The case of an oath of abjuration considered and the vote of the honourable House of Commons vindicated in a letter. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1693 Approx. 70 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61528 Wing S5564 ESTC R19563 12221021 ocm 12221021 56403

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61528) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 56403) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 899:19) The case of an oath of abjuration considered and the vote of the honourable House of Commons vindicated in a letter. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. [2], 36 p. [s.n.], London : 1693. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Attributed to Edward Stillingfleet. cf. BM.

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 England and Wales. -- Parliament. -- House of Commons. Allegiance. Oaths -- Great Britain. 2004-02 Assigned for keying and markup 2004-03 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-05 Sampled and proofread 2004-05 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

THE CASE OF AN Oath of Abjuration CONSIDERED: AND THE VOTE of the HONORABLE HOUSE of COMMONS Vindicated. IN A LETTER To a Friend.

LONDON, Printed for the Author. 1693.

SIR,

I Was greatly amazed to hear you, the other day, so passionately concerned in Behalf of the Oath of Abjuration; as tho our whole Stake and Safety, depended on its Passing on the Nation. This convinc'd me, that it is not impossible for People to intend the same End by the most different Means imaginable; for I verily believe, there are not two Men in England, that in their Hearts do more sincerely love their present Majesties, nor that, according to their poor Capacities and Stations, serve them better than you and I. And yet I tell you now, as I forbore not to tell you then, that I think an Oath of Abjuration, is as unlikely a thing to serve their present Majesties, as any One thing in the World besides. You told me then moreover, that some good understanding People of your Acquaintance were very much offended at the House of Commons, for throwing out that Bill twice, in two successive Sessions, and that they were looked upon rather as Enemies, than Friends, to the Present Government. I told you then moreover, that your Acquaintance might be both good and understanding People, but that they made very bold with the House of Commons, and were not understanding enough in these Affairs, to pass a true Judgment on them; and that it was a most pernicious thing, to look on all, that are not of our Mind, as Enemies. There being nothing more sure, than that two Parties may do, as you and I do, differ exceedingly in the Means of securing and supporting the Government, and yet both wish and intend the securing and supporting of it; as there is no doubt to be made, but both sides of the House of Commons did. Both sides may be right in their Intention, i. e. intend the Peace and Welfare of the Kingdom, tho the Means they pitch upon, may be very different; so different that the contrary side may fancy they are truly destructive of the End they aim at, without believing that the Persons concerned, design any other than good, to Their Majesties and the Kingdom. With this you seem'd to be for the present satisfied; but since, I understand, you begin to change your Mind again, and desire me to set down in Writing, upon what Reasons I ground my Opinion of the Mischief of an Oath of Abjuration, and send them to you, I have agreed to do so; and I suppose, I shall sufficiently satisfie all your Scruples, if I shall shew you these Three Things:

First, That an Oath of Abjuration is altogether New and Strange in England.

Secondly, That it is altogether Needless.

Thirdly, That it is altogether Impossible to be kept.

1. An Oath of Abjuration is altogether Strange and New in England. The Line of Succession hath been as frequently interrupted in England, as in any Hereditary Kingdom in the World besides. And therefore there hath been as much need of an Oath of Abjuration here, as any where, and yet we have never had one. It is not for want of Instances, but to spare your Time and Patience, that I run not up beyond the Conquest, but will begin there. What Right or Title William the Conqueror had to these Kingdoms, every Body knows as well as any Body. The Right of Promise from Edward the Confessor, if it were true, as he pretended it, yet was no Right at all; for what Power has a King of England of himself to give or bestow the Kingdom to whom he pleases? But however, he also gave it to Harold on his Death-Bed. So the Chron. Saxon. Ann. 1066. Tunc Haroldus Comes capessit Regnum, sicut Rex ei c ncesserat, omnesque ad id eum eligebant, & consecratus est in Regem in Festo Epiphaniae. So Chron. Walt. Hemingford, cap. 1. Et juxta quod ipse Rex Edwante mortem statuerat, sibi successit in Regnum Haroldus. Tho William of Malmesbury and Matth. Paris, and others, tell us he seised upon the Crown against the Will of almost all the Great Men, and especially the Bishops. Extortâ à Principibus fide, arripuit Diadema. But let Harold and the Conqueror come to the Crown how they could, it is manifest beyond Dispute, that the Right Heir was then alive, who was Edgar Atheling, the Son of Edward, Grandchild of Edm. Ironside. This Edgar was not only Heir to the Crown by Lineal Descent, but design'd to succeed Edward the Confessor, by him himself, and sent for, for that purpose, from abroad, where he, his Mother, and his Sisters were; and it was look'd upon to be so much his Due, that he was actually set up King by some parts of the Nation, insomuch that Edwin and Morcar, the great Earls of those Times, with Aldred, Archbishop of York, and the Citizens of London, agreed thereto, and promised to stand by him. And the Saxon Chron. gives us an Instance of the Abbot of Peterborough newly elected, being sent to Edgar, as King, for Confirmation. For (says it) the Inhabitants of that Country thought that he should be the King. But the Noise of William's Invasion, made the Nation bethink themselves; and the People that had been most forward to set up Edgar, began to look upon him now as a Defenceless Youth, and not able to make head against so wise and hardy a Prince as William was; and therefore leaving him to shift as he could, they made their Terms with the Conqueror. The Nation had had the same good Intentions towards this poor Prince Edgar, upon the Death of Edward the Confessor, and some had actually endeavoured to set him up; but Harold was more powerful both in Friends and Money, and stept into the Throne before him, as did the Conqueror this second time. The use I intend to make of this, will be, (as you may easily foresee) to shew you, that Edgar had a Title to the Throne, in the general Opinion of all English Men; and consequently, that he was a dangerous Competitor to King William the Conqueror. But notwithstanding this, King William, when he was Crown'd by Aldred (the same Aldred who would have set up Edgar, and who has this Character bestowed upon him by Walt. Hemingford, cap. 2. Vir bonus & prudens, intelligensque cedendum esse tempori, & Divine nequaquam resistendum Ordinationi,) took the Oath of Fealty of all that were concern'd, without any farther notice taken of Edgar Atheling above the rest, and carrying him with other Lords and Bishops over into Normandy, he set him at liberty as soon as any of the others. And tho he afterwards gave both the Conqueror and William Rufus some Disturbance, by his siding with the Scots, and Danes, and Duke Robert, yet both of them had him in their Hands, and let him go again, without any farther Mischief; he lived for some time in both their Courts, and what became of him at last, we are not certain. All that we know of it is from W. Malmesbury, who making mention of him adds, Lib. 2. pag. 25. Qui post occisionem Haroldi à quibusdam in Regem electus est, & vario lusu Fortunae rotatus NUNC penè decrepitum diem ignobilis Ruri agit. In the same place he says, that David, his Sister Margaret's Son, was King of Scotland, which was not before the Year 1124. So that he lived at least to the Age of Seventy, if we allow him to be Twelve at the Death of Harold, when he was thought unfit to Reign, for want of years. And yet in all the Reigns of these Three Kings, William the First, and Second, and Henry the First, there was no Oath of Abjuration; no Renouncing to the Rightful Title of Edgar Atheling. Each of these Princes receiv'd the Oath of Fealty and Allegiance from their Subjects, and looked no farther after the Exclusion of Edgar, than that Oath did naturally carry them, which is far enough in all Conscience, when honest People take it.

