THE Dr. in●imates , that his Answerer , who writes with great triumph and assurance thinks it unpardonable in him , P. 1. who hath been so weak ( by a figure I suppose ) as to confess he is not infallible , ever to believe his own senses again . Now if the Dr. thinks it decent to recant in ruffling language , and to propose his new opinions in such a strein of confidence and defiance ; he may enjoy his own humour for me , I have once told him my mind about it , and shall give him no farther trouble on that account . And , if he likes it , he may go on and represent some of those men ; who not long since stood upon the same bottom with him , and own'd the same Principles , only with less heat and violence , by all the spightful characters and insinuations he can ; and at the same time tell the world he is not angry , and complain of rage and venom , changing and confining friendships to a Party . But methinks he might have spared the Answerer for writing with triumph and assurance , if he had done so ; except the Dr. can shew his Patent , that no body may write so but himself : And I will forgive him , if he can find any thing in my Answer or Postscript , comparable to that Triumphant conclusion of his Vindication ; If he ( his Answerer ) will promise to examine them ( his arguments ) well before he answers , I shall expect to hear no more of him . Now it is a little of the thickest for a man to boast at this rate , and at the same time to charge his Answerer with writing with Triumph and Assurance .

In like manner he might have spared the reflexion that follows , he tel s me , he shall beg leave to follow his own method , and justifie what he hath said in the same order he hath aid it in ; And then adds , his ( his Answerers ) altering of which , has more of art than honesty in it . Now if I had misrepresented his Arguments , or perverted the sense of them , or drawn from them any odious or uncharitable inferences , and with great honesty insinuated that he did not believe a Providence or had inclinations to Rome , Vindic. P. 48. 58. there might have been some colour for this reflexion . But if he hath notoriously done all these himself , as will plainly appear in the following discourse , then his own reflexion fastens upon him , and he had better have let it alone , for his own sake at least , tho it had been civil enough for his Answerer . But some men are very free of their challenges : But when they are answer'd , they are up in the boughs , and out of all bounds ; the Drs. Hypothesis was answer'd , and there is the plain Dishonesty of the business .

But as for his Method and Order , 't is all one to me , he may take which he likes best to justifie his Doctrines and Argum●nts , provided he will but justifie them , but that he will not do , and as yet he hath not done ; as will appear upon examining what he offers in his vindication .

The Dr. begins with a Proof from the Observator , P. 2. an admirable Historian to fetch an instance from , T●tle of an Usurper Preface . if he please in his next he may quote Mercurius Politicus or the London Diurnal , but this pretended Letter of King James hath already been so well examin'd by a lea●ned Author that I have no occasion to concern my self any further with it . But if it were admitted to be true , and not suppositions : There is a great deal of difference between the judgment of King James , as it is expressed in that Letter , and the Doctors ; King James expresseth it with words of abatement and caution , you have stumbled upon the threshold of that opinion , which makes God the Author of sin , in saying upon the matter , that even Tyranny is Gods Authority ; and again you say upon the matter . But the Doctor says it is as sure as can be , and hopes he may be allow'd to believe his own senses . As if King James might not have eyes and senses as well as the Doctor : But what King James could not , did not charge directly upon the Convocation , the Doctor plainly declares to be the sense of it , and hath made it the foundation , both of his freedom of thinking , and of writing a Book . Now suppose King James did conceive the expressions of the Convocation had such a tendency , Case of Alleg. Preface . and that upon the matter they might mean so , ( which is the utmost can be collected from the words of the Observators Letter ) is it impossible , he should afterwards be otherwise informed ? And if not , I wonder how the Convocation went on , and proceeded to pass the Book in the upper house of Convocation , and pass the other Books in the lower house . And likewise afterwards to pass the Province of York . This could never have been done , except King James had been satisfied , that the words of the Convocation had no such tendency as he seem'd to apprehend . For the Letter contains a direct prohibition to proceed , I shall give you orders about it by Mr. Sollicitor , and until then medate no more in it . But of this enough and too much , except we had some better account of the Authority of it .

And therefore let us come ( ●s the Dr. says ) to try the sense of the Convocation , from the Convocation it self .

