SECT. I. Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary had a just Ground of War with King James.

THE Question is, Whether or no the Sub­ject do owe Allegiance, may lawfully, and ought, when required, to swear Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary in these Words:

I, A. B. do sincerly Promise and Swear, That I will be Faithful, and bear True Allegiance to Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I have undertaken to make good the Assirmative; and, before I proceed to Argument, it is necessary, in order to avoid Confusion hereafter, that I pre­mise Two Things.

[Page 2] 1. What I mean by being Faithful, and bearing true Allegiance. And here I shall grant the Non J [...]rs all they can desire, [...]. That these Words ought to be understood in a Sense, that a scrupulous Mind would last swear in. That the Oath when taken, doth not only oblige a Man to be a true Prisoner, to pay Taxes, and not to disturb the Government, but to bear all the Allegiance to their Present Majesties, that was ever owing to any King of England whatever, although his Title was most indisputable; so as is the late K. James himself should land in England, and lay with an Army on the left Hand, and K. William and Q. Mary with an Army on right, yet so long as K. Willi­am and Q Mary were possessed of the Crown, and the Regalia, the Subjects were bound in Conscience to look upon J. as an Invader, and every Man in his Place and Calling were to be aiding and assisting to K. Willi­am and Q. Mary: the Priesthood with their Prayers; the Militia with their Arms; and the People with their Purses. &c, In this Sense I am content to understand the Oath; and I think it very probable, that this is the Sense of the Imposers; because they intended it as a means to secure the Crown to those on whose Heads they had plac'd it; and less than this will not do it. The

2d Thing to be premised is, That I make no difficul­ty at all about any Title that Q. Mary may by some be supposed to have, antecedent to that of K. William: Because she having submitted her Right, and being very well satisfied with the Share allotted her by the Convention, no Man else hath any thing to do, to move any Controversie about it. Wherefore, when I say Al­legiance is due to K. William and Q. Mary, I mean it in the Sense that the Oath it self implies it to be due to each of them; which, for ought any Man knows, [Page 3] is the very Sense that each of them do best like of. And, these things being premised, I now pro­ceed.

There are three Topicks, from whence we may ar­gue for the Oath, and as it seems to me, from each of them very solidly. 1. We may affirm, That their present Maje [...]ies had a just Quarrel against the late King, and conquered him, and that Conquest is in such a Case a good Title. 2. That the late King Abdicated the Crown, and left the Throne va­cant: And that (although the former Tit'e were not good,) yet the Convention having place I them there, and the Body of the Nation submitted to them, they have thereupon a good Title. And, 3. That their Majesties are possessed of the Crown, and that Possession is, in their Case, a good Title, although the other two should fail.

The two last I shall wave, because they have been already very largely prosecuted by others, and, as it seems to me, to good purpose, however they have not hapned to give satisfaction to some Men. The first I shall endeavour to manage, because however it may have been touch'd upon by some others, yet hath it not been so fully laid open and urged by any that I know of, as the other Two. If in this I am mistaken, I must plead for my excuse, the Circumstances I am in especi­ally my [...]istance from Business and such Books as have been lately written, which is to me unavoidable. But the chief Reason that hath at this time determined my Choice to this Argument is, Because I find that several, who are not yet satisfied with any thing that hath been hitherto offered, do declare, That if it could be made appear that their present Majesties have on their side all the Right of Conquest, they would en­tirely submit to the Government, and take [...] O [...]. [Page 4] They are to be understood of a Conquest consequent to a just Quarrel; and therefore it is, that they so importunately demand our proving, either the League with France, or that the pretended Prince of Wales is not Genuine. They seem to own that either of these would have been on the then Prince of Orange's part a just Ground of War, and that thereupon he might lawfully have made use of his Success. And if this be true, then must the Conclusion be the same, by whatever Argument we prove the Premises.

Wherefore for these Mens Satisfaction, as well as for the vindicating of their Majesties, and their Loy­al Subjects in point of Honour and Conscience, I have undertaken to do it. And to put the matter, if it be possible, out of Controversie, I shall endeavour to prove these three things:

1. That their Majesties K. William and Q. Mary had a just Ground of War with K. James.

2. That they conquered him. And,

3. That Conquest is in this their Case a good Title.

1. Their Majesties K. William and Q. Mary had a just Ground of War with K. James. This hath been endeavoured to be made good from K. James's assaulting and labouring to subvert the Fundamentals of our Constitution, which the next Heirs are sup­posed under obligations of preserving, or securing. And by passing it over, I do not mean to intimate that it is not a good Argument: But I shall at this time argue from another Topick, which I believe more like­ly to give satisfaction to the Persons I am dealing with; and that is K. James's imposing an Heir to the Crown upon their Majesties, and these three King­doms: Or if not that, at the least his carrying of [...] so darkly, as gave just Ground of Suspici­on [Page 5] that he had done it; and his refusing to give any reasonable Satisfaction, or Proof of the con­trary.

Now for the clearing of this I shall do these two things.

1. I shall lay before the Reader some of the many suspicious Circumstances that were previous to this pretended Birth. And, 2. The much more suspicious Circumstances of it. From both which laid together, it will be undeniable, that there were just Grounds of suspecting foul Play: And then that the late King did not give any reasonable Satisfaction under these Suspicions, or sufficient Proof of the contra­ry, will appear when I come to answer Objections.

As to the suspicious Circumstances both preceding, and accompanying the Queens pretended lying-in, I shall not critically insist upon them; nor spend much time in enquiring after, and aggravating every Par­ticular. For seeing such as this Discourse is intended for, are no Strangers to them, a Disquisition of that Nature is needless on this occasion. And yet it is necessary that I mention some of them, in order to my Design of proving that there were just Grounds of suspecting an Imposture.

As to the suspicious Circumstances, previous to this pretended Birth, I desire the Reader will call to mind, and impartially consider these fol­lowing.

1. That all the Children born of Q Mary before it, dyed young; and that it was generally said (and reported to be the Opinion of the Physicians too) That their Majesties could not have a Child that should live for any considerable time; and that for a ve­ry probable Reason, not to be mentioned out of Respect to a Crowned Head, once my Sove­reign, [Page 6] and so nearly related to their Present Ma­jesties.

2. The consecrated Linen sent to the Queen just at the time before her supposed Conception, deserves to be considered. The Story was generally said to be true, and never that I know of contradicted. Now, however this might be intended as an Arti­fice to make some People believe that it availed their then Majesties, by working powerfully upon their Fancies; or to make others more Superstitious be­lieve that it supplied them with Strength and Vi­gour, as the Reward of their Faith or Confidence in the blessed Virgin; yet wiser Head [...], who have no great Faith in the Miracles of that corrupt Church, and are no Strangers to her holy Cheats, will look upon it to be no other than a well timed Trick, to make People expect an Heir to the Crown just at the time when they had resolved one should be born.

3. That her Majesty had two different Reckonings. For altho this of it self be no extraordinary matter; yet being attended with other suspicious Circumstances it looked as if the Intriguers were provided of several Women, who would fall in Travail at several times; that so if the Children born at her Majesty's first rec­koning should prove Females, that could not inherit before the Princess of Orange, they might have other Chances for it at the other Reckoning.

4. 'Twas notoriously suspected that the Queen was not with Child at all, during the time that she pretended to be so; b [...]cause it was otherwise with her than it is usually with Women in th [...] Condition. And of these Suspicious their then Ma­jesties, and the Court were not ign [...]nt. For i [...] was common Talk; and Lampoons slew about ri­diculing [Page 7] their Majesties, and the pretended Royal Embryo: Insomuch that Menaces were published and Rewards promised to any that would discover the Spreaders of such Reports, and the Authors and Abettors of such Libels.

5. What serves to add great Force to all th [...]se other Circumstances, is the absolute necessity of a Male-Child, that should be believed to be Heir Apparent to the Crown. This was necessary 1. for the perfecting of that good Work, that K. James, who was in Years, might reasonably be feared to want time to finish, I mean the setling of the Ca­tholick Faith in these Kingdoms, especially in Eng­land. This Nation hath long been averse to that Re­ligion, and jealous of its return; but never more than in the late Reign; and therefore this was not like to be the business of a day, no nor of a few Autumnal Years. 2. Because all this was so well considered by those who are guided chiefly by their Interest, in the choice of their Religion, who are commonly the far greater numb [...]r, that they made no haste to come over. For to what purpose was it for Knaves to turn Papists, when they might in Reason expect that was not like to be long a thri­ving Religion: But let them but see a Prince of Wales, and then well were he that could first de­clare himself. And when Mens interests had once prevailed with them to declare themselves Papists, they would likewise engage them to do all they could to introduce Popery, or to maintain it when it was introduced. So that you see it was highly conducing to the good of the Catholick Cause, as they call it, that there should be a Prince of Wales, either Real or Pretended. And when a Man con­siders the s [...]ming Zeal that the late King had e­ver [Page 8] shewn for it, the mighty Hazards he had al­ready run, and was still running, and the Pains he was taking to introduce it; and what a glorious Piece of Self-denial it would be to disinherit his own Children for the sake of it, and for how ma­ny Sins it would compensate; I say, when a Man considers this Temper in a Prince, not over apt to look a great way before him, managed to the height by subtle Priests; many of which were of the most cunning intriguing Order of Men in the whole World, he will conclude that greater matters than this in Question would not be stuck at when conducing to this glorious end. And when he joyns hereun­to the Consideration of the concurring suspicious Circumstances already mentioned, and several others that may probably come into his Mind, he will be very apt to fear a Trick.

But it will be said, here are only Grounds for violent Presumptions, but none for concluding. It might be a real Prince still, and consequently here was no just cause for the Prince of Orange to draw his Sword, and drive his Royal Father out of his Kingdoms: This is more than ought to be grant­ed from bare Circumstances, however suspicious they were.

