TWO LETTERS WRITTEN To the AUTHOR of a PAMPHLET, ENTITULED, Solomon and Abiathar: OR, The CASE of the Deprived Bishops and Clergy DISCUSSED.

PSAL. 50. 18.

When thou sawest a Thief, then thou consentedst with him; and hast been Par­taker with Adulterers.

LONDON, Printed in the Year MDCXCII.

The First LETTER.

SIR,

ENcouraged by your Preface, I take the freedom to send you these few lines. You acknowledge some such defects as to your self, that you cannot make a satisfactory reply to your own Con­science; and I am sorry you should Print a Case for the Infor­mation of others, of which you was never throughly satisfied your self. That you have sufficiently consulted our Adversaries, I make no doubt, because I find in your Book those two main things wherein their great strength consists, Lyes and Disguises. As for the first, they have plainly im­posed upon you, contrary to their own Knowledge and Conscience; and as to the other, they have instilled into you their very Art: But had you taken Astraea's Motto along with you (Audi alteram partem,) and as freely consulted some of my suffering Brethren, as you have done their sly but implacable Foes, I am confident you had set this Controversie in a much clearer light, and not written (as you intimate you have now done) with a reluctancy of Mind and Conscience. But since you call us in to your aid, though so very late, we are willing, as becomes Christians, to comply with your honest request; and I scruple not in behalf of my Brethren to promise you full information, and that the matter shall be handled mildly, closely, and fairly, all personal Quarrels and Reflections laid aside, pro­vided that you will procure us the priviledge of the Press in this parti­cular. We may reasonably hope that we shall not be denied in this; for else why do you in Print call on us for Information, and tell us, that your design in so doing, is not only to quiet your own Conscience, but also to provoke the Learned to offer such Discourses thereupon to the pub­lick as may settle others; besides, it will be disingenuous and base in Caro­lus Alston to license these Hue and Cries after us to vindicate our Cause, and yet not suffer us to print a line in answer to those whom he licenseth thus to call on us. But if after all we meet with a sham, you must par­don me, if I plainly tell you, that I shall look on all your pretences as an artificial Contrivance, and an extraordinary Strain of of supersine Hy­pocrisie, worthy of this more than Pharisaical Age: For what else can be the meaning of it, but to keep us in hand, and employ us in looking after I know not whom, whilst your Book uncontradicted slies abroad, and not only misrepresents our Cause, but exposeth us, as if we neither could nor would write in its behalf, being so solemnly called on. And there is this more to engage you to assist our Request to the utmost, that if there be any errors in your Book, (as I am sure there are some very gross ones,) it will highly concern you, that Truth may with all speed follow at the heels of it, to prevent, if possible, that mischief which [Page 4] otherwise it may do, and for which at the great day of Accounts you must in a great measure answer as uhe primary Cause and Author: But if we must be mock'd with Calls, whilst it is intended that we shall ne­ver be suffered to return any Answer; you may justly expect, that if ever we can put the blind upon your Watch-men, we shall not only defend our Cause, but also expose their profound Hypocrisy, who like Joab kiss and stab, and never pretend to be possessed with a fit of tenderness or kindness for us, but with a design to put a Cheat upon Mankind, and push on our utter Ruine and Destruction. Sir, Pray think of these things with due care, and let me have your Answer with speed, and thereby you will much oblige,

Sir,
Your unknown Friend and Servant, T. B.
An ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader.

The foregoing Letter was sent acording to the Author's direction and pre­tended request, and therewith plain instructions how to return an Answer; but he not vouchsafing one syllable after two months waiting, I thought fit to send both this and the following Letter by the Press, seeing he would take no notice of the Post.

The Second LETTER.

SIR,

YOur Preface savouring something of a Tender and Christian Spirit, made me read your little Tract with the greater care; but when I had throughly perused it, I not only sound my expectation sadly baffled, but stood amazed to see all the Marks and Tokens of a most Wicked and Malicious Design carried on under such plausible melting Pretences: If therefore you are not conscious to your self of any In­sincerity, it will concern you to vindicate your self, by publishing an Ingenuous and Fair Answer to the following Objections, wherewith to me you seem justly chargeable.

And in the first place I cannot altogether acquit you Partiality and Un­kindness in assigning the Names of the Speakers in your Dialogue: for not to concern my self with Mr. Easy and Mr. Troublesome, who chime so [Page 5] neatly under the Greek disguise of Dyscheres and Eucheres, that which I think I except against not without just cause, is, that you call one a Conformist, the other a Recusant; now Conformist is in it self an honest word, and of good reputation, and heretofore was used to signifie a per­son who approved and complied with the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; but by it you plainly mean the Good Old Cause Men newly come again in fashion, who have set aside God's Command­ments, and live in the open breach of them without the least remorse of Conscience; who have not only departed from, but with all their might wickedly set themselves against those Doctrines, which the Church of En­gland always valued as her Characteristical Mark, and for which she was esteemed all the World over; who have enervated her Discipline, made wicked additions to her Prayers, and attempted to make such alterations, as would not leave her the same Church, if it could deserve the Name of any; and though they failed to obtain this last by English Interest, yet they comfort themselves with no small hopes, that e're long they shall compass it by a Sherlockian Authority Now some few years since we were accustomed to call such Men as these Conformists; but if by Confor­mists you mean persons that will comply with, or do any thing for base ends, then I shall not envy them the Title, and I think you may have be­stowed it on them not unfitly.

Then as to the Name Recusant, you know it is most commonly applied to Papists, in which sense it is as falsly as maliciously cast upon us; and indeed if we either were Papists, or your Party did but so much as think us such, they would use us better; for though the hideous Names of Popery and Papists be made use of to affright people, and to stir up the Mob barbarously to use some persons, whose Innocence the Malice of wicked Politicians could not otherwise reach; yet I do not find, but that at present the persons of Papists are acceptable enough, and in ma­ny places are not only protected, but courted and commended as very good Subjects, if not put into places of great Trust: But then let the word Recusant be taken in its full latitude for any sort of Dissenter, yet what is that to us? We firmly adhere to the Liturgy, the Articles, the Canons, and the true Authority of the Church; and I dare challenge your whole Protean Crew, to tell us wherein we have stirred one step from our old ground, or wherein we are changed from what we were? By what notion or figure are we called Recusants for sticking close to that, for the departure from which others always were stiled Recusants? Pray Sir! unriddle this; for I confess it passes my apprehension, if you are offended, that some Men cannot be induced to doat either on old O. or young O. or O's Nephew, yet what is that to the purpose? How comes that to be a Mark of Recusancy, which heretofore was thought to be an evident note of the contrary? The Name is slanderously cast upon us, and an ingenuous Man will think himself bound to make what sa­tisfaction [Page 6] he can, both for the ill Name he hath unjustly given us, and for transferring (what in him lies) our right by the Name he hath gi­ven to our Adversaries.

I shall now briefly examine the Treatise it self: And though it may not be worth my while to ransack it in every part of it; yet I do not intend to omit any thing very considerable, and I will use my best endeavour not to mistake your sense; and when I have made my Remarks, if you can after such pretences clear your sincerity, or acquit your self from being engaged with others in a design utterly to ruine those who have suf­fered so much already, or can maintain their Cause against us, I shall be willing to find my self disappointed the best way, and not reject any reasonable Conviction.

But before I enter upon a particular Examination, I cannot forbear to lay before you some things in general, wherein I could wish such a Master of Language as your self had been guilty of less ingenuity, and not put tricks upon us, whilst you make all imaginable pretences of Tenderness and fair Play. For,

First, The Objections on our part you rarely represent either fully or fairly, and often deliver them clouded with such Flourishes of Rheto­rick, or mask'd with such Cant unproper for a Dispute, that it is not easy for the Reader to discern wherein their main strength and force lies; and you that could say for the contrary Cause more than it deserves, or will bear, ought at least to have done us common Justice.

Secondly, When you come to Answer the Objections thus weakly pro­posed, sometimes you plainly sham them, sometimes you dexterously steal away your Reader, and carry him off to another thing, and some­times you grant what is not to be granted. Now this is not to argue our Case, but to betray our Cause; and any indifferent person, that shall observe the whole contexture, will scarce be able to free himself from a suspicion, that there was some such design in it.

Thirdly, You in downright terms shamelesly slander and bely our Suffering Bishops and Clergy, and that to this very end and purpose, that you might stab their Cause, and either furnish their Adversaries with new Objections, or give a greater force to others, than indeed they had. And I think this so far from being fair, that it is not honest deal­ing, and therefore is so very unbecoming a person of that Sincerity and Indifferency which you pretend to; that if you take not up some bet­ter course to secure your beloved Character, every one will see through the thin frail Disguise, and discover the Wolf in the Sheep's Cloathing.

Fourthly, When Arguments fail you, you smartly stir up the Govern­ment against us, and not content with the great Losses and the hard Cir­cumstances we are under, you move for an utter Extirpation; as if the only way to confute the Cause, were by a Massacre of the Persons: Such a thing I have read of in France, and Ireland; but did never think that I [Page 7] should have lived in such Hellish times, as to see any English Man encou­rage it. I do not well know what Men or Devils could devise more; but for a Man, who professeth himself doubtfull of the Cause, who would seem so consciencious, as to prepare himself to suffer with us; who talkt of being so full of bowels of Compassion for us; who values himself for his Sincerity and Resolution to part with all for Truth; I say, for this Man at the same time slily to plead for the utmost Cruelty and Barbarity that can be executed upon us, is certainly such a sur­prizing unheard of strain of Hypocrisy, as was never thought on, till this demure but worst of times, wherein the Devil continually walks up and down like an Angel of Light, and the most wicked work of Hell is done under pretence of the service of Heaven: But that I may not seem to say these things gratis, I shall now come to the particular Examina­tion of your Treatise.

