I HAVE never been Consci­ous to my self, that the Temp­tation of any base Interest, or the Apprehension of any threatning Danger, could cor­rupt me to betray, or force me to de­cline, that which I well knew to be the true Interest of my King and Country; and therefore have I con­stantly look'd upon those, that made it their Business to break in upon the [Page 2] just Rights of the one, or the other, as unhappy Contrivers to involve the Nation, in a consuming Debt to Ty­ranny, or Confusion, which the Peo­ple shall be sure to pay, out of their Enjoyments in Life, Liberty, and Pro­perty.

Of Consequence therefore, I must with grating Affliction have observ'd, how strenously this vile Design has been labour'd, from towards the latter end of King Charles the 2d, to this pre­sent time. Under the screening shel­ter of that Prince, Popery and Arbi­trary Power were favour'd, and che­rish'd with all the Art and Industry, which Men of slavish Principles, and profligate Consciences, could devise and apply, till the twin Monsters were thought arriv'd at that fulness of prodigious Stature, as no longer to need his Life, for their Conceal­ment or Protection.

As a good Preparative for the Intro­duction of Arbitrary Power, in which are all the hopes of Popery, pernicious Jovian. Pamphlets were publish'd, in which it was magisterially asserted, That the Realm of England was such a compleat [Page 3] Imperial Soveraignty, as wherein the King had full, perfect, and intire Ju­risdiction from God alone; and that his Subjects ought rather to suffer Death wrongfully, than resist him. It was speciously granted indeed, That there were Political Laws to secure the Rights of the Subject: but it was stifly maintain'd, That the Imperial Laws, which ascertain'd the Rights of the Sovereign Prince, were superiour to the Political, and might and ought to de­termine when the Political Laws should be observ'd, when not. As much as to say, The Rights of the Subject should be secure from all Invasion, but that of their King. Well! that's worth something, tho' the Clown in the Greek Epigram, would not have much valu­ed it; For, said he, a little irreverent­ly indeed, but very plainly, and to the purpose,

Hercules, that defends my Flock from the [Page 4] Wolf, has ever and anon, a fat Sheep for Sacrifice, the Wolf has no more for prey. I lose on both sides; for 'tis all one to me, whether the God has it roasted, or Isgrim raw.

The Judges, in King James's time, very leernedly stated, and decided the Matter; pronouncing, That in Cases of Necessity, the King might dispense with the Laws, and that he was Judge of the Necessity.

These Gentlemen seem to have had some Modesty, tho' no more Consci­ence than the other; or, perhaps this little show of Modesty, was a cast of their Wit, they made use of the Fow­ler's cunning, stalkt under shelter, to get a full shoot at the Peoples Liber­ties, which was the Quarry they aim'd at; and dead they laid it, beshrew their hearts for their pains. But 'twas a sorry piece of cunning, which would never have taken, but that the Game they shot, was 'tangled in a Net be­fore.

Who sees not, that if the King may dispense with the Laws in Cases of Necessity, and be Judge of the Neces­sity, he may dispense with them as of­ten [Page 5] as he pleases? wherefore his learn­ed Sages of the Law might have spar'd their Wit, and more ingenuously with open boldness, have asserted and de­clar'd like Richard the 2d, That the King's Will was the Law. This is what the false Coiners of the cheating distinction of Imperial and Political Laws, and the corrupt Putters of Ne­cessity-Cases [which makes the Peo­ple's Slavery the one thing necessary] would fain be at. But the Design is so wicked and odious, that to own it in plain words, were the way to over­throw it: In truth, subtle Distinctions, and Cases which have never happen'd, are like to make the most of this bad Market. Thus all in the Land of Meta­physicks, where every Period or Page of famous School-Divinity, harbours wild Notions of Religion, which can­not be explain'd, and made intelligi­ble, much less prov'd and ascertain'd by clear Reason; the Sons of Science supernatural, the Mystic Adepti intro­duce them, with proper Terms of Art, [Terms useless to any other purpose] and settle and 'stablish them for ever, [i.e. as long as ever they can be settled [Page 6] and establish'd] on the unexamin'd Foundation of perplexing Distincti­ons.

There were not wanting among the eminent Clergy, who, as if they would go a length K. Richard never dream't on, seem'd to intimate, That the King's Will was not only the Law, but the Religion of the Country too; and Passive Obedience, the only wretched Portion of the unpeopled People; for then they were no longer a People, but a plunder'd and enslav'd Rabble, left only Tenants at Will for their Lives, Liberties, and Properties. In such a wretched Case, it would become the unpeopled People, to have always their Loins girt, Shoes on their Feet, and Staves in their Hands; not like Israelites taking leave of their hard Masters, and going to set up for them­selves; but like the Shepherds of Cre­mona, waiting for the terrible Sen­tence— Veteres migrate coloni. Be gone ye old English Race of strubborn Free-holders, ne're trouble your selves how ye shall drive your Flocks, but leave such things behind you; haste, haste, you have nothing to pack up, unless [Page 9] your old Wives, and young Children; haste, and make room for naked Co­lonies of tres humble Monsieur Servi­teurs, that shall not dare to call their Wooden Shoes their own; but Soul and Body become all Obedience, let [with Spiritual Curb, or Temporal Snaffle] Priest or Tyrant ride them.

The design of changing our Legal, into an Arbitrary Government, was copy'd from the French Original. In France twas laid in the Reign of Lew­is the XI. and took effect to the de­struction of the Rights of the People, by destroying the Power of Parlia­ments. The destruction of the Pow­er of Parliaments was carried on by very sober paces, by the most easie and modest Encroachments, that People weary of their Liberties could have wish'd for. The King did not pretend to raise Money, when he pleas'd,—by himself,—and without his Parliament; no,—good Prince,—not He. All that he desir'd, was only to be permitted to raise Money,—now and then,—upon occasion,—in the Intervals of Parlia­ment; and not that neither, but in Cases of pure Necessity, when the Safe­ty [Page 6] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 8] of his good Subjects absolutely re­quir'd it. And how could it be de­ny'd him, who lov'd his People so well, to judge of Cases of Necessity. But the Power of raising Money be­ing once gone, the deluded People presently perceiv'd, that they had pur­chas'd their Slavery with it. For now all Power fell easily into the Hands of the King. In vain it was to dispute with him any Civil Rights not yet parted with by name, or even the publick Profession of Religion. For the Power of Raising Money is, in ef­fect, the Power of doing all things; just so is it with the Article of Infalli­bility, admit but that [...], that first false Article, and you must stand with his Holiness for nothing, but believe thro' thick and thin, in spight of Sense and Reason. Well! the French King became, by the above­said Artifice, at perfect Liberty to be, or not be a Tyrant, which he pleas'd. Let no one ask how he govern'd him­self; for, did ever Man grasp at the Power to do Mischief, without the purpose? If there have been such my­sterious Riddles of irregular Vertue, yet [Page 9] the French King's after Lewis XI. were no instances of it. In them it plainly appear'd how effectually the temptation of unlimited Power works on Ambiti­ous Nature. Ambitious Nature seldom or never esteems any thing enough, if there be any thing at all out of her Possession. It has not been enough for Lewis the XIV. to be the Law, but he must be the Religion also of his Slaves. With a great many it was Ar­gument enough to be of the Religion he requir'd, because it was his: while his Spiritual Dragoons disputed more forcibly with those of a more back­ward Faith; The Priests had stood al­together idle, and unconcern'd in this Conversion, but for the merit of that flattering Doctrine. A King is ac­countable to none but God, but to make amends for their being less ser­viceable than the Military Men, their unaccountable King shall be stil'd, the Vicegerent of God, nay the very Image of the Most High, tho' they spoil the Argument in the First Chap­ter to the Hebrews, for the Divinity of Christ. I wonder they do not main­tain, That their King is accountable to [Page 10] none but himself. For if he prescribes them their Religion, as well as di­ctates their Law, he is their Idol God, as well as their Royal Tyrant.

But, as I noted, Ambitious Nature never esteems any thing enough, when there is yet something out of her pos­session, therefore Lewis the XIV. is for advancing his Tyranny over his Neighbours also. To this purpose, his method has long time been to cor­rupt the Courts of Princes by his Lovis d'Ors; to surprize Un-armed Countries, and Ill-provided Forts, by breach of his Oaths: Thus his Trea­chery has many Years purvey'd for his Cruelty, and his Cruelty shed Torrents of Blood to quench the ra­ging Thirst of his Ambition. He has plunder'd the Monuments of the Dead, and the Altars of his own Gods, nor Fearing, nor Reverencing one more than the other. He has broke his Leagues with Christian Princes, as long as they would trust him; has kept them, something better indeed, with the Turk, for it was his Interest, tho' the Turk is not his only Allie, for he has the Devil, and the Pope beside.

[Page 11] What good understanding there is be­tween him and the Pope, the World sees, and he that will not grant him to be in League with the Foul Fiend also, must believe that there's no De­vil in Hell, or no Monkish Conjurer in France, to bring those mighty Po­tentates together. Is there any differ­ence between Neighbouring States? Lewis will interpose to settle it, and never leave 'till he has settled, or made it wider. Is any Prince or Prin­cess to be Married? He proposes a Match for them, some Bastard Son, or Daughter of his own, well pre-in­structed what returns to make him, for their Preferment. Is there any Can­didate labouring for a Sovereign Bi­shoprick, or Coadjutorship, who has very little reason to support his pre­tences? Lewis the Grand will serve his hopeless interest, out of his own free mischievous Generosity. When he prospers, he fights for the glory of his Majesty; When his Affairs are in some danger, he labours only to ex­tirpate Heresie; but in neither of these Cases, thinks it improper to as­sist an Heretical Noble Revolter against [Page 12] his Catholick Lord and Master. In sending abroad Embassadors, he choses Huguenot Ravigni for England, a stout Toper for Germany, a bold Marquess for Rome, a grave Clergy-man for Spain. In short he makes himself all things for all, that he may confound all Nations, and turn the World in­to a Wilderness.

This is the French Original, which some unhappy men among us have studiously set themselves to Copy. Now in the First place God be prais'd, then due thanks paid to King William our Deliverer, and every Noble Affer­ter of our English Liberties in the Convention-Parliament, for that, the work of those unhappy Copyers was disturb'd, and so they could never fi­nish their Piece; but they gave us a plaguy sketch of it in the last Reign.

But there is another Original Draught of a Tyrant, set forth in that excellent History of the Revolution in Sweden, wherein many particulars bear a perfect resemblance of our Late Times, as to the great Transactions both in France and England, which is not to be wonder'd at, but rather to [Page 13] be consider'd as a good Evidence, that all Tyranny is alike; for tho' the Streams from the same Fountain may run in several Ways, and Channels, yet they all tend to the same Ocean of Blood.

After the Death of the Brave Steno, the Worthy Administratour of Sweden, Christiern II. succeeded his Father in the Kingdom of Denmark, and ob­tain'd the Crown of Sweden by Con­quest. This Prince was not more am­bitious to make others his Slaves, than he was, himself to become the Slave of Sigebrite, a Woman who had nei­ther the Charms of Youth, or Beauty to Captivate him. But this notwith­standing, her Power was as great o­ver him, as if she had seem'd intit'led to it, by all the Perfections, which Nature could have bestow'd upon her. It is hard to be imagin'd how an Old Dutch Woman could obtain this ab­solute Dominion over a haughty Mo­narch, unless it were by perswading him to assume the same over others. The Inhumane Polities of this She-Favourite were extremely agreeable to the fierce and cruel Disposition of [Page 14] Christiern; He look'd upon the Anti­ent Liberties of his Subjects, as incon­sistent with his Royal Honour and Dignity; and she tempted him to sa­crifice a whole Senate to his Arbitrary Ambition. This, this was the pleasing Conjuration, that charm'd him, whose Nature was not so pardonably wicked, as to dote on Youth and Beauty; The Tyrant receiv'd the Malitious Addres­ses of his furious Mistress, as Testimo­nies of her passionate Fondness for him, and so gave her that dominion over himself, which he resolv'd to have over the Swedes. He found the Pulse of the Church beat as high as his own, they were even impatient to make their King, their Tyrant, supposing that their share in the Ecclesiastical part would be as Flourishing, as his in the Civil; and the violent Arch-Bishop of Vpsal fancied he should not be much the lesser Monarch of the two.