I grant it is so, and it is more than I ask. All I ask is what no reasonable Man can deny me, viz. That under these Grounds of Suspicion it had been both a point of Wisdom and Justice, to have given both the Prince and Princess of Orange, and the Nation, all the Satisfaction that the matter was capable of at the time of the Queen's Labour. Supposing the Queen to have brought forth, it might then easily have been proved beyond all Contradiction; and if it was not proved, it is very [Page 9] suspicious that it could not be proved. I never heard any Man doubt, but that it had been a Point of Wisdom, to have proved it, if they could; and nothing need be said to satisfie an unbiassed Mind, that it had been a Point of Justice too. Is it not a Common thing, in the case of an Heir to a Crown being born, to give the Presumptive Heirs all the satisfaction imaginable? And under these very suspicious Circumstances, Previous to this sup­posed Birth, ought it not, if ever, to have been done? What great Matter had it been, if an O­cular Demonstration had been given, or at the least offered to the Princess of D. or to some o­ther grave Ladies related to her by the Mothers side? Where had been the Harm or Indecency of this? Nay, was it not highly necessary that it should have been done? Would it not have quite confuted all the Pretences of malicious Hereticks, and have rendred the Birth of the Prince indi­sputable? And if they did not do it, was it not very Suspicious, that the Reason was, because they could not? For what other Reason can be given? Shall we say it was an Oversight? What, the subtle Jesuits overseen in a Matter of this Consequence! Suppose Father Petre wanted what many Polititians have, was there never a Wise Man amongst them? Were not those about Their Majesties, Men chosen out for the carrying on of that great Work? And had they not time enough before the Queen's Lying-in, to consider the Suspicions that were raised, the Re­ports that went about, and to Fence against them? Did it not stand them in hand to put the King in mind of laying hold of an Opportunity, which if lost, could never be retrieved? Of giving that [Page 10] satisfaction that might for ever confute these Stories, and secure his Son's Title, and this mighty Advantage to the Catholick Cause; Truly, considering the Ne­cessity of doing the thing, and that those about their Majesties were no Fools, it seems to me next to im­possible, that it should have been an Oversight.

But suppose we should grant that it might, or might not be an Oversight. For that is all that the Friends of the pretended Prince of W. can desire. They can never evince that it was an Oversight, nor ought they to expect we should grant it. All they can reasonably ask, is, That we grant it might be an Oversight. And if we should grant them that, what will they gain by it? e'en nothing at all. For had their present Majesties any Reason to acquiesce in an It may be, or a Perhaps? To give up their Claim to three Kingdoms to a meer Peradventure? Will it ever be possible at this rate, to secure a Presumptive Heir against an Impostor? Ought the Prince and Princess of O. to sit stall? to have let this Birth, justly suspect­ed by five parts in six of the whole Nation, go unque­stioned? and consequently to have lain under the Tor­ment of believing while they should live, and to have left it suspected to Posterity when they were dead, that they had weakly given up their Right to these Kingdoms? and the Protestant Interest to boot?

I say, was this Reason? Or rather was it not Rea­son, that they who were thus far, as is now supposed, Overseen, should reap the fruits of their own folly? and suffer for their Oversight? If it was not an Over­sight, the Prince and Princess of O. were wronged, and he being a Soveraign Prince, and no Subject of England, had Reason to demand Satisfaction. If it was onely an Oversight, yet since it was never suffi­ciently [Page 11] proved to have been so, by giving up the Prince of Wales they might have sustered loss, but were not wronged; because the Fault was their own. For certainly in a doubtful Case we should conclude against those that are in all the Fault, and in Favour of them that are in no Fault at all. Since it cannot be proved either way, theirs ought to be the loss, who were guilty of perplexing Matters at this rate.

Or however Their present Majesties had Reason to demand that the Matter should be reviewed, and lest to the determination of a Parliament, the most com­petent Judge that could be pitched upon. This can­not be denied. And this is all that I ask at present; because it is all that our present Soveraign asked in his Declaration, at his first coming into England.

Some may think (what is not indeed altogether improbable, supposing it to be a genuine Prince) that Matters were thus darkly carried on purpose to have provoked the Nation, or rather some of the forward­est, to a Rebellion; that so they might have had an Occasion against us, to fall upon us, and take us for Bondmen.

The Principles of the Church of England were known to be so Loyal to all Kings in the General, and she had done so much for King James in Particular; in bringing him to the Throne, and in keeping the Crown on his Head; She had so lately given an un­deniable Token of her Fidelity to him, by what she had done in opposition to the Duke of Monmouth, that the Popish party could not for shame fall foul upon her, without some Pretence or other: but if they could but provoke her, or some part of her Members to a Rising, then she would have cancel­led all the Obligations that her former Loyalty had [Page 12] laid upon the Crown; And then the Cry would have been; Her Members are not more Loyal than those of other Sects or Religious, when she is dis­contented, or doth but fear that her Interest lies at stake. And then there would have been just cause for the King to have adher [...]d to the Loyal Roman Catholicks, who had never fai [...]ed him; and to have set them uppermost.

Or supposing they had a Mind to bring in Arbi­trary Power, and make it an Handmaid to Popery, then would any Stirs, that they were resolved to call a Rebellion, render it [...]asy and hasten it. And certainly as to Invade our Laws, our Liberties and our Religion so openly, was highly provoking: So to impose upon us a Prince of Wales, (or which is all one, to make us believe they had done it) and so to rob us of our hopes of Ease, when those blessed Princes, our present Soveraigns, should of right have suc­ceeded the Crown, was the readiest way to make us desperate. And, did I believe that the Child was really born of the Queen, I should think this so fair an Account of their carrying it as if it was not, that I should never pitch upon any other. And methinks there is a Passage in the Lord Churahil's Letter lest [...] [...]st. of [...]he Deser­ [...]on, Pa. 81. for King Jam [...]s, when he went off from him at Salis­bury, which implies, that he was either Privy to, or smelled out some such Design; His words are, Heaven knows with what Partiality my dutiful Opinion of your Majesty hath hitherto represented those unhap­py Designs, which inconsiderate and self-interested Men have framed against your Majesty's true Interest, and the Protestant Religion. But as I can no longer joyn with such to give a Pretence by Conquest to bring them to Effect.

[Page 13] His Lordship best knows what he means by the Pretences by Conquest to bring those unhappy De­signs to Effect: But to me at present it seems that his words are capable of no other Interpreta­tion, than that they were resolved to provoke us to make some opposition, that they intended to call a Rebellion, the which being quelled, they might pretend us to be in the state of a Conquer­ed People, and so over rule our Laws, and make their own the Legal Religion; And what greater Provocation could be given, than to make us be­lieve they had thus imposed upon us, as to the Succession?

And if this be the Case, as they that believe there was a Prince of Wales have great Reason to think it is, then Righteous art thou, O Lord, and upright are thy Judgments: For the Priests and Je­suits are sunk down in the Pit that they made, in the Net which they had hid for us, is their own Foot taken. We can never enough adore the Divine Goodness, and Justice, and Wisdom, in turning the Mischief that these Wretches intended against his Church, upon their own heads. For at the same time that they designed to render the Birth of the Child doubtsul, that so they might provoke us to do what might minister to them an occasion to Destroy or Enslave us, they likewise rendered it suspected to a Soveraign Prince nearly concerned to main­tain the Succession, who had both the Wit and Courage to sift out the Truth in this matter: And how well these Sons of Wisdom carryed it, when he came to make inquiry, we have seen, and shall consider by and by.

[Page 14] But however this be, the most probable Reason of their perplexing things at this rate, that any Man can think of, who believes it was a Genu­ine Prince; yet was not this to be owned for the Reason. And therefore we have not forgotten that some of their then Majesties Friends bethought themselves of another. They could not deny but that things were very strangely carryed, and that they both might and ought to have dealt more a­bove-board: But they would have had us believe that the Reason why they did not, was the late Queen's mighty Spirit. She took it so very ill to be Suspected, that she scorned to give any Satisfacti­on. But what, had not the King more Temper? Had not their Ghostly Fathers more? Or could not they, who had inspirited their Majesties to run such mighty Risques for the Catholick Cause, pre­vail with them, in the space of Forty Weeks, to give Law to their Passion, when it was so neces­sary to the great Design, and when the not do­ing of it was like to ruine all? Or if they scor­ned to give Satisfaction to the Subject, was it be­low them to give Satisfaction to a Soveraign Prince. whose Consort was the Presumptive Heir of the Crown?

This Reason must, I think, be unsatisfactory to every indifferent [...]dgment; and I am sure, not­withstanding this Allegation, the then Prince and Princess of Orange, had all the Reason in the World to inquire into this doubtful Birth. For notwith­standing all that can be alledged, since there were, during the time of the Queens pretended Bigness, such general and confident Expectations of foul Play, some Men of Honour and Prudence of the Protestant Party, Friends to the Succession [Page 15] of their present Majesties should have been admit­ted into the Room, and placed so near the Queen, as that they might have been able to have given po­sitive home Evidence on her Majesty's side: And it was but reason that the Princess of Denmark: and a sufficient number of Ladies that were her Friends, should have been convinced by a sensible Demonstra­tion. But now instead hereof, how quite contrary were all things carried? And this brings me in the

Second Place, To the very suspicious Circumstan­ces that attended this doubtful Birth: They are not yet forgotten, and therefore I need only mention some of them, in order that this Discourse may not be imperfect. The Queen shifted her Lodgings to and fro at the expected time of Travail, gave out, That she would lye-in, sometimes at White-Hall, and sometimes at St. James's, was delivered, if at all, in Bed, in so short a Space, that there was not time to find out a Trick, supposing there had been any, nor to make any Remarks how Matters were: Few Witnesses called, but such as were either Papists, or so obnoxious to the Laws, by their b [...]ing Parties to the illegal Proceedings, that it stood them in Hand as much to have a Prince of Wales, as if they had been Papists: And the disinterested Protestants that were called, so placed, that they could only give Evidence, Tha [...] they heard the Queen complain, and that there was a Child: But for speaking home to the Matter, they were no more able to do it, than as if they had been at some Miles distance.

I grant that some of these Circumstances might not be of their designing or ordering, and that, had they hapned alone, they would have been of [Page 16] no moment to create a Suspicion: But yet being joyned with the others, that were undeniably of their Ordering, and that might have been ordered other ways, they are of very great weight. And I am perswaded, when a Man, who is altogether disinterested, considers all Circumstances laid toge­ther, he will conclude, that, supposing there were foul Play, Things must needs have been carried just as they were: And they that suppose there was not, can give no Reason why they were so carried, but such as are altogether unsatisfactory; and that, notwithstanding all that can be alledged: the Pre­sumptive Heirs to the Crown had reason to expect the Matter should be looked into.

But it will be said, No sooner did the Prince and Princess discover their Jealousie, but the late King gave them all the Satisfaction that they could reaso­nably desire; such as might and ought to have contented them. For the King did not hear of the Prince's Preparation against him before the 9th or Hist. of the Desertion, Pag. 7. 10th of September 1688; and on the 22d of Octo­ber, he ordered the Council to be assembled, and such Pag. 24. of the Peers of this Kingdom both Spiritual and Tem­poral as were in Town, together with the Lord May­or and Aldermen of London, and the Judges, and se­veral of his Majesty's Council learned in the Law. And Queen Dowage [...] and the Lords and Ladies, and o­thers that were present at the Queens Labour, did appear, and declare, all of them, except Queen Dowager, upon Oath what they knew of the Birth of his Royal Highness the Prince of Watos: Of all which a particular Relation was published by the King's Order: and this ought to have satisfied the Prince and Princess.