1087. When William the Conqueror died, he left the Duchy of Normandy to his eldest Son Robert. (Mezeray is mistaken when he makes the Father yield up the Duchy to the Son 1077, when he was reconciled to him, upon his mounting him again upon his Horse, when he had ignorantly met and overthrown him) and England to his second Son William Rufus, and to Henry his third Son, a mighty Summ of Money, with a Prophetical Presage, That he would One Day come to greater Matters. Rufus was then with his Father, and before his Funeral Exequies were performed (to secure himself the better of his appointed Succession) slipt over into England, and got himself Crowned King, by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury; but he was hardly warm in his Seat, before a great and deep Conspiracy was form'd against him, in behalf of his elder Brother Robert, contriv'd and carried on especially by Odo, Bishop of Baieux and Earl of Kent, his Uncle, Geofrey Bishop of Constance, and other great Lords, intending to deliver up the King and Kingdom into the Hands of Robert. This so startled and amazed Rufus, that he thereupon calls all the English Men together, and lays before them the Danger he was in, promising the Redress of many present Grievances, and ample Privileges to them and theirs, upon their Assistance, which they consented to give, and accordingly, by their Help, he pursued and utterly defeated his Enemies, and became thereby enabled to forget his fair Promises. Robert in vain attempted to invade England, being repulsed with great loss by the King's Ships and Seamen; and William, in his Turn, made over for Normandy, to do as much as Robert had design'd; but by the Mediation of Great Men on both sides, the Brothers came to an Agreement, that such and such Places should be delivered to each the other, and that whichsoever of the Brothers died first, without Children, the other should succeed him in all his Estates: And to these Covenants twelve of the most considerable Men, on each side, were very solemnly sworn. This was done 1090, and in 1094, the Brothers disagreed again, and all the Fault was laid upon the King who again prepar'd for Normandy, where each of them did a great deal of Mischief to each other; till, very luckily, the Pope engag'd Duke Robert to take upon him the Croisade, who being easily persuaded thereto (as one who was always a light and giddy-headed Prince) he sent to the King, to acquaint him with his Purpose, to conclude a Peace, and to borrow Money for that Expedition, engaging his Dukedom for it, to which the King assented readily, and carried him the Money himself, and took possession of his Pledge; the Money came to six thousand six hundred sixty six pound of Silver: And Robert behaved himself very honourably abroad, where he continued till the death of King William, 1100. In all these Quarrels and Conspiracies, occasioned by D. Robert and his Partisans, Rufus desired, nor had, no other Security of his Subjects, than the Oath of Fealty and Allegiance, which obliged them to be true to him, without excluding or abjuring Robert; and yet, I take it, Robert was a very formidable Competitor, and that such an Oath was as necessary then, as it ever was to this day,

Well, this unfortunate Robert was again put by the Crown, as well by his Absence, as by the cunning Management of his younger Brother Henry, who got so well into the good graces of the Lords and Bishops, that he was crowned King before Duke Robert could return to make his Claim. But, see the Inconstancy of English-men! Henry had made large Promises of amending all things that were amiss in the former Reigns, and confirming the Liberties of the Church, and a great many other good things; and thereupon was received by all the Nobility and Clergy with g eat Expressions ofJoy and Satisfaction, and crowned by Maurice Bishop of London, (for Anselm had been driven away by W. Rufus) But before they could have time to see whether King Henry would be as good as his Word, they generally engaged in a Conspiracy to call in Robert, and deliver up the Government to him: some of the King's Ships went over to Robert, and a great Conflux of People there was gathered to him when he landed at Portsmouth; but before they came to try their Fortune in the Field of Battel, an Accord was made between them, by the mediation of some principal Men of both sides; by which it was agreed upon that Robert should continue Duke of Normandy, and Henry, King of England, paying his Brother yearly three thousand Marks; that all Adherents to Robert should be clear'd, and enjoy their Estates, and that whichsoever of the two died Childless first, the other should succeed in both the Kingdom and the Dutchy; with some other Particulars, which were all of them sworn to (as before) by twelve Great Men on each side. This Agreement was made in 1101, and in a few years came to nothing; for after many Depredations and Reprisals, Skirmishes, and taking and retaking of Towns in Normandy, the fatal Battel was fought in 1106, where Robert was taken Prisoner, and never after obtained his Liberty, but having his Eyes put out (a piece of Cruelty much in use in those days) he lived and died at Cardiff, a miserable Captive, in the Year 1134, and was buried at Gloucester. An unhappy Prince from the beginning to the End, if we except two or three Years, spent to his Honor in the Holy-Land. But I have nothing to do with any thing relating to him, but to remark, that notwithstanding the great and continual Disturbance and Alarms he gave both William II, and Henry, yet neither of them took an Oath of Abjuration from the Nation, and it is the more remarkable in Henry, because that Robert had a Son called William, a brave and noble Youth, and a Prince of great Hopes, and like enough to prove a strong Competitor to Henry's Children. He was afterwards greatly favoured by the French King, and married his Queen's Sister, and had the County of Flanders, and other strong Places put into his hands, by which he created great Troubles to his Uncle Henry, till he was unfortunately wounded at a Siege, and being unskilfully dressed, died in a Monastery five days after, in the Year 1128.

