A LETTER TO THE Bishop of Sarum: BEING AN ANSWER To his LORDSHIP'S Pastoral Letter.  
From a Minister in the Country.  
Printed in the Year 1690.   

A LETTER TO THE Bishop of Sarum.  
My LORD,  
YOUR Lordship has given the World, so great and so many Instances of your Ability, and Proficiency in all kinds of Learning; and of your strength of Reasoning upon every Subject: That it is the greatest Disadvantage imaginable, to any Cause you can Espouse, to be so Weakly Argued by you, that room is left for an Answer to your Arguments. This (added to the Scruples I formerly Entertained) has raised in me a more than common Jealousy, that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy in our present Circumstances (Defended in your Lordship's late PASTORAL LETTER) are unjust: and that they are Repugnant to the Laws of this Kingdom, as well as to the Doctrine of the English Church,  
The first Report indeed, that I met with concerning your Lordship's Letter, together with the Character, which I knew was justly due to the Author, begat a Confident Expectation in me of being throughly Convinced by it; and more than half a blind Resolution of adhering to it, and complying with that, which I am unwilling to call the Iniquity of the Times. But (alas my Lord!) as soon as I had (with Earnestness and Impatience of being your Convert) procured and read it, I found myself under the greatest Disappointment I ever met with; even so great, that I cannot forbear doing this Violence to my own Temper (which affects nothing so much as Ease and Privacy) to Examine and compare it with such Remarks as I had before made for my own satisfaction, and give these public Reasons of my dissent from it.  
I do not entertain the Vanity, to believe that any thing I can offer will have so much of weight in it, as to Convince your Lordship you have been mistaken: for I am very sensible of my own weakness, though my Opinion of the goodness of the Cause prompts me to this unequal Undertaking; besides, I have Charity enough, to hope you have far better Reasons, for the Part you have Acted in this Surprising Revolution, than those you have here thought fit to Publish. But my design is to apply myself to your Lordship, as to a Spiritual Physician, and to lay open the state of my Disease, and the very foundation of my Scruples, before you, that by Arguing the matter, I may attain to the Truth: And I doubt not but you will show the Goodness of your Nature as a Man, and your Charity as a Bishop (whereby you are Obliged to lead the Blind, and support the Weak) so far, as to give me and the World some more satisfactory Directions, for our Behaviour under these Difficulties of Public Affairs.  
This being then the design of this Letter, I cannot prosecute it in a better Method, then to wait on your Lordship from Page to Page, and from Paragraph to Paragraph; and to point out to you where your Reasons are not Conclusive nor Satisfactory.  
I agree with your Lordship, that should the Clergy choose rather to desert their stations, 
Page 2.  then swear the Oaths, the Minds of the People would be much distracted: And I suppose it is for this Reason, that the Act particularly points at them; to fright them (if possible) into a Submission to such things as the Doctrine of the Pulpits gave occasion to Believe they would not fail to boggle at. But we must not, 
Ez●. 13 16, etc.  to prevent these Distractions, sow Pillows under the Arms of the People, and Lull them into a false Security.  
I can with a like readiness Agree to the vast Importance of this matter: 
Page 2. §. 1.  And that this Consideration ought to move us to a serious Reflection on the Foundation of our Dissent, before we fix on a Resolution so prejudicial (possibly) to the public Peace. 
Page 3.  But it must be also allowed of as great Importance, to consider the Legality of these Oaths, before we swallow 'em. For it will be an Eternal Scandal on the Church of England, if all her Sons conspire, for the sake of Interest or Prosperity, to take a Solemn Oath, inconsistent with their former Oaths, with the Doctrine of this Church, and of particular Ministers in the discharge of their Cures. I am sure a Favourable Providence, 
Page 3.  with a hopeful prospect of all Temporal Blessings, and the fairest beginnings of the most desirable things we can hope or wish for on Earth, are no Arguments for the Legality of any Revolution. For if they were, who could oppose a Successful Rebellion? Or, 
Rev. 13.4.7.  since none shall be like the BEAST (in the Revelations) or be able to make War with him, why shall not even the Saints, when they be overcome by him, be obedient to him and Support his Government?  
Nor does the seeming Security of the Protestant Religion, 
Page 3.  and our Civil Liberties weigh more in this particular: It is a preposterous way to secure our Religion by overturning the very Foundations of it; and undertaking to direct the Allwise Providence, in the proper Methods of supporting his own Cause. The Fate of Vzzah is a fearful Example of the Divine Wrath against the rashness of those who contrary to his Revealed Will dare put forth their hands to hold up the Ark, tho' just at the point to be overturned. 
2 Sam. 6.6.  God will be obeyed in all his Commands, and have this Honour of his Omnipotency left entire to himself, to be avenged of his Enemies his own way. Besides, my Lord, whatever danger we are in, from a Popish Tyranny, an Irish Conquest and Massacre, 
Page 4.  and French Barbarity and Cruelty (though this is neither apparent in itself nor the attempt thereof proved upon the King) we must remember that they are Dangers of our own making For had all the Members of the Church of England been firm to their Maxims; had they persisted in opposing all the violent and ill-advised Designs of the King, but at the same time had they been Faithful to his Person and Government; and when he opened his Arms (though late) and made such large steps towards a Reconciliation, had they then returned into his Bosom for Protection; these things could not possibly have happened to us. Had the King stayed, the Laws were such, that till they were Repealed we were safe: And none but our own Brethren, who would Communicate with us at the Holy Table, could have an Opportunity to break down those Hedges. Since therefore we are Cheated into this Distress by our own Negligence and the Cunning Malicious Insinuations of others: (which however excusable in us as a Humane Failing, yet persisted in turns Sin:) we must be well assured, that the ways wherein we pursue our Deliverance are just and lawful, lest God should go on to punish Sin with Sin. 
Page 3.  This would be a Curse from God indeed, and the certain Forerunner not only of our Temporal, but Eternal Ruin. So that I hope, we shall agree in this Conclusion; that as the apparent Blessings to be enjoyed, and the frightful Dangers to be avoided, are sufficient Inducements to Swear Allegiance to the present Government, if this Oath shall appear to be Lawful; so, if otherwise, the Curse from God against wilful Sin is a reasonable Consideration to deter us from it; and that we must not be warped with the Allurements of Prosperity, or the Fears of Adversity ('tis an ill Cause a Good Man will be afraid to suffer for) but that we must impartially consider the true state of the Controversy, which I take to be this, viz.  
Whether the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, be Lawful, as they are now imposed on the Clergy, at the Peril of Suspension ab Officio & Beneficio (Censures (by the way) not generally owned within the Power of Temporal Judges) under these (our present) Circumstances, viz. Of knowing, that King James the Second is our Rightful King, till it be otherwise made appear that he has ceased to be King; that he is endeavouring to be Restored to his Throne and Kingdoms; and that he expects our Allegiance, and is soliciting Assistance, in order to it? This is the true state of the Question: And till the Affirmative be well proved, all that can be said besides, is only raising of a dust; and (as your Lordship well expresses it) 
Page 4.  a Pathetical aggravating of the matter.  
This your Lordship has undertaken; and accordngly offered these three Arguments drawn. 


Page 4. S. 2. Page 16. S. 10. Page 19 S. 11.  1. From Possession of the Throne.  
2. From the Decision and Declaration of the Convention.  
3. From Conquest. All which seem to me ineffectual.    

