An account of the differences between the King of Denmark, and the Duke of Holstein Gottorp With some reflections upon the present motions of the Swedes. In a letter. 1700 Approx. 32 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 13 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2013-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A25086 Wing A275B ESTC R215704 99827487 99827487 31907

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A25086) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 31907) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1922:1) An account of the differences between the King of Denmark, and the Duke of Holstein Gottorp With some reflections upon the present motions of the Swedes. In a letter. [4], 19, [1] p. printed by Tho. Warren, for Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard, London : 1700. With a half-title. Running title reads: The differences between the King of Denmark, and the Duke of Holstein Gottorp. Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Frederick, -- IV, -- King of Denmark and Norway, 1699-1730 -- Early works to 1800. Friedrich -- IV, -- Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, 1670-1702. Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) -- History -- Early works to 1800. Gottorp, House of -- Early works to 1800. Denmark -- History -- Frederick IV, 1699-1730 -- Early works to 1800. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2012-05 Assigned for keying and markup 2012-06 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-07 Sampled and proofread 2012-07 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2013-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES Between the KING of DENMARK, AND THE DUKE of Holſtein-Gottorp.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES Between the KING of DENMARK, AND THE DUKE of Holſtein Gottorp. WITH Some Reflections upon the preſent Motions of the Swedes.

IN A LETTER.

LONDON, Printed by Tho. Warren, for Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1700.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES Between the KING of DENMARK, AND THE DUKE of Holſtein-Gottorp. SIR,

YOU are ſo preſſing, when you demand any thing, that one muſt needs either grant your Requeſt, or fall out with you. But I never ſaw you ſo Violent, as ſince the troubles, which ſeem to ariſe in the North, under pretence of the Execution of the Treaty of Altena. You will by all means have me not only to tell you what the matter in Queſtion is, but alſo to add my Opinion. 'Tis in vain for me to proteſt, that I am not vers'd nor skill'd enough in theſe Affairs, for to be able to diſcourſe upon them pertinently, and to the purpoſe, you will not admit of this excuſe, and therefore as one muſt Love his Friends with their faults, ſo I will endeavour to ſatisfy your Curioſity, as well as I can, being reſolv'd, rather to expoſe my ſelf to yours, and the publick Cenſure, then to run the hazard of looſing your Friendſhip.

For to take things in their true beginning; I muſt tell you, Sir, that, after the Kingdom of Sweden had ſeparated it ſelf from the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, and broke the Act of Union paſs'd at Calmer in the Year, 1397. in the Reign of the glorious Queen Margarete; which was expreſs'd in theſe Words: The Three Kingdoms of the North did join for ever, and were to have but one King for the future; which was alſo perform'd under Six Kings one after another; Frederick the Firſt, Duke of Holſtein and Sleſwig, to whom the three Crowns naturally fell, ſucceeded without any diſpute to thoſe of Denmark and Norway, having beſides, the two Dukedoms re-annexed to his Dominions.

This Prince being Dead, left Four Sons, Chriſtian the Third, who ſucceeded him in the Throne, Duke Adolf, the Chief of the Branch of the Dukes of Holſtein Gottorp, and the Dukes of Jean and Frederick, who dy'd both without Iſſue. Chriſtian the Third, upon the earneſt Sollicitation of the Queen Mother, divided the Dutchy of Sleſwig, which is from time Immemorial a Fief of the Crown of Denmark, and the Dutchy of Holſtein, which makes a part of the Circle of the Lower Saxony, between himſelf, Duke Jean, and Duke Adolf, his Brothers, in the Year 1544. in hopes to make his Brother Duke Frederick have the Arch-Biſhoprick of Bremen.

Chriſtian the Third dy'd, and left to ſucceed him Frederick the Second, and Duke Jean, commonly call'd Jean of Sunderbourg, or Jean the Younger, Chief of the Branches of Sunderbourg, Norbourg, Gluckſbourg, Ploen, &c. Frederick the Second made a Treaty with this Duke in the Year, 1564 by which the King yielded to him Sunderbourg, Norbourg, Glucksbourg, Arenſbeck, Ploen, &c. with ſome reſerves, and the Duke in favour of the King renounc'd the Succeſſion, after his Royal Father, for himſelf, Heirs and Poſterity.

