to permit them to cover their memories with shame and infamy it is to assist them in a conduct that renders them odious to mankind and consequently to oppose their disorders is to wish them well and to do them good Was it ill taken that the Dauphin Charles who was afterwards King of France under the Name of Charles VII made a Campaign with a considerable Army against his Father Charles VI. and that he opposed a Government that exposed the state to ruin and threatned the Kingdom with utter destruction and because Charles did not bear to his Father a base compliance by leaving him and his Ministers to commit what mischiefs they pleased had Charles reason to disinherit his own Son to set up a Forreign Prince in the Kingdom to make him be Crowned in Paris during his own Life Would Charles have done well to suffer such outragious Mischiess because he received them from a Father Let us suppose a King who is not only profuse but a Tyrant who brings desolation upon the Community who kills massacres who ravages all the State who reduces it to the brink of ruin without remission or concealment Can it be believed that a presumptive Heir though he were even a Son would be obliged to behold such grievances without redressing them he that would perswade himself of such a thing would justly deserve the Character of a compleat Fool. On the contrary a Prince who is Heir of the Crown is obliged to joyn himself with the States of the Kingdom to disarm the Tyrant and to deliver the Kingdom out of his hands that it may not become a frightful desart Let us descend yet one degree lower and suppose a King not so ill as the former but who Acts under the covert of some formality of Justice who likewise might possibly have some good intention but who nevertheless being possessed with evil Counsellours and blinded with a certain extraordinary Zeal does lay the whole Kingdom desclate and ruins the honestest Gentlemen of the Realm depopulates the State by illegal and rigorous proceedings that strike the whole World with horrour who lays an indispensable Obligation on his Subjects to desert him by suffering unjust judgments and practises violent courses oppressions and Massacres by charging the Kingdom with such excessive impositions that it was very near involved in an universal ruin by sowing the Seeds of Rebellion over all by exciting the hatred and horrour of all Foreign Princes by unjust Wars by breaking his Promises by violating his Treaties by infringing his most Solemn Capitulations by perpetual and violent Invasions of the Rights and Properties of his Neighbours by drawing upon the Kingdom the dreadful Calamities of some Foreign War which threatned the State with imminent ruin if such a King I say has been found of this stamp and conduct the presumptive Heir whether Son or Son in-Law would be indispensably obliged to take some course in such an exigency and to oppose such mischiefs by force of Arms First because every one ought to preserve and maintain his own Inheritance from violence and desolation In Crowns that go by succession a Prince and Heir during the time that he is yet presumptive Heir has no right to govern it is true but has an undoubted right to demand a Part in the Government after he is past the Years of Minority and is arrived at those of perfect Maturity A King who ruins his Kingdom who slights and sends away his Son of sufficient Age to govern and treats him as one of the Pages of his Court may thank himself if the Son does himself Justice and demands a little better information about the measures that are taken in the Government of the Kingdom which he beholds running against the fatal Bank by the male-administration of the Royal Pilot and whereof himself is one day to be both Father and King He meddles not in Affairs that do not belong to him for nothing can be more his interest Thus therefore a Prince Heir of the Crown has an interest that he may not inherit a vast desart instead of a Kingdom and that his Father by a violent Conduct may not leave him both his Subjects and Neighbours for Enemies out of whose hands he cannot escape There is yet a reason and an interest that is more considerable and likewise more justifiable viz. that of the Public The Laws of Charity do oblige all to rescue those that are in misery and to deliver them from their Afflictions A Prince Heir of a Crown ought to look upon all the Subjects and Members of the Kingdom as his Brethren he is obliged in Conscience to lend them his Hand and save them although even his and their common Father be the Man who involves them in a common ruin If an Elder Brother sees his Father take his Children one after another and plunge them in a River to drown them this Eldest Brother is not bound to see his Younger Brothers drown'd without plucking them out of the hands of his Father for fear of violating the respect that is due to a Father Humble remonstrances towards a Father who is so unnatural are not enough what he owes to God and to the Public is far above all the Duties of Blood of Alliance and Parentage Here are two interests one of a Prince and the other of the public both together which ought to oblige the Presumptive Heir to repress the violences of his own Father because this King whom we have last supposed has filled the Kingdom with Male-contents exhausted its Treasures by excessive Impositions ruined it