Page 4. S. 2.  1. Possession of the Throne, is indeed a sufficient Title to our Allegiance, under these and such like Restrictions, where 1. The Title of Right is disputable, or, 2. The Rightful Prince declines his Claim of Right, or, 3. Where the Throne is Vacant in an Hereditary Kingdom by the total failure of the Royal Line. The Reasons whereof are plain. 1. Because, for the sake of Peace and Order, we may be excused from paying Allegiance to the Rightful Prince, if disputably such, by a commendable Ignorance and Incuriousness of enquiring too nicely into those things that are so far above us. 2. But, though the Rightful Prince be known if he declines or absolutely refuses to undertake the Government, we are excused by this universally received Maxim, that Volenti non fit injuria; or rather, by an impossibility of paying it to one who will not be brought to admit of it. 3. Where the Throne is vacant by a total Failure of the Royal Line, this Law of Nature is our Guide, viz. That Possession gives a Right where none is dispossessed of a preceding Right. And upon this Law it is, that the original Right to all our Estates and Possessions is founded. For every part of the World remaining under the Dispensation of the Laws of Nature, is common to all; all have an equal Right to it: But when any Man takes the pains to possess it, she allots it to him, excluding all others, for a Reward to his Industry. Under these then, and some other like Restrictions, I may allow your Argument to be good: But none of these Instances will reach us. We know the Rightful King; and we are assured (notwithstanding all those Monstrous Insinuations to the contrary) that he Claims his Right; that he expects our actual Allegiance be paid him; and is endeavouring to return to us, to give us an opportunity for the performance of this Duty to him: But if he were dead, the Succession does not terminate in him: We know he has Heirs, and we know those Heirs. Besides this Assertion taken at large, as your Lordship delivers it, lays a Foundation for this unavoidable Consequence (as Mean and Ungenerous as it is Absurd) that we at least thus far must turn Persians, always to Worship the Rising Sun; we must swim safely down the stream; always adhere to those that are Fortunately, however Unjustly, uppermost; and pay our Allegiance to all Prosperous Rebels and Usurpers. This is, indeed, so harsh to any Man of Honour or Integrity, that it needs to be supported by far better Arguments than those you have here produced.  
For the next Paragraph is so weak that I much wonder how it could fall from your Lordship's Pen. You first suppose that all allow it Lawful to Obey a Possessing King, without taking notice of any Restrictions; and than you confound the words, and make Allegiance and Obedience to be the same thing. 'Tis true, Self-preservation, and common Prudence, as well as a Duty in all to study Peaee (may be granted) does oblige us to such an Obedience as we own to Foreign Princes whilst we Travail or otherwise remain (not Naturalised) in their Dominions: That is, All such Obedience as is consistent with that which is by Nature indispensibly due to our own Sovereign. And I think no Man of Sense who makes a difficulty of Swearing the required Oaths can ever be thought to allow any other. For my own part, I profess, if nothing more than such an Obedience as this be meant by the Obeence which is expected, and the True Faith and Allegiance we are to Swear so soon as this Interpretation shall receive the sufficient Approbation of Public Authority, I will satisfy all my other Scruples, without further Assistance. But your Lordship must not take it ill if I add withal, that should this Explanation be given by you, it would be of very small moment with me. Because all Laws are only to be Interpreted by the Legislators, or such as are appointed by them to do it; And all Oaths, according to the common Acceptation of the Words, and the known meaning of the Imposers. Your Lordship therefore has no Right to do it: Since you were not then a Bishop, and had no share in the framing of them. I do not say this with any disrespect to your Ability or Integrity: Nor do I think you will ever enter upon this Province. My design is hereby to shut the door against such Fallacies (of a Temporary Allegiance to be revoked at pleasure) as I find the generality of Men, that they may secure their Interest, are tempted to admit. Whereby they cheat themselves into great straits to their Consciences, and Swear, with Reservation, they know not what. I have this Exception further to make against this wandering Interpretation of the Words: I was told by one of the Right Reverend, the Bishops, at the time when the Oaths were brought into the Convention of Lords, and therefore while the Debates were fresh in Memory, that it was moved (among other things) to have the word Allegiance Explained, 
N. B. Since the writing of these Papers the Parliament hath put this Matter beyond Dispute: For in their late Act of Recognition they declare King William and Queen Mary are, and of RIGHT ought to be Our Sovereign Lord and Lady, in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State, Crown and Dignity, with all Honours, Titles, Prerogatives, etc. are most FULLY and RIGHTFULLY Invested. So that in their Opinion they are King and Queen de jure, and therefore Allegiance is payable to them in as large a degree as to any other whosoever of the Rightful Kings their Predecessors.  and (as I remember) thus; that it should signify no more than a Peaceable Behaviour ●…d an Acquiescence under the present Establishment. But this Motion was rejected, because it would thus give so great a Latitude to all men's Consciences that it would oblige to, and therefore signify just nothing. This is an express Declaration against our bold Interpretations of these Oaths to ourselves: And for the Truth of the Fact I Appeal to that House.  
Take therefore Allegiance in your own Sense to be an Obedience according to Law; 
Page 6.  or to express it more fully, All that Obedience and all that Duty which the Laws of the Land, and the Constitution of this Government require from Subjects to our Kings; take Allegiance, I say, in this sense (which is that I always understood by it) and it is impossible to be paid to the present Government under the Circumstances in your Argument supposed of Possession not of Right. For Kings are like God in this respect, that they are Supreme, which necessarily implies Unity: So that whatever Duty is proper to the Supreme and only so, must be entire; it must be whole and undivided. Thus the Prophet Elijah tells us, We must not halt between two Opinions, 
1 Kings 18.21.  if the Lord be God we must follow him; but if Baal, him. And a greater than he has said, We cannot serve two Masters; 
Mat. 6.24.  nor can we for the same Reason pay the Duty of Allegiance to two Supremes or Sovereigns at the same time. If then it appear that King James has still the Right of Sovereignty (and this you here suppose) we cannot without Robbery and a kind of Idolatry give this Worship, much less Swear it, to any other.  
But I will bring this Matter home to our Case. It is well known (and declared by two Acts of Parliament under King Henry the Seventh) to be the Natural Duty of All Subjects to Defend the Persons of their Kings, to Fight their Battles, 
The Words of the Statutes are these, Subjects by reason of their Duty of ALLEGIANCE are bound to serve the Prince in his Wars in defence of HIM and the Land, against EVERY Rebellion, POWER, and MIGHT Reared against Him. 11 H. 7. c. 1. Again, EVERY SUBJECT by the Duty of his ALLEGIANCE is bound to Serve and Assist his Prince, etc. at ALL SEASONS when need shall require, and to Defend his Royal Person, etc. against his Rebels and ENEMIES, for the SUBDUING of them, 11 H. 7. c. 18.  to Destroy ALL their Enemies, and to do this at ALL Times, as oft as occasion shall so require. So that if this Duty of Allegiance be owned as due and Sworn to an Usurperer, (Pardon the Expression, All Possessors without Right are such, and this is here in your Argument supposed) Whenever the King shall attempt to Return, to be restored to his own, and shall demand our Assistance in order to it, we must notwithstanding this Natural Allegiance confirmed by our former Oaths to him, Defend the unjust Possessor of his Throne against him: And if occasion so requires (as inevitably it must in some of our Cases) even Sacrifice the King to the Interest of the Intruder, and imbrue our hands in his Royal Blood, to prevent the breach of those Oaths to one who has no right to exact them from us. An Assertion so audauciously Impious, that nothing can be supposed to surpass it, but that alone which must justify these daily Acts of the Clergy, when in their Prayers (where they should be sedate, and well assured the Petitions they there offer to God are agreeable to his Will) they dare be so hardy to call aloud for Vengeance upon the Head of the King, whom they are expressly forbid to Curse even in their Hearts. They do therefore little less than Blaspheme God as well as the King, when they pray the Usurper may overcome ALL his Enemies, even him. But let them have a care least th●… 〈◊〉 return into their own Bosoms. I tremble to think that this Consequence is unavoidable; 
That he may vanquish and overcome All his Enemies. Prayer for the King. We beseech thee, etc. to give him Victory over All his Enemies. Lit. Save and deliver us (that is the whole Government as now Established) from the hands of our ENEMIES (who so much an ENEMY to an Usurper as the Rightful King?) Abate their Pride; Assuage their Malice; and CONFOUNDED their Devices. Prayer in time of War and Tumults. The Solemn Recognitions too are not easy to be overlooked, where the King de facto is called our most Religious and Gracious King. (Prayer for the Parliament.) and owned as God's chosen Servant, and having his Authority from Him. (Coll. after the Com.) Lastly, in that most solemn part of all our Devotion, the Communion, we pray for a continuance of the Usurpation, when we beseech God to save and defend, in an especial manner (above all other Christian Kings and Princes) our Possessing King, that under him we may (continued to) be Governed. (Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church.) Had the Prayers for the Fast been Published when these Papers were writ, they had deserved a Paragraph by themselves, since they are so warily contrived, that there is no room left for any tolerable Evasion. The Composer of them being resolved that whoever made use of that Form of Prayer, should levelly them particularly against him which is here supposed the King de Jure.  and that we are by this means reduced to such straits, that we must either absent ourselves from the Public Prayers of the Church, or become hearers if not partakers of such bitter Curses against the Lord's Anointed.  
The force of all this is little abated by bringing in the Examples of those Miserable Wretches who live in the Frontiers upon the Continent. What Allowances God will make to invincible Necessity in their Case, I dare not determine. But I think all Casuists agree, that not only the Necessity must be apparently invincible, but the means which lead to it must be unavoidable, before we can lay hold of this Excuse, or venture to do a thing otherwise unlawful, and call upon Necessity to plead our Innocence. Your Lordship would account it a very frivolous Argument against the Divine Institution of your Holy Order, and would certainly laugh at a Conclusion against Episcopal Ordination, where it may be had, drawn from the Practice of the Reformed Gallic Churches (whose Ordinations by the Presbytery alone are allowed Good by some amongst us, 
Page 6. §. 4  though disputed by others) where a fatal Necessity renders it impracticable. The Parallel is too apparent to need more words. We ought therefore to give our continual Thanks to Almighty God, for his great Mercy as well in this as in the other Case, that he has placed us in a Country whose Happy Situation has exempted us so long from falling under any such difficulties; 
Page 6.  rather, then wilfully to apply these Instances of forbearance in such Cases of Necessity to our careless Negligence; and plead the Examples of our Neighbours Miseries in justification of our own Wantonness.  
Before I proceed to the next Paragraph, give me leave to Condole with your Lordship the decay of your Memory. I Remember, in your Enquiry into the Measures of Submission to the Supreme Authority (about a year ago) you tell us, 'tis unreasonable to Conclude, 
Measures of Submission. §. 6.  from the Possession of a Supreme Power, by any Person or Family, that it is the Will of God it should be so: because this would justify all Usurpers when they became successful. But to pass this over, you will not there allow of any Conclusions to be made, with Relation to any particular Government, from the Examples either in the Old or New Testaments: but say, 
Ibid. §. 8.  It is clear that all the Passages in the Old Testament are not to be made use of in this matter of neither side; and, as for the New Testament, all that is in it upon this Subject, 
Ibid. §. 10.  imports no more, then that all Christians are bound to Acquiesce in the Government, and submit to it, according to the Constitution that is settled by Law; so that no general Considerations from any Passages, 
Ibid. §. 11.  either of the Old or New Testaments, aught to determine us in this matter. But you here forget your own Maxim; Examples of this kind, I perceive, are fashionable Arguments, and Passive Obedience is again Orthodox: provided always, it be Extensive enough, and carried to reach Usurpers and Conquerors in prejudice to the Rightful Kings. These, My Lord, are dangerous Passages, which an ill-man may improve to such a Scandal as this; that you square your Doctrine by the Rule of Convenience; and draw a Scheme of Divinity according to a Model of Politics, which may be Varied and Changed as the Circumstances of public Affairs, and Interest, require. Accordingly he may urge, That when you Writ your Measures of Submission, you foresaw it convenient to Explode the Bible, because it would be difficult to draw us into the necessary intended Rebellion, whilst we had the Word of God to guide us. The Scriptures teach us by Example as well as Precept, That Kings are God's Vice-Gerents on Earth, and therefore to be Honoured and Obeyed in all things Lawful: But that Rebellion, in any case, is like the sin of Witchcraft; but now, when the Turn is served, and the Case altered, you here direct us again to them with this necessary Caution, That we wholly forget we have still a King, and apply all the Instances of Obedience to an Unjust Possessor, as if we had been Lapsed into a state of Nature, and every man had had an equal Right to Ascend the Vacant Throne. If this be not playing with, and wresting the Scriptures (he prays God it be not to your Destruction) he knows not what is.  
All this may be said and more: But I will return to your Argument; where the only business will be, to inquire whether any Example you here produce, will reach to the Case of Possession only, under our Circumstances. In order to this, I must remind you of the Restrictions I above Noted, under which (and such like) Possession, may be allowed a Title of Right. We must also consider, that the Jewish Government, was a Theocracy as well as a Monarchy: so that, in all doubtful Junctures of public Affairs, they might have recourse to God himself for advice, by means of the Prophets, and of the Vrim and Thummim. Whenever, therefore, we find in that state any Unaccountable Revolutious not reproved, we may reasonably Conclude, that God had fore-signifyed his Approbation of it: and this the rather, because we generally may Observe, that a Priest or a Prophet chief promotes it.  
There is this further difference between the Constitution of Our Government, and that of the Jews; whereby the Examples from them are not conclusive to us: That whereas this Crown descends by an Haereditary Right, That did not. For sometimes, the Aged King declared his Successor before his Death. Thus David gave his Kingdom to Solomon; 
1 Kings 1.34. 2 Chron. 21.3.  and Jehoshaphat to Jehoram. But more usually the Jews Elected that Person to be their King, whom God by his Prophets had destined to that High Office; pursuant to His Express Command by Moses, 
Deut. 17.15.  that they shall in any wise set him King over them whom the Lord their God shall Choose. Accordingly in the first great Rupture in the Government, 
Pag. 8.  where the ten Tribes wholly Revolt from Judah: the Prophet Ahijah gives ten (of the twelve) pieces of his new Garment to Jeroboam, with this assurance, that the LORD would rend the Kingdom from Solomon, 
1 Kings 11.31.  (though not in his, yet in his Son's Reign) and give ten Tribes to him: and thus when Rehoboam took violent Counsel, and Answered the People of Israel roughly, 
1 Kings 12.13,15.  we are told that the Cause thereof was from the LORD in performance of his word by this Prophet; and afterwards he expressly forbids the Subjects of Rehoboam to fight against their Brethren the Children of Israel, 
1 Kings 12.24.  because this thing was from HIM. The like is remarkable in other Instances: So that in all the Revolutions that happened there, Possession without doubt might be presumed to give a just Right.  
And indeed this is not only true in Relation to the Jews, but is in itself Universally so; as appears from the Nature and Reason of the thing, for wherever a Monarchy is Elective, if the Throne be filled (whether by Force or Cunning) Allegiance may be due: because though some of the Community may be said to be injured by the Usurpation, yet none is dispossessed of a Preceding Right, where none is dethroned. Where therefore none had a preceding Right to Allegiance, it is payable to any; but to whom so properly as to him, who has given the greatest Evidence (at least) of the Majority of Electors, since they had strength and Interest enough to Seat him in the Throne beyond the Reach of his Opposers. But all this is nothing to our Case, we know the Person who is Dispossessed, to whom our Allegiance (as is confessed by all) was once due; and that he is still in being, and calls upon us for the performance of this Duty; the only Objection you here offer against him is, that he is unfortunately Dispossessed, by the force of a violent Intruder: but who was ever yet adjudged punishable for a mere Misfortune?  
These Considerations alone, well applied, would be a sufficient Answer to all that can be urged from the Examples you have brought for our present submission to a King without Right. But least this should seem too general, I will descend to particulars, and show you wherein every single instance you produce is defective. The Case of Athaliah comes near your purpose: Her Reign was undoubtedly an Usurpation, because not being of the seed of David, 
Page 8.  she broke into the Government contrary to the promise of God (Director of the Succession) to him, 
2 Sam. 7.16.  that His House and His Kingdom should be Established for ever. She took the proper method too, to maintain her Usurpation, for she made way to the Throne through blood; and slew (as was believed) all of the seed Royal, who could pretend any Right to the Crown: 
2 Kings 11.1. 2 Chr. 22.10.  So that the people through Ignorance might pay Obedience to Her. But your Lordship may observe, that this is a very Melancholy History for any Usurper to reflect on: For those who were privy to the concealed Infant King, and knew to whom their Allegiance was due, probably never gave it to any other. For we find that Jehoiada the Priest does not (as was usual in such extraordinary occasions) receive and declare a particular Command from God in this affair; but he insists only upon the forecited Promise of God to David. This the whole Assembly judge Authority sufficient to own Joash King, 
2 Chr. 23.3.  (the only instance that I remember of like nature without an immediate Message from God) even before he was Anointed, or Athaliah put to death. For it it is observable in this Relation, that Jehoiada in his Consultation with the Rulers calls him KING; 
2 Kings 11.7,8,11. 2 Chr. 23.7,10.  As if no room had been left for Election, since he was the Only person remaining of the Line, and therefore alone qualified for their Choice. Farther yet, all the Congregation made a Covenant with the King (which you take to be Equivalent with swearing Allegiance to him) in the House of God, whereas he was brought forth to be Crowned and Anointed. 
Compare 2 Chr. 23.3. with 10. and 2 Kings 11.4. with 12.  However this is undeniable, that as soon as their Lawful King was thus publicly known, neither Priest nor People held themselves obliged by their Allegiance to Athaliah, but instantly upon her first appearance they execute a just Revenge upon her, and Sacrifice the Bloody Tyrant to this Infant Rightful King. Upon the whole matter, My Lord, 
2 Chr. 23.21 2 Kings 11.  I can see but very little Temptation from hence, for any to insist upon Possession against Right; when the Priests thus inform us by this Example, without any Immediate command from God, (which shows it to be agreeable to his ordinary positive Laws) that we must, when the Rightful Sovereign becomes a Competitor for his own Throne, endeavour to pull down the unjust Possessor: Then which nothing can conclude more strongly against your Assertion. For certainly, since there is such a natural Tie between Subjects and their Kings, it must be contrary to all the Laws even of Common Honesty, to promise Faith to one, whom (if this occasion require, and they know not how soon it may happen) they are pre-engaged to destroy.  