The Quarrel begins about Fasting and Feasting, and Dyscheres had as good have accepted your Invitation, as to be so ill treated for the Refusal, though to me you seem to make a very good excuse for him; That it was their Fast-day, wherein they did solemnly humble themselves before God, to reverse his displeasure, provoked by the deplorable Disloyalty and Schism of the Nation, in rejecting the true King and sincere Bishops and Clergy for their bounden Conscience and Loyalty, &c. (p. 1.) Any Man may easily perceive the malice of this sly Insinuation. Whether any such days are observed I know not; but if there be not, I wish there were, and the oftner the better. For to my apprehension such are the crying sins of the Na­tion, that scarce any Repentance can be deep enough, nor any Testifica­tion of it too solemn or too frequent: But, good Sir! Why may we not humble our selves before God for the sins of the Nation? To this you answer like the Man whom the Satyr thought not fit to trust in his com­pany, because he blew hot and cold with the same breath; for you are glad and sorry at the same time; but the composition I find is not so strong, but that your Joy presently overcomes your Sorrow, and makes it quite vanish. You tell us, That you heartily bewail all the Evils that have happened in this Nation on occasion of this great Revolution, (p. 1.) And I wish you say true, you are so quickly again upon the merry pin, for you tell us immediately, That we are obliged to sing the Songs of Sion; and you give us this reason, That the goodness of God hath not been cessant, but out of the Evils of Men hath produced a most eminent Good; and lest we should be at a loss to know what it is, you tell us, That it is the re­demption of his own (i. e. God's) People, and faithfull Children, and this endangered Church from the Inundations of Popery and Bondage. But a­gainst this I have two small Objections, 1. That the latter of these is no­toriously false. 2. Supposing God out of a Miracle of his Mercy to have done such a thing, yet that will not justifie either you or any other Men in your sins; and consequently all you say is no Answer to the Ob­jection, [Page 8] which you had put into Dyscheres's Mouth, That a good Chri­stian may set a part a time to humble himself for the crying sins of the Nation, and keep it too, though others at the same time, like Job's Children, go to their Feasting: But let us bring your metal to the Touch-stone, and try whether your Redemption be currant Coin, or on­ly false stuff washed over. The Complement of God's own People and faithful Children, I suppose you intended for your Conformists, but if you had not concealed from the World, that those faithful Chrildren were a parcel of forsworn wretches, who had forsaken the Principles of their Church, and the Commandments of their God; I doubt, an indifferent person would have made it a question, whether God would own all those for his Children, whom you lay to him? And for your own sake let me give you this advice, That before you set up your Trade of Canonizing, you will consider what is denounced against those, who call Evil Good and Good Evil. But pray Sir! Wherein consists this Re­demption of this endangered Church from Popery and Slavery? If by the Church you mean those that stick to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Prin­ciples of it, all those Clergy are driven from their Churches, and depri­ved of their Estates, not so much being left to keep them from starving, as was allowed by their sworn Enemies, the Rump and their Sequestra­tors; so much a Dutch Mercy exceeds even an English Rebel's! And farther, when all others have their Liberty, they alone are not suffered to serve God; but if they do meet together, the Hell-Hounds which are set to hunt them, seize the Persons, and then the Auditors are plagu'd with Oaths, and the Minister committed to Newgate, or some filthy Prison for high Misdemeanor, perhaps for high Treason, and then he certainly continues in Limbo for two Terms, though he were as inno­cent as an Apostle; and all to this end, that he may be utterly undone, and that ill usage and the stink of a Gaol might poyson him, whom they have not pretences enough otherways to murder. If this be Redemption from Bondage, I wish you had kept it for your Friends: But to deal plainly with you, I think there was a time, when we might have rejoiced in some such Redemption as you speak of; for whatever designs King James had in his Head, or was put upon; it is certain, that the resolution of the Church of England had not only baffled them all, but made him lay aside the thoughts of them; nay things were at that pass, that he would rely only on their Loyalty, whereby it was put into their power, not only to have advanced the Reputation of our Church above all others, but to have given a greater blow to the Papists, than they have hitherto received; but instead of that a parcel of Ladi­tudinarian Canary Birds betrayed their King and the Church, set up a Schismatical Authority against the True, changed the laudable Principles of the Church of England, for the worst of Tenets they could find, ei­ther amongst the loosest Jesuits, or the rankest democratical Rebels, [Page 9] and have hurled all into such a wild confusion, that every thing that can be dear to us, is in danger, and we have now more reason to fear Popery than ever; and I am apt to think, that if ever things come to that pass, those Religious Weather-Cocks, who now make such a fear­full out-cry against it, would then be the most forward Men to help it in: for what should hinder, when they have already taken up several Papists Principles to defend their present practice, and given us a plain instance that their Conscience will stretch to any thing that will secure their Preferment. But after all, notwithstanding your great pretence of Kindness to us, I am apt to think, that by the Church, you mean only your own Conformists, as you call them: But, Sir! Till you can acquit them from Schism, (which proves too hard a task for you,) you should not call them the Church of England, of which they scarce hold any thing but the Revenues; and have not only departed from her most signal Constitutions, but are contriving daily to get farther from them. In the Language of the Fathers, the Intruder into another's See is always called an Adulterer; such a one there is cross the water, who can tell you with whom he not long since Treated, and by whose order. Would it not make a fine Church of England to see the several Sectaries taken in by vir­tue of an Act of Comprehension? Oh! But this is to enlarge the Bounds, and preserve the Brethren. Is it so? But if a Man should tell me, that he laid Fire-brands together to preserve them, I should be afraid, that it would only make them burn more fiercely, and consume more speedi­ly; indeed if he could do by them as Painters, who grind several Co­lours together, something might come of it; but then it would be such a something as was not before; the old Church of England it could not be: But the thing is still worse, and there are some at this time, who are stark mad to put those things together, whose natures will not suffer them to mingle; and you may as well try to incorporate Oyl and Water, which though you may seem to have jumbled together for a while, yet in a short time they separate of themselves; and thus it will be with your Sects coupled together, who can never truly unite, unless one or both change their nature. Now what will be the effect of these Mountebank tricks, and playing the Empericks with Religion, who can divine? The Downfall of the Church of England (unless God in­tervene) any one may easily see; but what shall follow, whether Con­fusion, Atheism, Popery, or what else, is not so easie to guess. Now, Sir! If you can without dissembling call this The Redemption of an en­dangered Church from Bondage and Popery, you are either a Man of such odd intellectuals, or such infatuated Apprehensions as nothing but this Age has produced, wherein too many have got the conquest both of their Senses and their Reason, and in spight of all Argument will plain­ly tell you, that they will or will not believe but what they list. But yet here I must request not to be mistaken: I am not an Enemy to every [Page 10] Man, that is not of my Persuasion; nor do I envy any Man the Liber­ty which Authority shall allow him; but I am strangely mistaken, if it be so much as possible to imbody those several sorts of Men into the Church: What there may be in Toleration, or how far it may be gran­ted, I dispute not, but leave it to my Superiors; but however Men may delude themselves with vain fancies, I boldly affirm, that the project of Comprehension is impracticable. Sir, Pardon this small Digression, and I will now return to you again; and if what you say were as true as it is false, would you make that use of it to encourage Men in their sins? If God bring Light out of Darkness, will that justifie us in our iniquities? Or does God stand in need of our sins, as if without them he could not produce some great good for us? Or are we therefore to re­joice in them, because God hath done great things for us nothwithstan­ding such Provocations? The Apostle sure was of another mind, who tells us, That the goodness and long sufferance of God calls us to repentance; and if God at any time continue his Mercies notwithstanding the crying sins of a People; it is then high time for them to repent in Sackcloath and Ashes, lest they sin away his Mercies, and convert his Patience into Fury: And if you please to consider the matter better, it is not un­likely, that you may judge this to be too much our Case.

I confess you suffer Dyscheres to speak some truth, when he saith, That the present State is worse than a deluge of Popery; for then the Church would have saved her Integrity, though not her Ease; now the Daughter of Sion is become an Harlot, the generality of her Children apostate and un­churched, and the Faith and Communion with the few, &c. (p. 22.) But when you your self had made him speak thus, and nothing but truth, you presently sham it off, stiling it a wild-fire Zeal, and fit of Fury. And thus you may easily answer any thing by giving it ill names; but then your Submission to the present Constitution you think to be so far from effecting this, that you now question, whether it can be proved a sin? And truly if the breaking a lawfull Oath, and taking an unlawfull one; if the witholding the Right from one, and the giving of that which is none of their own to another; if the overthrowing the Constitution of the Kingdom, and violating the Laws of God be no sin, you have made an excellent discovery, and done a leud Age a great kindness, who need nothing more, than that there could be no sin at all; and at this rate it will be a hard matter to find any: But then you farther say, that if you should admit it to be a sin, yea a crying sin, yet it doth not unchurch you: But, Sir! If it be a sin, and a crying sin, I think it calls for your re­pentance, and you ought not to persevere in it, as you plainly do. But however you say, That it is not every such sin that doth unchurch single per­sons, or publick Societies; nor did I ever know any body that said so: But here the word unchurch is unusually and capriciously put; for the word Church is an equivocal term, and variously used; for we often [Page 11] speak of Schismatical Churches, and you may have heard of the Syna­gogue of Satan, of which if any Man have a mind to be a Member, I do not desire to be one of his Society. And after all, though every sin do not unchurch, yet there are such sins as exclude Men out of the true Church, and put them into such a state, that sincere Christians ought not to join in Communion with them; and if you please to take the pains, you will find it to be the unanimous Judgment of the Fathers and Primitive Christians, that the setting up Antibishops, the erecting Altar against Altar, and the adhering to the Usurpers and Intruders, against those who had the true Canonical Authority, did put Men into a state of Schism, and make it unlawfull for other Christians to join in Commu­nion with them. St. Cyprian says of every such Bishop, that he is not secundus, but nullus; nay, they accounted not only these persons, but all that joined with them, as Schismaticks, and cut off from the Church, as is plain from the Case of Marcian of Arles, who joined with Novatian. And this is the very Case, and your very sin; wash your hands of it, if you can; though if it were necessary, I could farther prove what you seem to require, That the Principles of Doctrine and Opinion, whence these sins receive encouragement, are such as destory the Church's Fundamentals and Structure, if such Principles which destroy all Morals, and all Faith and Truth amongst Men, can be said to do it. You would do well to explain what you mean, when you say, That an Authentick Act must pass in order to a state of actual Expulsion: For Men may exclude them­selves, as well as be excluded by others; and may depart and run away from a Church, as well as be thrown out of it; and their act shall be too Authentick, if by it you mean valid. Your instance of the Roman Church is insignificant; for you know we do not communicate with it: But that of the Eastern Churches is still less to the purpose; for I am not satisfied that either they have condemned us, or we them as Schisma­ticks; I am sure Dr. Baster tells us, That some of the Greek Clergy desired him not only to communicate, but to exercise his Ministry among them, nor did he refuse it; nor have I heard any others make any great complaint of their unkindness in this matter.

In the next place, when you should introduce Dyscheres to defend us, you make him state the matter so weakly, as to betray our Cause: For why should he admit, that you are not unchurched (it is the word you will use) for want of an Ecclesiastical Judge? (p. 2) I do not know that we want an Ecclesiastical Judge; our Metropolitane, with his Suffragans, are a sufficient and proper Judge; and if they have not lata Sententia, (which there may be great reason to forbear,) yet in praxi their Judg­ments are sufficiently declared; and not to mention other of your Bi­shops, even that graceful Hypocrite who is mounted into his place, by his Canonical Oath owes obedience to him whom he hath so unworthily betray'd. But suppose we should want a Judge to your mind, yet you [Page 12] may be actually excluded; and in case of erecting Altar against Altar, the Canons ipso facto exclude you, and they make not only the Clergy, but every Christian in this case to be so far a Judge, as to avoid all Com­munion with such; and that this is your Case you have been told again and again; but you are much like some Men, who are or pretend to be thick of hearing, who can understand any thing that makes for them, before the words are well out of a Man's Mouth; but if any thing un­profitable or pinching be spoken, they are as deaf as a Beetle. But farther, it is not fair to make the true cause of the Breach to be only dan­ger; for it is not meer danger for which we break either with you or Rome; it is not because there is danger in the Communion (for that possi­bly might be avoided) but because the sin is unavoidable in it. And still it is less ingenuous to call it a Secession on our part, for we are the very same persons we were; we stick to the same Principles, we own the same Ecclesiastical Authority; but you have forsaken both, and I think such make the Secession. Nor can I imagine why you, who have re­nounced both the Doctrines and Authority of the Church of England, should charge us with a Secession, unless it be, that you have driven us from our Churches, and robb'd us of our Livelihoods: But in this case we have the most Eminent Fathers of God's Church for our Precedents, who never thought their Cause the worse, because others were more than ordinary unmercifull and maliciously bent against them.

When you had thus unfairly stated the case, you bring in your Champion Eucheres making such an answer, as is enough to pull off the Visor, and lay open all your Hypocrisie. For (saith he) Though our Church (and I desire to know what Church that is) justly and absolutely rejects the Roman Monarchy, yet she will not refuse any lawfull Communion or Correspondence with it, in any good Ecclesiastwal Negotiations consistent with Integrity, saving still a publick remonstrance to all her Pollutions, (p. 3.) What can be the meaning of this, but that your Church is ready and willing to join in Communion with the Church of Rome, as many of your Brethren take the Oaths, i. e. with a Declaration? Sir! Though this may be a kind of surprize to some of your squeamish Disciples; yet I tell you plainly, that though you endeavour to entangle and make intricate the sense with superfluous words, this and no other can be your meaning; for your Argument and Parallel is insignificant and senseless, if this be not your purpose: For thus it follows, so you should communicate with us in all that is lawfull. Now it is an actual Communion in all publick Worship and Offices, which you require from us; and the reason you give why we should pay it, is in the words before cited, the sense of which must be, that your Church is ready with a Remonstrance to afford the same Communion to the Church of Rome, and therefore we ought not to deny it to you, who take your selves to be a Church much less liable to ex­ceptions. If therefore your Argument be of any force, you must mean, [Page 13] that your Church is ready to afford the same Communion which you re­quire of us, and that is actual Communion in publick Worship. Now I desire all sincere Christians to take notice of this; here are a parcel of Men, who for their Preaching, and Praying, and seeming Zeal, and Mortification, have been idolized by many good People, who have bel­lowed against Popery, till they have frighted People out of their wits, till they had prepared them to rob any Man's House, or cut his Throat, whom they gave out to be a Papist or Popishly affected; nay, till they had persuaded them to drive away the lawfull King for being a Papist, and yet here in effect they tell you, that all this was trick, an Art to lead People by the Nose, and meer damn'd Hypocrisie. For Popery is no such dreadfull thing to them, but that with an insignificant Remon­strance they can go to Mass, and are as willing to do it, as they are de­sirous we should come to Prayers with them; nay, it is their Argument to persuade us, that we may and ought to communicate with them, be­cause they think it lawfull to communicate with the Roman, i. e. as they think a more polluted Church; and this is laid down not as the single Opinion of the Author, but as the sense of their Church. Good People! these are your Zealous against Popery. Pray who betrays the Refor­mation now? If we should be in danger of Popery, do not you think these your Idols would stand like Bullwarks and Mountains against it, who you see declare, even when they have no temptation, that they are now ready to meet it more than half way; It is an unlucky thing, Sir, that you should make this discovery, not only for your self, but in the Name of your Church; it is enough to take off the confidence the Saints have had in you, and to make all persons who are not resolved to blind themselves, that they may be deluded, to look on you as a parcel of deep and demure, yet fulsome and pernicious Hypocrites. What you add, That if you do amiss, it is through simplicity and want of under­standing, which we might easilier heal by accommodation, &c. is such a con­descending strain of Dissimulation, that I am afraid you are unwilling to be taken at your word; for if another should tell you, which is the same thing, that you are a parcel of silly weak fellows, who are not to be trusted with the management of Affairs, but ought to be governed by wiser Heads, I am confident you would spit in his Face, if you did not incense the enraged Mob to knock out his Brains: But though this be a particular fetch to make easie People believe you to be a sort of most humble mortified Men, yet some Men's actions have long since convinced me, that they had rather be real Knaves, than so much as mistaken for Fools; and it is clear as noon day, that those persons, who (you say) want Understanding, have for many years either palm'd, curb'd and kept under, or deluded and abused, and now at last have undone all that would not submit to their Understandings, and trukle under them; and indeed all the Knavery of the Rump and Oliverian days, is meer [Page 14] indigested stuff compared with those most Artificial Cheats, which some of your Masters of Hypocrisie, those humble simple Creatures, (as you would persuade us,) have shewn in our days. When you please to call on me, and procure me liberty to answer, I will give you in­stances.

