ANGLIAE Decus & Tutamen: OR, THE GLORY and SAFETY OF THIS NATION, Under our Present King and Queen; PLAINLY DEMONSTRATING, That it is not only the DUTY, but the INTEREST of all JACOBITES and DISAFFECTED PERSONS to act for, and submit to, this GOVERNMENT.  
LONDON: Printed, and Sold by Richard Baldwin, at the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane, 1691.   

ANGLIAE Decus & Tutamen: OR, THE GLORY and SAFETY OF THIS NATION, Under our Present King & Queen, etc.  
THE Physicians have a very bad Opinion of that Disease that gins with most violent Agitations, with Tremble that shake the very Bones out of Joint, and extremely debilitate the Nerves, with dreadful Convulsions, with frantic and ecstatical Indispositions of the Brain, that overrun the whole Oeconomy. They are never deceived in their Judgement, when they pronounce such Distempers mortal. It is the same thing in States; their Diseases which begin with violent internal Agitations, are commonly Presages of great Revolutions. France is in this Condition; the Preparations that are made against her by all Europe, in a joint Conspiracy, threaten her with great Mischiefs, and there is nothing more effectual for fortifying the Hopes of the Confederate Princes and States, than the convulsive Motions that are observed, not only in her Bowels, but in all her Actions, if we consider her Arms, nothing ever appeared so strange; France (although it be as yet entire, and has not incurred the loss of either Men or Provinces) is subject to all those Agitations to which she can be exposed, which would be infallibly improved into the last and fatal Paroxysm, if there were an Enemy in the midst of the Kingdom. She obliges all her Inhabitants to take Arms, she exhausts her Treasures to the bottom. Ruin and Desolation are the Blessings she leaves in those Places which she cannot keep; she is notoriously guilty of the most inhuman Excesses; for all the Palatinate, and almost all the Countries upon the Rhine, with their Towns and Castles, that are leveled with the Ground, burnt and reduced to Ashes, are in such a Motion, as cannot be imputed to any thing else, but a Fit of a violent Frenzy, that is so prodigious, that we cannot but see therein the Characters of an internal Agitation, that is attended with the most dreadful Violence, of all has been as yet observed. Every Knight of the Post brings us an Account of Symptoms of this cruel Disease, which does expose her to such fearful Agitations, and threatens her with the most violent Death; and there is something that is singular in the Violence of these Motions; and it is this, that the Revolution that has lately happened in England, by the wise Conduct of William III. King of England does irritate them to so great an Elevation of Fury. If his present Majesty had poured his Forces into France, and obliged that King to leave his Throne, the Rage would have been raised to such a pitch, as to admit of no Accession. The Piety, Clemency and Justice of King William (who now strikes Lewis with so great a Terror) is the August Subject of this Discourse. These glorious Qualities made manifest in his said Majesty's late Expedition into England, in Opposition to the French Designs there, are the Subject matter of this small Treatise. Neither the late King James, nor the Irish and English Papists, his Friends, were so hot in their Resentments as the French. There is something extraordinary in it, and this boundless Wrath of the French King against William, King of England, was possibly not so much kindled by the consideration of what he has done, as by the fearful prospect of what he can do; Yet the most powerful measures they can take, for the overthrow of their own Interest, is to provoke an Enemy, who is so potent at this day. It is possible that he is not altogether irreconcilable, they ought to be more careful, to observe those just and decent Methods, by which he is to be treated. The Designs of France afforded a necessary occasion for an Expedition, the whole Course of which runs parallel with the Rules of Piety which inspire King William's Royal Breast.  
Since the King was of the Years of Knowledge, there never passed one year, wherein he did not publicly receive the Sacrament several times, there passed not one Sunday on which he was not present at the public Service and Devotions; he never heard a Sermon which touched him, which he obliged not himself to recollect, and upon which he made not pious Reflections, he never heard a Sermon, but with such Attention and Devotion, that made Private Persons ashamed. He never went out in the Morning without secret Prayer and devout Reading. And they who entered into his Closet observed his Table to be adorned with Books of Devotion that were fit to nourish Souls. His generous way of interessing himself in all the Miseries that those suffered, who were Persecuted for the sake of their Religion, was a visible Testimony to all the World of the Sentiments of his Heart concerning them. We may say, that the Qualities of a Hero and of a great Man are chief due to himself and to his Blood; And God who took care for his Welfare, and of his Soul, besides other means of Princely Education, provided him an Excellent Master, in the things of Religion. And therefore, from his Infancy, he received the Seeds of Piety, which have sprung up to so great Maturity, as we see at this day. He affords Matter of Edification to all Protestants who know him. He foresaw very well all that the Rage of the contrary Party could say against his Enterprise, which obliged him to deliberate on it for a considerable time; for he not only loved Virtue itself, but cherished the outward appearances of it. He had never overcome the scruples that presented themselves, if the Security of Religion and of the State had not determined Him. As for the Queen, it is generally agreed, that there was never one more Devout, nor more exact, in the Practice of her Duties towards God. Her Piety is not accompanied with the vain show of Hypocrisy. She is great without being Proud: She has a Natural Air, she appears in all her Actions without Affectation. She is tender and full of Compassion, and incapable of forgetting the Obligations of Nature;  
