IF, My Lord, it were possible for any private con­sideration to add to the satisfaction your Lord­ship has, in the happy Discovery of that Horrid Plot against his Majesties Person, and Government, which is now too big to be Conceal'd; I might believe it would be a particular pleasure, to be freed from that Character, which Men of great Moderation in the Cause of God and their Countrey, affix to those, who, believing that the most will act according to their avow­ed Principles, have long desired to come to a distinction who, by Principle, are against the Government, and who for it.

This the House of Commons have done in great Mea­sure, by their Voluntary association, in which they have set an excellent Example to all Societies of Men among us; and claim the Honour of being before hand with the People; as they, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, were with the Parliament, which rejoyced to ratify what they worthily did, without standing nicely upon Ancient Forms.

But certain is, the Wisdom of former Ages, has thought no Publick Associations sufficiently Solemn with­out an Oath, which invokes the Almighty for a Witness and Party to what is declared before Men: and they who would not be Sworn Brethren to defend the King and Kingdom, were deservedly accounted Out-laws, if not Enemies.

Nor need I enquire what your Lordship thinks of them, who value the reputation of their Coat or Party, [...] than the security of our Religion, Laws, and Liber­ [...] and who are so blindly partial, as to assert it to [...] to impose the Sacramental Test, as a means to pre­ [...] the Peace by an uniformity in what they call the Re­ [...] of their Countrey; and yet will sacrifice the essenti­ [...] our Religion, and a Government, which is the [...] Visible security for that and us; rather than [...]y-men should be thought to depart from Princi­ [...] to be repented of, or to suffer for an obstinate ad­ [...]ing to 'em, against Sense, Conviction, and their [...] practice at the beginning of this Revolution; which [...] not only complyed with, but courted, by their greatest [...]ts.

Some Timerous Politicians would be against Prosecu­ [...]g the advantages, which a most propitious provi­dence puts into our Hands; least if our Enemies should prevail, they should profit of the Precedents for their security, set by us. But

• 1. They who always act in fear of their Enemies are never likely to subdue 'em.
• 2. The others will never regard Precedents, when they have power of doing mischief.
• 3. Not to disable is to encourage 'em, and all gen­tle usage to such Irgenerous Natures, as appears by re­cent experience, is but warming the Snakes till they get strength to sting.
• 4. Not to disarm an Enemy in our power, is a very absurd effect of fear.
• 5. If that whereby we might disable the Enemy, relate to Friviledges; they who will hazard Life and all, rather than deprive those of the Priviledges of Erglish Men, who justly forfeit 'em, are as ill Patriots as Politicians.

Wherefore I take leave here to lay before your Lordship, an Abstract of those reasons, which long since convinced me, That the Government would be greatly wanting to it self, if it should not press for a farther caution for the fidelity of the Subject, than can be had from the Oath of Allegiance, appointed by the late Act of Parliament; and that, if they who contri­buted to the present settlement, or are for the right of it, express a foolish tenderness for those, who scruple all Oaths Declaratory of the Right, and engaging to Defend it; they will deserve, what has for the most part been their fate, to be despis'd, and trampled on, whatever side is uppermost.

Upon which occasion I cannot but apply the Obser­vation of Ploughing with an Ox and an Ass, to the Pa­pists using the Services of the Tory, and the Whigg.

The Oath appointed by the late Act is this.

‘ I Do sincerely Promise and Swear, That I will be Faith­ful, and bear True Allegiance to Their Majesties, King William and Queen Mary.’

Upon which I may observe.