[Page 17] But I answer, This was not reasonable Satisfaction: for 1. It was not, as it ought to have been, the Satisfa­ction that the Prince desired. 2. Nor was it sufficient in it self.

1. It was not, as it ought to have been, the Satisfa­ction that the Prince desired. He had just cause to su­spect a Trick, as hath been proved; and therefore it cannot be denied, but that he ought to have had the Pri­vilege of chusing how he would have the Truth found out, provided the Method he pitched upon were possi­ble, and reasonable. Now it was both: for he offered Prince of Orange's Declaration; to refer the Matter in dispute to a Free Parliament. The King might have called a Parliament, had he pleased, and have made it Free; so that it was possible. And who might more reasonably judg of the Matter than a Parliament? The King and Prince were too much Par­ties, to be either of them Judges. And who then so fit as the Nation's Representatives, to decide a Controver­sy about the Succession? Had not they formerly been the usual Umpires in parallel Cases? And, if they might not be so in this, I know no other but the Sword. For,

2. The Satisfaction that the King gave by examining Witnesses, was not sufficient in it self. 1. Because few were called to the Queen's Labour, but such as were ei­ther Papists, or obnoxious to the Laws, or absolute Crea­tures of the Court: And the few disinterested Prote­stants that were there, were not able to speak home to the Matter in question. 2. The Witnesses were under too great an Awe to have their Evidence accounted free: they were all the King's Subjects: and his Majesty had all along before, and did at that instant shew himself too passionately concerned to have it believed a Genuine Prince. Had the King himself desired Satisfaction, or but stood Neuter, they might have been supposed to speak freely. But it was quite otherwise: for, besides [Page 18] what he had done before to discourage all such as were dissatisfied, there is one material Circumstance previous to the Depositions of the Witnesses, which hath not as yet been taken notice of in Print that I know of, that deserves to have a particular Remark set upon it; and it is this: Before the Examination of any one Witness, his Majesty was pleased to express himself to this pur­pose, (I would have set down his Words, but that I could not procure the Depositions; however, I believe, I shall not vary from the Sense in any thing material to my present Design:) ‘I was always with the Queen du­ring her Bigness; I constantly lay with her; I could not possibly be imposed upon; I knew her to be with Child: And therefore, if there were any foul Play, I must needs be a Party to it.’ And having said this, he bids the Withesses speak their Knowledg.

Which was as much as to say, Is there ever a Person here that dare accuse me of the greatest Folly and Inju­stice in the World? Come, tell me, Am I your Soveraign Reasons for withdraw­ing himself from Ro­chester. guilty of this unnatural Villany? Or have I so little com­mon Sense, as to be imposed on in a thing of this Na­ture? I use these Expressions, because his Majesty af­terwards used them. I confess I lay great Stress upon this, and think this one Circumstance enough, in all Reason, to set aside all that was then sworn, and make it go for nothing.

Indeed had the Prince been there as well as the King, with a number of Guards equal to his Majesty's, and the two Armies at equal distance, as the Prince required in his Answer to the Lords sent by the King to adjust Preliminaries, in order to the holding of a Parliament; and consequently able to have protected any that should have given Evidence on his side, as well as the King was to protect those that gave Evidence for the Party he was pleased to espouse, all this had been no great mat­ter: [Page 19] But that the King should express himself in this Sense, and with so much Warmth, when he alone was present, able to crush any Man that should offend him, and the Prince with his Army on the other side the Sea, is, I think, such a mighty Prejudice against all was thereafter sworn, at that time, that no wise Man will much regard it; but will conclude, that the Prince had still reason to adhere to his first Demand of having it lost to a Free Parliament.

He did so: First, he signified his Dissatisfaction in these Words; ‘There are great and violent Presumpti­ons, Prince's 1st Declaration inducing us to believe, that those Evil Counsel­lors, in order to the carrying on of their ill Designs, and to the gaining to themselves more time for the ef­fecting of them, for the encouraging of their Compli­ces, and for the discouraging of all good Subjects, have published that the Queen hath brought forth a Son; though there have appeared both during the Queen's pretended Bigness, and in the manner in which the Birth was managed, so many just and visible Grounds of Suspicion, that not only we our selves, but all the good Subjects of those Kingdoms, do vehemently su­spect that the pretended Prince of Wales was not born by the Queen.’ And it is notoriously known to all the World, that many both doubted of the Queen's Bigness, and the Birth of the Child; and yet there was not any one thing done to satisfy them, or to put an end to their Doubts.

Then he declares for a Free Parliament, and saith, To this Parliament he will also refer the Enquiry into the Birth of the pretended Prince of Wales, and of all things relating to it, and to the Right of Succession.

But is K. James likewise willing to stand to their Deter­mination? No, he is so far from it, that whereas, imme­diately after notice of the Prince's intended Expedition, [Page 20] he endeavoured to wheedle the Nation with hopes of a Parliament, by his Proclamation of September the Hist. of the Desertion, p. 8. 20th, and did issue out Writs accordingly; Having re­ceived more certain Intelligence of the Prince's coming, he recalled the Writs by his Declaration of the 28th of Pag. 10. September, and could never be induced to consent to a Parliament until the Prince should be driven out of the Nation. And how could a Parliament then have been Free? or with what Freedom could they then have en­quired into the Birth of the Child? However, in this fatal Resolution he persisted to the last. And what was this, but to decline the Decision of a Parliament, and to put it to the Sword? All his Proclamations are in pursuance of this Resolution: And from it, not the sea­sonable Advice of the Bishops, nor the earnest Petition Pag. 13. of several Lords both Temporal and Spiritual, presented Pag. 43. to him by the two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Ely and Rochester, nor the rising of several Bodies up and down the Nation, who all declared for a Free Parlia­ment, can divert him: But down he follows a puissant Army to Salisbury, meaning that way, and no other, to give the Prince Satisfaction.

And now I desire the Reader to consider, that from the time that the King declined the Decision of a Parlia­ment, declared the Prince an Enemy, and marched down against him in Hostile manner, the Prince had a just ground of War against him. Certainly no Man can doubt this, who considers what hath been said and pro­ved of the King's having given the Prince just cause of Suspicion that he had greatly injured him, of his deny­ing him Satisfaction, of his declaring him an Enemy, and of his marching down against him as such.

But perhaps some will be ready to object, That the Object. Prince begun the War by coming over into England [Page 21] with an armed Power; He might have staid in Holland, or have come without an Army; and then he might have had Satisfaction.

To this I answer, 1. That the Prince utterly dis­claimed Answ. any Design of warring upon the King. He de­clared only for a Free Parliament, to the which he pro­mised to refer all Matters in Dispute, (and his Since­rity was so universally believed, that the whole Nati­on, except such whose Crimes had made the contrary their Interest, besought the King to yield to his De­mand;) promising that, as soon as the State of the Na­tion would admit of it, he would send back all his Fo­reign Forces; and in the mean time, keep them under such Strictness of Martial Discipline, that the People of the Country, through which they were to march, should not suffer by their Means. 2. That there is not the least shew of Reason, that, if either the Prince had staid in Holland, or had come over unarmed, the King would have called a Parliament that should have been Free; much less, that he would have suffered them to enquire into the Birth of the Child. He that would leave the Nation rather than yield to these things, would never have done it when he was under no such Necessity.

If it be said, The Prince should first have tried him: I answer; That had been to alarm him and the French King, and so to have made it utterly impossible to have gained Satisfaction. The State of Europe at that time is known to have been such, as that Secresy and Expe­dition were two Things, without which the Prince could never have carried his Points; and upon both these Accounts, it was necessary that he should make his very first Demand of Satisfaction with his Sword in his Hand: And if it was necessary, then it was lawful. For, since it was through the King's Fault that the [Page 22] Matter was become doubtful, it was lawful for the Prince to do what was necessary to his gaining Satis­faction. So that, notwithstanding these Objections, I conclude for the Reasons mentioned, That K. William and Q. Mary had a just Ground of War against K. James: which was the sirst Thing I undertook to prove.

SECT. II. Their Mnjesties K. William and Q. Mary, conquered K. James.

THE second Thing to be proved, is, That the Prince and Princess of Orange, our present Soveraigns, conquered K. James. In order to the making of this clear, it will be requisite to lay before the Reader Mat­ter of Fact; that so it may appear they were actually in a State of War with the King, and what their Suc­cess thereupon was. I shall still make use of the History of the Desertion, as I have hitherto done, for the Proof of Matter of Fact: It seems to me to be writ­ten with great Judgment, and hath, I thankfully own, contributed more to my Satisfaction, as to the Law­fulness of paying Allegiance to Their Present Ma­jesties, than any one Tract, that I have met with, on the Subject. However, the Substance of what I quote from it is known to be true.

It hath already been observed, That K. James decli­ned the Decision of a Parliament; That he declared the Prince an Enemy, and that at Salisbury he put himself at the Head of a puissant Army. Now with what Suc­cess, remains to be considered.

[Page 23] November 20th, there happened a Skirmsish at Wincanton, between a Detachment of 70 Horse, and 50 Dragoons and Granadiers, commanded by Sarssield; Pag. 76. and about 30 of the Prince of Orange's Men, com­manded by one Cambel: where, saith my Author, notwithstanding the great Inequality of the Numbers, the latter fought with that desperate Bravery, that it struck a Terror into the Minds of the Army.

At Salisbary the King was deserted by part of his Army, (as he had been, before his leaving White-hall, by the Lord Cornbury, and such as would follow him,) particularly by the Duke of Grafton, and the Lord Pag. 79. Churchil, and, either there or at Andover, by Prince George of Denmark himself: upon which, the King and his Army were so disheartned, that upon a false A­larm made, either with Design or by Accident, on the 25th of November they left Salisbury, the Army retrea­ting P. 81, 82. to Reading, and the King to Andover; and on the 26th in the Evening, he returned to London.

The Army at Reading, upon another false Alarm, on the 8th of December, retired in great haste to Twi­ford-Bridg; and endeavouring to regain their Post, a Party of the Prince's Men, who were sent for by the Pag. 89. Inhabitants of Reading, upon their threatning to plun­der and fire the Town, attacked the Irish Dragoons, and slew sifty of them.

The King being returned to London, and having how no longer any Confidence in that way of deci­ding the Dispute that he himself had chosen, on the 28th of November, in a Privy-Council, ordered the Pag. 92. Lord-Chancellor to issue out Writs for the Sitting of a Parliament on the 15th Day of January following.

