A REPLY TO THE REASONS OF THE Oxford-Clergy AGAINST ADDRESSING.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for his Household and Chapel. 1687.   

A REPLY TO THE REASONS of the OXFORD-CLERGY AGAINST ADDRESSING.  
SIR,  
THE Copy you sent us of some Reasons for Addressing, with an Answer to 'em, and several Arguments against it drawn up by the Oxford-Clergy, doth most extremely afflict and surprise us; for, what Man of Sense could in the least imagine, that our Clergy, who once had obtained the highest Applauses for their Loyalty, should at last do any thing that may seem to justify the Insinuations of those, who always said, That Church-of-England-Loyalty would continue no longer than the Prince was of their Religion: For now it looks as if our Loyalty must be no longer lived than our Church is in a Flourishing State; why else do our Clergy thus Remonstrate against rendering His Majesty their humblest Thanks for the Assurances He has given 'em of Protection in the Free Exercise of our Religion, and in the full Enjoyment of their Ecclesiastical Possessions? Don't they know, that they are owing to His Majesty's Grace for this much, and that, unless His Majesty had embraced that most Christian and Heroic Principle, That Conscience ought not to be constrained, and had also excelled all his Royal Predecessors in Clemency, he could never forgive the Church of England, by whom so many Sanguinary Laws have been made against Men of His Religion; or, have forborn the Exercising that Prerogative in Matters Ecclesiastical, which our Church hath often recognised to be Inherent in the Crown, and by which our Church may be in a great measure Legally subverted?  
What then can be more manifest to a Person of the least Thoughtfulness, than that Our Church is infinitely obliged to His Majesty for Her present Standing? Or, what more certain, than that She is most disingenuously ungrateful, if She acknowledges not so much?  
This Paper therefore, which is sent abroad on purpose to ensnare the Members of our Church, must not escape our Animadversions; and, that we may the more effectually prevent it's designed Mischief, we will lay down every Argument in the Words of the Paper, and endeavour that our discussing 'em may be with the greatest Evenness and Moderation.  
In the First place then, we must make our Remarks on the Method taken to abuse the Reader, by proposing but Two Considerations, and that very lamely too, for Addressing; but as many more, with all the Advantages imaginable, against It; thereby tempting the Unwary to conclude, That the rendering His Majesty their Thanks, was a thing most Ridiculous. However, we'll propose those feeble Arguments that are for Addressing, with the Clergys' Answer, and try whether it's so easy a Matter to blow 'em off the Stage, as these Gentlemen would have us think.  

Reasons for this Address may be Two.  
FIRST, That it may continue His Majesty's Favour; and the Omission may irritate the Treasury to demand a Review of the First-fruits, to the full Ualue, upon the Fifth Bond.   

The CLERGIES ANSWER.  
As to the Kings Favour, if the known Loyal Principles and Practices of the Church of England, which evidenced themselves (one would think) so acceptable to this Prince in the Instance of the Exclusion, and Monmouth, will not secure us, so not this Address (which only copies out Fanatical Loyalty and Gratitude) can continue it.  
Yet our Thanks at this time might not seem improper, if the Favour of continuing the Laws to us (which perhaps with all the Endeavours to the contrary cannot be Repealed) were as great as the Repealing those for the Dissenters Sake; which the Presbyterian and Independent Addresses say, His Majesty will engage His Parliament to, and for which they principally give Thanks.   