Finally, Duke Jean, Brother to Chriſtian the Third, King of Denmark, and to Duke Adolf, being Dead, Frederick the Second, and Adolf, divided between them, his Lands and Eſtates, in the Year, 1581. Theſe Treaties, Sir, are the baſis and ground to ſeveral others made between thoſe Princes, which it will be too long to give a particular account of. I ſhall only ſay this: That what is moſt remarkable in them is, that by them all, until that of the Year 1658. the Dutchy of Sleſwig, was always a Fief of the Crown of Denm. and the Dukes thereof receiv'd their Inveſtiture from the Kings of Denmark. As to the Dutchy of Holſtein, the Kings of Denmark, and the Dukes have taken and ſtill do take jointly the inveſtiture thereof from the Emperour, which is call'd, according to the ſtile of the Empire: Inveſtitura Simultanea.

'Tis true, that notwithſtanding the forementioned Diviſions and Treaties of Alliance and Union, there has often been Diſputes between the Kings of Denmark, and the Dukes of Gottorp; the Dukes having always endeavoured to poſſeſs their part of the Dutchy of Sleſwig in full Sovereignty.

It was to that purpoſe that Frederick Duke of Gottorp, Grand-Father to the preſent Duke, having Marry'd Sleſwig Eleonora his Daughter to Charles Guſtavus King of Sweden, joined with this King in the War, he had with Frederick the Third, King of Denmark. This War being terminated by the Treaty of Roeſhild, in the Year 1658. and by that of Copenhagen, 1660. and Charles Guſtavus having Stipulated by the foremention'd Treaty of 1658. that the King of Denmark, ſhould ſatisfy the Duke of Gottorp by a particular Treaty. And accordingly the ſame Year the Treaty was concluded as follows: The King of Denmark reſigns to the Duke of Holſtein and his Iſſue Males, Born and to be Born in lawful Marriage, the Right of Vaſſelage and Sovereignty over the Dutchy of Sleſwig, and the Iſle of Femern, with all their Dependencies, Promiſing to furniſh the Duke with Letters Patent accordingly. This was perform'd the ſame Year, and ratified and confirm'd by the Treaty of Copenhagen, 1660. by that of Fontainebleau, 1679. and Finally, by that of Altena, which is the laſt of all, in the Year 1689.

So that, to have a true notion of the thing you muſt know, that, before the Treaty of 1658. the Kings and the Dukes were really Joint-Lords of the Dutchy, though each one had his Domains and Vaſſals apart, according to the Diviſions; but with this difference, that the Dukes being Vaſſals of the Crown of Denmark, paid Homage to that Crown for what they poſſeſs'd jointly, or ſeparately; whereas by vertue of the Treaty of 1658, the Dukes are made free from this Homage: Nevertheleſs the Union and Community are ſtill in force; inſomuch, that the King and the Duke are always Joint-Lords. It is true, they don't agree about the extent of this Community; for the Duke pretends that it does not extend farther than to the Nobility and Clergy, but as for the Country, Towns, Bayliwicks, with the Rights Pre-eminencies and Prerogatives, the things, ſays he, are ſo ſeparated and divided, that one has no right in the others Portion.

The King on the contrary pretends that, notwithſtanding the Diviſions made, and the reſignation of the Right of Vaſſalage, the Community is ſtill in force, and does extend it ſelf, not only to the Nobility and Clergy, but alſo over Towns Bayliwicks, and which is yet more, over the whole Country.