But when Dyscheres had reliped to your desires of Accommodation, that there was now no more hope, because you have broken the essential bonds of Ecclesiastical Communion, and begun the Schism in admitting Intruders, &c▪ Your Friend Eucheres makes answer by way of concession, that if their (i e. our Bishops and Clergy) ejection was only for adhering to the Doctrines of this Church, or to the Laws of God, then they are persecuted by the Church as well as the State. (p. 3.) But, Sir! What if neither the Laws of God, nor the Church had been concerned, and they had had only occasion to stand the Laws and Constitutions of the Land, which under no pretence whatsoever allows the Subject to use any force against the lawfull So­vereign, much less to Depose him; and in case he die or relinquinish, yet suffer no injury to be to the next Heir, but proclaim him to be, without the help of any Ceremony or Formality, immediately King, in the very first moment of the vacancy, as admitting no Interregnum? I think this had been no ill cause. But then farther, suppose none of these consented, and that the matter only was coram non judice, and they were ejected by those who had nothing to do with them; with your leave, Sir, I do not think my self bound to ratifie the iniqulty of such proceedings: But since you have assumed the Authority to assign what Causes you please, I will stick to those you have named, i. e. The ad­hering to the Doctrines of the Church, and the Laws of God. And what then, Sir? Why then you say, this will require a very clear proof. But pray, Sir! Who are they that ought to bring this clear proof? I have heard some say, that it is an Axiome in Law, That they who expect the be­nefit, ought to make the proof. Now you get all into your hands, and would you give no reason for it? The Meridian Sun is not more clear, than that King James possessed His Crown by an undoubted Right; and the ejected Clergy held their Sees and other Charges by an unquestiona­ble Title, whether you have respect to the Laws of the Church or the Land; when therefore you dispossess them of such manifest acknow­ledged Right, you ought to bring, if possible, more clear and demon­strable proofs for your proceedings; otherwise all reasonable Men ought to condemn you for your bold and barbarous injustice; so that this clear proof you call for, ought to be on your side. If a Thief rob me of my Goods, it were very unreasonable to leave me no other remedy, than the producing such reasons to him, as should prevail with him to re­store them again: For perhaps he would not hear me; or if he did, it would be but to mock me; for though my proofs were never so clear, yet 'tis ten thousand to one, that he would never own them to be so; [Page 15] yet much at this rate you deal with us, and which is worse, you make our Plea for us, and suffer us not to speak but as you please: But since it must be so, I'll follow you in the course you take, though a very unreasonable task.

You seem to grant, That our Church teacheth us to preserve an untainted Loyalty to our Lawfull Sovereigns, which with us come in by Inheritance; and that accordingly our Oath of Allegiance binds us to the King, his Heirs, and Law­full Successors. And you might have told us several other things, which this Church teacheth us, viz. Canonical Obedience to our Spiritual Fa­thers; the indispensable Duty of Children to Parents, whenever they com­mand it, or their condition requires it; the not running with a multi­tude to do evil, nor the encouraging other Men in their wickedness: In short, whatever the sacred word of God, or the reverend Constitutions of his Church requires from us. But to omit these things, which are so apt to gather the Tares of Schismaticks and Rebels, I shall examin what you say to your own Proposals. An untainted Loyalty you approve, while the Obligation lasts; and we desire no more: But then you think this Obligation may cease, not only by Death, or Resignation, but also by Ces­sion; nor do I think it worth while to dispute this with you, provided it be real, not forced, nor falsly imputed: For so any Man that is driven out of his House, or takes a journey from home, may be interpreted to have quitted his Estate by Cession: But when Cession is real (which is very rare) it can effect only the Party who makes it, and ought to be no injury to the next Heir, and in our particular case our Constitutions will not suffer it. But after all, the main assertion is such an impudent falshood, as nothing but a person bewitch'd with Rebellion would offer: For has that person made a Cession, who though, to perserve his life, he fly from Fraud and irresistable Force, yet all the while claims his Right, calls on all persons to do him justice, and useth all honest means that may be to recover his Right? At this rate every Man would have made a Cession who suffers wrong, though he bestir himself all he can to do himself Right: But, say you, This was such a Cession, as the States in Convention judged a virtual Abdication of the Sovereignty; and of this, you add, they were the most Competent, Authentick, and Final Judges; and this, you tell us, we are to submit to, because the Kingdom hath ratified those proceedings in a second Parliament. Now not to complain of unrighteous Judgment, though there was never more cause; the Answer I shall re­turn is, That they were neither Competent, Authentick, nor Final Judges. Competent they could not be, who for the prevailing part of them were either actually in the Conspiracy against him, or joined with the Con­spirators, and refused so much as to read his Letters, or hear any Mes­sage from him: Nor could they be Authentick Judges, who had no Law to authorize either them or their Proceedings; nor did I ever hear, that the natural Subjects of a Sovereign Monarch could be his Authentick [Page 16] Judges, unless from President Bradshaw, the Regicides and their Adhe­rents: And if upon this score you will have the proceedings valid against the Son, you must also justisie the barbarous Murder of the Fa­ther. And then they could not be sinal Judges; because being neither Competent, nor Authentick Judges, they were no proper Judges at all. Nor doth it all help the matter, that you call these your Judges, the Estates; and farther to countenance the matter, place them in Conven­tion: For how are they Estates, but with respect to the King and Con­stitution? Which if they overthrow, pray what becomes of their Estate­ships? It is the King made them such, and they are so with Subordina­tion to him; nor is their Convention any thing without him; they can­not convene without his Writ. You might have remembred, that your Oracle Dr. B—tells you, that single defect makes an essential Nulli­ty: if they do convene, they can only act by and under the King's Au­thority; and when they are come to a resolution, and have concluded upon any thing, still all sinks again into nothing, unless it be ratified with the Royal Assent. Thus without the King your Estates are insigni­ficant, but against him our Law condemns them as Rebels, and those of all others are the most unfit persons to make the only Competent, Authen­tick, and Final Judges of the most Fundamental part of our Constitu­tions. Did ever Men make them Judges of the Law, who are condem­ned by the Law? This is to pull the Judge from the Bench, and set up the Offender from the Bar. Nor will it afford you any relief, that these proceedings were ratified by a second Parliament, which had never a first. For as for your Transubstantiating Convention, which would have persua­ded us, that by a certain Hocus Pocus trick they were Metamorphis'd in­to a Parliament; you see plainly, that they were no better than a Rio­tous Assembly, whose transactions were in themselves null and void, as being contrary to Law, and censurable by Law; And therefore your second-first-no Parliament, which your Riotous Convention laid, could have no more Authority than that was able to give; and that was none at all; for nil dat quod non habet, nor can the Effect be greater than the Cause. What signifies their Ratification who had no Authority, but from those whom they ratisie, and those whom they ratifie had none to give? Your Second therefore, Sir, is as good as your First, and both good for nothing at all; and if you should go and put ten thousand nothings together, still all will amount to just nothing. But to secure this your weak, or rather wicked Plea against a just Objection, obvious to every Eye, you add, That though King JAMES abroad condemns them, yet that is no argument either that they were unjust or inauthoritative. No! But pray Sir why not? Can you thus easily puff away the Right of Kings with a breath; Is your bare assertion without reason sufficient to overthrow him? Was he not their King? Were they not his Subjects? Did he complain of any thing but wrong done him? Did he demand any thing [Page 17] but his own? Might not he call upon his Subjects, in whose power it was, and whose duty it was, to restore him? Can such a modest, mo­derate, tender-hearted Man as your self, thus slight and insult over a distressed Prince? Or, when all other Men are allowed to keep, or claim, or recover their right, was he, poor Man, alone born odd, that whatever he does or says must signify nothing? This is cold comfort for a banished Prince; but I hope others will not prove so hard hearted to him. But you proceed thus, When a King is fled from his Throne into Fo­reign Dominions, or doth not exert any Royal Power or Presence to his People, the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestick Judges upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty. At this rate it will be good for Kings to keep exerting their Power; for if they should but chance to sleep, or fall so sick as for a time to incapacitate them for business, the Estates, if they please, may alter the Tenure, or dispose of it to another. But, pray Sir, Answer me two Questions: First, Who made your Estates Judges? Second­ly, Whether I am bound to follow their Judgment, against manifest right and my known duty? But after all, this is a most malicious insinuation against your suffering King, as if he ran away through wantonness, and would have nothing to do with us, but had quite forsaken his People; whenas you very well know, that he exerts all the Power he can; that he doth not more is not his fault, but yours: You may have both his Power and his Presence too among you, if you please; But will you, con­trary to your Duty and Oaths, keep him out by force of Arms, and then plead your own wickedness in your defence? I did hope for more Ingenuity from such a Pretender to Modesty: But you will not allow us to deny the Authority by which they (i e. your Estates) sate; for by what Authority (say you) was that Free Parliament called, or sate, that voted in King Charles the Second? Sir, if you please, let another be called, and Vote in King JAMES the Second; when things are out of order, and Good Men set them to rights again, I do not think any honest Man will oppose it upon the score of some small niceties; but when Subjects re­bel against their Prince, and drive him away, and make that the ground of their going on, and doing farther wickedness, I cannot understand the Authority of this There is certainly in every Man an innate na­tural Power and Authority to wish well to and vote for Right; by virtue of this, when things were in confusion, the Subjects of King Charles the Second, returning to their Wits and Allegiance, send a convenient number to act for the whole, who recal their rightful King; and if you should do so likewise, I should not be very quarre some with you; but whatever Name they might give it, to put a better gloss upon the thing, they were no Parliament, till King Charles made them so; for he, their lawful King, by an Act in a legal Parliament, might stamp on them that Character, and give then that Authority and Force, which they had not before; and thus several of their Acts might become Laws, by [Page 18] virtue of that after-ratisication, not by any force of their own; but as for calling back the King, that was not making any new Law, but enforcing the old; and was not so much an Act of Authority, as Obedience and Duty; and if you could find out the same way, you would be the best Friends both to your Country and your selves. You tell us, That it is prodigious peevishness to require a King's Presence, or Commission, when he is gone, and hath left all in Anarchy. I hope, Sir, you do not think, that I require a King to be present, when he is absent; and then, with your good leave, I think it no such peevishness to act by his Commission in his absence; but that it is rather a thing, which (if it can be had) ought to be done, and in all regular times was done: Richard the First was in­gaged in the Holy War, when his Father died; so that he was far e­nough from his Throne, and unable to exert any Royal Power or Presence to his People; and to make the matter worse, in his return he was taken prisoner, and detained, in Germany: In this case, had you been one of the Estates, you would have been for setting up another King, that would exert his Royal Power or Presence to his People; but they had another sense of their duty; they mourned under the common Calamity, caused all proceedings to pass under his Name and Authority, and stretch'd their purses to the purpose to redeem him, and bring him home: But you drive your King from home, when you have him; and when he would return to exert his Royal Power and Presence, you will not suffer it; but keep him out with your Swords in your Hands; and these rebellious Actions you make Precedents to warrant all the Mischief you have, or would do; and after all you would perswade us, that you are a parcel of guiltless, humble, modest, consciencious Creatures: Clamat Melicerta periisse frontem de rebus. At last to help a lame dog over a style, you say, The Estates of any Nation, being invited by a victorious and unresisted Power, may come together and treat with him that thus calls them, though he hath not antecedent Authority (strictly taken) to call them. Here is a pretty fetch in the word unresisted Power; for irresistable he knew it was not; and if it was unresisted, whose fault was that? May they refuse to resist an invading power, when they are able? And may they make that disobe­dience the reason of their compliance with him, and casting off their own Sovereign? But if, without daubing, you had put the case as it was, it ought to run thus: The Estates of any Nation, or the Natural Subjects of any Sovereign Prince, may combine with, and invite in a Foreign Prince; and when he comes, though with a contemptible force, they may forsake their lawful Prince; and then by their treachery, having left him helpless and hopeless, may treat with the Foreigner, drive away their own King, give his Crown to the Foreigner, and main­tain it with their Swords and Purses, without which he could not keep his ill-gotten Goods: But I suppose it was your modesty, which made you disguise this true proposal of the matter; because so plainly set [Page 19] down, it would not well bear the light. That the Church's Loyalty, as to the Object, is to be guided by the true constitution of the State, I deny not; but I shall never yield, what you would thence slurr upon us, That it is to follow every Civil Judgment; much less the uncivil Judgment of any Sett of Conspirators and Traytors, into whose Hands you so liberally and piously dispose it.