by proscriptions and depopulations made all the Neighbouring Princes his Enemies and does thereby make way for a mighty revolution which may preclude the lawful Heir from his Right and reduce his Kingdom either to an Anarchy or a Civil War or make it pass into the Possession of strangers This is clear for an oppressed State such as we have supposed attack'd by Enemies which their King's Injustice has procured will be sure to give a joyful reception to a Foreign Power that shall make an entrance by force of Arms and look upon them rather as their Saviours then Enemies They will say and will have reason to say that they can be no worse treated then they are that they can lose nothing by changing their Master and the Truth is a stranger entring into a Kingdom has nothing else to do but to Proclaim Liberty every one would hasten to come under his Banner and from this would ensue the desolation of the Realm by a Civil War or the ruin of the Government which would pass into their hands A Prince Heir of the Crown is not obliged to be a Spectator of so pressing and so great dangers without applying a Remedy thereunto if he be always Patient the Enemy will come the Male-contents will joyn in a Body with them and he will be deprived of those means whereby he might justify his rightful Pretences to the Crown or
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
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
are used in the English Laws and the Publick Records of the Kingdom when they speak of the Roman Religion and of those who profess it as in France we are called the pretended Reformed in the Edicts and Public Ordinances this Name is no more honourable for us than that of Papists for them who call themselves Catholicks But he likewise takes exception at this Expression To introduce Popery into three Kingdoms On which he spends a great Article to prove that nothing can be worse express'd that the business is not about introducing the Catholick Religion into three Kingdoms where it always was and where it is still And here he falls on Controversie to prove that the Roman Religion is the Ancient Religion that ours is an Innovation that is without Mission and without Miracles Must he not be very destitute of Judgment to shew himself so mightily pedantick on a Subject that is purely politick Is it not hereby very manifest that he loves to leave the Point and take occasion of one Word upon which he may exercise his talent by making thereupon a common-place To answer in good earnest Reflections that are so impertinent would argue one to be Master of as little sense as he is who makes them The Grievances of the Prince and of the English which they owed to James II. had not only a respect to the Violation of the Laws of the Land but to the Subversion of Religion Yet our Author has so much insisted on the point and spent so much breath on the head of Religion in such a declamatory method and with such vigorous efforts that he has left very little more to say in the justification of his Hero as to Affairs of State and therefore he has but one word concerning it and only touches upon one of the Articles that the Prince has expressed in his Declaration and that is that the Liberty that King James gave of placing Popish Judges on the Bench reduced the Estates and Fortunes of the Subjects to an uncertainty that was extremely irksom because the Sentences pronounced by the Judges who were not legal are reputed to be null and void tho' they were never so just Thus those who lose the Suit seeing themselves lye under the sentence of incompetent Judges will be sure not to let slip the first opportunity that shall present it self for their relief against that Judgment which would bring the Estates and Fortunes of private persons into an eternal uncertainty In opposition to this our Author pretends to plead endeavouring to make it appear that tho' the King should make a Judge illegally the Judge should nevertheless have a legal authority to give judgment and that the Sentence that is pronounced by him is without all question valid and binding for confirmation of which he cites the Law Barbarius Philippus by which it appeared that a Slave having obtained the Pretorship by surprize it was judged that his Determinations were not to be questioned It belongs to the English properly to make answer to this The Law Barbarius Philippus is a Rule of Prudence which neither amounts to a Natural Right nor a Necessary Law Naturally Acts done by a Subject who is incapable of bearing certain Characters are invalid All the Ordinances given by a Tyrant and Usurper are null and void as soon as ever the Tyrant is put from the Helm If a Turk should usurp the Papal Chair or turn Priest all the Oaths that should be administred by him would be manifestly void In like manner all the Sentences given by one who is incapable of being a Judge and whom the Law barrs from sitting on the Bench are naturally of no force If the Sovereign in consideration of the consequence and to avoid trouble is pleased to continue them it is in his power so to do and they shall bind but it is absolutely necessary that the pleasure of the Sovereign intervene in this case for giving force to such Judgments The Law Barbarius makes this easily appear If the English had any Law that could give a validity to Judgments and Decrees of a Judge tho' he