THE ANATOMY OF A jacobite-tory: IN A DIALOGUE BETWEEN WHIG and TORY, Occasioned by the ACT for Recognising KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY. LONDON: Printed for Richard Baldwin, near the Black Bull in the Old-Baily. 1690. THE ANATOMY OF A jacobite-tory: In a DIALOGUE between Whig and Tory, occasioned by the Act for Recognising King WILLIAM and Queen MARY. Whig. WHither away in so much haste? One word with you for the sake of Old Acquaintance, when we were fellow-Murmurers in the late Reign. Tory. Pray be brief then, for I am upon the King's Business, and must lose no time. W. It is very well if His Majesty's Affairs have lost no time in the hands of Men of your Opinion. But you may pardon me, if I ask what King you mean? King William, or the late King? T. What a Question is that to one in such an Office as I have under King William. W. I very well know your Office, tho' how you came into it is a Mystery; and I cannot but observe the steps which you have taken since you had it: Nay, know how much you value yourself with your Party upon being the same Man which you were, when you shown your parts in opposing this King's coming to the Crown; and therefore I may very well ask you, under the Rose, whether you will own King William to be your King? T. I should be very unworthy if I did not; since I have not only Protection, but Profit and Preferment from him. W. I grant it would be Unworthiness, and downright Treachery not to own him; but that makes it never the clearer to me that you do. T. I have sworn Allegiance to him, and do you think I would Perjure myself? W. I cannot tell how far you may have improved in Romish Equivocations, to evade the plain meaning of what you have sworn. T. I make no Evasion; for I either declared at the time of swearing, or it is employed in my Oath, that it obliges me no farther than not to oppose him or his Arms, till I may be able to do it with a fair prospect of Success, and without the imputation of acting like a Madman. W. Did you mean no more when you swore Allegiance to King James? T. Yes, much more, and upon very good Reason; for in my very Oath I recognised him to be lawful and rightful King, and I swore to do my best Endeavour to disclose and make known unto His Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies, which I shall know or hear to be against him, or any of them. W. I can see no cause to doubt, but if you had never sworn Allegiance to King William, yet you are bound to the same Allegiance to him which you owed to the late King, in virtue of that very Oath which you took to the former, as King William is his Successor. T. That is very good indeed! a Successor to a man alive, and in Possession of his Kingdom! and the Possession of part, is in Law a Possession of the whole, besides, 'tis Heirs and Successors, and you will not say, that this King or Queen can yet, at least, be Heirs to the last. W. I have long since learned from Bracton and others, that an Heir is from the Inheritance; and wherever the Law or Lawful Authority places that, our Allegiance is to follow. T. I know of no Authority that can make this King more than King in Fact. W. Have not the Nation duly declared him King upon the other's Abdication? And does not that Declaration manifest, or make, a Right? T. King James could not lose his Right, it was inseparable from his Person, which he cannot but bear about with him, should he go to the Indies. Indeed this King got into Possession of part of his Dominions by force, King James retired out of fear, with an intention of returning, and we submitted to the Prince of Orange in the day of his Power. W. According to you he is neither King of Right nor in Fact, as long as the late King is Powerful in Ireland. T. Not a word of that, I beseech you, till his Rival has left England, who in the mean while may be called King; he has the Sword in his hand, and we may be allowed to take Quarter, and promise not to fight against him; especially since we never lay under any Obligation to fight for the other. W. You seem to believe, that King William has conquered England. T. Yes surely; does not the Fate of a Nation depend upon its Head? If King James was beaten, or ran away, this must be a virtual beating of the whole Nation. W. Then at least King William is Rightful King, as he is King by Conquest. T. I beg your pardon for that: For, 1. There aught to have been just cause of War. What had he to do to call a Sovereign Prince to Account, if he had treated his Subjects as Slaves? Besides, all that has been said against him, or the Servants of his Crown, are but the Clamours of Malcontents, and blushless Lies, as has been well observed by the Eloquent Author of The Magistracy and Government of England Vindicated. Third and last Part of The Magistracy and Government Vindicated. p. 1. 2. Admit this King had Right to free an Oppressed People, and they really had been Oppressed; however, he ought, according to the Law of Nations, to have made a Formal Declaaation of War before his coming. W. Tho' I admire not your Author, whose Character you may see in the Man-Hunter, Vid. The Man-Hunter, in Answer to the third and last Part of the Magistracy, &c nor believe that King William coming for our Rescue, had need to Proclaim a War; yet I must confess, the want of Proclaiming War, may be a full bar to a Right by Conquest of the Nation. But all you say against King William's Right by Law, and the Declaration of the People, is but a begging the Question: T. You will not easily convince me that I go upon wrong grounds. W. Whatever your lurking Reasons may be, me thinks you should consider the Obligation of the Oath which you have taken to be faithful, and bear true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, by which as much is plainly employed as was expressed in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to James II. and required by the Statute 3 Jac. I. No more being required by that Statute, setting aside what relates to the Pope, than was at the Common Law meant in being faithful, and bearing true Allegiance to a King of England. And by consequence if the late King is still King with you, the Oath which you have taken to this, is contradictory to the former. T. Do you think a Man shall be Perjured by Consequences? W. Yes, no doubt but he may, if they are so palpable that he cannot but discern them. T. As a Divine of our Church tells us, A Modest Examination of the New Oaths, by a Divine of the Church of England; Printed for Randal Taylor, p. 4. All Oaths and Promises are to be taken in the sense of the Imposer, but had the framers of the Oath any design to impose an acknowledgement of the King and Queen's Title, they might easily have made use of such Expressions as would have put the Matter out of all doubt. W. Can our Lawmakers think true Allegiance due to a King without a Lawful