OUR REPLY.  
1. These Gentlemen think they have done enough already to merit the Continuance of His Majesty's Favour, because some of 'em were against the Bill of Exclusion, and endeavoured the Suppression of Monmouth; not considering, how many of our Communion were the Active Persons both in the Matter of the Exclusion and Monmouth. It's true, at that time some were very Loyal, and but some. Consult the late King's Narrative, and observe the Rise and Progress of that Conspiracy, and you will find, 'twas from First to Last begun and carried on by Church of England Men: For, though the Fanatics had their Hand in it, yet they were not the Only, nor the Chief Actors. If you go back so far as the Excluding Parliament, they were, Five to One, Church of England Men. Or, if you look on the Contests about the Sheriffs, you will find the Church of England to be the Chief in that Transaction; and in truth, no one that had been a Dissenter, could act as a Sheriff or Common-Council-Man, until he had forsaken his Communion with the Dissenters, and incorporated himself with our Church: So that whatever they did in these Public Capacities, they did it not as Dissenters, but as Members of the Church of England. Come nearer home, to the late Rebellion, and consider who were the Heads of it, and 'twill appear, that they were of the Church of England: Or go down to Winchester, where were above Four hundred of the Meaner sort, and, except Twenty or Thirty, all declare themselves to be of the Church of England: Or read Julian, a Church of England Divine, in which the Doctrine of Nonresistance is so much exploded, and you may soon be convinced, that the whole is said for Resistance, is only for the Encouragement of Church of England Men to fight in Defence of the Religion by Law Established; not a Word to affect a Dissenter, whose Religion is by Statute-Laws condemned.  
So that our Church must take the Shame of all these things to herself, and confess, she has more reason to insist on his majesty's Grace, than her own Merit, for the continuance of the King's Favour. But,  
2. It is granted by these Gentlemen, That if the Favour of continuing the Laws to us were as great as the repealing those against the Dissenters, it might not be improper to give Thanks. So that it's confessed to be but just in the Dissenters to make their Addresses. And we doubt not but that we shall make it manifest, that such is the present State and Constitution of the Church of England, that it's as much in the Power of the King to humble our Clergy, as 'tis to comfort the Dissenter; and that our Clergy are as much owing to the King's Grace for the present exercise of their Religion, and Enjoyment of their Possessions, as the Dissenters are for the Indulgence. We mention not this to lessen his majesty's Favour to the Dissenter, but that you may see the Transcendency of the King's Grace to our Church.  
The several Acts of Parliament recognising the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical; 
See. 1. Eliz. c. 2. towards the End. The Queen's Majesty, by the Advice of her Commissioners or Metropolitan, may ordain and publish such Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the Advancement of God's Glory, etc. Rex potest novas Leges condere circa Caeremonias & Ritus, cum Concilio Metropolitanis vel Commissariorum in Causis Ecclesi●sticis. Zouch. Descrip. Jur. Ecclesiast. par. 1. Sect. 2. Cousin. Tab. c. 1.  the Doctrine of the Church of England seen in her Articles, and the Histories of Queen Elizabeth, and King James, and Charles I. relating to this very thing, do sufficiently declare, that such is the Plenitude and Fullness, of the King's Power in matters Ecclesiastical, that he can by his Ecclesiastical Commissioners make new Laws concerning Rights and Ceremonies, and impose new Articles on the Clergy, requiring their Subscription on pains of Suspension and Deprivation. Before the 13. Eliz. c. 12. 