Page ●0. § 6.  The next Instance would be of considerable service to the Cause, had you proved that the Righteous Heir was known, and Claimed his Right, (you must add that too) and that the Debate, which the Pharisees kept up, was not only Negatively against a Foreign Authority, but also positively for some Person publicly known to be that Righteous Heir. This indeed would conclude something, and reach our Case: 
Page 9  But the Task is too hard to be undertaken; since that Positive Law which Excludes all Aliens, Commands also to make Him their King whom God shall Choose: 
Deut. 17.15.  So that God's Designation of the Person, and the People's Election are Precedent to any Right, and must be made out before any Righteous Heir, according to this Law, can appear. Besides, our Saviour does not answer to a question of Allegiance, but of Tribute only; which is indeed a good Argument for our payment of those heavy Taxes that are, 
Luke 20.22.  and must be laid upon us; but who has hitherto scrupled to do this? But, let our Saviour's answer to this Ensnaring Question be Extended to the utmost, it will amount to no more than this: That they should Acquiesce under the Roman Usurpations. For the annexed Command, 
Luke 20 25.  To give to God the things that are God's, may be reasonably thus Interpreted: That since God vouchsafed to be their King, they should reserve their Entire Obedience and Allegiance to him, and to a King of his appointment, which was the Debate the Pharisees kept up. This Interpretation seems the more probable, 
Luke 20.26.  because both the Pharisees and Herodians Marvelled at his Answer; wherein he had so equally divided and reconciled the matter in dispute between them, that they were both satisfied, and held their peace. However this is Evident, that God, long before this Revolution, had declared by the Prophets, that at the coming of the Messiah, the whole Constitution of the Jewish Government should be Dissolved; And changed from a Temporal particular Kingdom, to a Spiritual Universal Monarchy under Christ the King: Who then should endeavour to maintain this Government, foreordained by God to Dissolution, and thereby resist his Will? But, I hope, We are not yet determined for destruction; at least, I have not heard of any such Revelation, notwithstanding the Face of public Affairs looks so very gloomy before us.  
The two next Paragraphs are grounded upon the Revolutions in the Roman Empire, which was never yet called Haereditary: 
Page 11. §. 7. and Page 13. §. 8.  And therefore as they have no Relation to us, so I will say no more to 'em then this, that however the Election of the Emperors was extorted by force, yet certain it is there was always an appearance of an Election, and something like a Consent was always obtained from the Senate and People, who had the only Right to confer this Honour upon them: And they all Acquiesced in these unfair Elections. This alone was sufficient reason and Obligation for all private Persons, (who had no such Right of Electing) not to trouble themselves with Inquiries into Titles. But farther, the Empire being thus Elective, 
Page 12.  whenever an Emperor was dethroned, all his Right fell with him, and none could Claim by Descent from him: So that all the Primitive Christians might safely swear the Military Oath to the Possessor of the Empire, 
Page 13.  after they had been Absolved from that to the former by his death: Yet it does not appear, (and I believe them so good Soldiers in every respect, that methinks your Lordship would much blast their Courage, as well as Fidelity, should you affirm) that ever they Deserted their unfortunate Master before his Death, or swore the Military Oath to an Usurper against Him. Yet this is the Circumstance which alone concludes in favour of the Opinion here in question.  
But the truth is, my Lord, St. Paul's Doctrine of Obedience to Caligula, notwithstanding his black Usurpations and Tyranny, 
Page 1●.  and his Attemtps upon all the remaining Freedoms of Rome; as also the practice thereof by the Primitive Christians, under many Emperors, not only Tyrants and Usurpers, but even Apostates too; are unanswerable Arguments for Nonresistance to the Supreme Magistrate. And if so, the Gild of Treason, and all those threats which God has denounced against it, lie hard upon those who Rebelled against their undoubted Rightful Sovereign, and Advised and Procured this unparallelled Revolution. I shall only add, for Conclusion to this whole Argument, that if Rebellion be as the Sin of Witchcraft, 
Rom. 13.2.  and to Resist the Supreme Magistrate without Repentance, be to receive Damnation; surely all such as have been Instrumental in the unjust Exclusion of King James, are bound in Conscience, as they love themselves and their Eternal Happiness, to return to their forsaken Allegiance; and to make Restitution (the one great part and instance of true Repentance in the Case of Injuries) to the Injured King, by Endeavouring to Restore him to the Possession of his own. These returning Penitents, (if they would Unanimously Return) joined with those who were always ready to serve him as a KING, though not as a PAPIST, would be of such force; that a Foreign Army of Dutch and others, should not be able to support the Usurpation against him alone, without the further Assistance of French or Irish.  

Page 14. § 9  The Succession to the High-Priesthood your Lordship owns to be Foreign to this matter; but if not, it Concludes very little for your Assertion: For there was not an Absolute Necessity that the Eldest Son should Succeed his Father, (though most usually he did) since the Succession might be Interrupted by the King's Prerogative. 
1 Kings 2.27.  Thus Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord; and although he had a Son, 
2 Sam. 15.36. 1 Kings 2.35.  yet the King put Zadok into his room. 
* Atque ita Summum sacerdotium a familia Ithamaris ad familiam Eleazari rediit. Usser. An. add an. 2990. Page 16. §. 10,  Since therefore the King had this Power, to Depose the Highpriest, and to change the Succession, what could be objected against Caiaphas, when called to the Priesthood by that Power, which alone pretended to be the Supreme.  
2. I have now, My Lord, gone through all the Arguments Your Lordship has produced for Possession only without Right: And I think I have sufficiently Evinced that there is nothing therein Conclusive to us. This Your Lordship seems to be sensible of, when you advance the State of the Question a little further, and throw it upon the Decision of a Convention, which you say are the only proper Judges. But here also I can find no Satisfaction, for allowing your Difference to be good, between all Speculative points of Opinion and all Questions that relate to matters of Fact; Allowing also, that in all Bodies who make Decisions, the Minority is concluded by the Majority, as if they had been Actually consenting to the Decision; yet for all this, there still remains insuperable difficulties in the present Case.  
1. You permit us to retain our former Opinions, 
Page 18. Declaration to be Subscribed by all the Clergy, 14 Car. 2. c. 4. to be sworn by all Mayor's Aldermen, etc. St. 2. 13 C. 2. c. 1. 3,4. and by all Lords, Lieutenants, Deputy-Lieutenants, etc. 14 C. 2. c. 3.  and therefore you give us leave to adhere to our Subscriptions; that It is not Lawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever, even not upon the account of Religion; and that the contrary Position is Traitorous. How then can we who have Subscribed this Declaration, and who are all of this Opinion (or at least have professed ourselves to be of it) own those to be our Lawful Superiors, who have been Instrumental, contrary to this Declaration, in Deposing the King; till they are Absolved from their Treasonable Injustice against him by his most Gracious Pardon; or have made him Restitution by endeavouring his Restauration? much less, as far as in us lies Aid and Support them in this, which according to our declared Opinions, is the highest Injury and Affront to Majesty? yet these are the Chief, and most considerable part of the Nation, who are now set over us both in the Civil and Military State.  
2. But tho' the Business of Succession be allowed a Matter of Fact, as also the King's Original Power, 
Page 18.  yet the late pretended Convention of Estates were not the Proper, much less the Only competent Judges of it.  
1. Because most of the Members in both Houses, were uncapable and unqualified to sit there. For, 
25 E. 3. c. 2.  1. It is Declared Treason to levy War against our Lord the King in his Realms, or to be Adherent to the King's Enemies, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or Elsewhere. It was also further Adjudged High Treason by the Lords in Parliament, under K. Richard 2. To surrender from the King Homage and Allegiance, and to PURPOSE to Depose him. 
Cott. Rec. p. 376, 377, etc.  And as if to preclude that groundless Evasion hereof, on the pretence of a Defensive War against the King, a late Parliament has Declared; 
13. C. 2. c. 6. and 14 C. 2. c. 3.  that The sole Supreme Government, Command and Disposition of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea and Land, and of All Forts and Places of Strength, is and by the Laws of England Ever Was, the Undoubted Right of His Majesty, etc. and that both, or either of the Houses of Parliament Cannot, nor aught to Pretend to the same; nor Can, nor Lawfully may, Raise or Levy any War, Offensive or Defensive against His Majesty. So that it is evident from hence, that many of the Members in the late Convention were formally TRAITORS.  