Title? Besides, you must admit, that if there is Evidence that they looked upon the Title as Lawful, it is not to be doubted, but they required Allegiance upon that account. T. I do not remember any Act of theirs, from whence you can clearly show this. W. The Lords and Commons, in the Bill of Rights, as the Representatives of the Nation, truly, firmly, assuredly; and in sincerity of their hearts, Recognize, Acknowledge, and Declare, That King James the Second having Abdicated the Government, and Their Majesty's having accepted the Crown and Royal Dignity, Their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of Right aught to be by the Laws of this Realm, our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen, etc. Here is of Right as well as by Law. T. That was no Parliament. W. If it were not, yet God is become a Witness and Party to that Oath, which you have taken in their presumable sense. T. This Declaration was not made till after I had taken the Oath. W. At least it referring to the time of the Acceptance of the Crown, is a fair Evidence upon what account they required the Oath of Allegiance. T. Let them have required it as to Lawful and Rightful King and Queen, yet I deny that the Common-Law-Allegiance requires more than Passive Obedience, and I am sure our Divines, who are the best Directors of our Consciences, tell us so. W. It seems Sir Roger has lost his Office: But for these matters, I take Lawyers and Historians to be much the better Directors, and could produce Testimonies of Divines for this. But what Reason can you give why the Clergy should be tied to Active-Obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors, in all things Lawful and Honest, and yet Temporal Superiors may be glad to get Obligations from their Subjects, only not to fight against them? T. The Law requires no more. W. I shall hope to satisfy you, that Active-Obedience is due by Law to our Liege Lord, and that this is the true Allegiance, or Tie to him, which your Oath obliges you to. T. As sure as can be you will bring something from amongst the Records of the Obsolete Gothick Feudal-Laws, Reasons why the Rector of P. took the Oath of Allegiance. and would infer that it must needs signify at this day some Active, Warlike Endeavours in behalf of the Sovereign; because the tenure of those times was upon Condition that the Tenant should attend his Lord to the Wars, and the Security they gave to perform this, was swearing to bear faith and true Allegiance to them. W. Tho' this is no contemptible Evidence what has from the beginning been meant by Allegiance, yet I shall confirm this by the positive Law of this Realm; for which end, I must take leave to detain you with a Translation of part of the Confessor's Law, expressly received by William the First, and his Great Council, or Parliament. That Law, speaking of the Folkmote, Leg●s St. Edw. Tit. Grev● or General Assembly of the People, to be held every first of May yearly, where among other things they were to provide by Common Council for the Indemnity of the Crown of the Kingdom, and for repressing the Insolence of Malefactors for the profit of the Kingdom.— T. I find already this is a Cheat, devised by some Commonwealthsman in the time of Noll's Usurpation, when they would have made him King; it talks of the Crown of the Kingdom, and repressing Malefactors for the Profit of the Kingdom; as if any but a King could have Interest in the Crown, or the benefit of the Kingdom could be of any weight without regard to its Head. I am sure Bishop Sanderson has admirably explained that Maxim, The Safety of the People is the Supreme Law, by showing that the safety of the King is principally intended, as he is the Head of the People. W. You will not hear me out. Popull omnes & Gentes universae. The Confessor's Law Ordains, That all People, and all Counties shall meet once in every Year, and there with a true Faith and Oath, Confederate and consolidate together as one Man and sworn Brethren, to defend the Kingdom against Strangers, and against Enemies, together with their Lord the King, and to preserve his Lands and Honours (with him) and that they will be faithful to him as their Liege Lord and King, within and without the Kingdom of Britain. T. A very pleasant Shame! you have invented a Law for an Oath to suit your purpose, as if you were bound to the King no longer than he is [with you] and defends the Kingdom. But that will not help you, since he is at the Head of a French and Irish Army in its Defence. But if your Quotation were true, do you think I am bound according to the meaning of Obsolete Antiquity? W. The Confessor's Laws, how Ancient soever, are not Obsolete, or out of date, but as far as they are express, are a fair transcript of the Common-Law of England. And that Common-Law must show what is meant by Allegiance. T. If William the First, and others since, swore to maintain the Confessor's Law, they must needs have done it, as they were forced to it, not voluntarily and of their own motion. W. Nay, if you look into the Laws particularly Enacted by William the First, made by the Common-Council of his whole Kingdom, you will find a Law more express for Active Service, Leges W. 1.59. if possible. There 'tis required, That all Freemen of the whole Kingdom be sworn Brethren to defend, and manfully preserve his Monarchy and Kingdom, with their Strength and Fortunes, to the utmost, against Enemies, and to maintain the Peace and Dignity of his Crown entire, and to give right Judgement, and do Justice constantly by all means to their power, without fraud, and without delay. T. This Law was very imprudently penned, to make People Judges of Right and wrong, and join them in a Confederacy against the Crown, whenever they think that a King wholly departs from the Rule of Law. W. If these Authorities will not satisfy you, that you were bound actually to serve and obey the Lawful Commands of James II. while he continued King, and that by virtue of your Oath to this, you now own him that Duty which before was owing to the other, I will make it plain to you, that in swearing Allegiance to this King, while you believe the Obligation to the other to remain, you must needs swallow palpable Contradictions. T. I love you for that; do you think I understand not how to avoid Contradictions as well as any Whig of ye all? Or at least you must grant me that our Clergy do; and tho' numbers of them believe King James his Right to continue, and mean him when they Pray for [the King] yet they make no scruple of taking the Oath to this King and Queen. W. Can you blame them? By this Craft. they keep their Live. But the Question is not, what either they or you understand, but what you do. T. I find you have never read the Reasons why the Rector of P. Vid. Reasons why the Rector of P. took the Oath. took the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary. W. Yes