were made so contrary to the Laws it is true that the Sentences given by Popish Judges might remain in force but it is so far from being so that on the contrary it is manifestly true the English have Laws according to which every Sentence past by Judges appointed against Law ought to be revised We are not to spend all our thoughts on these smaller matters and neglect so many Grievances and Complaints of the Nations against the Government of James II. Is it nothing for example that he usurped a power of dispensing with the Laws Is it nothing that he made himself an Absolute Sovereign and exercised Arbitrary Power Of what use are the Laws if it be in the Prince's power to suspend them by hindring their execution whenever he pleases and acting directly contrary to what the Laws ordain If it were thus I would rather now chuse to live at Paris or Constantinople than at London and be subject to Lewis XIV or Mahomet than to the Government of a King of England The Authority of the Judges of the Kings-Bench who were generally of opinion that the Dispensing Power was annexed to the Crown is not sufficient For it is well known who those Judges were that most of them were Papists and by some means or other those that were not were brought over to joyn with the rest Can it be thought that a few ill Men who betrayed their Country and sold their Liberties should be the Sovereign Disposers of the Interest of such a Vast Number of People Is it nothing that the King of England prevailing over the weakness of the Kingdom of Scotland had a considerable success in the design of making himself Absolute Sovereign having in his Declarations used a Style that is more Despotick than that of the Grand Seignior affecting to insert therein almost in every Period the Terms We Will We Command of Full Power of Absolute Power Have we not seen this with our Eyes Is it nothing that all the Charters and Priviledges were taken from the English Cities and Corporations and particularly from the City of London by horrible Violences and unjust Procedures to the end that the King might be in a capacity to fill up the vacancies of Offices and Places of Trust with Court-Slaves and Enemies of the Protestant Religion Is it nothing that the Bishops who are Peers of the Realm were imprisoned against all sort of Law only because they were so bold as to make a most humble Address to the King by way of Remonstrance against his Ordinance Where are there any Monarchical States in which it is not permitted to make such Remonstrances to their Sovereign Is it nothing to threaten all the Judges of the Kingdom with the loss of their Places and actually to deprive them thereof upon their not consenting to repeal a fundamental Law of the Land Is it
nothing to deprive the Lords and the Prime Officers of State of their respective Places of Trust because they refused to give their consent to the thing Is this any thing else but to shed the Blood of the whole Kingdom by Apostate Judges and Slaves to the Court as the Prince complains in his Declaration Is it nothing to have obstructed the free Elections of Members to serve in Parliament by depriving them of all manner of Liberty and making them to depend on the Court by so many Cabals so many Violences and Injustices All these Articles deserve to be considered somewhat more than that of the Invalidity of Judgments given by Popish Judges It must needs be that in all these Points this great Advocate who is so profuse of Words and Reflections found nothing to say in favour of his Hero and against the Prince For he that speaks so much elsewhere would not otherwise have been silent in this matter After this take his word for it and believe him when he tells you that if any thing deserves reprehension in the King's Conduct it was so inconsiderable that Posterity will be astonished that there are Christians found in these Ages who are so barbarous as upon that occasion to give so ill treatment to so good a King whom all Histories will own to have possessed very Royal Qualities And in the sequel he attributes a Great Heart and a Great Soul to him This Author differs very much from himself or from one of his Friends who writ the Letter of M. to M. upon the Affairs of the Times for instead of ascribing to him Royal Qualities therein whil'st they manifest their discontent and murmuring they treat him as a Man who in his conduct was destitute both of Sense and Prudence and as one who has done just so much as was necessary to destroy himself That Great Prince seemed to have neither Heart nor Head in all that Affair We know well enough what is believed of him and what has been said of him in Paris since they have enjoyed his presence It is certain that so many as have known him whether Friends or Enemies do all agree that instead of Royal Qualities he was endowed with an Extreme Fierceness with a very little Spirit and a Heart in a degree below mediocrity But if he were the most considerable Person in the World it is very certain that he abused his power and this is enough to justifie the English Nation If he had had no other Quality but that of a declared Papist it were enough to make him incapable to Reign in England For it is unspeakable folly to alledge that a Popish Prince can be King of England a Kingdom that is altogether Protestant and in which according to the most impartial calculation