits of the Cause, and not merely on the fear, or acknowledged Authority of the State?  Eucher. 
I do believe so in very deed just as I have spoken; and my reason is; because, had the Act of Deprivation passed for recusancy of Mahometism, etc. and the Church would never have forsaken their Diocesans, nor elected any other even Orthodox Bishops, the Act for Deprivation being impious, and for that cause unobliging, and as lose as Dr. Hody's Rules, and as straight as your Principles are, I put it close home to his, and your Consciences, whether on a Case so put, or supposed, you can think the contrary?  Dyscher. 
Your jumble of Queen Mary's and Queen Elizabeth Bishops I shall not examine, because a full answer to that, either already is, or suddenly will come abroad.  Eucher. 
This is what above all I have ever greatly coveted; and I have of late been so lucky as to meet with the Sense of 
† Part 2. Chap. 3. Pag. 33, 34.  your excellent Author of Christian Communion on this point. But because you have hinted to me my shortness of memory, I had rather have it repeated from your memory, that we may discuss it.  Dyscher. 
Indeed it was almost lapsed, but now upon your Suggestion I have recovered it, and will accordingly lay it before you. As to this Case of the Marian Bishops, saith he, or of other Popish Bishops ander Edward the Sixth, two things are to be noted in their removal and ejection out of their Bishoprick's. One is from the Temporalities, the Benefices, and Preferments thereof; and these Temporal Endowments are directly subjects to the Temporal Power, etc. The other is from the Spiritual adherence and dependence of the People on them as on heads of Church unity and Communion for religious ministrations. And this there was no need to deprive the Popish Bishops of, for they had already deprived themselves of it by their own Corruptions, both in Doctrines, and Devotions. Adulterations of Religion, and corrupt ministrations of the word, of Prayers, and Sacraments, break the Ligaments, which tie on People to this adherence to any Bishops, or Pastors, yea, tho' they were Apostles themselves. Tho' we, or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema, or accursed, saith St. Paul Gal. 1.8.— When therefore any Bishops, and Pastors, instead of heading Christian Truth, appear at the head of Unchristian Errors, the people are discharged from their Obligation, and Dependence upon them, and are to unite themselves as they can to others, who still keep firm to that necessary Truth, and Gospel Worship, which they have forsaken. And this was done by the Popish Bishops, who fed the people with false Doctrines, and polluted Prayers, and Ministrations, which left no need of any thing more to deprive them of the People's Communion, and Dependence, these Papal Corruptions of Religious Ministrations being enough to discharge, and drive them away of themselves. So that the reformed Bishops, when they were set at the heads of those Dioceses, called none away, nor made them break off from any just and due Spiritual Dependence on their former Bishops, whose own heretical Doctrine, and corrupt Ministrations had made the people cease from depending any longer in Conscience upon them. They wanted only to be Lawfully empowered, and regularly ordained themselves by Episcopal Imposition of hands, as all those reformed Bishops plainly were,— and so were no Spiritual Intruders, nor guilty of any Civil Usurpation, or Injustice.— But where Bishops are Orthodox, and are deprived for their adherence to Truth and Righteousness, both in their private Practice and Public Ministrations, the people are still left Spiritually to depend on them.— And so we ourselves should have thought, at least we all seem, as if we should, if by God's Providence the Civil State had gone on to ddprive our reformed Bishops for sticking to the Doctrines and Worship of the Reformation, and had set up Popish Bishops in their places, etc. Vide.  Eucher. 