I have, and by a very good Token, I remember that he labours to prove, Pag. 2. with the subtlety of a School-man, that notwithstanding his Oath to this King and Queen, he has not put himself out of a Capacity to perform what he swore to the last. T. Right: And what think you of that? W. Before I tell you my thoughts, I must Remark upon one Artifice of his. In the Oath of Allegiance to the late King, he swore to Defend him against all Conspiracies and [Attempts] whatsoever, which he cunningly turns into [Contempts] that is, says he, That we will assert him to be our Rightful and Sovereign Prince, not to hold his Crown by favour of the Pope, nor to be deposable by him, or any other person or power whatsoever. But the unhappiness is, the Discovery of this Cheat opens the Contradiction. T. For my part I do not see where it lies. W. Suppose for once, that the Allegiance which you have sworn to King William did not Oblige you according to the sense of the Common-Law, or that the Common-Law-sense did not import Active Assistance. Yet you see if King James still remains your King, you are bound to Defend him against all [Attempts] even such as may be made by this King, to whom you have sworn to be true and faithful. T. I see it is of good use that it should be [Contempts] instead of [Attempts] and I will believe the Vechum Saterdotis before a Statute-Book. W. Methinks your Priest seems by his Equitocations to be one of the Romish Cut. T. I find your usual Malice against the Church, pray profane not the Sacred Order. W. I see he is resolved not to be deprived from his Office or Order for not swallowing an Oath: but such Men would do well to maintain their Character, by not going beyond their Office: I wish the witty Author of the Grounds of the Contempt of the Clergy, would exercise his Talon on this Subject. But what think you of this Opinion of Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies? T. I like it very well, 'tis an Opinion one may thrive by, and it qualifies me for being privy to King William's Secrets, without danger of being thought to lie under an Obligation to discover them; because he is in actual War with King James, and his Designs against our rightful King cannot be Treason or Traitorous. W. If King William could carry on the War alone, indeed it were something, but it must be managed by many hands, Orders must issue out through several Offices, the Ministers of State must have Meetings and private Debates; all these, it seems, you are bound to discover. T. Yes, why not? I am true and faithful to King William, since I discover nothing which I have from his own mouth: But we are bound to observe the Meetings and Cabals of King James his Subjects, Rector, p. 3. dive as much as we may into the matter of their Consults, use all diligence first to inform ourselves, and then, the King or his Officers, of any Plot or Practice that we shall learn to be carrying on against him. W. You well know of many carrying on against this King, his Crown and Dignity, are you true and faithful in not discovering them? T. I am not bound to speak all the truth I know. W. But if you know of any Treasonable Conspiracy against the Life of this King, or his Government, you are guilty of Misprision of Treason at Common-Law, if you do not discover it; but the concealing could not be a Crime, if the discovery were not a Duty, and if it be a Duty, it is implied in swearing Allegiance, and by consequence the acting contrary to that Legal Obligation, is Perjury. T. You would Perjure half the Nation. W. No, I would have all swear without Perjury: but your own Casuist condemns you of wilful Perjury. T. I can find nothing like it in that Golden Apology of the Rector of P. W. What think you of this? Speaking of his Apology, Rector of P. It concerns not, says he, those who have enjoyed any Offices or places of Trust under him, who are hereby bound faithfully to discharge the Duty and Service belonging to them, and such if they should enter into any new Covenant, or promise, to cease or forbear acting according to the tenor of such Trust or Commission, have no benefit of this Apology. T. I see now the Parson is a Rogue, he would have none but Clergymen gain by a Government which they disown; he shall no longer have the guidance of my Conscience, but I will betake myself to the Reverend Dr. W. W. Do you mean that learned Divine of our Church, who wrote the First Part of the Protestant Reconciler? T. No, I mean him that wrote the Second, for the first is as if it had never been, he having retracted it, as too favourable to the Schism; which he clawed off in his Preface to the second Part, by way of Penance for his former, and his endeavour to widen the terms of Communion, and let the Rabble into the Church. W. Well, for once you shall choose your Weapon; but what is it you would prove out of him? T. I will prove that you ought to be hanged. W. Nay, God be thanked, you have done enough to deserve that if the late King should come again, nor can you expect to be trusted by him. But what further would you prove out of Dr. W. T. I will prove, that admit I should know of Traitorous Conspiracies against this King, I should not before God be guilty of Misprision or concealing of Treason. W. You must have some very subtle distinction to help you off. T. You must understand, that as there is a King in Fact, and a King of Right, so there is Treason nominal, or so called, and Treason real; but there cannot be real Treason against a King only in Fact, at least not such as I shall incur Damnation for. Considerations humbly offered for taking the Oath, p. 57 That which we translate Damnation, in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Judgement. Now by our Law Treason may be committed against a King de facto, and that is punishable by the judgement of Death; it therefore may be Judgement to resist the King de facto, in favour of the King de jure, i. e. it may be an Offence, which by the Law will render me obnoxious to Judgement. W. If you are strong enough then, that you may prudenly venture for your King de jure, you do but your Duty? T. Very true. W. I fear by the sense which you put upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you give all Subjects the like liberty even against a King of Right. T. No, Pag. 45. they shall receive Damnation, who resist the present Powers, which by the Law are such, however they demean themselves in the Government. W. Before you are ware you will make the Powers the Apostle speaks of, to relate only to them that are Lawful; and if they are unlawful, either in the exercise, or acquisition, it seems the Apostle takes no care of them. But by what Rule do you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Damnation when applied to resisting a King of Right, and only Temporal Judgement when applied to the