As for his Majesty's Expedition into England. First, It is requisite that we show that the Possessions and Affairs belonging to the Public are not governed as the Possessions of Private Persons, and that we are not to judge of them by the same Rules. Princes, Kings, and in general, Sovereigns have Men and reasonable Souls for their Possessions; and Private Men for their Possessions, have only Houses, Lands, Oxen, Sheep and Horses, etc. That if a Private Person is of a bad Conduct, and does mismanage those Possessions which Providence has put into his hands, there will no other inconvenience ensue thereupon, but only the disposition of some Lands or Movables, which, in respect of the Public, will be altogether in as good, and possibly in a much better Condition, in the hands of those to whom the profuse Life of the last Proprietor brought them, than in his hands, who made such a disposition; and the Public Laws have not established so exact Rules, for hindering the Alienation of Lands, Possessions and Movables, as they have settled for preventing of the Ruin of the State, and the dissolution of Societies. If Houses, Trees, Horses and Oxen had reasonable Souls, God without doubt, had ordained Laws of Right to limit the possession of the Proprietors. Thus, because private Persons have a full right to do with their possessions as they please, and to govern them according as it seems good to them, yet Public Persons cannot govern States and Societies according to their own Caprice, without any right, left to their Subjects and Members to oppose and hinder the devastation thereof; and in some respects, even the Children of a House, and the presumptive Heirs of a Private Person, have a right to hinder the wasting of the Possessions that belong to the Family. It is very well known, that the Laws have allowed Means to Heirs, for the prevention of their own impendent Ruin; that they may not be barred of their right to that Estate, which ought to revert to them. With far better reason may Princes, Heirs of Crowns and of Kingdoms have a Right to hinder the Ruin and Devastation of those Countries, which they are to possess one day.  
Besides there is a difference betwixt Public Possessions and those of Private Persons. The Law and one's Birth give the latter without any reservation, but it is God and the People who bestow Public Possessions and Sovereignities, and with this reservation, that the Welfare and the Safety of the State and of the People is the Sovereign end of Governments and the Supreme Law. God, I say, and the People confer Sovereign Power, and bestow it on whom they please, without being obliged always to have regard to the Laws of Succession. David invests himself with the two Crowns of the People of Israel during the Life of the Children of Saul, who was their true and lawful King, and which is more, the Children of Jonathan, his incomparable Friend. The Laws of Friendship and of such a Friendship as that was, betwixt Jonathan and David, are, at least, as inviolable, amongst honest Men, as the Relations of Son-in-Law and Father-in-Law: Yet David, without any scruple, went up to Hebron, and made himself be Crowned King of Judah, and not content with this, seven Years after, he treats with Abner, General of the Army of the People of Israel, to draw them from their Allegiance to Ishbosheth, the Son of Saul, their lawful King, by Birth, by Succession and by Possession; to oblige him to put the Ten Tribes upon Revolting from their Obedience to their lawful Sovereign.  
If a People, in prejudice of an eldest Son, would establish Cadets upon the Throne, in the opinion of some Byassed Persons, Hell itself could not afford Colours black enough to Paint the Rebellion, Enterprise and Attempt of that People; yet we may see how the People of Judah and Israel set Solomon on the Throne, in prejudice of I do not know how many Elder Brothers of Solomon, all of them Men capable of government. It may be objected, that God who is the disposer of Crowns, does bestow them on whom he pleases; it was he who gave the Crown to David and to Solomon in prejudice of the true Heirs; he could do it. I find the answer very good for the Objector, it is also for me, and it amounts to what I have said, viz. that God and the People are the Lords of Crowns, to give them to whom they please, God as the Sovereign Lord, the People as the Lords of their Possessions under God, God as the Lord of all Crowns in general, every People as the Lords of their own Crown in particular; thus we find innumerable instances in History of People who in their Families make one to Inherit in prejudice of another, who prefer a Cadet to the Eldest Son, and oftentimes the Son to the Father, because the safety of the People and the welfare of the Society does so require. The People go further, they transfer the Sovereign Power from one House to another. The Jews leave the Royal Family of David, and take that of the Maccabees. The French renounce that of the Morivingians to take that of Charles Martell, and at last forsook that of Charles Martell, who had Male Issue, to set on the Throne a third Race which Reigns at this day. There is no State of which History is not full of such Examples; it will only waste time to set them down; And such an Action is the only Foundation of the right, by which the Crown of France is held. Examples of this nature have the force of Laws, for the constant and perpetual Custom as well of the People of God as of other Nations, does make it manifest to us, that it is the People's right; and without enumerating Examples, good sense and right reason make a Law and clearly declare, that since Societies do make Kings for their own preservation, they have a right to transfer the Power of the Government, to him who is Judged the most capable to preserve the Society and Commonwealth.  