This Doctrine of that learned Person must be admitted with a grain of Salt, or else it will be very unwholesome, and prove very convulsive in the Ecclesiastic Body. For though every single Christian is to abhor, and defy all false Doctrine, condemned by the unanimous Sense and suffrage of the Universal Church from Divine Authorities, yet single Persons cannot distributively, and alone reject their Bishops as not Bishops for heretical Opinions, or corrupt Ministrations, which the general Body, and all Orders of the Church do not uniformly censure irregular, and renounce their Authors, except a just and regular Sentence pass in form against them. When Churches are concorporated into Provincial and Diocesan Unions, there must be some public conduct for the diffusive multitude, to a due discussion of Principles in order to such Divorces. Thus of old, when grievances arose from suspected Bishops, the people appealed to Synods to judge upon their Cause, but in Cases notorious they addressed to other Churches, Bishops, and Synods to allow their necessary Rejection of their irregular Bishop, and ordain them others. And this usage was as common as useful, till the Papal Usurpations rendered it impracticable in the Western Church, and so necessitated extraordinary forms of reformation. For here the Prince, and the People, and a great Body of the Clergy, having an Ecclesiastical Cause of Controversy against the Marian Bishops, unrelievable by any fair domestic, or foreign Synod, were forced, upon the Notoriety of the Evil, to use extraordinary measures of purgation, not by rabble, or incoherent Partitions, but by a National Judgement in Parliament, as a middle expedient, as well against intestine Schisms, as Romish abuses; upon which discharge of Papal Tyranny, a way was opened to that true and uniform Sense of true Religion, which the whole emancipated Church presently received with a glad and cheerful Uniformity, which was a felicity however not atchievable by a lose unorganized Multitude. Since then the whole People of this Land did in their National Senate Vindicate the pure Religion established in former Convocations from the Marian Bishops, the enacted Deprivation was designed more against their Spiritual Conduct, than their Temporal fortunes, and the People followed that public intention, not their own private counsel in the reception of new Bishops, and the models of reformation. And herein such measures of prudence were observed, which cannot be secured in a promiscuous multitude, which I wonder that Author did not consider. For a Priest is not immediately upon dropping of an Error materially heretical to be taken by all at random for a formal and self-deprived heretic, or Anathema, but he must be previously heard, and admonished, and only upon incorrigible Obstinacy to be rejected, with appeal unto God, and an apology to all Churches, or Spiritual Fathers unconcerned, and untainted. But then this is a Canonical form of exauctoration by the Church, not a formal Self-deprivation, otherwise upon this Author's Principle, all the Hierarchy of the Romish Communion was long self-deprived before the Reformation, and totally exauctorated, and how then will he justify our Episcopal Succession? For such ipso facto irregularities, that are so in their own nature, and not by mere Canonical Ordinance, degrade as well as deprive, from not only Order, but Communion, to which of old upon Penitence they were wont to be restored, not as Priests, but as Laymen, for that such a fall was an ipso facto Degradation of Order, in which there were to be no public Penitents. But now, if we make such Deprivation the Act of the Christian People, as we must, than it, and all the previous process thereunto must be executed by some form Session, or Council for the Place and People concerned; but for the whole People of this Land we have no Council but that of Parliament. And here it must be noted, that a Christian Parliament hath as much Spiritual Right against heretical Priests as the common Christian Multitude, and if the Multitude may on such notorious Corruptions eject one, and procure another Bishop, even without the Consent of civil Powers, according to this Author's Doctrine, surely such Right much more belongs to the Christian Legislative, to which the Care of Religion does by Divine Ordinances belong, as well as to the Hierarchy, and common Multitude, which had a real need of their Counsel and Conduct in so great a Difficulty. The People therefore in Parliament did their Part in the Ejection of the Marian Bishops, and all the Chapters, and other Ecclesiastical Orders sequaciously concurred, and completed the Design of that Act in their Alienation from the condemned Recusants. And tho' all this was done for refusing the Oath of Supremacy; yet that Recusancy being grounded on false Principles in Religion, and maintained in Defence of the Romish Usurpations and Corruptions, the Statute of Deprivation had not only a civil Intention, but Religious also, and was received accordingly. But all this while I find no Answer to that famous Passage quoted by me 
† Sol. and Ab. Pag. 32.  out of Dr. Hammond's Tract of Schism, tho' of so great Moment, and of so great Strength to justify such Statutes of Deprivation for the Security of the civil Government against Seducements and Seditions. But if you would take my Counsel, I would advise you not to lay the Cause of this Controversy in Points of Religion, nor make common People the Judges of them, for fear of a Snap, that perhaps you are not ware of.  Dyscher. 
What, what do you mean? I am a little startled at this Suggestion, since we are where we were, and have neither altered the old Doctrines, nor the Practices they direct to.  Eucher. 