other, tho' he acts beyond the Power which God or Man had entrusted him with? T. Because one is by Law, and the other not. W. You mean one had some Power by Law, the other none; but still that Power which he exercised beyond the Law was none in the Eye of the Law; and either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is threatened only against resisters of a lawful Power, or whether the Power be lawful or unlawful, resistance is in all cases damnable. T. I am sure 'tis at least Damnation to resist him that has the Right. W. Yes, to that Power which he exercises. But by what Law will you judge which has the Right, or what that Right is? T. By God's Law, for this is a Divine Right. W. Do you mean, that God has ascertained not only the Rights of Princes, but appointed the very Persons? T. I mean as Dr. Hicks means, Preface to Jovian. p. 54. who tells us, God hath given the Crown to the Royal Family for a perpetual Inheritance, and hath by his Providence ordained, that it should come to one of them after the decease of another, according to Birthright and proximity of Blood. W. If the Doctor had considered the broken Succession, he would never have argued thus from Providence; for if, as it will appear upon an exact enquiry, more have come to the Throne out of the course than according to proximity of Blood: Then all that can be inferred from this, rectified by the true History, is, that God has in his Providence given it to a Family, but not tied it to the next in Blood, and by consequence King William and Queen Mary are our Rightful King and Queen. T. You don't consider what Prejudice you do His Majesty by detaining me so long. W. I should hope to do King William good Service, if I could bring you to a due sense of the Obligation of the Oath which you have taken to him: and since Dr. W. is a Judge which you have chosen, I must refer you to his Preface for what may give you full satisfaction. T. I am for the Book rather than the Preface; for as the Preface to his Second Part of the Brotestant Reconciler was written after he had smarted for his Officiousness; perhaps the last was written when some prosperous Accident to King William made him lay aside those Niceties, with which men were to pretend to merit on both sides: and perhaps he may be of the same mind with those prudent Divines of the North, who were going in a full body to take the Oath of Allegiance, but made an halt upon a Report of Major-General Mackay's being defeated in Scotland. W. That may be: but in his Preface he says, Preface to Consid. He does by no means condemn those Writings which plead for taking the imposed Oath upon such grounds as do more fully justify the title of our present Governors: And is so modest to own, that he has not knowledge enough in the Law, to pass an exact Judgement in that matter. T. Then it seems he turns us off to the Lawyers, and makes no determination in the point. W. Tho' he pretends not to Law, Preface to Consid. he produces Evidences out of History to show that William I. was received upon an Election and Compact, that the keeping St. Edward's Laws was part of the Bargain, that this became part of the Coronation-Oath of our Kings. And that our Learned King James the First declared in a Speech to his Parliament, That he was bound to observe that Paction made to his People by his Laws, in framing his Government agreeable thereto— And therefore a King governing in a settled Kingdom, leaves to be King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Law. T. King James you know was a timorous Prince, and full of Dissimulation, no doubt he thought to wheadle his people into something, which might insensibly give him that power which he disclaimed: But for Dr. W. I doubt he is of Republican Principles, he would never else talk of a Compact between Prince and People. W. What if you should find the same thing in the Author of the History of Passive Obedience? T. That is impossible. W. Does he not excuse Bishop Bilson for justifying the Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain, Hist. of Passive Obedience, First Part, p. 27. upon supposition that the Government in the Low-Countries was founded in Compact? This you cannot but remember that he does, and therein admits that some Governments may be so founded. T. But the Second part of that History shows, Second Part, p. 72. that Bishop Bilson is wilfully mistaken, and that what he says, relates only to such Republics and States, in which, upon the Invasion of Subject's Privileges, they are allowed by fundamental, written, known Compact, as in Germany by the Bulla Aurea, to resist; as if that were applicable to Free Monarchies, and particularly England, contrary to his own express Assertion, That the Subjects of England have not that warrant to draw their Sword without consent of their Prince. Bilson, p. 518, 519. where he says he proves it at large. W. I am satisfied no Prince will consent it should be drawn against himself; but I take St. Edward's Law, which shows, that a King of England may cease to be King upon his violating his Coronation Oath, of which the maintaining that is part to be as full a Compact as the Golden Bull. And Jasper Main, one of the historians Authors, admits that the Instances of the Cases of E. 2. and R. 2. may be proper, if any Original Compact can be produced, where 'tis agreed, that where the King ceases to govern according to Law, he shall for such misgovernment cease to be King. Besides, if Bishop Bilson lays down any general Rule for resisting in all Monarchies, not absolutely despotic, 'twill be hard for you to prove that England is to be excepted, till you produce Bishop Bilson's own words, without taking that Historian's Judgement, who refers you to Passages, where he will have his Assertion in relation to England to be proved at large. T. Does not Bishop Bilson expressly condemn the Papists for saying the People may punish the Prince? Farther yet, does he not say, that God has reserved the Magistrate to be punished by himself. W. Very true; and yet says that which justifies resisting a King of England in some cases. T. If you may resist him, you punish him; but he says, God has reserved the punishment to himself. W. What is done for necessary defence of the Constitution, though in consequence it may be a punishment, is not so directly: and I am sure Bishop Bilson says, Bilson of Christian Subjection, Ed. 1586. p. 279. If a Prince shall go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm, or change the form of the Commonwealth from Empire to Tyranny; or neglect the Laws established by common consent of Prince and People, to execute his own pleasure; in these, and other Cases which might be named, if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment, and Laws, they may not well be accounted Rebels. T. However, he speaks not a word of a Compact here in England. W. He