I beg your Pardon, Sir, that I don't examine here all the particular Reaſons, that each party gives, for to make good his pretenſions, I ſhall only ſay what may be ſaid moſt ſolid in this matter on both ſides. The Duke can ſay: That, beſides the Diviſions made by the Treaty of 1658. and by the following Conventions and Letters-Patent, the Right of Vaſſalage and Sovereignty, are ſo yielded to him in his Portion of the Dutchy, that he has therein a Legiſlative Power, and a Right of Sovereign Juriſdiction, as to Pardon Criminals, to raiſe Taxes, to build Forts, and to put Garriſons in them; to make Alliances, and generally all the Rights, that other Sovereigns have, and which they are not accountable of but to God alone; and all this ſeparately and independently, inſomuch that the King has nothing to do, or to concern himſelf with, in the Dukes Portion, no more than the Duke has in the Kings, who has the ſame Rights.

To which the King may Anſwer: That this is true in one ſenſe, but not in all, for, if the Sovereignty were abſolutely ſeparated, it ſhould be in ſuch a manner; that whatſoever one Sovereign did in his Portion, the other could have no right to hinder, nor to take any Notice of it. And this can't be; by Reaſon, that beſides the Community, that ſubſiſts without diſpute over the Nobility and Clergy, the Rights the Duke has over his part, and thoſe the King has over his ſeparately, don't hinder the two Sovereigns from their common Right: viz. the general Inſpection over the whole Country.

And this appears: Firſt, by the Treaties of Union, whoſe aim is, according to the Tenor, the maintaining of Peace and Concord, the good of the Country in General, and the Mutual Aſſiſtance, which the Sovereigns owe to one another. Now as the principal point of a Government reſpects the Good, the Advantage, the Peace, and the Preſervation of a Country, it is clear, that the Community in the Dutchy of Sleſwig, is ſtill in force as to this point, according to the Treaties of Union. Beſides, it is grounded upon Reaſon; for the Portions of each Sovereign are ſo intermixed one with another, that if this Union does not ſubſiſt, the Country will always be in trouble and diſorder. Secondly, this will be more evident by theſe following expreſſions of the Letters-Patent: The Eſtates, Poſſeſſions, Liberty, Rights and Priviledges, belonging to the Nobility, Commonalty, Towns, and in general to all the Subjects, ſhall remain intire without any Diſturbance. Now, don't theſe Words prove ſufficiently, that the two Sovereigns are oblig'd Mutually and Reciprocally to the Preſervation of the Rights and Priviledges of all the Subjects of the Dutchy, and that they have right to take care of the Performance of this Article, each of them in the others Portion ſeparately, and jointly over the whole? And it is, I think, but reaſonable; for, if one of them ſhould Act contrary to the Treaties of Union, the other muſt have right to oppoſe himſelf, and he, that contravenes, cannot Anſwer, that it is his particular Affair, being it is a true General buſineſs and a Common Right of two Sovereigns over one Sovereignty.

The King can ſay yet more, having ſome particular Rights, which the Duke has not; for on the one ſide, the Treaty of 1658. and the Letters-Patent expreſly contain: That the Right of Vaſſalage and Sovereignty, is yielded to the Dukes and their Iſſue Males, Born and to be Born in Lawful Marriage. From whence it appears plainly, that the Right of Fief, is not Aboliſh'd but Conditionally, and only ſuſpended in Favour of the Duke, and his Maſculine Race. And on the other ſide, there is an expreſs Condition in the Letters-Patent, viz. That the Dutchy of Sleſwig neither ſhall nor can be Alienated, either in whole or in part, to the prejudice of the Crown and Kings of Denmark. Now it is certain, that, if the Duke be oblig'd to perform theſe Articles, the King of Denmark has Reaſon to have a Watchful Eye upon him for the intereſt of his Crown, and to oppoſe himſelf againſt all Contraventions.

And indeed the King has a double Right in this; one, as being Duke of Sleſwig, jointly with the Duke of Gottorp, the other, as King of Denmark, or to ſay as Sovereign, who has been and can yet very eaſily be Feudal Lord of the Dutchy. Therefore the Duke in reſpect to the King, is not to be look'd upon as a Sovereign, without Condition or Exception, but as a Sovereign, freed from the right of Homage by his Feudal Lord, to whom he is oblig'd for it, by a Principle of Gratitude, if the thing has been done freely and ſpontaneouſly on the Kings ſide, and by a Principle of Juſtice, if it has been done by force and contrary to the Rights and Conſtitutions of the Government; and to whom he is accountable for his Adminiſtration, on the Points beforementioned.

