This and that which followeth, is talking to himself at random, till he come to allege that which he calleth an old rule, which is this: (_e_) “Whatsoever is, when it is, is necessarily so as it is. This is no absolute necessity, but only upon supposition that a man hath determined his own liberty,” &c. If the bishop think that I hold no other necessity than that which is expressed in that old foolish rule, he neither understandeth me, nor what the word _necessary_ signifieth. _Necessary_ is that which is impossible to be otherwise, or that which cannot possibly otherwise come to pass. Therefore _necessary_, _possible_, and _impossible_ have no signification in reference to time past or time present, but only time to come. His _necessary_, and his _in sensu composito_, signify nothing; my _necessary_ is a necessary from all eternity; and yet not inconsistent with true liberty, which doth not consist in determining itself, but in doing what the will is determined unto. This “dominion over itself,” and this _sensus compositus_, and this, “determining itself,” and this, “necessarily is when it is,” are confused and empty words. (_f_) “If the chain of necessity be no stronger but that it may be snapped so easily asunder, &c. by the signification of your lordship’s desire, and my modest entreaty, then we may safely conclude that human affairs,” &c. Whether my Lord’s desire and the Bishop’s modest entreaty were enough to produce a _will_ in me to write an answer to his treatise, without other concurrent causes, I am not sure. Obedience to his Lordship did much, and my civility to the Bishop did somewhat, and perhaps there were other imaginations of mine own that contributed their part. But this I am sure of, that altogether they were sufficient to frame my will thereto; and whatsoever is sufficient to produce any thing, produceth it as necessarily as the fire necessarily burneth the fuel that is cast into it. And though the Bishop’s modest entreaty had been no part of the cause of my yielding to it, yet certainly it would have been cause enough to some civil man, to have requited me with fairer language than he hath done throughout this reply. NO. II. _T. H._ And first I assure your Lordship, I find in it no new argument, neither from Scripture nor from reason, that I have not often heard before, which is as much as to say, that I am not surprised.