But the Reader must observe, that this was not done until he was forced to it; and therefore, the Prince was now no longer under any Obligation to the King, [Page 24] of standing to the Decision of a Parliament. He might, had he pleased, without any Injustice with respect to him, have made use of his good Fortune, and pursued the Advantage he had gained; which must, in all like­lihood, have ended in Victory; the Earl of Feversham, the King's General, not having with him, at that time, Pag. 93. above four thousand Men.

But yet such was his Moderation, that upon the King's sending the Lords Hallifax, Nottingham and Godolphin, to treat with him, and to adjust Prelimina­ries to the holding of a Parliament, He, with the Ad­vice of the Lords and Gentlemen of his Party, accepted the Motion, and, as things then stood, returned a most reasonable Answer. The which was sent to the King before his first Attempt to withdraw himself out of the P. 91, 92. Nation; and yet he did not alter his Resolution to do it: It was sent to his Majesty by an Express, and yet he resolved to leave the Town; and ordered all those Writs for the Sitting of the Parliament, that were not sent out, to be burnt; and a Caveat to be entred against the ma­king use of those that were.

And at the same time, he sent Orders to the Earl of Feversham to disband the Army, and dismiss the Soul­diers, (which was accordingly done) telling him in Pag. 92. his Letter, that things being come to that extremity, that he had been forced to send away the Queen and his Son, that they might not fall into the Enemies Hands, he himself was obliged to do the same thing. And presently after, his Majesty was taken by the Inhabi­tants of Feversham in a small Vessel, endeavouring to go out of the Nation.

And after this it is manifest the Prince never consider­ed him as King of England, but as his Prisoner, or as a Person conquered. It is true, the Lords invited him back to London, but it was without the Prince's Con­sent, [Page 25] and in all Likelihood without his Knowledg. For although he treated him with all imaginable Respect, as a Person so nearly related to himself and the Prin­cess, and with a due Regard to Majesty, with which he had been so lately vested; yet still it was but like a Person conquered. For understanding he was at Ro­chester, he sent to him, to continue there, by Monsieur Zulestein; but he missing of him, he sent another Or­der after him, to remove from Whitehall, whither he Pag. 100, 101. was gone, to Ham. The Message was to be delivered by the Marquess of Hallifax, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Lord Delamere, after the Prince's Guards were in possession of the Posts about Whitehall, and a Note drawn up to that Purpose.

Likewise the Prince committed the Earl of Fever­sham to the Castle of Windsor, who had been sent by Ibid. the King to invite him to St. James's. And if he com­mitted the Servant to Prison, it is not hard to determine in what Condition he judged the Master to be. Princes do not use to imprison each others Servants sent on kind Messages, while their Masters are free; that is, as King James in his Reasons for withdrawing himself Pag. 105. from Rochester, words it, against the Practice and Law of Nations.

But the Truth is, he considered him as a Prince con­quered by him, and treated him accordingly, although with all imaginable Respect, and with great Tender­ness.

This is the plain meaning of such Actions: and in this Sense King James understood them; and therefore he sent to desire leave of the Prince to return to Ro­chester, Pag. 104. which was granted. And in this Sense he in­terprets them in his Reasons for withdrawing himself from Rochester: For having mentioned them, he adds these memorable Words, I was born Free, and I desire to Pag. 106. [Page 26] continue so. Wherefore, in his own Opinion, his going privately from Rochester into France, was no other than an Escape out of Captivity, or rather out of a Conque­ror's Hands, whose Prisoner he was.

I insist the longer upon these things, for the sake of such as own Conquest upon a just Quarrel to be a good Title, (as indeed it is) but say the Prince did not make use of his Fortune, but declined it, by leaving the Matter to the Convention: Of which I shall say more hereafter, when I come to answer Objections.

In the mean time I will contract into a narrow Com­pass, what I have said at large, that so the Reader may at once take a View of it. Here were violent Pre­sumptions of an unsufferable Injury done to the Prince, and a Refusal of giving reasonable Satisfaction to the last; a marching down with an Army to oppose him, when he came to examine the Truth. Two Battels fought, (how much Blood spilt it matters not) in both which the Prince had the better. The King fled be­fore the Prince to London, from thence towards Graves­end, went on board a Vessel, in order to leave the Na­tion, without deputing a Vice-Roy, is brought back again; but being used, as he thought, like a Prisoner, makes his Escape a second time, and leaves the Na­tion.

And now, good Reader, do not deceive thy self, nor suffer thy self to be imposed upon by the little Pre­tences of such Men, whose Interest it is never to be satisfied: consider well, and judg impartially; What was there wanting in the Case of King James, to make it fall short of a Conquest? There can be no Objections against this (as it seems to me) of any great Moment; however I will not pass by unanswered any Scruple that I can foresee, and much less any Objection that I know hath been made. In the

[Page 27] 1st Place it hath been said; The Prince, by his fair Object. Pretences in his Declaration, stole away the Hearts of his Majesty's Subjects and Souldiers, so that they for­sook him: and therefore he may be said rather to have been betray'd than conquer'd.

To this I answer two things. 1st. That the Prince's Declaration was most reasonable, and thought to be so by the most considerable, both for Learning and Quali­ty, of those that now refuse the Oath, who therefore urged the King, over and over, to condescend, with­out Fighting, to his Demand of referring all Differences to a Free Parliament. And since his Majesty's Refusal, was a Refusal to give Satisfaction about the Rights and Liberties of the Nation, which had been infringed; and about the Succession to the Crown, which was suspected to be in Danger of being altered: It is more than any Man can prove, that the Subject was bound to assist the King; especially if we add, that if he had got the Victory, it must in all Probability have ended in the utter Subversion of our Laws and legal Govern­ment; and in the Destruction of our Rights, both Ci­vil and Religious. That Subjects may not resist the King, although he indeavour their Destruction unjust­ly, hath been taught; and that is Loyalty enough in all Reason: But that they are bound to assist him to de­stroy the main Body of a Nation, is such a Notion of Loyalty as will not down with wise Men. But,

2dly. Supposing the King had been unjustly betray'd by his Subjects and Souldiers, or deserted by them, who ought to have stood by him in the Quarrel, what was that to the Prince, who was none of the King's Sub­ject, but a Soveraign Prince? It behoved the King to have assured himself of the Loyalty and Courage of his own Souldiers and People: And if he did not, and [Page 28] was therefore beaten, it was never the less a Conquest over him, because his Men either would not, or durst not fight. For when Princes take the Field, the Que­stion, as to Right of Conquest, is, which overcomes: not whether his Souldiers that is overcome, fought or not; nor whether his Subjects adhered firmly to him or not.

When Henry Duke of Lancaster came into England, and gathered an Army traiterously against his Sove­raign, King Richard the Second, who was then in Ire­land, the King sent the Earl of Salisbury before him in­to England, to gather an Army against his Coming over: But staying longer than the time by himself ap­pointed, the Army would no longer be kept together. The King coming over, and finding that they were dispersed, and hearing that all the Castles from the Borders of Scotland and Bristol were delivered to the Duke; and that the greatest part of the Nobility and Commons took part with him; and that his principal Counsellors had lost their Heads, he fell so utterly to Despair, that calling his Army together, he licensed every Man to be gone, and to shift for himself: After which he was made a Prisoner, and frightned into a Resignation of his Crown, which was unjustly ac­cepted of, and confirmed by a Parliament illegally called by the Duke in the King's Name. Here was never a Baker's Life of Rich. II. Battel fought, nor a Stroak struck; the King's Subjects and Souldiers forsook him, and went to Henry, who was indeed a Traitor, and consequently an Usurper; both which are far from being in the present Case. And His Life of Hen. IV. Pag. I. yet Henry being placed in the Royal Seat, and possessed of the Regalia, thought it necessary to assure them, that he meant not to take Advantage against any Man's Estate, as coming in by Conquest; but that every one should freely injoy his own, as in the times of lawful [Page 29] Succession. Here are a great many ill Circumstances that make all this unlawful in H's Doings, which do not accompany the late Atchievements of our glorious Prince, which do, even as to the Question of Conquest, leave the Advantage plainly on our Soveraign's side: and yet we see Henry thinks good to assure them that he will not make use of his Victory; we are to under­stand him, against any Man but the King. A plain Intimation, that (supposing his Quarrel to have been just, and justly managed) he thought he had the Right of Conquest on his Side; yea, and that he thought they were of the same Opinion, for whose sakes he gave his Assurance.

A like Instance we have in two other Princes of the same Names, Richard the Third, and Henry the Se­venth. The Duke of Buckingham King R's Subject, and Bishop Morton his Prisoner, plot together, that Henry Earl of Richmond, Heir of the House of Lan­caster, should marry the Lady Elizabeth, Heiress of the House of York, and also to depose King R. Many of the King's Subjects join in the same Conspiracy. While Henry lay at Lichfield with his Forces, and K. Richard with his at Nottingham, part of King Richard's Forces revolted to Henry; and in the King's March towards him, Sir Walter Hungerford, and some others, with­drew themselves from King R's Party: And Sir John Savage, Sir Brian Stamford, and Sir Simon Digby, with their several Forces, joined with the Earl. The Trea­chery was so plain, that it was written over the Gate of the Duke of Norfolk, who was faithful to King R. the Night before the Battel,

[Page 30] Nay, in the very Battel the Lord Stanley, who had been sent to levy Forces for the King, comes in, and joins with the Earl: and yet notwithstanding King Richard being slain, (and I hope to shew that the Case had been the same, if he had only been driven out of the Nation) and Henry obtaining the Crown, the Lord Bacon saith Reign of Hen. VII. Pag. 3, 4, 5, 6., Besides his other two Claims, that of Heir to the House of Lancaster in his own Person, and that of Heiress to the House of York, with whom he meant to marry; he had also the Title of Conquest. And although he chose not to make such use of the Title of Conquest, as of that of Heir to the House of Lancaster; partly because he came in upon Conditions and Agree­ments; and partly because he knew that to claim as a Conqueror, was to put as well his own Party, as the rest, in Fear, as that which gave him Power of disan­nulling of Laws, and disposing of Mens Foutunes and Estates; and the like Points of absolute Power: yet he made use of it to beat down open Murmur and Dis­pute. And afterwards he got the Crown to be entailed upon him by Act of Parliament, and the said Act to be confirmed by the Pope's Bull the Year following, with mention nevertheless Pag. 11, 12. (by way of Roo [...]tal) of his other Titles both of Descent and Conquest. So as now (saith the same learned Author) the Wreath of three was made a Wreath of five; for to the three first Titles of the two Houses or Lines, and Conquest, were added two more, &c.