Every Offender shall lose and forfeit to the King, etc. all such Lands etc. which any Offender shall have etc. at the TIME of any such Treason committed. 5 & 6 Ed. 6. c. 11. 3 Eliz. c. 1.  It may be urged indeed in their Defence, that they were not legally Convict: But since Treason (ipso facto) forfeits all Estates, it is very reasonable to conclude, that it also forfeits all other Rights and Privileges of Free Subjects; and since the matter of Fact was so Public and Notorious, it is a just Exception to the Legality of their whole Proceed, that such Members were suffered to Sat and Vote there. For it is Ridiculous that those Men should Judge and Depose the King, who had before forfeited their own Lives to him.  
2. They were incapacitated by express Acts of Parliament, and even by those, the Dispensing wherewith was so warmly urged against the King. For in the Fifth of Eliz. It is Enacted, That every Person which hereafter shall be Elected or Appointed a Knight, Citizen or Burgess, or Baron for any of the five Ports, for any Parliament, or Parliaments hereafter to be holden shall from henceforth, before he shall Enter into the Parliament House, or have any Voice there, openly receive and pronounce the said Oath (of Supremacy) before the Lord Steward, etc. and that he which shall Enter into the Parliament House, without taking the said Oath, shall be deemed no Knight, Citizen or Burgess, etc. nor shall have any Voice; but shall be, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes, as if he had never been Returned or Elected, etc. And shall suffer such Pains and Penalties, as if he had presumed to sit in the same, without any Election, Return or Authority. But this Oath appearing ineffectual to exclude the Presbyterians and other Dissenters, 
The present Synod well knowing that there are other Sects which endeavour the Subversion both of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, NO LE●S THAN PAPISTS DO, although by another day. Syn. Lond. 1640. can. 5. the Seditious Sectaries, etc. do at their MEETINGS contrive INSURRECTIONS, as late EXPERIENCE hath showed. 16 C. 2. c. 4. §. ●.  who by woeful Experience have been since found equally dangerous to the Government both of Church and State; 
* 25 C. 2. c. 2:  it was of late further Enacted; that All and every Person or Persons, as well Peers as Commoners, that shall bear any Office or Offices, Civil or Military, etc. or shall have Command or Place of Trust, etc. shall take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, etc. and receive the Sacrament; and that those who shall Refuse or Neglect (the same) shall be ipso facto, adjuged uncapable, and disabled in Law, to enjoy the said Office, etc. And every such Office, etc. shall be void. But if this will not be admitted to extend to all the Members of Parliament as such (tho' I think the greatest Trusts of the Kingdom are reposed in them) however, by another Parliament it is more fully Enacted; 
30 Car. 2.  that Every Peer and every Commoner shall take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and shall make, subscribe, and audibly Repeat this Declaration (against Transubstantiation) etc. Before he take his Place in the House, etc. And where any Member of the House of Commons shall, etc. by the Neglect hereof be Disabled to Sat, etc. the Place or Places for which they, etc. were Elected, is hereby Declared Void, etc. as if such Members were Naturally Dead. All which Laws being interpreted according to the Reasons and Occasions of them, reach a Convention as well as a Parliament. For undoubtedly where any great Care is necessary to preserve the Superstructure it is much more to secure the Foundation. If therefore such caution be necessary to prevent Corruption in a part of the Legislative Body, surely it is no less necessary to prevent it in that which takes upon it to Constitute the Legislature itself. Yet for all this, no Member of either House, as such, had any regard to these Statutes.  
2. There is neither Authority in Law, nor approv●d Precedent in History, for such an Assembly.  
1. That it has no Authority in Law is evident; for that so strictly requires the Royal Summons to all such like Assemblies, that the greatest Exigencies of Public Affairs do not excuse the neglect thereof: And your Lordship has formerly owned, that the want of the King's Writ, was such an Essential Nullity, 
Reflections on Parliamentum Pacificum. §. 1  that no subsequent Ratification could take it away. Thus the Second Parliament of King Charles II. sound it necessary, to confirm all the useful Laws of the former, for this very Reason, because they wanted a due Summons, tho' they had the Royal Assent to Legitimate their Meeting; and further declare that the Manner of the said Assembling, etc. is not to be drawn into Example, Nay, sometimes they will not allow it even the Name of a Parliament, but call it only a late Assembly. 
13 C. 2. c. 15.   
2. It has not Approved Precedent in History. For the Memory of that of Richard 3. (which has a great resemblance to this in many Particulars) is too black to be insisted on: And all the Transactions of the several Parliaments, or rather Conventions, during the Usurpations against the Royal Martyr, and his Son, were adjudged by all Lawyers, as well as a Parliament, to have been in themselves Null and Void. Yet I think they had as good Foundation, 
13 C. 2. c. ●… §. 3.  and as much Law for what they did, as our late Convention can pretend to.  
3. They had no Power to Transact such Matters or make such Decisions as they have undertaken; except it be made out that a larger Power was delegated to them, then to a Parliament. This more extensive Authority (if any such they had) they must of necessity derive, either from those they represent, or from him who Summoned them. But from neither of these could they derive it: Not from the former, because the Electors were the very same as to a Parliament, and they always impower'd their Representatives, with as large a Deputation as they could give, to Consult about the great and weighty Concerns of the Public, and to give Assent accordingly in their Names; nor from the later, because, if so, the Prince of Orange had a greater Power devolved on him by those few Lords and Commons who desired him to take upon himself the Administration of Public Affairs, than he afterwards received from the Convention, when they presented him the Crown and Regal Authority, which is downright Nonsense. Besides, my Lord, there is no greater power employed by the word Convention: For every Convention of the two Houses of Parliament is a true Convention of the three Estates. This is fully declared to Q. Elizabeth thus. We Your most Humble, 
1 Eliz. c. 3.  Faithful, and Obedient Subjects the Lords SPIRITUAL and TEMPORAL, and COMMONS in Parliament Assembled, etc. Representing the THREE ESTATES of your Realm, etc. Humbly beseech, etc. So that I think we may from hence conclude, that the late Convention had, at most, no more than an Equal Authority with the two Houses of Parliament without the King; who is not to be included by the Three Estates.  
It only remains then in the next place to show you that such a Parliament hath no such Power. This is sufficiently declared by the Parliaments themselves: When they call those that Proceeded against the Life of King Charles I. a TRAITOROUS ASSEMBLY, and the most Detestable Traitors that ever were; they therefore Renounce, 
12 C. 2. c. 11. 14 C. 2. c. 29. 12 C. 2. c. 30.  Abominate, and Protest against that Impious Fact, that Execrable Murder, and most UNPARALLELLED TREASON, etc. and ALL PROCEED TENDING thereunto; how far this last Expression will reach, I leave Your Lordship to be Judge. Again, when King Charles II. is said to be exterminated into Foreign Parts, by the most TRAITOROUS CONSPIRACIES, 
12 C. 2. c. 14.  etc. of USURPING TYRANTS, and EXECRABLE, PERFIDIOUS TRAITORS; than all which nothing can be expressed more Monstrous: Yet that whole Revolution was transacted by the two Houses of Parliament, with this addition, above our late Convention, of a Legal Summons to justify their Meeting, and the Royal Assent to Sat, in effect, 
16 C. 1. c. 7.  as long as they pleased.  
But if that Parliament be not a Parallel, I am sure, that that Convention which Elected Cromwell to be Protector, is so, in every respect. For, did the apparent Necessities of the public, to prevent an Anarchy during the King's Secess, require this? the same Necessities required that. Was this Summoned by one who was desired to take upon himself the Government; and had an Army at his Command to support him in it, till the Meeting thereof? so was that. Were the Members of this duly Elected, and the Houses full? so were they. Had these an entire freedom of Debates? so had they. In the Result of their Consultations, indeed, they differ: Those being abundantly more modest than these. For these, without any Precedent in any Age in this Kingdom, Elect, and purely Create a King, who had before no pretence of Title to the Crown: Whereas they, very modestly, go no further, then to Declare a Protector; for which they have many Precedents, tho' none throughly adapted to their Case. But notwithstanding all these Extremities of the Public, the Summons of the Administrator of the Government, the fair Elections, the freedom of Debates, and the Result of all this, the Election of Oliver into the Protectorate, yet the Healing Parliament of K. Charles 2. Declare and Enact, 
12 C. 2. c. 12.  that the Names and Styles (which those pretended Powers Usurped) and every of them, are most REBELLIOUS, WICKED, TRAITOROUS, and ABOMINABLE USURPATIONS, DETESTED by this present Parliament, as OPPOSITE in the highest degree to his Sacred Majesty's most JUST, and UNDOUBTED RIGHT, 
13 C. 2. c. 1: 12 C. 2. c. 30.  etc. and upon that Account, they Declare, all their Pretended Orders, and Ordinances, to be Null, and Void. Attaint the Protector himself of High Treason, and Brand him with the Titles of USURPER and TYRANT; and to express an Indignation effectually, 
12 C. 2. c. 12. §. 13.  after his Death, his Body was Hanged at Tyburn. An Unlucky Omen! avertat Deus.  
But as if all this had been foreseen in sufficient, to declare no Power in such Mock Parliaments to transact such Matters, as this of ours has undertaken: That Parliament proceeds, 
12 C. 2. c. 30.  to Declare (it does not Enact it a Law for the future, tho' even that were Obligatory, but Declares it to have been always a Fundamental Law of this Kingdom) that, not only neither the PEERS of this Realm, nor the COMMONS, nor BOTH TOGETHER in Parliament, or OUT of Parliament, but (it goes on to Declare, that) not even the whole People, either COLLECTIVELY or REPRESENTATIVELY, nor any other Persons whatsoever, EVER HAD, HAVE, HATH, or OUGHT to have, any COERCIVE POWER, OVERDO the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. Here is an express Renunciation of all the Consequences of an ORIGINAL CONTRACT. But if that which was Committed against K. James was not a Coercition, when he was put under a Foreign Guard; driven from his own Palace; and appointed his Place of Retirement, 
The Dutch Marched to Whitehall, and mounted the Guard about 12 at Night, and not long after, the M. of Hallifax, the E. of Shrewsbury and my Lord Delamere ('tis pity their Names should ever be forgotten) rudely pressed into the King's Bedchamber, and surprisingly waked him with this Message; That the Prince Designed to be at St. James' the next day by Noon, and that it was therefore His Highness' Pleasure, that his Majesty should retire in the Morning to, Ham. 'Tis true he went another way, (to Rochester) but not till he had sent after his Goalors, and asked their leave.  or rather Confinement; and lastly, when Deposed by a Vote of the Convenvention, and his Throne declared Vacant; if all this (I say) be not Exercising a Coercive Power, I know not what is. But should you still deny all this to be applicable to the late Convention, you will surely allow this to be a Natural, and a just Deduction; that since it is less injurious, to the King, to restrain his Person for a time, then to Judge and Depose Him, the whole People of England (as is above Confessed and Declared) having no Coercive, can have therefore no Judicial Power over their Kings. Yet this Power our Convention has arrogated to themselves, and Acted solely by the pretence hereof contrary to this Fundamental Law.  

13. C. 2. c. 1.  I will add but this one Statue more. It is Prohibited, under the pain and Penalty of a Praemunire, to affirm, That both Houses of Parliament, or either House of Parliament, have, or hath, a Legislative Power, without the King. If then a Parliament has no Right to this, surely much less to that, whereby they may Judge, or Constitute the Legislature itself.  
These Declarations, and Statutes, which I have cited, are of so late Date, and the occasions of them so well known, that I profess I can no more bring myself to believe, that I cannot read, or do not understand them; and thereby Sacrifice my Notions, in a Fact so Notorious, 
●…ge 19  to the Decision of a Convention at Westminster; then I can, all my Senses in the controversy about Transubstantiation, to the Decree of a pretended General Council at Trent. for I look upon both equally a Contradiction to Common sense. And  

●…ge 19 §: 11.  And now, My Lord, we are come to your last Refuge the Right of Conquest. But this is a Plea so disrespectful to the whole English Nation, as none but Your Lordship, or one inflamed with a National Antipathy against it; one born in Scotland, and Naturalised in Holland; would have vented. Had this Plea been urged by the  themselves, it had been Ungrateful, and Impudent: Ungrateful, because they own their Being to the English Protection; and Impudent, because they never yet could boast a Victory, except the Bloody Massacre at Amboyna were one. This Plea is equally disrespectful too, to the Prince of Orange, whom it is produced to Vindicate; for it makes him at once both Treacherous and Unnatural: Treacherous to the State's General, and all the Foreign Princes in Amity with them, to whom he protested he meant nothing less than an Attempt upon the Crown; and Treacherous to the English, even beyond thought, to whom he so often Declared that he came as a Friend, and not an Enemy; as a Protector, and not an Invader, or a Conqueror. It makes him also Unnatural to his Father, to his Brother, to his Princess, and to his Sister; To his Father, since by this Conquest he has turned Him out to Perish in the Inhospitable wide World; to his Brother (I must have leave, and am bound in Charity to believe him such, till something of Evidence besides a Common Fame be offered to the contrary) whose tender Age made him uncapable of doing Him any Injury (an Excuse allowed for K. Henry 3. by the Rebels themselves, who sought to Depose his Father: 
Licet vero bonae Memoriae Jo. Pater Noster, in aliquo erga vo● deliquerit, ipsuit d●licti debemus esse immunes; nec Delictum suum aliquate nus Nobis d●…bit imputari Rot. Pat. 1. ●…. 3. m. 16. ) and who was naturally unable to support the Fatigue of a Winter Flight; to his Princess and to his Sister, who never gave him any occasion of complaining; yet this Conquest is injurious to all these: For it deprives them of a Right in Reversion precedent to his.  
But Lastly, This Plea was never moved by the Prince himself, or any of his Friends, in either House of the Convention; nor since he was Proclaimed, by any Authority (that appears) derived from him. So that, methinks, 'tis much more proper to leave such Pretensions to those, who gave the Crown and all the Power depending on it; and who therefore ought (and possibly may in good time) inspect into the Original and weight of them: rather than to acknowledge the Right of Conquest, and that Glorious Appendage, Absolute Power (at the very Name whereof we have been so long frighted out of our Wits) in one, who never Claimed it; and whose accepting of the Crown, as a Gift from the People, is a Perpetual Bar to any such Claim.  
But, my Lord, tho' this is the first time we have heard the Right of Conquest Pleaded: yet there were some Persons in the World who, even at the time of the Prince's first Landing (notwithstanding his fair Declarations to the contrary) suspected, that his chief Aim was to Depose his Father, and Usurp the Crown. For all Men who had ever heard of Dr. Burnet, knew how far he was engaged in the Prince's Counsels, and that Father Petre had never a greater Ascendant over the King, than he had over Him; they knew too, that the Genius of the Country wherein he was born, and the Advantage of his Natural Wit and Education, were so far predominant in him; that as the latter would not suffer him to write an unwise thing; so the former, never let him be guilty of an uncunning or undesigning thing. So that the suspicious part of the World were, from hence, easily induced to believe, as soon as his Enquiry into the Measures of Submission appeared (than which never any Paper chalked out fairer, and easier steps for an Usurper to Ascend a Throne; or at least, laid a surer Foundation for a continued Series of Rebellions and Ruining of Kings) that Measures and Designs were there drawn for the Prince. And indeed the whole Event has showed, that the Suspicion was not groundless: For let any man strictly reflect upon this Paper, particularly upon that instance of Desertion, which he there (among other things) produces; 
Measures of Sub. §. 15. Vid. Sup. p. 20.  and compare it with the Arts and Rudeness which were used to fright or force the King to something which might be wrested into that Name: And (after this) if he does not find a sufficient occasion to suspect, that the late Revolution was foreseen, and designed when that Paper was writ, let the World Judge. I am sure, if it was not so designed, it was an unlucky Preparative for what followed.  
I hope, your Lordship will pardon this Excursion, and take occasion from hence to clear those Passages wherein I have been mistaken, and thereby remove some Hard Thoughts that are entertained of your Lordship upon this Account: For if all this were true, and the Design so laid, the whole Revolution, instead of giving a Right of Conquest, which must be founded upon a Just War, would appear the greatest Cheat and basest Treachery was ever Acted.  

