those whose principles or practices do shew that they would not tolerate the established church, if the power were in their hands; except they first do renounce and disown such principles and practices. For if it be in my power to keep a man's hands tied and his tongue quiet; I ought not, in common prudence, to let loose the one or the other, until I am sufficiently assured that he will not make use of them, upon the first opportunity, to my ruin and destruction. And therefore much less will a true churchman give his consent that any part of the civil or military power should be put into the hands of such men, whose interest, inclination or conscience can hardly be supposed to allow them to be impartial to the established church in the administration of it. For (whatever necessity may sometimes compel them to) he believes there never was any kingdom or commonwealth (who were true to their profession) that at any time have made it their choice to put into places of considerable trust or power, any such persons as have professed to believe the established religion or worship to be unlawful, and consequently must think themselves in conscience obliged to endeavour what they can the alteration of it.

But there are two things yet, concerning which, I remember, you desired particularly to know the naked and undisguised thoughts of a true churchman: the first is the late revolution, with the consequences thereof, namely King William's accession to the throne, and her present Majesty's to the crown of these her kingdoms. But because a few men, who

once were members of the established church, but now have separated themselves from her, do disapprove of the late revolution, and refuse to swear allegiance to the present government; therefore to suspect even those who have been constant and firm to the interest both of King William and her present Majesty, always prayed for them, as their sovereigns, in their public worship, and have sworn allegiance and fidelity to them, in opposition to all competitors or pretenders whatsoever to suspect, I say, such persons as these, as if they were not well affected to the Queen or her title; if some very good ground be not produced for such a suspicion, I think is very highly uncharitable. It is possible that men who are very different in their hypotheses concerning the ground and original of civil power, may yet, in their practice, agree in being very faithful and loyal to that particular government under which they at one time live and therefore as long as you cannot tax a man with any thing that is disloyal, either in his words or actions, you ought not, by any means, to endeavour to bring him under such a suspicion ; because in point of speculation, he perhaps proceeds upon a different scheme of principles from that which you have laid down to yourself. However, to give you all the satisfaction I can in this matter, I here present you with the naked and undisguised thoughts both of myself and other true churchmen, as far as I am acquainted with them, touching this whole matter, which are as follows.

First, that the late King James, by refusing to

govern his subjects according to the fundamental laws and constitutions of the realm (to which legal government only his people were obliged to submit) and by assuming to himself an illegal and arbitrary power (which was in effect the setting up of a new kingdom or government, to which his subjects were no way bound to yield or give obedience). And lastly, by withdrawing himself from the kingdom, rather than yield that those laws and constitutions which he had infringed, should again be restored to their due force; did really, and in the strictest propriety of sense, abdicate the government (that is to say, that government with which alone he was legally invested) and consequently, did leave the throne vacant; as was voted by the Commons, and agreed to by the Lords in Convention assembled in January and February 1688-9.

Secondly, that by the fundamental law of selfpreservation (which must always take place in such cases, where the laws of the land have not made sufficient provision for the public safety) the people of England had a right to fill the vacant throne, and to put the abdicated government into such hands as might be most for the common safety. For, for them to have remained in the same condition that King James left them in, until he had returned again to them at the head of an army, had been evidently to give way to their own ruin and destruction; which sure they were not obliged to do: nor was it possible for so great a body of men, even for a small time, to subsist with any security to themselves,

*

without some established government, as well to rule them within themselves, as to protect them from their enemies abroad.

Thirdly, as it is morally impossible for so great a number of men, as the people of England then were, to transact any business jointly in their own proper persons; so, by the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, the Houses of Lords and Commons, when met together, were the only legal representatives of the whole body of the nation, in the circumstances they then were; the King having withdrawn himself, and refused to exert his legal power amongst them: and therefore whatsoever a majority of both Houses did agree to, was to be construed and esteemed as the act of the whole people; especially, if afterwards it was acquiesced in, and thereby consented to, by the generality of the nation itself. Since then the Lords and Commons so met, did, upon King James's abdication, place our late sovereign King William on the throne, and the generality of the people did acquiesce in his government; it follows that King William thereby became our rightful and lawful King; and consequently that our present gracious sovereign Queen Anne (who legally succeeds him) is our rightful and lawful Queen.

Fourthly and lastly, since the supreme legislative power, in every kingdom and commonwealth, has no authority over it, whereby it may be controuled, but that of God and his laws; and the particular form of government, or rule of succession, in any civil state, is not settled or determined by any law of

God's making: it undeniably follows, that in every kingdom, the supreme legislative power may limit the succession to the crown or sovereignty, within themselves, according as shall be found most advisable for the good of the community. From whence the consequence is, that in all ages to come, whosoever is, or shall be, king or queen of these realms, BỶ Law, is to be owned and looked upon as rightful and lawful king or queen of the same.

1

The other thing, concerning which you desired to know the naked and undisguised thoughts of a true churchman was the necessity of episcopal government in the Christian church; together with the consequences of that doctrine, as well with respect to the foreign churches abroad, as to our Dissenters at home; whose ecclesiastical polity is framed after a different model: in answer whereunto, I here freely give you my judgment, as far as is necessary for the present purpose.

First, then, it is, I think allowed, by all who soberly profess Christianity, to be of Divine appointment, that the Christian religion should publicly be taught and preached (not as a philosophical doctrine, which any man of learning may teach in a school, but authoritatively proposed to the consciences of the people, as a law revealed and given by God), Baptism and the Lord's Supper be administred, and discipline (for the punishing of offenders with ecclesiastical consures, and excluding such as are obstinate from the communion of the faithful) duly exercised. [See the Postscript, and compare it with what follows.]