Subscriptions required before the 13 Eliz. c. 12. Heyl. Hist. Q. Eliz. an. 5. pag. 331.  Subscriptions were enjoined by the Regal Power, and though this Statute required Subscription, yet it being to the Articles of Religion, which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a Book Imprinted and Entitled, Articles, etc. 'Twas deemed by the Bishops to be insufficient, who therefore apply themselves to their Prince, that by her Majesty's Power Ecclesiastical, they might enjoin a fuller Subscription, which, accordingly they did, appointing Subscription, not only to the Articles of Faith and Doctrines of the Sacraments; 
Not only the Complaints of the Nonconformists in their Prints, but our Histories so frequently mention it, that 'twould be troublesome to quote 'em all. We'll therefore, mention what the Lawyers say of it, and it is this, A Subscription to the 39 Articles, so far forth, as the Articles do agree with the Law of God and the Land, is not good, as was adjudged in 33 & 34 Eliz. B. R. Clark against Smithfield. So Godolph. Abridg. Eccles. Laws. c. 13. §. 8. Besides the Canon 36. enjoins this fuller Subscription, That the King as Supreme Head, may do whatever the Pope might formerly do within this Realm by Canon Law, is asserted by all our Lawyers generally. See Cok● 4. Instit. 341. Cawley. 1. Q. Eliz. c. 1. Godolph. Abridg. c. 1. §. 5, 6, 7. Zouch. Descrip. jure Eccles. p. 1. §. 1. Cousin. Tab. c. 16.  but unto the Government, the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, and such as refused this larger Subscription, though they would readily subscribe as by the Statute required, were suspended and deprived. And has not his present Majesty the same Power Queen Elizabeth had? Why then may he not make new Laws about Ceremonies, and require Subscription to new Articles? Besides, it's acknowledged, that whatever Power Ecclesiastical the Popes did de facto exercise in this Kingdom according to the Canons, that same Power de jure belongs to our Kings; and ' it's also granted, That the Canons of General Councils, and the Decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, so far forth as they have been received by the Permission of our Kings, and ancient Custom, are still in force; and that these Canons are daily violated by our Clergy, cannot be denied, especially in the matter of Pluralities, which cannot be held but by a Dispensation from the King, 
The Lord C. J. Hobart asserts, That although the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. c. 21 doth say, That all Dispensations, etc. shall be granted in manner and form following, and not otherwise, yet the King is not thereby restrained, but his Power remains as full and perfect as before. Colt and Glover against the Bishop of Covent. and Lichfield. Godolph. Abridg. c. 26. §. 12. Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi.  or at least by his confirming the Archbishops. And will any say, that though the Dispensation, by which any of our Clergy hold their Pluralities, is derived from the King, yet the King cannot revoke them? Or may not his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, make Enquiry after those who have above 8 l. per Annum, and by a Dispensation hold a Second Benefice, and judge of the First Benefice, not according to the Value in the King's Books, but according to the very Value of the Church, as has been formerly adjudged; or as is in the Argument for addressing, may not the Treasury demand a Review of the First Fruits according to the full Value? In a word, may not the King send out a Quo Warranto against the Bishops, and demand by what Power they hold Courts in their own Names, and finding nothing but Prescription to be their Plea, which can be no Bar against the King, sufficiently humble our Clergy? And, seeing his Majesty, notwithstanding the many Provocations he has met with, from some of our Clergy, is so far from Exercising this Power against our Church, that on the contrary he is so unexpressibly gracious as to promise his Protection, have we not the greatest Reason gratefully to acknowledge it to the King?  
Their affirming these Addresses to copy out only Fanatical Loyalty, and Gratitude, is so very indecent, that we think it unworthy of further Notice, judging their Confidence also about the Impossibility of Repealing their Laws to bear some Proportion to the Extravagance of their Censure.   