Christiern ill enough dispos'd of himself, and always animated to mis­chief by his Hellish Erinnys, quickly came to a resolution of destroying all the Senatours and Principal Noble­men, [Page 15] that had been, or were like to be Enemies of his Imperial Arbitrary Authority. To facilitate the fatal Ex­ecution, he put on a better counte­nance, than the Withered Hagg his Spightful Favourite wore, no cloud sate on his Royal Brow; but all was clear and calm there, proper as could be to perswade them to trust, who once suspected him. With this show of Gentleness and Affection then, he invites the Lords to a Magnificent Feast at Sockholm, Two Days they were highly treated, and on the Third Massacred.

Yet was not the Imperial Tyrannick Thirst of Christiern satisfied, for the Great Gustavus, with some few Illustri­ous Patriots escap'd the Slaughter, wherefore he sends fresh bloody Or­ders to his Troops, who presently put the whole Town to the Sword, spa­ring none except the Old and Ugly, but them, perhaps in Complement to Sigebrite. Nay so utterly averse did this Tyrant then show himself to all Humanity, that when a Swedish Gen­tleman could not restrain his Grief, be­holding such a Scene of Horrour, he [Page 16] had him fastned to a Gibbet, and his Bowels torn forth, because of his ten­derness and compassion.

This surprizing Bloody Start from a King to a Tyrant, terrified the Peo­ple so extreamly, that it dispos'd them to do their parts to free themselves from their deplorable Condition. Sla­very may be the misfortune of a Peo­ple, but to submit to it, can never be their Duty; And I much question whether in the like Case, our Advo­cates of Imperial absolute Sovereignty would not have been of the same mind with the Swedes; and not by their Passive Obedience have acknowledg'd their ruine for their Religion. Well! in a short time, what the Swedes long'd for, a Deliverer appear'd. He was the injur'd Gustavus Ericson, descended from the Ancient Kings of Sweden, and Nephew to King Canutson. Christiern had now not only Abdicated his Go­vernment, by his Tyranny, in the ut­ter subversion of the Laws, Rights, and Properties of the People, but being generally Hated, Beaten, and Forsa­ken, he Consumated his Abdication by Flight, and Gustavus the Generous [Page 17] Deliverer, was by a Convention of the Estates, with the Joy of the People chosen King of Sweden, which he go­vern'd happily all the days of his Life.

A Philosopher being ask'd, which was the most dangerous of all Beasts, Answer'd, of Wild Ones, a Tyrant; of Tame Ones, a Flatterer▪ These Tame Ones hunt the Game like Jacalls, and with their plaguy yelping excite, and guide the Wild Ones to the Prey; and this they do, in hopes, that, when their Lawless Masters are cloy'd, they may satisfie their own Appetites with Reliques of that Destruction, in which they had been instrumental.

This Jacall yalping in England was never more Fierce, Eager, and Loud, than in the Reign of King Charles II. and it was a proper time for the Ene­mies of England, and the Protestant Religion, with the advantage of the shelter which he gave them, to make preparation for the Triumphant En­trance of Popery and Slavery. And at that time they did not neglect the op­portunity, witness the Dover Treaty; The Popish Plot discover'd by Doctor [Page 18] Oates, and many a bantering Sham, that could not be brought to pass up­on the People; but then something that could make its one way came on, Quo Warranto's like Bombs were thrown into Corporations, which miserably destroy'd their Antient Charters; Dis­pensing Judges were advanc'd; Pro­per Sheriffs chosen, and all unjust Arts used to dispose things for the ea­sier plundering the Nation of their Liberties, Properties, and Religion. These unrighteous Proceedings would hardly have been ventur'd on, but for the Countenance that was giv'n them by the Doctrine of Passive Obe­dience, a Doctrine not reveal'd by Jesus Christ, nor recorded in his Gospel, but stamp'd by latter Creation, under the pro­tection of which, any King may play the Christiern, or the Lewis safely, and without controul. This Creation stamp­ed Doctrine grew in such Credit, and Esteem, that not a Man, who did not give his Assent and Consent to the same, could be allow'd to be a true Son of the Church, scarcely to be a Christian.

[Page 19] The unlimited Power of a King ha­ving been so strenuously asserted, and so sucessfully in the Proceedings of those Times, seem'd to make the death of King Charles very seasonable for the opening the Execution of the Grand Design, in a barefac'd Subver­sion of the Religion and Laws of England.

King James at his first coming to the Crown seem'd to endeavour to take away the Apprehension, and Ter­rour that was justly imagin'd to fill the Minds of People. And in his first Speech declar'd so much tender­ness for them, and such a respect for the preservation of their Liberties and Properties, that the cajol'd Parliament from an excess of Satisfaction, shew, [I may safely say] more Affection to him, than ever Parliament did to a Protestant Prince, and gave Money, till he himself put a stop to the pro­fuse and excessive Expressions of their Satisfaction. It must be granted that the lives of some Professors are not so bad as the consequences of their erro­neous Opinions: And it was charita­bly thought by the Parliament, that [Page 20] King James, tho' a Papist, would not Govern so Arbitrary, as the encou­rag'd Doctrines of the Age gave him leave; but they quickly perceiv'd their Error, and found to their Sor­row, that Popery, and Arbitrary Pow­er could no more be seperated, than the double Monster that was shown in London of two Brothers, one growing out of the side of the other, who were so intimately conjoyn'd, that the Life, Decay, or Death of the one was equal­ly the Concern, and Fate of the other. For now he began to put his Imperi­al Laws in Execution, and by dispen­sing with, fairly abrogated all the Po­litical, which should have secur'd the Rights of the People, but alas! they were betray'd into his hands, and he without Mercy dispatch'd them. To me it seems almost impossible, but that the Spiritual Defenders of the Absolute Power of an English King—who de­liver'd that Power to be Gospel, and the Slavish Judges who declar'd it to be Law, should have deplor'd the Wounds they have given to the Religion, and Laws of their Country, unless the hopes of a share in the Spoiles had pre­vail'd [Page 21] above all honest Considerations, and unless they had been themselves as ready to embrace the Popish Reli­gion, as they had been instrumental to set it up. Together with the first Exercise of an Arbitrary Power, the Popish Religion began to appear on the Stage; and the Monks and Friars enter'd to act in their proper Habits; Seminaries were set up in several pla­ces, and Houses fill'd with those Re­ligious Furies; Father Peter, a Jesuit was made of the Privy Council, and reign'd Chief Minister. Thus from the Spring of Imperial [i.e. Arbitra­ry] Power, an over-flowing De­luge broke forth, threatning miserable occasions for the Religious Exercise of that Fatal Duty, Passive Obedi­ence.

King James no sooner altered from what he seem'd to be in his first Speech, but the People alter'd from what they were. Their Satisfaction in their new King vanish'd, and from the hopes of living happy Subjects under him, they sank into the Apprehensions of be­coming despis'd, and ear-boar'd Slaves. A general Consternation fell upon the [Page 22] whole Body of the People; and even those Clergy-men that were the Tools to Subvert their own Religion, and the Civil Rights of their Brethren, were afraid that themselves should feel the Thunder with which they had arm'd their Tyrant. This brought them quickly to interpret away the gram­matical, plain, mischievous Sense of Passive Obedience; and as for the Ex­ercise of it, that they were so far from practising [being above their own Or­dinances] that no honest Men were more forward to invite and joyn with a Deliverer, than these Shifters.

The miserable Condition of England at that time, did not only move Com­passion in our Neighbours, but [as we have reason to believe] put them in mind, that the Disease we labour'd under was catching; and if it was not timely repell'd by their Assistance, it would not be long before they lamen­ted their own Fate. They were there­fore, for our, and for their own sakes, aiding and assisting to our right­ful and lawful King, the then Prince of Orange, whom God and his own Vertue prompted to attempt our Deli­verance.

[Page 23] The difficulties that threatned this attempt were great and discouraging, but he, who was incapable of fear, despis'd the Dangers, Landed some Forces at Torbay, and met a Success answerable to the justness of his Cause, and the greatness of his Courage.

But before he set forward, to take off all Suspicions that might reasonably arise, where an Army came, that might pretend to Conquer, as well as to re­lieve, he put forth a glorious Decla­ration Proclaiming that his Expediti­on was intended for no other end, but to have a Free and Lawful Parlia­ment Assembled, soon as possible, to secure to the whole Nation the free en­joyment of their Laws, Rights, and Liberties, to preserve the Protestant Religion, and cover such as would live peaceably under the Government, [as becomes good Subjects] from all persecution on the account of Religi­on, Papists themselves not excepted.

King James was now reduc'd, to that, wherein he seem'd always to place his greatest trust, an Army, [for the Preachers had forsook him, and their own Slavish Doctrines sometime [Page 24] before] with the Army then he ad­vanced to Salisbury, but found that they were a part of injur'd English Men; seeing himself therefore desert­ed by them, as well as by his Chap­lains [who invested him with his il­legal Arbitrary Power,] and all the honest English; he left the Kingdom, thus he did, as it were, Sign and Seal his own Abdication, which was grown as full and perfect as obstinate Tyran­ny could make it; And as his Act and Deed the Nation took it, then the Lords, and the Commons represented in their chosen Trustees, settled the Crown and Royal Dignity on King William and Queen Mary, the exercise of Regal Power, on their glorious Deliverer only. Thus did they re­store the Old Constitution of redem'd England in King, Lords, and Com­mons.

There was before the settlement of the Crown, (Feb. 4. 1688.) a great Conference between the Lords, and Commons, chiefly on two Particulars Voted by the Commons.

1. That King James had Abdicated the Government.

[Page 25] 2. That thereby the Throne became vacant.

The Lords insisted on altering the Word, Abdicated, and in the place thereof, to insert Deserted. Also they were not willing to willing to admit those Words—The Throne is thereby become vacant. The exception against the Word Abdicated was, that in the com­mon acceptation of the Civil Law, it imports a voluntary express Act of Renuntiation, which was not in this case, and did not follow from the Premises.

To this the Commons answer'd, that the doing an Act inconsistent with the being and end of a thing about which it is conversant, or which shall not answer the end of that thing, but go quite contrary, That Act shall be construed an Abdication, and formal Renunciation of that thing. This they exemplified. Thus the Government is under a Trust, and any acting con­trary to that Trust, is a Renuntiation of that Trust, tho' it be not a Renun­tiation thereof by a formal Deed. For Act and Deed is as plain and full a Declaration, as a Writing can be. He [Page 26] that acts contrary to a Trust is a Dis­claimer of that Trust, tho' he does not disclaim it by a formal Deed. From all this they drew these just Consequences—That King James ha­ving Acted contrary to his Trust, had Abdicated his Government; and that having Abdicated it, the Throne is thereby become Vacant.

But the Lords insisted, that the Throne could not be Vacant, because there was an Heir, and that in a Suc­cessive Kingdom, an Abdication of the Government by a Tyrannous breach of Trust, could be a forfeiture only as to that Person, who Tyrannically breaking his Trust, does Abdicate the Government; but not as to the next Heir, so as to put him by, and make the Government elective. Therefore the Abdication of King James the II. could not prejudice the next Heir, and then by consequence the Throne was not vacant.

The Commons upon this demand­ed, that the Lords would tell them, with whom the Throne was fill'd.

The Lords only answer'd in gene­ral, that it was sufficient to know, that [Page 27] there were Heirs to take by lineal Suc­cession, tho' they did not, or could not expressly name the particular Per­son, whose right it was to fill the Throne. And therefore tho' they could not say who fill'd the Throne, yet they had reason to conclude, it was not Vacant. The Commons then represented to the Lords, that their Lordships would neither agree, that the Throne was Vacant, nor say how it was full, and desir'd to know who was King, if King James was not, or were they to be always in that doubt­ful Condition? For none could be King James his Heir, during his Life, the Crown could not descend till his Death.

The Lords replied, That tho' the King be not dead Naturally, yet if he is so Civilly, the next of course ought to come in as by Hereditary Succession.

The Commons replied, That their Lordships held it a difficult thing, to go upon the examination who is Heir, and demanded, if that was not clear, whether they were always to remain under the difficulty. As for the Com­mons, they were not concern'd what [Page 28] Words were us'd, Fill up, Nominate, or Elect, 'Twas the Thing they were to take care of, and 'twas high time it were done.