However it be; it is upon the Principles of which I have ſpoken, that the Duke of Gottorp, who has been brought up at the Court of Sweden, and in a very great averſion to Denmark, has pretended ſeveral things, that neither his Father, nor his Anceſtors, ever had, eſpecially the Right of building Forts and Redoubts, at Holmer and other places, which he had begun two Years ago, or thereabouts, but was hinder'd from continuing them by the King of Denmark, who caus'd the Works that were begun, to be entirely demoliſh'd. But as the Duke ſince, has Married the Eldeſt Princeſs of Sweden, Siſter to the preſent King, this Marriage has made a Stricter Alliance between this Crown and him; inſomuch that the King of Sweden has ſent about 5000 Men into the Dutchy of Sleſwig, for to put the Duke, as it is believ'd, in a Condition to rebuild the ſame Forts, by which he pretends to ſecure his Country. This, Sir; is the matter of Fact.

The Dukes and the Swedes Partiſans alledge two Reaſons for to juſtify this their Proceeding; the Firſt is the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, which they ſay, ſhews that the Duke is well grounded in his Pretenſion. The Article is thus: That the King of Denmark ſhall re-eſtabliſh the Duke of Holſtein in all his Eſtates and Goods, in his Sovereignty, Regales and Rights, as, to raiſe Taxes, to make Alliances, to build Forts, and to put Garriſons in them, &c. The Second is: That the King of Sweden being Guarantee of the Treaties ſince the Year 1658. and eſpecially of that of Altena, and a Party concern'd in it, has thereby a juſt Foundation for maintaining the Duke in his pretenſions. But here are Two Queſtions to be examin'd; The firſt is: If the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, is to be underſtood in that Senſe, which the Duke and his Favourers give it, the Second is, if the King of Sweden has a juſt Foundation for his Proceedings. And hereupon I only will make ſome general Reflections.

As to the firſt Head: the firſt Reflection I ſhall make is: That how clear ſoever the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena ſeems to be in favour of the Duke, it is never the leſs not without Objection, and to give it the extent, that his Favourers do, the point that reſpects the Forts, muſt be expreſs'd thus: With the Right of building Forts where he thinks fit and Convenient, without his Majeſty's taking any Notice of it, or finding fault with it.

What I here ſay, is no Cavil; for, to be convinced of the Truth of what I ſay, one needs but to read the Fifth Article of the ſame Treaty, which ſays thus: As for the Ʋnion and Agreements between the two Houſes, and the Treaties made till the Year 1675. they ſhall continue in their full Force and Vigour, and be Religiouſly kept and obſerv'd, as well as the Treaty of Weſtphalia, the North, and Fontainebleau. Who ſees not, that how Sovereign ſoever the Duke of Gottorp be, or what Right ſoever he has to build Forts, and to put Garriſons in them, &c. he can do nothing but what agrees with theſe Treaties of Union and Agreements between the Houſes, elſe the Fifth Article is uſeleſs. Now the Queſtion is: If what the Duke does be not contrary to theſe Treaties. This is my firſt Reflection.