P. 19 §. 11.  But to return to your Argument. You do not prove that the Prince of Orange had a Just Cause of War: Or if he had, how can that Acquisition be Lawful, which is disproportioned to the Damages sustained? For though an Heir in Remainder at Common Law may have a Verdict against his Father upon account of Wastes; 
Page 20.  yet I never heard of a Total Ejectment in that Case. Besides, it is well known that none but the next Heir can bring that Action. So that, till the Evidence for the Reality of a Prince of Wales be Invalidated, neither He, nor his Princess, could Commence this Suit against the King their Father, were He a Subject.  
As to the Matters of Fact, in your Instances of Wastes, and of the Irregularities in the Government; tho' I myself can give very sufficient Testimony (if either declining Offers of Advantage, or even in some measure suffering for such neglect (that I might avoid all Obligations of Gratitude to do any thing prejudicial to the Interest of my Religion) will convince your Lordship) that I am a Protestant, yet I always called, the Facts you mention here, 
Page 20.  in Question. For if, by subjecting this Independent Kingdom to a foreign Jurisdiction, you mean to the Pope: You would do well to let us know of what nature that Subjection was. For if it was only in Ecclesiastical Matters, 'tis no more than all Popish Princes allow, as Essential to that Persuasion: And we of the Church of England aught lest of any to complain of this, since the Duke of York 's Religion, and the Principles thereof, were well enough known to us at that very time, when we so industriously defeated the Bill of Exclusion. So that if his Religion was no Bar to his Succession, it will expose a strange kind of Levity in us, to urge it against him as an Argument for his Deposition. But as for any Temporal Jurisdiction, I know of none; and am very confident, his Holiness never exercised any here. But if by this you hint at the Bloody French League, you must give us leave to remember, that there has none such been yet produced. 'Tis true, your Lordship has taken some pains to make it probable: But it has been so far from being proved upon the King, that the Prince Himself did not mention it in his Declaration. And when some of the Lords in the Convention, being violent against him, but in general terms, were called upon to descend to the Proof of Particulars, especially of this and the Spurious Birth of the Prince of Wales (your next occasion of a Just War) they very tamely let the Debate fall, and durst not give any Answer to such a Challenge.  
These intimations of his Majesty's Crimes, without any appearance of Proof to support them, puts us further in mind of some others of like horrid Nature, which were no less busily whispered through the whole Kingdom; and with as great an Assurance of Truth, as these your Lordship here insists on. But why they should continue to be Secrets now, is the greatest Secret: Tho' I confess I am strongly inclined to believe, that they were only invented to blacken the King, and to Alienate the Affections of his Subjects from him; so that since they have Answered the End of their Being, in his Ruin, there is no reason to publish the useful Malice of those, who devised and dispersed them, by offering at Evidence where they know there is none. The Committee of Noble Peers, who made an Attempt towards some New Discoveries into the Unfortunate Death of the late E. of Essex, had such ill Luck therein, and their Creature, the Witness, was so shamefully baffled, that we are left without all hopes of ever seeing further into those Mighty Mysteries of Iniquity charged upon the King. But if these Crimes be indeed known to be true, why are they not cleared by some Solemn Testimony of credible Witnesses? For if they be not known, it can never be answered either to God or Man, that a King should be thus Scandalously Defamed upon no sufficient Motives even of Credibility: much less that the Justice of a War against him should be grounded on the pretence of a Common Fame: than which nothing is more False and Malicious; and to which I presume your Lordship has no great Temptation to Appeal. No sufficient grounds therefore for the Justice of the War appears: And if the War be unjust, all the Acquisition is so too.  

Page 21.  But I will carry it one step further, and in that, as far as you yourself can wish. I will suppose the War just, and therefore the Acquisition a Lawful Title: yet the Prince of Orange is no more concerned in it then every General in the case of Conquest. The Honour is theirs; But all the Benefit accrues to those only, who had the Right to make the War. So that whatever Obedience or Allegiance is due, 'tis not to the Prince, but to the Princess, in whose Right the War was begun, and the Conquest, if any, made. This is Evident, and needs no more words for the confirmation of it.  
Your Lordship, I suppose, never designed that this next Fallacy should pass upon the World for an Argument. You seem to be in the humour to make a Jest, when you urge the King's Deserting, if forced, as an Evidence of Conquest; or if voluntary, of a wilful Desertion, forfeiting his Crown. For was ever King thought to be Conquered, only because he was Betrayed? or lose his Right to his Dominions (though he lost the Possession) because his Subjects proved Traitors and Deserted him? All the King's Actions and Councils have sufficiently shown, that he did no more, than what self-preservation and common Prudence obliged him to: he gave way to a Torrent, that would else have overwhelmed him, till he could gain time and strength to make head and Repel it; which concludes no more against his Right, than his Brother's Flight at Worcester did against His; notwithstanding which, his Restoring Parliament is said in the Title to be held in the twelfth Year of his Reign.  
But this Reflection is forced and Malicious, which you make upon his casting the Great Seals into the Thames: From this Action, which you call the unaccountable part of his withdrawing, 
Page 22.  you conclude; that he had taken a Resolution of Perpetual Tyranny; and that he would no more Govern by the show of Law: Whereas, if your Lordship considers that the Broad Seal carries with it the King's Authority, as well as his Image, you must own, that he had great Reason to keep it from the hands of those who were so insolent to him, lest thereby they should get an opportunity to employ his Authority against his Person.  
Lastly, The Dilemma which your Lordship brings, for the Conclusion of the whole, is Defective in every part: For when the King withdrew, he left his Privy-Council, who have Power of themselves, and he soon after sent a Letter to them, with his Directions to issue Orders for the due Administration of the Government; All Towns Corporate were Restored to their Ancient Rules and Charters; and there were Sheriffs and Justices of the Peace in most Counties, for the Civil, and Lord Lieutenants and their Deputies, for the Military State: So that we were not, and therefore there was no necessity of Continuing, in a State of Anarchy. 
Page 22.  If these did not Act according to their Commissions in their several Stations, the fault was not the King's, but Theirs who so far overawed them, that they durst not. Besides, we must not lay too much stress upon this, lest we find an Uparallelled Neglect in the first beginnings of the Prince's Government: For he applied no other Remedy to this intolerable Confusion, during his Administration of Public Affairs, before he was Proclaimed, and some time after, but to remove that Awe and Dread of his Displeasure they then Laboured under; and to give them new Life to Execute that Power they had received from the King, by an encouraging Proclamation. So that in whatever Anarchy the King Left us, the Prince Continued us: But I confess it was such, that very few would have suffered by it, though He at the same time had Returned into Holland.  
The Necessity was not greater of Returning to that Misery, 
Page 22.  we so much dreaded a few Months before: For our Case was so well amended before the Prince of Orange Landed, that could we then have remained, or now have leave to return, to the same Condition, we should have no just Cause of complaint or fear. However, I have above in some measure showed, 
Page 23.  that the present Settlement has no Legal Foundation, and therefore cannot likely long secure the Peace and Quiet of the Nation. So that the same. Misery and Confusion does still threaten us, with this Addition, that we cannot now have the comfort of suffering Innocently: We have Plunged ourselves into the same sin of Faction and Conspiracy, which we so Severely (I had almost said Uncharitably) ●…eigh'd against in others: And therefore, if the King should Return, we must expect to be Chastised if not Punished; but if not, though the Prince: may serve himself of our supiness, I cannot think he will ever forget or forgive the Treachery. Peace of Conscience is all we can hope for, and that we shall not find, till we have made an Atonement for our Sin.  

Page 23.  The next thing Observable chills my Blood: An English Bishop dogmatically Affirming; that in all Extremities relating to the Government, that is always best which is safest; and every Resolution, which is necessary to the Peace and Happiness of the Nation, is upon that very account Just and Good, because it is Necessary. This had sounded much better in the Schools of the Jesuits: And is far more agreeable to the Maxims of Machiavelli, then to the Doctrine of the Church of England. And if Your Lordship do not well Limit the Judge of this Necessity, I may safely Affirm, that all the Unnatural and Rebellious Principles of the Jesuits and our Democratists, joined together, cannot be more pernicious to any State then this one of Your Lordship's. For Instance; Can there be any Grievance so intolerable, and so necessary to be redressed in any Government, as that of Suppressing the True Religion? Is it not also most undoubtedly true, that every man firmly believes the Religion he Professes to be the True and the Best? If then any Sect, whether Christians, Turks or Jews, find their Circumstances such, that to support their True Religion, the dearest thing on Earth; and the Exercise thereof, the greatest Privilege, and most desirable Happiness that can be secured by any Establishment; it is absolutely Necessary, or at least in this Extremity the safest way, not only to Murder the Reigning King, but perhaps even his whole Race, and to Massacre all those who any ways set themselves in opposition to 'em: This Maxim Justifies all; it was absolutely Necessary, and therefore upon that very account Just and Good.  
Again, Should a Combination of Men Deliberate thus; Nothing can bar an aspiring English man from Disturbing the Government, by Treasonous Attempts and Usurpations, but an apparent Impossibility of Success: Nothing concludes such an Impossibility, but a perpetual want of Pretence and Title, by placing an Hereditary Right in another; if therefore the Succession be once interrupted, there can be no Peace nor Happiness to the Nation, till it falls again into the Right Line. This Opinion they are Confirmed in, by considering the long Wars between the two Houses of York and Lancaster, till they were United by K. Henry the Seventh; and of late the continued Convulsions, and Changes of the very Forms of the Government, after the Murder of K. Charles the First, till the Happy Restauration of His Heir and Rightful Successor. These Observations they apply to the Present Settlement, and find it not unlike that under K. Henry the Fourth; and fear the Consequences will be the same. For His Majesty having a Just and a Legal Title to the Crown, will never desist from all possible Endeavours to be Restored to his Own, and K. William, having obtained the Possession, seems resolved (though by the Power of a Foreign Army) to keep it. If the King have Success, he must return with such as are no Friends to the English; and the Intolerable Affronts which have been put upon him, will probably prompt him to a just Revenge: And will be a very strong Temptation to him, to Execute those Designs, which have been so unreasonably Charged upon him; If he dies in the Attempt, he entails all his Forces, his Friends, and the Justness of his War, to his Son, and that Line that may possibly Spring from him. But should these fail, and K. William remain without this Competition: Yet the Government is Unhinged; the Crown is become Elective, whereby every man may plead a Right, who can get Voices and Hands enough to reach it; and the natural sullen Complaints of the People, and their Pretences of Grievances, will successively reach out Hopes and Occasions to some Proud Aspiring Patriots to Attempt it. From these Melancholy Reflections, they come to this Conclusion, That in this Extremity, and to prevent this Continuance of Miseries, and at last inevitable Ruin, the safest way, and therefore the best, is to Restore the Succession to the Right Line, by Removing the two Contending Kings, and the Disputed Prince, and leaving Q. Marry the Second, the Rightful Heiress alone in the Throne; whereby the Government will be sixth again upon the only firm and lasting Basis. This they resolve, and this they Execute: Can your Lordship Condemn them: The Resolution is necessary to the Peace and Happiness of the Nation, and upon that very account Just and Good, because 'tis Necessary. But I believe this will pass with very few for sound Doctrine; and therefore your Lordship may find yourself Obliged, either to Retract the Maxim, or at least to explain it so, that it will signify very little in the place where it stands.  
And now, my Lord, I have laid before your Lordship my Exceptions to your Reasons: 
Page 23.  And till I meet with better Arguments, or better Confirmed, I cannot but Conclude, that the Settlement now made, is sounded upon no Good Grounds; and that the Convention had no Authority to make such a Decision; and therefore tho' I am ready to submit, and pay SOME Obedience to the Possessor of the Throne, yet I cannot pay ALL that Obedience, and Duty, which I naturally own the Rightful Sovereign: And therefore cannot swear it in such words, and such terms, as imply ALL; and are intended by the Imposers to do so.  
There further remains to be Considered your Lordship's Answer to an Objection, from those Oaths and Engagements, whereby we were (and are) bound to K. James, 
Page 23.  and his Heirs; which is this, that Allegiance and Protection are Duties Reciprocal: So that, if one fails, the other ceases. What the word Allegiance means in our Oaths, and what we are Obliged to by it, I presume we were agreed above: 
Vid. Sap. P. 6 & 7. Page. 24, 25.  and therefore no need of engaging in a new Enquiry into the Original of the word. But as to the Obligation itself, I shall ask your Lordship this easy Question: Are you sure, that we own no Allegiance to a Prince, whilst he remains under an incapacity to Protect us? I never met with any so black Mouthed, but the Recicides themselves, or their professed Adherents, that they durst deny Allegiance to be due to K. Charles the First under his Confinement: yet he was so far from being able to Protect his People, that he could not secure himself from the Rude Insolence of his Keepers, and the Horrid Barbarities of his Murtherens'. But are you sure, no Allegiance was due to K. Charles the Second in his Exile, tho' he could not Protect? yet the Parliament has Declared, and it is undeniable, that he was King of England all that time: and truly, I cannot comprehend the Notion of a King without Subjects, nor of Subjects who own no Allegiance to their King. These are too sublime Thoughts for me to understand.  

