in the hands of Papists It is true that when any one presumed to speak publickly of Religion he was put from his Pulpit if not from his Benefice It is true that when the Bishops refused to read the King's Declaration of Liberty of Conscience to Roman Catholicks under the Name of Dissenters they were sent to the Tower But to what purpose is all this they were alive still they Preached they had Pulpits and Churches whereas in France there was no such thing to be seen I but there was always reason to believe that King James who was so true a Friend to Lewis XIV and zealously bent on the same courses in agreement with him would in time push on things to such an issue to take effect in his own or his Successours days whom he was setting up as has already fallen out in France They were afraid of it I say and they had reason for the Popish Religion is a most insatiable Monster an implacable Enemy If it be allowed but room for one foot it will quickly usurp an entire Possession of all It makes profession of admitting no Partnership and of suffering no Rivals The English had forgot this Truth I know not how and suffered a Popish Prince to ascend the Throne The Cause of James II. his Misfortunes is to be looked for in the conduct of the French King It is he and he only that was the Cause thereof The English must of necessity have been very fast asleep not to awaken at the Cries of the infinite Numbers of miserable Creatures who went to carry their Afflictions and their Complaints to the Ears of the English Nation and who without speaking did pathetically express the meaning and weight of this important Advice Learn to have a care of Tyrants and Kings that are possessed by Jesuits The defence for King James is destined against King William Prince of Orange The Religion established by Law was entire and therefore his present Majesty as the Man reasons could have no just cause for passing into England Besides the Author endeavours to strengthen his Argument by the measures His Majesty took in Holland a Country where he had signalized himself more frequently than in England where he made it be blown about as this man says that his Father in Law was about to suspend the Penal Laws There are certainly Penal Laws in Holland against the Roman Catholicks but it is as certain saith he that the wisest Magistrates did judge that it was the Interest of the Republick to suspend their execution especially in the Province of Holland which is the most considerable amongst them God be praised for it You may now at last take notice of a publick confession that is express and in print That the Roman Catholicks are not persecuted in Holland Thus both Mr. Arnauld and all the Apologists for the French Persecution who were so bold as to complain of the Persecutions that their Church suffered in the Low Countries are declared to be Slanderers Note this well for these Gentlemen will say the contrary the very next day because they always speak according to their Interest but here it is their Interest to confess the truth that they may be in a capacity to conclude that the City of Amsterdam that of Rotterdam and that of Harlem had Power to suspend the Penal Laws that a King who is a Sovereign Prince can do as much as a particular City That if the Dutch without betraying their Religion might do this we have no reason to complain of a Catholick who was willing to shew the same gentleness to those of his own Religion as a Protestant Common-wealth does It is necessary that King William himself be concerned in the Proof He had a very great Number of Catholicks in his Guards and likewise amongst his Domestick Servants It is not then an Argument of Religion saith he that he does charge it as a Crime upon his Father-in-Law that being himself a Catholick he did suffer the Catholick Religion to be exercised within his Dominions Our Author is not ill to please his Premises are false throughout and his Conclusion is very bad He supposes that the Prince of Orange would answer thus that his Father-in-Law permitted the Exercise of the Roman Religion in England as it is in Holland this is false Mijn Heer Fagel's Letter was Penned to shew the contrary to King James The Prince does agree that such Penal Laws should be repealed which might endanger the Lives of the Priests and might ensnare the Conscience He does allow that the Papists be tolerated in England as they are in Holland He does again suppose falsly that King James had granted nothing to the English Papists but what the Dutch had granted to the Romish Religion in their Countries It is Impudence without Example to affirm this It is notoriously known that the toleration of Papists in Holland is not established by any Law nor by any Decree suspending the Laws It is well known that the Papists have not entred into any Office of Justice and of the Government of the State they are only admitted into Military Employs but King James was for receiving them into all the Offices of the Kingdom and not only for suspending the Execution of the Penal Laws by a tacite Toleration of Religion as it is in Holland but by an express Cessation of the Laws themselves In the third Place he does falsly suppose that the King of England has the same Power with respect to Religion that the States of Holland have in their Country This is not so the States of Holland are Sovereign and Absolute in their Provinces without limitation for it is they who make Laws but the King of England makes no Laws but with the joynt Assent and Authority of Parliament and can change nothing in such as concern Religion any more than he can do in other Laws without the Parliament Lastly He is infinitely mistaken when he compares the Quality of the Toleration of the Popish Religion that is admitted in Holland to that which he would have established in England because in Holland the Sovereign Authority is Protestant and in England the Sovereign Authority was Popish There is a very great difference betwixt having Popish Subjects and Servants and having Popish Masters The States of Holland are very well content to have Popish Subjects and the Prince will admit Popish Servants but they would not have Masters of that Religion This was designed to be done in England Their Great Master was a Papist and that Master endeavoured that all others should become so And so it does not follow from the Prince's Goodness in admitting of Papists amongst his Servants that he ought to suffer that his Father-in-Law should commit the Offices and Places of Trust within the Kingdom into the hands of Papists The words also of Popery and Papists used in his present Majesty's Declaration are not pleasing to our Opponent That Man ought to have known that those Words
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
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