Practices It is false that the Prince had given a Suspition of any Intention to make himself the Supreme Governour of the Vnited Provinces On the contrary he generally rejected all the occasions that were offered him to accept of that Dignity The King of France made him an Offer of Holland with full Sovereign Power and he refused it Anno. 1672. During the Consternation that these Countries were in by reason of the French Army the City of Amsterdam more then ordinary jealous of her Liberty consented to bestow on the Prince both the Rights and Title of Earl of Holland The Prince would by no means accept of it The States of Geldre having signified their Intentions to make him Duke of that Province he refused the offer and referred himself to the Opinion of the other Provinces The Low Countries have great reason sure to complain of the Prince's Government since the Year 1671. He found a Common-wealth oppressed under the Yoak of a Foreign Power having it's Bowels torn to pieces destitute of Arms destitute of Forts without Friends and without Allies and he accomplished his design by the most wise Conduct imaginable taking Possession of their Hearts beating back the Common Enemy by his Courage engaging all Europe in a Joynt Alliance which crushed all the French Designs Engaging the English Interest and causing the Treaty of Peace to be concluded at Breda He defended his Nation against all the pernicious Intrigues of the French Counsels he by his wise Conduct restored Trade to it's former Splendor and made it again to flourish It is now in the highest Esteem that ever any Common-wealth was in He was Umpire of the most Important Peace that has been concluded these hundred Years past which was made betwixt the two Crowns These are the great disorders that the Prince of Orange committed in the Republic and the truth is they are very great disorders in respect of France whose purpose is to reduce all her Neighbours into Confusion and Servitude for her own ends Now it is worth the knowing who this Famous Author is He is one whom France hath kept in Holland as a Spy and as an Incendiary He has not been idle during his Abode there he has not so much as omitted the most impertinent Occurrences that never passed the Frontiers of the State before and which were only the talk of the Mobile Such is the application of the Words of the Prophet Esay to the Birth of the Prince of Wales Before she was in pain she brought forth before she Travelled she was delivered of a Man Child See what he imputes to the Prince as a Crime and calls it a profanation of Holy Scripture to uphold his Pretences against the Prince of Wales He also justifies King James from the Accusation that is brought against him in the Prince's Declaration for having had a Design to suppress the Religion and overthrow the Laws of the Land He thinks in a moment to possess the Minds of Men with a Prejudice against the Prince as if his Expediâ—â—â—n could not have been undertaken for the Preservation of Religion as not being of the English perswasion but a Presbyterian He is obliged saith he according to the Calvinstical Doctrine to believe that all Ministers have equal Authority that Episcopacy is an unlucky Pillar of Papal and Antichristian Tyranny The Presbyterians destroyed the English Church banished the Prelates and abolished the Liturgy during the Common-wealth and behold a Presbyterian and an Army of Calvinists who pass into England to deliver the English Church which they have always look'd upon as Professing a false Religion Upon this Subject the Author shews what an able Man and great Divine he is he multiplies Words and idle Reflections We answer him in a Word that the English Church never Condemned the Presbyterians on this side of the Sea and never beheld their Religion as false She has only remonstrated the Extravagancies of the English Presbyterians and possibly iâ— that she is not much in the wrong The Presbyterians on this side the Sea in like manner never Condemn Episcopacy as an Appurtenance of Antichristianism The difference in Point of Government never hindred the English Protestants and those in these Parts from being ready to afford one another mutual Assistance as being of the same Religion Queen Elizabeth helped the Dutch and French Protestants King James did the same and which is more he sent his Divines and Bishops to the Synod of Dort which was otherwise all composed of Presbyterians that action alone is an undoubted proof of the Communion that the Bishops and Presbyterians maintained amongst themselves If the English Bishops have Assisted the Presbyterians on this side the Sea as their Brethren when they were like to be oppressed why may not the Presbyterians here with very good reason go and assist the English Church which they have always look'd upon to be a true Protestant Church Again this Author endeavours to prove first that the Late King of England in his suspending the Penal Laws had no other end but the Establishment of a perfect Tranquillity in his Kingdom