The place is this ch. 28. pag 57 , The Conv. having given account of the various revolution of Governments brought about by the Providence of God , who for the sins of a Natio● or Country altereth their Governments and Governours , transferreth , setteth up and bestoweth Kingdoms , as seemeth best to his heavenly Wisdom . Add these words , and when having attained their ungodly desires ( whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their subjection , or disloyal Subjects by their rebellious Rising against their natural Sovereigns ) they have establish'd any of the said degenerate forms of Government amongst their People , the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by force , from the true and lawful Possessor , being always God's Authority ( and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it ) is ever ( when any such alterations are throughly setled ) to be reverenc'd and obey'd , and the People of all sorts ( as well of the Clergy , as of the Laity ) are to be subject unto it , not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake .

He tells us , Case of Alleg. p. 5. he observed in the first place from the words of the Convocation , That those Princes who have no legal right to their Thrones , may yet have God's Authority , which ( says he ) I proved , because the Convocation speaks of illegal and usurped Powers , and yet affirms , that the Authority exercised by them is Gods Authority .

To this ( saith the Doctor ) the Author answers , The Doctor will not , Postscript p. 3. but the Convocation distinguishes between the means of acquiring the power , and the power it self , the means of acquiring power , may be very unjust and illegal , and yet the power afterwards may be very legal . But the Doctor resolves they must be all one , and because the Convocation speaks of the ambition of encroaching Kings , and the Rebellion of Subjects , as a means whereby Governments have been alter'd , therefore by a Government being throughly setled they must mean usurped powers , as if it were impossible for such beginnings afterwards to acquire a Right , and to terminate in a legal Title ; and till that is , the Government is as unjust as the Rebellion and encroachment . These I own to be my words , and further that the Doctor concludes rightly from them , when he says , that according to this Author , a Government which is illegally and wickedly begun , when it is legally setled has God's Authority , and this is all that the Convocation meant by it .

To this the Doctor replyes , As for what he says , that I will not distinguish between the means of acquiring Power , and the Power it self ; I do not indeed distinguish as he does , but I distinguish as the Convocation does , that the means are wicked , but the Power and Authority is Gods , which is all the distinction the Convocation makes . Very well , and which I pray are these means that are wicked that the Convocation speaks of ? I know of none but the wicked means of acquiring the power , as by Rebellion , and ambitious encroachments ; and what is the Power and Authority that is God's ? The Convocation mentions no other , but a Government throughly setled , and if the Convocation distinguishes between these ( as it plainly does ) then the Convocation distinguishes as I do , whatever the Doctor distinguishes ; and by reason of that distinction , it cannot be concluded from the Convocation , that because they speak of the Ambition of encroaching Kings and the Rebellion of Subjects , as a means whereby Governments have been alter'd ; therefore by a G●vernment being throughly setled , they must needs mean usurped Powers . And this I take to be the ground of the Do●tors assertion , and he hath not yet contradicted it . He tells us ( as above ) that he observ'd from the words of the Convocation : That those Princes , who have no legal right to their Thrones , may yet have God's Authority : Which ( saith he ) I proved , because the Convocation speaks of illegal , and usurped Powers . But that is the Question , which he begs and takes for granted , which yet is the main thing to be proved , and he did not before , nor hath yet offered to prove it . The Convocation speaks indeed of , and condemns the wicked means of acquiring Power ; and the Doctor seems from thence to conclude , that by a Government throughly setled , they mean usurped Powers . He says here , Vindic. p. 4. when the Convocation speaks of the settlement of illegal Powers , which began by Ambition and Rebellion ; where he manifestly confounds what the Convocation distinguishes , and because they say they began by Ambition and Rebellion , therefore the settlement they speak of must needs be the settlement of illegal Powers ; whereas the Convocation speaks not one word of the settlement of illegal Powers ; they speak indeed of the settlement of Powers which began by wicked means : But these are two different things , and the Convocation plainly distinguishes them . And such beginnings may afterwards acquire a Right , and terminate in a Legal Title ; and that I think is plainly the meaning of the Convocation , and that from this distinction , for they expresly tell us , in this Chapter , Convoc . p. 57. that their attempts ( to acquire such Governments ) of all sorts are wicked and detestable in the sight of God ; and if the Government after it is acquir'd be as unju●● as the means , then 't is likewise as wi●k 4d and detestable in the si●●● of God ; and then it follows , that we can no more become partys to the Government , than to the Rebellion and encroachment ; for to say that a man may , ( and much more is bound to ) support , maintain , a●d abett wickedness , is such a Position in Divinity , that I never before met with . I know the Doctor hath a fine notion , and talks of God's Authority ; but that God's Authority was ever actually join'd with a thing , the very being of which is wicked and detestable in his sight , is a notion that a man may safely conclude never entred into the heads of the Convocation .