If these two Truths be joined together, First, that Kings are not Lords of reasonable Souls, as private Men are Lords of their Lands, and of their Cattle. Secondly, that God and the People may of right bestow Crowns on whom they please, a third Position will result from both, viz. that the People, as well as the Church, is always a Minor, that Kingdoms are Pupils, that Kings are properly their Guardians, and that consequently in the same manner as it is permitted to presumptive Heirs of the Possessions of a Pupil, to hinder the disorders, and prevent the wasting of the Estate which belongs to him, or may belong to him for the time to come; so the presumptive Heirs of a Crown not only can, but aught by the Laws of Religion, of Piety and of conscience, to hinder disorders, to preserve the Society which is going to ruin, and repress the violences of him who having in his hand the Sovereign Power, uses it to the destruction of the public; though the lawful Heir of a Crown should have no other interest but his own, he ought to be allowed to maintain and preserve it; much more, and with better reason, when he has in his view the interest of Religion and of the Kingdom, and there is no relation, either of Son in-Law, or of Father, or of Son, but aught to yield to so inviolable an Obligation; for we must love God and the Commonwealth more than Father and Mother: besides this is not so much to love superiors, as to abandon to them a Kingdom or a Church, for the common ruin and destruction thereof. It is to suffer them to take a full career to Hell and Death, it is to permit them to cover their memories with shame and infamy, it is to assist them in a conduct that renders them odious to mankind, and consequently to oppose their disorders is to wish them well and to do them good. Was it ill taken that the Dauphin Charles, who was afterwards King of France, under the Name of Charles VII. made a Campaign with a considerable Army against his Father Charles VI and that he opposed a Government that exposed the state to ruin, and threatened the Kingdom with utter destruction; and because Charles did not bear to his Father a base compliance by leaving him and his Ministers to commit what mischiefs they pleased, had Charles reason to disinherit his own Son, to set up a Foreign Prince in the Kingdom, to make him be Crowned in Paris during his own Life? Would Charles have done well to suffer such outrageous Mischiess because he received them from a Father. Let us suppose a King who is not only profuse, but a Tyrant, who brings desolation upon the Community, who kills, massacres, who ravages all the State, who reduces it to the brink of ruin without remission or concealment. Can it be believed that a presumptive Heir, though he were even a Son, would be obliged to behold such grievances without redressing them; he that would persuade himself of such a thing would justly deserve the Character of a complete Fool. On the contrary, a Prince, who is Heir of the Crown is obliged to join himself with the States of the Kingdom, to disarm the Tyrant, and to deliver the Kingdom out of his hands, that it may not become a frightful desert. Let us descend yet one degree lower and suppose a King not so ill as the former, but who Acts under the covert of some formality of Justice, who likewise might possibly have some good intention, but who nevertheless being possessed with evil Counselors, and blinded with a certain extraordinary Zeal, does lay the whole Kingdom desclate, and ruins the honestest Gentlemen of the Realm, depopulates the State by illegal and rigorous proceed, that strike the whole World with horror, who lays an indispensable Obligation on his Subjects to desert him, by suffering unjust judgements, and practices violent courses, oppressions and Massacres; by charging the Kingdom with such excessive impositions, that it was very near involved in an universal ruin by sowing the Seeds of Rebellion over all, by exciting the hatred and horror of all Foreign Princes, by unjust Wars, by breaking his Promises, by violating his Treaties, by infringing his most Solemn Capitulations, by perpetual and violent Invasions of the Rights and Properties of his Neighbours, by drawing upon the Kingdom the dreadful Calamities of some Foreign War, which threatened the State with imminent ruin; if such a King, I say, has been found of this stamp and conduct, the presumptive Heir, whether Son, or Son in-Law would be indispensably obliged to take some course in such an exigency, and to oppose such mischiefs, by force of Arms; First, because every one ought to preserve and maintain his own Inheritance from violence and desolation. In Crowns that go by succession, a Prince and Heir, during the time that he is yet presumptive Heir, has no right to govern, it is true, but has an undoubted right to demand a Part in the Government, after he is past the Years of Minority, and is arrived at those of perfect Maturity. A King who ruins his Kingdom, who slights and sends away his Son of sufficient Age to govern, and treats him as one of the Pages of his Court, may thank himself, if the Son does himself Justice, and demands a little better information, about the measures that are taken in the Government of the Kingdom, which he beholds; running against the fatal Bank, by the maladministration of the Royal Pilot; and whereof himself is one day to be both Father and King. He meddles not in Affairs that do not belong to him; for nothing can be more his interest. Thus therefore a Prince, Heir of the Crown, has an interest, that he may not inherit a vast desert instead of a Kingdom, and that his Father, by a violent Conduct may not leave him both his Subjects and Neighbours for Enemies, out of whose hands he cannot escape; There is yet a reason and an interest, that is more considerable and likewise more justifiable, viz. that of the Public. The Laws of Charity do oblige all to rescue those that are in misery, and to deliver them from their Afflictions. A Prince, Heir of a Crown, aught to look upon all the Subjects and Members of the Kingdom as his Brethren; he is obliged in Conscience to lend them his Hand, and save them, although even his and their common Father be the Man who involves them in a common ruin. If an Elder Brother sees his Father take his Children, one after another, and plunge them in a River to drown them, this Eldest Brother is not bound to see his Younger Brothers drowned, without plucking them out of the hands of his Father, for fear of violating the respect that is due to a Father: Humble remonstrances towards a Father who is so unnatural are not enough, what he owes to God and to the Public is far above all the Duties of Blood, of Alliance and Parentage. Here are two interests, one of a Prince, and the other of the public, both together, which ought to oblige the Presumptive Heir to repress the violences of his own Father; because this King, whom we have last supposed, has filled the Kingdom with Malcontents, exhausted its Treasures by excessive Impositions, ruined it by proscriptions and depopulations, made all the Neighbouring Princes his Enemies, and does thereby make way for a mighty revolution, which may preclude the lawful Heir from his Right, and reduce his Kingdom either to an Anarchy, or a Civil War, or make it pass into the Possession of strangers. This is clear, for an oppressed State, such as we have supposed (attacked by Enemies which their King's Injustice has procured) will be sure to give a joyful reception to a Foreign Power, that shall make an entrance by force of Arms, and look upon them rather as their Saviour's then Enemies. They will say, and will have reason to say, that they can be no worse treated than they are, that they can lose nothing by changing their Master; and the Truth is, a stranger entering into a Kingdom, has nothing else to do but to Proclaim Liberty, every one would hasten to come under his Banner; and from this would ensue the desolation of the Realm by a Civil War, or the ruin of the Government, which would pass into their hands. A Prince, Heir of the Crown, is not obliged to be a Spectator of so pressing and so great dangers, without applying a Remedy thereunto; if he be always Patiented, the Enemy will come, the Malcontents will join in a Body with them, and he will be deprived of those means whereby he might justify his rightful Pretences to the Crown, or at least the Kingdom will be left to him distracted and divided into a thousand Fractions, one Party favouring the Stranger, and another taking the part of the lawful Heir, just as it happened under Charles VI and Charles VII. the English Possessed themselves of the Kingdom, some took his part, and others were against him, and the Kingdom began to sink under the weight of that dreadful War. It is then clear, that, in such a Case, a Son, after having made respectful Remonstrances to his Father, and having made him sensible of the formidable disorders occasioned by his ill Conduct, may with a good conscience, make use of force to deliever the Kingdom out of the hands of one who Devotees it to ruin, who lays it desolate, and does Transubstantiate it into a desert, and who by the ill Measures he takes, does evidently expose it to a Foreign Invasion.  