Page 25.  As to the word Heir, 'tis true; No Man can be bound to him till the Inheritance he his. Who affirms it? do but give us leave to pay our Allegiance to the King, and we will never ask to transfer it, during his Life, to any other. But the force of the Objection from the word Heir, is this: That had you made it appear, that K. James has actually ceased to be King, it had been at least a Death in Law, and the Crown (being Haereditary) by the Constitution of the Government, at the same moment had devolved to the next of the Line. For it is a known Maxim, that the King of England never dies: This Kingdom knows no interregnum: But when the Predecessor Ceases, Then the Successor gins to Reign. And therefore in all the Revolutions which have happened in England, it is remarkable, that the Right of Inheritance was always the Claim, tho' often unjustly applied to the Person. Thus K. Henry the Fourth, 
Cott. Rec. 1 H. 4. P. 388.  so soon as the Resignation of K. Richard the Second was read, and the Sentence of Deposition was pronounced, immediately stood up, and CLAIMED the Kingdom and Crown of England, etc. as his INHERITANCE, descending by RIGHT from K. Henry the Third: Nay even the Election of that Bloody Usurper K. Richard the Third, 
See the Record at large. Cot. Rec. 1. R. 3. Page 709.  by the Three Estates out of Parliament (the only Precedent for our late Convention) which was also confirmed by a succeeding Parliament, was grounded upon his RIGHT, TITLE and ESTATE, etc. to and in the Crown, etc. by the Laws of God and Nature, and also by the ancient Laws, etc. of this Realm, etc. And therefore, it was Decreed, etc. That he was the very undoubted King, etc. as well by RIGHT of Consanguinity and INHERITANCE, as by Election.  
The Recognition of the Parliament to K. James the First is yet more full: For they acknowledge, 
1 Jac. 1. c. 1.  That IMMEDIATELY upon the Dissolution and Decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England, the Imperial Crown of the Realm, etc. did by INHERENT BIRTHRIGHT; and Lawful, and Undoubted SUCCESSION descend, etc. to his Majesty. From which, and many other Passages, in our Laws and Histories, it is Evident, that by the Constitution of this Government, the Crown immediately devolves to the Heir, by a Lineal Haereditary Right of Succession. So that there is no room for either a Convention, or a Parliament, to appoint or determine the Successor, because he is actual King before they can even Assemble to proclaim him, much less to make such a Decision as manifestly supposes, or makes, an Interregnum, and breaks the Succession by excluding the known Rightful Heir.  
But I perceive your Lordship is positively in the Right, 
Page 26.  and that you have Examined the Nature of Civil Societies in general, according to the Roman Law; and the Nature of the English Government, from the Laws and History of England, with so much Care, that you understand our Constitution much better than our Legislators themselves, and may therefore be allowed to Contradict them, as oft as you please. But methinks some maintainers of a contrary Opinion, deserve more Consideration, from an English Bishop, than your Lordship here seems willing to afford them. It is a very bold Censure, that at once reaches the Compilers of the Homilies, a whole University, and the Repeated Convocations of the Clergy; and that charges all these Ornaments of the Church of England, with want of Learning or Care, to understand the Constitution of our own Government, and of the Necessary Knowledge of the Degrees of Submission, which are due from the Subjects to our Kings; for all these agree, that a Supreme Power is lodged with them, which Exempts them from being called to an Account, 
Page 26.  or Resisted by their People.  
1. Your Lordship sometime ago thought it Answer sufficient to the Bishop of Oxford, to show that his Assertions were repugnant to the Doctrine of this Church, as Expressed in the Homilies: And pressed it justly enough upon him, that he must either Renounce our Church, 
Enquiry into the Reasons for Abrogating the Test. Art. 35.  and all he Possessed in Consequence of his having Signed her Articles (wherein it is Declared, that the Homilies contain a Godly and wholesome Doctrine) or else, that he must Answer his own Plea. Your Lordship has Subscribed them as well as He: And, if you continue of the same Opinion, you too must either Retract or Resign. For they lay this down for an Universal Principle, That Kings and Princes, 
Hom. against Reb. Par. 1.  as well the EVIL as the GOOD, do Reign by GOD's ORDINANCE; and a little lower declare their Original to be neither by Chance and Fortune, nor by Ambition, but that they are SPECIALLY appointed by the ORDINANCE of GOD. They hence Conclude, that when God gives a People an EVIL Prince, he does it for the punishment of their Sins; and that we are therefore bound to Obey such, lest, after we have provoked God by our Wickedness, to place them over us, by Rebelling against them, we be found to Rebel also against God. And to show the reasonableness of this Opinion, they add, What a Perilous thing were it to Commit unto the Subjects, the Judgement, which Prince is Wise and Godly, and his Government Good, and which is Otherwise? As though the Foot must Judge the Head. But they carry the Case further, and suppose the Prince to be Evil indeed, and also evident to all men's Eyes, that he is so: What's to be done, to have such an Evil removed from us? Their Answer is, Let us take away our Wickedness, which provoked God to place such a one over us, and God will either displace him; or of an Evil Prince, make him a Good Prince; so that we first will change our Evil into Good. But to obviate all Objections that can be raised, they go on thus. 
Ib. Par. 2.  Shall not we, especially being so Good Men as we are, Rise and Rebel against a Prince, HATED of GOD, and GOD's ENEMY; and therefore likely not to prosper either in Peace or War, but to be Hurtful, and PERNICIOUS to the COMMONWEALTH? No. What shall we then do, to an EVIL, to an UNKIND Prince, our KNOWN MORTAL and DEADLY ENEMY, HATED of GOD, HURTFUL to the COMMONWEALTH, & c? Lay no VIOLENT HAND upon him, saith good David, but let him LIVE, till GOD appoint and work his End, either by NATURAL DEATH, or in War by LAWFUL ENEMIES; not by TRAITOROUS SUBJECTS. Lastly, since the Redress of the Commonwealth, and the Defence of Religion, are the usual Pretences for all Insurrections, 
Ib. Par. 4.  they have carefully prepared fit Antidotes against these Pests: Against the former, this, Rebellion is the greatest Ruin, and Destruction of all Commonwealths; and against the later, this, The TRUTH of the Gospel, though it cost them their LIVES that Teach it, is able to maintain the True Religion. In a word, God alloweth, neither the DIGNITY of any Person, nor the MULTITUDE of any People, nor the WEIGHT of ANY CAUSE, as SUFFICIENT for the which the Subjects may move Rebellion against their Princes. I shall only observe upon all this, that let the Pretence of taking Arms against the King be what it will, the Compilers of these Homilies call it in plain Terms, nothing less than Rebellion: And therefore since this Doctrine is Calculated for the Meridian of England, before I can submit to Swear the New Oaths, whereby I should be obliged (as much as in me lies) to support an Establishment whose Foundation is Rebellion; I must either be Convinced, that the Doctrine of these Homilies is not, what I have subscribed, GOOD and WHOLESOME; or else I must have this DOCTRINE and these OATHS Reconciled.  
2. The University of Oxford, in a full Convocation have given their Opinion, that there cannot be any Power LAWFULLY Exercised within this Kingdom, which is not SUBORDINATE to that of the King. How then, 
Profiteamur non neutiquam intelligere posse, qui possit in hoc regno Potestas aliqua legitime exerceri, quae non sit Regiae Potestati Subordinat. Jud. Acad. Ox. 1. 1 Jun. 1647. §. viij.  I beseech your Lordship, can the King be accountable to any? For to be obliged to give an account, is the greatest Instance of Subordination Imaginable. But the same University has since given their Judgement more distinctly and definitively, and Decreed, Judged, and Declared, 
Jud. Acad. Ox. 21. Jul. 1683.  all and every of these (and some other there mentioned) Propositions, to be FALSE, SEDITIOUS, and IMPIOUS; and most of them to be also HERETICAL, and BLASPHEMOUS, INFAMOUS to Christian Religion, and Destructive of All Government in CHURCH and STATE, viz. 