Do not you remember, that that great Man who wrote the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, vehemently argues, 
† Vindic. of Depr. Bish. pag. 24.25, 26, 27.  that not only Errors, whether great or small, but even unnecessary Truths become Heresies, when they are made the Causes, or Characters of different Communions? And such all Principles and Rules of Christian Morals enforced on peril of Sin and Damnation, not required by the word, or law of God, must in their own nature be. And thus in the ancient Church all rigorous Doctrines, which made sins where God hath made none, draw after them inevitable Separations, and so became Heretical.  Dyscher. 
Well, how doth this affect us?  Eucher. 
I am afraid in all your Principles, which make our present Allegiance Illegal, and Irreligious.  Dyscher. 
I pray form them into propositions, and make your convictive Strictures upon them, if you can.  Eucher. 
I take no delight in such an Employ; It is no pleasure to me to wound, or grieve you, but as the setting before you the danger of your Principles may correct the precipitancy of your Zeal, I will obey, and observe your direction. First then,  Maj. 
Whosoever teacheth Men not to be subject to the Human Constitution, and the Authorities that are, as God's Ordinance, teacheth practical Errors;  Min. 
But so you teach Men against the present Constitution, and Authorities; Ergo.  Concl. 
You teach Men practical Errors.  
Again in another Form;  Maj. 
Whosoever teacheth it to be Perjury to swear Allegiance to a new settled Sovereign upon the Desertion of the former, to whom we had sworn Allegiance, teacheth practical Errors;  Min. 
But such is your Doctrine, (contrary to Bishop Overals Convocation book) Ergo. Concl. You teach practical Errors.  
Again in another Form;  Maj. 
Whosoever teacheth to disobey Princes fully settled in a Government procured by ill means, teacheth practical Errors;  Min. 
But so do ye in the Reasons of your present Recusancy; Ergo  Concl. 
You teach practical Errors.  
Again in another Instance;  Maj. 
Whosoever teacheth Men not to pray for Kings, and all that are in Authority, teacheth Men Practical Errors.  Min. 
But so teach most of you in the Reasons of your present Recusancy, Ergo.  Concl. 
Most of you teach practical Errors.  
Again in another Instance,  Maj. 
Whosoever teacheth Men presumptuously to speak evil of Dignities, teacheth practical Errors;  Min. 
But so do most of you; Ergo  Concl. 
Most of you teach practical Errors.  
Again in another Instance,  Maj. 
Whosoever excommunicates, or teaches Men to refuse Communion with Men, that have sworn Allegiance to Powers fully settled, acts upon, and teacheth practical Errors  Min. 
But so most of you act, and instruct Men against our Communion. because we have sworn Allegiance to the Powers fully settled over us; Ergo  Concl. 
You act upon, and teach Men practical Errors. And now, considering all, wherein I have answered you, what can you say hereto?  Dyscher. 
I answer, we do not deny any of your Major and general Propositions, but we deny your Minors, that we teach such Doctrines for our Recusancy. But we teach, that those Major Maxims do not affect our particular Case, for that these are not Constitutions, Authorities, or Dignities fully settled, on which the Church according to the Apostles requires respect, and obedience.  Eucher. 
This is like those prevaricating Salvoes, which your Author of Christian Communion upbraids us with, 
† Part 3. Ch. 5.  in eluding general Precepts from influencing in particular Cases; but to omit this, I have however gained another advantage, and success by my Advice, viz. that in the matter of Allegiance you must quit your Pretensions to Ecclesiastical Doctrines as the grounds of your Recusancy, Deprivation, and Separation; and consequently there is an End of your low and causeless Clamours for your glorious Passive Doctrines as the Cause of your Sufferings; all the remaining Question now being between us, whether the present Constitution be fully settled, which is a Point of Law, not Religion, to be resolved by the State, not the Church, by the Court Civil, not the Court Christian. And hereupon such Civil Judgements are to be secured by Religion, and Conscience, while they stand reversed, and so you are obliged to acquiesce in the Judgements of our Parliaments in this Point. But while you oppose this upon Principles of Conscience, consider the Danger of Heresy, which lies before you.  Maj. 
Whosoever teacheth Men to oppose the Course of public Judgement in Civils upon private Opinions to the contrary, teacheth Rules of Sedition against Civil Government itself, and in them practical Errors;  Min. 
But you teach Men to oppose the public Judgement of the Nation for our full Settlement in the present State; Ergo  Concl. 
You teach Rules of Sedition against civil Government itself, and in them practical Errors.  
Or thus in another Form.  Maj. 