The PAPER.  
SECONDLY, That it seems our Duty to maintain Unity with our Bishop requiring it, and perhaps expecting it upon our Canonical Obedience, there being nothing praeter licitum & honestum.   

ANSWER.  
As to the Bishop, 'tis conceived, that this is no Instance of Canonical Obedience; nor is the Duty of our Unity with him apprehended to be such, as disunites us from the most, the best and soundest of the National Clergy, who we think ought not, and we believe will not move in an Affair, which concerns the whole Church equally without their Metropolitan and his Bishops. Neither hath our Bishop showed any Pastoral Regard to us, unless it be in a treating us like Children in a very weak and passive Minority, by requiring our Submission to an Address form and worded to our Hands, without our Knowledge, not leaving us the Liberty, and thinking us able to express the Sense of our Acts (or Hearts) ●nd therefore till Bishops upon their Consecration declare what Faith they are of, as they did in the Primitive Church, for which the Reasons are the same as then; to maintain Unity with a Bishop without Caution is a Principle, that may lead us further than we ought to go.   

REPLY.  
1. There being so much Reason why our Clergy ought to make their Address of Thanks to the King, it would be very strange if such a Practice cannot be found amongst the Licita and Honesta of our Church; and if it comes within this Pale, and the Ordinary commands it, it's beyond us to conceive how Disobedience in the Clergy can escape the Gild of Perjury. For the Oath expressed in the Instrument of the Clergies Institution is in these words, Te Primitùs de legitima & Canonica Obedientia nobis & Successoribus nostris, in omnibus licitis & honestis Mandatis per te praestanda & exhibenda, ad Sancta Evangelia ritè juratum admittimus. So that they are sworn to perform Lawful and Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary in all his lawful and honest Mandates. The Bishop than commands 'em to thank the King for his Grace and Clemency in a matter for which once heretofore they did it. Is this Lawful or Unlawful? Honest or Dishonest? Not Unlawful nor Dishonest; because when the King declared only to the Council he would protect the Church of England, they then judged it their Duty; now the King doth but make the same Declaration to the whole Kingdom, and if not Unlawful, and their Ordinary commands it, they are bound by their Oath to obey, how then can they disobey and not be at least forsworn? But,  
2. How comes it to pass, that their Obeying their Ordinary disunites 'em from the most, the best and soundest of the National Clergy? What! are the whole Clergy so insensible of the King's Grace, that they'll not acknowledge it? what a prodigious Change is this? And why must they not rather regard their own Ordinary, than the Sense of others? If the matter required, be (as we have proved it to be) Lawful and Honest, do they make nothing of an Oath? and is Churchof England Unity in danger of being broken? That surely is ominous, and no doubt will open the Mouth both of Papist and Protestant Dissenter. Is the Church of England's Case so desperate, that they must either be ungrateful to their Prince, or be divided amongst themselves? Furthermore,  
3. Their Bishop shows no Pastoral Regard to 'em, 
They declare, That the Book of Common-Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, etc. containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that it may be lawfully used, and that they will use the Form in the said Book prescribed, in Public Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and none other. Can. 36. Art 2.  unless it be in treating 'em like Children, by requiring their Submission to an Address worded to their Hands, not leaving 'em the Liberty to express the Sense of their Hearts. So the Paper. And what hurt in all this? It's to be presumed, they'll make more bold with their Prince than with God; and therefore seeing they are not to be trusted, when they make their Addresses to God, how can they expect to be trusted when they apply themselves to their Prince? Are not their Prayers all worded to their Hands? Have they Liberty to express the Sense of their Hearts in Public? No, they have solemnly promised, they'll use the Church-Prayers, and none other; why then should they expect a Liberty of expressing their Sense when they are to address to the King? Ay but,  
4. Bishops upon their Consecration should declare what Faith they are of, as they did in the Primitive Times. What's this but too high a Reflection upon our Church, an Accusation that we are fallen from the Primitive Purity? Tho it must be acknowledged, that all the Clergy Subscribe, Assent, and Consent to the Thirty nine Articles, etc. And is not that enough? Or, have they forgotten how solemnly they did swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary; that they now tell us, they must maintain Unity with their Bishop with Caution; thereby encouraging even the Nonconformists in their Dissent?  
But to the Arguments against Addressing.   

THE PAPER.  
Reasons against it are Many; under the present Circumstances, to instance in Four.  
FIRST, As to our Possessions, it either equally concerns all Estates of Men in the Kingdom, and aught then to be most particularly considered in Parliament; or, it supposes our Possessions less Legal, and more Arbitrary than other Subjects.   

ANSWER.  
As for their Possessions, they are settled on them in no other manner than they were on the Clergy in Q. Elizabeth's and K. James the First's Days, when, for not subseribing to Articles never then enjoined by Act of Parliament, many hundreds of the Clergy were suspcnded, and deprived of all their Ecclesiastical Possessions: And should a strict Enquiry be made into our Clergy, it's to be feared, that too many of 'em would be found so very guilty, as to deserve not only a Suspension, but also a Deprivation; and we therefore cannot think it to be the Wisdom of our Clergy to provoke the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make a close Search after their Miscarriages, especially seeing Deprivations have been anciently for Dilapidations, and such like Offences.    

ARGUMENT II.  
SECONDLY, As to our Religion, This Address (referring to the Declaration) necessarily herds among the various Sects under the Toleration, who for suspending the Laws have led the way in these Addresses, owing their Exercise of their Religion to no Legal Establishment, but only to Sovereign Pleasure and Indulgence, which at pleasure is revocable.  