taking from his Subjects all occasion of Persecuting one another upon the account of Religion This is the Old Song but all those who speak so are not in hopes to perswade others nor are they themselves perswaded of the Truth of this allegation They know very well and all the World is sensible of it that King James did extreamly hate the Presbyterians Independants and Anabaptists looking upon them as the Authors of his Father's death and as his own Enemies It is very well known that during all the time that he was Duke of York he did cruelly Persecute them to do the English Church a Pleasure thinking to be so much a gainer thereby as to do afterwards whatever he pleased It was not then in Favour of the Non Conformists his Sworn Enemies that he intended to repeal the Penal Laws it is notoriously known that it was never in his thoughts to take them away but for the sake of the Roman Catholics and that he included other Dissenters for no other end but to palliate his designs It is beyond all dispute King James II. of England was a great Enemy of Persecution He made his inclinations manifest whilst he was as yet Duke of York possibly it cannot be denied but that that King had a very great Zeal for his own Religion for this Author does him that great Honour as to avouch it He had consequently a passionate desire to Establish it in England Can this be denied if he acknowledge it for he must be destitute both of common sence and honour to deny it he must also own that all his Actions tended to that end if all his Actions tended to that end with better reason so important a one did such as was the suspension of the Penal Laws Can he deny it or can any Person do it for him It is therefore plain that he had a
Nation but durst not disanul Parliaments but he dissolved them and caused them to be dissolved by his Brother as soon as ever the Parliaments did any thing that displeased him He deprived the Corporations of their Charters and Priviledges He obstructed free Elections he took upon him a Power of dispensing with the Laws and of acting in a direct opposition to what was thereby ordained He was not legally impowred to proceed so far and therefore he transgressed the due Bounds and thereby put the Nation in a rightful Capacity no longer to acknowledge him for it is certain that in all Relations of Father and Son of Wife and Husband of Master and Servant of Subject and King where there is an express Contract and certain Conditions laid down when one of the Parties happens to violate the Contract and to be wanting in the performance of the Conditions that the other Party is no longer obliged The Lawyers Maxim Princeps Legibus solutus est has no place here By the Prince is understood one that is Sovereign and a Magistrate that is absolute without limitation Unhappy are the People who have got such Masters who have suffered their Priviledges to be disanulled but the People and the Nations which are so happy as to preserve the Bulwarks which in the Establishment of their Monarchy have been raised against the Ambition of their Princes are very Wise in maintaining them The King of England does not boast that he is above the Laws for he is obliged to Reign according to the Laws If there be any Sovereign in England who is above the Laws it is the Parliament and the King together This Sovereign makes Laws and repeals them and so is not bound thereby but the Parliament alone can neither make nor repeal Laws neither can the King alone do it So that these Words of Cambden concerning the Authority of the Kings of England does not take away the Rights of Parliaments and the Priviledges of the People that are publicly known Seeing the Kings of England are bound to Reign according to the Laws there lyes no obligation upon the People any longer to acknowledge them when they raise themselves above the Laws and have no regard thereunto Indeed a modern Writer has said that Protestants may be trusted because they swear Allegiance to the Prince without reservation But we swear Allegiance without reservation only where the Law does not annext it and where the Princes have their bounds limited by the Laws our Religion does not at all oblige us to make Oath of Fidelity without reservation and without condition since the Kings of England themselves in Conjunction with their Parliaments have annexed certain reservations to the Oaths of Allegiance which they require from their Subjects We do no ways believe that the English violate their Oaths of Allegiance when they think that they are free so to do by the Invasion that their Kings make upon the Fundamental Laws of the Realm From all this it follows that the English Nation did justly look upon King James II. as incapable of the Crown because of his Religion and as fallen from his Rights by his violation of all the Fundamental Laws and consequently William III. his Son-in-Law and Mary his Daughter now King and Queen of England possess the Crown most lawfully which returns to them by Right of Succession and which was