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
altogether in as good and possibly in a much better Condition in the hands of those to whom the profuse Life of the last Proprietor brought them than in his hands who made such a disposition and the Public Laws have not established so exact Rules for hindring the Alienation of Lands Possessions and Moveables as they have settled for preventing of the Ruin of the State and the dissolution of Societies If Houses Trees Horses and Oxen had reasonable Souls God without doubt had ordained Laws of Right to limit the possession of the Proprietors Thus because private Persons have a full right to do with their possessions as they please and to govern them according as it seems good to them yet Public Persons cannot govern States and Societies according to their own Caprice without any right left to their Subjects and Members to oppose and hinder the devastation thereof and in some respects even the Children of a House and the presumptive Heirs of a Private Person have a right to hinder the wasting of the Possessions that belong to the Family It is very well known that the Laws have allowed Means to Heirs for the prevention of their own impendent Ruin that they may not be barr'd of their right to that Estate which ought to revert to them With far better reason may Princes Heirs of Crowns and of Kingdoms have a Right to hinder the Ruin and Devastation of those Countries which they are to possess one day Besides there is a difference betwixt Public Possessions and those of Private Persons The Law and one's Birth give the latter without any reservation but it is God and the People who bestow Public Possessions and Sovereignities and with this reservation that the Welfare and the Safety of the State and of the People is the Soveraign end of Governments and the Supreme Law God I say and the People confer Sovereign Power and bestow it on whom they please without being obliged always to have regard to the Laws of Succession David invests himself with the two Crowns of the People of Israel during the Life of the Children of Saul who was their true and lawful King and which is more the Children of Jonathan his incomparable Friend The Laws of Friendship and of such a Friendship as that was betwixt Jonathan and David are at least as inviolable amongst honest Men as the Relations of Son-in-Law and Father-in-Law Yet David without any scruple went up to Hebron and made himself be Crown'd King of Judah and not content with this seven Years after he treats with Abner General of the Army of the People of Israel to draw them from their Allegiance to Ishbosheth the Son of Saul their lawful King by Birth by Succession and by Possession to oblige him to put the Ten Tribes upon Revolting from their Obedience to their lawful Sovereign If a People in prejudice of an eldest Son would establish Cadets upon the Throne in the opinion of some By assed Persons Hell it self could not afford Colours black enough to Paint the Rebellion Enterprise and Attempt of that People yet we may see how the People of Judah and Israel set Solomon on the Throne in prejudice of I do not know how many Elder Brothers of Solomon all of them Men capable of government It may be objected that God who is the disposer of Crowns does bestow them on whom he pleases it was he who gave the Crown to David and to Solomon in prejudice of the true Heirs he could do it I find the answer very good for the Objector it is also for me and it amounts to what I have said viz. that God and the People are the Lords of Crowns to give them to whom they please God as the Sovereign Lord the People as the Lords of their Possessions under God God as the Lord of all Crowns in general every People as the Lords of their own Crown in particular thus we find innumerable instances in History of People who in their Families make one to Inherit in prejudice of another who prefer a Cadet to the Eldest Son and oftentimes the Son to the Father because the safety of the People and the welfare of the Society does so require The People go further they transfer the Sovereign Power from one House to another The Jews leave the Royal Family of David and take that of the Maccabees The French renounce that of the Morivingians to take that of Charles Martell and at last forsook that of Charles Martell who had Male Issue to set on the Throne a third Race which Reigns at this day There is no State of which History is not full of such Examples it will only wast time to set them down And such an Action is the only Foundation of the right by which the Crown of France is held Examples of this nature have the force of Laws for the constant and perpetual Custom as well of the People of God as of other Nations does make it manifest to us that it is the Peoples right and without enumerating Examples good sense and right reason make a Law and clearly declare that since Societies do make Kings for their own preservation they have a right to transfer the Power of the Government to him who is Judged the most capable to preserve the Society and Common-Wealth If these two Truths be joyned together First that Kings are not Lords of reasonable Souls as private Men are Lords of their Lands and of their Cattle Secondly that God and the People may of right bestow Crowns on whom they please a third Position will result from both viz. that the People as well as the Church is always a Minor that Kingdoms are Pupils that Kings are properly their Guardians and that consequently in the same manner as it is permitted to presumptive Heirs of the Possessions of a Pupil to hinder the disorders and prevent the wasting of the Estate which belongs to him or may belong to him for the time to come so the presumptive Heirs of a Crown not only can but ought by the Laws of Religion of Piety and of conscience to hinder disorders to preserve the Society which is going to ruin and repress the violences of him who having in his hand the Sovereign Power uses it to the destruction of the public though the lawful Heir of a Crown should have no other interest but his own he ought to be allowed to maintain and preserve it much more and with better reason when he has in his view the interest of Religion and of the Kingdom and there is no relation either of Son in-Law or of Father or of Son but ought to yeild to so inviolable an Obligation for we must love God and the Common-wealth more then Father and Mother besides this is not so much to love superiors as to abandon to them a Kingdom or a Church for the common ruin and destruction thereof It is to suffer them to take a full career to Hell and Death it is
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