those Papists who live there are nothing in comparison The English Nation have abdicated this Error as well as the powerful Cause of it It was not possible for her to be kept in it for any long time There were in France a Million of Protestants and that party was in a condition of making head against the other when it was declared to Henry IV. that the King of France must of necessity be a Catholick From the same infected Source do spring two great Articles to prove that the Free Parliament about which the Prince made so great a Noise in his Declaration and which was the great Hinge of the Motions of the Kingdom is as great a Chimera as a Mountain without a Valley considering the condition into which the Prince had reduced the Nation by his Invasion All this effusion of Words may be reduced to two Arguments The first That to make a Parliament free the King must of necessity have at least as great Liberty as the Members of Parliament that he may be in a capacity to propose to and demand of them whatever he pleases This Article may be very well questioned for the Definition of a Parliament does not consist in a liberty that the King has to demand and to propose He has always enough and oftentimes he loses a great deal The nature of a free Parliament lies in this that the Members thereof have been freely elected by the Counties Cities and Burroughs and where the said Members may speak their Opinions even in opposition to the King's pleasure without danger It was a long time since there were such Parliaments in England For it is known in what manner those were treated who durst oppose the King's Will But let us suppose what he says that the nature of a free Parliament does require that the King have a perfect Liberty as aforesaid Who hindred this Liberty If James II. upon the Prince's arrival in Exeter had of his own accord given his consent to the calling of a free Parliament there might have been sufficient assurance given as of a thing most certain that he might have had all manner of freedom to propose to speak and to demand of the Parliament whatever he pleased Who would have barr'd him from this He had his Guards he had his Army consisting of about 40000 Men against ten or twelve thousand whom the Prince had taken with him It is certain that the Army would have proved faithful to him and not one person would have joyned with the Prince against him if at that instant the King had called a free Parliament But God who intended to Ruine him did leave him to be blinded and made obstinate by Popish Counsels so as not to consent to the sitting of a free Parliament The Papists had reason to give him such Counsel but the King was very much in the wrong to take it The Papists had reason for a free Parliament had ruined them as it did the King in the issue and reduced them to a worse condition than they were then in but the King had no reason to follow that counsel for it is not to be doubted but that it was better for him to Reign under the Restraint of the Laws which hindred the Establishment of his Religion than not to Reign at all That which we alledge viz. That the King had nothing to fear as to his Person and Dignity if he had called a free Parliament at the first is not a bare conjecture There is no English Man but says it and is ready to depose it upon Oath And in my opinion every one of them ought to know what he thinks but that which perverted the Army and provoked the People is that fierceness with which the King rejected the Request which was presented to him at London at that time by Fifteen or Twenty Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal and which was afterwards back'd with a more considerable number Then it was seen that the Religion Laws and Liberty of the Kingdom lay at stake and that if the King should get the better of the Prince they were to expect the last extremity of Rigour And this made the face of things to change in
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
at least the Kingdom will be left to him distracted and divided into a thousand Fractions one Party favouring the Stranger and another taking the part of the lawful Heir just as it happened under Charles VI. and Charles VII the English Possessed themselves of the Kingdom some took his part and others were against him and the Kingdom began to sink under the weight of that dreadful War It is then clear that in such a Case a Son after having made respectful Remonstrances to his Father and having made him sensible of the formidable disorders occasion'd by his ill Conduct may with a good conscience make use of force to deliever the Kingdom out of the hands of one who Devotes it to ruin who lays it desolate and does Transubstantiate it into a desart and who by the ill Measures he takes does evidently expose it to a Foreign Invasion Now it is certain that King James was destroying the Kingdoms Bodies Politic and Natural by his Mismanagement of the Government his violation of the Laws and making himself the Arbitrary Judge of their Sanction and Observation dispensing with them at Pleasure by depriving them of their Authority by putting honest Men out of their employs and bestowing those Offices on Men who were by Law incapable of exercising the same by taking off innocent Persons This directly tended first to the ruin of the Religion that was by Law established for he deprived