supposes that in all Governments the People have a power for preserving the foundation, P. 280. freedom and form of their Commonwealth; which, says he, they foreprized when they first consented to have a King. T. Bishop Bilson, I find, did not understand the consequence of admitting, that Princes can have their Crowns from any consent or election of the People. W. Is not that better than to have no Title at all? but pray what is the consequence of supposing an Election? T. The late Bishop of Winchester, Hist. of Passive Obedience, ad part, p. 147. in his Sermon at the Coronation of King Charles the Second, says, As Monarchy by Usurpation is res fine titulo, so Monarchy by Election is titulus fine re. W. Admirable chime! but how does he prove it? T. For, says he, Elective Kings are but Conditional Kings, and Conditional Kings are no Kings. W. I must confess I did not apprehend that Conditional Kings should be no Kings, even while they performed the Conditions. T. But what say you to the late Historian's Proofs, That the Doctrine of the Church of England is absolutely against resisting Princes, in any case whatsoever? W. I am of the same mind, that no King, while such, or till he ceases to be King, is to be resisted. But I must confess I am to seek what he means by the Church of England; what by a King of England. T. By the Church of England he means the Churchmen. W. I hope, though he contracts the Church in this, he does not take in Romish Churchmen to make up the number. T. Yes but he does, and with very good grounds; for as Infallibility attends St. Peter's Chair, in relation to the Government of the Church, whoever comes into it; so they that come into the Preferments of the Church of England, succeed to their Doctrines in Government, though as to other matters they have a latitude of dissenting. Thus the bloody Romish Bishop Bonner, though at one time he retracted what he had declared at another, is an Authority when he spoke right, because, says our Historian, P. 4. he spoke not his own sense, but the sense of the whole Church of England. W. I thank you for explaining his Notion of the Church of England; but if we take in the Romish Clergy, I should think that famous Bishop of Lincoln, Grosthead, who said, Vid. Matth. Par. Hist. that all who died on the side of the Barons in the War against H. 3. were Martyrs, was as much of the Church of England, and as great an ornament to it, as Bishop Bonner. But I am yet to learn what your Historian means by a King of England; does he mean a King only with Title, or in possession any way? T. No, he shows out of Bishop Sanderson, P. 133. that we are no otherwise to comply with the Persons of a prevailing usurped Power, than I may submit unto Comply with, or make use of a Highway Thief, or Robber, when I am fallen into his hands, and lie at his mercy. W. Ye are a very wise sort of People, to publish and cry up such Books now, when at the same time while ye would be thought true and faithful to King William, ye deny that he is King by Right. But I must needs say, I do not well know of any Foundation of Right settled by your Historian, but what is in the Clouds, or in Obeyance, till the right Heir from Adam start up with his Pedigree about his Heels. T. He had no occasion to prove wherein a Princes Right consists; 'tis enough that he shows Instances of Passive-Obedience in all Reigns. W. Yes, indeed he brings Instances of it, where himself owns, that the Law had damned the Title; but does not consider, that he carries it further than your Passive-Obedience-Men would have him, and brings a Confessor, Bishop Coverdale, to show, that Bodies, Goods, and Lives, are to be at the Commandment of the Prince who is not Rightful by the Law of England. T. You mistake him, I am sure, for he speaks that in Queen Mary's Reign. W. I grant it; P. 22. but then he tells us, That Queen Mary had been Disinherited by Act of Parliament, (a Bill of Exclusion passed into the formality of a Law) and that for Illegitimacy, as it is there declared. T. What is that to the purpose? She had a Divine Right of Succession, which no Law could alter. W. By what Law did She succeed to E. 6. T. By the Divine Law; and that contrary to the Law of England; P. 26. for the Historian shows, that both the Sisters were declared illegitimate, and that by Act of Parliament; and were they not so, yet being but of the Half-blood to the King, by the Law they could not succeed. W. As he admits their Title contrary to Law, I fear he leaves nothing but the Consent, or Choice of the People for the late King, joined with his being of the Blood Royal. T. I cannot apprehend your consequence. W. Indeed few Tories can see three consequences off; but if James I. had no Title by Law, what had James II. in the third Descent from him. T. The Historian, I am sure, says nothing against the Title of James 1 W. But he shows, that by the same Law of England, no Foreigner could succeed, and James I. was a Foreigner. T. You still drive at your Commonwealth-Principle, as if Kings could have any right from the Choice of the People. W. You, I am sure, are either against all Right by Law, or for placing it where it is by Law determined. T. I'll warrant it, you will go about to prove that King James, by laying aside his Political Power, to exercise his Imperial Law, ceased to be King of England; when in this he did but put on his Royal Robes. W. Tho I know of no Imperial Law, beyond what is allowed by the Political Constitutions, and could produce good Authority to prove, that a King, who Renounces that Power which the Law gives him, ceases to be King in a legal Acceptation, as much as if he should in the most formal manner resign his Crown: Yet I shall make shorter work of it. T. It may be you think to bring an Act of Parliament, recognising and acknowledging that their present Majesties were, are, and of right aught to be by the Laws of this Realm, our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady, etc. W. You Name but one Act, when in truth there are two; for the Bill of Rights in the last Parliament, agrees almost in words. T. Can such Recognitions altar the Right? W. At least, Acts of Parliament may be allowed to settle and declare the Right. You know the Rule urged by your Advocate, Third Part of the Magistracy, etc. Vindicated, P. 2. It is a good and sure way to believe the last Judgement. If this be a Rule among your Party, even in Relation to the most Arbitrary Judgements of Westminster-Hall; methinks it should persuade you to submit to the Judgement of the highest Authority of the Nation. T. What Argument is that to one, who questions the Authority of this Parliament; and the Being of the last, which you call a Parliament? W. Whatever you think of the last, I am sure, this has been called by Writ from a King in Possession, and the Laws made in such Parliaments have