When you had thus loosely argued, you introduce Dyscheres in our be­half, yielding to your Plea; (p. 4.) but you see it is one thing for a Man to speak for himself, and another thing for another to speak for him; for you may perceive, that I am not of the same mind, for which I have given you some Reasons, which I hope you will answer, or not for the future conclude that we have yielded the Cause: It was more than be­longed to you to take upon you to plead our Cause; but to give it away and betray it, is too much; but to do it in such a manner, that it might seem done by our selves, and that all persons might believe we had given up the Cause, looks like a designed piece of knavery. But, Sir, if you had no power to bestow, what you have so prodigally given away, and the Reasons I have produced against it be valid, then you ought to remember, that all your following discourse is insignificant and vain, as being built upon a false Foundation: But let that pass, and let us see what you will allow to be said in our case; and it is this, How could they (i. e. your Estates) pervert the hereditary law and rule of Suc­cession, that is fundamental to this Crown? To this you Answer, That the general and ordinary rule of Succession to this Crown is hereditary, but in ex­traordinary Interruptions and Convulsions of State against the ordinary course, our Laws and Constitutions do allow the Estates such a King as can be actually had for the time being, till the ordinary rule can be fairly recovered. Now if a Man were to speak this in plain English, it would be thus: By our Laws and Constitutions the Crown is Hereditary; but if any Usurper or Traytor will not suffer it to be so, but puts by the right Heir, and gets possession himself, the Laws and Constitutions allow him to be King; yes marry, and a Lawful King too; i. e. the Crown goes in a Lineal Succession, whilst People are peaceable and obedient; but if they be troublesome and rebellious, then it is catch as catch can, and he had Right and Law of his side who gets possession, and so will another, and another, without end, who can successively wrest the possession from those who had the right whilst they could keep possession. Did ever any Body hear of such a Constitution as this? Or, was ever any thing better fitted to produce Eternal Confusions? Certainly you have a mind to perswade us, that our Constitutions were made by the Wise men of Goatham, or the Wiser men of Bedlam. Sir! I have look'd with both my Eyes, and cannot see how Happy we are (as you tell us) in this; and I am afraid you have been cheated with false Spectacles; but at last you are willing to qualifie the matter, and to suffer this only, till the ordinary [Page 20] rule can be fairly recovered. If this be so, pray why is it not recovered? Sure you will not plead that in Justification of a People, which is noto­riously their Fault, and such a Fault as is in their power to mend when they please; let them but unanimously (as they ought) return to their Duty and Loyalty, and the thing will do it self fairly enough, and with­out any great pains, trouble, or danger; but you presently relapse, and become a zealous Advocate for your Extraordinary Kings, in whose behalf you plead Acts of Parliament made by extra-lineal Kings, which were confirmed (submitted to, you subtily phrase it) by the Lineal Heirs, and these were approved by Lawyers, nor did the Church ever remonstrate against them. And what of all this? Let the Usurpation, or Confusions, be what they will, still Men will eat and drink, buy and sell, and such like acts; nor do I think that such a State doth acquit Men from the obligation to do (what in them lies) such things as seem absolutely ne­cessary for the preservation of the Society and the real Good of Man­kind, and if any such things as are necessary for the management of Hu­mane Affairs, and which are accompanied with common Justice in them­selves, should be now done or enacted, and hereafter confirmed by King JAMES, I know no reason to remonstrate against this; but I think the need of such a confirmation, is a demonstration where the Right and Authority lies, which is an odd way of proving the right of your extra­lineal Kings. But, pray Sir, upon such extraordinary Interruptions, did all Men ever thnik themselves bound to approve them? Did they not still, as opportunity served, assist Right? Did not such proceedings cost a world of Blood and Treasure, to none, or rather very ill pur­pose, whilst no peace or ease could be had, till things were brought to rights again? When matters are in trouble or confusion, wise and good Men think it the best way to put an end to them assoon as may be; but you cast out that Right, which only can restore our Peace; and when you have conjured up most horrid Confusions, plead for their conti­nuance; I know not what could be done more by an Advocate of the Prince of Darkness. As for what you say concerning Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book, I am sorry that a pretender to so much modesty should be guilty of such an impudent assertion, when that matter hath been so fully cleared by so many learned and judicious Pens. At last you very gravely give us your Opinion, That in the late Oath of Allegiance, the word Successors was added, after Heirs, on this very self-same ground; That though Heirs, by the ordinary course, are the Legal Successors, yet others le­gally may succeed in cases extraordinary. This it is for Men to give their Opinions without-book, and without any other consideration, than to pervert the State of the case. Had you given your self the small trouble to read over the Oath, you could not for shame have put this interpre­tation upon it; for the express words of it are Lawful Successors, which follow the word Heirs, by way of limitation or restraint, to shew that [Page 21] none shall succeed but the Legal Heir. And thus, Sir, the Words of the Oath, instead of admitting, plainly and peremptorily exclude your extraordinary Successors, and extra lineal Kings: Thus your new inven­tion hath added a fresh absurdity, instead of being a remedy, to those many others which your Party run into upon discourses of this matter; and though you mince the matter, yet you might as well have been so bold to say, The Oath requires Allegiance to unlawful Successors, as what you have said; for whilst there is One in Being, and claiming, to whom the right really belongs, What can your extraordinary Successors be, but Tyrants, Usurpers, such as rob others of their right, and live by in­justice and rapine? To tell Men, that they ought to assist a Tyrant a­gainst their Lawful Prince, and to preach up the Obligation of Obe­dience and Allegiance to a known Usurper, would look like very odd Doctrine; but do not call them by those buggish Names of Tyrants and Ʋsurpers, only say they are extraordinary Successors, or extralineal Kings, and then you may say all this and more, and be thought a zealous Saint for it too: Is not this a very pretty trick to catch Dotterils, and gull poor People out of all Truth and Honesty with new-coyn'd Phrases?

You might have suffered Dyscheres to say as much as all this; but in­stead of that you onely put this faint Question in his mouth, which be­ing neither clear nor full, may be liable to various Exceptions: Can he be legal that thrusts out the legal King, or legal Successor? (p 5.) I doubt not but you will strain a point to make him so; and indeed in your way of arguing I do not understand how any King, or any thing called a King, can want a good Title, who has actual Possession; but let us see your fine Art of proving Right Wrong, and Wrong Right: Your Dis­course of Kings thrusting out Kings is a direct thrusting out right, and an encouraging and justifying ambitious Persons in embroiling the World in perpetual Wars and Confusions: But I shall not expose it as it de­serves, because it is nothing to the case of a plain known right and no right; and if you would make a fair Answer here, you ought to give a direct Answer to this Question: If a Person really having no right, doth disclaim any right to a thing, and by publick Declarations doth profess, that he makes no Pretensions to it, nor hath any design to disturb ano­ther in his right; I say, if this person nevertheless shall by ill arts seize it, Doth this, notwithstanding all his Protestations and Declarations to the contrary, even against all right and reason, create him a right whe­ther he will or no? If fo, then I find right will be always on the stron­gest and cunningest side; and so generally will be fitter for Knaves than honest Men. Your Instance in the Houses of York and Lancaster come not up to so plain a Case as this: Where things are obscure and dark, (as that Title was, and perhaps still is to most men,) great allowances are to be made; Lancaster had the more obvious, York the better Title; though of late the learned Dr. St—by a modest bastardizing the onely [Page 22] Daughter of that heroick Prince, Lionel Duke of Clarence, so many Ages after her death, has rendred the rights of those two Houses more intricate than ever, which if he had done in the days of Henry VIII. (who laid so fast hold on his Mothers Title, derived from that traduced La­dy, that 'tis thought the Apprehensions of it hastened his Father's End,) that resenting Prince in all likelihood would have preferred him to some thing else than a Bishoprick. But what means this preaching up Con­fusion? The Nation then weltered in Bloud and Gore, till an undoubted Title put an end to that Quarrel: But you would have us obstinately maintain a bad Title, that our Miseries might have no end; a rare Ex­ample of Justice and Love to your Countrey! As for the Cession you men­tion, you would do well to prove it a little better, before you thus run away with it for granted; you know we deny it, and have given our Reasons for it, to which I know no Answer returned, unless it be Gaols, Fines, and Pillories, and Threatenings to help it with Hemp. But you say, the hereditary Succession was not violently broken, but altered by Consent of the next Heirs. He had need of a case-hardened Face, who will un­dertake to defend this: With your leave, Sir! it was broken with a Witness; for there were then four before your Idol, and now there are six; and will you say there was no violence, when our native Prince was close confin'd in his own Kingdom, in the midst of his own Subjects, to their eternal Shame, by a foreign and a pitiful parcel of tattered beg­garly Rapescallions, whom the Boys of the City of London might have pelted to death with Stones, if the Sense of our Countrey's Honour, as well as our Christian Loyalty had not been utterly stifled. But you will needs persuade us, that this was done with Consent: Now you would have done well to have produced the Consent of King James and the Prince of Wales, who ought to be served in the first place: And then as for the two Princesses, whom certainly you mean by those whom you falsly call the next Heirs, they may dispose of their own as they please; but they ought not, cannot give away another's right: Onely as to the Princess Ann of Denmark, if she have given up her right, it will concern her for her Safety to make it as publick as she can; but if she have not given it away, it then perhaps may concern her to make as much haste after her Father as may be, and to carry her Son with her, out of Herod's Clutches; for if her Sister should dye, 'tis ten to one it proves too late. But the neatest Fetch is, when we are told that all this was done, That a Prince of such mighty Conduct might be a Wall of Defence, as well to the Royal Heirs, as to the Religion, Rights, and Liberties of the People. Has he not actually ravished away the Rights of all the Royal Heirs in being? and call you this their Defence? So Robbers are a Defence to Travel­lers, and Wolves to Sheep: Pray next time you write, be pleased to furnish us with a parcel of white Crows, or green Jackdaws, or per­suade us out of our Christian Names. What a Defence your Hero hath [Page 23] been to Religion, the miserable condition of the Church of England, and the growth of Atheism and Fanaticism are sufficient witnesses; and then for the Peoples Rights and Liberties, how strongly they are wall'd about, if they be not sensible already, I doubt not but they will in a little time. And now Sir, if you will give me the same liberty to put together, which you take; I cannot learn from all this, how our old Laws and Oaths binds us to your new Allegiance; but that rather our Constitutions and Oaths binds us to King JAMES and not to William, though the contrary hereto is your shameless conclusion from your wild Premises.