This is the reason for which I mentioned the distinction , and I thought I had expressed it plainly enough , but the Doctor is only pleased to repeat and take no further notice of it ; but instead of that , desires me to shew him , where the Convocation says , that a Government which is illegally acquir'd cannot be throughly setled , till it becomes legal . But what need is there for that ? It is not the custom of all Persons ( howsoever learned ) to express themselves in such a peremptory manner as the Dr. does , he tells us indeed , that God cannot make a King except he oblige the People to obey him ; but that is not always the manner of the learned , who are contented with affirmative expressions as more modest . But saith the Dr. if this had been their meaning it had been easily said , and had prevented all mistakes about it , which their words without this limitation , are apt to betray men into , say you so , then I doubt a thorough settlement is not so plain a matter as every body can see , and the Doctor 's believing his own senses is but a banter : But however they might have easily said it ; and if the Doctor 's sense had been their meaning might they not as easily have said that ? and I wonder which is e●●er said , A Government which is illegally a●quir'd cannot be through●y se●●ed , t●●l 〈◊〉 becomes legal , or a Government through●y setled by the consent of the People , without or against the consent and actual claim of the Right Heir . This is as ea●●e said , and all the words besides in the Convocation intire , whereas the words the Dr. thinks they might have said cannot be put in , without putting out a great many other , and making an alteration of the whole sentence ; so that if the easiness of saying was any reason , it is against him , and they did not mean his sense , because they might have so easily said it , and have prevented all mistakes , but the truth is , this signifies nothing either way , and all it proves is the want of better arguments : The Question is not what they might , but what they have said , and if they have expressed themselves in words importing it , then they have said it , and that they have done so I think I have prov'd sufficiently . The Dr. does not think so , and therefore adds .

I believe all unbiass'd men , Vindic. p. 4. who are not prepossess'd with other notions , and concern'd that the Convocation should be on their side would never dream of our Authors sense of the Convocation ; well I cannot tell what men may dream , but I think except they do dream , they cannot agree to the Doctor 's sense , for a through settlement , contrary to a legal visible Title actually contested is a thing only in imagination , and never had any real being .

As for what he says of being concern'd that the Convocation should be on their side , I wonder who is most concern'd for that ; these who do not urge it , nor act upon the Authority of it , although they believe it plainly and evidently justifies , Case of All Pres . ib. p. 3 and speaks for them ; or he who grounds his liberty and freedom of thinking ( in these matters upon it , who produces it to rescue him from the appearance of Singularity , and maintenance of Paradoxes , which otherwise the Doctrines in his Book are not riously ●able ●o , and who neither hath nor pretends to have any other Authority of the Church of England besides . And it is plain the strength of his Cause depends upon it ; so that if the being concern'd that the Convocation should be on their side , may be apt to byass men in their interpretation of the sense of it , the Doctor if he please may consider it , for it affects no body so much as himself . But let us hear his Reasons .

For , saith he , If the Convoc . meant no more than our Author says that a Government illegally begun , when it is ●egally setled has G●●s Authority , what a wonderful discovery is this , that legal Princes have Gods Authority , for who doubts of this ? what need was there to introduce this with such a long pompous Preface of the changes of Government by the Ambition of Princes and the Rebellion of Subjects ? for let Governments begin how they will , when they are once legally setled , no man , that I know of , who owns the Authority of any Government to be from God , disputes theirs .