So that Henry the Seventh, as wise a Prince as ever sway'd the English Scepter, (of whose Opinion the Lord Bacon seems to be) thought he had the Title of Conquest, the which he might, and did make use of, as far as he saw convenient. Although he brought over with him but two thousand Mercenaries; a small Force in comparison of those that the Prince brought over [Page 31] with him, and got the Crown almost purely by the help of King Richard's Subjects, and by the Treachery of his pretended Friends; many of which had been pre­ferred by him, and yet forfook him.

I grant indeed that King Richard was an Usurper, and a cruel Prince: But what of that? Although his being so was a just reason why Henry, who had been convey­ed Speed, Edw. 4. p. 886. into Britain in the Reign of King Edward the 4th, and never returned into England until that fortunate Expedition, which made him King, and consequently who had never sworn Allegiance to him, might agree to marry the undoubted Heiress of the House of York, and thereupon do his utmost to deprive him of his Crown; yet did it not make the Success against him ei­ther more or less a Conquest. It made it lawful to con­quer him, but it did not make the Victory ever the more a Conquest. And further, whatever Weight there is in that, is likewise in the Title of their present Majesties: For as Henry the 7th had a just Quarrel a­gainst Richard the 3d, so also had their present Maje­sties against King James the 2d.

It is true, in both these Instances there is a Mistake, under which the Lord Bacon himself seems to lie, in the Case of Henry the 7th, viz. That the Victors are thought to have gained, not only a Title to the Crown against the Vanquished Princes, but also an Absolute Power over the Rights and Liberties of the Subject. Whereas in these, and all other such like Cases, where the Na­tion stands Neuter, no Man is conquered, but the King, and such as assisted him; and therefore no Right is gained over the Laws, or the Peoples Liberties. But of this more hereafter. At the present it is enough to observe, that these two Instances make it plain to be the Opinion of those Times, that to the Right or Title of Conquest, it is not necessary that the Souldiers and [Page 32] Subjects of the Prince Conquered, proved faithful to him: it is enough that he be either slain, or, which I hope I shall prove to be all one, rendred unable any lon­ger to defend his Subjects and his Crown against the Victor. And is it not likewise the general Opinion of these present Times? Do not the Christian Princes, now in a State of War with each other, endeavour each to draw Assistance from his Enemies, by Manifesto's, Declarations, Memorials? And do not Souldiers daily desert one Prince, whose natural Subjects they are, and run to another? But is that thought a Reason why the Victors should quit any thing that their Swords do gain? If their Declarations be untrue, or in any respect unrea­sonable, there is Sin in that, and in making any Ad­vantage of them: but the Prince's was not; and there­fore as there was no Evil in it, so is there no reason why he should quit any Advantage gained by it.

2. But it may be said, That the Nation was not Object. conquered, nor was it possible it should be, by such a small number of Forces, as the Prince brought over with him: And that no Right of Conquest could accrue to the Prince, so long as the King had Subjects enow able to have defended him. Had the Nation done its utmost in defence of the King, and yet been overpow­red, the Assertion had been true: but it was so far from it, that it was the Poisoned Nation K. James feared more than the Foreign Army. A great part of the Nation took against the King; and almost all the rest looked on, while he was driven out of his Dominions. And call you this a Conquest?

To this I reply: (1.) That this was much-what the Ansm. Case in the two Instances I have given; and yet, as has been shewn, it was the Opinion of those Times, that the two Princes I have mentioned were conquered. [Page 33] (2.) As to the Nation's standing Neuter, or taking a­gainst the King, I have considered it already, and need not now repeat. This Objection is much-what the same with the former, only it appears in a different Dress. (3.) As to the Prince's conquering England, I say, he never pretended to it; nor could he have done it justly; for he had no Quarrel against the Nation. It was so far from it, that he never pretended any. His Quarrel against the King, was likewise the Nation's Complaint against him: and at the same time he assert­ed his own Right, and in that very Particular he assert­ed the Right of the Nation. For as he had a Right to be satisfied about the Succession, so also had the Nation; and the Nation too desired Satisfaction as well as he. Nay, he came not only to assert his own Right, jointly with ours, in this Particular; but even all our Rights and Liberties, which were struck at, and in great dan­ger of being utterly subverted. So that this Glorious Prince was so far from being our Enemy, that he was our Champion and Deliverer. He conquered nothing, but our Hearts. And if he never pretended to be our Enemy, he could not be said to conquer us. Had he conquered the Nation, he would have had a Right to somewhat else besides the Crown, viz. to our Laws, Liberties and Estates; and we should have been in a very ill Condition, until by submitting all to the Con­vention, and suffering the Government to settle upon the Antient Basis, he gave us all back again. It is true, many times the Quarrel of Prince and People are twisted together, and then they stand or fall together: but here they were severed, and therefore the King fell by him­self: And although it be a hard Saying, yet is it too true, that his Fall was his Countrey's Rise.

The Nation was never conquered since the Days of William the First, supposing that may be called such a [Page 34] Conquest. Nor is such a Conquest necessary to give the Victorious Prince a Right to the Throne of the Van­quished. Enough it is that he be reduced to such a Condition, as to be unable to help his Friends, and they to help him. Such a Conquest was that of Henry the 4th over Richard the 2d, although he thought not to have made use of that Title; because his Quarrel was not just, nor his Success gained without Dissimulation and Perjury. And such a Conquest was that of Henry the 7th over Richard the 3d. And yet both these, as I have said, thought they had good Titles, as being Con­querors. And such a Conquest was this of our present Soveraigns over King James the 2d.

3. It may be said, All this would be true, were King O [...] James out of all possibility of ever helping his Friends, or of receiving Help from them. But he is only reti­red into a Neighbouring Kingdom: And there he is within Call, whenever the Nation's Eyes shall be o­pened. Reasons for withdrawing himself from Ro­chester. He only waits for a fair Opportunity of return­ing to succour his Friends, and right himself.

To this I answer:

(1.) King James is in such a Kingdom as we can ex­pect no Good from: and if ever he returns out of it, we have reason to think he will succour no Friends, but those of his own Religion, and such as are for Arbi­trary Power. But as for all the rest, which are the main Body of the Community, we have great cause to fear, they will be in a much worse Condition than they are under the present Government. It is highly proba­ble, that he went away with hopes, that the Distracti­ons he took care to throw us into, and our own mista­ken Notions of Loyalty, with the Assistance of the French King, would in a short time bring him back a Conqueror, upon the Necks of our Laws, and our Re­ligion. [Page 35] And what Encouragment can a wise Prote­stant find in this, to be undone by suspending his Al­legiance to our present most gracious Soveraigns? Shall we, for the present, make our selves miserable, and do our utmost to make the Nation so too, in hopes that e're long he will return, and be in a Condition to make both us and it, more effectually so? But,

(2.) It is not essential to a Conquest, nor to the Right it gives, that the Prince, supposed to be conque­red, be out of all possibility of ever helping his Friends, or of receiving Help from them. No Prince is in such a Condition while he lives. It is sufficient, that the main Body of a Kingdom have submitted to the Con­queror; and the greatest Part of such as have been re­quired to fwear Allegiance to him, have done it: so as that he is fully possessed of the Government; and that the vanquished Prince is not able to protect those that refuse to submit to him: but that they may be ruined before he could come in to their Assistance; and would be so, were it not for the meer Mercy of the Conque­ror.

For one great Reason, why Conquest, in a just Quar­rel, gives the Subject a rightful Liberty of transfer­ring his Allegiance to the Conqueror, is, Because his former Soveraign is, by his own Fault, fallen into such a Condition, as that he cannot, to him, answer the Ends of Government; nor he, to his Soveraign, the Ends of Allegiance and Subjection. And as it would be very hard, that a King should be obliged to throw away himself for the sake of his Subjects, when his doing so would not in the least advantage them: so is it no less hard, that Subjects should be obliged to throw away themselves for the sake of their King, when their do­ing of it, will not at all advantage him. For both these suppose Men are obliged to be undone for no Reason, [Page 36] and to no End. Nor are we bound to be undone at the present, in hopes that hereafter his late Majesty may recover his Throne. For another Reason, and in­deed the chief, why such a Conquest as we now speak of, gives the Subject a Right to transfer his Allegiance, is, Because the ejected Prince cannot be restored with­out the very great Misery, if not the utter Ruin of his Country. But of this I shall say more in answer to the next Objection; to the which I now proceed.

4. It must not be dissembled, that some are of an Object. Opinion that it is no Conquest; or rather, that no Right to a Crown is acquired by Conquest, without either the Death, or, at the least, the Cession of the vanquished Prince. And since this is a Scruple that mainly sticks with some that refuse the Oath, I will give as full an Answer to it as I can.

Cession, is either voluntary, or forced. The former of these, is the same with voluntary Resignation, and has no place here. For whatever Prince, being con­quered, resigns his Crown to the Conqueror, it is a­gainst his Will; it is not to be thought a voluntary Re­signation. The latter I think sufficient to give the Victor a Right to a Crown, and to give the Subject a Right of transferring his Allegiance to him: but I be­lieve a great many are of an opinion, that such a Resig­nation or Cession, will bind the vanquished Prince no longer than he is under Force or Necessity. For has it not been frequently said, That whatever Promises a Prince makes for fear, when under Force, or for the gaining of his Liberty, are all void as soon as the Ne­cessity ceases? Lord Her­bert's Life and Reignof Henry 8th, p. ag. 184, to 192.

Thus Francis the First, King of France, being the Prisoner of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, bound him­self by the Concord of Madrid, solemnly swore to; [Page 37] That, when at liberty, he should perform divers Condi­tions, and, amongst the rest, restore the Dutchy of Bur­gundy, not withstanding any Decrees of Parliaments, Pretence of the Salique Law, or other Claim whatsoe­ver; or else return a Prisoner to Charles.

And at their parting, when he was dismissed, Charles demanded of him, If he well remembred all that was capitulated bet wixt them? Francis answered, Yes; for further Confirmation, repeating the most particular Articles. Charles then demanded, Are you willing to per­form Pag. 192. them? Francis answered again, Yes; adding, He knew no Man in his Kingdom would hinder him: And when you find I do not keep my Word with you, I wish and consent, that you hold me for Laschs and Meschant. By this Account it is manifest, that Francis bound him­self as falt as a King under restraint could; and yet af­terwards, in a Cartel sent to Charles, he thought it a good Excuse to say, That no Man, under Restraint, can plight his Faith.