confirmed to them by the unanimous Consent of the three Estates of the Kingdom They did not trample upon the respect which they owed to him who was their Father or held the place of a Father for nothing is owing to a Father in prejudice of the Rights that are due to God and our Country They committed no Violence as a means of coming by the Crown for they first received it from a free Convention they did nothing against the Commands of St. Peter and St. Paul of being Subject to the Powers for neither St. Peter nor St. Paul had any design of Establishing the Arbitrary Power of Kings whose Authority is limited by the Laws nor of favouring Tyrants Now as there have not been Men wanting to misconstrue His Majesties late Expedition so there have been some of his Majesties Enemies mentioned at the beginning who charged the Misfortunes of the Two De Wits Anno. 1672. on the then P. of Orange But it is known to all the World how the Matter went it happened by a popular Commotion which was like Gun-powder kindled and spread in a moment It is true that the two De Wits were accounted Enemies to the Prince It is true that there were two Parties formed in the State one against the Prince and the other for him but if things had gone well and the order which the De Wits had given for the preservation of the Country had succeeded no Person had ever muttered against them but Unhappily the State was without any Defence without Arms without Forts without Forces without Alliances which afforded the French an Opportunity of Marching into the very Heart of the Country leaving nothing but Desolation behind them Those who were at the Helm were narrowly look'd to whether they were to blame or no. The People thereupon were enraged against those who had the management of Affairs They made a general insurrection in the Town against the Magistrates It was much less for the Prince's Interest then for their own that there was such an uproar amongst the People The Mobile had been little enough concerned who governed provided the Government had been in safety Hitherto the Government of the De Wits as it had been happy so it had been attended with Tranquillity But in the Year 1672. the Government of those Gentlemen was extreamly Unfortunate the People who peremptorily reckoned the Unhappy Success of the measures they took to be an Effect of their Mismanagement of Affairs fell upon them and spent all the Magazine of their Rage against them And it was the King of France to whom the De Wits were indebted for that Tragical Execution it is he who by his unjust Enterprifes and his happy Success did provoke the People's Patience to the last extremity and obliged them to avenge themselves by force on those who had so very ill provided for the safety of the State The Prince was no ways concerned therein but accidentally if he had had the Administration of Affairs for some Years before that if he had been mistaken in his Measures as they had been if the King of France had met with the same Success after the Administration of the Prince of Orange that he had after that of the De Wits it is certain that the Prince of Orange had been in danger of having been the object of the People's Fury as those Gentlemen were but it is well known that this is the usual manner of popular Commotious that when they make an insurrection against one they make a Bulwark of another Expressing their Fury because the Government being altogether a Republic had not
a moment and did the Prince's business without effusion of Blood It is true that at last the King at a pinch consented to the Calling of a Parliament but it was then too late and they knew very well that that was only to gain time yet tho' as late as it was it is yet true That if the King had stayed his Enemies could never have done any thing against him the Parliament had taken his part This is soclear by the manner of the carriage of many of the Members of the Convention that he must be blind who cannot see it or be very hard of belief not to acknowledge it As for the King's Friends they would have had no liberty of speech saith my Author how dare he say so seeing that in the Convention the King having left the Kingdom and the Prince of Orange being in the possession of his Army and the House of Commons declaring against James II. yet even then his Friends durst speak for him It was proposed in a full Assembly to call him back Many Lords-Spiritual and Temporal protested against the Vacancy of the Throne and with so little danger and disgrace that some of them were afterwards made Members of the Privy Council What could not the Friends of James II. have said if Himself had been present It is past all doubt that they had carried it for him or kept the Affairs of State in a most equal Ballance If the Prince had had any design to do violence to the Members of Parliament would not the whole Nation and all the Forces thereunto belonging have joyned together to oppose him as a treacherous person who came to destroy their Liberty after having so solemnly