Prop. I. All Civil Authority is derived Originally from the People.  
Prop. II. There is a mutual Compact Tacit, or Express, between a Prince and his Subjects; and that if he perform not his Duty, they are Discharged from theirs.  
Prop. III. That if lawful Governors become Tyrants, or govern otherwise then by the ●…aws of God and Man they ought to do, they forfeit the Right they had unto their Government.  
Prop. IU. The Sovereignty of England is in the three Estates, viz. King, Lords, and Commons. The King has but a  Power, and may be over ruled by the other two.  
Prop. V Birthright and Proximity of Blood give no Title to Rule or Government, and it is lawful to preclude the next Heir from his Right of Succession is the Crown.  
Prop. VI It is lawful for Subjects without the consent and against the Command of the Supreme Magistrate to enter into Leagues, Covenants, and Associations, for Defence of themselves and their Religion.  
Prop. VIII. The Doctrine of the Gospel concerning patiented suffering of Injuries, is not inconsistent with violent resisting of the higher Powers in case of Persecution for Religion.  
Prop. IX. There lies no Obligation upon Christians to Passive Obedience, when the Prince commands any thing against the Laws of our Country; and the Primitive Christians chose rather to die then resist, because Christianity was not yet settled by the Laws of the Empire.  
Prop. X. Possession and Strength give a right to Govern, and Success in a Cause or Enterprise, proclaims it to be lawful and just; to pursue it is to comply with the will of God, because it is to follow the conduct of his Providence.  
Prop. XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Sovereign, shall sinfully dispossess him, and contrary to their Covenants choose, and Covenant with another; they may be obliged by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former.  
Prop. XVII. An Oath obliges not in the sense of the Imposer, but the Takers.  
Prop. XVIII. Dominion is founded in Grace.  
Prop. XXVII. K. Charles the First made War upon his Parliament; and in such a case the King may not only be Resisted, but he ceaseth to be King.    
These and some other Democratical Propositions being thus Condemned, by such Authority, and in such Terms, I do not envy your Lordship the Honour of maintaining them.  
3. Lastly, The Doctrine of Nonresistance against our Kings, tho' Tyrants; and of their Exemption from Account to any Power on Earth, is Asserted by a far greater and more Convincing Authority; the Injunctions of the King; 
1 Inj Ed. 6. & 1 Inj. Eliz. Bp. Sparrow's Col. P. 2 & 67.  and the Canons and Constitutions of the Church, ever since the Reformation. In the Injunctions we find that all Ecclesiastics should Preach, four times every Year, that the King's Power, etc. is the HIGHEST POWER under God, to whom ALL Men by GOD 's LAWS own MOST Loyalty and Obedience, afore and ABOVE ALL Other Powers and Potentates on Earth. 
Cranm. Art. ib. P. 23. Rid. Art. ib. P. 36.  The observance whereof is made an Article of Enquiry by A. B. Cranmer, in his Visitations, distinct from that about the Pope's Supremacy: And Bishop Ridley Inquires further, whether any Preach that private Persons MAY make Insurrections.  
But if your Lordship will not Acquiesce in the Authority and Decision of these Injunctions, and Articles of Enquiry, 
Syn. Lond. An. 1603. can. 1. ib. p. 271.  I hope you will have some Respect to a Provincial Synod. Yet that in the First Year of K. James I. Constitutes and Ordains the same thing, with these Injunctions, and in the same words.  
The Nine and Thirty Articles of Religion are of a yet greater Authority: For they were agreed upon by the Clergy of both Provinces, An. 1562, and were afterward Ratified and Confirmed by a Provincial Synod, An. 1571. 
Rat. 39 Art. ib p. 107 & 222:  These Articles all we of the Clergy are obliged to subscribe, and to acknowledge that all and every single Article therein contained, is agreeable to the Word of God: 
Syn. Lond. An  And so much Care is taken to discover any Change of our Opinion, 
1603. can. 36. ib. p. 287. Ib. can. 37. Syn. Lond. An. 1571. can. de Ep. ib. p. 223.  with Relation to any of them, that as oft as we remove from one Diocese to another, we are obliged to Repeat the same Subscriptions. A preceding Synod is yet stricter; for it requires us, not only to subscribe our Assent, but to give our Solemn Promise, that we will Maintain and Defend the Doctrine contained in them, as most Agreeable to the Truth of the Divine Word. But besides this Particular Obligation us, of our Repeated Assent, 
13 Eliz. c. 12. 14 C. 2. c. 4.  two Parliaments have also Confirmed these Articles: After which, we are to look upon them as transferred from the Ecclesiastical, to the Civil State, and Incorporated with the Laws and Constitutions of this Government. So that every Lawyer, as well as Divine, is obliged to submit to their Authority, and to be concluded by them: and therefore to own, with them, 
Art. Rel. An. 1562. n. 37. Spar Col. p. 105.  that the Queen's Majesty hath the CHIEF POWER in this Realm of England, etc. unto whom the CHIEF GOVERNMENT of ALL Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all Causes doth Appertain.  
But to prevent all Exceptions and Evasions hereof, and for ever to Silence those Democratical Principles that begun to be Industriously maintained, and instilled into the People about the year 1640, in order to hasten that Wonderful Rebellion, which soon after broke out; the Church took care to Decree, 
Syn. Lond. An, 1640. can. 1. ib. p. 346.  that the Most High and Sacred Order of Kings, is of DIVINE RIGHT, being the ORDINANCE of GOD HIMSELF, founded upon the PRIME LAWS of NATURE, and clearly Established by EXPRESS Texts both of the Old and New Testaments. A SUPREME POWER is given to this most Excellent Order by GOD HIMSELF in the Scriptures; which is, That Kings should Rule, and Command, in their several Dominions, ALL Persons of what Rank or Estate soever, whether Ecclesiastical or CIVIL.  
That when Prelates used the Power of Calling and Dissolving Councils, etc. It was, as in times of PERSECUTION, with supposition (in case it were required) of submitting their very LIVES unto the very Laws and Commands even of those PAGAN Princes, that they might not so much as SEEM to disturb their CIVIL Government, which Christ came to Confirm, but by No Means to Undermine.  
For any Person or Persons to set up, maintain, or avow, in any their said Realms, etc. under ANY PRETENCE whatsoever, Any INDEPENDENT COACTIVE Power, either Papal or POPULAR, (whether Directly or Indirectly) is to UNDERMINE their great Royal Office, and Cunningly to Overthrow that most Sacred ORDINANCE, which GOD HIMSELF hath Established: And so is TREASONABLE against GOD, as well as against the King.  
For Subjects to bear ARMS against their Kings, Offensive or DEFENSIVE, upon ANY PRETENCE whatsoever, is at least to Resist the Powers which are ORDAINED of GOD: And though they do not Invade, but only RESIST, St. Paul tells them plainly, They shall receive to themselves DAMNATION. 
Rom: 13.2.   
This Extract from the Public and Authentic Records of the Church of England, will I hope, Convince Your Lordship, and the World, that the Doctrine, to which we have so often given our Assent, is Evidently Repugnant to the Deposing our Kings, by Any Power on Earth. And that therefore K. James II. according to our own Doctrine (our Subscriptions have made it such) is still our Lawful King, notwithstanding his Failings in the Administration of the Government, that we still own him the Allegiance of Faithful Subjects, and for that very Reason we cannot Swear the the New Oaths, and thereby transfer it during his Life, to any Other. Whether it will prove Effectual to this end or no, time will inform us: But I think it cannot possibly fail of another, which is this to Vindicate myself and my Brethren, and Fellow-Sufferers, from your Lordship's severe and uncharitable Censure of Adhering Obstinately to a preconceited groundless Opinion; 
Page 28.  since 'tis Evident, that we hold no more than is plainly Decreed by so considerable a part of the Catholic Church, and the only Support of the Reformation. And we cannot but believe, that should we Renounce this Truth to prevent a Persecution, or to keep the Doors of our Churches shut against the Dissenters, the Reproach and Scandal hereof would be indelible.  
I cannot close this Letter, 
Page 28.  till I have given my Opinion of the Passage you cite out of the Magna Charta granted by K. John; which, you say, is now with his Great Seal to it in your Lordship's hands: 
An unfit Archive for Records of such Public Concern.  Tho' I do not see, that it Concludes very strongly in Favour of the Proceed in this late Revolution. An exact Judgement indeed cannot be given, without a sight, or a Copy of the rest of the Charter: But by comparing and examining some Copies of Records, relating to the Transactions of those Times, which now happen to be in my hands, I am induced to entertain this Opinion of it; that that Charter has not the force of a perpetual Law, in every Clause and Member of it; But that it was only a Personal Treaty and Pacification, between that King and his Rebellious Barons, who overpowered him: And does no more Bind his Successors, in this Part of it, than his Surrender of the Crown into the hands of his Holiness, and his receiving it again in Vassalage from him.  
I am inclined to this Opinion by these following Considerations. 1. That within the space of Nine Years this Charter was Ratified, at least, four times: For the doing whereof, no tolerable Reason can be Assigned, if it had at first the Force and Continuance of a Law. 1. The first Confirmation of it, was granted in the First Year of the Reign of K. Henry 3. and probably at his Coronation; for within four or five Months after the Death of his Father, I find him granting to his Subjects of Ireland thus, that You may enjoy the same Liberties, 
Libertatibus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre Nostro & NOBIS Concessis. Dat. ap Glouc. 6 Feb. Rot. Pat. 1 H. 3. m. 13.  as have been granted to our Kingdom of England, by our Father and by Us: Which he could not have said, had not he himself either Granted, or at least Confirmed them? 2. A second Confirmation I meet with, in the beginning of the Second Year of the same King's Reign. For when he sent down his Charters into the several Counties, he sent with them a Mandate to the Sheriffs, to see them Proclaimed in their full County Courts. 
Rex, etc. Salutem Mittimus tibi Chartas de Libertatibus, etc. Mandantes quatenus eas legi facias publice in Pleno Comitatu tuo, etc. dat. 22 Feb. Rot. Claus. 2 H. 3:  The Date of the Mandate is 22 Feb. and therefore a strong presumption, that these Charters themselves were distinct from those : Because it is very improbable, that the former Grant and Ratification, which he made above a Year before, should lie so long concealed; and should then want to be dispersed and published. But the Collector of these Records says, that in an Ancient MS. supposed to be Writ about the time of K. Edward 1. he finds the Date of these Charters to be 6 Nou. An. Reg. 2. which is a Demonstration of a second Grant. 3. In the Year 1218, after Michaelmass, and consequently either the latter end of the second, 
Fox's Acts and Mon. ad. an. 12●8.  or beginning of the third Year of his Reign, this King held a Parliament at Westminster, wherein he Confirmed and Ratified, by his Charter, all the Franchises, which were made and given by King John his Father. 4. In the Seventh Year of his Reign, he was Adjudged of Age (being sixteen Years Old) to take the Government into his own Hands. This he had no sooner done, than the A. B. of Canterbury in open Parliament, minds him of the Oath, which was Sworn, in his Name, by the E. of Pembroke (Rectore Regis & Regni) and others, at the Pacification between Him and the Dauphin, That he would restore and confirm those Liberties to his Subjects for which the War (or rather Rebellion) broke out between his Father and the Barons. Upon this Admonition, he owns the Obligation of the Oath, and Issues out Writs into every County, whereby Twelve Men were Chosen to make Enquiry upon Oath after such Liberties and Franchises as were (not Granted by King John, 
Per Sacramentum facerent inquiri quae fuerunt libertates in Angliae tempore Regis Henrici Avi sui. Rot. Claus. 7. H. 3 m. 9  but) in use in the time of K. Henry his Grandfather: And according to the Returns made upon these Writs, 
Mag. Chart. 9 H. 3. c. 15. 16, 35, & 37.  the Great Charter, in the Ninth Year of this King's Reign, in a more Regular Form of Law then before, was a fourth time Granted. This is the Magna Charta in the front of the Statute Book, which is looked upon as the Measure and Foundation of all our Laws: And 'tis this (not that of K. John) which is again Ratified and Perpetuated by K. Edward 1. his Son and Successor. These are strong Presumptions, 
●…. E. 1.  that the first Grants of these Liberties were very defective, in something Essential to the Being of a Law: For if not, what can mean so many Confirmations in so little time?  
2. Another inducement to this Opinion is the Profuse Returns of the Parliaments to King Henry III. for his Confirmations. For I find from the passage cited by the Collector of these Records out of the MS. above mentioned, that the Parliament for his Donation and Concession of the Charters in the beginning of the second Year of this Reign, 
Pro hac autem donatione & Concessione Libertatum istarum & Aliarum Contentarum in Charta Nostra de Libertatibus Arc. Episc. Ep. Ab. Pri. Com. Bar. etc. dederunt nobis Quindecimam Partem omnium bonorum suorum Mobilium. etc. Dat. 6. Nou. An. Reg. Nost. 2. Ex Antony's MS. Supradict.  gave him a fifteenth Part of all their Movables. A Tax so Considerable, that it was thought a sufficient supply in the Ninth Year of his Reign, to carry on the War with France; and was then again given him for his Fourth Grant, 
Rot. Stat. 25. E. 1. m. 38. & Mag. Ch. 9 H. 3. c: 37.  as appears by the Inspeximus of King Edward I. But this was not all: for in Consideration of the Third Grant (before mentioned) the Parliament gave him Two Shillings upon every Plough Land, through England. 
Fox ubi sup. Concesserunt Nobis, etc. de qualibet Caruca duos solidos Rot. Claus. 4 H. 3. m. 5.  We must here consider (which will heighten the Wonder) that the intrinsic value of money in those times (if laid out in exchange for the necessaries of Life) was at least ten times the value of the same money now. For (if we may make the Estimate from the Price of Corn (and that I think is the best Standard in England) we may readily perceive, by the Assize of Bread in this Reign, 
St. 51. H. 3. Assisa Panis, &c:  that the common price of Wheat was then 3 s. and 3 s. 4 d. the Quarter, as it is now 30 s. and 35 s. We must also remember, that, between these two last mentioned supplies, a Poll was given for the King of Jerusalem, whereby every Earl was Obliged to pay 3 Marks, 
Rot. Claus. 6. H. 3. m. 1●. dor. & 7 H. 3. m. ●…. dor.  a Baron 1 m. a Knight 12 d. and every Freeholder (if not every Housholder) 1 d. which still made the Subjects less able to support the others. These things being duly considered, the great Condescensions of those Parliaments is unaccountable, when they lay such heavy Taxes upon themselves, as would now almost be intolerable, and Bribe the King at this vast Expense, to be Graciously Pleased to Revive a Law (if this Charter of King John was such) which was made at furthest not above Ten years before, and consequently impossible to have yet been Obsolete; and which was Enacted (as all Laws are) by the Supreme Authority, and therefore could not receive any Additional Force. But they are abundantly more Unconceivable, if that be true, which your Lordship would so strongly from hence infer, that there was then no such  Authority in our Kings; 
Page 28.  but that they were Accountable to their Parliaments for the wilful Breach of those Fundamental Laws.  
3. These Exceptions may be further made to the Validity of this Charter, though not altogether so Conclusive. When King Henry III. Invites Hugh de Lacie, and others, to come in to him, and Promimises, I● they do, to RESTORE All their Rights and Liberties, Entire to them: 
SI ad nos venire volueriti●, Jur● vestra & Libertates vestras, pe● Concilium Dilectorum Fideliu● Nostrorum R. Com. Cestriae. W● Com. de Ferarijs, & aliorum Fidelium Nostrorum, integre Vob●… RESTITUEMUS. Rot. Pat. 1 H. 3. m. 16.  He makes their Obedience the Condition of this Restitution. This were a great Impropriety of Speech, had the Charter of King John (which was granted not full two years before) Confirmed then by the Force and Authority of a Law: for a Law is the best Advised, and most deliberate Act of the Supreme Power, and therefore (if an Absolute Power was not lodged with Him (which I suppose your Lordship will not allow) He could neither Revoke it, nor give any Additional Sanction to it: How then could he speak Conditionally about it? Or since he had Sworn at his Coronation to Observe All their Laws, if they could not acquiesce on such a Solemn General Promise, where was the Inducement to Regard his Letter. Again, when he concluded a Peace with the Dauphin, he Swore to restore to the Barons, all their Rights and Liberties so long desired. But, they being already granted by this Charter of King John, if that had the real Force of a Law, his Oath amounted to no more than this, That he would Observe his Coronation Oath: This would be a very Extraordinary Promise to any Foreign Prince as an Article of Peace.  
4. This whole Charter was Damned almost as soon as made: For one Brewer, a Councillor, disputed the Legality even in those days. Besides, 
Mag. Chart. 9 H. 3. c. 15. 16, 35. 37.  we find in the Great Charter itself (of King Henry III) four references to the Reign of King Henry his Grandfather, but not the least hint of any former Charters, either by himself or King John his Father: which tacitly implies the Nullity thereof. And when King Edwaed I. would Revive and Confirm the Rights and Liberties of his Subjects to them, he does it by the Confirmation of this (not that of King John) as appears by the Print: But the Confirmation in the Record is more full: for there the King Grants, that the Grand Charter of Liberties, and the Charter of the Forest, 
— Les quelles feurent FAITES, per COMUNE ASSENT de Tut le Royaume, en TEMPS le Roy (perhaps du Roy) HENRY Nostre Pere, etc. Rot. Stat. 23. (perhaps it should be 25) E. 1. m. 38.  which were MADE by the COMMON ASSENT of the whole Realm in the TIME of K. HENRY his Father, shall be Observed, etc. This seems Naturally to Imply, that they were THAN FIRST MADE by the Common Assent of the whole Realm, and therefore then first passed into a Law: which necessarily Concludes, that all the former Charters, as well those of King Henry III, as this of King John, were deficient in some thing Essential to a Law.  
5. In all, or most Treaties of Peace, some Towns and Places of Strength are usually interchanged for Caution, till Commissioners or other Deputies on either side have adjusted the Differences mutually referred to 'em; and till the Heat and Fury of War can be calmed into a state of Peace. For usually the Right of Things in Dispute, require both Time and Peace, to be duly examined: And therefore some Temporary Articles become necessary, which do only relate to them. The same things are Observable in the Case before us. That there was a PEACE at this time Concluded, between this King and his Rebellion Barons, will be denied by none who looks into the Histories of his Reign: And he gives notice of it in these Terms; Know, 
Rex Stephano Heingod, etc. Sciates, quod firma PAX facta est, per dei Gratiam, inter Nos & Barones Nostros, die Veneris proximo post Fest. S, Trin. etc. T: Meipso ap. Runnimed 18 d. Jun. An. Reg. Nost. 17 Rot. Pat. 17. Joh. m. 13. n. 3.  that a Firm PEACE was made, by the Grace of God, between Us and Our Barons, on Friday next after the Feast of the Holy Trinity. It can as little be doubted that this Charter contains the Articles of the Peace: For the King sending his Precepts to the Sheriffs, Foresters, etc. Writes thus; 
— Per CHARTAM Nostram, quam INDE fieri fecimus. Rot. Pat. 17 Joh. m. 23. dor.  Know, that a firm Peace is made, etc. as you may have heard by our CHARTER, which we have THEREUPON caused to be made, etc. Commissioners were also agreed on, to adjust their Differences, viz. 12 Knights and 25 Barons; and for Caution, 
* Haec est Conventio inter Dominum Johanem Regem ex una Parte, & Rob. F. WaltEri Mareschallum Dei & sanctae Ecclesiae, & Ric. Com. de Clare, etc. & alios Com. & Bar. & Libros Homines totius Regni, ex altera parte, viz. quod ipsi Comites, etc. tenebunt Civitatem London de Bali●a Dom. Regis, etc. usque ad Ascensionem B. Mariae. & Dom. Cantenebit similiter, etc. Turrim London, etc. & si Haec facta nonfuerint, etc. in fra terminum praedict. Barones tenebunt Civitatem predictam, etc. donec predict. Omnia Compleantur. & interim. Omnes ex Utraque Parte ●…perabunt Terras, Castra, & Villas, ●…uas habuerunt in Initio Guerrae, etc. Rot. Claus. 17. Joh. m. 21. dor.  the City of London was to be delivered into the hands of the 25 Barons, 
Fiat etiam, etc. Sacramentum, &c 25 Baronibus, etc. vel Attornati 25 Baronum, sicut continetur in literis, 12 Militum Eligendorum ad delendas malas consuetudines de Forrestis, & Alijs, Rot. Claus. 17. Joh. m. 21. dor.  and the Tower of London to the Archbishop of Canterbury, till the Ascension of the B. Mary: But if by that time, Restitution was not made (according to the Determination of the Barons) than they were to continue longer in their Hands, till all was satisfied; and in the mean time, that every one of either Party should Recover their LANDS, CASTLES, and Estates, which they had at the beginning of the War. To these Temporary Articles, of Restoring Castles and Lands, etc. does the Clause, your Lordship Inserts, I presume properly belong: And this I am the rather inclined to believe, because the Ways of Distressing the King are here mentioned to be, by the seizing on his Castles, Lands, and Possessions; so that, upon the comparing One Record with the Other, this Clause in short seems to Imply no more than this, that they should keep those they had, and seize on the rest, by way of Reprisal, till he should Restore their Castles and Possessions, etc. to them: But these, being evidently Temporary Articles of a Personal Treaty, cannot without Violence be extended to his Successors.  
6. But however, this is an Uncontroverted Maxim, that all latter Statutes supersede the former, so far as they stand in Opposition to one another: So that should we allow, all that you can say or wish, that this whole Charter was Enacted by the Legislative Power; (which declares a far larger Authority Inherent in our Kings, than your Lordship, I presume is willing to submit to) and that every Part, and Clause of it, particularly This, has the Force and Continuance of a Law; yet, being plainly Contradicted by later Statutes, it is therefore so far Repealed by them. For (as I have more at large showed above) It is High Treason to Levy War; 
Vid. Sup. Pag. 15. 25. E. 3. c. 2. Cor. Rec. 1. E. 4. & 4. E. 4. pag. 272. 277. 13 C. 2. c. 6. 14 C. 2. c. 4, 3. St. 2. 13 C. 2. c. 1.  or, as it is Adjudged by a Parliament of King Edward IU. even to keep a Castle (notwithstanding this Magna Charta) against the King; It is also of late declared, That the Military Sword is solely in Him; and it is more directly Contradicted by this Declaration, that it is Unlawful to take up Arms against him upon any Pretence whatsoever; All which, and many others standing in Diametrical Opposition to it, loudly Proclaim the Nullity thereof.  
7. But lastly, If this were a Law, and even now in force, it would not give any Countenance to the Vote of Abdication, whereon the whole Frame of our present Government depends: For it neither mentions nor concludes for Deprivation, or A Vacancy of the Throne: On the contrary, it expressly provides for the Safety of the Persons of the King and Queen, and of their Children: Whereas our Convention has, as much as in them lay, turned them all out to Starve and Perish.  
I have insisted upon this more than at first Sight it will, perhaps, seem to bear: But the tediousness hereof will at least appear Pardonable, if it be considered, that your Lordship has called that whole Charter the Measure of our English Government. 
Page 27.  For, the Unwary may hence infer, that it is a part of our Constitution, and thereby innocently, but fatally, mistake the King, which is here meant only Personally King John, indefinitely, for the King Successively for the time being: which would be of very Dangerous Consequence, even to the present Government; wherein it would be no difficult Task, to expose the breach of several Articles contained in this Charter. But I hope, what I have said, will in some measure be an Antidote against such Poison, and that the Infection will stop here.  
What Authority your Lordship has for your next Affirmation, that the Subjects are not only warranted, 
Page 28.  but required, to enter into Associations and Oaths for that Effect, you have been pleased to conceal: But having a Dependence upon this Charter, it must stand and fall with it: So that upon the whole Matter (notwithstanding any thing I can yet find to the contrary) there might, by the Ancient (as well as Modern) Constitution of England, be such an  Authority in our Kings, as we have hitherto been inclined to Imagine.  
But after all, if what I have here given your Lordship the trouble of, be not a satisfactory Answer to all your Arguments; I hope you will at least allow me this, that the Authorities and Reasons, I have here produced, are such Objections as deserve to be considered; A just Vindication of my Dissent, from the Imputation of a Preconceited Opinion; And a good Instance, how well I have observed your Lordship's Advice: That I have examined the whole Matter with Care and Attention, and weighed the Reasons I have met with, 
Page 23.  without Partiality. As for Fasting and Prayer, they being works of Retirement, are not fit to be here mentioned; but I am sure I have faithfully endeavoured to find out the Truth; And I am resolved, by the Divine Assistance, neither to be biased to the Affirmative by Interest, nor to the Negative, as to the received Opinion. 
Page 29.  But on the other hand, I cannot think it Fair or Honest to Renounce an Opinion, only because it is grown out of Fashion: For I equally hate an Affected Singularity, and an Unthinking throwing myself into the Crowd. Let therefore Reason and Convincing Arguments be produced, and I do further profess, I will lay down these Opinions without any Regret, and will not be ashamed to Confess I have thus long been mistaken.  
In the mean time give me leave to think, that I need not UNDERMINE a Fabric that has no Foundation: for of itself it cannot stand long. I do often seriously reflect upon the constant Fate of those Mighty Houses built by some men upon the Sand; and this unavoidable Misery of them, that their Falls are great; and do not only involve the Unskilful or  Builders, but even all their Inhabitants, and their Nearest Neighbours, in one Common Ruin; which that the Almighty God would avert; and that he would remove those Impending Dangers that hourly threaten us, by Establishing THIS Church, and our Rightful Government upon such Foundations, and by such means, as are most agreeable to his Will; and that Peace and Happiness, Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, may be our Portion for ever, is the daily Prayer of,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most Dutiful, and most faithful humble Servant. August 30. 1689,   