He that teacheth Men to act against confessed Principles of Truth, aught to be exauctorated;  Min. 
But you teach Men to practice Disobedience contrary to those Principles of Truth, which you are forced to confess, Ergo  Concl. 
You are to be exauctorated.  
Now I cannot for my part see how you can avoid this Charge, which your own rigours against us have extorted from me. And yet I have urged it for no ill Ends, but only to lay before you the ill Aspects of your Division, upon those your very Principles, in which you glory. For here I can more justly enclose you with your Vindicator's Dilemma, viz. that if you separate without Principles, you are then Schismatical, if upon Principles, you incur Heresy. But if this be so, the Church and State may according to your own Rules eject you without a Synod, which I compassionately beg you tenderly to consider.  Dyscher. 
Well, let our Cause be what it will in Fact, or Opinion, I look upon these Lay and Parliamentary Forms of Deprivation, to be very dangerous to the Spiritual Franchises of the Church, tho' we suppose, that such servile and gradual Concurrences of the Church do give them an Ecclesiastical Effect; for that they destroy out of the Faith of Christians the Sense of those Spiritual Liberties and Authorities of the Church, that by a Divine Charter, and an Apostolic Descent, belong to her; and instil a fatal Erastianism into men's Principles, and for that Cause ought not to be received, but censured by the Church; for that your Party found'st their Authority on this false Proposition, that the Church and State of England are the same Society, whereas there are many Subjects of the State, that are no Members of the Church, as Apostates, Papists, Heretics, and all unbaptized Persons. Tho' yet were this Hypothesis true, that all the same persons were equally Members of the Church and State, yet as they are a Church, and spiritually sociated, they must be governed by a Spiritual Authority, and as a State, by the Civil Power of the Sword; nor must the identity of the People confound the Distinction of Powers. Besides, as we are a Church, we are of Right sociated into the unity of the whole Catholic Church, to be maintained by an uniform Ecclesiastical Conduct, the only ligament of Catholic Communion; but as we are a State, the Catholic Church is not concerned with us, to take any Cognisance of our Civil Procedures, but if as a Church we corrupt the Ecclesiastical Government into Civil, we break off, and excommunicate ourselves from the Catholic Unity by deserting the Catholic Forms and Ties of Union.  Eucher. 
As to that Principle of the Identity of Church and State, and the Consequences Men draw from thence to assert the Right of Civil Authority in Spiritual Processes, I leave it to them, whose Heads are clear enough to justify it. But, for my own part allowing your exceptions to the contrary, yet our Case has justified itself ex naturâ Rei. And I must further advertise you, that this Church has long submitted to the use of such Powers over us, and that fundamentally in Q. Elizabeth's Reformation, and in many other matters in which the State had not so much pretence of Right, or Necessity, all which have passed uncensured by us, but in this, whether well, or ill, God must judge. The Subscription of a Popish Clergy to avoid a Praemunire drew after it such Acts of Parliament, as through which we can make no provision for the Church, no● move a question for her good, without Royal Licence, nor have so much freedom in our Concernments and Duties, as every little Corporated Burrow has in its voluntary Councils; which, tho' it be a tolerable Condition under a good King, that has a Zeal for Christianity, yet under an Irreligious King 'tis an absolute Bondage, and bar to the Primitive Purity, Course, and Vigour of Religion. In the Reign of Edward the VI they struck out the Ordinaries names out of all Processes Ecclesiastical, and set in the Kings, as if all Church Power had been derived from the Crown; the nonpayment of Tenths, tho' omitted by mere neglect, and not on any Principle of Opinion, remains yet a Cause of Deprivation. And those shackles, which the State of old thought necessary to restrain us from Popery, now the reasons of that Conduct are cessant, become great Obstacles to the Primitive and Catholic Reformation of our yet remaining defects, of which th●s Church, upon a just liberty and Authority restored her, would become the first Example, and the noblest Standard. Yet all this Subjection we have born in Silence, tho' hereby only can Popery be reduced, whensoever a Popish Conjuncture shall arise upon us; and no Body has yet dared to offer a good mediation with the Public for a Temperament in these things. And if our dulness herein has not been by us, or you accounted Schismatical, shall we be judged Schismatics in admitting these much more reasonable Deprivations, in which the Lay-powers are concerned not only in point of Care and Interest, but even in certain and undubitable measures of Right?  Dyscher. 