design of Establishing his own Religion He had therefore a design to destroy all others and consequently to ruin the English Church the Presbyterians and the Independants for it is known by the whole World that the Popish Religion never looks upon her self to be Established till once she has made her Way through the Ruins of all other Religions Secondly This Author endeavours to prove that the Prince only fought a pretence against his father-in-Father-in-Law Because saith he he reproaches him for having suspended then Penal Laws in Favour of the Roman Catholics and has not considered him as having also suspended them in behalf of the Presbyterians and other Sectaries as if it were possible for him to have transgressed the Limits of his Power with respect to the one and not to the other He calls this an unreasonable distinction c. All this is nothing else but a piece of affected malice and ignorance This mighty Lawyer ought to know that the Penal Laws were only enacted against the Papists The Oaths if there were nothing else do sufficiently attest this They were made against those who believe the Pope to be the Head of the Church that there is another Jurisdiction within the Realm then that of the King that there is such a thing as Transubstantiation and that the Invocation of Saints is no Idolatry There are no Protestants who believe there things It is not against them that the Penal Laws and the Oaths were made but if the Penal Laws some few Years ago were extended to the Presbyterians that was done by evil designs of James Duke of York who did sow Divisions betwixt the two Parties and therefore the Prince ought to have taken it in good part that he did relax then as to the Presbyterians because that is consonant to the purport and true meaning of the Penal Laws and he ought to have taken it in ill part that the same Favour was allowed to the Roman Catholics because that is contrary to the express Decisions of the Law All the Penal Laws were made to serve as a Bulwark not only for the English Church but for all Protestants in general and therefore all Protestants of all sides set themselves against the Declaration of Liberty of Conscience in general because they saw very well whither that did tend Besides the Addresses by which this Author would prove that the Presbyterians â—â—ok'd upon the suspension of the Penal Laws as an obligation that they owed to the King were nothing else but cunning Artifices and Suppositions for the most part or made by three or four Quakers Independants or Papists who presented those Addresses without the consent of their Respective Bodies in whose name they yet pretended to speak This we know by good hands and we have derived the Account we have had hereof from the very Fountain and it appeared sufficiently by the Unanimous concurrence of those Communities on whom the said Addresses were Fathered with the Prince of Orange The Author concludes this Reflection with two confiderations The first is a mighty Elogy on the Roman Religion which he commends by reason of its Antiquity and Extent by it's Sanctity and the Saints it has given to England The other consideration is of the Power that the Church of England allows the King in Spiritual Causes whence he concludes that the Church of England would be very unreasonable if it were of the Opinion that that Power could be restrained without Cause in respect of that which is of all things most grateful to the World which is to Allow the Free Exercise of their Religion to those of his Subjects who with himself are of the most Antient Religion of all that maintain the Adoration of Jesus Christ. That is to say in a Word that if the King has Power to dispense with the Penal Laws with respect to New Sects he ought in all reason to have the same Power with respect to the Antient Religion that is professed by himself This Consequence is denied If the King of England has Power in Spiritual Causes it iâ— not an Arbitrary Power is bounded by the Laws but the Laws do not forbid a Toleration of the Presbyterians but they forbid a Toleration of the Popish Religion because that so Antient a Religion and which is so far spread through the World and is so holy is a common Enemy of all other Religions whether true or false Those other Religions which give may also receive Toleration but who is obliged to grant a Toleration to the Popish Religion which Tolerates none which destines all those to the Fire and Sword who do not submit themselves to it The Author puts an end to this part of his Defence of King James touching his Religion by taking a review of the Church of England he turns it on every side and finds it safe and sound without so much as Spot or Wrinkle She was the same under the Catholick King that she was under the Protestant Kings She had her Bishops her Cathedral Churches her Parochial Churches her Ecclesiastical Revenues The King built very near twenty Chappels at his own Charge And this is that for which he makes all this Cry Thus our Gentleman concludes that it is an imposition upon the World and a manifest token of want of sense to call that a Subversion of the Religion that was established by Law Certainly the People of England were very far in the wrong that they had not patience till King James brought their Religion to the same Issue as Lewis did the reformed in France It is true that King James established the Popish Service in all the Cities and Burroughs within the Realm where there were Papists It is true that the Jesuits were so bold as to open Schools up and down It is true that by this time London was provided with Monks of all Orders It is true that the Jesuits remained in the Court and that Father Peters was the Head of the English Church by vertue of the entire Influence that he had on the King and the precedency that he had at the Council Board It is true that the principal Offices of State were taken out of the Hands of Protestants and given either to Papists or to those who had no Religion at all It is true that the Earls of Clarenden and Rochester the King's Brothers-in-Law lost their Places of Trust for refusing to change their Religion It is true that the most part of the Judges of the King's Bench were Papists It is true that the Justices of the Peace in the Country were not a few of them Roman Catholicks It is true that the Papists were possessed of Magdalen Colledge in Oxford It is true that the Archbishoprick of York being vacant was designed for a Jesuit or some Priest It is true that the Offices in the Militia the Government of Counties and the Lieutenant ship of Ireland the Town and Fort of Portsmouth and all the places of strength on the Sea-coasts were
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