It was farther demanded of the Lords, whither, if there had been an Heir, to whom the Crown had de­scended in the Line of Succession, and this Heir certainly known, their Lordships would have assembled without his calling? Or would have either administer'd the Government themselves, or advis'd the Prince of Orange to take it upon him? A known Successor being in Possession of the Throne, this would amount to High Treason, and such a one must be in Possession if the Throne were not va­cant. Their Lordships were press'd to consider that they had concurr'd with the Commons in this Vote— That it is inconsistent with our Reli­gion and our Laws to have a Papist to reign over us. Upon this it was askt, Must not we come to an Election if the next Heir be a Papist? The conclu­ding Stroke was, That if their Lord­ships would not allow the Throne to be vacant, nor name the Heir who [Page 29] fill'd it, the Nation would be left in in Confusion and Distraction; but the Lords were not willing that should be left at their Doors, therefore, after they return to their House, they sent a Message to the Commons on Febr. 7. 1688. That they had agreed to the above said Votes of the Commons without any Alteration.

I thought it necessary to the chief Purpose of this Discourse, to set down some General Arguments of this Con­ference, which is to be seen at large in Print, and is most worthy to be read by all that think it worth their while to look into the Constitution of the English Government, and to un­derstand the Reason and Grounds of our late Settlement.

I would now demand of any one, that had not given double Security to the Goddess of Errour, by Swearing first to be always of his present Opi­nion; and secondly, never to exa­mine the Reasons of it; I would, I say, demand of any, but such an over­prejudic'd Man, by what other way, or means, the Nation could have been justly settled, besides that way, and [Page 30] those means, by which the Represen­tatives of the People conventionally assembled did settle it.

The Commons came to a Vote, Jan. 28. 1688. That King James the Second, having endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the Original Contract between King and People; and by the advice of the Jesuites, and other wicked Persons, having violated the Fundamental Laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath abdicated the Go­vernment, and that the Throne is there­by become vacant. And after a long Conference betwixt the Lords and Commons, the Lords on Febr. the 7th, next following, sent a Message to the Commons, to acquaint them, That they had agreed to the Vote sent them up of the 28th of January, without any Al­terations.

Here now was the whole Body of the Nation, the Lords by themselves, in their own Persons, and the People by their Representatives, agreed, That King James had Abdicated the Go­vernment, and that the Throne was vacant; by which it is evident, that [Page 31] there was as great a necessity to provide a Supply, and that by way of Electi­on, as there was to have any Govern­ment at all; for if a People without Government, and desirous to settle a Government, must not choose for themselves, I would fain know who must? It is not to be expected that God should miraculously interpose, and for any Enemies or Neighbours to in­termeddle, is against the Nature of the thing; because the end which the People seek in Government, is to se­cure themselves against all that are, or may be Enemies. It remains there­fore, that they must choose for them­selves, both who shall govern them, and by what measures. The Lords indeed, in the great Conference, spake much of an Heir, and argued strenu­ously for his Rights; but knew not who that Heir was, nor where to find him; and there's no being govern'd by the Lord knows who, that is to be found the Lord knows where; or, as old Maynard phras'd it, in the Clouds. If the Lords had known of any Heir, they had not admitted a Vacancy; if the Votes of the Majority of the Re­presentatives [Page 32] of the People had not supplied the Vacancy by resetling the old Constitution, or framing a new [which at that time they were at li­berty to have done] every one of them must have been left in a state of Nature, which 'tis every Man's In­terest to get out of as soon as he can: For tho' in a State of Nature, no Man has a Lisence to do what he pleases, every one being under obligation to the Dictates of Reason, which is the Law of Nature; yet, in that State, no Man has the Advantage of more than his single Wit and Strength to do himself Justice when he happens to be injur'd, which Inconvenience is the great Motive that inclines Men to unite in Society, and put themselves under such Form of Government as they like best.

When the Representatives of the People were conven'd to supply the Vacancy, [after that King James had sufficiently published that he would have nothing to do with the Govern­ment upon the Terms of the Consti­tution, and according to the original Contract] the Condition of the Na­tion [Page 33] seem'd to be the same, as when the Original Contract was first made, the People choosing their Ruler, and agreeing the Laws, by which he should rule them; which Original Right can never be justly taken from them, until the Champions of the Im­perial Laws of a Tyrant, and the Preachers of Passive Obedience Sla­very, can prove, that the People were made for the Advantage of their King­ly Ruler, and not the Kingly Ruler for their Advantage.

I know it has been affirm'd, that breaking the Original Contract, is a Language that hath not been long in use, nor is known in any of our Law-Books, or Publick Records; but is taken from some late Authors, and those none of the best received. 'Tis strange with what confidence some Men by the help of a little Artifice will advance the denial of Truths ob­vious and evident enough, presuming, that at the same time, they shall by their Intimations and Insinuations, establish their own wild, pernicious, and novel Notions. Imperial Laws controuling the Political, Jure divino [Page 34] Tyranny, quiet Submission to illegal Violence, commonly called Non-re­sistance, sometimes disguis'd under the absurd Phrase of Passive Obedience, this without Controversy is barbarous Lan­guage, no Man ever yet in our Law-Books or Publick Records could find either name or thing. Of what anti­quity these Doctrines may be in the Writings of some Clergymen, is not material, for neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor natural Reason requires any Man quietly to submit to illegal Violence, and look upon a Tyrant as the Ordinance of God. But yet there are among the Clergy some good Men who abhor these unchristian and un­natural Doctrines, and none among them that can bring themselves up to the Practice of the same; but even the Apologists are now fain to trim the matter with loose general talk, and softning Interpretations. But then the Sense of Original Contract runs thro' all our Law-Books, the unan­swerable Mr. Johnson has cited so ma­ny, so clear Testimonies of this, that I will only mention the Confession of an English Monarch, King James I. [Page 35] who, tho' he uses not the Word Con­tract, yet he does a Synonimous, if Paction signifies the same as Contract: In his Speech to the Parliament 1603. he sets down the just Distinction be­tween a King and a Parliament: But in his Speech to them 1609. he hath these Words: ‘The King binds him­self by a double Oath to the Ob­servation of the Fundamental Laws of his Kingdom; tacitly, as by being King, and so bound to protect, as well the People, as the Laws of his Kingdom; and expresly, by his Oath at his Coronation: So as eve­ry just King, in a setled Kingdom, is bound to observe that Paction made to his People by his Laws, in framing his Government agreeable thereunto.’ But he that is most a stranger to our Law-books, may easi­ly be able to prove, that the begin­nings of all Forms of Government could not but proceed from the Choice or Consent of the People. It is true, God is the Fountain of all Power, but he does not communicate it imme­diately to Man, at least he has not done so in these later Ages; Nay, in [Page 36] the Designation of Saul, and David, which is recorded to have been from God, 'tis remarkable that after the Divine Unction, the People assem­bled, and by their Votes freely chose them, and before the Peoples Choice they were not actually Kings of Isra­el. But I will make short of this mat­ter— Original Contract there must have been between King and People, wherever lawful Power is exercised by a King, because Kings are not imme­diately chose of God: But such a thing, as a Power to do mischief, which ought not to be resisted, never could be, because 'tis against the Na­ture of God to give such a Power to any Man, and that which inclines People to set up a King over them, restrains them from giving him such a Power.

If this be a Digression, I beg the Readers pardon, but I hope I have ful­ly prov'd that at the time of the Con­vention, [when 'tis confess'd we were without a setled Form of Govern­ment; so that the Lords of their own free Motion address'd the Prince of Orange to take upon him the Admini­stration [Page 37] for a while] the Government could not have been setled otherways than it was setled, viz. by the choice of the Community; and if they had not made so wise a Choice as they did in the Person of King William; yet his Ti­tle would have been Lawful and Rightful, because his Person was the free Choice of the Community at that time when they had no King.

But notwithstanding this plain state of the Case, and, as I presume to think, these unanswerable reasons, the Old Tyrannical Doctrine had still a spreading root, and tho' the common Sense and Honesty of the Nation, long provok'd, and almost undone by it, was ready to check the incou­ragements formerly given it, and blast its open growth, yet now it began to shoot forth its baneful branches un­der the sheltring distinction of a King DE FACTO, and a King DE IVRE. Of all the mischievous Doctrines, that ever were topt upon a Nation by ho­ly Priestcraft, none ever stood more in need of Shelter. The Doctrines of Popery commit but slight depre­dations on the Liberties, and Proper­ties [Page 38] of a People: but by IMPERIAL LAWS controuling the Political, by quiet Submission to illegal Violence, they are with a vengeance swept quite and clean away. Our comfort is, that no Parliament Men can possibly be­lieve, that the People have no right to their Liberties, because the People chuse Knights, and Burgesses to defend their Liberties and Properties, and 'twere the most disingenuous injustice in the World, for Gentlemen to ac­cept such a Trust, if they are of opi­nion, that the People are not right­fully possess's of their Liberties and Properties: No Parliament Men can possibly believe, that King William is only a King DE FACTO, because it were the most Infamous Self-con­tradiction to joyn with a King to make Laws, in whom they did not own a right to give them a Sanction. Indeed when I look back on the be­ginning of this King's Reign. I call to mind those things, which some­what amaze, and puzzle me. For who can take notice, without some extraordinary emotion, that any of the King's Chief Councellours should [Page 39] urge him not to insist on his Title DE IVRE, or that, when the own­ing him rightful and lawful King was started, and propos'd in the House of Commons, it should be coldly re­ceived and rejected. For if the King shall not hold his Title to be DE IURE, he must be an Enemy to his own quiet Possession, and if the Commons shall not own him for their rightful and lawful King, they must needs look upon themselves as Slaves, not Subjects, holding their Honours, Estates, and Interests precariously. For my part I cannot but conceive, that when the Lords and Commons in the Grand Convention, declared the Prince and Princess of Orange, King and Queen of England, &c. and setled the full and sole exercise of Regal Power on the Prince, they made him their Lawful and Rightful King. They made him their Lawful and Rightful King, or they made him nothing. Can any Man think or talk so ab­surdly, as that the Lords, and Repre­sentatives of the People chose the Prince of Orange to the infamous ho­nour of an Usurper and a Tyrant, pray­ing [Page 40] him to play the Tyrant, and Ad­minister that Government, which he had no right to meddle with? or that, at one and the same time they own'd King James his right to govern them, and would not admit him to exercise that right? These are absurd Contradictions, which cannot consist with the Honour and Wisdom of English Senators. But whatever any Enemy of our Settlement may pretend was meant by the Convention, who made choice of the Prince and Prin­cess of Orange to be King and Queen of England, &c. and of the Prince a­lone to exercise the Regal Power, this I am sure that the distinction of a King DE IVRE, and a King DE FACTO, is ill-grounded, and mis­chievous.

1. It is ill-grounded. This di­stinction can be trac'd no higher than Edw. the IV. and his first Parliament invented, and made use of it, not as a Salvo, for the justification of any thing done by, and under the Kings of the House of Lancaster, but in con­tra-distinction to a King DE IVRE, and that Parliament did thereby de­note [Page 41] that they held a King in Posses­sion, to be a King falsly so call'd on­ly, and to have no right to the Alle­giance of the People. But our Ancient Common Lawyers, Bracton, Fortes­cue, &c. knew nothing of this di­stinction. A DE FACTO KING OF ENGLAND, according to their sense of Words, is as perfect Nonsense and Contradiction, as ever was made use of, to illustrate the Ro­mish Anti-evangelical Mysteries of Priestcraft. A KING DE FACTO is just as much as a Rightful and Lawful Usurper, or a Mild and Gra­cious Tyrant. Our honest Ancient Lawyers were not wont to flatter Ambitious Princes with such odd, and wickedly devis'd Distinctions, at the expence of their Countries Honour and Safety. A King, with them, was but of one sort, Viz. The Creature of the Law, The Ordinance of the Peo­ple. The King, says Bracton, has a Superiour, God, also the Law, by which he is made King. A King is made, and ordain'd, says Fortescue, for the Defence, or Guardianship of the Laws of his Subjects, and of their Bodies, [Page 42] and Goods, whereunto he receiveth pow­er of his People.