This I think I am to thank the Dr. for ; for though he brings it as an Objection against the Interpretation I have made of the sense of the Convocation , I take it to be a considerable Confirmation of it . For though I do not believe that no body disputes this nor that the Convocation thought so ( as we shall see presently ) yet if it were so it makes nothing against my Interpretation , but for it . For where is the harm of interpreting the meaning of the Convocation according to the general sense of mankind ? And if no man who owns the Authority of any Government to be from God , disputes that Governments let them begin how they will , when they are once legally setled , have God's Authority ; why does not the Convocation mean so too , if their words will bear it , which the Dr. owns ; Vindic. p. 5. and I wonder which is most likely to be their sense , that which no body disputes , or that which every body disputes , for I hope we may think , without any Reflection upon them , that a wise and grave Convocation were not as ready to maintain Paradoxes as the Doctor is . And what an admirable Objection is this ? What wonderful Discovery is this ? who doubts of this ? As if a Convocation sat for nothing else but to make wonderful discoveries ; and if this signified any thing it is an Argument against half the Book : And all the plain and undoubted Truths they deliver , we must not believe to be their sense , and for this weighty reason , because no body d●sputes them .

But then the Dr. wonders at my reason , p. 5. Answ. p. 21. viz. Lest it should be thought the wicked ways of attaining this Right was a prejudice to the Right it self , and people should from thence take occasion to rebell , and disturb all the Governments in the world , because they could not shew an express order from God , or derive the pedigree of their Governments from Adam or Noah , to prevent the terrible confesion that such a Notion would make in the world , they say that the wicked ways of attaining it , or the wickedness of the persons that have it , is no impeachment to the Right it self , but when it is attain'd it is God's Authority and ought to be obey'd . — V●ry well , these I own to be my words , and where is the occasion to wonder at them ?

That is to say ( he says ) a wise and grave Convocation write a whole Chapter to confute a Nation without naming it , or giving any hi●t at it , which if ever it entred into any mad mans head , yet never did , never can disturb any Government , till a Nation is fitter for Bedlam than to be di●ected by a Convocation . This is a terrible Objection , for I hope a grave and wise Convocation did not sit to make directions for Bedlam . But what now if by all this Rant about Bedlam and Madness the Dr. means only moral madness ( a new sort of Madness to agree with a moral Incapacity ) which consists in vitious , absurd , and unreasonable Opinions . And then I hope it may not be so utterly impossible but a wise and grave Convocation may take them into consideration . I confess I then did not , nor yet do think them otherwise than very foul and unreasonable Opinions ; but for all that , I do not think but that Governments may , and actually have been disturb'd by them , let the Dr. wonder as much as he please . For there are no Opinions so wild , especially in matters of Government , but what have always had too many Followers . But to let that matter alone , let us inquire into the Opinion , whether there were not then or since such Opinions in the world , that plainly centred in this , That Governours were resistable , because they could not derive their Government from Adam or Noah , or by Gods express nomination ; and I shall leave it with him , whether such a Notion did or can disturb any Government . What does he think of the Original Power of the People and Government being nothing else but compact . This is always finally resolved into this ; for when the Advocates of that Opinion are urg'd with the patriarchal Authority , with the Authority of Noah , and which was deriv'd to his Children , and with Gods express nomination , ( which they neither can nor do deny ) that in these cases Government did not proceed from the People . The Answer always is , Let them shew their descent from Noah , or Gods express nomination , and then they shall be allow'd to have the same Authority . Their present Maj. Gov. proved to be throly setled p. 8. And there is an Author who hath published a Book since the Doctor 's Vindication , and it seems design'd in defence of him , who expresses it thus , I suppose all Civil Governments must have their Original either from Submission or from Paternal Authority , because no Prince living can make good his claim as the direct their from Noah . So that Government being founded in compact is always defended by such Reasonings , and is always ultimately resolv'd into it ; and whether that be a notion fit only for a Mad mans head , I must leave to the Doctor 's own determination .

But to seek no farther , the Dr. himself hath said enough of all Conscience in this point ; for to clear his own Hypothesis he tells us concerning prescription , That how long soever it is , Vindic. p. 7. Case of Alleg. p. 23 , 24. it is Usurpation still : That natural Authority ( Paternal and Patriarchal ) is so sacred that no man hath Authority to give it away ; that if choice and consent of the People makes a Prince , no man is a Subject but who consents to be so , and if Subjects give their Prince Authority , they may take it away ; that if Conquest gives a Right , then force , the most unjust force , is Right ; that submission is only a forc'd and after consent not to make a King , but to own him who hath made himself King ; that an hereditary Right is either Usurpation which can give no Right or a Right by Law , i. e. by the consent of the People , which ( as he says ) be observed before could not be done .