in all times been adjudged good and effectual. And this Parliament has enacted, That all and singular the Acts made, and enacted in that which you call only a Convention, were, and are Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, and as such aught to be reputed, taken and obeyed. T. I very well understand your concern, to have the Acts of the late Parliament, as you call it, pass for Laws; for you well know unless they do, you have no Parliament which can Act now. But I need not urge that here, since this Act of your present Parliament is unintelligible, and signifies nothing; for to Enact that they were Laws, is neither good English, nor good Sense. W. You might have spared one of your Reflections at least; for if it be not good English, it will be difficult to make Sense of it, without putting a meaning upon it, which the English words will not bear. T. However you must grant, that to enact that they were Laws, is not good English; for to enact, is to make a new Law. W. As if it were improper by a new Parliamentary Consent, to declare a former Law to be in force. What is enacting that they were, other than declaring, as a Parliament, that they were? Or could they declare this as a Parliament, without enacting? T. If it were good Sense to enact for the time past, it must be the declaring of the Laws to be good, which passed in a Parliament not called by Writ, or due form of Law, which is destructive of the Legal Constitution of this Monarchy; and may be of evil and pernicious consequence to our present Government under King William and Queen Mary. W. I am glad you own the Constitution of this Monarchy to be Legal; and I am sure no Man, who has looked into its Ancient Constitution can think there is any weight in the Objection. Such may observe, that the Constitution provided for the Meetings of the Great Councils at stated times, as appears by what I before observed of the Folemotes: and if Writs of Summons were then in use, it was only upon Emergencies happening within the time fixed by the Constitution, which has likewise warranted the Assemblies and Acts of the People, in many Vacancies of the Throne. But it is very pleasant that you should urge the Consequences here, as dangerous to the Government under Their present Majesties, when you strike at the very Foundation of it; and besides, would have it fail for want of necessary Supplies from the People; for according to you, neither the last Parliament, nor This, nor any which can be called by Their present Majesties, can be of any Authority. T. Yes, they may when King James and the Prince of Wales are dead; but till then, there can be no Parliament with power of acting; for if this Parliament has none, you must allow me, that no other can; but this Parliament could not be qualified to act, till it had taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, which were altered by the last Parliament, or Convention, choose you whether. So that unless this and following Parliaments will take the Oaths, as they were before the Alteration, made since King James went away, I see not how they can act. W. Very fine! they should under King William swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King James, and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminences and Authorities, granted or belonging to him; and to avoid all question, whether any belong to him, they should profess, testify and declare, that King James is lawful and rightful King of this Realm. T. There is no help for it, this must be done if they will act regularly. Besides, the want of Writs of Summons is our least Objection against the last reputed Parliament, which gives the only Authority which this, or any other under King William and Queen Mary can pretend to; for the last which you will have to have been a Parliament, made the supposed qualifications of future Parliaments, before the Members had taken the Oaths which should qualify themselves; for they altered the Oaths in the very same Act, wherein they declared themselves a Parliament. W. I foresaw, that though you were loath to say so much, you were not only for disabling Their Majesties and their Parliaments from levying Taxes, or making any Laws; but for denying that King William is so much as King in fact in a legal consideration. T. Whatever I think, I have not yet said so much. W. To use the words of your old Friend Dr. W. Considerations for taking the Oaths, p. 53: A due Title may be either such, as according to the strict Rules of Justice bears that name, as being obtained by due means, and conferred without injustice or injury done to any person.— T. Admirably well said! I am sure King James had wrong done him. W. You are so transported with this, that you cannot hear out what makes for you. The Doctor says farther. Or that may be styled a due Title which is legal, or allowed of by the Law, and which is conferred with those formalities of Law, and with those usual Ceremonies, and Rites, which customarily are observed in the most regular Collations of Titles. T. Bating what he says about conferring Titles, which savours of the Republican, this may not be much amiss; and puts me in mind of the Objection made by our Friends, that you Commonwealths-men, who would have the choice of the People at least to design, or mark out the Person of your King, Potestas designativa Person●. cannot pretend that here was a Choice, or Designation made by their Representatives; for the Convention had not taken the Oaths which should qualify them to act as their Representatives. W. That is to say, you would have them swear to be true and faithful to the late King, when they believed that he ceased to be King, and the Contract between him and the People was broken? If it were broken, than no doubt but they might do all that was necessary for subjecting themselves to King William and Queen Mary, without regard to the Obligations entered into to the other as he was King of England. T. I thought I should draw you into an Ambuscade: Last part of the Magistracy, etc. p. 8. If you urge the Vacancy, as the Author of the last part of the Magistracy and Government vindicated has smartly argued, you must grant that the Government was dissolved, every thing reduced to its primitive state of Nature, all Power resolved into Individuals, and the Particulars only to provide for themselves by a new Contract. W. To use your Friend Dr. Brady's Expression; yours is but an airy Ambuscade, suitable to the Judgement of your wordy Author: according to whom our Common and Statute-Laws have had many an interruption. But the great Civilian Pusendorf would tell him, that no Nation can be presumed so sottish, to intent at the first setting up of a King, that their Laws should determine with their Prince's Life or Title. T. You still talk of the People's Choice, when it is contrary to the Maxims of our Law, that there should be any instant of time wherein we are without a King. W. You mean when the course of Descents goes on, but have there never been Interruptions? T. Yes, but not of right. W. But had the Laws no force, while they who you suppose to have had the right, were out of possession? T. That may deserve consideration; but I am sure the Right could never be lost; for it was first acquired by Conquest, and it is not to be presumed that a Conqueror would have his Right depend upon any Condition. W. Not to trouble you with too many things at once, I shall put you to prove four things. 