It is true, the same Historian adds, that this Answer was generally not approved of: but yet he also says, that if he had excused his not returning, by his being a Pub­lick Person; and had said, that his Obligation by Oath, when he was crowned unto his People and Kingdom, was a greater Tie than that of his particular Honour: And together had alledged, That he could not obtain their Consent, either to perform his Promise for Restitution of Burgundy, or to go single out of his Kingdom; it was Pag. 204. thought by some, he might have vindicated himself in great part, and even laid some Imputation on Charles for demanding things impossible to be performed. The same Account, as to the Substance of it, is likewise gi­ven by the French Historian, although he gloss over the De Serres p. 617. matter as well as he can; and he makes much what the same Excuse for Francis.

[Page 38] So that some for one Reason, and some for another, have been of opinion, That whatever Promises are made, and Engagements entred into, by Kings under Force, are not binding when they are at liberty: and conse­quently, if a Prince, in such a Condition, shall resign his Crown, he may, whenever he finds an Opportunity, re­assert his Right; and the Subject will be bound to assist him against the Victor. So that the Cession of the Prince conquered, will give some Men as little Satis­faction; as his being reduced to such a Condition, as to be unable to help his Friends, gives those that pretend they would be satisfied with such a Cession.

As to those that would be satisfied with the Death of the conquered Prince, although he should not resign his Crown, but will be satisfi'd with no less; the necessary Consequence of their Opinion, is, That one Prince must never take another Prisoner, nor give him leave to e­scape, if he aims at his Crown: because, while he is a­live, he can have no Assurance of the Subjects Loyalty. And such Protestants as are of this Opinion, must say, That had K. William dispatched K. James when he was in his Power, he had likewise dispatched all their Scru­ples; nay, and they will be tempted to wish he had done so. How kindly K. James will take it, I know not; But I am perswaded, if it ever is in his Power, he will reward them for it, partly after the same rate, as for their other Services.

Having thus shewn my Reader some Inconveniences, that seem to attend or follow from the Opinion that the Objection supposes to be true, I now proceed to a di­rect Answer.

K. James is still alive, and has not resigned his King­doms, but has escaped out of the Victor's Hands; who, as soon as he was possessed of his Dominions, required an Oath of Allegiance of the Subjects; who have gene­rally [Page 39] submitted, and accordingly sworn Allegiance. K. James, in the mean time, is in such a Condition, and has been ever since his Flight, that he is not able to pro­tect those that refuse the Oath; but their Lives and Safety are owing purely to the Mercy of the present Go­vernment. The Question is, Whether may those that have hitherto refused the Oath, now suppose both their late King and themselves to be, as to all the Ends of Go­vernment, in the State of Conquest, and so take the said Oath, and pay Allegiance to K. William and Q. Ma­ry? Or, on the contrary, are they still to believe it no Conquest, and consequently to adhere to K. James?

Now when I say, K. William and Q. Mary conquered K. James, I do not mean nicely to consider the Meaning of the words, Conquered and Conquest: Nor to deter­mine whether or no, a Man may properly be said to be conquered, who, although he be fled away, yet lies at all Advantages, seeking for Opportunities of fighting with those that have brought him to this Necessity? These are Niceties not necessary to be discussed at this time. All I mean by it, is, That their Present Majesties have, on their side, the great Reason that makes Con­quest a good Title, and without which, it would not be a good Title. And if this appear to be true, certain­ly it is, in all reason, sufficient for any Man's Satis­faction.

Now how shall we decide the Doubt? Shall we have recourse to the Holy Scripture? Both the Old and New Testament seem all along in favour of a King in Posses­sion, without distinguishing, nicely, how he came by it. But since they do not speak designedly to the Point; since they do not shew us in express words, when a Conquest is compleat, and when the Right that it gives, is gained; and since, what I think has been solidly e­nough urged from their Testimony by others, has not [Page 40] given Satisfaction, I am content to decline their Evi­dence at this time. What then? Shall we have recourse to the Laws of our Country? they likewise seem to speak no less clearly than the Holy Scriptures, in favour of the King de facto, without considering how he came to be so. But what may be said from them, belongs to another Argument that has been very well managed by some others, and therefore I will not meddle with it.

It remains therefore, that we have recourse to the Law of Reason, and by it determine the Matter in question. And this will soon direct us to consider the End of Government, as the best Mark to walk by in this Piece of doubtful Way. That Opinion must be true, that accords with the Reason and End of Govern­ment; and not that which overthrows it. It is beyond dispute, that Government is for some End; and if so, then must we not espouse any Opinions, about it, that tend to overthrow or defeat that End. Nor can we owe a Deference to any one particular Governor, much less, against the Reason and End of Government.

Now then, for what End was Government institu­ted? It must be for a wise and a gracious End, if God be the Author of it; as, I suppose, they that refuse the Oath, believe he was. Was it then that God hath such a par­ticular Kindness for the comparatively very few Regal Families, that are in the World; or rather to the very few particular Men that are Kings, that he is resolved to maintain their Greatness, although at the expence of all other Mens Lives and Fortunes, that are their Sub­jects? Is this an End becoming infinite Wisdom and Goodness? to make the Welfare and Happiness of Mil­lions subservient to, and at every Turn give way to the Greatness of one Man? Certainly no Man will say this. This is the End that Tyrants aim at; but it was never intended by him that made and governs the World. [Page 41] What then? Is the Good of the Community, the prin­cipal End of Government? I hope that no Man in his Wits will deny it. I know a great many have, from this being granted, deduced some dangerous Conse­quences, that indeed did not follow: But what of all that? We must not give up a sound Principle, because some Men have argued unsoundly from it.

Now then, which of these two Opinions, being be­lieved and practised, doth most correspond with the Reason and End of Government? That the Subject be at liberty to transfer his Allegiance to the Conqueror, as soon as his own Prince is dispossessed of his Domi­nions, and in no Condition any longer to give Pro­tection, and cannot be re-inthroned without the un­speakable Miseries of War, and the many dreadful un­foreseen Consequences of it? Or, that he look upon himself to be obliged to adhere to his former Soveraign, so long as ever he is alive, and refuseth to resign his Crown; and that, for his sake, he not only ought to adventure his own Life and Fortune, but also to di­sturb his Country's Peace and Settlement, under their new Soveraign, whenever there is an Opportunity?

Certainly there wants nothing but a Mind free from Prejudices, and a very small share of Reason, to answer this Question aright. Did I believe, that the End for which the great and gracious Governour of the World instituted Civil Polities, was the Grandeur of Kings; and particularly, that the chief End he aimed at in making James the Second King of these Islands, was his single Greatness; then should I think that the Right that Conquest gives were not gained, until he himself had given up his Pretensions intentionally: but since it is as clear, as that it is Day when the Sun shines, that, in general, the End of all Government, and par­ticularly of the English Government, is the Good of the [Page 42] Community; I cannot but think, that our present Soveraigns had the Right, that Conquest gives, against him; and that my Allegiance to him was at an end as soon as he was dispossessed, and they had ascended the Throne.

Nor can I believe that his single Interest is of such mo­ment, as that, out of some hopes of promoting it, I may hazard my own Life and Fortune, and act against the visible great Good of my Country, now setled under other Princes; especially when I add this further Con­sideration, that They do, with all their Might, promote the Ends of Government, which he did not do while he wore the Crown; nor would do, as I have all the Reason in the World to believe, were he again posses­sed of it.

In short; It is Loyalty enough to adhere to a Man's Prince, so long as he defends his Subjects, his Crown and Dignity: but when he ceases to do that, and the Nation is setled under others, I am obliged not to hazard my own Interests, and much more not to do what in me lies, to cast the State, new setled, into miserable Convulsions, by refusing the Oath, or by joining in a Conspiracy a­gainst that Settlement. And if Conquest, consequent to a just Quarrel, be a good Title, and justify the Sub­ject in transferring his Allegiance; then must that be, when the conquered Prince is no longer able to maintain his own Regalia, and protect his Subjects; but so far from it, as to be forced to desert them, although he be yet alive, and refuseth to resign. He that denieth this, makes Allegiance to Governours hold in opposition to the End of Government; and doth in effect say, that Government was ordained for the sake of Governours, and not for the sake of Societies.

[Page 43] Wherefore I conclude, that Conquest is then com­pleat, and the Right that it gives, gained; when a King is forced to leave his Dominions defenceless, espe­cially if thereupon the People generally submit to the Conqueror, and that by a National Act: Because he is now no more able to protect those that adhere to him. And his being owned as King any longer, is become in­consistent with the Ends of Government; and all In­deavors to restore him tend directly to overthrow them. And so much for the second thing to be proved, Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary conquered King James.

SECT. III. Conquest is in this their Majesties Case a good Title.

IT remains that I say something to the third Gene­ral; Conquest is in this their Majesties Case a good Title. And here I need not be tedious: For it being proved that their Majesties had a just Quarrel against K. James, and that the Success they have had against him, amounts, as to Matter of Right, to a Con­quest over him; it must follow, that they have ac­quired as great a Right against him, as ever any Con­querors against such as they have vanquished; and that is to all they can get the possession of.

In many Cases Conquest will justify the Subjects in transferring their Allegiance to the Victor, when he had not a just Quarrel against the Vanquished; although in such a Case the Victor sins in accepting of it. But now in the Case of a just Quarrel, both the Conqueror and the Subjects are justified; the latter in transferring their Allegiance, and the former in accepting.

[Page 44] And the Reason is plain: When a Prince refuses to give Satisfaction to an injured Neighbouring Prince, he puts the Matter to the Decision of the Sword. For Princes have not, like Subjects, Courts of Law to im­plead each other in; where the Injured may try their Cause, and recover their Right. Their Sword is their only Remedy; nor can they have any other Redress than it gives. And he that has once injured his Neigh­bour, gives him to understand how he will use him, if he overcomes him; that he will follow his Fortune, and extort from him all he can. And therefore if he himself is overcome, the same Measure may justly be meeted out to him.

Nor must it be said, that the Conqueror in such a Case gains a Right, only to what he demanded before the War, for that was his Due before the Hazard and Expence of it: and he is not only to be satisfied for that first Injury, but also for the Hazard his Enemy has unjustly made him run, and the Expence he hath put him to; and he has Reason to be very well paid for both. Nay, as his Enemy hath unjustly made him run the Hazard of his own Life: so has it always been understood, that if afterwards he comes into his Hands, he forfeits his Life in lieu of it. And if so, then if he escapes, either with or without his Leave, yet must the Victor have a Right to all of his that he can get possession of.