Let Kings therefore [it is the mo­nition of Bracton] temper their pow­er by the Law, which is the Bridle of Power. These Famous, and Learn­ed Lawyers would certainly have thought it very ridiculous, that the Title of a KING, should be deriv'd only from the Notion of a Fact; and the Exercise of his Kingship made to consist in the Execution of the Impe­rial Law of his Will. Between such a King as this, and a People, there can never be a good Understanding, but they will be eternally at variance, for their Interests are distinct, and se­parate, and cannot but often happen to be directly contrary to one another. I wish the Clergy Advocates of Im­perial Power, would but well weigh the reasoning of the Reverend Mr. Hooker, a justly celebrated Writer, and I hope they will take his Word, for more than a Ceremony. I will Transcribe a Passage, they that like it not, let them answer it. He says, That for any Prince, or Potentate on Earth, of what kind soever, to exer­cise [Page 43] Government, and not either by ex­press Commission immediately, and per­sonally receiv'd from God, or else by the Authority deriv'd at first from the consent of the People, upon whom he imposes Laws, is no better than meer Tyranny, for Laws they are not, which Poitical Approbation hath not made so, but, approbation they only give, who personally declare their consent, or by others in their Names, by right original­ly deriv'd from them, as in Parlia­ments, &c.

But all of this Learned, Wise, and Good Man's order are not of his ex­cellent true Christian Spirit, some of them, among those that best under­stand this matter, in spight of Rea­son, and common use of Speaking, will set themselves up for such im­perious Dictators of Words, that the word King must needs signifie an Ab­solute Monarch. But what if it should be admitted to signifie so sometimes in some Countries, yet this is plain and undeniable, it does not signifie so always, nor so at all, in Eng­land.

[Page 44] The bare Word or Title KING does not distinstly inform us, what Power belongs to him, that must be known by examining the Constituti­on of the State, wherein he presides. Perhaps some may object, that if a King has not an Absolute Power, he is dignified with a name which does not belong to him. But this is like all the rest, a positive stroke of Ar­bitrary Philosophy. Words signifie as custom, and common consent make them, there is nothing in the nature of Words themselves, but that TYRANT might have signified a Just, a Gracious Prince, a Father of his Country; and KING, a faith­less cruel Tyrant, a Lewis, or a James.

The Gibberish of a KING DE FACTO, and the Cant of an IMPE­RIAL LAW, are of the same nature and design, levell'd at the two Nor­thern, equal, and equally hated He­resies, the Protestant Religion, and Monarchy limited by Law.

Mr. Johnson observing how long, and how troublesomely the Nation had been haunted with the Word [Page 45] DE FACTO, out of pure kindness to his Countrymen try'd to lay the Goblin; but tho' he had exercis'd ma­ny a stubborn Devil in his time, nay once not only rescued, and restor'd some possess'd Creatures, but thrown the very Devil himself into flames, yet has he not been able to lay this DE FACTO Goblin. Perhaps I ought not to pretend to more pow­erful Charmes than he, however I will repeat the Exorcism, there may be something in that: And who knows but 'tis towards day-break with the Common People, if they once begin to discern the Priestcraft, and State­craft of the distinction, a little mat­ter will rid all King WILLIAM's Dominions of the Mischeivous Phan­tom.

The plain English of a KING DE FACTO is of, or from Fact, or Deed. A KING DE FACTO must denote one, that by the means of some Fact, or Deed, is denomina­ted a KING. DE FACTO in contradistinction to DE IVRE im­plies an unrighteous forcible, an ille­gal violent Act. A KING DE [Page 46] FACTO then is a false King, a wrong King, a King who carries Usurpation, and Tyranny in his very Title. A King so far remov'd from Rightful and Lawful, that he has not, no, not a right by Law, unless the Law of his Sword; a King that has no right to govern the People, but the People a very good one to take away his DE FACTOSHIP from him. But there is nothing in this false, and dishonourable Title of a King DE FACTO, that can be affix'd to King WILLIAM, with­out the most impudent and malicious injustice: tho more of it, than the Advocates of the late King are well a­ware of, really agrees to their Abdica­tour.

If they who administred the Coro­nation Oath to the late King left out the Provision in the Ancient Oath, for the Peoples enjoying St. Edward's Laws, and added a special clause in favour of the Clergy's, Canonical Pri­viledges; if they Clogg'd the pro­mise of securing the Civil Rights of the Nation with a Salvo for Kingly Prerogative, then we may safely say [Page 47] that the late King was no more than a King DE FACTO from the ve­ry first, and all the Oaths that were made to him, are of no Obligation, he not being the Person he was taken for. But supposing that the late King did oblige himself by solemn Oath to Govern according to Law, with­out any unrighteous Omission, Additi­on or Salvo; yet when he notoriously violated that sacred Oath, by claiming an imperial arbitrary Power, above and contrary to Law, and by exerci­sing the same in very many, and those the most dangerous Instances that could be, then he disclaimed all the Legal Title he could ever be supposed to have had, tho' he continued indeed but too long afterwards a King De Facto, a King in Possession doing all the despight he could to our Old English Constitu­tion, and our Holy Reform'd Reli­gion.

But this false and dishonourable Ti­tle of a King de facto [as I said just now] cannot be affix'd to King William without the most impudent and mali­cious Injustice; for he came over upon the earnest Sollicitation of Lords [Page 48] Spiritual and Temporal and other Sub­jects of all Ranks, to deliver the Nati­on from Popery and Slavery: To this purpose he declar'd himself in Words, the Truth of which was clear enough from matter of fact, for the Forces he brought over with him were propor­tion'd to the Design of Relief and As­sistance, not of Invasion and Conquest. He took not on him the Administrati­on of Affairs for a time, but at the Re­quest of the Lords Spiritual and Tem­poral assembled in the House of Lords, and of those Parliament Men that had serv'd in the Reign of Charles II. be­ing assembled in the House of Commons: and at the meeting of the Convention he gave up that Trust, which had been committed to him but for a time, and and left it to the Convention to lay such a Foundation for the Security of their Religion, Laws and Liberties, as they themselves should think good. It was never yet objected to him by his most inveterate Enemies, that by any Acts of Force, or Arts of Corruption, he endeavour'd to work on the Members of either House to labour his own Ad­vancement: But that was the free Ele­ction [Page 49] of the Majority, after long De­bates and Consultations on other Expe­dients: He did not lay violent hands on the Crown, but only accepted it when offer'd, and upon the Conditions offer'd with it.

It is a Truth undeniably manifest, that King William did not purchase to himself the Title of a King by any Fact of his own, save that by his Ver­tue and his Merit he recommended himself to the Community, and their Choice it was that made him King, that's the Fact and Deed he claims by, and 'tis the most Righteous and Law­ful that can be, without a Miracle, which I think the Jure Divino Doctors do not pretend that we ought to wait for, that so we may have a lawful King.

The Election of the Prince of Orange to supply the Vacancy of the Throne gives him as Rightful and Lawful a Ti­tle, as the Election of any Communi­ty ever gave to the first elected King. There's nothing in the nature of a King De Facto, but King William has shown his abhorrence of it; when he took the [Page 50] Oath, together with the Crown offer'd him by the Scotch Commissioners, he demurr'd at one dubious Expression, and call'd Witnesses that he did not in­tend by it to oblige himself to be a Per­secutor, as if he had said, He would not be obliged by any means, to Go­vern in any Instances as a Tyrant, he would be no other than a Legal King.

In short, if the Choice of a People, whose King has broke the Original Contract, and will not govern by Law, but be the Law himself, or nothing; if this Choice cannot create a Rightful and Lawful King, then the Fault must be in the Office; but if the Office has no Fault in it, and it has none that I know of, I am sure there is no Flaw in the present Possessor's Title. It is im­possible that every Member of the Community should be pleas'd with the Settlement of the Crown: but if a Party think much to be concluded by the Votes of the Majority, they ought to withdraw their Persons from this Kingdom thus setled contrary to their likings, and seek out some Country where Government is model'd more to their Mind: For while they stay here [Page 51] and question the Right of King Willi­am, what do they but ridicule and re­proach their own Act? In their Sup­position, that they have set up a King DE FACTO, and no more, they suppose that they have given a Man Authority to play the Tyrant and do Mischief, they suppose that they have made Slaves of themselves, and gi­ven away their Liberties and Proper­ties, they suppose they have done all that against their own Interest, which they were angry that the late King at­tempted to do: They will never vin­dicate their Honour, unless they re­nounce their Distinction, which I have prov'd ill-grounded. I will next show the mischievous Consequences of it.

The mischievous Consequences of it are these:

I. It lessens the Honour of the King. This Distinction was reviv'd in the first Infancy of our present Settlement, by some disappointed Persons, who, when they found they could not serve their turns of the Prince of Orange, [whom with humble Supplications they had [Page 52] call'd in to their rescue from Popery and Slavery] nor prevent his Election to the Crown, presum'd that they should take from him, by Artifice, that which was confirm'd upon him [maugre all their Opposition] by Law.

It would have pleas'd them well, to have been screen'd from the Tyranny of King James, and protected in their Tyranny over their Brethren; but missing their point there, they thought they might safely restore the Divine Right to their late King, who could no longer hurt them; and as for the new elected Successor, who seem'd not made to serve their Party-interest, be­fore all things else, he should be to them but as an Usurper, not have more than the empty Name of a King. De Facto, and De Jure nick'd this Contri­vance to an hair, impair'd the Fame of their envied Deliverer, and gave them the ravishing Hopes of having their old Master again upon their own Terms.

They could not have started, had they studied for it, a more mischievous Reproach than this against their gene­rous Deliverer; for thus they charg'd [Page 53] his honest and well aim'd Declarations with want of Truth and Sincerity, they rob'd his heroick Actions of their Ci­vic Garland, they plunder'd his happy Successes of much of the just Welcom and Esteem, which was due to them from every free-born English-man.

Every dissatisfied Person that reviles the King's Honour with this illegal De Facto Title, Assassinates his glorious Fame, and comes but little behind [if he does not exceed nor equal] a Granvil, Friend or Perkins.

We have reason to believe that our glorious King William values his honou­rable Fame more than his Life; his ho­nourable Fame may last thro' many Ages, his Life cannot; the Nation in­deed is most concern'd in his Life, Po­sterity in his Fame: But we ought to be tender of the last, for they who hold him but a King De Facto, appear by their common Discourses very tender even of the Fame of his murderous As­sassines, what little Stains a Brace of those Miscreants had contracted, are thought to have been done away by a Trium­virate of Absolvers. I should be glad to see that Affront to the Government re­proved [Page 54] by other Arguments, besides what our Reverend Teachers use. The Vncanonicalness and Vnrubricalness of the bold Deed, not but that it might be Uncanonical and Unrubrical too, for ought I know; but I will swear that the Publick Absolution of Tray­tors, who are not pretended to have declar'd their Sorrow for that devillish Treason which brought them to the Gallows, no, not so much as in the Ear of the Absolver, was a more im­pudent piece of Roguery, than ever was committed by the Gown, in the Face of the Sun, with a Reverend Grace and Solemnity. I am afraid I digress, but I hope I am within the Purlues of the Forest.

It is the Distinction of De Facto and De Jure which I am to arraign, and I charge it to be Mischievous, because it lessens the Honour of the King, it draws King WILLIAM's Picture too like that of King James; there's Difference enough, let but an ordinary Painter have the Shadowing it, be­tween a Tyrant that will not be limited by Law, and a Rightful King who pre­tends to no Power but what the Law [Page 55] gives him. Between the sternness of the one awing the Poor Scholars of Maudlin, and the Martial heat of the other forcing proud Boufflers out of Namur.

It ought not to be forgot, that this DE FACTO injury to King WIL­LIAM's Honour, is an instance of un­paralell'd ingratitude, for he ventur'd Life, and Fortunes for the Deliverance of our enthrall'd Nation, and that, up­on the humble requests of the Chief of those very Men, who now requite him, with this Wicked, Shameful, and Ingrateful Distinction.

One would think it was not poli­tickly done of them, as it is plain, was not done honestly; for, who would serve their interest another time, if this be their way of Testifying their Sense of the Obligation? They are a Generation difficult, and hard to be pleas'd, and possibly it were easier to teach them their Duty, and make them Subscribe to RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL KING, than to gratifie all their Pretensions, for, whether they know it or no, the honest English Men, who were enough to carry it, for the [Page 56] Election of King WILLIAM to supply the vacant Throne, are enough to defend his Right, and establish his Throne, maugre all their restless en­deavours to supplant him.

II. As their malevolent distinction lessens the honour of the King, so it weakens the Government. Unto a King DE FACTO only, there is no esteem, no Thanks, no Allegiance due. We may admire a difficult, and great Atchievment, but it must be a Ver­tuous, Honest, and Beneficent, which wins our Esteem, and Love; we must be the better for it, if it deserves our thanks, we must have paid our thanks in giving the Hero the Right of a King or he can have no just claim to our Allegiance.