ANSWER.  
1. They'll not deny, but that they now agree with the other Sects, in Dissenting from his Majesty's Religion, and are equally with them owing to the King's Grace, and His most Christian Principle, That Conscience ought not to be constrained, for the Protection the King vouchsafes them in the Enjoyment of the Free Exercise of our Religion. They see how easily the King can humble them; and had he not been for Liberty of Conscience, he must esteem himself under the most powerful Obligations of endeavouring it, and a Change of our Religion: Why then should they be so much against concurring with the various Sects among us in rendering the King their Thanks? What, shall the Fanatic outdo us in point of Ingenuity and Gratitude?  
2. They say, That the Dissenters owe the Exercise of their Religion to no Legal Establishment, but only to Sovereign Pleasure.  
What a strange Change is this! The other day, in the late King's Reign, the Cry, the General Cry was, That the very Legislative Power was lodged in the Breast of the King; 
If an Act of Parliament forbiddeth under a Penalty, and it prove inconvenient to divers particular Persons, the law gives Power to the King to dispense therewith. So Rolls and Coke. See 22 Car. 2. The Author of Jovian assures us, That the Government of this Kingdom consists in the Imperial as well as the Political laws; and whatever is required by the Imperial Laws, if not contrary to the Laws of God, mu●t be observed: So that unless Acts of Parliament be jure divinc, and the Imperial Law, or the Word of the King is to act contrary, we m●st obev. Joviar. Edit. 2. p. 205. 206.  but now, contrary to the very Vitals of our Government, they'll not allow Him the entire Enjoyment of the Executive Power. That the King may grant a Dispensation with a Non obstante to any Act of Parliament, as well as give out a Particular Pardon to the Transgressor's of any Statute, and these particular Dispensations and Pardons may be given out to every particular Subject that needs 'em, has been the avowed Principle even of the greatest Opposers of Arbitrary Government. Besides, in Matters Ecclesiastical, which comprehend the Dissenters Case, the Sovereignty of the King is as full and complete, as any of His Majesty's Royal Predecessors, and theirs the same with that Power the Popes did de facto exercise according to Canon-Law, with a Non obstante to a particular Act of Parliament.  
But what need we insist on these things? Have not the Clergy gone higher in exalting the Sovereign Pleasure above all Laws, even in Civils, when in the Declaration that all our Clergy subscribe, they distinguish between the Sovereign Pleasure of our King, and His Authority of Law; and that the Law or Authority, if it at any time falls in competition with the Sovereign Pleasure, must defer to Sovereign Pleasure; it being a Traitorous Practice to observe the Law, in opposition to any Commissioned by Sovereign Power?   

The PAPER.  
THIRDLY, This Address is either designed in the Name of the Church of England, and then it ought to have had 'tis Birth at Lambeth, or a Synodal Convocation, or in the Name of this Diocese only, which then will both disjoint us one from another who differ about it, or from the rest of the National Clergy; the best part of which we are assure dislike it in the present Circumstances: So that the inevitable consequence of this Address (set on foot by a few Bishops independently on their Metropolitan, and without the previous Concurrence of the rest of their Order) must be a fatal Division among the Clergy, and either beget a new Schism, or widen the old ones, which, are already too deplorable.   

ANSWER.  
One would think that the Bishop and Clergy of a Diocese might safely enough make their Address of Thanks of the King, without the previous Concurrence of the rest of their Order, or consulting their Metropolitan. For the Union between Bishop and Bishop, and the Dependence of all the Bishops in a Province on their Metropolitan, aught to be comprehended within those matters, that relate to Purity of Faith and Manners; but is Non-addressing a matter of Faith, or Addressing, contrary to the Rule of good Manners, that it must not be adventured on without the Advice of a College of Bishops, or the leave of a Metropolitan? But if we do more closely pursue this point, we shall find the Constitution of our Church to be such, that in all matters of Consultation, the Birth must not be at Lambeth, but at Whitehall. For what Power Superior to a single Bishop hath the Metropolitan, but what is Juris positivi, and derived from the King, the Fountain and Source of all Provincial and National Church-Power in these Kingdoms? This surely must be granted by those that are not for a Power derived, either from a General Council, 
Synodus Provincialis vel Nationalis convocari non debet absque Principis Rescripto: nec tractari, nec determinari aliquid potest in Synodo, nisi consentiente & assentiente Principe. Cousin. Tab. c. 1.  or from the Roman Pontif, and then it will inevitably follow, that his Majesty in the first place is to be consulted, whose Mind in this matter is sufficiently known, and it's as much the Duty of the Metropolitan to consult and obey the King the Supreme Ordinary of this National Church, as it can be for a single Bishop to regard his Metropolitan; for which Reason we think it a Presumption, very near to what is unpardonable in the Inferior Clergy, to dispute what is agreeable to the Sense, both of their Ordinary, and Supreme Ordinary.  
And as for the Talk of Schism, as if these, who are for Addressing, must needs be Schismatics; we only say, that making Differences about matters of this nature to be Schismatical, will tempt thoughtful Men to conclude, that the Outcries of Schism against the Non-conformists, have been grounded on as little Reason, and with as little Justice.   