How so, Sir?  Eucher. 
As the State is the Church's Hospital, so a Corporal, or Civil Communion is substrate to the visible Communion of the Church. For tho' I allow you, what you 
* Sol. & ab. pag. 25.  justly challenge to the innocent, a primitive, fundamental, and undeniable Right to good, as well in common, as in consecrated Places, yet it is certain, that in order to this Claim they must give all just security and assurance of their innocency, upon Test demanded by the Civil Powers, that are Guardians of these fundamental Liberties to all good Subjects; of which innocency an Oath of Allegiance seems the most obvious, proper, and usual Form of security between Subjects and Sovereigns. Otherwise the Civil Powers may restrain those Libeties, of which they are the trusties. Thus a Civil Sovereign may prohibit, and punish all conversation with the Enemies, or Recusants of his Civil Authority. Now conversation simply in itself alone is a secular communication, but absolutely Fundamental to the Ecclesiastical, which is a visible Communion in Spirituals. Though then the Secular Authority alone, as such, does not touch the Spirituals, yet it may upon just and legal Causes take away all that secular and local Communion, that is substrate to the Ecclesiastical. And he that may upon Recusancies of Subjection forbidden all personal Communication with a Recusant, may forbid it in any certain Place, Time, Matter, or Measure, and consequently at all such Times, and Places, when, and where the Recusant may call upon him to attend in Spirituals. But this Right, and Authority of the Magistrate I lodge not in arbitrary will respectively, but on the nature and merit of the provocation. And the Right, which the Christians have to the Liberty of their Sacred Functions, is not peculiar to them as Christians, by a Charter altogether unconditionally exempt from Civil Powers, and so a Right of God's positive constitution in the Church, as a Society founded by Christ, liable to no secular Reflections for any Cause whatsoever; but is a common, and natural Right to all Persons of clear and unspotted innocency, as such, to do that which is good, originally due to them from the Creation. And hence Civil Powers, becoming Judges of our Morals and Innocency, are Guardians of that natural Right, but may justly deny it to others, but will not approve their innocency by due Tests to the Public Peace of the Government, to which Recusants therefore the rightful Capacity Ecclesiastical Communion is lost, when the natural Right to Society is, either totally, or in the proper opportunities of sacred Communion, justly denied by the Civil Powers. And to say true, he that by ill Principles, or Practices deserves the loss, and deprivation of all common Society, much more deserves the deprivation of the Spiritual, that stands as a Super-structure on the other. And therefore if our ill merits Authorise the Powers to take away at the bottom the Foundation of our Religious Commuion, they can, tho' not directly, and immediately touch, yet undermine the spiritual Structure, by destroying its secular Foundation, which lies within the Authority and Care of Civil Powers. So that in this respect and form an Heathen Prince may rightly deprive seditious, or disloyal Priests of the Privilege of actually using their Ecclesiastical Functions, by rightly denying them so much secular Society, as is Fundamentally requisite to the exercise of them. And thus far a Statute of Deprivation may have this Civil obligation, that no Subject shall yield corporal Communion with Recusant Priests, when they call him to sacred Offices any where, and Laws may shut them out from consecrated Places, that there may be no such local Society in them. And if such Recusancy against civil Powers be notorious, confessed, or avowed, then is such Act of State both just, and civil only, but at the same time, the bottom of the Recusants Ecclesiastical Offices is righteously, and validly taken away.  Dyscher. 
Well, well, notwithstanding these Subtleties, yet the Temporal Powers cannot take away the actual Relation between Priest and People, tho' they may suspend, or incapacitate them hereby from the actual Ministeries of their Orders; And so hence accrues no Right to civil Powers to impose new Bishops on the Church.  Eucher. 