But what did Henry do with regard both to his Brother Robert and this vigorous Prince, young William, who had sworn severely to revenge his Father's Injuries and Eyes? why he contented himself to swear his own Son, who was also called William, into the Succession of Normandy, in the Year 1115, and of England in 1116, having for that purpose called a Parliament at Salisbury. Conventio Optimatum & Baronum totius Angliae apud Searesberiam xiv. kal. Aprilis facta est, Qui in praesentia Regis Henrici homagium Filio suo Wilielmo fecerunt, & fidelitatem ei juraverunt. Sim. Dunelm. an 1116. And, as Annales de Margan have it, 1116. Filius Regis Henrici juratur ab omnibus Haeres Patris fieri. But in the Year 1120, William and the rest of the King's Children, with a great Company of People of Quality, were unfortunately drowned, the Ship being run upon a Rock not far from the Shoar from whence they put to Sea, by the Mariners and Pilot, who were got drunk. The Prince might have been saved, had he not hearkned over-tenderly to the Cries and Lamentations of one of his poor Sisters that continued in the Ship, whom thinking to take into his Boat, so many of the Ship leap'd presently into it, as sunk it immediately, and so they all perished together. The King had now but one Daughter left, which was Maud, first married to the Emperor of Germany, whose Widow she became in the Year 1125, and afterwards, in 1127, to Geofry Plantagenet Earl of Anjou; but before the King sent his Daughter away to this second Husband, upon news of his Nephew William's Promotion to the Earldom of Flanders, and his attempting great Matters by the Assistance of the King of France, he was exceedingly distressed and troubled, and calling his Parliament together (saith Brompton, Thomas Wikes, and Chron. Saxon. and every body else) at Westminster (or, as others, at Windsor) he made both David King of Scotland, all the Archbishops, and Bishops, Abbots and great Men, take the Oath of Fidelity, and do Homage to his Daughter, and her Heirs lawfully begotten, in case himself should die without any Issue Male; which they accordingly did; and, amongst the rest, none forwarder to do it than Stephen Earl of Blois, who either administred the Oath himself to the rest, after he had taken it himself, or else contrived the Form thereof; for I know not well which is the Construction of those Words in Tho. Wikes's Chronology, in the Year 1127. Non solum in Persona propria sacramentum fidelitatis emisit, sed & aliis Regni Proceribus jurisjurandi formam praestruxit. But you see, I hope, plainly, that Henry was apprehensive enough of the growing Power of his Nephew William, and yet thought fit to take no other Security of the Nation against him than a common Oath of Allegiance; there was no Talk or Offers after an Oath of Abjuration, in those days; tho it had been much to his purpose, and he had Power enough had it been otherwise convenient. This Oath of Fidelity was again renewed to Maud at Northampton in 1131. Habito que non parvo procerum conventu apud Northantonam priscam fidem apud eos qui dederant novavit, ab iis qui non dederant accepit, saith W. of Malmesbury, Hist. Novel. l. 2. p. 177. Which I mention not as if it were done out of Fear of any particular Person (for William died, as I have said, in 1128) but, in all probability to exclude Geofry her Husband from ruling, with whom he was exceedingly offended. I have it from Wil. of Malmesbury who tells us, that when King Henry lay on his Death-bed, de Successione interrogatus, Filiae omnem Terram suam citra & ultra mare legitima & perenni Successione adjudicavit: Marito ejus subiratus, quod eum & minis & injuriis aliquantis irritaverat.

Notwithstanding all this Caution and Security, and this last Declaration of the dying King in favour of his Daughter; 1135, Stephen Earl of Blois, his Nephew by his Sister Adeliza Daughter of the Conqueror, got over from Normandy into England, and tho he was repulsed at Dover, and by the Men of Kent, yet he was entertained by the Londoners, and by the dexterous Management of his Brother the Bishop of Winton, who promised for him all that could be wanted or desired, he was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Scruples about the former Oath to Maud were satisfied by the Oath of a bold Nobleman, who swore he heard King Henry, on his Death-bed, disinherit his Daughter Maud, and appoint E Stephen to succeed him in the Kingdom. Some of our Historians tell us, that there was but a poor Show of Bishops and Great-men at the Coronation, and that many ill Omens were seen thereat; others say otherwise, and tell us it was performed annuentibus Praesulibus & Próceribus Regni, and that they pitch'd on Stephen, because that Maud had no Children, and they wanted a considerable Person to look after the Affairs of the Kingdom. But all of them in general cry out aloud upon the sudden Change of the English Nobility, had so lately sworn Fidelity to Maud, Omnis Anglia, quasi in ictu oculi, ei subjecta est, saith Walt. Hemingford, from Malmesbury, c. 56. Even Robert of Gloucester swore to Stephen, tho with a very evil Mind undoubtedly, because he could not otherwise be in any Capacity of serving his Sister-in-law Maud and her Son (for now she was brought to bed of her Son Henry); this reason Wil. of Malmesbury, his Client, gives for him, He was afraid of his former Oath to Maud, and he was afraid he should never do her any Service if he swore not to Stephen, and therefore he did it, tho conditionally, that he should preserve his Honor and his Covenants. Robert was the only Man alive he feared, for he was wise and valiant to a wonder in those days, and he was glad to have any hold at all of such a Man, and therefore accepted of his Conditional Homage. You shall take the words, and see what you can make of them your self, Itaque Homagium Regifecit, sub conditione quadam, scilicet, quamdiu ille dignitatem suam integrè custodiret, & sibi pacta servaret: Spectato enim jamdudum Regis ingenio instabilitatem ejus fidei praevidebat. Malmsb. Hist. Novel. l. 1. p. 179. I am greatly afraid, there are many Roberts of Gloucester now alive, that have taken the Oaths to their present Majesties, with no better design than to capacitate themselves to do them a shrewd turn, when it lies in their way; although they see no shadow of Unfaithfulness or ill design in them; but this is a Remark out of my way, which you will pardon. It is only to my purpose to say, that Stephen contented himself with the ordinary Oath of Allegiance, tho Maud was his Competitor; and put no Nobleman or Commoner upon adjuring her or hers by name, tho he were sensible that they must prove continual Thorns in his side; and upon those Apprehensions, as soon as he was settled in his Throne, he passed over with an Army into France, with purpose only of subduing Geofry of Anjou, her Husband, prospexerat'enim (saith Tho, Wikes, 1136,) quod si Imperatrix prolem de corpore suo generaret, bella sibi minime defutura, knowing full well that if she had Children, he must look for little quiet. But Children she had, and you know how troublesome this Woman, with her Son and Brother Robert, were to him for many Years, the many Miseries this poor Kingdom endured under the time of their Dissensions (for in most Wars a Country finds but little difference between Friends and Enemies) and the Agreement made at last betwixt them. I will not insist on any of these Matters: King Stephen took all usual care to secure the Crown to himself and his Posterity; but it went no farther than to take the common Oath of Allegiance to himself, and in 1152, to cause the same to be taken to Eustace his Son. For so Annales Waverleienses 1152, Apud Londoniam Eustachio Filio R. Stephani fide & jurejurando Universi Comites & Barones Angliae se subdiderunt. He would have had him crowned, but the Clergy, by order of the Pope, opposed it strongly, and he could not carry his Point, as Gervasius tells us, in Stephano, 1131. p. In the Year 1152, died Stephen's Wife, and in 1153, Eustace his Son, a stomachful young Prince; so that Stephen, consum'd almost with Care and Grief, and finding himself decay, and his Adversary young Henry daily increasing in Riches and the Favour of the People, began to incline to Peace, which was agreed upon, you know, on condition that Stephen should continue King during his natural Life, and Henry to succeed him: and that William, Stephen's only remaining Son, should be possessed of all his Father's Estate, whilst a private Subject; but he liv'd not long to enjoy it, dying in King Henry's Service, at the Siege of Tholouse, in the Year 1159: Stephen himself went before him, dying in the Year 1154. leaving Peace, the greatest and most wanted Blessing, to this distracted Kingdom. Consider, Sir, I pray, whether an Oath of Abjuration, was not full as seasonable in this King Stephen's Case, as it can possibly be in any others, and then I will go on.