POSTSCRIPT.  
I Was just dispatching these Papers to your Lordship, when a Gentleman, in Raillery, started the following Questions.  
1. Since K. William and Q. Mary are by the present Establishment, both equally in the Throne, and together make up but one Sovereign (thereby discovering a new sort of Union between a Husband and his Wife) so that neither of them is a Subject to the other, if it should so happen hereafter that the Affections of these two should by degrees be Alienated from one another; and should that Coldness grow up to Dislike, that Dislike to Hatred, that Hatred to a violent desire of each others Destruction, and in order to Revenge (or even Self-Defence) should they both fly to Arms, to which of these two must our Allegiance be paid, during the Contest, and before either of them be the Conqueror?  
2 Since the Oaths are Sworn to both, without any Reserve, whether the foreknowledge of the Impossibility of paying the Duty of Allegiance entire to both, in such a Case, will not make the Breach of these Oaths Wilful Perjury?  
3. Since we meet with so frequent Examples in History, that all the ties of Nature, between every fort of Relations have been set aside when a Crown has happened into Competition; and since we hear at this present of such daily Instances, that the Bond of Marriage is insufficient to keep some Wives from leaving their Husbands, and some Husbands from putting away their Wives, with all the provoking Indignities imaginable; And since those Two Persons, we are Required to Swear to, have sufficiently showed, that Filial Obedience is of no such great weight with them as to hinder their Joint Ascent to a Father's Throne; whether we may safely Swear to Both, upon a bare Presumption that they will Faithfully Observe their Conjugal and Dilarchical Duties; or that if One Usurps the Other with Connive, or Forgive? Or in general, whether Any Oath can be Lawful, the observance whereof is not within a Man's own Power, but depends entirely upon the Good Agreement of others? And whether all this be not in effect to Swear not only that a Man is and has been Just and Honest, etc. but that he will continue to be so all his Life, when it is in the Power alone of the Holy Ghost to make him such  
These Questions, at the first ●…ting, and by the manner of doing it, seemed very Light and Ludicrous; but upon second thoughts, there being a Possibility (if not a Probability) or falling into such insuperable Difficulties, by these double Oaths, they appeared to deserve a serious Answer. I have therefore transmitted them to your Lordship to be Considered; for I know of none so far concerned in the Contrivance of the Present Establishment, and upon that Account I presume the best skilled in the Methods and Grounds of it: And I humbly Request your Answer to 'em, that the Gentleman who propoed them, may receive greater Satisfaction, than (I confess) I am able to give him.   

ERRATA.  
Page. 5. line 26 in the Margin read P. 5. §. 3. p 10. l. 16. deal the before Examples. p. 12. l. 6. in the marg. f. 2. r. 12. ibid. l. 7. r. 11 16. ib. l. 79. f. the r. your. p. 14. l. 26. f. Priesthood r. High-Priesthood. p. 15. l. 9 marg. f. 3, 4. r, §. 4. p. 20. l. 38, d. And. p. 24. l. 11. f. pretence r. sole pretence. p. 26. l. 7. f. the ●…. our. p. 29. l. 27. f. actual r. actually. p. 31. l. 26. marg. f. non r. nos. ib. l. 29. marg. f. subordinat. r. subordinata. p. 33. l. 5. marg. f. 23 r. 25. ib. l. 26. f. us r. upon us.