• 1. That this Oath is conceived in fewer Terms, than ever any Oath to the Government, required at Common Law, or by Statute.
• 2. The Omissions are very material; and seem to have been contriv'd by some to leave themselves and their Friends a design'd Latitude, by others to draw Men in to Swear Allegiance, and to urge the true Import of the Oath upon them, who might think themselves under no Obligation to defend this Government, not­withstanding the Oath; for that
• [Page 2]3. The Common Law Oath of Fidelity, and those which have been Enacted by any former Statute, al­ways required Defence of the King or Queen for the time being; and acknowledged their Right to Govern, either in express Terms, or by plain Implication. The O­mission of which, some have urged as an Argument, that the Allegiance Sworn to the Late King, was never intended to be alter'd or touch'd by this Oath.
• 4. Many have openly. declared, that they have Sworn to this Government, not only without regard to its Right, but with a belief that the Right remains in King James. This Collusion is justified by the wri­tings of Men of the greatest Authority among them; and that not only of the present, but past Age; parti­cularly of Sir Robert Filmer, and Bishop Sanderson; whose dictates are never disputed by that set of Men.
• 5. That in Consequence of such belief, there can be no security in the words of such an Oath, might ap­pear from the Nature of the thing, and does evident­ly, from those dictates; according to which, some mis­led Men believe, they may take the present Oath, and yet not only with some Men, question whose commis­sion they ought to obey when King Williams, and King James's interfere; but are positive, that they ought to obey King James, and are not to serve King William farther than they may presume the consent of their King of Right.
• 6. If upon these accounts the Oath appears defective, not to obviate the known and common evasion, would imply great neglect of the safety of a Government, which has done so much to make Men safe un­der it.
• 7. Parliaments in several Ages have found it expe­dient, to Swear the Subjects to maintain the Establish'd Succession of the Crown: whereby great confusions have been prevented upon the Deaths of Princes.
• 8. The Oath in Question is now only Personal to his Present Majesty; and they who deny his Right, not­withstanding their Oath to bear true Allegiance to him; would certainly upon his Decease, think themselves at liberry to declare for King James, or the Prince of Wales, in exclusion of Princess Ann, and her Is­sue.
• 9. Consequently, tho' His Majesty may be secured of the Loyalty of many who take the Oath; they not being subtle enough to understand the thin-spun evasions with which others seem to quiet their Consciences, or to keep up their Reputation; all that wish well to the Princess, and indeed to the Peace of this Kingdom are bound to use their endeavours for another Oath of Allegiance.
• 10. It being generally agreed that Oaths ought to be taken in the sense of the Imposers, and the Parliament which enjoyned the Oath having recognized his Maje­sties Right, together with the late Queen; honest Men could not with any colour of Reason, scruple an Oath declaratory of the Right, more than they do the pre­sent Oath.
• 11. An Oath more express were requisite, if it were only to acold that material Perjury, into which too many run, in taking the present Oath in a sense dire­ctly contrary to the plain intention of the Law­makers.
• 12. It is to be considered, That there is no Act of Parliament for the Oath to his Majesty alone: but the subject matter fayling as to her late Majesty, the in­tendment of Law is supposed to authorize the present Oath, which may not be so satisfactory to nice Forma­lizers, as a New Oath declaratory of the Right, and obli­ging to adefence of the settlement.
• 13. All the Declaration against rebellion required by the late Act, is only against the King, not naming his Majesty King William: So that the Men who will have the late King, [...]ill to be Rightful King, must according to the principie of most of 'em, (except such as hold Non-resistance, to be all that can be required by the So­vereign Power) think themselves bound to take Arms against King William, whenever they have an inviting opportunity and Commission from King James. Which makes it highly reasonable, if not, necessary, to distin­guish 'em from them, who are resolved to do their Duty in Fighting in Defence of King William, and the Succession by Law Establish'd.
• 14. An Oath to Defend the present Government, and in effect to declare it Lawful and Rightful, is yet in force at Common Law; ought to be generally en­forced at Leets and elsewhere; and may be required of all the Subjects by special Commission. Wherefore an Oath expresly declaring the Right, would induce no­thing new; unless in the penalty for refusal.
• 15. Allegiance to the Prince, is in its own Nature, the Duty of Loyal or Liege Subjects to their Liege Lord, and is founded upon his Right to the Government, or being Lawful and Rightful King. As there­fore whoever Swears Allegiance to his Majesty, virtually acknowledges his Right; he that shall refuse to Swear to the Right, when duly required, will effe­ctually shew [...]hat he resolves not to pay the Allegiance which is due.
• 16. Allegiance at Common Law, binds to the Defence of the Kingdom as well as the King; and therefore the Subjects of this Realm, are in a double respect under an Allegiance contrary to any pretence of Right in the Late King.
• 17. It having been duly and Authoritatively de­clared, that the Late King had broken the Original contract between Prince and People; and his Majesty King William having been in like manner declared King; there is as much reason to Swear that his Pre­sent Majesty is Lawful and Rightful King, as there ever was to take the like Oath to J. I. C. I. C. II. and J. II.
• 18. An Oath expresly Abnegatory of any pretence in the Late King, is fully as Just, and as expedient, as the Oaths required in several Reigns, declaring a­gainst the pretended Authority of the See of Rome, or of any Forreign Prince, or Potentate.
• 19. As Cowardice, or some mighty expectations upon a Change, rarher than Conscience, must be thought to have made many backward to acknowledge his Majesties Right; if the present Power should not work upon Men's hopes aad fears, more than a Power in a Remote, and, as it is to be hoped, Vain possibility; it would argue great neglect, or treachery some­where.
• 20. If fear be more prevalent than sense of Duty, it were to be thought that Men should secretly desire to be under the obligation of an Oath, expresly requi­ring the Defence of the settlement; that if a Change should happen, they might plead necessity in excuse of their honest endeavours to have prevented it.
• 21. By the Law of God, and of Nations, as well as of this Land, the Obligation of Protection and Defence is reciprocal; and the Subjects are as much obliged to Defend their Prince, as he to Protect his Subjects. But the Doctrine of Non-assistance, or of Obedience meerly Passive is New, and of pernicious consequence, suited to the late Doctrine of providence, or, of God's ways of Disposing of Kingdoms; which makes Allegiance as un­certain as the events of War, or publick counsels.
• 22. An Oath by which few, if any, think themselves obliged to more than they would certainly do without any Oath; is in effect to have none; but to have none were to condemn the Wisdom and Experience of all Ages.