1. That W. I. was a Conqueror. 2. That his Conquest was absolute, without any manner of Terms. 3. That he gained a Right for himself, and his Heirs, by proximity of Blood. 4. That the Rule to judge who was his Heir, is not the Law of the Land, but something more sacred; for as your own Historian has shown, J. I. History of passive Obedience. sup. had no right by the Law of the Land Prior to the People's Choice, more than any body else of the Blood-royal; and consequently according to your Advocate, the People have been without any Government ever since the death of Queen Elizabeth. Nay the Consequence will strike off both the Protestant and the Catholic Queen. T. I never trouble my head with Consequences at such a distance. But nothing in the English Government, except what is done by the Monarch, can be justified, unless a Precedent can be shown for it. And I am sure no Precedent can be found, where ever any English Parliament declared any one to be lawful, and rightful King, while one who had the Right remained alive. W. I will grant it, while the Right remained, but they have transferred the Right from one to another, and declared the Right to be in one who, excepting that he was of the Blood-royal, had not Right but from their Declaration; as to go no backwarder, appears in the Case of H. VII. T. He had it in right of his Wife. W. What think you if I show this before he married? T. The People of that time were better Catholics, than to be guilty of such an Injury to the next Heir. W. To convince you of this, I will show you the form of such a Parliamentary Declaration before his Marriage, which follows in these words. Enry par le grace de Dieu Roy Dengletere & de France, In that Parliament he was desired to marry. & Seigneur Dirland, au Parliament tenuz à Westminster, le septisme jour de November, l'an du Reigne du Roy Henry le septisme puis le Conquest primer, au plesir de Dieu tout puissant, bien public, prosperity & surety di cést Realm d'Engletere, à la singular comfort de toutz les Subjects du Roy del mesme, & en remoevement de toutz ambiguitez & questions, deal assent des seigneurs Espirituels & Temporels, & à la request des Communes il est ordeigne, establie, & enact, par auctorite du dit Parliament, Que les inheritaunces des Corones des Realms d'Engletere & de France, ove toutz preeminence & Dignity Royal a yeest appurtenant. Et toutz autres Seigneuries au Roy regardantzes oultre le mere, ovesque les appurtenances a queaux en ascun manere duez ou perteignauntz soient, estoient, remaignent en le tresnoble Person nostre Soveraign Seigneur le Roy Henry le Septisme, & en les Heirs de son Corpse leialment issantzes perpetualment ovesque le Grace de Dieu ensy d'endurer, & in nulls-auters. Henry, by the Grace of God King of England, and France, and Lord of Ireland, at a Parliament held at Westminster, the 7th day of November, in the First year of the Reign of King Henry VII. since the Conquest. For the pleasure of God Almighty, the public Good, the Prosperity and Safety of this Realm of England, to the singular comfort of the Subjects of the said King, and for removing all ambiguities and questions; of the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and at the request of the Commons, it is ordained, established, and enacted, by, authority of the said Parliament, That the Inheritances of the Crowns of the Realms of England, and France, with all the Pre-eminence and Dignity Royal, to the same appertaining. And all other Seignories belonging to the King beyond Sea, with the appurtenances in any manner due to them, or appertaining, be, stand, and remain in the most Noble Person of our said Sovereign Lord, K. H. 7. and in the Heirs of his body, lawfully issuing, for ever, with the Grace of God there to endure, and in no other persons. This is to be found in the beginning of the Statutes of H. 7. and was sent to the Sheriffs of the several Counties of England, to be proclaimed. T. I listened to hear the words Lawful and Rightful. W. I take the Recognition in the time of H. 7. to be more full, for though the declaring that King William and Queen Mary, are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen, and that the Royal Power is entirely vested in them (as the Bill of Rights, and the last act of Recognition declare) strongly implies that King James has no Right; Yet it is not so express as the other, which places it in H. 7. and the Heirs of his Body, and renounces the Pretences of all other Persons whatsoever. T. You aim then at an Renunciation of King James' Title? Cannot you be content with driving him away, and setting another upon the Throne, but you must bar the Door against poor King James? W. When so many are in your Sense Traitors to K. James; and his Party here is come to such an Head, as to threaten to bring him in without Terms; certainly it behoves every Man, that has it in his Power, at least to disarm those, who would hang them in a short time, if a check be not put to them. T. Suppose you should get a Renunciation, that will be the act only of them who consent to it, and what will you be the stronger for that? W. I must confess, though an act of Renunciation would be of some benefit, yet I believe without adding a Clause to that purpose in the Oath of Allegiance, the Act would fall short of its desired Effect. T. Is not the Nation sufficiently burdened with Oaths already? W. An Oath, I am sure, in this case would be the most proper end of the Strife; no man who swears in any case, and that believes the late King to have no Right, would scruple an Oath to that purpose, and it is fit that they who believe K. James to be their King, should show it, before King William leaves the Kingdom. T. According to you, such an Oath is needless; for you will have as much implied in the Oath already required. W. The sense which you put upon the Oath, shows that this is no Test for you, and therefore another is requisite. T. You would go to limit God's Providence, and renounce his Title who, perhaps, will force his way to his own again. W. I think a true Englishman may resolve to adhere to the cause of his Country in all events, without consulting Providence or the Stars. T. Do you think King William will thank you for intreaguing his Affairs, and making them