declared He would Maintain it Could the Prince with his 10 or 12000 Foreigners have made one day's resistance It is therefore certain that neither the King nor his Friends had any reason to be afraid in that case The other Argument by which this Man endeavours to prove that the pretence of a free Parliament is really a Chimera is because the Parliament could not make Laws without the King's consent And if it be granted that this pretended free Parliament had met the King would have opposed all their Resolutions He would have refused to pass the Bills And the Parliament could never have done any thing at least could not but by force Upon which account it would not have been a free Parliament seeing the King could not have his Liberty It may also be saith our pious Author that the Hand of God which is not shortened was so gracious to that generous Prince as to make him hearken to their Threats with the same Firmness of Resolution with which St. Lew is heard the Saracens whose Prisoner he was when a hundred drawn Swords ready to dispatch him could not shake him from his stedfastness and oblige him to take an Oath the thoughts of which were more terrible to him What is to be done on such an occasion Behold this pretended free Parliament is arrested all on a sudden and all the fair fruits that were expected from it become abortive The English ought to answer this They know their own Laws and we do not but according to the Light of good Sense and the Laws of Nature we may make him Answer by two Things that are very weighty The first is that we ought to distinguish betwixt those Laws that are already made and those Laws that are only a making That the Consent of the King of England is not necessary for the Preservation of those Laws that are made But there were Laws requiring the Exclusion of all Papists from Offices and Places of Trust as well Military as Judiciary and Civil There were Laws that prohibited upon the Pain of Death the Priests and especially the Monks coming into the Kingdom There were Laws standing that required the demolishing of the Romish Chappels and hindring all Publick Exercise of the Popish Religion There were Laws that declared every Person of the Realm guilty of High-Treason who should keep correspondence with the Court of Rome and who should hide Priests and Monks There were Laws enough for the Security of the Protestant Religion The Parliament had nothing to do but to put those Laws into strict Execution The King 's consent was not necessary for the enacting of new Laws for that purpose But seeing he has the executive Power of the Laws in his hands what is to be done if the King will not put those Laws in execution Then and in that Case it is evident that the Parliament might lawfully appoint some Persons who should execute those Laws for otherwise for what end are Laws made if it be always in the Power of one individual Person to hinder their Execution It must be supposed that those who made the Laws were no Fools but certainly they had not been wise if they had reserved no Power to themselves for the Execution of the Laws whensoever the King should refuse so to do It is not then necessary that there should be new Laws to bear down Popery which shewed her self bare faced Neither were there any new Laws necessary to oppose the King and to declare him incapable of the Government For all the Laws which before that Time had been made against Popery make it manifest with great Force and Necessity that a King of England must be a Protestant that without doing any Violence to the Law they might declare to James II. that they could no otherwise consider him but as a private Person But again there is no Law expressed in so general and so precise terms but admits of an Exception of Cases of Necessity And according to this Rule we are to understand the Laws of England That the Parliament cannot make a Law without the King Let us suppose that in a Kingdom such as England is where the Estates have reserved to themselves one Part of the Sovereign Power a King goes about to alienate all or any Part of the Realm to bring in a forreign Power to abrogate the Ancient to revoke all the Priviledges of the People to harrass his Subjects with an Army to cause to Murther all those who comply not with his Pleasure or all those whom he pleases so to treat Will any one say that the Estates or the Parliaments who are the Trustees Guarrantees and Protectors of the Liberties of the People have not a Power according to Law to issue forth such Orders and to take such Measures as may hinder the Violences committed by that Prince and that for this Reason The Parliament can do nothing without the King 's confent and therefore cannot oppose the Violences done by him for the King will never consent to it I maintain that he that would argue thus has utterly lost his Wits In vain have Parliaments reserved to themselves the Legislative Power if they had no Authority to exercise it In vain have they preserved their Priviledges if they had no Power for