Henry II, being possessed of the Throne, took the usual Oath of Fidelity from his Subjects, without any manner of Regard had to William, Stephen's Son, who served him four Years, and died at last, as I have said, in 1159. He reigned thirty five years, and endured great Troubles and Afflictions from an untoward Queen, and most ungracious Children, the Eldest of which called Henry (sometimes called Secundus, sometimes Tertius, sometimes Junior and Minor) he caused to be crowned King whilst himself lived, and quickly found good reason to repent him of such favour. But having no competitor for the Crown, his Troubles are nothing to my purpose, since he could have no occasion for an Oath of Abjuration: and therefore I have done with him, when I have observed to you, that notwithstanding the Oath the Nation took in general to his Mother Maud her self, yet Henry succeeded Stephen, without any manner of notice taken of her. Polydor Virgil makes her present at the Treaty of Agreement, but mentions no Cession or yielding up her Right; no Historian, I have seen, takes any notice of her at all; and yet, undoubtedly, she took all those pains, in her Wars with Stephen for her self, and upbraided Stephen and all his Followers with Perjury; and yet she appears no ways concerned in the Treaty, nor makes any manner of Declaration that she absolved them of their Oaths to her, or that she was willing they should transfer their Allegiance to her Son. Perhaps they took these things for granted, because she put in no new Claim at that time: all that we know further of her is, that she died, as some say, in the 13th or, as others, in the 14th Year of her Son Henry's Reign, who died hlmself in 1189, and left his Crown and Kingdom uncontested to Richard I, who was his Eldest Son then living.

He was a brave Prince, and, according to the superstitious humour of those times, engaged in the Recovery of the Holy Sepulchre out of the hands of Infidels, where he performed Wonders, and was accounted one of the Religious Heroes of that Age. But certainly he was very ill paid at home, for these his glorious Pains abroad, by John his Brother. Most of our common Historians are mistaken in representing these matters, and confound Actions done at different times; I shall take a little pains to set them in better order, and that in short, from Roger Hoveden, Walt. Hemingford, and John Brompton, &c. When Richard went into the East, he left the Government of England in the hands of William Longchamp, Lord Chancellor and Bishop of Ely, who (for ought appears) managed it with great Fidelity to the King his Master, but to the great dislike of John and his Adherents, who made many grievous Complaints of his tyrannick Government, and seem resolved to have him laid aside at any rate; the thing that offended John at the bottom was this, that the Chancellor, being a Man of great Abilities and Power, abetted and maintained the Right of Arthur of Brettany, Son and Heir of Geofry elder Brother to John, and sent underhand to the King of Scotland, who was his great Uncle, for his Protection and Assistance, in case King Richard should do otherwise than well in the Holy-Land; protesting moreover to him, that by Letters directed to him from Sicily, King Richard had appointed Arthur his Successor, if he should die. It is not very certain whether the Chancellor acted thus in favour of young Arthur, out of a good Principle, as knowing him the rightful Heir; or with ambitious purpose of continuing in his great Authority and Regency, as he was likely to do, if a Child succeeded; but whatever the Motive was to his asserting Arthur's Right, his doing so must needs be enough to make Earl John his mortal Enemy. The Chancellor was a warm and haughty Man, and imprudently administred an Occasion of Commotion, by commanding Girard de Camvilla to yield up to him the Castle of Lincoln, who (having had it committed to his care by the King) refus'd to do it, and immediately took part with John, whose ambitious restless Temper took hold of this occasion to put himself in Arms; and, whilst the Chancellor was besieging Girard, he seized on the two Castles of Nottingham and Tickill. So that now they came to open Hostilities; in which the Chancellor finding himself the weaker, and knowing he had many Mens Persons about him, whose Hearts were with John, he made his Peace with him, upon the vile unworthy Terms of forsaking Arthur. But this was not what John wanted, which was his Dègradation and Removal; to which the following Passage ministred occasion, Geofry Archbishop of York was forbid (for some cause or other) by K. Richard to enter England in three Years space; but he, unmindful of the King's Command (and some say of his own Oath) resolved to take the opportunity of the King's Absence, and enter on his Bishoprick, which attempting to do, at Dover, he was watched by the Chancellor's Spies and taken from the Altar of a Church, whither he fled for refuge, and dragged from thence, and carried and committed to the Constable of Dover Castle. This made a great Noise, you may be sure, in those days, and opened the Mouths of the Clergy, with whose Cries Earl John fell in immediately (tho no great Friend to Church-men, who are even with him in most of their Histories) and wrote to the Chancellor to set the Archbishop at Liberty; who refusing to do it, he raised a considerable Army, and drove his Enemy to great Straits, and at last suffered him to transport himself out of the Land; having first, in the Presence and with the Consent of many Bishops, Judges, and Great-men, and the Citizens of London, decreed, that he was not fit to bear any Rule, or live any longer in the Kingdom. When this good Company was got together, Earl John resolved they should not part without a Tast of his Intentions, and therefore the same day both he and the Archbishop of Roan (who was put into the Chancellor's place, as one of the Administrators of the Kingdom) and others of the King's Justices granted to the Citizens of London, habere communam suam; and again in the same Year, John and the Archbishop of Roan, with almost all the Bishops, Earls, and Barons, swore they would most firmly and inviolably (as long as it should please the King) observe and keep communam illam. The Glossary to the X. Scriptores interprets Communam by Association and Confederation, as if it were, that these Lords and great Folks took the Citizens of London into Council with them, and made them join with them in passing their Decree and Sentence on the Chancellor. They did indeed do so; but this is not enough methinks. I have the Authority of a most excellent skilled Person both in these and all other Learned Matters whatsoever, that Communa signifies in the place, Privileges, and Immunities, and by the Sense, I believe we should all of us construe it so: For by the Passage, with its Circumstances, it appears, that there was a Combination of Lords and Bishops and the Citizens of London, in favour of John, against any other Successor. And the Citizens of London on their part, swore Faithful Service [took the Oath of Fidelity] to King Richard and his Heirs, and engaged, that if he died without Issue, they would receive John for their Lord and King. And thereupon sware Fidelity to him against all Men, saving their Oath to Richard. Radulph. de Diceto, and Joh. Bromton make no mention of these Londoners Swearing; but Roger Hoveden does (in his Annals, pag. 702.) who lived and wrote in King John's Days; and to him I refer you, if you please.