Protestants of their Offices on purpose to bestow them on Roman Catholics who were Enemies to the Protestants and their Religion he violated all manner of Laws as he pleased he filled the Kingdom with Priests and Monks he made the Exercise of the Popish Religion public in all Cities and Counties he gave to the Jesuits the Colleges that were of Antient Foundation and allowed them to found new He ordered Churches to be Built for them The Jesuits open'd Schools in London A Jesuite sat in Council and was the first Minister of State The King sent Ambassadors to Rome and had Ambassadors sent to him from thence and all this against the express Laws of the Kingdom and that he might do all these things securely he maintained a powerful Army in time of Peace which is also contrary to the Priviledge of the English People This Conduct tended to the overthrow of the Monarchy as well as of the Church A Civil War was unavoidable in a little time England's patience was come to an end The Kingdom was fallen into the same condition it was in in the time of King Charles I. It is possible that King James II. would have incurred the same fate with his Father and without doubt the Fanatics would have made themselves Masters of the Government to the Exclusion of the lawful Heir Thus His present Majesty for the preservation of his Religion and the Crown to which he had a good Title and which ought in that juncture to be reduced into possession was obliged to put a stop to the current of those Mischiefs in the Fountain he endeavoured to do this by moderate means He Passed into England to curb the immoderate Power of his Father-in-Law This Father-in-Law could not endure to receive Law from any one He fled he Abdicated the Throne The Nation filled it with him who was come to deliver them His Majesty King William Accepted the Crown it had been a cruel piece of Piety to behold the Bowels of the State torn the Religion of the Kingdom perishing the spilling of so much Blood the oppression of so many innocent Persons so many Families reduced to Beggary and the right of the lawful Heir exposed to evident ruin for I know not what respect to Relation and Kindred Brutus and Manlius were praised for not having spared their own Blood and for having punished by death the Rebellion and Disobedience of their Children God is our first Father our Country is our principal Mother there are no Relations or Alliances which ought not to be Sacrificed to these great Names Besides these general Considerations there are also particular ones which are no less proper for the justification of their Majesties of Great Britain and Ireland The first is that King James II. was not lawful King although he was acknowledged by the Three Kingdoms he had drawn the Subjects of those three Kingdoms thereto by surprise being a Papist he could not be the King of England the People and Kings annex to the Succession of the Crown what Conditions they think fit Since Henry VIII all the Kings and Queens of England Mary excepted were Protestants that is to say Enemies to the Papal Tyranny this was a Quality annexed to the Crown of England All the Laws forbid the acknowledgment of the Pope for Head of the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ They make the King of England Head of the English Church and it's High-Treason to say otherwise It is true that James the II. made a shift to thrust himself into the Throne in spite of all these Obstacles for the removing of which all imaginable diligence was used false Promises and false Oaths were not wanting It is known what were the Sentiments and the Interests of those who were Assisting in such a Violation of the Laws It is not necessary to make mention of them in this place although the Violation was nothing else but a suspension for the Laws were not Abrogated and tho' they had been so the English would always have had a Right to retrieve and re-establish them which were made for the security of Religion They Enacted Recognised and Declared that to be King of England and a Papist are Qualities that are absolutely incompatible and they were no ways to be blamed for the thing is plain and his present Majesty had reason not to Abandon to another the Succession that belonged to himself and his Royal Consort who have the same Qualities and are of the same Religion as is required by the Law and who moreover are the lawful and next Heirs It is not the first time that the Children have taken the room of the Father whom the Laws and his own personal Qualities excluded from the Enjoyment of the Rights and Possessions which his Birth had allowed him After all we must know that the English Government is not in the hands of one Person There is one King the King is Sovereign but he is not in the Possession of all the Sovereign Power He who cannot make Laws nor break them is not in the Possession of Arbitrary Power The Parliament partakes of the Legislative Authority with the King The People have their Priviledges which the King and Parliament cannot take from them If for Example a Parliament should meet with the King for making an absolute change of the Form of Government for abolishing the use of Parliaments and for depriving the People of all their Priviledges Charters and Immunities the People might justly provide against these Violations James II. endeavoured to Cancel all the Priviledges of the