There are two known Canonical Causes of depriving Spiritual Persons, Immoralities, and erroneous Principles. So that; if either of these hath merited, and drawn after it a Forfeiture and Deprivation of all that secular, and local Communion, and Society, which is necessary to the sacred Functions, the Church upon certain Notoriety of that Gild, Forfeiture, and civil Incapacity, may elect, and consecrate others, who have contracted no such Blemish, or Incapacity. Nor needs there here the Judgement of a Synod, (as is confessed in the like Case of Callinicus and, Cyrus before mentioned) which is only necessary to discuss and determine things dubious in Fact, or Right. So that in such Cases, where there is no Rule set to the contrary, the Church on her old original Liberties may of her own accord proceed to a new Promotion, and I think aught to do so, when the Blemish, and consequent Incapacity are irremediable. And what the Church in freedom may do without Command, she may do when commanded, even by those Powers, which have not direct Right to manage our Ecclesiasticals, as Infidel, and Un-Christian Powers have not. Yet indirectly, I grant, a new Settlement in the Church may be necessary to the weal of an Un-Christian State, which then has an indirect Right to command the Church within it to fill the Vacancies, and then she is in Duty bound to obey, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake, whensoever so commanded, as having no Authority to oppose those actual Reasons, or the civil Causes of such the secular Commands, so that in the lawful Vacancy she must be obedient. And if this be a just Rule for the Christian Church under Un-Christian Princes, much more ought it to be so under Christian one's, to whom, as nursing Fathers, you know our Church gives great Homage, and Deference. Have you any thing more to object?  Dyscher. 
Nothing at all, except you will hear me repeat the three last Pages of T. B. spent wholly in charging you with soliciting our total Ruin, and Misusage of your deprived Metropolitan, and Diocesan, on their refusal of a Petition, with the same pernicious Design; but because I must confess you were most carefully tender of censuring the Counsels of those Fathers, and T. B. discovers himself too openly calumnious in those Impeachments, I have done, and commend us all to God's Grace and Mercy.  Eucher. 
T. B. is one of those Men, who love to speak evil of Dignities, and the things they know not, supplying the Narrowness of his Understanding with Rage and Bitterness, for which I hearty remit him to God's Mercy.  
But as for your Fathers, and all the venerable Numbers of good Men fallen in this Change, I compassionately beseech them tenderly to lay these things to heart, and unanimously to think of some healing Expedient for our mutual Peace, and Joy. There have been, who, upon the bare dry Inferences of their Arguments, have desired them to desist, and quit claim only, which is to ask, not show them Charity. But might it not be thought too assuming, I think, I could propose such a certain Scheme of Resolutions, as would so effectually close up our present Wounds, as to turn all our Sighs and Sorrows into Joys, and the Voice of Melody. But being conscious of my Station, and Measures, and doubtful of your Misapprehensions, I forbear, and leave you, and your Counsels to the Divine Conduct, and your own Piety, that you may happily recover that Union, from which your Errors and Infirmities have too much alienated you, being willing to hope, that (as St. Paul said of Onesimus) Perhaps you are departed from us for a Season, that we should receive you again for ever. Amen.    

ADVERTISEMENT.  
WHereas T. B. Sec Let. pag. 29. and the impartial Reflecter, vehemently contend against my Suggestion in Sol & Ab. pag. 11. that K. James' Dispensation with the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy might look like a Concession to us to transfer our Allegiance, they dealt with me disingenuously, for that I made for them an effectual Answer against that Argument before, in which my Conformist silently acquiesced. And that Answer I made is stronger and sincerer than theirs, which I could tease to purpose, were I minded to wrangle. But as I made Eucheres abide by just Reason then, so will I use no perverseness now. And in truth that Passage was brought in, not with a Design to insist on it, but only to introduce it for a smother Passage to the Liberties granted us by K. James' Coronation-Oath. For which Cause I, laying no stress upon that Argument from the Dispensation, have wholly omitted to contend with my Adversaries on it in this Debate.  
I hope the wicked Surmise of T. B. that His Majesty would murder the Princess of Denmark and the Duke of Gloucester, (Sec. Lett. p. 22) if her Royal Highness should outlive the Queen, is now fully refuted since her Excellent Majesty's Death, and it will become T. B. torepent for it in Dust and Ashes.   

A Postscript to Mr. Richard Chiswell.  