Now let us suppose there are men , who maintain these Arguments and Reasonings , ( and the Dr. knows this is no such wild supposition ; ) let us suppose likewise that they do not believe the Doctor 's Hypothesis ( and without any great venture a man may suppose that a thousand to one does not , and it is plain that all those who use these very arguments for Resistance do not ) and then we are come to this very point before us , for every one of these Arguments are finally resolved into this , that Princes are not irresistible , because they cannot derive their Governments from Noah nor pretend to God's express nomination ; so that the Doctor of all men , hath the least reason to wonder , who hath taken such mighty pains to display all the rebellious Hypotheses which stand purely upon this bottom . And in truth these very Opinions and Arguments ( excepting our own and the age before us ) never swarm'd more than in the time that Convocation sat ; and there is abundance of this fine Doctrine in Junius Brutus , in a book de jure Magistratus in subditos , in Parsons on the Succession , and Buchanan de jure regni , and some of them are collected by Archbishop Bancroft in his dangerous positions , who was the most reverend President of this Convocation . And all these were published not long before they far . And therefore it was no such great break as the Doctor imagines to think the Convocation had a direct respect to these rebellious Principles which at that time pester'd the world .

But the Doctor says whereas the difficulties occasioned by the changes and revolutions of Government , especially when a rightful Prince is dispossess'd , and another setled in the throne , are very great , and worthy of the determination of a Convocation to direct mens Consciences in such cases . Well! but suppose these great and worthy businesses which the Doctor hath written two books about , the Convocation thought them to be mere Bedlam Principles , and which no man in his right mind would ever have disputed , must they needs determine it because the Doctor thinks it worthy of them ? There was some reason for the other , for Junius Brutus &c. were rise in the world ; but the Doctor 's Case of Alleg. and Vindication had not then seen the light .

But the truth is , they have determined this point sufficiently , in the Case of Joash and Athaliah , and in this Chapter too , and the Question between us is , Whether the sense that I have given , or the sense which the Doctor hath given , is their Determination ; and I am content as the Doctor says to let every one judge which is the most probable account .

2. His second Reason is , When the Convoc . speaks of the settlement of illegal powers , which began by Ambition and Rebellion , it is manifestly unreasonable , unless it had been express'd , to expound this of a legal Settlement by acquiring a new legal Right . Settlement , I grant , as our Author says , is a Term of Law , and used by Lawyers of a legal Settlement , and must always in reason be understood so in Law , when the contrary is not expressed : but yet a firm and stable possession without Right , must be confess'd to be a Settlement too , tho not a rightful Settlement . I suppose our Author will not deny but that the Government was setled in fact under the three Henries , tho in his sense it was not a legal Settlement .

I answer , the Dr. plainly begs the Question , for saith he , When the Convocation speaks of the Settlement of illegal Powers , and when is that I wonder ? When does the Convoc . speak of any such Settlement . That is the main Question , which the Dr. will take for granted , but will not , and I believe cannot prove it ; and yet for all that he not only builds upon it , but makes it serve as a proof that the Convoc . by Settlement meant an illegal Settlement : And this is pure reasoning , The Convoc . meant an illegal Settlement because they meant an illegal Settlement ; and that is because the Dr. will have it so ; for he does not off●r the least shadow of proof : And all that he says is which began by Rebellion and Ambition : as if the beginnings of a Government and the Settlement of it w re all one ; as if becau ● t●e Convoc . in this Chapter speaks or Ambition , Rebellion , and wi●ked means whereby Governments have been acquir'd , therefore by the Settlement afterwards , they must needs mean the Settlement of illegal Powers . Where is the consequence or coherence of such arguings ? and the Dr. may as well say , that the Convocation teaches that Rebellion is Gods Au●hority , as that they speak of the Settlement of illegal Powers If therefore the Doctor will speak to the purpose , let him prove his Principle ; let him prove that when the Convocation speaks of a Settlement , they speak of the Settlement of illegal Powers : but it is a wild sort of proceeding , to take the main point in Controversie for granted and then to argue from it , as if it had never been disputed : at this rate a man may make the Convocation-book or any other book say what we please . The Doctor knows that I deny that the Convoc . speaks of the Settlement of illegal Powers , and that on the contrary , Powers , so long as they continue illegal , cannot ( in the sense of the Convoc . ) be said to be setled .