The Second is: That without deſcending to the particulars of what I here before have ſpoken concerning the aim and intention of theſe Treaties of Union, it is enough to ſay, that all Treaties of Union are by right ſuch, that, although thoſe, who treat ſhould find their intereſt wholly ſeparateed, one of the Parties can do nothing, that is prejudicial to the other, without infringing the Treaty, elſe it is no longer a Treaty of Union. This is a matter of Fact inconteſtable, and being ſo; with how much more Reaſon is it, when the Parties have the Rights and Intereſt in common as in this preſent Caſe? The Duke of Gottorp therefore is to prove, not only, that it is for the common intereſt to build Forts in the Places, where he will build them, and that they are neceſſary for the good and preſervation of the Country, but alſo, that theſe Forts cannot be to any prejudice to the King of Denmark his Joint-Lord. And this is, what he can never be able to prove; for on the one Hand he will build them in the middle of the Country, which is uſeleſs for its preſervation, ſeeing it is never thought neceſſary to fortify, but only the Frontiers; on the other hand, it is evident that he Fortifies himſelf againſt the King, deprives his Majeſty of the Right of the general Inſpection he has over the whole Dutchy, and conſequently the Duke breaks viſibly the Unions and Agreements between the Two Houſes, and even the Community; though it ſhould not extend any further than to the Nobility and Clergy: for this Community alone is enough to hinder one of the Sovereigns from doing any thing that concerns the general intereſt of the Sovereignty, without the conſent of the other.

I think the King has reaſon to tell the Duke: You have Right to build Forts, I confeſs it; you have Tonningen, of which you are Maſter without diſpute. But that you may do nothing to my prejudice, and that, That, which you deſign to do, may be for the good of our common Sovereignty, let us agree about the place and the Works; afterwards you may build freely, and I ſhall be ſo far from oppoſing it, that I will aſſiſt you.

But the Duke inſtead of Acting unanimouſly with the King for the common good, will alone give Laws, explain the Treaties as he pleaſes, and be the Sovereign Arbiter in a thing, where he has but only his Vote. This is not yet all; for the Duke is ſo far from conſidering jointly with the King what is neceſſary for the good of their common Dutchy, that he introduces there the Hereditary Enemy of the Crown of Denmark, builds Forts and puts them in their Hands, pretending, if I ſo may ſay, to give the Sovereignty another Maſter. Is this the ſenſe and meaning of the Treaties of Union between the Two Houſes? Is this the Senſe of the Treaty of 1658. and of the Letters-Patent?

This is ſo true, that I would fain ask thoſe, who have advis'd the Duke to Act as he does, if, now the Swediſh Troops are in his Country, they are aſſur'd, that their Maſter is Maſter enough to make them leave it, when he Commands. And was there never any Example, that Princes have pay'd dear for their Paſſion, deſire of Revenge, and too much truſt? It is to no purpoſe to ſay, that thoſe Troops ſhall Swear Fidelity to the Duke, and obey his Orders; for beſides, that ſuch Oaths are but uſeleſs precautions, according to the practice now adays, one muſt be willfully blind, not to ſee, that, whatſoever happens, the King of Sweden will always be Maſter of his Troops, and the Dukes Orders muſt ſubmit to his.

It might perhaps be ſaid: That this is the Dukes buſineſs, that he is Maſter at home, and that he has right to make Alliances; but this is a miſtake, ſince he carries the thing too far; for it is chiefly the King's buſineſs, whoſe intereſt it is to hinder the Swedes from Fortifying themſelves in the Heart of his Dominions. Beſides, can one ſay, that the Duke is ſo abſolute Maſter, even of his Portion in the Dutchy, that he can diſpoſe of it as he pleaſes? No, certainly; for without alledging the Community over the Nobility and Clergy, and the Unions, which hinder one of the Sovereigns from undertaking any thing to the prejudice of the other, one needs but read the Treaty of 1658. for to ſee that the Rights of Vaſſalage and Sovereignty are not yeilded, but to the Dukes, and their Iſſue Males, Born and to be Born in lawful Marriage, and not to any other. And therefore the Iſſue Males once failing, the King remains Sovereign alone and enters into all his Rights again, as I have already obſerv'd. Beſides, the Letters-Patent ſay expreſly: That the Dutchy of Sleſwig cannot be Alienated, neither in whole nor in part, to the prejudice of the Kings and Crown of Denmark. Finally, As for the Right of making Alliances, it is evident by all that I have ſaid, that what Right ſoever the Duke has to that, yet nothing can Authorize him to put the Country in the hands or Power of any other, nor by conſequence to introduce Foreign Troops. For what reaſon then does he charge the Country with new Troops? What War has he to fear? Where, or who are the Enemies? All Europe is in quiet; and if there be nothing to fear, why then does he oppreſs the People or exhauſt the Country without neceſſity? Is this the meaning of the Treaties of Union between the Houſes?