Now it is certain, that King James was destroying the Kingdoms, Bodies Politic and Natural by his Mismanagement of the Government, his violation of the Laws, and making himself the Arbitrary Judge of their Sanction and Observation, dispensing with them at Pleasure, by depriving them of their Authority, by putting honest Men out of their employs and bestowing those Offices on Men, who were by Law incapable of exercising the same, by taking off innocent Persons. This directly tended, first to the ruin of the Religion, that was by Law established; for he deprived Protestants of their Offices, on purpose to bestow them on Roman Catholics, who were Enemies to the Protestants and their Religion, he violated all manner of Laws as he pleased, he filled the Kingdom with Priests and Monks, he made the Exercise of the Popish Religion public in all Cities and Counties, he gave to the Jesuits the Colleges that were of Ancient Foundation, and allowed them to found new. He ordered Churches to be Built for them. The Jesuits opened Schools in London. A Jesuit sat in Council and was the first Minister of State. The King sent Ambassadors to Rome and had Ambassadors sent to him from thence, and all this against the express Laws of the Kingdom, and that he might do all these things securely, he maintained a powerful Army in time of Peace, which is also contrary to the Privilege of the English People. This Conduct tended to the overthrow of the Monarchy, as well as of the Church. A Civil War was unavoidable in a little time, England's patience was come to an end. The Kingdom was fallen into the same condition it was in, in the time of King Charles I. It is possible, that King James II. would have incurred the same fate with his Father, and without doubt the Fanatics would have made themselves Masters of the Government, to the Exclusion of the lawful Heir. Thus His present Majesty for the preservation of his Religion, and the Crown to which he had a good Title, and which ought in that juncture to be reduced into possession, was obliged to put a stop to the current of those Mischiefs, in the Fountain; he endeavoured to do this by moderate means. He Passed into England to curb the immoderate Power of his Father-in-Law. This Father-in-Law could not endure to receive Law from any one. He fled, he Abdicated the Throne. The Nation filled it with him who was come to deliver them, His Majesty King William Accepted the Crown, it had been a cruel piece of Piety to behold the Bowels of the State torn, the Religion of the Kingdom perishing, the spilling of so much Blood, the oppression of so many innocent Persons, so many Families reduced to Beggary, and the right of the lawful Heir exposed to evident ruin, for I know not what respect to Relation and Kindred. Brutus and Manlius were praised for not having spared their own Blood, and for having punished by death the Rebellion and Disobedience of their Children. God is our first Father, our Country is our principal Mother, there are no Relations or Alliances which ought not to be Sacrificed to these great Names.  
Besides, these general Considerations, there are also particular ones which are no less proper for the justification of their Majesties of Great Britain and Ireland. The first is that King James II. was not lawful King, although he was acknowledged by the Three Kingdoms, he had drawn the Subjects of those three Kingdoms thereto, by surprise; being a Papist he could not be the King of England, the People and Kings annex to the Succession of the Crown what Conditions they think fit. Since Henry VIII. all the Kings and Queens of England (Mary excepted) were Protestants, that is to say, Enemies to the Papal Tyranny, this was a Quality annexed to the Crown of England. All the Laws forbidden the acknowledgement of the Pope for Head of the Church, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. They make the King of England Head of the English Church, and its High-Treason to say otherwise. It is true, that James the II. made a shift to thrust himself into the Throne in spite of all these Obstacles, for the removing of which all imaginable diligence was used, false Promises and false Oaths were not wanting. It is known what were the Sentiments and the Interests of those who were Assisting in such a Violation of the Laws. It is not necessary to make mention of them in this place, although the Violation was nothing else but a suspension, for the Laws were not Abrogated, and tho' they had been so, the English would always have had a Right to retrieve and re-establish them, which were made for the security of Religion. They Enacted, Recognised and Declared, that to be King of England and a Papist are Qualities that are absolutely incompatible, and they were no ways to be blamed, for the thing is plain, and his present Majesty had reason not to Abandon to another the Succession that belonged to himself and his Royal Consort, who have the same Qualities and are of the same Religion as is required by the Law, and who moreover are the lawful and next Heirs. It is not the first time, that the Children have taken the room of the Father, whom the Laws and his own personal Qualities excluded from the Enjoyment of the Rights and Possessions which his Birth had allowed him.  
