WHITEHALL June 3. 1689. Let this Letter to a Bishop c. be Printed Shrewsbury A LETTER TO A BISHOP Concerning the Present Settlement AND THE NEW OATHS LONDON Printed for Robert Clavel at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1689. A LETTER to a BISHOP Concerning the Present Settlement AND THE NEW OATHS My Lord I Have consider'd the Matter you mentioned to me with all the care and attention that my other necessary Affairs would allow and I account it indeed as your Lordship does a great unhappiness that any Protestants are dissatisfied with our present Settlement but especially that some of those Bishops are of this number who were so lately made Confessours for the Protestant Religion It is not without great Injustice that some of those Gentlemen who have put Pen to Paper in defence of the New Oaths take the liberty of charging these Bishops as if their present dissatisfactions did spring from Pride Interest Humour Obstinacy or a Fear of having their Wings clipt in this New Settlement I am confident that they which charge any of these things upon those Venerable and Excellent Men do not know Them and they write as if they had never heard any thing of Them before this unhappy Rupture Undoubtedly They who could go to a Jayl and were ready to be ruin'd in their Estates and to sacrifice themselves for the two best things in the World the Church of England and the Laws of the Land do deserve no such Character I am persuaded that what their Lordships and many others with them do in this respect proceeds purely from Conscience and that if Themselves were so happy or others for them to satisfie their Consciences about the Present Settlement and the New Oaths They would as heartily comply with the present Settlement and act in it as any other of their Majesties Subjects But tho' my Lord this is my Judgment concerning their Dissatisfactions that they proceed from Conscience yet I am persuaded that there are Misapprehensions and Mistakes which if rectifi'd would make an alteration in their Opinions that too great stress is laid upon some things that do not deserve it and too little upon others that are of much greater moment I say this with Reverence of them that are so much my Superiors not taking upon me to Judge what the Reasons of their Dissatisfaction may be but for those of my own rank whom I am more conversant with I may pretend to know most of their Reasons and as far as I can recollect all their Doubts and Dissatisfactions may be reduced into a very narrow Compass Your Lordship requir'd me to contract my thoughts into as small a Discourse as I could I will not forget your Lordship's Command I think that all may be reduced to these two Points One is The Scruple concerning the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy taken to King Iames the Second And the Other about the New Oaths to their Present Majesties requir'd of all persons who sit in Parliament or are in any Office Civil or Military or in Ecclesiastical Preferments Now if I could prove that the Oaths to King Iames have ceased to oblige us and that the New Oaths to King William and Queen Mary may be lawfully taken I presume that this will be allow'd sufficient to remove the Scruples and will give satisfaction to such as will do me the right not to carp at or be angry at any single reason but to consider them all together In relation to Oaths in general I need not spend much time to enquire how they may cease to oblige those who have taken them that they cease to bind when the Government of that Person to whom they were taken is at an end I think no body will deny This is all I will desire to be granted me concerning the Oaths to King Iames. And in relation to Government That may be said to cease several ways as when the Person entrusted with it dies or when He will govern no longer and so withdraws himself from it voluntarily or when He is conquered and forced thereby to withdraw himself involuntarily and can give no longer Protection to those who were his Liege Subjects These are the chief Instances whereby the Government of any Particular Person may cease There is no doubt concerning the first of them but all our present dispute will be about the rest that is whether any one or all of them are applicable to the Government of King Iames whether He would govern no longer and whether He did withdraw himself from and leave his Government voluntarily or lastly whether He was driven out of it by a fair and just Conquest I think my Lord that the Proof of any one of these three Instances were sufficient to satisfie all honest Men that the Obligation of the Oaths to the late King Iames is superseded by it and I believe such a Proof to be no difficult task For to begin with the first of them The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were taken to King Iames as King and oblige no further nor longer than He continued to be King that is to govern as King of England Now that the late King ceased to govern as King of England a good while before the Prince of Orange either landed here or I believe thought of coming hither may I think be made plain by these following Considerations I need not examine curiously here my Lord into the Nature of Government and the Diversities of it my business only is to have it agreed what sort of Government our English One is That it is a Mixt sort of Government is plain from our Constitution whereby every One of the Three Estates in Parliament are necessary to the making any Laws whatever for the Nation as well as the King 's Le Roy le veult It is the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in Parliament assembled that make Laws and not the King alone or the Lords alone or the Commons alone nor the King himself with any one or two of the States of Parliament And as the King cannot here make Laws alone for the Nation so He is according to our Constitution obliged by a most Solemn Oath and Promise at his Coronation to Govern according to the Laws made by Lawful Authority This I am assured is the Essence of a King of England that He is One sitting upon the Throne and Governing not by his own Will or his own Edicts but by the known Laws of the Land. These being my Lord the Two main Hinges of our Government that all the Laws the People of England can be governed by are made in Parliament and that the Government it self be administred according to these Laws if either the King alone or any one or both of the Houses of Parliament take upon them to make Laws the One Hinge is broken off and if the Government it self be not administred that is if the King do not govern according to the Laws the