This makes me inclinable to interpret Communam by something that the Citizens of London liked, because they seemed to do a very bold and an unjust thing, in lieu of it: They took an Oath of Fidelity to One, who was neither Heir by God's, nor by the Laws of the Land, nor yet by Designation and Appointment of the King then living, who was very angry at these Proceedings, and spoke very hard Words of his Brother John; and there is great Reason to believe these strange Doings (as well as the Departure of his Enemy King Philip of France) hastened his Return the sooner into England. But in his Return he was unfortunately taken Prisoner by the Duke of Austria, and delivered into the Emperor's Hands, and there continued Sixteen or Eighteen Months. This Opportunity his Brother John laid hold on, and by the instigation of the French King, opened his Purposes and sought the Crown, sometimes giving out the King was dead, and sometimes that the Emperor resolved never to let him go. (And some Historians tell us that the King of France, and John, made mighty Offers to the Emperor, either to detain him, or deliver him up into their Hands, which he had much ado to resist.) But the Nobility opposed him constantly, and kept their Faith inviolable to their King, to their great Praise, and however careless and injurious they had been with respect to Arthur's Right of Succession, yet they were very bold and faithful to their present King in Possession; insomuch that instead of delivering up the Kingdom, and swearing Allegiance to him, as he demanded, they very vigorously besieged him and his, in Windsor-Castle, and forc'd him to surrender that and other Holds, and fly the Kingdom; which he did, and betook himself to his old Friend the King of France, to whom he became Liege-man, and did Homage for Normandy, which yet would not submit to John, but declared it self for its old Master, whom they hoped to see at home again, and safe in a short time. And so they did; for Richard came and landed at Sandwich in Kent, and was joyfully receiv'd of all his Subjects throughout the Kingdom, excepting some few Places which held out for John, which in a little time were reduc'd, and taken into Mercy by the King, who, by the Advice of the Bishops, was again Crown'd, with great Pomp at Winchester.

This is a long History, you will think, tho I have greatly shortened it; but whereto does it serve? Why some have confounded these Two Attempts of John, and made but One of them; and some have only mentioned his Attempt during his Brother's Imprisonment, which yet, you see, was a Second Undertaking, in pursuance of the First, which made way (as he imagined) for it. The Use I make of it, is this, to shew you, that John, by this first Treasonable Attempt of causing People to swear Fidelity to him, against the King's Will, and without his Knowledge, and when he was not so much as Presumptive Heir, must make him justly liable both to the King's Anger, and to the Punishment of the Laws of the Land; but that his second Attempt upon the Crown made him undoubtedly a Traitor, and not to be endur'd either by King or Subject. I know not how a Subject can become more dangerous, and to be suspected, than by having once been sworn into the Succession, without his Prince's Knowledge and Good Will, and having afterwards demanded openly the Crown, altho his King was then alive: And sure, his succeeding so well as he did the first time, and his attempting it the second time, must make him a dangerous Competitor to the King, and fit to be excluded by an Oath of Abjuration. But nothing of this was thought upon. Richard, after the Reduction of the Castles that held out in John's Favour, summoned a Parliament at Nottingham, (such as the Parliament was then) on the Thirtieth of March 1194. [Trigesima Die mensis Martii feria quarta Ricardus Rex Angliae celebravit primum Concilii sui diem apud Nottingham: as R. Hoveden, pag. 737.] where were present Elianor the King's Mother, the two Archbishops, David the King of Scotland's Brother, the Bishops and the Barons: And on the Day following, the King demanded Justice should be done him, on his Brother John, who against his Oath of Allegiance, had seised on his Castles, destroyed his Countries, both at home and abroad, and Leagued against him with the King of France, his Enemy. And it was adjudged, that Earl John should be cited to appear within Forty Days, and stand to the Law, and that if he did not—Judicaverunt Comitem Johannem demeruisse regnum, saith Hoveden. Ipsum Fratrem suum Rex exhaeredavit. Annal. Waverl. An. 1194. Omne jus pristinum & honorem impensum solenni judicio Procerum suorum abjudicavit, saith J. Brompton, from W. Hemingford (whom he constantly Copies, and Cites by the Name of Walter de Giseburn, pag. 1278. lin. 19.) Judicio Procerum omni honore privavit, saith H. Knighton, l. 2. pag. 2408. But the Annales De Margan, (put out by the most excellently Learned Dr. Gale, in 1691,) go, to my thinking, a great way farther than all the rest. The Passage is somewhat long, but remarkable enough to make you amends for the Patience of Reading it. Thus then in the Year M C XC IX. After Richard's Death, John his Brother, in the Octaves of Easter, having entred upon the Dukedom of Normandy, coming over into England, was Crowned King on Ascension-Day at Westminster, May 27. against the Judgment and Decree of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls and Barons, and all the rest of the Great Men of England, which they had passed at Nottingham in the Presence of King Richard his Brother, where for the Treason he had acted against the King, and Kingdom, in Confederacy with the King of France, he was disinherited and depriv'd (abjudicatus, which I cannot construe better) not only of all the Lands he had in England, but also of all Honors which he might hope for, or expect to have from the Crown of England. It was also decreed, that he should be summoned to appear, in such a space of time, within the King's Courts, to answer and defend himself, if he could, upon the War and Treason aforesaid, Raised and Committed whilst his Brother was abroad, and detain'd in Germany; but he came not himself, nor sent any other to answer for him. Upon which, Three Earls, his Peers, were sent to the Court of France, there to convict him of the same Treason; but neither did he make his appearance there, or answer for himself. And yet against this Judgment and Decree, he is Crowned King; William de Breuse, together with his Faction, pressing instantly for his Coronation. In which Coronation all that were concerned, offended grievously, as well because John had no Right to the Kingdom, Arthur, his elder Brother's Son, being then alive, as also, that if he had been Heir of the Kingdom, yet by and for the above repeated Treason, he had been deprived and difinherited. This is a famous Passage, and makes very much for a Bill of Exclusion, at least, if I mistake not; and there was so much in it, that when the Pope's Legat was dissuading the King of France from sending his Son Lewis into England (as the Barons and Great Men had by express Messengers desir'd him to do) and told him, England then was S. Peter's Patrimony, by the Resignation of King John; the King of France told him, that England never was John's to give, (as well because no King can give away his Kingdom, without their Consent, as also) because he had forfeited all Right to the Crown (if Right he had had) by his Treasons against Richard, of which he stood Convict, and had had Sentence passed upon him, as a Traitor, by Hugh de Pudsey, Bishop of Durham. Thus Matth. Westm. tho Matth. Paris represents it a little otherwise. But tho the King and Parliament proceeded to an Act of Exclusion, yet they put no one upon abjuring John by Name. They thought it enough to secure the present King by an Oath of Allegiance, and to put by John from succeeding him; but no one ever was constrain'd to swear he never should, nor ought to, be King. They hurt John as much as they could, by freeing the Subject from swearing to him; but they intended not to hurt the Subjects, by compelling them to swear against him. Methinks there is great deal of Difference betwixt these two Points; and that's the Use I would have you make of this long Story, which I will conclude, when I have added, That tho John afterwards did actually succeed his Brother Richard; tho Arthur had been declared Successor to Richard; tho it was the Opinion of all the World, both abroad and at home, that Arthur was the undoubted Heir of the Crown; tho many Nobles sided with him; tho he claim'd the Crown himself openly, and gave John abundance of Trouble, and alarm'd him daily; yet did John never attempt to get him abjured by the Nation, nor to secure himself any other way than by the common Oath of Allegiance. He afterwards caught him, and in all likelyhood ordered him to be made away privately; but that was nothing to the People of England. He died, 'tis thought, about 1203, but his Sister Ellinor, commonly called The Damosel of Britanny, lived till after 1240. Tho she undoubtedly was the Heiress of the Crown, if the Nation had regarded the Lineal and immediate Succession, as much in those, as in these latter Days, which it is manifest they did not.