All along you make Dyscheres (by whom you represent us) to give up the cause as far as you go, which disingenuous dealing we have too much cause to complain of; but the better to detect it, I must follow your steps; and now comes such a tremendous Objection, that I wonder your Joynts did not tremble, and your Hand shake, when you set Pen to Paper; it is to this effect, That when the violence is essentially unjust, unnatural, and contrary to the moral and eternal Laws of God and Righteous­ness, no Human compacts can ratifie such wrong, or justifie and confirm what is essentially injurious, nor ought the Priests of the most High God to conse­crate and confirm such Rapes by Oaths and Religious Sponsions. If there be any such thing as this (and such I fear we shall find there is, if there be any such thing as God's Commandments) we had need have a care what we do; That Man's wit is ill bestowed on him, who argues himself out of his own Soul. But here you think to slip your Neck out of the Col­lar by telling us, That the internal Immorality of all actions must be carefully distinguished from the civil Consequences of them. Well, be it so, we will do this for you too as fairly and carefully as we can; and what then? Why then, suppose (say you p. 6.) A Son by fraudulent Arts gets Judg­ment in Law, and seizes his Father's Estate and Body by Execution, and starves his Father in Prison, this Man's Immorality is damnable. Is it so? I think this is a bone for some body to pick, which may hold him tug tho' his Teeth were as long as his NOSE: But, Sir, what if a Daughter should do thus? Will not this Womans Immorality be damnable? If not, pray next time you write, give us a reason of the difference: But it seems if they should be both damned, Yet the Judges, Sheriffs, and other Officers are innocent; It may be so, whilst they act as Officers of Law, and according to the directions of Law; but if your Judges, Sheriffs, or other Officers, make themselves Parties, and join with and assist such a wicked Son or Daughter to effect such an evil act, or do applaud and ap­prove it, when they know it be done by such wicked and unlawfull Arts, then their being Officers of Law will rather encrease than deminish their guilt: And so for your Robbers and Pirates, a Man may lawfully suffer by them, tho' it were better if he could escape it; but if you will plead that their Robberies and Piracies are lawfull, if you say they require a just [Page 24] right to what they get by such wicked means, or if you actually join with them, and rob and share in their Booties, you will be as very a Rogue as they; and which is most like the Case, I leave others to judge. Much such another instance is your Lord of a Mannor; let him look how he came to be so, I may treat with him as Lord of the Man­nor, whom the Law declares to be so: But if the Lord's Tenants con­spire against their lawfull Landlord, and dispossess him of his Mannor, and invite a Stranger, and say and swear he shall be Lord of the Man­nor, and accordingly pay Homage and Fealty to him, you, Sir, may determine for their swearing and lying too, if you please, but I shall have nothing the better opinion of your Honesty for it. But now let the Fifth Commandment look to it self, for it was never so hardly beset: There are a sort of Protestants, who I think are resolved by making a­way the Fifth Commandment, to be even with the Papists for suppressing the Second; and indeed according as some Men act and write, unless it be to furnish pretence, and to shew our fine Cloaths, and eat roast Meat on Sundays, I see not what occasion they have for any Commandments; and so they might make Religion a Law of Liberty, or a Liberty from all Law; and I do not perceive, Sir, that you much mend the matter; you say, That from the Fifth Commandment we cannot charge K. W. with Subjection to King JAMES, &c. (p. 7.) If by this you mean, that we cannot thence prove him to have been his Subject, I do not know, that ever any Man attempted such a thing; but does a Nephew and a Son­in-Law owe no Duty, if he owe not that which is properly called Sub­jection? Or may a Man, because he is not his Subject, spoil another of all he has? And must all persons applaud and approve the Act, and swear he is in the right? The Case of an own Daughter is still more se­vere; but for that you say, That she is in Duty bound to follow her Husband's Fortune, Order and Authority, even against the Will of her Father, and this with a more plenary consent, if she judged her Husbands Cause to be just. I do not think either her or your judgment worth a farthing, unless the Cause be just in it self. Sorry Arguments will serve to persuade Am­bitious persons, that they have right to a Crown, though unconcerned persons at the same time plainly see the fallaciousness of them. But, Sir, I am not satisfied with your bare word, that a Woman is bound thus to follow her Husband through thick and thin; I grant that she ought to be the Partner both of his Joys and Sorrows, but let her have a care how she becomes Partner in his Sins; nor doth the relation of a Wife take away the relation of a Child, as you seem to intimate, tho' you are ashamed plainly to say it; they may indeed limit each other, so that the Father may not command the Daughter any thing inconsistent with the Duty of a Wife, nor the Husband the Wife any thing incon­sistent with the Duty of a Child to a Parent, but yet the great end of these relations is to strengthen and support, not to destroy each other, [Page 25] as you closely insinuate. Besides, your reason is a mistake in it self, as to this Case; for could you with all your tricks of Legerdemain remove both King James and the Prince of Wales out of the way, then there would rise another relation, and then he in these Dominions must follow her Fortunes, not she his; for according to our Constitutions she would be his Queen, and here he must be her Subject: It is true the Name of King would be allowed, but the Power by our Constitutions would be lodged in her; and he would be liable to offend against her Laws, to Trea­son against her Person, and to be tried by her Authority. It is well known, that though Philip of Spain's Name was made use of with Queen Mary's, yet when it came to matter of real and proper Authority, neither Lords nor Commons would own him for any thing more, than their Queens Husband, not their King properly speaking; but to let that pass, in short, all that has been done in this case being so contrary to the Du­ties of those relations, which both they and we were and are under, and those Duties peremptorily required by the Fifth Commandment, the contrary to your Conclusion must unavoidably follow, That in Moral Justice they could neither desire or accept, nor we give the Crown, much less ought we to confirm it by Oath. Your fulsome Panegyrick I pass over; be­cause you cannot but think it well bestowed, when you shall consider from whom that Saying fell, No body would trust an Engishman but the Devil.

You do us manifest injustice, when you make us to say, That no Settle­ment must be admitted, under Powers procured by breach of God's Command­ments, (p. 8.) And this in all reason you must do knowingly and wilful­ly; because I think there is not one, who in our behalf hath concerned himself in the matter of the Convocation Book, but hath stated this question, and always admitted a thorough Settlement, whatever were the means whereby it was procured: 'Tis true, we neither commend nor encourage such wicked doings; but on the other hand, we do not think Dominion to be founded in Grace, and that a Man cannot have a good Title, unless he be a good Christian; we can mourn over the bad Man, whilst we submit to the good Title; but we complain, that we have no Settlement, nor any thing like a good Title, to which we may sub­mit; for who can own that to be a good Title, against which there are prior and better Titles in being, contesting and claiming? Or who can take that for a Settlement, where a bad Title by bad means is maintained against a just and good Title? But you ought even in Com­plement to your great Mogul, to have omitted that Catalogue of sins, of which usually consists an Usurper's Trade, Killing, Robbery, Deceit, Cove­tousness, false Accusations, Lyes, Pretences, Subornations, Perjuries, Treasons, &c. now put all these together and a bad Title, and then guess the Owner; and when you have done, tell me seriously, whether the complying with a good Title without all these were not much more becoming a Christian, than to set up such a soure Stranger by such Monstrous Courses.

[Page 26] You will needs suppose, That if it be the Life of King JAMES, then it is not the Breach of God's Commandments that incapacitates the Prince of this Crown; but why may not both do it? For because the lawfull King is living and claiming, therefore the Commandments of God require of all his Subjects, that they pay him their Dutiful and Loyal Obedience: They ought by all honest means to support him in his Throne, or restore him to it, as his Condition requires. But if in a rant (for I did not ex­pect such a Blasphemous expression from such a pretender to Modesty) you will say, That with the suffrage of the greatest Laws of God, Reason and Nations, you may defend the present Governons, &c. i. e. in plain Eng­lish, that you may first betray your lawfull King, and then fight for an Usurper against him; you might as well justifie all the Usurpations in the World; and make Absalom and Massianello as lawfull Powers as David and Solomon; and in the consequence too you must encourage all the Rebellions and Treasons that ever were or shall be: And are not these brave things to justifie by the greatest Laws of God, Reason, and Nations? If Christian Religion can teach this, it were a just provocation to all the Kings in the World to combine together to extirpate such a turbulent and abominable Profession from off the face of the Earth: But I thank God I have not so learnt Jesus Christ.

To the Objection, That Allegiance seems to imply Right, &c. since Alle­giance follows the Right, which is a tender point to be sworn to, (p. 9.) you answer, that the Oath expresses no form of affirmation concerning Right; What if it do not, so long as it expresses what manifestly includes Right? and this Allegiance directly and immediately doth; for it is the proper duty of a Subject to his lawfull Sovereign, and contains an obli­gation to the performance of all those Acts, which are required from every Subject as he stands in relation to his rightfull Sovereign: It is the immediate result of that relation; so that where you deny your Alle­giance due, you in consequence deny the Right of the Prince; where you pay your Allegiance, it is as owning him to be your Prince; and therefore when you swear Allegiance, you tacitly swear a Right: For though there is a sort of Obedience or Observance, which may be paid to Usurpers, Robbers, and Pirates; yet Allegiance may not be paid to them, as being that natural duty of the Subject, which the Laws and Constitutions have appropriated to their legal Prince, and made inse­parable from him; and now I hope you will not tell us that the Oath doth not express Allegiance: Well, but for all this you are certain no such thing was intended, for you say your Estates in Parliament rejected the mo­tions made for an assertion of Right, and yet you immediately add, That they and the ensuing Parliament judged their admition of K. William and Q. Mary to be in their lawfull right, rebus sic stantibus; but yet say you, They bound not us to swear so, (p. 9.) I confess this is pretty juggling, but my Friends, it will never serve any honest Man's turn; for did your [Page 27] Conventioners, or those that followed them, intend to bind you to any thing? If they intended to bind you to nothing, they laid their wise heads together to such a purpose, as never yet any Men did; but if they did intend to bind you to your new Governors in any thing, what can that be reasonably supposed to be, other than what they admitted them in, and that you say, was in their lawfull right; they were indeed ashamed at that time to put it into the body of the Oath, and besides they knew it would have made many persons abhor it; but it is plain, that this they designed and trick'd upon you; hence you may perceive that your slippery remark will not deliver you from the intention of the Imposer; and indeed if that could be avoided, and what sense others please imposed, the Oath might be taken in a thousand several senses, and not one come up with the sense and design of the Imposers, which in this case always is the security of the Government. Besides, a thousand other mischiefs would follow, vacating all Oaths, and destructive of all Government and humane Society: For if Oaths may be thus eluded, Promises and Contracts would soon follow their fortune, as being less sacred. Now, Sir, you would do well to answer these and the like reasons, before you so peremptorily assert any inferiour Courts to be authentick Interpreters of publick Oaths: You had best have a care that you be not followed with a cry of Priviledge of Parliament, and indeed that legislative Power is little better than ridiculous, which may be authen­tically evaded, or made quite another thing, by the inferior Ministers of it; and after all; the Interpretations of those Courts will not excuse you from Insincerity and prevaricating with the State, as you seem to fear. (p. 10.) For if those Courts did give a lower and more easie sense of the Oaths, than could reasonably be thought was intended by the Imposers, you ought not to catch at that for an advantage which they had no Power to give; nor ought you to joyn with them in eluding the Oath, but to take care of your selves, that they neither cosen you, nor you others; for an Oath ought to be taken in Judgment, Truth, and Righteousness, in all which points you will fail, if you take this course. But have a care you do not gull your self at the last? for what is that innocent sense, which the most tender Recusant might have sworn to? Truly I think the se­cret is worth Money, and poor as I am I would have given something to know it; but that we may not trisle with our Consciences, I desire you and all your innocent Brethren, to give me any one innocent sense, wherein an Oath may be taken to an Usurper in order to the maintaining his Usurpation against the lawfull King; and though I do not believe, that either you or they (though Men of admirable invention) can ever do it; yet if you could, it would not do your work; for it is not what sense you give or take, but what they impose. But, Sir, whilst you plead for others Sincerity, you render your own very suspicious; for why are you so scrupulous about the sense of the Oath? Do not you insolently [Page 28] charge King James with a Cession? Do not you thence ground a Vacancy? Do not you assert William to be admitted according to the Laws and Consti­tutions, and by the proper Judges? Now though these things be never so false, yet if you believe them true, you believe him to be your Lawful King; and therefore, according to your declared Judgment, may with­out scruple take the Oath in as severe a sense, as ever any Oath of Al­legiance has been given in amongst us; and therefore for you to make such a pother about Senses, and to look about so sharp for an innocent Sense, is enough to make a Man suspect, that you do not deal bona side; but that there is something still gauls you, and that your Conscience lies snarling within, whilst you make such fair weather abroad.