But ( says the Dr. ) it is manifestly unreasonable , unless it had been express'd , to expound this of a legal Settlement , and is it nor express'd ? If Settlement means a legal Settlement then it is express'd , as full as the sense of words can express it . But here the Doctor shifts and evades , and does not give a full Answer . He grants that Settlement is a term of Law , and used by Lawyers of a legal Settlement , and must a●ways in reason be under●●ood so in Law , where the contrary is not expressed : But is this my An●wer . Answ. p. 18. I grant ●hat I said Settlement was a term of Law ; but is that all ? did I not say moreover , that most men understand the sense of it , and express themselves by it accordi●gl● ? and d d I no● say before the natural and usual Construction of the words , and wh●● is usu●●●y under●●ood by them . But here the Doctor confines it only to the Law , as if there were another and distinct sense of it with resp ct to civil Possessions in common acceptation , which is contrary both to my meaning and to my words . I thought I had asked him a fair Question , Postscript p. 1. w en I desired him to shew me any one approved Lawyer , or Civilian ( who are suppos'd to speak the most properly in such matters ) or any Historian that ever delivered such a sense of these words , or that ever affirm'd or in a mere narratory wa , declar'd t●at an usurped Possessi●n was a thorough Settl ment or any Settlement at all , when there was a rightful and legal Title in being against it , and that Title actually contesting — But not a word of that . but there is another sense ( which no body ever heard of ) that is more fit for the Doctor 's turn , and that is reason enough that the Convocation must mean so by them , though those Expressions never meant so either before or since : And which is the most pleasant of all , he te●ls ●●e very magisterially , That it argues great perverseness of mind , to reject that sense of the word which is proper to the subject to which it is apply'd , for such a sense as is fo eign and unnatural . Postscript p. 2. Now the Subject to which these words thorough Settlement are apply'd is Government ; and I had desired him to sh●w me any approved Author that ever said that Tyrannus sine titulo ( the Case the ●●r . puts in his book ) w●s a Government throughly setled , or any true Government at all . But no matter for that , the Dr. is resolved to have a Settlement of his own , to serve his own purpose . Let the world say what they will , the notion that I give of a Settlement is that it denotes a rightful and peaceable Possession , which every body , and the Dr. himself owns to be a Settlement , tho he will not allow it in the present case , and I cannot blame him , because it overthrows his Hypothesis ; the Doctor 's notion is a Settlement of Possession without Right , nay against it ; nay further against a visible and undeniable Right actually prosecuted , tho he cannot ( and his answerer put it to him to ) shew that any Author ever gave such an account of a Settlement , either with respect to any usurped Possession , or with respect to the particular case of Usurped Powers . And I shall leave it with the Reader , which is the most foreign and unnatural sense , and consequently ( according to him ) which argues the greatest perversness of mind ; to interpret it in the usual , vulgar , and universally receiv'd acceptation , or to coyne a new sense of it to fit a present turn , and in which it was never understood before .