The long and troublesome Reign of Henry the Third, the Times of Edward the First and Second afford me nothing to my present purpose: They had no Rivals or Competitors to fear, nor consequently any occasion of securing themselves by any Oath of Abjuration. When Edward the Third was Crowned King, upon the Deposition of his Father, tho Edmond of Kent, and others, attempted to deliver him from his Imprisonment, and re-instate him again, yet the young King sought not his Safety and Establishment by any Oath of Abjuration of his Father. It was enough, that the several Estates of the Kingdom, had by Deputies appointed for the purpose, solemnly renounced their Allegiance to him, and chosen his Son to Reign in his stead and taken the usual Oath of Allegiance to him; this was then esteemed sufficient Security for the young King, without concerning the whole Kingdom in an Oath of Abjuration. And this was the Case of Henry the Fourth, when Richard the Second was deposed, the Crown was entail'd by Parliament on him and his Sons, but there was no Abjuring Richard, by an Oath to be taken by the Subjects. The Estates of the Realm Deposed him very solemnly (even without any notice taken of his Resignation, though after he had made it) objecting such and such Crimes, as deserv'd it; which they might well have spar'd, and surely would have done it, even for pities sake, if they had not intended thereby to shew and exercise a Power they thought inherent in them, on such extraordinary Occasions.

I will not trouble you with the Instance of Henry VI. with regard to Richard Duke of York, who made claim upon him; nor of Edward IV. with regard to Henry VI. neither of which Princes thought of securing themselves by any Oath of Abjuration. Because you may say, there was no need of their doing so, since both of them looked upon themselves as Rightful Possessors of the Throne; and what need was there of causing the Subjects to Abjure the Right of one who had no Right at that time; nor, (as they thought) at any time besides? For I make no question but Henry VI. look'd on himself as most Rightful King; and truly the Succession of three Generations, and the Possession, for above threescore years, of Royalty, might have made a more Devout and Conscientious Prince than Henry was (if it could be) believe so too. Neither will it serve to my purpose, to instance in Richard III. with regard to the Son and Daughter of his Elder Brother George Duke of Clarence, because he confided so far in the Attaindour of the Father, that he had no suspicion of the Children; he Bastardiz'd, Depos'd, and Murther'd, the Children of his Brother Edward IV. but he thought the Act of Parliament had secur'd him against the Family of Clarence, and therefore was regardless of them. We have no reason to think he acted out of any better Principle, towards them. And it was not then perhaps so clear in Law, as since, That the Crown takes away all Defects and stops in Blood; and that from the time the King assumes the Crown, the Fountain is cleared, and all Attaindors and Corruption of Blood discharged; which was the Resolution of the Judges, in the Case of Henry VII.

The Instances I have mentioned before, from Edgar Atheling to Richard II. are enow, and sufficient to my Purpose, or none are. And I hope from them, you will be able to see, what I design'd to shew you, in the first place, That, though we have had so many Occasions, where an Oath of Abjuration was full as Reasonable, as Convenient, and as Necessary, as it can possibly be at this day, yet we have never had one. And therefore, that an Oath of Abjuration would be altogether Strange and New in England. And if you do not also see, as it were by the by, from these Collections, that the Oaths of Fidelity and Allegiance, have been constantly imposed on, and taken by, the Subjects of the Land (concern'd to take them). to such Persons as were by the Consent and Approbation of the Three Estates of the Kingdom, invested with the Regal Power, although they could not lay claim thereto, by Lineal and Legal Succession: If you do not see this, I shall think I have represented Matter but confusedly. Believe me then, in short, an Oath of Allegiance was always taken, but an Oath of Abjuration, never.