I grant what Grotius saith, that in many Cases a De Jure Belli & Pa­cis, lib. 3. cap. 15. Sect. 1, 2. Prince should be so merciful, as not to make use of his Victory with Rigour; but to accept of moderate Satis­faction; and to take from the Vanquished nothing but the Power of Injuring, as he cites it out of Crispus Sal­lustius. But what if the Vanquished will rather give up, or desert all, than be abridged of that Power? Was i [...] not so in the Case we are speaking of? And what [Page 45] shall the Victor do in such a Case? Certainly he should rather take all, than leave the Vanquished still the Pow­er of injuring. For I assert, what Grotius also grants, that the Right I plead for is acquired, and may be made use of, Quatenus fert aut poenae nascent is ex delicto, aut Ibid. Sect. 1. alterius debiti modus: and that in using of a Victory all Circumstances are to be considered.

It is one thing to say a Man hath, or hath not a Right; and another to say, Humanity or Christianity obliges him either to make use of it, or not to make use of it. A Man has a Right to every Penny of his Estate; and if he will not give any thing to a poor Man; he doth not injure him. But yet may he be ob­liged upon the Score of Humanity, or of Christianity, to give largely. And yet some Circumstances may free him from the Obligation of giving to that particular Man, by laying greater upon him, as in case his Fa­ther, or other near Relation be fallen into such a Con­dition, as to want every Penny that he can spare: Or if that be the very Condition of his King, or of his Coun­try. In such a Case he is excused from giving to that, poor Man, although in Want.

So here; a Conqueror gains, as I have said, a Right to all of the Conquered that he gets possession of: but yet it is a Point of Humanity, and, which is more, of Christianity, not to make use of his Fortune rigorously in ordinary Cases, but still there may be Circumstances that free him from these Obligations; yea, and that do so alter the Case, that it becomes a Point both of Humanity and Christianity to do it. And that must be, if ever, when the Publick Good requires it, when to leave the Vanquished the Possession of his Dominions would be to their apparent great Hurt; and much more when it would also be to the Detriment of a con­siderable part of the World, and to the Interest of the true Religion.

[Page 46] In such a Case the Conqueror not only may, but ought to stand upon his rigorous Right against the Conquered; yea although he be obliged to him in the strictest Bonds of Nature; to speak plainly, although the Vanquished be the Victor's Father. For whatever Women or Children may think, I hope no wise Man will say that a Man's Obligations to his Father are such, as that for his single Interest, he ought to do an Act highly prejudicial in its Consequences to the Good of a Kingdom, to the Civil Rights and Liberties of Eu­rope, and, which ought to weigh most, to the Interest of the true Religion.

It is true, I may not, for all these put together, do an Act, in point of strict Right, injurious to my Fa­ther, or to any Man else: For I may not do Evil that Good may come of it. But I may go as far for the sake of these, as strict Right will allow of; and ought not to shew Favour or Kindness to any particular Man, no not to my Father, when the doing of it would be Cru­elty to so many Millions. Natural Affection is an in­dispensable Duty, and is owing in an especial manner to a Father: but it must not be indulged in this Instance; for that would be against Reason, that is, against Na­ture. I add, that to ease a Man of the Cares that at­tend a Crown, and reduce him to a private Life; when at the same time, you take from him the Power of op­pressing, and the Temptation to it, is no such great Harm to a Man, if he has but Philosophy enough to conquer his own Temper.

But some may say, We grant the Prince and Princess Object. had a just Quarrel against King James, and conquered him. And we also grant that Conquest would have been in this Case a good Title, had it been stood upon. But they have lost that Right for want of claiming, and [Page 47] by leaving the Matter to the Determination of the Con­vention. They did not, as they should have done, ascend the Throne as Conquerors, but suffered them­selves to be elected, and made Soveraigns by the Peo­ple. So that they have now no Right of Conquest, because they have receded from it.

1. Although they should not formally insist upon Answ. that Title with the Subject, yet it is not therefore de­stroyed. When a Prince gains a Crown by Conquest, and has other concurring Titles that I like not, I think I may swear to him as a Conqueror, although he do not require me to swear on that Ground. And it is suffici­ent to justify my doing of it, that I know my former Soveraign is unable to protect me, and I to defend my self in my Refusal; and that he cannot be restored without great Detriment to my Country. For, as has been said, the principal Reason that makes the Title of Conquest good, is the same with the great End of Go­vernment, viz. The Good and Safety of the Commu­nity, and consequently my own Good and Safety; and not that it is claimed, or not claimed by the Victor.

2. I have already said, that King William conquered King James, but not the Nation; and therefore he ac­quired a Title to all the Rights of King James, but not to any of the Rights of the Nation. Now K. James had a Right to govern these Nations, until by being conquered he lost it: that Right K. William never gave him back again, but insisted upon his Right and Con­quest against him, as appears by what I have already said of his treating him like a Prisoner; and (I now add what is very material) his referring it to the Con­vention to settle the Government. This he could not do, but upon a Supposition that he had lost his Right to it. Had he not claimed against him as Conqueror, he must have left him in possession of his Dominions. [Page 48] And this being so, since he did not re-instate him, he did not give him back his Right. But then the Na­tion had also a Right to their King. And since King William, as I have said, did not conquer the Nation, nor ever had any Quarrel against it, he did not acquire a Title to any of the Rights of the Nation, nor parti­cularly to that of being governed by K. James.

Wherefore he did what became a just Prince in lea­ving it to the Nation's Representatives, whether they would be any longer governed by him or no. And they having given up their Right to him, and consented to accept our present Soveraigns; and that their Act being owned by the major Part of the People, they have an undoubed Right to the Crown; and consequently to the Allegiance of the Subject; a Right of Conquest against King James; and a Right over the Nation by her own Consent, which she cannot now recal. And whether a Man be of an Opinion, that the Convention did well or ill in consenting, yet may he honestly e­nough swear to King William and Queen Mary; because their Title of Conquest against K. James still remains so far from being overthrown, that it is rather esta­blished by that Act of the Convention. However,

3. Their Majesties, by referring the Matter to the Convention, and making use of their Concurrence, have no more prejudiced their Title of Conquest, than Princes do by making use of such as they can draw to their Party, of their Enemies Souldiers or Subjects, to drive them either out of the whole, or any part of their Dominions.

But the Convention did ill in giving up their Right Object. to their King, and the Nation did ill in owning that their Act: and therefore we are bound to make all the Recompence we can, for what has been amiss, by de­nying [Page 49] Allegiance to the present Powers, and doing all we can to re-inthrone our former Soveraign.

1. I much question whether or no the Conclusion Answ. follow from the Premises. Supposing the Convention did ill in giving up their Right to the King, and the Nation in owning that their Act, I very much doubt whether it follows from thence, that therefore we ought to deny Allegiance to King W. and Queen M. and to do all we can to restore K. James. For ought I know, as things now stand, we may very well deny that Con­sequence. This is certain, that many things that are ill done, must not afterwards be undone. But,

2. I deny that either the Convention or the Nation have in this done ill. They gave up no body's Right but their own: K. James's was lost to the Conqueror. And certainly the Nation might, if she pleased, recede from her own Right; especially he having first abdi­cated, and consequently given up his Right to her.

But we have all done ill in sitting still, and suffering a Foreign Prince to expel our Soveraign; and therefore Object. upon that Account we owe him a Recompence, and it should not be less than the restoring of him.

1. The King had with him an Army sufficient to Answ. have expelled the Prince and his Forces; an Army in which he confided, without summoning other private Persons to come under his Standard, or to arm on his Behalf. And if some of them forsook him, and he durst not adventure to head the rest against his Enemy, what was that to the main Body of the Nation, or to such as now refuse the Oath? But,

2. It is not true, that as things then stood, we were bound to fight for the King. Subjects are not obliged to defend their King, his Crown and Dignity, when he makes it impossible for them to do it, without appa­rent [Page 50] Ruine to the Nation. If we had at that time ena­bled the King to drive the Prince of Orange out of the Nation, we must have accepted of the Child as a ge­nuine Prince of W. without ever inquiring into his Birth; and have bid good-Night to all our Rights, both Civil and Religious. And this being the Case; if we might not assist the Prince, however we had no Reason to assist the King: so that in sitting still, we have done no Wrong; and therefore have no Satisfacti­on to make.

Nor doth any thing that I have said justify Cromwel and his Usurpation, or any of the illegal Powers that were about that time set up. For as to Cromwel, (and what I say against him will equally affect those other Usurpations):

1. He was a Subject, and therefore ought not, for any Provocation then given, to have rebelled against his Soveraign, much less to have held on the War, when the Parliament had voted his Concessions satisfactory. They must be extraordinary Circumstances that will justify a Subject's fighting against his Prince. It is cer­tain, no illegal Administrations that are tolerable will: Because the Mischiefs of Civil War are so great, that they are not to be out-ballanced with such. I think however less will not do it, than that it is manifest that the Prince indeavours to overthrow the great End of Government; and that without being resisted, he will in all humane Probability effect his Purpose. I do not say this will do it; for I meddle not with the Argu­ment; but I think however less than this will not do it. And there was nothing of this to justify the Do­ings of that wicked Traitor. And therefore,

2. He ought not to have made use of his Success a­gainst that best of Men, who was always a very tole­rable Prince, and whom Experience had taught to a­mend [Page 51] such Errors, as had been committed in the begin­ning of his Reign, even before the War brake out, as appears by his many gracious Concessions at that time; and especially, to name no more, by his passing the Bill for the Continuance of the Parliament, not to be Proro­gued or Adjourned, but by Act of Parliament.

3. If he would make any use of his Success, it should have been to the Good of the Nation, as settled under her lawful Prince. But what had he and his Creatures to do, to dissolve the Government? especially to usurp the Supreme Power himself; since he got it not either by the Consent of the King, or of the Nation; both which had been in his Case necessary? A great deal more might be said, to shew the Disparity between that and our present Settlement: but I refer the Reader to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Pow­ers; P. 45 to48. where he will find the Prejudices raised from the Rump Parliament, the Protector, and the Committee of Safety, removed.

Nor doth my asserting their Majesties Right acqui­red by Conquest, at all thwart the Determination of the Convention, viz. That the late King James Abdi­cated the Government, and left the Throne Vacant. For that the late King was Conquered, and that he Abdica­ted the Government, are not inconsistent.

It was by his own fault that he fell into such a Con­dition, as that he thought it unsafe to stay in England; yea, and even to the last, if he would have consented that the Ends of the Prince's Declaration might have been gained, he needed not to have left us. And since he rather chose to go away, than to do Right, either to Us or the Prince; and did so, without deputing a Vice-Roy; what was this but to Abdicate us? For certainly if a Prince rather chooseth to desert his People, [Page 52] than to do what is just and reasonable, when that and no more is made the Condition of his continuing with them, he may be truly said to throw up the Govern­ment, and to leave them to shift for themselves. But of this enough. That Vote of the Convention, and the Methods of settling the Government thereupon ta­ken, have been justified by other Pens; and the doing of it is not now my Province.