The Impiety of the Revolution hath been already considered, and your Question about Settlement answered; your pitty we scorn; and whether we or you be the Men, whose Minds are intangled with wrong Notions, that they can act well no way, you ought to have considered, that such Men's Infirmities have less right to overthrow, than to obstruct publick Consti­tutions; you shall have free leave to object the latter to us, when you have cleared your selves of the former. Whereas you think those tame Persons, who submit, to be one sort of the meek who shall inherit the Earth; though I do not take such easie Submitters to wickedness to be any of God's meek; yet I believe you have hit the true reason of most Men's submission; and upon the Principles many have proceeded, we may have, as occasion serves, meek Forswearers, meek Rebels, meek Tray­tors; yea, meek Jews, meek Turks, meek Renegadoes, and all to inherit the Earth; yet after this slender return, as if our Mouths were quite stop'd, and we had nothing to say, you make us as it were to threaten a better Plea for our Cause, if ever King James return: The Scoff is not worth Thanks; but, Sir, may King James return assoon as God pleases, we need not stay till then, but can make our Plea now, and need not your help, who take so much pains to spoil it; and this your Godly Brethren are too well aware of, which makes them so strictly guard the Press, and be so very cruel to all, on whom they can fasten any thing in the least tend­ing that way; witness the barbarous Usage of a poor Boy, whose Mo­ther, a Widdow, is not able to find him Bread, who by the sly arts of your never-forgiving High-Priest, hath, in spite of all honest endea­vours, been kept in New-gate near a year and half; and there lies still, and like to lie, to rot or starve, meerly for going on an Errand, and carrying he knew not what: As justly, in a manner, might an illiterate Man be hanged for carrying the Greek Testament, as a poor Boy thus used for delivering a Paper, not knowing what was in it: Surely, he hath forgot, that there is a God, who hath both promised to hear the Cry, and revenge the Wrongs of the Widdow and Father­less.

[Page 29] It is a material Question, By what Authority you transferred your Alle­giance, without his (i. e. King James) will? And it is no trifling Ob­jection, That you were sworn to him, not to the Estates of this Realm: But the Answer is amazing, That you had his authentick Grant for so doing, (p. 11.) If this could be produced, it would go a great way, though it would not fully do the business; but see what a cunning Man can do, that which no body else thought on, he hath found in King James's Declara­tion of Indulgence, where (you say) he does dispense with the Oaths of Alle­giance and Supremacy to all his Subjects. I am not bound to defend every act, either of him or you; however that act is far from destroying his right; for the dispensing with a thing is not the giving an Order and Grant to transfer it to another: And farther, you ought to consider, that it is one thing to dispense with an Oath of Allegiance, another thing to dispense with the Allegiance it self; an Oath may give a farther en­forcement to Allegiance, but the Allegiance it self is antecedent to it, and arises from the natural relation betwixt Subject and Prince; he might be unwilling, that every disloyal act of a fickle rash People, should seem to be aggravated with the horrid crime of Perjury; but he never dis­charged them of the Allegiance it self; for that had been to un-king himself, which certainly never entred into his thoughts; for after that he reigned as King, and required and used the Allegiance of his Subjects as before: But if he had done more than you say, and not only dispensed with, but acquitted and absolved all his Subjects, not only from the Oath, but the Allegiance it self, it would not help your Cause; for though he might de-throne himself; yet immediately thereupon our Constitutions, which admit no interregnum, had transplanted our Alle­giance, and given it to the next Heir: For if a King die or resign, we are not left to our selves to pay our Allegiance to whom we will, but under the penalty of Treason are confined to the Lawful Successor. And thus you see we are no way obliged to plead, that That act was ineffectual and null in it self, as being contrary to Law; which is that you say for us, with the design to draw on us the odium of censuring the Actions of an afflicted Prince.

But I find you are a Man tam Marte, quam Mercurio, otherwise cal­led an Ambodexter; for if you cannot perswade us, you will affrigt us into the Oath, or any thing else; for you endeavour to possess us with an Opinion, that King James (if ever he return) will hang all that do not Swear and pay Allegiance to K. William; a hard case, that a Man can be no way honest without hanging: But why this extream severity? Why! Because the lineal Heir may hang a Man as a Traytor, for breach of Allegiance to an extralineal King, p. 12. Well! but if King James should hang up all that did not pay Allegiance to William, one would think he should not spare those who would not pay Allegiance to himself, and this would make clear work. When Edward the Fourth first joyned [Page 30] Battle against Henry the Sixth, do not you think this would have made a powerful Speech for him to his Souldiers? Gentlemen! go on couragiously, your Cause is good, the Crown is evidently my right, and if I can recover it by your assistance, I will certainly hang you up every Man for fighting against the extralineal King Henry the Sixth, who here appears in the Field against us, and keeps me from it. Such perswasions could not fail to prevail with Men to fight to the last drop of Blood. But, Sir, though I do think that a Man may do that under an Usurpation, for which he may deserve to be hanged afterwards; and that an exil'd Prince at his return may justly punish wickedness done in his absence; yet I do not believe there is any Law to hang a Man for Loyalty, and of all Men living I least fear it from King James: But in truth all this hanging stuff seems to have another design, and not to tell what King James may do, but what you would have others to do; as if they were excuseable for any severity towards those, who deny them that for which (as you say) even King James himself may punish them. It is a pious hint to your Government and your Mobb: We are a living shame and reproach to you; you cannot see, speak, or hear of us, but bitterness of Spirit, and pangs of Conscience seize you; the Devil tempts you to think your Sin unpardonable, and that your only security is in making all others as bad as your selves; and therefore you would have none find Mercy, who will not cast in their Lot among you. I know not how Lucifer might hug such a Privy Counsellor; but I must tell you, that this ill be­comes your Coat; especially being a Man that pretends to so much compassion and tenderness of Conscience.

Whereas it is alledged, that this would make Subjection due to O. C. you produce several arguments to prove the disparity betwixt him and the P. of O. whereas there is scarce any arguments of them, that is not equally valid against the one as the other; nay, I am sure some are more valid against the P. of O. then O. C. but this hath been clearly done by so many Hands already, that I am ashamed to repeat them; but they ought to be a stark shame to you, who pretend to be a Seeker of Satis­faction, and will take no notice of them; which looks as if you were rather resolved to deceive both your self and others, and to cloak it over with sham pretences.

Hitherto the Arguments have been generally drawn from the Power of the Civil Magistrate, or rather from the pretended power of those who are no Magistrates to us; and you would perswade Dyscheres to ad­mit these for true, and consequently your inferences; but you will find, that you have reckoned without your Host, and by that time you have read their Answers, you may easily perceive, that I am as ready to con­clude the quite contrary: That the Church remains with us, with whom is the true Authority; that in erecting Altar against Altar you are become formal Schismaticks, having cut off your selves from the Church, in forsaking the [Page 31] true Ecclesiastical Authority, and adhering to, and supporting the false against it; and that as you are Schismaticks we ought not to frequent your Publick Assemblies, nor have any Ecclesiastical Communion with you, other than to con­vince you of your Sin, and perswade you to Repentance. Now I beseech you, as you have any tenderness for your own and others Souls, that you will seriously consider these things: This must be the case on the one side or the other; and though Interest, Plenty, and Ease, may put a specious gloss upon weak Arguments; yet at the great Day of Ac­compts all false glosses will be taken off, and things will appear as they are; and therefore, what temptations soever we may otherwise have, it is our highest concern to take them so now.

Having thus (as you vainly think) made sure of your inferences, you take leave of Civil, and enter upon Ecclesiastical Arguments. Now it is a sad thing, that a Man should have two Strings to his Bow, and both rotten; for here you make more woful work than before; the most specious of all your Arguments being either manifest Mistakes, or notorious Slanders. The First Objection is concerning the Prayers, which might have been put much more fully and strongly; but being a thing so well known, I shall only take notice of your Answers. And, First, you say, The Prayers were consented to by all the Recusant-Bishops, and by them (for their Officers without any prohibition) sent to the Clergy of every Diocess, and by them generally received; the Bishops were present at them, directed their Clergy upon Consultation to use them; and thus things stood till the day of their Suspension, and no blowing the Trumpet against Per­jury &c. p. 14. Now if this were true, yet if the Prayers are truly chargeable with something unlawful and wicked, that is such a daring affront to God Almighty, that neither any act or neglect of theirs can justifie either yours or my concurrence in them; and therefore I won­der why you should make such a Lye, when it will not serve you for a Reason; for it is well known to all who frequented their Communion, that they never read or used those Prayers; and that is no improbable argument, that they neither consented to them, nor sent them abroad: But the truth is, that they were so far from either consenting to them, or sending them to their Clergy, that they had no certainty of the thing, till it was done and past; and whether some-body told you this Lye, or you made it your self, if you please to consult the Printer in the Savoy, if he dare speak Truth, and by the way I must tell you, that he is a bold Man who dare speak such a Truth at this time, and he can tell you how they were sent, and who sent them; and that those, whom you call Recusant Bishops, were purposely kept igno­rant, that they might not be able to give any obstructions to the business. And now, Sir, do not you think that you have acted a very mannerly part to our Reverend Fathers, in exclaiming against them, and com­paring them to winking Watchmen, and dumb Dogs, because they do not [Page 32] get up o'th' top o'th' Monument, and baul out against a thing which they knew nothing of? It could not be done before, and since it hath been cried out against sufficiently; have they not suffered enough already, unless you may persecute them with calumnies? But you are not alone in this case; for they are seldom mentioned in any Papers referring to this Revolution, but they are fouly abused, and charged with things which they were never guilty of; by which means they are falsly repre­sented even to good Men, and suffer in their good Names, as well as their Persons and Estates; this in a great measure I my self could prove: But, Sir, I will no farther concern my self with you, than as you wrong­fully charge them, and that only in the proper places; you seem to be offended, that there has not been cry enough against Perjury; others, if we mention it, say we are Uncharitable, Censorious, Proud, Peevish, Rash, and all the ill-natured Titles their Schismatical Candor can afford us: Thus it is impossible to please you, whether we speak or hold our Tongues; but for your own part, since you are for such loud crying out against the fin, I hope you will not be offended, if hereafter you hear of Perjury more often. Your Plea, that you do not sine ratione in­sanire had been better let alone, it being generally a rul'd case, that those are incurable, who do cum ratione insanire.

Another reason, (though you shusfle both together) why we may law­fully join in those Prayers, is because (as you would persuade us) King James and your King William are very good Friends; truly this is the first time I have heard of it, and I could wish it were true on good terms. But let us see how you prove it, why 'tis certain the Prayers express him not; very true, and it is very rare because odious, that Enemies are par­ticularly named; but if general Prayers do not mean something for or against particular persons, though not particularly named, the greatest part not only of the Liturgy, but of all Prayers whatsoever are to no purpose; but though they were not arrived to that unheard of impu­dence as to name him as an Enemy in their Prayers, yet he is revil'd, be­ly'd, defam'd, and bitterly cursed in Coffee-houses, and even in the open streets; that is not only suffered, but encouraged: or if any Man should chance to drink the Health of this good Friend of yours and your King, it perhaps might cost him a Fine of 200 Marks, beside other ill usage. Sir, if you use your Friends thus, I desire to be none of them; but you are resolved they must and shall be Friends; for you flatly say, That you do not rank him among the number of (your) K. William's Enemies, for an Enemy is one that desireth to injure a Man, and we are not sure, that King JAMES doth so design against King William. And do you think King James to be that Good and rigorously Just Person, who would do no wrong even to that Man, who by Treachery defrauded him of two Kingdoms, and then by sorce drove him from the third, and with the utmost malice still prosecutes him, and all that adhere to him? and [Page 33] can you at the same time justifie the Wrongs and Barbarities he hath received? Must a Man be abused for his Goodness? Methinks this makes but a scurvy Plea for the late proceedings: But if you do not believe this of King James, I do; but still it will do you no ser­vice; for supposing he will do no wrong, yet sure he may demand and endeavour to recover his Right, and I am apt to think, that your little, ambitious Dutch Saviour would think no Man in the World so much his Enemy, as he that demands three Kingdoms from him: Nor do we call only those Enemies, who design Injuries; but even all who actually oppose each other, or between whom there is any contest, let their designs be what they will, or their Cause right or wrong; and after all your daubing, he certainly is accounted the greatest Enemy, for whose sake all others are judged Enemies: Now though the King of France be such an abominable Enemy, he should soon be esteemed the best Friend in the World, if he would but re­nounce the Interest of King James, and support the Usurpation of the Prince of Orange.