them Protestants to assist Him in depriving his Children of the Hereditary Rights of Succession and ruining the Church of England and the happy Constitution of our English Government Such Considerations as these made the late King's Army so useless to Him and the Prince's Victory so easie to Him whose business was not to Conquer here but to do Himself and his Princess Right and to preserve our Government in Church and State which if He had tamely lookt on and suffer'd to be destroy'd His own Right would most infallibly have sunk with them being so entirely linkt with them Here some will be ready to call upon me and tell me that if the Prince was a Conquerour then all our Rights and our Possessions are in his hands and at his disposal and that our condition is far from being mended since we are by this Conquest in that state which the late King was labouring to bring us to subjected absolutely in our Persons and Fortunes to the Arbitrary Will of a Conquerour But it is very easie to answer this fearful suggestion by shewing them that the King alone was conquered and not the Nation with him The Prince in his Declaration had assured the Nation that his only design of appearing in Arms here was to secure his Own and Their Rights and He did thereupon conjure them to assist Him in so good and so just a Design which the Nation did either by not aiding the King or by rising up in several parts of the Kingdom for him so that here was a True Contract betwixt the Prince of Orange and the Nation which hath been faithfully observed the Rights of the Nation being entirely preserv'd to them and not one of them invaded nor the least pretence to a Conquest over the Nation made by Him. Thus my Lord we see our Rights are secure notwithstanding the late King lost his by bringing upon himself the necessity of being driven out of his Dominions and conquer'd rather than he would do the Prince and the Nation that Right which He was obliged to by the Laws and by his Coronation-Oath Now since the late King did lose his Kingdom by these means and upon these accounts and was put out of the capacity of either Governing or Protecting those who were his Subjects it is become as impossible for us to perform Allegiance to Him as it is for Him to Govern us and since the Prince and Princess of Orange by reason of this Conquest of the King and by Vertue partly of their own Hereditary Right and partly of the Consent of the Nation assembled in Convention are in Possession of the Crown of England and do Protect and Govern the Nation according to the Laws of the Realm and have taken the Coronation-Oath that they will always continue to do so the only question is whether our Allegiance in such a case is not transferr'd from the late King who was justly conquered who does not govern us and can no further protect us unto those Persons who are now invested with the Regal Power and in possession of the Government and do protect the Nation The Resolution of this Case would have been very readily made by any of us had Providence placed us upon the Continent in those Countries which have lately been and now are like to be the seat of War and not in an Island so happily secured from the sudden Descent of Enemies Had we lived in Germany or Flanders for example we should have learnt how far Allegiance is necessary and when it may be transferr'd from the Prince conquered to the Conquerour No prudent Man thinks the People of any Town in Flanders perjur'd because notwithstanding their former Oaths to their Hereditary Prince the King of Spain the fortune of War necessitates them to take new Oaths of Allegiance to a Conquerour And I think Men ought to make the very same Judgment of things here that since the Government of King Iames is at an end the Oaths to Him have no further force and that since He was fairly conquered by that Prince whom He was endeavouring to deprive of his Right of Succession to the Crown of England and is by that altogether incapacitated from governing and protecting us our Allegiance either wholly ceases or is superseded as to Him and We may in our Circumstances give security to the Government and pay Allegiance for that Protection we enjoy from it This my Lord is agreeable to the Laws and Practice of all Countries to the Laws of our own Nation to Reason and which is more unto Scripture it self I need not trouble your Lordship much with shewing its agreement with the Laws of Nations since almost every day's Practice doth give Instances of it whereby People and Countries that were under their own Soveraign Prince and had taken Oaths of Fealty to Him are by the Fortune of War made another Prince's Subjects and may lawfully according to the Law of Nations transfer their Allegiance to their new Lord. The Reason of all this is founded upon the Nature and End of Government it self upon that mutual Obligation which is supposed to be betwixt a Prince and his People who upon his Power and his Promise of protecting them in their Lives and in their Properties do engage to perform Allegiance and to bear Faith to Him now this stipulation does naturally fall when such a Prince is no longer Able or no longer Willing to protect them and the same Reason which obliged them to pay their Allegiance to that Prince does direct them now to transfer it from Him who is by the Fortune of War disabled from affording Protection to the Conquerour who will engage to protect them and does preserve them in their Persons and their Estates and in all their ancient Legal Securities And as this cannot be denied to be the Practice and the Law of all Countries abroad so the Laws and Customs of our own Kingdom do not only countenance such a transferring of Allegiance to a Conquerour but do indempnifie the paying Allegiance to a meer King de facto who may be an usurper and the defending Him in his Government Thus in the Statute made the Eleventh Year of Henry VII Chap. 1. it is declared to be against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars attending upon Him in his person or being in other places by his commandment within the Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their Duty and Service of Allegiance and it is enacted by the King by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in Parliament assembled that from henceforth no manner of Person or Persons whatsoever He or They be that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being in his person and do Him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his command in his Wars within this Land or