The Dr. tells us , to confirm his notion , That it is plain that the right and settlement of government are two very different things , for they may be parted ; the first relates to the Title , the second to the setled Possession , and exercise of government . And whenever a Rightful King is dispossessed , our Author must grant , that his settlement is gone , tho not his Right ; well , if I must grant it I must , and what then ? Then saith the Dr. if Right and Settlement may be parted , I desire to know , why there may not be a Settlement without Right , and then it is ridicuous to conclude , that Settlement must always signifie Right ; and , I wonder , whoever said that Settlement either always or at all signify'd Right ; it signifies a Rightful and quiet possession , and that is neither Right singly , nor Possession singly , but both together , joyn'd with quiet from other pretences , and this is an answer to what the Dr. desires to know , why if Right and Settlement may be parted , there may nor be a Settlement without Right , because Settlement always includes and supposes Right , but on the contrary Right does not include nor suppose a Settlement . But this is nothing but fallacy , and by this way of reasoning , a Man may prove any compounded thing to be without the necessary parts of its composition . A House consists of Walls and other things , but if the Dr. undertakes the business , he can prove a house to be without Walls ; for it is plain , that a Wall and a House may be parted , and if a House and a Wall may be parted , then why may not a House be without a Wall ; but let us try it in his own Concessions , the page before he grants , that in the Lawyers sense , Settlement signifies a Legal Settlement ; now it is plain ( in that sense ) that Right and Settlement may be parted ; And whenever a Rightful Possessor is dispossess'd , the Doctor must grant that his Settlement is gone , tho not his Right , and if ( in the Lawyers sense ) Right and Settlement may be parted , then ( in that sense ) Settlement may be without Right : Which , notwithstanding is contrary to what the Doctor himself acknowledges . But all this is trifling and fallacious arguing , à Divisis ad composit a , because the part may be without the whole , therefore the whole may be without the part , or because the whole includes all the parts , therefore every part includes the whole . And how ridiculous soever it may be to conclude , that settlement signifies Right , it is not ridiculous to conclude , that the Dr. pays us with Sophistry instead of Arguments .

The Doctor goes on ; Nay the addition of thorough plainly refers Settlement to Possession , and not to Right , for there are no degrees of Right , no more than there are of Truth . Now whatever another man might have said , the Dr. cannot fairly say this , without contradicting himself : For he tells us over and over , that two Persons may have a Right to the same thing , the Usurper hath a Divine Right , the dispossessed King a Legal Right to the Government . And it is plain that these are not the same , nor equal Rights , and therefore ( according to the Doctor there are degrees of Right , and degrees of Right to Government too . The Usurper hath a thorough Right for all the People are his Subjects , and the other hath a Right to catch it , if he can get it . This last , I must confess is a pretty kind of Right , and such as no body ever heard of before , like the Doctor 's notion of a Settlement : But it does not concern me to answer that , let the Dr. make it out as well as he can . In the mean time , suppose there are no degrees of Right ; are there no degrees of quiet and peace , may not a Government be more or less interrupted in the Possession ? and are there no degrees of Evidence ? may not the Right to a Government be more or less apparent ? and this is the import of throughly , Answ. p. 18. when such a Right is injoy'd plainly , evidently without any contradiction or objection ; as I had plainly said before , tho the Doctor takes no notice of it .

As for what the Doctor says , I suppose the Author will not deny , but that the Government was setled in fact under the three Henries , tho in his sense it was not a Legal Settlement . If the Doctor will believe the Author of the unreasonableness of the new Separation . He says , that the Title to the Crown , with respect to the two Houses of York and Lancaster was disputable , and the Doctor knows there is a wide difference with respect to the Possession , when the Title is doubtful ; and when the Legal Right and Title is so far from being disputed , that it is evidently acknowledged . But whether the Doctor will believe that Author or no : This I have to say , that whatever Settlement there was in the Reigns of the three Henries it was sub ratione juris upon the supposition of Right . Hen. 4. claimed the Crown upon pretence of a Legal Right , and he was admitted on that pretence ; and there is a great difference , between supposing a Legal Title , and upon that supposition owning and submitting to it ; and when there is not the least pretence , nay when the Legal Title ( as in the Doctor 's Hypothesis is plainly own'd not to be in the possessor . After Edward 4. had reigned nine years , and was then forced to fly out of his Kingdom ; and Hen. 6. was again possess'd of the Throne : His Possession tho own'd by a Parliament was not a Settlement ; and for this reason , because there was a visible and apparent Right in Edward 4. against him and that Right actually prosecuted ; and it is plain the Nation thought so , when the very acts of Parliament made in the time of that Possession , were declared void ab initio and ras'd out of the Records . But indeed according to the Doctor 's Doctrine , Hen. 6. had God's Authority , and Edward had lost it ; and moreover that the Parliament that depos'd Hen. 6. in behalf of the Right Heir , set up a Humane against a Divine Right , and were every jot a● unjust , rebellious , and unrighteous , for deposing Henry , as the Parliament was that depos'd Richard 2. which would look as strange in English Law and History , as the Doctor 's Hypothesis does in Divinity .