I should not think it enough barely to assert so many propositions, were it not for a Labour'd Treatise pub­lish'd An. 1694. making evident from Records, History and Law Books, all that may stand in need of proof upon this Subject, and answering the most plausible Obje­ctions against such an Oath, as is here contended for.

Upon the whole, to engage by Oath to defend his Ma­jesties Person, and maintain the Act of Settlement, would be so far from engaging to Fight against God's Providence, [Page 3]that to refuse it, would argue a distrust of Providence: and to incur the imputation of being against the Pre­sent Government, rather than disoblige any Body, who possibly may come into power; were in Truth to oppose that Providence, which has made the presentsettle­ment, and is likely to protect us in the discharge of our Duty to it.

For the Government to require such an Oath, would be so far from implying its being in as desperate a condition, as a Papist brought to Extream Ʋnction; That on the other side, to decline it, would argue an unsoundness in some Vital Part, and such a weakness as will not admit of a gentle Purge.

This would be far from obliging Men to Swear to a moot point, as possibly, some of superficial knowledge in our Constitution may hold; while they, with all their Sophistry, can never reconcile their two contrary Allegiances, to the Law of God, or of this Land, or to common sense.

If the example of general Insurrections in former Ages be urged, to shew the insecurity of the most ex­pressive Oaths of Allegiance, it is to be conside­red.

• 1. That most, if not all of 'em, were in Defence of the Kingdom: which comes not within the present Question.
• 2. It may easily be prov'd, that few if any of 'em, have been against any King till he, by the Corstitution of this Monarchy, ceased to be King.
• 3. No Rising against any Government, which never had Legal Settlement, and had no other foundation but Force, can come within this Question; the obligation continuing no longer than the Force did; which is a full answer to the rejecting the Protector Richard Crom­well, after Oaths to him; yet if Oliver had lived some years longer, the Restoration of C. II. would have been morally impossible.
• 4. Insurrections in England have rarely succeeded without Foreign assistance, and the Nation ought to take care to encourage Generous Deliverers, by shew­ing as much forwardness to act for them, as they to Rescue the People from Tyranny.

But if the prefent Oath be less expressive of the Da­ty of the Subject, than any ever yet known; If it is noto­riously evaded and rendred insignificant; why should this Government be less secured, and more reflected on, than our Law ever hitherto allow'd? Is it for want of Right? then indeed, it might well be sayd, Let us repent of our former Oaths, rather than take New: For it is evident, that all Oaths of Allegiance are Founded upon the Sup­position of Right to Govern. Is it because the late King's pretence of Right is supported by France? This cer­tainly would be the greater argument for a farther Oath, to shew that we are Enemies to France, as we pre­tend to be. And they who refuse this when the French threaten an Invasion, encourag'd by a barbarous Plot to Assassinate his Majesty, may thank themselves if they are treated as Enemies.