After all, we must know that the English Government is not in the hands of one Person; There is one King, the King is Sovereign, but he is not in the Possession of all the Sovereign Power; He who cannot make Laws nor break them is not in the Possession of Arbitrary Power. The Parliament partakes of the Legislative Authority with the King. The People have their Privileges which the King and Parliament cannot take from them. If for Example a Parliament should meet with the King, for making an absolute change of the Form of Government, for abolishing the use of Parliaments, and for depriving the People of all their Privileges, Charters and Immunities, the People might justly provide against these Violations. James II. endeavoured to Cancel all the Privileges of the Nation, but durst not disannul Parliaments, but he dissolved them, and caused them to be dissolved by his Brother, as soon as ever the Parliaments did any thing that displeased him. He deprived the Corporations of their Charters and Privileges. He obstructed free Elections; he took upon him a Power of dispensing with the Laws, and of acting in a direct opposition to what was thereby ordained. He was not legally empowered to proceed so far, and therefore he transgressed the due Bounds, and thereby put the Nation in a rightful Capacity no longer to acknowledge him; for it is certain, that in all Relations, of Father and Son, of Wife and Husband, of Master and Servant, of Subject and King, where there is an express Contract, and certain Conditions laid down, when one of the Parties happens to violate the Contract, and to be wanting in the performance of the Conditions, that the other Party is no longer obliged.  
The Lawyer's Maxim, Princeps Legibus solutus est, has no place here, By the Prince is understood one that is Sovereign, and a Magistrate that is absolute without limitation. Unhappy are the People who have got such Masters, who have suffered their Privileges to be disannulled; but the People and the Nations which are so happy as to preserve the Bulwarks, which, in the Establishment of their Monarchy, have been raised against the Ambition of their Princes, are very Wise in maintaining them. The King of England does not boast, that he is above the Laws; for he is obliged to Reign according to the Laws; If there be any Sovereign in England, who is above the Laws, it is the Parliament and the King together. This Sovereign makes Laws and repeals them; and so is not bound thereby; but the Parliament alone can neither make nor repeal Laws; neither can the King alone do it. So that these Words of Cambden, concerning the Authority of the Kings of England, does not take away the Rights of Parliaments and the Privileges of the People, that are publicly known; Seeing the Kings of England are bound to Reign according to the Laws, there lies no obligation upon the People any longer to acknowledge them, when they raise themselves above the Laws, and have no regard thereunto.  
Indeed a modern Writer has said, that Protestants may be trusted, because they swear Allegiance to the Prince without reservation; But we swear Allegiance without reservation, only where the Law does not annexed it, and where the Princes have their bounds limited by the Laws, our Religion does not at all oblige us to make Oath of Fidelity without reservation, and without condition; since the Kings of England themselves, in Conjunction with their Parliaments, have annexed certain reservations to the Oaths of Allegiance which they require from their Subjects. We do no ways believe, that the English violate their Oaths of Allegiance, when they think that they are free so to do, by the Invasion that their Kings make upon the Fundamental Laws of the Realm. From all this it follows, that the English Nation did justly look upon King James II. as incapable of the Crown, because of his Religion, and as fallen from his Rights by his violation of all the Fundamental Laws, and consequently William III. his Son-in-Law, and Mary his Daughter, now King and Queen of England possess the Crown most lawfully, which returns to them by Right of Succession, and which was confirmed to them by the unanimous Consent of the three Estates of the Kingdom; They did not trample upon the respect which they owed to him who was their Father, or held the place of a Father, for nothing is owing to a Father in prejudice of the Rights that are due to God and our Country. They committed no Violence as a means of coming by the Crown; for they first received it, from a free Convention; they did nothing against the Commands of St. Peter and St. Paul of being Subject to the Powers, for neither St. Peter nor St. Paul had any design of Establishing the Arbitrary Power of Kings (whose Authority is limited by the Laws) nor of favouring Tyrants.  