I am now, in the Second place, to shew you, according to my Skill, that an Oath of Abjuration is altogether Needless. If it be needful, it is only needful to the securing their Present Majesties in the Possession of the Throne, which they (in our Opinion I am sure) fill most deservedly. But this is not to be done by an Oath of Abjuration, if it will not be done by an Oath of Allegiance. And I may well presume, that such as refuse the Oath of Allegiance, will never take an Oath of Abjuration; so that here will be no New Subjects gain'd we may be sure; and if it will neither gain New Subjects, nor fasten the Old ones closer to their Majesties Interest, where is the Necessity of imposing it? Do their Majesties, I pray, want any thing more than Allegiance and Fidelity from all, or any of their Subjects, in the respective Stations they stand related to their Princes in? No one, I think, will say they do. If all men therefore would fulfil their Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity, what need would there be of imposing any New ones? It is not taking New Oaths, but keeping the Old ones, that must secure their Present Majesties; and will any Man that does not make a Conscience of fulfilling the Oaths he has taken, be scrupulous of either taking, or breaking, any New Ones? What should hinder one from taking an Oath of Abjuration, who has no regard to his Oath of Allegiance? And what security can you have against the breach of a Second Oath, from one who shews apparently he values not his First? Do you not therefore see that such as knowingly break their Allegiance Oath, will take at last (though not without some kind of scruple neither) the Oath of Abjuration and break it, when it is convenient, full as knowingly? We see Men, frequently, that are nice and squeamish, with respect to some Offences, who yet make very bold with others, altogether as heinous; but it is seldom seen that a Man grows tenderer in a Point wherein he has once or twice: offended. He who has taken the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties, and yet will Comfort, and Abett, and Correspond with any of their Enemies, will take the Oath again, and proceed to whatever Oath you shall impose, and still retain the same mind, and pursue the same. design; and he may do it all, upon the same Principle, by which he acts, when he breaks his Oath of Allegiance. So that an Oath of Abjuration, will neither gain their Majesties any New Friends, nor fix the Old Ones faster to them, nor yet discover any Old or New Enemies. And what is an Oath good for, that will answer to none of these ends and purposes? That will neither discover Truth nor Falshood? That will neither make nor keep. Men Honester or more Loyal than they were before, nor yet prevent them from being False and Traiterous, or shew us when they are so? I make no doubt but this is the pretence and plea for an Oath of Abjuration, that it will discover who are Enemies to the Present Government; and this is that which may make it appear most reasonable to be imposed. If it will not therefore do this, it will do nothing, or it will do mischief. This I conclude it will never do (i. e. discover who are Enemies to the Government) for this Reason. Because (supposing all along, that none will take an Oath of Abjuration, who have refused to take the Oath of Allegiance, and therefore that they alone who have taken the Oath of Allegiance, will take the Abjuration Oath) they who have taken the Oath of Allegiance malâ fide, who design (or whether they design or no, do actually do it) to serve and succour the Late King, will also certainly take the Abjuration Oath. They who have falsified their Faith to King William and Queen Mary, in favour of the Late King will not stand out upon another Oath, by which they shall not only lose perhaps a Beneficial Office, but also incapacitate themselves for either hurting their Present Majesties, or serving their Late Master. This I have before shewed, and it is not in Man to find out, or assign, one tolerable Reason why they should not do it. Will therefore any such Persidious Men as these be discovered by an Oath of Abjuration? Will they not rather be enabled to do more mischief by being more trusted for such an Oath, which they esteem and will keep just as they did the Other? So that the King and Queens Enemies will lie as safe and close under an Oath of Abjuration, as under an Allegiance Oath: for what, I would know, does the most solemn and tremendous Oath signifie, unless the Party think himself oblig'd in Conscience to observe it? And if he do not think himself oblig'd in Conscience, to observe and keep his Oath of Allegiance, what is there that should tie an Abjuration Oath upon him? For the tie and Sanction of both these Oaths must be the same, and the breach of them must be alike Criminal, and will be punished alike, in both Worlds, inasmuch as a Man is equally Perjur'd in little and in great matters: and if any Man will shew how he may safely violate his Oath of Allegiance, with a good Conscience, I will do as much for him, for the violation of the strictest Oath of Abjuration, in the World. I hope you perceive then, that they who will take an Oath of Allegiance to their Present Majesties, and make no manner of Conscience of Performing it, but actually serve, and correspond with their Enemies, will also make no Bones of taking and breaking an Oath of Abjuration; which is the Reason from whence I conclude an Oath of Abjuration will not serve to discover the King and Queens Enemies, which yet it certainly pretends to do. They are, it seems, to be discovered by Refusing the Oath; but they intend to take the Oath, and where is the discovery? Well, but will all that take the Oath of Allegiance take the Oath of Abjuration? No, unquestionably no. Will not therefore those who refuse it, be thereby discovered to be Enemies to the Present Government? I say again No. They will not be discovered to be Enemies, because they will not be thereby its Enemies. Let us, for once divide the People that have taken the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties into, 1. Such as have taken and kept it bona side. 2. Such as have taken and broken it wittingly and willingly, and with an evil mind. Of these latter, we have seen, no manner of good can be expected. They will neither be made Good Subjects, by a New Oath, nor discovered to be Bad ones by it. A New Oath will therefore only affect such as have taken the Oath of Allegiance bonâ fide, and kept it very honestly. And is it likely that they who have done so should be Enemies to the Government? I grant you, that a great many scrupled and considered long, before they ventur'd on the Oaths; but are not Scruple and Consideration tokens of a good and honest mind? And if after Scruple and Consideration, they took the Oaths, and since have kept them well and honestly, what Reason is there to think, or call, these People Enemies to the Government, though they should go no farther? The Legislative Power imposed the Oath of Allegiance on the Subject, and intended it for the Security and Establishment of the Present Government; the Subject takes the Oath and keeps it faithfully, how is he then an Enemy? My Friend desires me to walk a Mile with him, to conduct him homewards, and see him safe through such a Thieving Lane, and I consent; and when he comes to the Miles end, his fears grow greater, and he desires me to walk another Mile, but I tell him, it is late, and I can go no farther without inconveniency and danger to my self, and for this he quarrels me, and accounts me his Enemy. I leave you to judg with what Reason. I did what he desir'd at first, and thought, with all his foresight and distrust, would be sufficient to secure him (and so did all that passed that way before him) but I can do no more, and be secure my self. Sure, though I can no longer serve him, yet I have served him hitherto, and may deserve a better name than Enemy. What think you of the Application? Must those be Enemies to the Present Government, who took the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties, which was all that was required and thought sufficient for their Safety, and have all along kept it inviolable, and served them faithfully and diligently; must these be reckon'd Enemies, because they will not also take an Oath of Abjuration? Will therefore an Oath of Abjuration discover who are the King and Queens Enemies?

But that I may not seem to deny every thing to an Oath of Abjuration, after having shewn you what I think it will not discover, I will now shew you, what, I think, it will discover. And first, It will discover the Nakedness of the Land; it will discover the distress and straits, we find our selves reduc'd to, when we must have recourse to such extremities. When that which secures all other Governments in the World besides, and that which has secured our Own, as well as any Other, for so many hundreds of years (viz. an Oath of Allegiance to the Possessors of the Throne) will not secure, or be thought sufficient to secure, the Present Government, on what Foundation will the World about us think we stand? They have seen us choose, and place upon the Throne, our Princes, with all good liking and affection possible: And they will see us now, forc'd to be Chain'd to our Obedience, and tied down groveling on the ground for fear of rising up against them. This Posture will not please our Friends abroad, who understand our Generous Tempers better; they will fear the effects of such unusual Bonds. And for our Enemies abroad, they undoubtedly will do, as our Enemies at home do, rejoyce exceedingly, at such an Oath, The Jacobites (as all the Discontented Disaffected People are now call'd) have hitherto shewn themselves but Puny Politicians; their Designs have neither wanted Malice nor Barbarity, but they have laid and manag'd them, with so much Weakness and Simplicity, that they seem to be infatuated very much: but yet they are wise enough to foresee the advantages they are like to reap from the Distractions an Oath of Abjuration will undoubtedly produce amongst us. And though some of them may be set to decry it publickly, as a most abominable unheard-of thing, and others of them, in their weakness, truly believe it is so, yet the Managers of the Party, and more understanding People amongst them, do underhand abett, and favour it exceedingly, well knowing they shall find their account therein. This is One thing an Oath of Abjuration will discover, it will discover Our Distress. Secondly, It will discover, who can serve the King no longer; that is certain: We shall see thereby, who they are, that can pay their Majesties no more than Allegiance and Fidelity; that is, who can pay no more, than has at any time been paid, to all or any of their Predecessors, for above six hundred years; no more than any of their Predecessors have at any time demanded; this we shall see, and these Discoveries will be made thereby. But what shall we get by such Discoveries? They will please no good Subjects; there will be little joy in seeing a great Number of good People, that serve their Present Majesties with Faithfulness, and Honesty, and Diligence, and with Affection too, dispossess'd of their Employments, and incapacitated to serve them any longer: for to be sure, no other but the Honest, Faithful, and the Conscientious will be dispossess'd thereby. No false Subjects, none that can play with an Allegiance-Oath, will forfeit any thing for fear of an Abjuration-Oath. An Abjuration-Oath will therefore discover those who can serve their Majesties as far as an Oath of Allegiance can carry them, but no farther; and that is a Second Discovery, but such a One, as no good English Man can desire to make, in your Opinion. Thirdly, An Abjuration-Oath, will discover, it is hoped—a short Passage to the West and East Indies—a Fresh Spanish Wreck—a new and ready way to Benesicial Offices, and great Preferments. If it do not lay open the Road to good Employments, by new Vacancies, it will be good for just nothing. If those who take the Allegiance-Oath, should chance to take (as who can tell?) the Abjuration-Oath, and continue as they were, you would hear no more talk of its great security, and tendency to the Establishment of the Present Government. If this could be foreseen, an Oath of Allegiance would suffice (in their Opinion) for any King or Queen in Christendom.