Some perhaps will Anſwer: That the King of Denmark himſelf is the Enemy of the Duke of Gottorp, becauſe of what paſs'd in the time of the late Duke his Father. But the King may reply: Firſt, That neither he, nor his Anceſtors, have ever been Enemies to the Dukes of Gottorp, but when the Dukes have been theirs, and held Correſpondence with the Enemies of the Crown of Denmark, contrary to the Treaties of Union, &c. And indeed the Kings of Denmark had good ground then to ſecure a Country, wherein they have an inconteſtable Right, and to hinder the Dukes from admitting their Enemies, and giving them entrance into their Kingdom. Secondly, If this reaſon ſhall take place, no Treaty of Peace can any longer ſubſiſt; for beſides, the renewing of thoſe of the Union, what do theſe following Words of the Article of the Treaty of Altena mean? There ſhall be an Eternal Oblivion of what is paſs'd on both ſides, this Treaty makes an inviolable Friendſhip, and a moſt ſtrict Ʋnion between his Majeſty and his Highneſs, as well as between their Heirs and Succeſſors, &c. And who knows not, that, when a Treaty of Peace and Reconcilement is concluded between Princes, it is no longer permitted to renew the Differences paſs'd, nor to make War without Grievances?

The Third Reflection is: That the Treaty of Altena, taken in its true Senſe, is no more than a Confirmation of that of Copenhagen, 1660. and the others following; as it appears clearly by theſe Words of the Second Article in that Treaty. .... and in all the Rights, Priviledges, and Pre-eminencies, that he injoy'd by Vertue of the Treaties of Weſtphalia, and the North, &c. This ſhews evidently, that the meaning of this Treaty has properly been but only to ſettle things again upon the ſame Foot they were before. Now ſince all things have been re-eſtabliſh'd, and the late Duke ſatisfied with it until his Death, why then does he change them at preſent, and give beginning to new troubles, that may prove dangerous to the whole Country of things by no great importance?

The Fourth Reflection is: That the Duke of Gottorp, or rather his Counſellors, ought to Remember, that there are very many reaſons which ought to bind him to the Crown of Denmark, rather than to that of Sweden; for, beſides that, which the King and they have in common in their Dutchy, their Treaties of Union, the Diſorders and the Prejudice that diviſions may produce, and the Friendſhip there naturally ought to be between Princes of the ſame Blood, and deſcended from the ſame Kings; are not the Dukes of Gottorp, for theſe many Years, Preſumptif Heirs to the Crown of Norway? And is not this preſent Duke become Heir to the Crown of Denmark, by the Dutcheſs his Mother? Now if theſe Ties don't produce a good Underſtanding, I know not what can?

I go on to my Second Queſtion, viz. To inquire if the King of Sweden be well grounded to proceed as he does? Hereupon I ſhall make the following Reflections.

The Firſt is: That the King of Sweden having no Difference with the King of Denmark; and the Duke of Gottorp, his Ally, injoying in Peace his Domains, Revenues, and his Sovereignty, jointly with the King his Joint-Lord, and ſeparately over his own Vaſſals, it is ſurpriſing that he ſhould run the hazard of kindling a War in the North, and not rather try all means of an Accommodation, eſpecially ſince the whole difference is but about the Senſe of the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, the ground of which the Parties agree on.

To this they will ſay, that there have been Conferences held and are broke of; but as each Prince Proteſts, that it is not his fault that theſe Conferences took no Effect, it is a Mark, that it would be eaſy to renew them, and yet I think it would be better to attempt it again by way of Negotiation, than by forcible and unlawful means.

My Second Reflection is: That though the King of Sweden be Guarantee, and Party concern'd in the Treaty of Altena, yet he cannot give it what Senſe and extent he pleaſes.