SIR,  
SInce I was once an Author of yours in Solomon and Abiathar which you Printed, and this very Debate was offered to your Edition once Anno 93, which you declined with thanks to me however for the respect; I desire you to consider what an ungrateful office you have undertaken in publishing a Reproach against me and these very Books, in the University Man's Postscript to you. I am not offended at this miscarriage in you that are a Man of Interest; but yet as you may justly reprove yourself, and your Solicitor, for this indecent way of abusing your own Authors and Books, so I challenge you for a witness of the Falsehood he has caused you to Print. Look upon my Letter to you sometime in the Summer, 93. and therein you will find this Book offered you, which this University Man tells you, (and by your Press the Nation) that it was written since the Book remarked on to secure myself against a Storm. I shall makeshort however, and desire you to remember my love to him, and tell him, that it is the most undecent sort of confidence in him of all Men living to despise any Man's Writings for the present Government, and to accuse any Pen for Brutality towards the Jacobites. He will know the meaning at your first suggestion by the interpreting Conscience within him, or that part thereof that is left. And so I dismiss you with assurance that I am  
Your much obliged Servant, S. Hill.   

A General Remonstrance to all Good Christians.  
IN the name of God, the Sovereign Lord and Judge, I remonstrate and protest, that I measure not any Men by their Fortunes, but their Merits, and that the Sufferings of good Men increase my Affections towards them.  
2. That I published Solomon and Abiathar, not for worldly Interest, nor with any injurious design, nor through a vanity of Affectation; but on purpose to get satisfaction from the learned in the Right of Communion to the avoiding of Schism.  
3. That particular provocations made that discussion, and its publication absolutely and inevitably necessary.  
4. That after its Publication I waited two years for Satisfaction before ever I entered into the present Communion.  
5. That the Meditations in this Debate have satisfied me, that our Communion is consistent with the most Catholic and Primitive Rules, or else I could not have joined in it.  
6. That for my own part I renounce all Ecclesiastic Servitude, and all Principles leading thereto; and I do declare for an assertion of the Rights and Liberties Hierarchical in contempt of all Persecutions, yet not to arrogate that Liberty as a Cloak for Maliciousness.  
7. That tho' Calumny urged the Publication of this Debate, yet that alone should not have prevailed thereunto, had I not thought it of good use to reconcile Dissensions, and to obviate many growing Prejudices.  
8. That tho' it be a public blemish, that the great Authors of our present Heresies are not yet censured by Authority, yet this does not illegitimate our public Communion with the Innocent, who have no power to reform it, nor can it in the least affect those that make their uttermost remonstrances against it.  
9 That all Spiteful and Insincere Writers on the point of Communion design to widen our Breaches, and are therefore utter Enemies to the Church of God, and their Native Country.  
10. That tho' I had many inducements to have collected all T. B's. Flowers of barbarous and unparallelled Raillery into one view, yet that the odium thereof may not reflect any prejudice on the better part of that side I have forborn, remitting him to the friendly correction of his wiser and better Brethren, and have so endeavoured to temper this Discourse, as that all along Mercy and Truth might meet together, that Righteousness and Peace may kiss each other. Amen.  
After all, whosever is not satisfied to the full may hereby be however induced to beware of censuring us for Men wilfully Perjured and Schismatical, since I suppose the reasons here offered are not all contemptible, but may justify the Author in his Design of quitting himself from the guilt of those black and horrid Imputations, the natural Right of every suspected or accused Innocent.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed for John Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-street.  
THE Spirit of Jacobitism or, Remarks upon a Dialogue between K. W. and Benting, in a Dialogue between two Friends of the present Government.  
A Sermon Preached before the H. of Lords at the Abbey-Church of St. Peter's Westminster on Thursday the 30th. of Jan. 1695/6. being the Martyrdom of K. Ch. I. By the Right Reverend Father in God Humphrey L. Bishop of Bangor.  
A Sermon Preached before the House of Lords, at the Abbey-church of St. Peter's Westm. on Wednesday the 11th. of Dec. 1695. being the Day Appointed for a Solemn Fast and Humiliation, by the Right Rev. Father in God James L. Bishop of Lincoln.  
Eight Serm. Preached on sev. Occasions. 

1. Of the Power and Efficacy of Faith.  
2. The danger of misinformed Conscience, or Mistaken Principles in Religion.  
3. Of the Different Dispensations of Grace and of Impenitency under the best Means of Salvation.  
4. The Case of a late or Deathbed Repentance.  
5. The Straight and Certain way to Happiness.  
6. Of Growth in Grace.  
7. Of Murder particularly Duelling and Self-murder.  
8. Of the Shortness and Instability of Humane Life.