Some Men teach, [and pretend the Authority of the Church of England for it, but therein they wrong their holy Mother] that Allegiance is due to successful Usurpers, and that Provi­dence, together with success, grants them that Authority, which the Peo­ple ought to obey for Conscience sake.

[Page 57] When an unhappy interest with-holds us from professing our assent to an e­vident Truth, we are many times tempted to profess, and defend an evident and shameful untruth: So it is in the case before us. The De facto Men refusing to own the rightful, and lawful Title of King WILLIAM, are forc'd to say that Allegiance is due to Usurpers, for well they know, should they pursue their Principle as far as it would carry them, they could have no pretence at all to his pro­tection; besides, open and declar'd enmity against the Government un­der King WILLIAM's Administra­tion, was too much in all conscience to be endur'd. Hence they found it requisite to labour to perswade the King, that they were oblig'd to obey him, tho' he had no right to govern them. 'T was a strange Paradox this, so very strange, that, had they not been endued with the uncommon wit, and bouldness of guilding and varnish­ing it at the expence of the honour of God Almighty, they had made bold with the honour of the King to very little purpose.

[Page 58] But it is my business to wash off the guilt and varnish, and show the odd Paradox naked, that no Consciencious weak mind be cheated thereby here­after.

They would perswade the King, that they were oblig'd to obey him, tho' he had no right to govern them. This is pretended, first to have been the Opinion of some of the best Law­yers of former days, and Instance is offer'd in Sir Edw. Coke, the Judges in Baggett's Case, the Lord Chief Justice Hales and the Lord Chief Baron Bridgman. But the Lord Chief Justice Hales for what he says, quotes Sir Ed. Coke only, against Sir Edw. Coke's Au­thority many things are obvious, be­sides that it stands singly on Baggett's Case; the Parliament Roll recited in that Case, is pointed directly against what Sir Edw. Coke is suppos'd to have asserted; Lord Chief Baron Bridgman has said nothing in favour, but much against the Paradox. For a fair and full illustration of these particulars, I refer to the Review of Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, Printed in the Year 1691.

[Page 59] As our Law is not chargeable with so foolish and unrighteous an injunction, as that, which requires obedience to Kings in possession, Kings falsely so call'd, who have no right to govern; so much less is it to be defended from the words of Holy Scripture. But as it sometimes happens in other Cases, so in this, where Men have the least reason for it, there they put the great­est trust.

There is not a Text in the Bible which commands Obedience to Ty­rants or Usurpers. The Scope of the places, and the evident reason of things all along evinces, that the Kings, Ma­gistrates, and other Superiours, whom we are commanded to obey, have a lawful Authority to govern. Yet by artifice, and dextrous shifting the Sails, our De facto Men hope to weather the point.

Their method is, to refer all events to the over-ruling disposals of Provi­dence; so as if Providence left nothing to the free will of Man.

Indeed if it were the positive Will of God, that Ambitious Men should grasp Sceptres, and Arbitrarily Lord [Page 61] it over cheated or conquer'd People, then we ought to obey Tyrants, and Usurpers for Conscience-sake, but then the Argument would prove too much, for such Ambitious Men being the Mi­nisters of God's Providence, and exe­cuting only what he would have them, they ought not to be called Tyrants and Usurpers, they have according to this reasoning, from Providence, a lawful Tittle. But the Sophistry, in this way of arguing from Providence, is plainly discover'd, and refuted by distinguishing between the Will, and the Permission of God Almighty. When those things, that ought to be done and which are just and good, are done, then the Will of God is complied with; when contrary things are done, then the Will of God is resisted, and oppos'd, for as Dr. Sherlock has excellently observ'd, We are to learn our duty from the law of God, not from his Providence; the Providence of God will never justify any action which his Law forbids.

Let me add, nor can we, without the highest impiety, ascribe an unlaw­ful action, to his over-ruling influence; he does not so much as give leave to [Page 60] the attempts of Ambitious Men, he is not pleas'd with Usurpation and Ty­ranny, and therefore it is impossible for him to require, that Obedience be paid to Usurpers and Tyrants.

God, for many wise Reasons, per­mits the Affairs of the World to go on, as they are mov'd by the force of Natural Causes, thence it comes to pass; that Craft, and Cruelty often prevail over Right, and Innocence: But God has not made the misfortunes of honest Men their Duty; neither Reason, nor Revelation forecloses them, from using the lawful means to free themselves from Oppression and Sla­very.

When the Calvinists are charg'd with making God the Author of Sin, they commonly answer, that the Di­vine Decrees do indeed necessitate eve­ry Action, taken materially, not for­mally; I acknowledge this Distinction, to be an empty nominal distinction, not containing any sound reason to in­validate the heavy charge brought a­gainst them; But however, it showes that the Men have some modesty, for, whatever may be the Consequence of [Page 62] their Doctrines, which they pretend not to see, they will not charge God so foolishly, as to say in direct terms, that he is the Author of Sin; But the Defenders of the De facto Notion ap­plied to King WILLIAM, are not a­fraid to make God the Author of Usur­pation. They Blasphemously affirm, That Allegiance is due, not to legal Right only, but to the Authority of God who sets up Kings, without any regard to legal Right, or humane Laws.

If there be any Doctrine which more than another deserves to be call'd a Doctrine of Devils, it must be this, which boldly flies in the Face of God himself, and in downright terms pro­claims, that the Judge of all the World does wrong. The publishing and de­fending such Notions as this, natural­ly tends to promote all flagitious and unjust attempts, and thereby to bring Confusion and Ruin upon a Nati­on.

The Great God has a just Authori­ty over all Men, for He made them; they ought to obey him, for his com­mands are just, when he expostulates with Disobedient Sinners, he appeals [Page 63] to them, whether his Laws are not reasonable. He gives none but reasona­ble commands, but to obey Usurpers and Tyrants is not reasonable, nor any command of his.

The success of Ambitious Usurpers is not promoted by any favourable assistance from Heaven; but is only the consequence of the Wit, Vigour, and industry of those Usurpers, the Almighty permiting, and leaving the course of things to the force of Natu­ral Causes. It is a most impious thought to imagin, that the Righte­ous God should require us to be aid­ing, and assisting to wicked Usurpati­ons. It might as well be thought, that he should bid us disobey lawful Pow­ers, as bid us to obey Usurpers. In short, even the De facto Men them­selves have granted all this, in their Discourses of God and Providence, when they have not had a By-cause to serve.

What I have now mention'd and censur'd, was all, which for some while, Envy and Ingratitude against our Glorious Deliverer, and Rightful King, could advance in behalf of that [Page 64] shameful Paradox—which requires Allegiance to be paid to a successful Usurper, a King DE FACTO, who has no right to govern.

But when it was observ'd, that nei­ther our Law-Books, nor Bibles, by all the artful application of ill-affected Lawyers, and Priests, could be per­swaded to spread a sheltring Umbrage over that shameful Paradox of theirs, which the denial of King WILLIAM's Right forc'd them to devise, some more refin'd Phoilosophers, with a par­ticular Court-like Address, thought to save its Credit. The Throne (say they) being fill'd, [no matter how] we are protected by it, and the bene­fit of Protection requires the recipro­cal duty of Obedience. By this one Argument, they would have us be­lieve, that all Differences may be com­promiz'd, their Consciences sav'd, and the Government in no danger.

But by their Favour, tho' perhaps their Consciences may shift well e­nough, come what will; yet I think the Government cannot be safely ven­tur'd upon their gratitude, we have had so many Plots, and Trayterous [Page 65] Correspondencies of Discontented Men, who were not only protected, but some of them trusted, and honour'd; that there's no avoiding such a suspici­ous thought.

But to speak close to their Argu­ment: They make possession of the Throne, tho' obtain'd by bloody, and violent Mischiefs, the same thing as Protection; to an Usurper's Admini­stration they give the name of a Be­nefit, and to such a Violent Benefit obtruded upon Men against their wills, they would have Obedience paid, as Duty. More Absurdities cannot well be crowded into so few words. A vi­olent Possessour is like to give but an odd sort of Protection to them, who do not uphold his violent Possession, as far as they are able; his dealing to all but the Friends of his Usurpa­tion will look more like Tyranny than Protection, and must more pro­perly be called an Injury than a Be­nefit.

A violent Possessor does, by his first unjust Violence a present great Injury, to all them on whom he imposes his Yoke; and how should they expect [Page 66] any future Benefit from him? For, by his Usurpation, they are depriv'd of all Right to claim, or expect it by any Obligation of Laws, or claim of Ju­stice; what they shall chance to meet with of that kind, they must have from his unconfin'd Will and arbitrary Pow­er, which is a very Capricious and For­tuitous thing.

Are we oblig'd to obey a Prince, whom not our Law, but his own Might advanc'd over us? Then it must be his Might that obliges us, and the Obedience which we pay, is Obe­dience per Force, Obedience falsly so call'd, in truth, it is no more Obedi­ence than Possession is Protection, and Governing us whither we will or no, a Benefit; true Obedience is from choice, and always paid for real and valuable Considerations. The due Allegiance of Subjects is paid for the Enjoyment of Life, Liberty and Property, defended by such Laws as the Subjects have con­sented to, the Execution of which Laws is committed to his Trust, who is by due Course of Law made their Gover­nor, under what high Character or Ti­tle soever.

[Page 67] He that is advanc'd to the Throne by due course of Law and Consent of the People, becomes a King De Jure, a Rightful and Lawful King, and to him Obedience is really due; for, from his legal Possession, we have a real and not an imaginary Benefit under his Go­vernment; we have a Protection from certain and known Laws, not from un­certain and unknown Will and Pow­er.

From this plain and clear state of the Case it appears, That our refin'd Philo­sophers in their neat Argument are guil­ty of a wilful or weak Mistake in put­ting one Word for another, in calling violent Possession Protection, an Inju­ry, a Benefit, Suffering Obedience: Whether I should call it a wilful or weak Mistake, I know not, for' tis not plain to me which they value most, their Wit, or Honesty, but a manifest Mistake it is, and will not pass upon the Nation, unless they who take such pains to dress things in Disguises, had that Command in Rhetorical Sophistry which the old Declamators at Athens so valued themselves upon, pretending to be able to make the worst Cause look [Page 68] well; unless they could by artificial studied Words, and Strains of Wit, make the People esteem it as great a Benefit to live in the Apprehension and Expectation of being Slaves, as in the Condition of Subjects; unless they could by wheedling Amusements, per­suade them, that their Lives, Liberties and Properties are as safe under uncon­trouled and Arbitrary Power, as under a Power limited by those Laws, which they themselves had a share in ma­king.

In short, if this be good Reasoning, he that fills a Throne, tho' he has no right to fill it, does, by filling it, give Protection to the People; and by go­verning them without their Consent, bestows a Benefit upon them, in return for which they are oblig'd to obey him: Then Thieves that break open a House, and spare the Lives of the Family, may be said to give them Pro­tection, and in disposing the Goods at their own Pleasure, to bestow a Bene­fit on the true Owners, and what the Owners suffer under such a Terror, may be called Obedience: Nay, accor­ding to these Measures, the Man that [Page 69] is hang'd may be said to pay Obedience, and he that trusses him up, right or wrong, is his Ruler De Facto.

The Preachers of Passive Obedience made it their Business to abuse the Peo­ple with a very pernicious false Do­ctrine, but they gave it a proper, agree­able, and true Name; for, the plain signification of Passive Obedience is, Suffering, Actual Suffering, Irremedia­ble Suffering: With a bareface it teach­es, that if we receive no manner of Pro­tection or Benefit by the Laws of the Land, but on the contrary, are de­priv'd of our Liberties and Properties, yet we must submit and suffer: But the Authors of the Argument which I am reproving, are pleas'd to call Suffer­ing, Obedience; the one would enslave us by a confident belying of Religion, the other by a subtle misuse of seeming Reason.

I have prov'd in General, that the distinction of a King De Jure and De Facto, as applied to King William, weak­ens the Government. I will now exem­plisy the same in some Particulars.