I did expect something concerning the Ammunition Prayers; but you leave them to shift for themselves; and yet you think there is a Prayer on the 29th of May, so dangerous, that you graciously give us leave to forbear to be present at it: But, Sir, who gave you authority to dispense with terms of Communion? Or, did you ever know any sober Society, that gave their Members liberty at pleasure to take and refuse of their terms of Communion? You have done more, I fear, than you will receive any thanks for; none you are like to have from us, who have no need of your License; and you ought not to expect it from those who will think their Authority hereby invaded. But yet you think we need not be so very coy, as to the Prayer; for you say, That you have been assured by a Good Father, that the Recusant Bishops did not at first stick at that; but that some gave directions and con­sent to the use of it; and also, before their Suspension deputed Persons to administer the Oath in the execution of the Authorities and Offices Episcopal thus deputed. Sir, if I should say your Good Father was an arrant ly­ing Knave, and prove him so, I hope you would not only pardon my bluntness, but also be more careful for the future how you gave any credit to such Persons. As for any of their consenting or sending, it is only the former falshood repeated, which I have answered al­ready; and as for this pretended deputation, I will set before you the true story, and then you and all Men may judge, how candidly our suffering Fathers are dealt with. On the 28th of Jan. the Bishop of London and St. Asaph, and some others, presented themselves before your mighty King William, with a mournful Address, in behalf of our Reverend Fathers, then drawing near to a Civil Suspension, and [Page 34] since more than uncivilly deprived: This was the pretence, but it is reasonable to think, that it was a complotted thing, and that the real design was to get their Authorities deputed in such sure Hands, as might effectually promote Perjury, and the thrusting Good Men out of possession of their Estates and exercise of their proper Authorities; for the effects of this Address was so far from being any kindness to them for whom it was pretended, that others were presently here­upon deputed to exercise their respective Jurisdictions, during their Suspension, Deprivation, and till their Places should be filled: So that all they got by this pretended kindness to them, was to be stripp'd stark naked. But the Addressers having thus addressed themselves into their several Jurisdictions, they then apply themselves to our Reve­rend Fathers, and with a seeming humility and sorrowfulness acquaint them how matters were ordered, requesting them, that since it must be so, they would not be displeased at them, if they, who were ready to do them all the Service they could, did exercise those Jurisdictions; to which they received an Answer to this effect, That since it was resolved that it should be done, whether they would or not, it was in a manner indifferent to them by whom it was done, though they were as willing it should be done by those who applied themselves to them, as any others; and there is a certain Man, well skill'd in the Revelations and Chronology, who can tell you, that when he par­ticularly applied himself to one of our deprived Fathers, he received this Answer, Seeing I must be suspended, that is in English hanged, it is all one to me, whether I be hanged on a Crab-tree or a Sweeting. Sir, this is the real Truth of the matter, and is so far from being a depu­tation of their Authorities, that it doth not imply any consent, other than what is always unavoidably extorted from every Man in the like circumstances. Suppose a Sheriff, or Bayliff, should come to a Gen­tleman, and tell him; Sir, I have an Execution against you, and must ransack your House, drive your Grounds, and seize your Goods and Cattle, pray be not angry, that I observe my Orders; and he should with an angry smile return, I know you will do what you list, do what you please: Would any Man living take this for his giving his consent, when they know he abhors it in his Soul, and would by any means prevent it? But indeed all such kind of Sayings amount to no more than this, I am under the Common Fate of Mankind, and though never so against my Will, must submit, where I cannot help my self. Can­not a Man bear his afflictions patiently, without consenting to the Wickedness of others, and the Wrongs done to himself? Would you have had them, like some fiery Women, flown in their Faces, and scratch'd out their Eyes, or rather behave themselves with that Moderation and Temper which became their Station and Dignity? [Page 35] This latter they have done; and therefore consider how fouly and unjustly you have slander'd your Superiors through your own mistake: And remember, that at last all is a meer Subterfuge; for if they had made any Slip, it would not justifie your Wickedness.

What follows, p. 16, and 17. might have made an excellent Argu­ment for Julian or Dioclesian. You give many sly insinuations, as if we were guilty of great Crimes, but you name none in particular, and it is well you do not; for you know the charge against us, is, either our Religion, or our Loyalty; both which you and your Party have forsaken, but are ashamed to say so; and therefore would beat your Faults on our Backs. The Dangers you mention are to be pre­vented by Men's repenting of their Sins, not by going on and adding Sin to Sin: All your fine Words are to no other purpose, than to perswade us to be reconciled to prevent Schism, i. e. when the greatest part have betrayed a Good Cause, that the other would be debauched and go with them for company. You may tell us of No­vatian, Meletian, Luciferian, and the like Rigours, when we refuse to receive you upon repentance, which the Church always required, in Order to the re-admission of such who had been Schismaticks, or censured for notorious Crimes; you are a very free Gentleman, who would have us give up not only all Ecclesiastical Discipline, but all Christian Principles, for fear of being too rigorously Pious: But the summ of all is, That we must do as you would have us, Because the Church must yield to the State all just security to publick Peace and Order. This I as freely grant you, as you can desire; and I think our former Oaths were given to that purpose, which if they had been well kept, we had been free from all those Mischiefs and Miseries, wherein we are now embroyled. But here give me leave to request an Answer to two Questions: First, If I should fall in amongst the Banditti, or any asso­ciation of Villains whatsoever, Whether I am bound in Conscience to give them all the extravagant security they shall demand? Secondly, Whether the Authority Christ left in his Church, or the fix'd Na­ture of Good and Evil, may not prescribe such bounds, as neither ought the State to transgress in requiring, nor the Subject in yielding? Let the Church give the State all security to publick Peace and Order; let her be most exemplarily peaceable in her self; let her most effe­ctually perswade Peace to others; and yet for all this, I am apt to think, that she is at her Liberty, whether she will give any Secu­rity to those who have no Authority; and ought to give no Secu­rity to Sin, even to the best Authority. You talk here like one that was more than an Erastian, and willing to give up not only the Church, but even Good and Evil it self to the State; indeed you endeavour to come off of this afterwards, but it is very scurvily.

[Page 36] Aster abundance of Questions and Answers, which would afford matter to fill a Volume, if stated throughly, you come at length to tell us your Mind, That the People by judgment of Conscience for their own Salvation, and the Church's Peace, may separate from an Impostu­rous Bishop, and address to other Social Bishops to consecrate them another: And for this you produce the instance of Martialis and Basilides, p. 20. But what is this to our case? Are our Bishops Impostors? This cer­tainly you must mean, if you say any thing to the purpose; if it be so, the Work is done; prove only that, and we will forsake them; but if you cannot, bethink your self what a villanous Crime it is, thus slily to insinuate into the People, so mischievous an Opinion of those great and pious Sufferers: Besides, if my Memory fail me not, the Crime of Martialis and Basilides was Sacrificing, which, by the Canons of the Church, not only incapacitated them to discharge the Office of Bishops, but even to communicate as Christians, and reduced them to the State of Penitents, usque ad articulum mortis, un­less for special Reasons the Church shewed particular favour: But the Crime of our Bishops is, that they stick too close to their Re­ligion, and will not alter it to be in the mode of the times. If any be Apostates, they are your own dearly beloved Friends, for whom you take such pains; they have forsaken the Church of England, and renounced the Christian Principles they formerly maintained; they teach how to rob a Man without injustice, to forswear without Per­jury, to dis-obey Father and Mother without breach of the Fifth Com­ment, and divers other such Mysteries; which makes the Devil laugh in his Sleeve to see himself furnished with such able Ministers, who will do his Work in the World, whilst he may lie idle: And if the People do separate from such as these, your Friend Mr. Hody could have told you, and ought to have told the World, that the Fifteenth Canon of the Council of Constantinople, not only frees them from all Censure, but gives them the Honour of the Orthodox, and in­courageth all Persons in this case so to do, as being the way to preserve the Church from Schism and Divisions.

To justifie a Lay-deprivation, you fetch an Example from the Jewish Church, telling us, That Solomon deprived Abiathar of the High Priesthood, upon a provocation meerly in Civils, p. 21. But against this you your self have brought such just exceptions, as neither you, nor all your Party will be able to take off; for if the Crime was no­thing like, if there was such a difference between the Constitutions of the Jewish and Christian Churches, if it was a manifest Cession on Abiathar's part (all which you have well proved,) then that instance can by no means come up to this case. To these you might have ad­ded several other things; as, First, That his Crime was High Trea­son; [Page 37] and to what purpose should he insist on his right to the Priest­hood, who had no right to his Life? Secondly, That Solomon did no more than Justice in restoring the Line of Eleazar. Thirdly, That it was in compliance with the known Will of God; for it is expresly said, that he did it, That he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, 1 King. 2. 27. Fourthly, That he had the concurrence of the Church, and was truly King; all which considerations laid together, will make this instance utterly useless in this case: And after all, perhaps the very Instance it self comes to no more than this, That Abiathar being both in the Eye of the King and the Church, too scandalous and dan­gerous a Person for the discharge of that great Office, was debarr'd the execution of it, and another deputed to it; for that he was deprived of the Name, Honour, and share in the profits of the Priest­hood, I believe cannot be easily proved; for after all this, I am sure the Title is still allowed him, 1 King. 4. 4. and if the Fields at Ana­thoth did belong to the High Priests, it seems to put the matter out of doubt; so that it seems to be a kind of state of Suspension very just upon him, whatever was the power of the King, or however done with or without the concurrence of the Church; though I think it is not to be doubted, but that the Church was ready enough to do her part against such a Person: Such things are not so nicely re­corded; and Kings are often said to do, what they either command, direct, or procure to be done, where others are concerned and con­senting, though not mentioned. This instance indeed proves, that Solomon did not think fit to deal with the High Priest, though a Tray­tor, as with other Men; which shews the great Veneration they had for the Priesthood; but sure it might have been spared in these times, wherein your unfaithfulness hath taught Men daily to ridicule and abuse it.