Now as there have not been Men wanting to misconstrue His Majesty's late Expedition, so there have been some of his Majesty's Enemies, mentioned at the beginning, who charged the Misfortunes of the Two De Wits. Anno. 1672. on the then P. of Orange. But it is known to all the World how the Matter went; it happened by a popular Commotion which was, like Gunpowder, kindled and spread in a moment. It is true, that the two De Wits were accounted Enemies to the Prince. It is true, that there were two Parties form in the State, one against the Prince, and the other for him; but if things had gone well, and the order which the De Wits had given for the preservation of the Country had succeeded, no Person had ever muttered against them; but Unhappily, the State was without any Defence, without Arms, without Forts, without Forces, without Alliances, which afforded the French an Opportunity of Marching into the very Heart of the Country, leaving nothing but Desolation behind them. Those who were at the Helm were narrowly looked to, whether they were to blame or no. The People thereupon were enraged against those who had the management of Affairs. They made a general insurrection in the Town, against the Magistrates. It was much less for the Prince's Interest, then for their own, that there was such an uproar amongst the People. The Mobile had been little enough concerned who governed, provided the Government had been in safety. Hitherto; the Government of the De Wits, as it had been happy, so it had been attended with Tranquillity. But in the Year, 1672. the Government of those Gentlemen was extremely Unfortunate; the People, who peremptorily reckoned the Unhappy Success of the measures they took to be an Effect of their Mismanagement of Affairs, fell upon them and spent all the Magazine of their Rage against them. And it was the King of France to whom the De Wits were indebted for that Tragical Execution; it is he who by his unjust Enterprifes and his happy Success did provoke the People's Patience, to the last extremity, and obliged them to avenge themselves by force, on those who had so very ill provided for the safety of the State. The Prince was no ways concerned therein but accidentally, if he had had the Administration of Affairs for some Years before that, if he had been mistaken in his Measures, as they had been, if the King of France had met with the same Success after the Administration of the Prince of Orange, that he had after that of the De Wits, it is certain, that the Prince of Orange had been in danger of having been the object of the People's Fury, as those Gentlemen were; but it is well known, that this is the usual manner of popular Commotious, that when they make an insurrection against one, they make a Bulwark of another. Expressing their Fury, because the Government, being altogether a Republic, had not provided against those extreme Grievances which they lay under, it was easy for them to find at hand, the Name and Person of the Prince of Orange, to whose Family, upon former considerations, they had the greatest Obligations; and therefore their Acclamations for the Elevation of the Prince, were mixed with Exclamations of Fury and Rage against the De Wits. It is the greatest injustice to charge this as a Crime upon a Young Prince, who then, being but a Youth, had given proofs of his Wisdom, and of a consummated Moderation. Neither have I heard that in Holland any of those who were the greatest Loser's by the Death of the De Wits, and the Change of Government, did entertain the least suspicion thereof. The Battle of St. Denis is also objected, which his present Majesty gave at the very time when the Treaty of Peace at Nimeghen was a concluding, in which seven or eight thousand Men were killed on one side and other. His Majesty was not at all obliged to know, that the Peace was concluded, and it is well known that he was extremely condescending to make the best Conditions he could. If the advantage had been more complete, and the French Army had been entirely defeated, it had very well appeared that the Action had not been so ill construed. The Peace was signed at Nimeghen, but it was not ratified, and until the Ratification of a Treaty, there is always time allowed to the Parties to change their Councils, either for the Confirmation or relaxation thereof. From the same Source does proceed another Charge against his Majesty, in favour of a little Gentleman, called the Prince of Wales, as if he had been looked upon to block up his majesty's way to the Crown, but the true Heirs of the Crown, had no ground to believe that the pretended Prince of Wales did block up their way to the Crown. He was very far off, he was born a Papist, he had the Pope for his Godfather, he was naturally excluded from the Crown of England upon that score; and the Party which had set James II. on the Throne tho' a declared Papist, could not maintain their pretensions for any long time. James II. had supported him by his forwardness, by his Intrigues and by his Army. On his Death or oververthrow by some blow, the Stripling's Aspect would have been soon changed with his Fortune. This young Popish Prince surviving either a Minor, or destitute of Strength and Wisdom for supporting himself, could not maintain his Point for any long time against the known Laws of the Country, against the People and against the Religion of the Land, and the lawful Rights of the Princess; besides a Birth so obscure and so destitute of good proof could not be maintained against the manifest and professed Birth of the two Princesses who were lawful Heirs. This Prince of Wales would have been obliged one day to prove his Birth against the two Princesses who would dispute it; and it is very probable that he would have come but ill off. I do not at all doubt, but that his Birth, whether true or supposed, obliged the Nation to be more Urgent in calling for his present majesty's Assistance. So long as they saw none else seated upon the Throne, a Popish King, on whom Old Age and consequently Death was making its near approaches, they might have Patience, in hopes of seeing within a little time, Protestant Successors in the Possession of the Crown. But when they perceived that a New Prince was trumped up (who in all probability was nothing else but a Chimaera) to perpetuate the Popish Religion on the Throne from Generation to Generation, they were awakened, they thought of their own safety, they implored help from their deliverer; they had reason to crave it, and his present Majesty had reason to grant it; for it was a perilous and pressing Juncture; and it was not to be expected that the People who accustomed themselves to every thing with time, would inure themselves to bear with a presumptive Heir of the Crown, set up in favour of a Religion that is a mortal Enemy both to the Peace and Religion of the Realm.  
I intent not here to set down the process of the supposititious Birth of the Prince of Wales, nor do I think it necessary. I shall only make some reflections on it, all Europe knows, or aught to know, that King William and Queen Mary were the last who entertained this supposition. It is manifestly known to the World, that the report was Universally spread throughout England and all Europe, from the time that there was any talk of the Queen's being with Child, of her Vow to our Lady of Loretto, of the rich Presents that she sent thither, of the Bath whither she went to prepare herself, for pregnancy, of the King's journey to the Bath to visit the Queen, of the rumour that was spread abroad, immediately after that, of the Queen's being with Child. Not only all the Protestants, but all the Catholics of good, sense, who gave no great credit to the Miracles of our Lady, looked upon all as a prelude to the Comedy that was to be Acted. All England is witness, that during all the time that the Queen was with Child the City of London, and Whitehall were full of Satyrs and Lampoons in Verse and in Prose, like rude Serpents they flew about, not sparing the Queen's Petticoats; her pregnancy was ridiculed. And it is also known that not only the Mobile, but all Persons of the greatest Note in the Kingdom had the same suspicion.  