But then since it was the Success of the Prince's Arms that made him go away; or rather, since he would not have gone away, had it not been for that Success, it might be a Conquest too: and I think I have proved it to have been so, in the Sense I have explained my self; that is, it had attending it the principal Reasons that make Conquest a good Title; and that is enough for our Satisfaction.

SECT. IV. Concluding with some necessary Consequences of the three foregoing Propositions.

I Must now draw towards a Conclusion. I hope I have proved my three Propositions. (1.) That King William and Queen Mary had a just Quarrel against King James. (2.) That they conquered him. And, (3.) That Conquest is in this case a good Title. I am sure I have offered nothing, but what I thought to be Reason: Nor have I baulk'd any Objection, because it was too hard to be answered. I will conclude with some Inserences from what I have written. And,

[Page 53] 1. It follows, That our most gracious Soveraigns King William and Queen Mary, in order to gain these Kingdoms, and in ascending the Throne, have done nothing but what is consistent with Justice and Honour. For if they had a just Cause of War with King James, and have conquered him, in the Sense I have said, and Conquest be in this Case a good Title, and it were ab­solutely necessary, not only for the Interest of these Kingdoms, but also for that of Europe, and the Prote­stant Religion, that they should make use of their Suc­cess; then have they in so doing, acted nothing but what became them.

And the asserting of this, since it is true, is a neces­sary piece of Gratitude to our glorious Deliverers. And I the rather do it, because I observe that many of the Tracts that have been written on the behalf of the Oath of Allegiance, are rather in desence of the Subjects Sub­mission, and taking of it, than of their Majesties Ti­tle. So that the Authors seem rather concerned for their own, than their Majesties Vindication: and how­ever glad they are of the unexpected Deliverance that hath been wrought for them, yet are they over-regard­less of the Honour of those blessed Princes, who have been, in God's Hands, the Instruments of it.

2. The Subject is justified in swearing, and paying Allegiance to them, and that as to Princes de jure. For they have on their side all the Right of Conquest conse­quent to a just War, and at a time when it was abso­lutely necessary to insist upon it.

3. Those that refuse to swear Allegiance to their Ma­jesties, thereby doing what in them lies to weaken their Hands, and so to hinder their good Purposes, are guil­ty [Page 54] of a very great Sin. And I the rather say this, be­cause I am apt to think a great many honest Men, who are not very confident of the Unlawfulness of the Oath, do judg it however best to refuse it, because they be­lieve they cannot sin in so doing, but may in taking it. Whereas, whoever well considers our present Circum­stances, and the Matters depending, must grant, that if it be lawful to swear, not-swearing is a Sin attended with much more dangerous Consequences than is Swear­ing, supposing it to be unlawful. And a Man's erring in the Negative, has greater Aggravations, than in the Affirmative.

4. That King James hath totally lost his Right to these Kingdoms: and therefore, if he comes again with an Army, he is to be looked upon by the Subjects with no other Eyes than any other Invader, but is to be re­sisted by them. Our Fleets and Armies, without any scruple of Conscience to weaken their Hands, may and ought to fight as becomes valiant Men, in the de­fence of their present Soveraigns, and their Countrey; and that not only against the French King, but likewise against the late King James, if he should come along with a Fleet, or head an Army against us.

5. No Man need trouble himself with any Scruple, as touching any Right of the Prince of Wales, suppo­sing him to be Genuine, or of whatever other Issue the late King may, since his Birth, have had, or may here­after have. For as to the pretended Prince, his Birth being doubtful, his Father declined the Arbitrement of a Parliament, and put it to the Decision of the Sword, and the Sword hath determined against him; and there­fore, if he hath any Wrong done him, he hath no body to blame but his Father.

[Page 55] And here I cannot but take notice of the Folly of some People, who after King James was conquered and gone, expected the Parliament should have examined the Birth of the Child; as if when Princes fall out, and the Injurer is utterly vanquished, the injured Victor is still obliged to accept of the same Satisfaction that would have contented him before he drew his Sword: Or as if, when a Doubt about the Succession is by two Prin­ces put to the Decision of the Sword, and the Sword hath decided it in favour of him, whom the far-greater Part of the Nation did, at that time, for good reason, believe to be injured; he ought still to leave it to an Arbitration, as if it were not already decided. And if an Arbitration ever was in any case unreasonably ex­pected after a Decision, it is so in this. For when King James fled, he took along with him all that were able to have given positive Evidence, all that had been In­triguers, supposing a Trick; and all that, by answer­ing of cross Questions, might unawares have discovered the Truth.

2. In bar of the Right of the Prince of Wales, sup­posing him to be Genuine, or of whatever other Issue King James may have had since, or may have at any time hereafter, I have this further to offer. The Title of Conquest is good against the conquered Prince, and his Heirs born after the Conquest: So that in an Heredi­tary Monarchy, as he loses the Crown; so do his Poste­rity lose all Right of Succession. For certainly we must not say, the Conqueror may hold the Government du­ring the Life of the Dispossessed, but is bound at his Death to surrender it to his Heir. The Mischiefs and Absurdities that follow such an Opinion, every Man sees so plainly, that they need not now be particularly mentioned. Let it suffice at the present to say, that the Good of the Community, which is the End of [Page 56] Government, and the chief Reason that makes Con­quest a good Title against the Conquered Prince, makes it likewise hold against his whole after-Line. For the Inthroning of any of the whole Line, is as difficult, and as full of Hazard and Detriment to the Publick, as the Re-inthroning of the Conquered Prince; and therefore the former ought no more to be attempted than the latter.

Nor doth this that I have said at all prejudice the Right of the Princess Ann of Denmark and her Heirs. To clear this,

1. It is to be remembred that I have already said, our present Soveraigns conquered King James, but not the Nation; and therefore they acquired a Title to all the Rights of King James, but not to any one of the Rights of the Nation. Now King James before this Conquest had a Right that his Children should succeed: Had he not been conquered, to have put any of them by the Succession, when legally it should have come to their Turn, would have been an Injury to him; and to them, as having his Right descend upon them. But by his being conquered, that Right is lost; and to put any of them by, is no Injury to him, nor to them, by virtue of any Right derived from him, considered solely by himself. But then the Nation also hath a Right that his Children succeed as aforesaid; and since the Nation was not conquered, it hath not lost that Right.

'Tis true, the Prince of Wales, supposing him to be Genuine, and whatever other Issue King James may since have had, or may hereafter have, is uncapable of the Succession; because whatever Right comes to them, as descended from him, is lost by his being conquered; and the Nation by Act of Parliament hath given away or annulled her Right to have them succeed. But as I have said, the Right of the Princess of Denmark and her [Page 57] Heirs, which was before the Conquest, is secured, And not only for this Reason; but,

2. Because their Majesties, the Victors, having gi­ven their Consent to the Act of Settlement, have there­by established it.

If it be said, Supposing this to be true, King and Par­liament may at any time alter the Succession by a Bill of Exclusion of the next Heir: Whether they may or no, I do not take upon me to determine; however, it doth not follow from what I have written, that they may ever do it, but when it is manifestly as necessary to the End of Government, viz. the Good of the Com­munity; as it is that the Heirs of the Conquered Prince do lose their Right of Succession.

6. It follows from what I have written, that no Im­putation of Disloyalty can justly be laid on the Church of England: Nor are the main Body of her Clergy, who have sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties to be censured for so doing. They have done no more than what the Principles of Government, when rightly un­derstood, do justify: nor have they in so doing, re­nounced any one Doctrine taught either by the holy Scriptures, or by our Church.

So that God, whose own Right Hand at the first planted this Church, and hath ever since watered her, and been as a Hedg about her, hath not only continued to defend her at this dangerous Crisis; but hath done it after such a way, as leaves no Stain upon her. And I hope this Effort of his Power, and Goodness, and Wis­dom, is an Argument that he intends still to preserve her, notwithstanding the Malice of her Enemies, and the Weakness of some of her Friends, who have at this time unhappily joined Hands with them, and act against her Interest, altho without any such Design.

[Page 58] When in the late Reign I considered the restless Ma­lice of her Enemies, the bold Steps that had been alrea­dy taken, and that were daily taking, to her Ruine; that no Petitions on her behalf would be heard, no not so much as pardoned; that nothing but Horce was left to save her; and that any Resistance to Sovereign Au­thority, offered by her Members, would in the Judg­ment of many rob her of that bright Character of Loyalty, which her very Enemies had not hitherto had Forehead enough to deny her: It was a very me­lancholick Thought.

But when I further considered, that her Members were so fully perswaded of the Unlawfulness of re­sisting, that it was not to be expected from them; however, not such a vigorous united Force, as would have effected her Deliverance; and that any lesser Force would have helped forward her Ruin I say, when I considered these things, I greatly feared that was the time when God resolved to visit her in An­ger, and to reckon with us for our walking so unwor­thy of the most holy Faith professed by her, and for our horrible Abuse of all our other Mercies.

But he is pleased not only to consult the Safety, but the Honour and Reputation of our Church: He hither­to spares us for the sake of those holy, Souls that pray for the Peace of our Jerusalem, and (as it seems to me) that he may give this unbelieving Age another Argu­ment of his Being, of his Providence, and of his Care of the Protestant Religion; that is, of True Christianity. And therefore, such as make the late, little less than mi­raculous, Revolution an Argument against these, go a great way towards the filling up the measure of their Iniquity. I hope Authority will be so careful to restrain them, that their horrid Impiety shall not be charged up­on the Nation.

[Page 59] And now I shall leave what I have written to the Reader's sober Thoughts, repeating my Request, That he would consider maturely, and judg impartially. I know some will be apt to say, There is no occasion for so much Caution to Protestants, whose Interest may be suppos'd to be a Byass on the Side I write for, and not against it. But to such I observe, That a fancied Reputation of extraordinary Loyalty; Scorn to change an Opinion that a Man has pleaded for, suffer'd for, and perhaps written for; having espoused a Party, and been considerable on that account, and imbittered against the contrary side. These, and some other Cir­cumstances, do many times, with some Tempers, out­ballance even Interest it self, and turn the Scale of Mens Judgments against it. And of this I am so ful­ly perswaded, that I cannot but fear worse Effects from these, and such like Prejudices, than from any thing that can be objected against what I have said.