in any Constitution whatever and that the Ends of Governments are quite lost if that Person who subverts any particular Government do not at the very same time destroy or forfeit let Men call it what they please his own share in it To this Argument from the Dispensing Power it may be answer'd that the Practice of it as to the Instances which I have been able to mention does not amount to a Subversion of our Government if those Laws were unjust and void in themselves which the King dispensed with As for the Laws about Offices Civil and Military from which Papists were excluded They say the Observator has prov'd it often enough that they were null and void since no Laws can preclude a King from making use of his Subjects And for all the Laws against Conventicles the Author of a Paper publish'd very lately and licens'd too call'd The Case of the Protestant Dissenters Represented and Argued p. 2. tells us very roundly that they are void also and that the Dissenters must be excused if they have in their Practice exprest less Reverence for Laws made by no Authority received either from God or man and complains that They are injuriously reflected on when it is imputed to them that They have by the Use of their Liberty acknowledg'd an Illegal Dispensing Power We have says he done no other thing herein than we did when no Dispensation was given or pretended in Conscience of Duty to Him that gave us breath Nor did therefore practice otherwise because we thought those Laws dispens'd with but because we thought them not Laws So that the result is that the late King ought not to be accus'd of Subverting the Government by setting aside those Laws which were void of themselves But I need not trouble your Lordship with any Answer to such an Objection since I know your Lordship nor any of those for whose sakes I write this do not believe a word of what these two do so dogmatically and yet most unjustly assert I suppose the Observator will not be fond of standing by his Assertions and that the Author of the Dissenters Case ought to have shewn some more Manners than to cast such saucy and bold Slanders upon our Parliaments while one is actually sitting It is sufficient for my vindication that the present Parliament believes those Laws which the late King dispensed with not only to be true but necessary Laws whatever these two Gentlemen with so much confidence have said to the contrary I will pass now to the other Fundamental of our Constitution which is that the Government be administred according to the Laws of the Land. It is equally evident that this Fundamental was subverted by the late King as well as the former for so far was he from governing according to Law that his whole Government from the time of his claiming his Dispensing Power seems to be a downright opposition to the Laws He was pleas'd to make Privy-Councellours against Law Judges against Law Sheriffs against Law Lord-Lieutenants and their Deputies against Law and Justices against Law to have Men hang'd up for deserting in time of Peace against Law to have Popish Chappels Jesuits Schools and the Conventicles open'd against Law in a word his Resolution as well as his Practice did shew that the Laws were not intended to be made the Rule of his Government This is the True State of King Iames's Government and This is inconsistent with that Essential of our Constitution of Governing according to Law. Now if my Lord it be the Essence and the Definition of the King in our Government that He is One who governs the People committed to his charge according to Law how can we reckon in this Rank the late King from the time He was so resolutely set upon governing against Law In our Constitution He that does not govern by Law does not govern at all and He that does not nor will not govern at all cannot nor will not be King but ceases to be such from the time He makes his Own Will or his Evil Councellors Advices the Rule of his Government and not the Laws I had almost forgot another Instance of the late King 's Dispensing Power and that was his laying aside those Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy which yet are the grounds of most Mens scruples How can this be lookt upon otherwise than as a Condemnation of the Oaths as unlawful and if they were so we have the late King's Judgment also against the Obligation of these two Oaths for if He to whom the Oaths were taken thought them unlawful then they are certainly fallen as to Him. This is as if a Person who had a Bond from another which he lookt upon as unjust should give it him up and consent to the cancelling of it So that my Lord if the breaking One of our Fundamentals by not governing according to Law do not make such a Person cease being King yet that breach of the Other the assuming a Legislative Power which quite alters and tears up the whole Frame of our Constitution cannot do less than shake his Right to the Government who was so solicitous to destroy it He that will not govern as King of England will not govern at all and if He continue in this humour as the late King did from the time of assuming his Arbitrary Dispensing Power how can he be longer King and if He ceased to be King by his leaving off to govern the Oaths to Him were as much at an end as if He had ceased at the same time to live And as the Oaths could certainly have no further Obligation to Him when He had divested himself of his Kingly Power by destroying that very Government whereby and in which He was King so did the Declaration about taking up Arms upon no pretence against the King fall with them That Declaration every one will grant me was made for the preservation of the Government which the late King took such indefatigable care to destroy That Declaration was never intended for the destruction and ruin of our Government and yet it must be the ruin of the Government if it puts it into a King's hands to turn Tyrant without controul and to subvert our Legal Constitution and undo a Nation without gainsaying and therefore that Declaration was intended for the security of and was to be made to a King governing by Law and therefore did not concern the late King from the hour He set up his own Will against the Laws and his own Power against that of the Whole Kingdom in Parliament This my Lord is the first Case whereby a King ceases to Govern or to be a King for they are synonymous I think by the Instances I have produc'd and the Arguments I have offered it may reasonably appear that the late King had subverted our Government and destroyed his own share of enjoying the Kingly Authority in it and thereby ceased to be King and if