My second Reflection is, that the Prince had all reason imaginable to conceive a suspicion of this Birth, in consideration of the quality of the witnesses who were summoned to attest it. It is very well known, that neither Princess Ann of Denmark, nor any of the Friends of the Present King and Queen, nor King Jame's Enemies were called to be by; and it is as well known, that the Bishops were put in the Tower some days after. It is known that the Queen was brought to Bed when she thought fit, and that she went, for that end, to St. James' House; it is known that she made two reckon within the compass of a Month, and there was good reason to suspect that she took an advantage from it, to take the most agreeable Measures for the management of the intrigue. When there is but one reckoning, all things requisite are not always in readiness, against the named time, for an Action of that nature. It is Universally known, that King James and his Queen were informed of all the reports that were spread abroad, that the Queen's being with Child was a shame, and consequently they were obliged to use all imaginable precaution, to Work an assurance in People's minds that it was ; they would not do it by any means; they increased the suspicion by this neglect. Seeing there are so great reasons to call it into question, could his Present Majesty be blamed for endeavouring to be well informed of the Affair, for requiring that the business should be examined in Parliament? He does not at all affirm that the Prince of Wales was supposititious, he only demands an assurance of his Birth. There is nothing more just and natural. At that time his Majesty had not as yet seen the depositions which James II. caused to be taken thereupon; but if he had seen them, they were not capable of affording him any assurance; for first, there were none almost found amongst the Witnesses, but such as were suspected Persons, Officers, Pensioners, and the King's Domestic Servants; Secondly, all that the Queen Dowager, the most part of the Lords and Ladies said, may be true, and yet the Child that was Born not be Born of the Queen; for the Assistants who are at the Beds Feet, and in a Corner of the Chamber, know not what is laid in the Bed, nor whence it came which is taken out of it. In the last place, the depositions, that were taken in the King's presence, are for that very reason altogether invalid, and insufficient. This is a ground good enough for what the Prince says in his Declaration, which is the most plain and the most modest imaginable, That there are great Presumptions that oblige us to believe, that these Evil Counsellors (for promoting their own pernicious designs, and for gaining of time to execute them) spread a report, that the Queen was delivered of a Son, that during this pretended bigness of the Queen, as well as in the circumstance of the Birth, and the methods that were used for the management of it, there appeared so many just and visible suspicions, that the pretended Prince of Wales was not brought into the World by the Queen. There could no less be said upon so important a subject. King James ought to justify himself from this in the face of the World; are not Princes to take care of their Reputation? Is it not this that secures them? How could King James think to be free from being insulted over by a Nation which looked upon him as a Master of Intrigue and Audacity and as an unnatural Father and Prince. And there is no Prince in the World against whom we can more reasonably conceive this suspicion, he who runs a risque of losing three Crowns, and at last did really lose them, for his Religion, does in effect show that he had it, and that he was not like his Predecessor who had none, but likewise the same thing gives us to understand, that he could venture all other things for the sake of his Religion; for Men of the World who dare run a risk of losing their Crowns, to compass their ends, may very well venture their Reputation, the Blood of their Subjects and all things else to satisfy their own humour. Indeed the rest of his Conduct made it appear, that he was capable of sacrificing all, even to his conscience, for the sake of his Religion. His Majesty's moderation having sufficiently appeared in his Conduct in the forementioned Passages, there follows, some instances of His Majesty's Justice, in his late expedition, who, as has been said, Acted first, as the Presumptive Heir of the Crown, at least under the Title of his Royal Consort and that in this quality, he justly provided for the security of the Kingdom, which was to descend to him one day. He hindered the subversion of the Laws and Religion and justly, though it had been in opposition to his own Father, if James II. had been such. I have proved, that a Son and Heir of a Kingdom, is obliged, by his own interest, by that of the People, and by what he owes to God to oppose a Father who brings the Realm to imminent ruin, and reduces the Religion to a State of Desolation. Secondly, his present Majesty did bear the Character of an Enemy, not to King James, not to the Nation, but to the Tools his Father-in-Law made use of for the overthrow of Religion and the Laws. He passed not into the Kingdom forcibly, as the General of the Dutch Army. He entered in his own Name, to Declare War against the Enemies of the Kingdom and of the Protestant Religion, who had raised an Army for the subversion of the Laws and of the Church. Thus by the Laws of a just War, if ever there was one such, he could summon his Enemies, to lay down their Arms, to yield themselves for avoiding the Effusion of Blood; he could demand assistance and Military Aid from all those who loved their Liberty and Religion. When a King is become the Enemy of the State, of the Laws and of God, there is nothing then owing to him, and James II. was such a one.  