The Third is: That, to ſpeak properly, the King of Sweden is not Guarantee of the ſaid Treaty, for the true Guarantees, that is to ſay thoſe, who can have Right to take Notice of the performance of the Treaty, are the Mediators, viz. The Emperor, the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg; but ſuppoſe that the King of Sweden be Guarantee of this Treaty towards the Duke of Gottorp, the King of Great Britain and the States General are ſo likewiſe; ſo that it would be well worth the while to Act unanimouſly with the Mediators and Guarantees, or at leaſt not to Act without their conſent or advice; and the Duke of Gottorp is ſo much the more oblig'd to do it, for that it is his intereſt to manage the Powers, that can do much in this Affair, and will have reaſon to be offended at his proceeding. That which makes me believe that, they are not conſulted, is, that I do not ſee it is for their intereſt to ſuffer the Swedes to render themſelves more Powerful in Germany, than they are, nor that they ſhould put their Troops into a Country, where Denmark has ſo great a Right.

I know they will Anſwer, that the King of Sweden is a Young Prince, who has Ambition and Courage. All this I grant. But is this a ſufficient Ground to undertake a War upon? For in ſhort, it is very likely that the King of Denmark will not be idle or wanting to himſelf; and muſt one not have ſtrong and juſt reaſons, when he undertakes a thing of ſo great a Conſequence? Without which a Prince renders himſelf accountable to God of all the Blood, that ſhall be ſhed in the War he undertakes, or is the cauſe of.

Nay, I dare proceed yet farther to ſay, it is not always enough that a Prince has good reaſon on his ſide to begin a War, it muſt be for ſome weighty and important Affairs that are worth the while; without which he is ſtill accountable to God for all the Diſorders, that may enſue.

Now can any Body reaſonably ſay, that to Fortify the Dutchy of Sleſwig in one place more than in another, or that the Senſe of the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, is a matter that Merits the hazard of involving three Kingdoms in War and Troubles? This being ſo, I cannot conceive, how any body can adviſe the King of Sweden to ſuch an Enterpriſe.

But, Sir, if you will have me ſpeak plainly, I muſt needs confeſs, between you and I, that I cannot believe, that only the deſign to help the Duke to rebuild his Forts, is the true motive that makes the Swedes Act thus, and you can never beat it out of my Head, but that they have ſome other projects, whereof the Treaty of Altena is but the Cloak. However it be, other Princes and Powers in Europe, and eſpecially England, and Holland muſt ſee, if it be their intereſt in theſe preſent Circumſtances of Affairs, to let the War break out in the North, and not to keep the Ballance equal between the two Kings. And how can this be, as long as one makes himſelf Maſter of a Country, whereof he has no right, and which to ſpeak properly, belongs to the other.

Moreover, every Body knows that the Treaty of Sweden, with the Town of Bremen, does expire with this Century, and that the King of Sweden might renew his pretenſions; that it is not impoſſible either to ſurpriſe this Town, or to have gain'd a party therein, to ſend ſome Troops from thence into Sleſwig, and to throw a greater number into that Country, under pretence of making up the number again, that he may have a conſiderable Army in Germany. I am apt to believe, that the Neighbouring Princes will have a watchful Eye upon theſe Affairs; for my part, I will rely upon their care, ſubmitting my Reflections to the more Judicious. and my Conjectures to the Events.

I am, SIR, Yours. FINIS.
BOOKS Printed for Tho. Bennet.

THE Certainty and Neceſſity of Religion in General, or the firſt Grounds and Principles of Humane Duty Eſtabliſhed. In Eight Sermons, Preached at St. Martins in the Fields. At the Lecture for the Year 1697. Founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle Eſq;

The Certainty of the Chriſtian Revelation, and the Neceſſity of Believing it, Eſtabliſh'd in Oppoſition to all the Cavils, and Inſinuations of ſuch as Pretend to allow Natural Religion and Reject the Goſpel. Both By Francis Gaſtril, B. D. and Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn.

A Conference with a Theiſt. In Four Parts Compleat. By William Nichols, D.D.