Some other Instances you produce, which are drawn out with much pomp and ostentation; but I will not trouble my self, or others, to examine them; because you fairly confess, that after the great Cry they afford little Wool; and though they make a noise and shew, yet they were really insignificant; for when you were grown weary with strugling, (as you call it,) you freely gave them up, and acknowledge, That an Act of a State Christian, cannot alone vacate a Spiritual Charge, p. 27. And That the Consent, publick and actual Con­currence of the Church, is necessary to give an Ecclesiastical Effect to Civil Ordinances, in matters of the Church, p. 29. Now this Concession over­throws your whole Book, and by being placed after the main Body of your Arguments, is it self an Argument, that you had little Faith in them, however you endeavoured to slorish with them; for according to this our Bishops must be Bishops still, and Bishops of their respective [Page 38] Sees, and the Flocks must owe and pay the same Canonical Obedience as ever to them, unless it can be proved, that they are also Canoni­cally deprived. Now I thought it had been a plain case, that they were never Canonically deposed, and so I believe did others, even their Enemies; for I have not yet heard of any that offered at the contrary. But here come you like a Spiritual Juggler; and as they with tricks de­ceive our Senses, so would you with sham arguments our Understand­ings, and persuade us that even this hath been done also; for, say you, The Church ought to empty the Sees of such Incumbents that are dangerous to the Civil State. But, Sir, must the Church cast out her Bishops as oft as they will not comply with Usurpers in their unjust desires, and endeavour to gratifie and secure them in their unjust Possessions by wicked acts on their own part? He that will dare to say this, (and no less you must mean, if you speak to the purpose,) I think the Church ought to spue him out of her Mouth. But you say the thing is done by acts of Separation properly Ecclesiastical, the Dean and Chap­ter of the Metropolitical Church taking the Jurisdiction, till the Chapter Elect, and Bishops Consecrate another. Sir, though by experience I find these to be very Taking times, yet I cannot understand this ta­king Jurisdiction; Sure you mean Usurping, Robbing or Stealing: This is no small cast; you have out-thrown the Scotch Doctor full two Bars length; for this is a trick not only to translate our Allegiance, but our Canonical Obedience too; yea, more than this, to seize the Jurisdiction of that very Bishop, to whom we have sworn Canonical Obedience. O blessed days wherein nothing is sacred, nothing certain either in Church or State! Yet I must confess this was done, and there was one made a good bargain to carry it on; but if you should offer to take his Jurisdiction of the Archbishoprick of York, as he did a bet­ter Man's, we should soon hear from him in another strain. But, Sir, to be short, you cannot but know, that the Dean and Chapter have no Jurisdiction over their Metropolitane; and the See must be va­cant before they can proceed to Election: But in this case, if they take upon them to Elect, when the Church hath not deposed, and that Election be followed by a Consecration, they only set up Altar against Altar, create a formal Schism, and are liable to the censure of the Church, and stand actually censured by the Canons; and this be­ing the Case, the Act of the Dean and Chapter argues only their own sin and shame: And indeed if it were be to laid open, it would ap­pear to be as indiscreet and weak an act in some, and as insolent and vile an act in others, as almost any this Revolution has produced; but let that pass, the act is in it self null and void, and therefore can­not prejudice the Right of the Metropolitane.

[Page 39] But lest the Dean and Chapter should not be strong enough, you call in the Convocation for help: And, 1. You tell us what your wor­thy Conformists did, and what was their Opinion; but this is just the Proverb, Ask my fellow, if I be a Thief; but (say you) Their sending the Convocation shews their Subjection, and condemns Recusancy as an Error, (p. 28.) And we say this is many Errors; but what then? The Case is disputed between us; you say you do so, therefore it is and must be so; as if your irreligious disloyal actions could justifie not only the evil you have done, but all that you shall proceed to do: But the silence of the Convocation you think will work Miracles, for that argues their Opinion to be, that they were in this to yield to the State; (p. 28.) And thus we are utterly undone with the Arguments of Lovers and Fools. Silence gives consent: There must be many other concurring circumstances, before the least consent can be presumed from silence; for otherwise it is often a sign of indignation, scorn, fullenness, yea, even of obstinate denial itself; and what they meant by their silence you may better guess, when you have resolved this Quaerie: Whether you can reasonably think, that they would have chosen him for their Archbishop, whom they refused for their Prolocutor? But what if they were not so silent as here you make them? 'Tis pitty your Me­mory is not better, for through forgetfulness you give in evidence against your self; for (p. 34.) you tell us of a motion in the lower House of Convocation for a Petition for the restitution of the Bishops and (then) Suspended Clergy. One would think this look'd very kindly towards them, unless there be a Revolution also in Mens Sense and Brains, and their meaning is to be understood, as they read Hebrew, backward; for otherwise no body would take petitioning for Men for appearing against them; but what if there had been none of this, but they had been eternally silent? Were ever Bishops deposed by silence? If you do not, you ought to know, that before a Bishop can be de­posed, he must be judicially cited; upon his appearance he ought to have a full and fair hearing, a Crime or Crimes meriting Depriva­tion must be proved against him; and lastly, a Canonical Sentence by Bishops must be passed upon him, and published against him; and if they fail in any of these things, the whole proceedings are null: and when all this can be done by silence, I will yield you the Cause.

Your jumble of Q. Mary's and Q. Elizabeth's Bishops I shall not examine, because a full answer to that either already is or suddenly will come abroad. But I cannot but take notice of a Question which you start, that you may thence take occasion to represent us to the Go­vernment, as the most dangerous Men in the World, and set them on to use the utmost cruelty to us, who have suffered so much already, that so you might end with a Sting in your Tail. The Question is, [Page 40] Whether he that hath unjustly gotten into a full Settlement upon another Prince's Dominions, ought to succor the Church in those Dominions? Now this is very disingenuous dealing, for you cannot but know, that we dispute not against, but submit to a full Settlement; only we say, that a full Settlement in one, while another, who has Right, claims and endeavours to recover his Right, is contradictory non-sense. You have been often told the meaning of a full Settlement, but wilfully shut your Eyes and will not see, though you Hypocritically pretend to desire information: The Question therefore ought to be in short, whether an Usurper ought to succour the Church under his Usurpa­tion? Now though it is most certain, that in Duty and Conscience he ought to quit it, yet because those Beasts of Prey are rarely in­duced to part with their Quarry, the Question must be, what is his Duty to the Church, if he will not quit his Usurpation? And doubt­less it is to succour it, or at least not to destroy it, as you and some others would persuade him; and you might have been so hardy as to af­firm this, though the Church would not own him to be a lawfull Sove­reign; for if he have done evil himself, must all be made away with, who will not join with him in it, and approve of it? Must they be all serv'd as the Highland Clan, and have their Throats cut in their Beds, who contrary to their Knowledge and Conscience will not own him to be the true Owner of his unjust gotten Goods: Your Reasoning indeed shews the wretched necessity of sinning, which Men are put upon, who resolve by any means to maintain injustice, but doth not at all teach them what they ought to do: And it had more become you to have taught them some good, than to instigate them to more evil than they can do. But however none of these things ought to move a Christian from his Duty, in which he must proceed, and leave the event to God, who knows best how to take care of his Church. The Blessed Jesus hath left us a Religion, and authorized Persons to teach and do all things concerning it, which will infallibly bring us to Heaven, if we be true to it. This nothing can take from us, if we our selves do not forsake it; in spight of Swords and Can­nons, Tyrants and Devils, we may obtain Salvation, if we be firm to our Religion; but then if our Superiors set themselves against it, we are to maintain it not by fighting, but suffering; and if it come to that hardship, to save our lives by losing them; which is so far from endangering the loss of Religion, that by experience it hath been found the greatest means to propagate it: So that the security of the Christian Religion lies in the Authority of our Saviour, and the Doctrine of the Cross; but you give both away, while you press a compliance with whatever a Prince shall think necessary for his secu­rity. At this rate there should not be a Christian under the Turk; [Page 41] and you your self must turn Turk to morrow, if your new Master, whom you persuade to be more cruel than a Turk, should declare for that Persuasion. This I think is indeed to expose the Nation to an utter Destruction at the pleasure of any one, that is uppermost: For whom it doth not Butcher, it will Damn.

I should here have concluded, but that I cannot forbear to observe, how you make manifest that great Love, Tenderness, and Respect you profess to have for us, by your utmost endeavours to expose our Reverend Fathers. I know (say you p. 34.) a Dioscess, where the Bi­shop utterly suppressed a Petition signed by his Clergy, and ready to be pre­sented to their Majesties for the Restitution of the Metropolitane, the Bishop, and the suspended Clergy of that Diocess. I am apt to think this to be that very Bishop, to whom you have sworn and owe Canonical Obe­dience, though at present you have translated it to an Episcopal-Pres­byterian, who baptizes without the sign of the Cross; but if you will not obey, yet in civility you should forbear to reproach your good old Bishop, or to stir up the Government against him: But what if he did suppress a Petition? If you had told his Reasons, you will find, that you had better have held your Tongue. If you consider with your self, perhaps you will remember, that there was something in that Petition for a subsistence for the Bishop out of the Revenues of the Bishoprick; and might he not modestly and Christianly say, That he desired not the Profits of the Bishoprick, if he should not, be suffered to discharge the Office. And here by the way behold the true Character of Dutch kindness; when the mercies of the wiched had given away the Estates of so many thousands, who, if they had continued honest, must have suffered, they left a liberty to make provision for twelve; but the good Man to whom the disposal was lest, like a trusty Ste­ward never allowed one Penny or Farthing. But to return to the Bishop you spake of, there is another account I can give you. A Pe­tition of the like nature was signed by the Clergy of another Dio­cess, and brought up to Town to be presented, but all the Avenues of Whitehall and Kensington were stopt, and William fretted and fum'd, and begg'd, and pray'd of all about him, that they would never suffer it to come near him; nor could it ever find a way, but they were forced to let it fall and die. Now he knew this miscarriage, and the Resolution taken up at Court; and shall any Man blame him for ea­sing his Clergy of that Labour and Charges, of which he was before­hand assured there would come no good?

But you go on and tell us, that you have it from a good Hand, that a motion for such a Petition was stifled in the lower House of Convoca­tion, upon a report made of my Lord Archbishop Sancroft's request to the contrary: But what if that report bely'd his Grace? This is no [Page 42] such strange thing in these times; for I think it is out of doubt, whether this Government hath gotten more by Lyes or Arms? His Lordship is living, and (thanks be to God) in health; and before you had pub­lished such a story of him, you ought not only to have been better assured of the Truth of it; but also, if possible, upon what account he did it. Whether the tale be true or false, I know not, and there­fore must leave it to his Grace, to own or disown it, according to the truth of the matter, as he shall see cause; and if he own it, I make no doubt, but he will give very good Reasons for what he did: But if I might be allowed to speak my own thoughts, I humbly conceive, that one great Reason, which might make our Bishops under a Lay-Sus­pension more averse to Petitioning, was, That whether such Petitions were granted or not, it would certainly redound to their harm, but could do them no good; for if they were denied, it would ex­pose the Government, and consequently more incense it against them; but if they were granted, it would entangle them in fresh difficulties, and run them into greater dangers; for it would have been expected, that then they should not only have approved the Prayers, which were issued out during their Suspension, but also should tamely have gone along with all Orders, that came to them; and perhaps they could as ill do this, as take the Oaths; yet if they had not done it, there can be no doubt, but they would have been more severely pro­secuted than ever; and thus might have brought not only their Estates but their Lives in danger. Now it is a hard case, that you cannot suffer Good Men to act with common prudence; but there are some Men are very angry, that they cannot make them act like Madmen; for no other Reason, but that they would have them precipitate themselves into destruction: But you might have forborn to tell these Stories, seeing they do your Cause no good but hurt; for the less they regard your Government, the more strongly they assert their own Authority. Do not they affirm themselves to be the Canonical Bi­shops? Was not the Archbishop thrust out of his Palace under pre­tence of Law, and his Nephew imprisoned and fined for not making a present submission; sure you cannot take this for renouncing their Right, or think it to be a discharging the Clergy in their admission of now Bishops. And yet you endeavour to make us believe this: But what unheard of Impudence is this, that a parcel of Perjured Fellows should, contrary to their former Oaths to manifest Right, and their own known Duty, forsake their own Bishops, and enter into a Schism against them, and then cry out, Their Bishops have left them. These things therefore plainly making against you, I cannot think you tell these Stories for any other reason than to gratifie your Malice, and to set the Government, like the Devil upon Job, to plague them more [Page 43] and more, whose Crimes are only their Innocence and Sufferings. Sir, a Day will come, when you must answer for these things; and therefore you would do well in time to consider how fatal the mis­chiefs you design to others may prove to your own Soul; and repent not only of that, but also that you have forsaken your first Love, and return from whence you are faln: And I dare engage to assure you, that a great Living, with Perjury and in Schism, shall not afford you half the Comfort, which you may find in recovering a Good Conscience by Repentance.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAge 3. line 32. dele of. p. 4. l. antepenult. r. of Partiality. p. 5. l. 18. r. were not accustomed. p. 6. l. 15. r. Disingenuity. p. 8. l. 38. r. could rely. p. 9. l. 6. r. popish Principles. p. 10. l. penult. r. captiously. p. 13. l. 9. r. their lawfull King. p. 14. l. 14. r. by the Laws. l. 21. for consented r. concerned. p. 15. l. 15. r. apt to grate the Ears of Schismaticks. p. 16. l. 30. after Parliament add which was built upon the foundation. p. 19. l. 34. r. has Right. p. 22. l. 3. r. than ever. p. 23. l. ult. r. acquire a just. p. 26. l. ult. r. my Friend. p. 30. l. 28. r. argument. p. 32. l. 3. r. yet when he. p. 33. l. 40. r. Jan. 1689.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.