If you think, Sir, I go too far in this matter, I retract. I had rather much, be mistaken in my guesses, than that any considerable Body of English Gentlemen should prefer so vile and selfish a design, to the Peace and welfare of their Natural Country. But if you knew this part of mankind as well as I do, you would still fear, that the way to Offices and good Preferments, was One of the Discoveries design'd to be made by an Oath of Abjuration, by a great many People. But, to draw to a Conclusion of this Head; an Oath of Abjuration must be altogether Needless, if it will effect no greater matters to the Security of the Present Government, than an Oath of Allegiance will do. Now, though all the Men in England who have taken the Oath of Allegiance, should also take the Oath of Abjuration, yet it is from the Oath of Allegigiance and Fidelity, the Government must look for, and find its Security, and not from the Oath of Abjuration. For he who has sworn Allegiance and Fidelity to King William and Queen Mary, has sworn, he will obey and serve them according to his Power, and shew himself a good and faithful Subject to them in the respective Post and Station, he is in. He is not only tied thereby to live peaceably and quietly under their Government, without offending against their Laws, or doing any thing to their prejudice, but he is tied to activity in their behalf and defence, if his Post and Station be such as requires him to be active. No one, that in good Conscience took the Oath to their Present Majesties can find himself at liberty to serve, by any ways or means, one that would certainly dethrone them. This is, undoubtedly, the least that an Oath of Allegiance can do, that it ties the Hands of all that take it, from lending any manner of Aid or Assistance to the Late King James. But if his Post be Active, he is farther oblig'd thereby to be Active in their Defence. If a Privy Councellor, a Bishop, and a General, take the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, they are undoubtedly oblig'd thereby, to advise faithfully and keep the Secrets, to pray for the Prosperity, and fight the Battles, of them. So that as far as, and wherever, the Office requires activity, the Oath obliges to it: and all the Security a Prince can expect must come and arise from the Obligation of such an Oath. On the other hand, what would it signifie, or contribute, to the Security of their Present Majesties, that a Man should swear they were the Legal, Lineal, Just, and Rightful Possessors of the Crown, and renounce, abjure, and disclaim, all Right and Title of the Late King James thereto; unless he held himself oblig'd, by virtue of his Oath of Allegiance, to keep and defend them in their present Possession, to the best of his power, against all Claimers whatsoever? I know there is a great deal of difference, betwixt an Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity Simply such, and an Oath of Allegiance which is also Declarative of Right. But the difference does not lie, in this, that an Oath Declarative of Right, is of greater security to the Prince, than an Oath of Allegiance. without such Declaration. For he who takes an Oath of Allegiance, gives him ••• f to whom he swears, a right to his Allegiance for the time to come, although he may be suppos'd to have had no right to it before, and therefore owes the Prince as much Allegiance after his Oath, as if he had in the Oath acknowledged him to be the most Rightful Prince in the World. As if a man oblige himself by Oath to pay another an hundred Pound, he is as strongly oblig'd to pay it him, by virtue of his Oath, as if he had truly borrowed it in time past of him. The Oath has given the other a Right to the mony, and by the Oath the Promiser is oblig'd to pay it. I do not say, that a man would not choose, if he could, rather to have a double Right to his Mony, both that of Debt, and that of Oath, than a single one of Oath; but I say that an Oath, (if the Man be able and conscientious) will as certainly secure the Mony to the other, as both an Oath and Debt.

By this I mean to say, that the Oath of Allegiance is of it self as great Security to the Prince, as if a Man should withal both Recognize the Princes Right, and Abjure, and renounce to the Title and Right of any other. Because the Security arises to the Prince from the positive Engagement of the Subject to do something for him, to do nothing against him, to pay him Service and Obedience, and to defend him against his Enemies, to his Power; and not from acknowledging him to be the Rightful Prince, and swearing that another has no Right to his Allegiance, which may be true, but signifie nothing to his Security. It is therefore evident, that all the Security that can arise to the Prince, depends upon the honest Taking, and the honest Keeping of the Oath of Allegiance, which implies Obedience and Assistance; and that he who hath taken that Oath with good intent, hath thereby given himself a Bondsman, to pay Obedience and Assistance, which is as much as any Prince can either want, or have, from all the Recognitions and Acknowledgments of Right that can be made. And these are the Considerations upon which I ground my second Conclusion, that an Oath of Abjuration is altogether Needless. It will not secure a King where an Oath of Allegiance will not. It will make no new Friends. It will fix no old Ones faster. It will discover no Enemies. It will do nothing but Mischief.

III. I have only now to shew you, in the third place, that an Oath of Abjuration is impossible to be kept. I have already considered the abjuring the Right and Title of the late King in the foregoing Article, and shewn the doing so (tho done with good Faith) would prove no manner of Security to their Present Majesties. The other part of Abjuration is of his Person and Government; as if we should Swear—We will not have this Man to Reign over us. I say such an Abjuration-Oath is, or may be, impossible to be kept; and therefore should not be imposed. For if he should come in by Conquest, how can any single Subject hinder him? If the obstinate Fight at Landen had determin'd of that valuable Life, upon which our Safeties do all so much depend; if God in his Anger should remove our excellent Princess (neither of which things were or are any way impossible) what would become of us? If therefore we mean any thing more by abjuring his Person, than that we wish he may never return, and that we will contribute neither Money, Counsel, neither Intelligence, nor corporal Aid, we must mean no sense, for all besides is no sense; and if we mean nothing but this, we certainly mean and intend this, by our Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity; for they exact as much as this comes to, at our Hands; to abjure him beyond this, is as if a Man should take an Oath, never to have a Fever, which yet he cannot possibly prevent; he may promise safely, that he does not covet it, that he will live temperately, and pray to God to keep it from him, but he can't forswear its seizing on him; and when it comes he must be patient under it. And sure, it would be a hardship on a Man, to have more than this required, when 'tis impossible he should perform more.

This, Sir, is my Sense and Opinion of an Oath of Abjuration. If it hit not with yours, or any Man as wise and good, you will pardon it. If it convince any one otherwise minded, if it confirm and settle any one in the like; in a word, if it will do any good; if it will prevent any Evil or Confusion, if it will any ways tend to the Security of their Present Majesties, and the prosperous continuance of their Government over us, I shall be glad, and think my Time and Pains well spent. And whether it do any of this or no, I must be contented; I know I design'd it well, and I know moreover, that if I err in my Judgment, I err with good Company, even with the Major Part of the Honorable House of Commons, in two successive Sessions, whose Judgment I must needs prefer to the best and most understanding Acquaintance you can possibly have.

I am, Sir, your Affectionate Humble Servant. FINIS.