[Page 70] I. They that do not believe King William to be their King De Jure, i. e. their True and Lawful King, are not like to bear true Faith and Allegiance to him. They have no Motive, no Temp­tation to induce them: If they bear true Faith and Allegiance to a King, in their Opinion, an Usurper, they must contradict the Principles which God and Nature have implanted in them, they must cross their own present Incli­nations without the Prospect of a fu­ture Advantage. It is as much as ever our Preachers can do, to keep Men from indulging their present Inclinati­ons by the Hopes of a Recompence hereafter; but 'twould puzzle all their Eloquence to persuade them to this, when the Instance is not a moral Acti­on fit to be done, nor any thing to be got by it.

The wonderful and unreasonable Confidence of those Jacobizing Au­thors, who would persuade their Rea­ders, that Allegiance ought to be paid to a King, whom they believe to have no Right to require it, made me with [Page 71] a strict Thoughtfulness consider, on what Bottom they could pretend to ground the Obligation; but Bottom could I find none, save that from the Christian Precept of loving Enemies, a merry Man might make a Jest on't. By the way, this most difficult of Chri­stian Precepts, had been recommended to the World before our Blessed Ma­ster's Time, by wise Heathens, Grotius in his Book De Ver. Rel. Christianae, quotes several, but no wise Heathen or Christian, ever explain'd that Precept so far, as to exact the Payment of good Offices to an Enemy at the Expence of the just Rights of a Friend, or Allegi­ance to an arbitrary King in Possession, to the Wrong of the lawful King un­happily dispossess'd: And I am Opi­nion, that the Consideration of this, or a less justifiable cause mov'd a good Doctor to mince the matter thus: It is our Du­ty to pray for the King in Possession, while we take care to do it in such terms, as not to pray against the dispos­sess'd Prince. Which is as much as to say, We may pray that God would do such a King some small Personal Kind­nesses, [Page 72] or so; but not to discomfit his Enemies, or establish his Throne, and this justifies my Position. That they who do not believe King William to be their King De Jure, are not like to bear him true Faith and Allegiance; we have but too long seen the Effects of the Doctor's Caution, one while many were contented to pray for King Willi­am only from the Desk in appointed Forms, they abstain'd from mentioning his Name in the Pulpit; the most thought it enough in General Terms to pray God to be Gracious to King Wil­liam; not one of a hundred at this Day dares pronounce him Rightful and Law­ful King; they will, 'tis true, not grudge to call him the King that God has set over them; but that's an ob­lique Reflexion, for, the same is their Phrase also for an Usurper.

The questioning King William's Title, was always the profess'd Cause of the Re­fusal of Swearing to bear Faith and true Allegiance to him. Indeed the above mention'd Doctor was pleas'd to tell the Nation, That he did not refuse the Oaths out of any Fondness for the Government [Page 73] of King James, nor Zeal for his Return: But I am confident he did not refuse them out of any Persuasion of the Right of King William, nor Zeal for his Establishment; in Truth, his Refu­sal of the Oaths, was a plain Declara­tion of his Sense against King William's Right; but when he took the Oaths, then to insinuate that King William had no Legal Right—hic nigrae succus so­liginis, haec est aerugo mera. Yet this Doctor is a Saint, in Comparison with that Loyal Rector, who essay'd to prove, that notwithstanding his Oath to King William and Queen Mary, he had not put himself out of a Capacity to perform what he swore to the late King: Which makes it plain that they who are not persuaded of King Willi­am's Rightful Title, cannot be willing to give him, no, not their Oaths, unless it be for the better Opportunity to be­tray him. In short, I would sooner hope to find an Atheist, zealous to pro­mote the practise of Vertue and Piety, than that the Government under King William should be rightly serv'd, by those that are persuaded of the Right of the late King.

[Page 74] When the late King sent Forces a­gainst the late Duke of Monmouth he was in the right, not to put his trust in the County Troops, for he look'd upon many of them to have no opi­nion of his Title, but rather to think well of the cause of the Invader.

'Tis the ordinary Policy of every Tyrant to oppress his own People with Mercenary Foreigners, or such Subjects of his own, as are Souldiers, who have nothing but Fortune, and his Bounty to trust to; 'twere as foolish to go about to suppress them by other Instruments, as 'tis wicked to oppress them at all.

Perhaps a hungry Lawyer may plead for his Fee against his Consci­ence, but a lover of his Country will not be the Chief Justice of an Arbitra­ry Monarch.

II. They that do not believe King WILLIAM to be their Righful and Lawful King, are bound in Con­science to endeavour to dispossess him.

[Page 75] I know there be some Casuists, who contend earnestly, that an Erroneous Conscience does not oblige a Man to follow it; in proof of their Negative, they muster many Zealous, and some Witty Pleadings, proper to amuse, and entertain one sort of Readers, but no Man can be convinc'd by them. For God gave us Conscience to be our Guide, and Nature will have us to follow it, whether in the doing good or evil. I prove it by this plain Rea­son— if we are not oblig'd to obey an Erroneous Conscience, then we are not oblig'd to obey a right and well perswaded Conscience, for the Erroneous Conscience thinks it self in the right, as well as the Conscience that both thinks so, and is so. A Man who is Erroneously perswaded in Mo­ral Matters cannot but sin; he sins in following his Erroneous Conscience, when it prompts him to an Immoral Action, because by the Word of God, and Right Reason, he might have in­form'd his Conscience better: He sins most audaciously when he acts against his Conscience, because he thinks it his [Page 76] Duty to obey it. Bishop Taylor tea­ches, That it is a greater sin to do a good Action against our Conscience, than to do an evil Action in obedience to it. The Example he brings answers exactly but to one part of his Rule, but comes near the other, and leads to our purpose. ‘Fryar Clement the Ja­cobine thinks Erroneously, that it is lawful to kill his King: The poor Damosel Faucette thinks it unlawful to spit in the Church; but it hap­pen'd, that one day she did it a­gainst her Conscience; and the Fry­ar one day with his Conscience and a long Knife kill'd the King. If the Question be here who sinn'd most, the disparity is next to infi­nite, the poor Woman was to be chidden for doing against her Con­science, and the other to be hang'd for doing according to his.’ Thus say I, those Assasines deserve to be hang'd who attempt to kill, and those also who consult, and labour to dis­posses our Rightful and Lawful King WILLIAM; but while with an Erroneous Conscience, they believe [Page 77] him to be only King DE FACTO, i.e. a false King, but a real Usurper, I do not see how they can avoid Treason, and the danger of the Gallows. Now, bless us! and deliver us! Some Friends of the Party may say, from so barba­rous Doctrine as this. What! Hang Men for obeying their Consciences? and doing what in their Circumstan­ces they could not avoid. But to a­bate their Wonder, and let them into the cruel Mystery, I reply, it is but a Just, Reasonable, and Necessary Do­ctrine; for why should their Consci­ences disturb our Settlement, and en­danger the Life of our King. They should labour to inform their Consci­ences better, or carry them to some other Country, where our Govern­ment, and the Life of our King, may be as safe from the treacherous practi­ces of their Consciences, as their Con­sciences from the Just, and but too slow, Vengeance of the Government; For, as Mr. Johnson told them long a­goe. He ought not to live under any Government, who refuses to give it the customary and legal caution.

[Page 78] They shall put you out of the Syna­gogues, said Christ to his Apostles, yea the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think, that be doth God good service.

Friend, and Perkins, and their Fel­low Assassines thought themselves ob­lig'd in Conscience to take off King WILLIAM, because they look'd up­on him only as a King DE FACTO, a meer Usurper: In Conscience they held themselves oblig'd to endeavour the Restoration of the late King, be­cause they look'd on him as King DE IVRE. And rather than not effect these Purposes they engage to pro­mote a French Invasion, which would have made bloody Work among us, but what car'd they for that, as long as it was to reinstate the right Heir. A more Mischievous Distinction can­not be imagin'd than this of a King DE IVRE, and DE FACTO, the former being applied to the late King, the latter to King WILLIAM; but I will descend to some particular Instan­ces.

[Page 79] This wicked Distinction, thus Mis­chievously applied, long encourag'd troublesom Commotions in Scotland, but more fatally delay'd the Reducti­on of Ireland. It famish'd some Thou­sands in London-Derry, kept a gallant Army from Action One Summer for Six Weeks, that was, till the Season for Action was over; so that the Vi­ctory of the next Year cost the King some of his own Blood, and the Life of his brave General. It betray'd our Councils, and brought the French Fleet into our Channel, prevented the push­ing on our Successes, so that our dis­honour is not yet reveng'd, as it ought, and perhaps might be, it expos'd our Merchants, and ruin'd our Trade, it hatch'd many a Hellish Plot in Ire­land, in Flanders, in England, against the Life of King WILLIAM and Queen MART, against the Liberties of this Nation, and the Lives of all honest Protestants, it hinder'd the due Examination of discover'd Plots, and rescued Traytors convict, without ob­liging them to Confession.

This Wicked, and Mischievously ap­plied [Page 80] distinction contriv'd the last Hell­ish Conspiracy, laid it deep, and spread it wide, urg'd it on with a steddy Zeal, and unwearied Application under the Auspices of an exil'd Tyrant, and at the vast expence of his proud Pro­tector, watch'd all opportunities to begin the Bloody Execution; conceal'd it obstinately, pursued it after disap­pointments, and we have reason to be­lieve, that we are not got so far into the horrid Secret, but they have their hopes to retrieve it. However, blessed be God, who has brought so much of it to light, that we shall not perish— that we shall not perish,—unless it be our own fault;—if we please, —the Sun may be let in upon it, the Law may effectually spppress it, and then,—and not till then, we shall be safe, both we, and our King.

The undantedly honest Mr. Johnson, and one or two more, out of dry love to their Country, some Years ago oppos'd this Wretched, Mischievous, and Misapplied Distinction, with Learn­ing, Wit, and Reason; but the Friends of the late King James could endure [Page 81] that Opposition, and reply little, while they met with no Penal Opposition from the Government: But when one or two of the Conspirators, averse to so horrid a Villany, as was in agitation among them, reveal'd the design to the King, and the King laid it before the House of Commons; of a sudden the Spirits of that Honourable Body, the Representatives of the People of Eng­land, were rouz'd from the confus'd Lethargy of a doubtful Opinion, into a clear discerning Sense of the dan­ger, into which the Sacred Life of KING WILLIAM, and all the dearest Interest of all true English­men were betray'd by the distinction of a King DE IVRE, and a King DE FACTO. Immediately therefore to re­pair their Errour, with a just warmth, they declar'd the right of their King, that so they might on a stable Rock, build their own defence, which had been vilely shaken by the rotten Foun­dation of an Usurper, daub'd over with the empty name only of a King. A very great Majority of that August Assem­bly, presently cheerfully subscrib'd the [Page 82] Association, wherein, after they Sin­cerely, and Solemnly Profess, Testifie, and declare, That his present Majesty King WILLIAM is Rightful, and Lawful King of these Realms; they mutually promise and engage to stand by, and assist each other to the utmost of their Power, in the support and de­fence of his Majesties most Sacred Person, and Government, against the late King James and his Adherents. Further they oblige themselves, if the King should come to any violent and untimely death, which God forbid, to revenge the same on his Enemies, and their Adherents, Lastly, To support the Succession of the Crown accord­ing to an Act made in the First Year of KING WILLIAM and QUEEN MARY.

The House of Lords also, moved by the same amazing occasion, as the Commons, damn'd the Mischievous distinction DE FACTO, and DE IVRE, declaring that His present Majesty King WILLIAM hath A Right by Law to the Crown, which Words one might be afraid of, but [Page 83] that their Lordships, ever Honourable, and Sincere, took care to secure them from Exception, by the next Plain, Righteous and Decretory Sentence,—And that neither the late King James, nor the pretended Prince of Wales, nor any other Person, hath any right whatsoever to the same.