Enemies, who otherwise would sit still. W. The cause will not bear Neuters now; nor are those Neuters, which you would have believed to be so. T. I find you and I have taken different sides: wherefore farewell till we meet in the Field. W. I fear you less there, than in the Courts of Princes, or of Justice. T. We shall be too hard for you in either of the places; at Court we are the only men for Monarchy; in Westminster-Hall we have the authority of the last Judgements on our side; besides that, we tickle the Judges with giving them a Power over the Laws. And in the Field; we of the Church shall be the body of the Nation. W. You, I doubt not, would have the French Monarchy supplant the English. But you have a pleasant way of making your court to this King and Queen, by declaring that the Sovereignty is inseparable from the Person of the late King. You think to please Judges who came in upon the restoring our Constitution, by advancing Judgements which would overthrow it. And the Church of England is mightily beholden to you, for making a compound of that and the Romish together, and raising a jealousy in Their Majesties, as if its Members cannot be Loyal Subjects to Them; yet assure yourself, how strong soever the Church-Party may be in mere Church-Points, or such as are thought to be so, you may observe that the generality both of Whig and Tory Members of the Church, are united against the late King, whenever the question is, which King we should obey; not being willing to trust to a pardon, the most solemn promises of which may not only be dispensed with, but, perhaps, it might never be in the late King's Power to make good, even though he should return, and desire it. T. Doubt not that, I will undertake to carry you where you may have City-Security for a Pardon, and good reward, if you will return to your Duty. W. Do you think that the French King, by whose Arms and Money the late King, if ever, must be restored, would suffer him to make good any Promises to Protestants? Certainly you Jacobite-Tories are the blindest set of men that ever was. You had better herd with the other Tories, who would bring Torism in fashion, under a King who came to root it out; than to labour thus to destroy yourselves and your Native Country. T. I had better turn to you Whigs, than join with those Renegadoes, who are contemned by us of whose Party they formerly were; and cannot with any face pretend to be servants to King William and Queen Mary: for they agree with us, that there was no ground for withdrawing their Allegiance from King James, he having done no more than he might by his Prerogative; and therefore that he ought to remain our King. W. For that matter I will leave you and your Brethren to fight it out, and am glad to divert your rage from the poor suffering Whigs, to those who are come to us from you, and by having shared the spoil with you formerly, are better enabled to bear the brunt. FINIS. Books Printed for Richard Baldwin. THE History of the Most Illustrious, William, Prince of Orange: Deduced from the first Founders of the Ancient House of Nassau: Together with the most considerable Actions of this present Prince. The Second Edition. A Collection of Fourteen Papers, Relating to the Affairs of Church and State, in the Reign of the late King James. The Character of a Trimmer. His Opinion of I. The Laws and Government. II. Protestant Religion. III. The Papists. IU. Foreign Affairs. By the Honourable Sir W. Coventry. The Third Edition, carefully Corrected, and cleared from the Errors of the First Impression. An Impartial Relation of the Illegal Proceed against St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxon, in the Year of our Lord 1687. Containing only Matters of Fact as they occurred. The Second Edition. To which is added the most Remarkable Passages, omitted in the former, Collected by a Fellow of the said College. The Absolute Necessity of standing vigorously by the present Government: Or, A View of what both Churchmen and Dissenters must expect, if by their unhappy Divisions, Popery and Tyranny should return again. The Justice of the Parliament, in inflicting of Punishments subsequent to Offences, vindicated; and the Lawfulness of the present Government asserted. An Account of Perkinson's Expulsion from the University of Oxford, in the late Times; in vindication of him from the false Aspersions cast upon him, in a late Pamphlet, entitled, The History of Passive Obedience. The Way to Peace amongst all Protestants; being a Letter of Reconciliation, sent by Bp. Ridley to Bp. Hooper, By Mr. Samuel Johnson. Purgatory proved by Miracles: Collected out of Roman-Catholick Authors. With some Remarkable Histories relating to British, English, and Irish Saints. With a Preface concerning their Miracles. By Mr. Samuel Johnson. A Seasonable Discourse, showing the Unreasonableness and Mischiess of Impositions in Matters of Religion: Recommended to serious Consideration. By Mr. Andrew marvel, late Member of Parliament. The Revolter. A Tragicomedy, acted between the Hind and Panther, and Religio Laici. A Collection of Poems, Satyrs, and Songs, against Popery and Tyranny: In Four Parts. An Answer to the Bishop of Rochester's first and second Letter, etc. A short View of the Methods made use of in Ireland, for the Subversion and Destruction of the Protestant Religion and Interest in that Kingdom; from the beginning of the Reign of the late King James, to this Time; and of the Suffering of the Protestants all along. The Intrigues of the French King at Constantinople to imbroil Christendom; discovered in several Dispatches passed between him and the late Grand Signior, Grand Vizier, and Count Teckley; all of them found among that Count's Papers. With some Reflections upon them. Plain English: In relation to the real and pretended Friends to the English Monarchy. Humbly offered to the Consideration of His Majesty, and his Great Council, the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled. The Second Edition: With a short Preface, and an Appendix, concerning the Coronation-Oath administered to King James the Second. The New Nonconformist: Or, Dr. Sherlock's Case in Preaching after a Deprivation incurred by the Express Words of a Statute: Fairly Stated and Examined. With short Reflections upon Mr. Cook's Sermon, February the 2d. 1689/90. which was Licenced by the Archbishop's Chaplain. The Fate of France: A Discourse, wherein, after having Answered the groundless Exceptions that are made against the Lawful Conduct of the English, in securing themselves from Popish Tyranny, etc. it is showed, That by the Happy Revolution in England, all the Designs of the French King for the Universal Monarchy, are disappointed; and the Rational Grounds to believe his Downfall near. In three Dialogues betwixt Father Petre, Father La Chaize, and two Protestant Gentlemen. FINIS.