The PAPER.  
FOURTHLY, It will forfeit our Reputation with the Nobility, Gentry and Commonalty of our Communion, and may tempt them to Disgust us for our rash Compliance with suspected Artifices (which may rise hereafter against us, to our Own, and the Church's Prejudice) and to waver in the Steadfastness of their own Profession, when they see us owning the Exercise of our Established Religion to be so precarious.   

ANSWER.  
Above Twenty Years together without any Regard to the Nobility, Gentry and Commonalty, our Clergy have been publishing to the World, that the King can do greater things than are done in his Declaration. But now the Scene is altered, and they are become more concerned to maintain their Reputation, even with the Commonalty, than with the King: Ay, they Insinuate as if the Nobility and Gentry had taken up their Religion on such a Foundation, as would be shaken by an Address; and do moreover suggest, as if the Nobility and Gentry are as little affected with his Majesty's Grace as themselves.   

The PAPER.  
May it not therefore be expedient, humbly to Remonstrate our Scruples in this Affair to our Diocesan, and beseech him not to require our Act, without consulting us in a thing of so Public and National Concernment, wherein we conceive ourselves obliged to proceed upon mature Deliberation, and united Measures, which under God and the King, are like to be our greatest Safeguard?   

ANSWER.  
Their Duty is to consider, whether they are more obliged to their Metropolitan, than to their Diocesan. If they ought to regard their Diocesan most, it's their Duty to submit unto his Sense of things, and not revive the old way of Remonstrating thus; but if they judge themselves bound to regard their Metropolitan more than their Diocesan, we are sure that their Obligation to the King, the Supreme Ordinary of the Church of England, is much greater, and that they ought not to bring what he approves of under debate, especially considering the Transcendency of His Majesty's Favour towards them, and that such Discoveries of Ingratitude may justly provoke the King to exercise His Just Prerogatives in Matters Ecclesiastical, and humble them.  
In a word, we would, if possible, inculcate this on your Thoughts, That our Church of England Lawyers have resolutely affirmed the King to be Supreme Ordinary, and by the ancient Laws of this Realm, may without any Act of Parliament make Ordinances and Institutions for the Government of the Clergy, 
See Cawley on 1 Eliz. c. 1.  and may deprive them if they obey not. Moor 755. C. 1043. Cro. Trin. 2 Jac. 37. Cawley 1 Eliz. c. 1. And when the Prince zealously espoused our Church's Quarrel, 'twas deemed by our Clergy to be almost Treason to suggest the contrary: And if you consult our Histories, you ll see, that Queen Elizabeth, in favour of our Clergy, did many a time exercise this Power; on her entering the Throne, she sent out a Proclamation, That no Man (of what Persuasion soever he was in the Points of Religion) should be suffered to Preach in public, but only such as should be licenced by her Authority: 
Heylyn's Hist. of Q. Eliz. p. 276.  On which occasion no Sermon was preached at Paul's Cross, or any public place in London, from December until the Easter following; and by it, those that could not subscribe the Articles enjoined merely by Regal Power, were suspended and deprived: Whence we observe, That if this Power be inherent in the Imperial Crown of England, as hitherto our Clergy, in opposition to Fanatic Clamours, have over and over asserted, the Clergy are undoubtedly owing to His Majesty's Clemency for the free exercise of their Religion; for had not the King excelled Queen Elizabeth of precious Memory, in Compassion and Grace, their Mouths would have been stopped long ago: On the other hand, if this Power be not inherent in the Crown, 'twill inevitably follow, That the Nonconformists have been most unjustly treated by our Clergy. To conclude, The last Result will be this; Our Clergy must abide by their old avowed Doctrine, defend the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and acknowledge, that it is to His Majesty's Grace they are owing for their present Liberty; or condemn all their former Practices against the Dissenter, and turn over unto them: Vtrum horum. Farewell.  
FINIS.