I can't see wherein this Declarati­on comes short of that of the House of Commons, for here the Lords de­termine, that King WILLIAM hath a Right by Law to the Crown, and such a Right by Law, that neither the late King, nor the pretended Prince of Wales, nor any other Person hath any Right whatsoever to the same; then of Consequence, He hath all the right to the Crown that can be, all the right that ever Prince had, or can have. And is in their Lordships Judgments, what the Commons have declar'd him, Viz. our Rightful and Lawful King. I am glad the Houses are so well agreed. But alas! neither has their happy Agreement, nor the following hearty and just Votes of the Commons carried the Association of [Page 84] the Commons thro' the Kingdom, with that success as might have been expected, and as was due to so well advised a Sanction for the Publick good. The reason of which disap­pointment I cannot imagine, for I hope, that Commoner's Chaplain was not in the right, who openly told an Acquaintance, that the Penalties infor­cing the Association were only In terrorem. But as if he had been a­ble to give the Refusers Security, many stood off, and began to frame Exceptions against it. To pass by the little Cavils, and impertient Sar­casms, started by vain and unquiet Men, who are proud to tell the World with what unfair Equivocation they swallow'd the Oaths of Allegiance, and consonant to that Scandalous Wickedness, will affix a sense of their own devising to the Parliament Associ­ation, or else Associate in a cold emp­ty Form of their own drawing up; to pass by every thing of this nature, I shall only reflect on the grand Excepti­on, which is so common in the mouths of all the De facto Men. And that is [Page 85] this—They have as their boun­den duty does require, that awful regard for the Divine Prohibition of Revenge, that they can by no means agree to oblige themselves to revenge the King's violent death upon his Trea­cherous Enemies.

To this I have several things to re­ply.

1. Tho' with some Men the Blood of a King is so cheap that it may be spilt like Water on the Ground, and they never trouble their hearts about it: Yet I make no question, but were it the Blood but of an Arch-Bishop of St. Andrew, they would be very active to hunt the Murtherers from their Coverts, and bring them to condign Punishment. That these words may not be wrested, I do avow, that it was a necessary piece of Ju­stice, the Punishment of that Arch-Bishop's Murtherers. But I argue a fortiori, how necessary then is it to pu­nish Wicked Regicides?

[Page 86] II. when a Noble Peer is impeach'd in Parliament for High-Treason, the Lords Spiritual pretend to a Right of Sit­ing, and Voting among his Judges, so that Clergy-Men are not willing to be wholly Sequestred from their share in legal Revenges.

III. When the House of Commons declar'd, [upon the occasion of the Popish Plot, discover'd by Doctor Oates,] that if His Majesty, King Charles, that then was, should come to any violent Death, [which they pray'd God to prevent, tho' [as 'tis thought,] they were not heard] they would revenge it to the utmost on the Papists. None of this Clan of Non-Associators bawl'd against that Vote, as unchristian; and yet I do not see, but King WILLIAM's Life is as precious, and ought to be as dear to the Nation as ever King Charles's was; besides, I perswade my self, that po­pish Assassines deserve not to be more severely treated, than—than any other Assassines.

[Page 87] IV. When any private Person unites with the House of Commons, to re­venge the Violent death of the King, [which God prevent,] he unites with the Representatives of the Body of the People, for the just Execution of a le­gal Revenge.

V. He that is not willing to do his part towards the bringing the Assassines of the King to suffer the Law, may be justly suspected as an Abettor of the Assassination, [if such a thing should happen, which God prevent] and if he be treated accordingly, he is not worse treated, than the old Lady Lisle.

VI. In a state of Nature, every Man has a Right to preserve all his ho­nest Interests against the Injuries of o­thers, and to punish such Injuries accor­ding as he judges they deserve to be punish'd. In political Society every Man resigns up this natural right to the Community, who intrust some chosen Man or Men to govern them, by setled Laws made with their own Con­sent: [Page 88] Now if wicked Assassines shall traiterously take off the chief Head or Heads that govern, and so reduce the People to the unhappy Necessity of a new Choice, from whence may arise infinite Mischiefs, by Reason of the Differences of ambitious Pretenders, the People seem reduc'd to a state of Nature, and then every particular indi­vidual Person has a Right to be re­veng'd of the Assassines. It is true, the English Government is Hereditary, and by Act of Parliament setled after the Death or demise of King William, on the Princess Ann and the Heirs of her Body, but then there is Danger that Jacobite Zeal may wade thro' more Blood to make a clear Vacancy for a Royal Abdicator; and if so, there's Reason for every true Englishman, by the Parliaments Association to denounce Vengeance against the Assassines; but the single loss of King William alone by violent, sudden Treachery, might chance to throw us into those Confusi­ons, that it is just and prudent to as­sociate to be aveng'd of them, that shall tear that dear Interest from us.

[Page 89] VII. Let who will refuse the Associ­ation, yet it is honestly and wisely done of them who enter into it; for there­by they not only discharge the Duty which they owe to the King; but also do that which has a powerful Influence to deter execrable Assassines from at­tempting the desperate Villany; for it is the hope of Impunity that confirms the bold Nonjurers in their declar'd En­mity to King William; the hope of Impunity that animates the sneaking perjur'd Jurors to abide by their mis­chievous Distinction of a King De Fa­cto and De Jure; the hope of Impuni­ty that hatches Conspiracies, and car­ries on Correspondencies with France; and no doubt King-killers hereafter will be harder to be hired, because that par­ticular Villany has the least hope of Mercy; to say no more, 'tis the hope of Impunity that hardens a perverse Conscience, and makes so many Non-associators.

VIII. 'Tis not indeed unwisely done of the Non-associators, that they may [Page 90] put the best Colour they can upon their Refusal, to pretend that they are Christians, and cannot be reveng'd, no not upon their most mischievous Ene­mies; but then it is easy to see thro' this Pretence; a wet Finger will fetch off the false Varnish; for tho' they dare not for the World Associate to re­venge the violent Death of King Willi­am; yet they are well contented to give up Three Nations to the Ven­geance of the late King, who if ever he returns, [which God of his Infinite Mercy, I beseech him, prevent] will return like the Evil Spirit in the Gos­pel, with Seven other Spirits more wicked than himself, and the last state of our Nation shall be worse than the first: For, as it is said by the Apostle, It had been better never to have known the way of righteousness, than having known, to depart therefrom: So it had been better for us never to have been deli­ver'd from the Yoke of the late King's Tyranny, than to submit our Necks to it again; if he hooks us under his Pow­er a second time, it will be a Mercy to dispatch us; he will hamper us so [Page 91] sufficiently, that our next Deliverer must be that sure Conqueror, who makes the ill figure in Churches with his Scythe and Hour-glass.

IX. Among the rest of the Mischiefs whereof the De Jure and De Facto di­stinction is the procuring Cause, set it down for one, That it keeps them who falsly and maliciously apply it to King WILLIAM, from associa­ting with their Representatives in Par­liament.

It comes into my Mind now, ve­ry opportunely, I think, That their Tyrant De Jure, just upon his departure, [and the Words of departing Friends we know sink deep into the Minds of good Christian People] advis'd his Loy­al Officers and Soldiers expresly, and all his other Well-wishers [not worth naming] tacitly, not to expose them­seves by resisting a foreign Enemy, and a poison'd Nation [that was his Complement to Old England] but to keep themselves free from Associations and such pernicious things. Our mis­chievous [Page 92] Distinguishers have observ'd this Advice most exactly, they have not yet rashly ventur'd their Carcas­ses in the Field against our King and Government. Their Treachery must succeed before they try their Valour; and as for Associations, and such perni­cious things, they most religiously keep themselves pure and undefil'd.

For another particular Instance of the Mischief caus'd by the wretched Distinction, I might mention, That it encourages the Attempts of the French King, to re-impose on us the late King James as his Deputy, [for that's the most the late King in his vainest hopes can expect; nay, if it should rain Crowns and Miracles on his Head, who may have more Faith to believe the latter, than Strength to bear the former; he must govern by the imperious Dictates of his Protectors Arbitrary Will, he must be but the prime Minister of a superior Tyrant, nay, hardly that, for Lewis would not trust him but under French School-ma­sters, [Page 93] and having first deliver'd up cau­tionary Towns.]

If King Lewis were not well assur'd that the mischievous Distinction was suffer'd among us with impunity, he would not be at the Expence of a Livre to make a Descent upon us, but rather be glad to secure his own Shoars, which indeed is more than he can do now, Rebus sic stantibus. But that I may not on this Head chance to touch on some things said before, I am content to dismiss it with this bare mention­ing, only let me take my leave of the De Facto Men with one question upon the whole matter: Since they vex their Wits to serve the Fury of a Prince whose Tyranny t' other day themselves could not brook, let them tell the World, Is Tyranny one of those Bles­sings whose value we can never enough esteem till we begin to want it?

I make haste to conclude my Dis­course, and therefore shall wholly pass by some little Inconveniences caus'd by the Distinction of a King De Facto and [Page 94] De Jure, such as that it hinders the late King's Devotions; if it were not for the vain hope of returning to be re­veng'd of a certain poison'd Nation; why, he might retire to a Religious House, and spend the Remnant of his Life in Prayers, Mass it early and late, for the Soul of his Elder Brother, or any of the unlucky Assassines that t'o­ther day fell in his Cause, and might for ought he knows drop into Purgato­ry notwithstanding their Absolution: Or if a Court is the thing with which his Heart is ravish'd, he might e'en be­take himself to his Holy Father, the Blessed Pope's Holy Court, where he might be forgiven, submitting to Pe­nance, all the Improvidences and Cow­ardize in his frustrated pious Attempt to Massacre a Nation or two of He­reticks.

As a Corallary to the foregoing Dis­course, take this—The Impunity of them who own King WILLIAM only as a King De Facto, discourages the Friends of the Government, who own him, and believe him to be our [Page 95] Rightful and Lawful King. It is true, a Man of steddy Vertue will not be put by the Practice of those Duties which serve the Interest of his Coun­try, by any Neglects from the Go­vernment, or Apprehensions of Dan­ger likely to happen: But surely their Number, who have wrought them­selves up to such consummate Ex­cellence, bears no Proportion, ei­ther with their own Friends, who are but [more or less] well in­clin'd, or with their Enemies who are mischievously bent: Of the most of them that sincerely believe King WILLIAM to be right­ful and lawful King; I fear this is the extent of their Praise: They are ready to defend the Government as far as the Government is willing to defend it self and them; but cau­tiously do they abstain from an over­active Zeal, which is not well accep­ted, for fear it should be visited upon them and their Children in another Revolution. For my part, I believe it as impossible for our late King [Page 96] James, to recover his forfeited and abdicated Crowns, as for the in­treaguing King of France to make himself Monarch Universal: But the annual Succession, and thickning of Jacobite Plots, and the last refu­sal of a Bill to be brought in, obli­ging certain persons to abjure King James; convince me, that Men of good and bad Principles, have, the one hop'd for, the other suspected and fear'd such a new dismal Scene of Affairs. And, for ought I know, the Establishment and Security of the Government under King WIL­LIAM, may be owing more to what has been done against it, than to what has been done for it. Perîs­sem nisi perîssem: I think it was the Saying of the brave Themistocles, by which I suppose he design'd to de­clare that it was his Opinion, he had not arriv'd at that Heighth of Greatness, if he had not been ruffled, oppos'd and banish'd; and I am ve­ry fully satisfied, that if it had not been for this last devillish Invasion [Page 97] and Assassination-Plot, we had not in haste declar'd King WILLIAM our Rightful and Lawful King, nor associated for the Preservation of his Life, by threatning to revenge his violent Death.

There is a difference between those that were to have had their part in the Assassination, and those that were concern'd only in the Invasion. The Assassines are not able to devise any the least colour to take off from the Heinousness of their intended Villa­ny. Perkins was a little asham'd of this infamous Design; but as for the Promoters of the Invasion, their Treason was but Consonant to their old mischievous Distinction of a King De Facto and De Jure: Some of the Assassines have met their deserv'd Fate, but the simple Invaders have hardly been scar'd; yet if they shall not be call'd to an Account also [who bid fair for slaying Ten Thousands of the People, and so making up in Numbers, a Sacrifice equal to that [Page 98] of their King] they will not only be confirm'd that they have distin­guish'd well, but prompted more vi­gorously to pursue the fatal end and purpose of their threatning Di­stinction. And this indeed is enough and enough to cool the Zeal, and to discourage the Endeavours of them that are otherwise very well dis­pos'd to serve the Interests of King WILLIAM, their Country, and the Protestant Religion. Our King himself is not capable of endan­gering his own just Rights, or the Safety of the People of Eng­land, unless by his singular Mercy and Goodness, which like his fear­less Valour, knows no Bounds: as for the Representatives of the People, it may be Reasonably pre­sum'd, they will at last provide, that the De Facto Jacobites shall not have the Temptation of Impunity to attempt to subvert the Liber­ties of the Nation, and to destroy the Lives of all that love their Li­berties. They have indeed, accor­ding [Page 99] to the Trust reposed in them, honestly endeavour'd and advanc'd some Paces towards such a necessa­ry Provision, by their Noble, Just, and Righteous Association: But there remains a great deal more for them to do still, lest what they have already done, be frustrated, and render'd all together ineffectual; for their Association is no sooner drawn up, subscrib'd by a great Majority, and the Session pro­rogu'd.