That many should reuse such an Oath, when duly enforced, there is not the least shadow of reason to believe; and if it should be taken by ill Men, who seem unalterably attach'd to the Late Kings pretended Right, the very taking the Oath would break all confidence between them and their Old Party, disable 'em from serving that side; and insensibly draw 'em to Act in good earnest, according to the apparent obligation of their Oath, and their truest Interest.

I know it is often urged, that Oaths bind none but honest Men; yet it cannot be doubted but many who would be thought such, would be bound, rather than lose the advantages they now enjoy, while they shame­fully keep off from the Cause of God and their Coun­trey; thinking it a commendable piece of wisdom to attend the events of providence, rather than to use means to preserve that Peace and security to our Religion, which providence has settl'd among us.

If all the honest Men, who are Lovers of their Coun­trey, and of the Present Government, to which they owe the Restitution of its Laws and Liberties, had sufficient means to distinguish themselves from those who seek for a New Revolution; I am persuaded, That which looks like a formidable Party, through the weakness of some who give accession to their own Ruin, would be shamed out of its perversness.

Tho' the Peoples Zeal for a Protestant Queen, put 'em upon a voluntary Association, to stand by one ano­ther in the defence of Her, and their Religion: Which was afterwards ratified in Parliament: Yet it must be confessed, That for the most part it were desirable, that the Effects of such Zeal should be prevented, by a pru­dent anticipation.

Certain it is, Your Lordship, and the numbers of Nobi­lity, and Gentry, with the Body of the common People, who are for maintaining the Act of Settlement, will not tamely give it up: But had much rather know before­hand, who and who are together. But will it ever be be­lieved in Story, That any who were instrumental in the late Revolution, and Settlement, and are, by Principle, for the Right of this Government, should be against ma­king it the Interest of others, to acknowledge that Right? Can they neglect the Providence, which would give Authority to their Opinions, if they themselves did not fight against it? Because Men, who come reek­ing with the Blood of the best of our Patriots upon 'em, now set up for a Country Party; shall the Sons or Friends of the Martyrs for their Country, be charm'd out of their Senses; to find those Sauls among the Prophets?

This hot fit will soon be over, and give way to that other Rage, which has long plagued this Nation; and now seems the choice of those very Men, who have suffer'd most under it.

I can hardly think 'em so weak, to imagine that this new Country Party, spawn'd from the Corruption of former Reigns, should help to establish them at the Helm.

And I may add, That to dream of this were much more absurd, than the Expectation of the Tories, to engross Preferments upon the return of the late King, or setting up the pretended Prince of Wales, with Prote­stant Tutors, and Regents.

Yet I cannot but hope, to see them convinced of the Vanity of such Expectations, by the establishment of an Oath to maintain the Act of Settlement.

In which, that there would be the entire Concur­rence of the Body of this Nation; besides other Ar­guments, may appear, from the unanimity of the Pro­testants of Lancashire; who, tho' the Papists there pre­tend to almost equal Numbers, yet at the very time when our Fleet retired from before the French, who were dayly expected to land, chearfully subscribed the following Declaration: By which they look'd upon themselves as listed for His Majesty's Service: As we are to presume they do, who have subscribed the Asso­ciation made by this House of Commons: Both which I here set in distinct Columns, because of their resem­blance to each other.

SUch indeed is the Vertue of the Common Men of England, That Danger but unites and stirs 'em up, for acting in the Defence of the Kingdom.

And I must say, the Nobility especially, are in In­terest as well as Gratitude, obliged to do their utmost to preserve a Government, which has restored to them that Security, in relation to their Trials, which they had been deprived of from the time of Hen. VII. and which must stand and fall with the Act of Settlement.

If either the King, or Princess Ann, should be indif­ferent in this Matter, presuming upon the Affections of the People; I am sure they, who wish well to En­gland, ought to look upon it as their Concern: Such an Oath being as necessary for their Safety, as it can be either for His Majesty, or the Princess.

In whose undivided Interest, that a true Love for your Country, has settled your Lordship's Judgment, must be believed by all, who have the Honour to Con­verse with Your Lordship; But by no Man with more firm Grounds of Certainty, than by