But Ante-Associations are form'd against it by some of the Clergy, not indeed in broad Words direct­ly contrary, but in cold and emp­ty Flourishes of their own devi­sing, and such borrowed Expres­sions as they imagine capable of an interpretation, that will not utterly subvert their Distinction of a KING DE FACTO, and DE IVRE, Which Di­stinction while it Reigns unpu­nish'd, KING WILLIAM [Page 100] does not reign secure. Several of the Ante-Associations were drawn up so little favouring the Title of His present MAJESTY, so lit­tle consulting the Security of his Administration, that it was scanda­lously manifest, the Subscribers as­sociated only in lewd Hypocisy, to avoid the Envy of Non-associa­ting, to sham the Authority of the Nation with some deceitful Com­plements, but in Reality and Truth, to preserve their dear Distinction. Such Associations therefore as these, were rejected, as they well deser­ved, nor could all the Academic Elegance bestowed upon them, help them through the officious Hands of Friends, to his Majesty's gracious Acceptance: But these Gen­tlemen carried it highly, if his Ma­jesty would not accept such As­sociation as they had drawn up, he should have none at all from them. This being observ'd by o­ther Persons of the same Order, they wisely consider'd what Incon­veniences [Page 101] might possibly happen from not Associating at all, and therefore determin'd to comply, but resolv'd to come off as cheap as they could. They would ven­ture to Associate, but not with their Parishoners in the Form pre­scrib'd by the House of Commons [except here and there an honest Parson that had no Priestcraft in him] wherefore they carefully abstain from declaring it to be their perswasion, that His present Majesty King WIL­LIAM, is Rightful and Lawful King of these Realms; and as for his Violent and untimely death, should it happen, which God pre­vent, they oblige not themselves to revenge it upon his Enemies and their Adherents. But let us see! What do they give us in the room of RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL KING, and instead of making it the utmost danger to kill him? Why? They borrow some words from the Association of the House Lords, and insert the same among [Page 102] some empty Flourishes of their own; upon which I note, that, altho' the Form of the Association of the House of Lords, be in the Literal, Plain, and Obvious Sense, and in the Sense by them intended, Tru­ly, Just, and Highly Loyal, yet when Clergy-men, who are repre­sented by the House of Commons, and not by the House of Lords, shall Associate in the Language of the latter, and not of the former, it is a manifest sign, that they dislike the Association of the House of Commons, and that, tho' the As­sociation of the Lords tends to the same Just, Noble and Necessary Purposes, yet in their Opinion it may be interpreted to signifie some­thing less. It cannot be imagin'd, that any of the Clergy should de­cline the Association of the House of Commons, by whom they are represented, if they were perswaded that the same was a Just, and Righteous Association; it cannot be imagin'd that they should prefer [Page 103] the Phrase of the House of Lords, by whom they are not represented, if they were firmly perswaded [as I declare my self to be] that, that Phrase did come fully up, to the Sense of the House of Commons, and could not possibly be inter­preted to signifie, with a Jacobite abatement, something favourable to their mischievously applied di­stinction of a King De Facto, and De Jure.

Now in this their Practise they do a great injury to both Houses, they audaciously slight the one, and wickedly traduce the other. What reward so high a Misdemeanour may deserve, I take not upon me to pronounce; but I hope I may have leave to say, that these Cler­gy-Association-Separatists have not that unquestionable fair pretence to His Majesties Special Graces and Favours, as the voluntary Subscrib­ers of the Association of the House of Commons; indeed they may, [Page 104] considering the Wonderful Genero­sity of the King, expect as much Forgiveness as they shall need, and more Grace and Favour than they are dispos'd to deserve: But it were a Presumption very like Im­pudence in them, to hope that His Majesty King WILLIAM should prefer them before his best affected Liege People, who Associate, [as is most Just and Proper, Fair and Un­exceptionable] with their Represen­tatives in Parliament, Heartily, Sin­cerely, and Solemnly Professing, Testi­fying and Declaring, that His Pre­sent Majesty King WILLIAM is Rightful and Lawful King of these Realms, &c. And that they will stand by one another, in re­venging his untimely death, [which God prevent] upon His Enemies and their Adherents.

It was a very sharp Reflection, and, I would very fain perswade my self, an unjust one, that of Mr. Dryden, For Priests of all Religi­ons [Page 105] are the same; but it grieves my Soul to think, that so necessary an order of Men, Protestants, as well as Papists, should be so generally given to oppose the Proceedings of the State.

Old and Crazy is the Body, I cannot say, which I carry about with me, but which is carried a­bout for me; but yet, I am in hopes, that it will hold out, till all His Majesties Subjects represented by the Commons, be taught the necessity of Subscribing the Associ­ation of the House of Commons; for, I well remember, how before the end of their last Sessions, they set their own Members a day to Subscribe it, or declare their Refu­sal; also the Names of Refusers were requir'd to be return'd, from all or most Towns of the King­dom; which was setting and a di­stinguishing Mark upon them; and it is not reasonable to suppose, that they will suffer their August As­sembly, [Page 106] and Wise Councils to be so contemptuously us'd, as they must be, if that Form of Associati­on, which their Wisdom judg'd ab­solutely necessary to save the Ho­nour and Life of the King; the Lives, Liberties, and Religion of the Subject, happen to be disap­pointed by particular Forms of As­sociation, devis'd by some Discon­tented Ecclesiasticks, who refuse to declare, that His present Majesty King WILLIAM is Rightful and Lawful King of these Realms; and have so very little love for His Person, that who as will may As­sassinate him, for all them, with impunity. O the Christianity of these Gentlemen! Whose Consci­ences will not serve them to be aiding and assisting any just Or­ders of Legal Revenge! If this be Christianity, commend me to the Manners, and Doctrine of Heathens. But why should Christianity be re­proach'd for their sakes? That Holy Institution neither injures the Civil [Page 107] Rights of particular Persons, nor alters the Grand Reason on which Political Societies, Kingdoms, and Commonwealths are founded, and preserv'd. Salus populi the good of the People is the grand Reason on which Political Societies are found­ed; the good of the People re­quires that Enormous Wickednesses should not escape unpunished; he that has it in his power, but will not contribute to the Legal Punish­ment of an Infamous Assassin, is wanting in the duty which he owes to that Body Politick, where­of he is a Member, In short, eve­ry Member of a Body Politick is in strict justice oblig'd to endea­vour, as far as in him lies, to bring to Legal Punishment the Bloody Villain that shall murder the mean­est of his Fellow Subjects; this is a duty, which by the Fundamental Reason of Society is owning from every single Person to the Publick; how much more strongly does it oblige, if a brave Prince should [Page 108] fall [which God forbid] by the Treacherous Cruelty of ingrateful Miscreants, prompted by a dis­appointed Tyrant, and supported by a Faithless, Enchroaching Foreign Enemy? It is a very odd thing, that any Men should pretend Conscience for their for­bearance of that action, which they are bound in duty to perform, tho' they look no farther, than their being Members of a Body Politick. There is no Government upon the face of the Earth, that will take them in upon other con­ditions, than their agreeing to be reveng'd upon those Assassines, whose desperate Malice shall wound the Publick in so noble a part, as her Chief Officer. And therefore we have good reason to hope, that since the Government knows her boldest Enemies who [mindful of the Advice from Rochester] will not Associate with us at all; and her No-friends who will not Asso­ciate in the form of the House of [Page 109] Commons, since, I say, the Govern­ment knows them intus & incute, fully, and throughly, [as she well may, after Seven long Years trou­blesom experience] that she will now at last take the necessary se­curity, that security which Provi­dence hath so loudly, and so oft proclaim'd to be the only necessa­ry; by which not only the Go­vernment, but, by the blessing of God, even the Enemies thereof may be brought to their right Wits, and sav'd from cruel Tyranny, and foolish Superstition. This looks, some may object, as if I wish'd, that the Association of the House of Commons might be impos'd on the Clergy. I might reply, if that really was my wish, I know no great harm which would fol­low; but I rather choose with all softness to clear the purpose of my Writing.

I remember to have read some Author, who vindicating the pra­ctice [Page 110] of the Church, [which some­time had been,] in compelling Men to Conformity, when he was asham'd to affirm in express terms, that violence might be offer'd to Mens Consciences, in matters a­bout Religious Worship; He gave this turn to the matter—they might lawfully be compell'd to consider. I mean no more, as to our Dissenting Associators. And I am perswaded, let the Govern­ment give them but one good Ar­gument able to move them to con­sider the matter, they will never stand with their Representatives for the Phrase of RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL KING, no, nor the Word REVENGE neither, which when the Parliament threatned a­gainst the King's Enemies, they ne­ver dream'd it would scare the Cler­gy.

For the ground of this my per­swasion, I will tell the Reader a Story.

[Page 111] When Pope Paul the Vth. quar­rell'd with the Venetians, the Impri­sonment of a brace of Ecclesiastick Villians was the least thing that troubled him. But the great Of­fence was from Two Decrees, the First commanding that no more Churches should be Erected within the City Precincts; the Second that no more Lands should be ali­enated to the Ecclesiasticks, with­out leave had from the Senate. It seems the Senate were for Govern­ing the Republick, by such Decrees, as they judg'd necessary for the Publick Good. The Pope Excom­municates the Duke and Senate, lays their Dominions under his In­terdict, the Jesuits Associating on the side of his Holiness, obey the Interdict, and refuse to say Mass; for this, the Senate banishes them, but the People Associating with the Se­nate, instead of mutining for the Holy Fathers now ready to depart each Man with the Hoast at his Neck, intimating that they and JESUS [Page 112] CHRIST were both taking their leave together, bid them be gone with a vengeance. The Se­nate pursu'd their steaddy Resoluti­ons with an Order that all Eccle­siasticks, who would not continue the Celebration of Divine Service, should retire out of their Domi­nions; upon this, many of the Holy Men, especially the Capu­chins, had the Courage to make a noise of departing, they intended to have gone out in Procession with the Sacrament, but that the Se­nate forbid it; they actually did use all Arts to make the People apprehend the sadness of their case, and that the being without Priests was being without God in the World. One Morning therefore they celebrated Mass, they eat up all their Gods, and concluded the Service without blessing the Peo­ple. But the Senate stood firm to their Order, and the People were quiet, and content to take care of their own Souls, which so troubled [Page 113] these Holy Fathers, that several al­ter'd their minds, and were content to stay and do their Duties, most of the Capuchins in the Territo­ries of Berscia and Bergamo wisely consider'd that they could not live half so well without their Flock, as their Flock without them; there­fore when they saw they could not help it, they associated with the Senate, and celebrated Divine Ser­vice as before, notwithstanding the Pope's Interdict.

I will not say, That every thing in this Story, which relates to the Senate of Venice and their Clergy, runs paralel with the Cir­cumstances between the Govern­ment, and our Clergy-dissenting-As­sociators; but if any one shall say, that there is no manner of Resem­blance between the one and the other, I must beg his Pardon. What may or may not be fitly applied, the Reader shall freely judge, I will not labour to pre­possess [Page 114] him with my Notions; yet I will make bold to affix one Note to the Story, and That's this— It was not with the Popish Re­ligion, nor its Ministers, that the Senate had a Difference; only this they firmly resolv'd, that none should be Ministers of Religion for them, that would not own, that the Senate had a Rightful and Lawful Authority to govern the Republick by what Decrees they pleas'd, without asking leave of the Pope.

The Readers Trouble shall be over, when I have told him, it is not the Church of England, nor Ministers of the Church of Eng­land, as such, that I have here tax'd; for I heartily and sincerely profess a profound Veneration to the Right Reverend Fathers in God, my Lords, the Archbishops and Bishops that are as faithful to his Majesty King WILLIAM, and the Interest of their Country, [Page 115] as Paolo Sarpio Veneto, better known by the Name of Father Paul, was to the Senate of Ve­nice; I highly esteem and regard all the inferior Clergy, whose Ho­nesty and Loyalty keeps even Pa­ces with the House of Commons, the Representatives of the People of England, and equals them to those Venetian Ecclesiasticks, who prefer'd the Decrees of the Senate their Lawful Governors before the Interdiction of their Holy, Medling, Spiritual Father, the Pope.