We come to another thing, viz. That which King William III did at his first Arrival in England, His design being lawful and just, viz. for setting up a Standard for Liberty, and Declaring War against the Enemies of Religion and of the Laws, he was obliged to do whatever tended to that end. It was no Usurpation of the Royal Authority. It is a circumstance, the nature of which does depend on the ground on which the Expedition was founded; and therefore, upon the plainest reason we may see who is in the right and who is in the wrong, in this matter: As to the Refusal of the Mayor and the Clergy of Exeter, to execute the Prince's Orders, for acknowledging him and opening their Churches, this is of no advantage to the contrary Party, nor does contribute any wise, either to the Honour, or Disgrace of the Magistrates and Clergy of that City; but this reflects on James II. for that Reservedness was an effect of the dreadful consternation that they were in, and which was occasioned by the Calamities that King James had brought upon that and other Countries in the West, after the Duke of Monmouth's defeat. The Trees and the Ways were as yet generally covered with the dead Bodies of those poor Creatures, who were made Sacrifices to the most cruel Rage that ever was exercised. It was judged sufficient, that the Magistrates and the Canons of Exeter were held under that Fear, for so soon as they saw themselves secure by the Arrival of the Prince's Forces, they expressed their joy by such transcendent marks, that evidenced the transport they were in, yet they did not cease too pray to God for King James, till the Convention gave order concerning it. The Prince of Orange did not Act as a King, at his first Arrival. We have not heard that he seized any part of the Royal Revenue; and it is not but that he had just cause enough so to do. For those, who managed the King, and tyranized over the Kingdom, did convert the same to pernicious Uses, for the oppression of Liberty and Religion; he might very well, without Injustice, take it out of their hands. There follows now a Narrative of what the Lords Hallifax, Nottingham and Godolphin said to the Prince, in Pursuance of the Commission that they had from James II. and of the Answer they received; and it amounts 〈◊〉 this, The King Declares to the Prince that 〈◊〉 consents to the calling of a Free Parliament, and said, he had appointed Lords Commissioners to adjust and regulate, with the Prince, all those Points that were necessary, as well for the Free Election of Members to serve in Parliament, as for the security of the next Sessions. The Prince does propose such Conditions as were most equitable, and most necessary for his own, and the Public Safety. The Prince demands, that the Papists beput out of Places of Trust, and that they be disarmed, there could not have been security enough for himself and his Friends, if the Papists had continued in Offices, and in Arms, with their Sword in their hands. He requires, that all the Proclamations, in which his Friends had been Declared Rebels, should be revoked and annulled. How could a Free Parliament have been called, and what Equity could the Prince have expected from the same, if all the Peers and Gentlemen who had Declared for him had been excluded from sitting in Parliament as being Rebels? He requires, that all those of his side, who had been taken, should be set at liberty. How could he provide for the security of the Laws and Religion, so long as those who had come over to their Deliverers side, were to be treated as Criminals? and if they had been really chargeable, was it ever required of a Prince who has his Sword in his Hand, that he should condemn himself and give his consent, that those who adhered to him should be treated as Traitors? The Prince Demands, that for the security of the City of London, that the Custody and Government of the Tower should be committed to the said City. It had been ill, that in so nice a juncture, King James had remained Master of the Tower, to be in a capacity to destroy the City of London, and to reduce it to Ashes, so soon as ever she should attempt to favour the vigorous Resolutions of a Parliament. If 〈◊〉 Prince 〈◊〉 ●●●manded that the Tower should be put into his own possession it had been unjust, but since his intentions were to take such Measures, and use such means as tended to the security of the People's Liberties, it was absolutely necessary to secure all those Places of Strength, which were made use of for destroying the Liberty of the Subject. The Prince desired the King to withdraw from London, during the holding of the Parliament, or that, if he inclined to stay there, it might also be allowed, that the Prince should be there, with an equal Number of Guards; a very just Demand. The Prince was not obliged to leave King James in a Capacity of Exercising an Absolute Power over the English, as well as the Scotch Parliament: whilst he abide at London with his Guards, which would not have failed to convey to the Tower, all such Members who should presume to Declare themselves to be of an Opinion, that crossed the King's Interest and Intentions: King James and the Prince were at that time, as two Parties at Law, in a Suit that was to be heard and determined in Parliament, and of which the Parliament was the only competent Judge; and consequently, it was necessary and equitable, that the Parliament should enjoy an entire liberty: This could not be unless he did overthrow or permit the Prince to be near to stand by his Friends, as the King was desirous to defend his own. The Prince requires, that both the Armies should March 40 Miles from London. The Prince could make no Demand more equitable; to the end that the Parliament might be left in full Liberty. It was not requisite, that all King James' Forces should have Encamped round about Westminster, and that the said King with his Sword in his hand, should have forced the Parliament to Condemn the Prince of Orange, and all his Friends as Guilty of High-Treason, to be cut in pieces. In the last place, the Prince of Orange does Demand, That to prevent the descent of the French, Portsinouth might be put into the hands of a Person, who might be trusted both by the Prince and by the King. It was one of the most just and most necessary precautions in the World. It is unknown to none, that King James had Intelligence with the French, with a design, by their Assistance, utterly to subvert Religion, Liberty and Property. The World was sufficiently informed, that after the Report was spread of the Prince's Expedition, it was several times deliberated upon in Council, if they should receive the French Forces. It was known that the Papists did mightily Press King James to consent thereunto, and that the said King did only refuse it, by reason of the fear he had of a general revolt of the Kingdom. Had he not been very prudent to leave in the said King's hand, during the sitting of the Parliament, the Principal Port of the Kingdom, that was open to receive Strangers with whom it is very well known, that he had conspired for the Ruin of the Prince and of the Kingdom?  
It was very impertinently said (by a certain Foreign Scribbler, speaking of the Prince) his Principality of Orange as a Title, had not justified his raising of an Army to reduce the King of England with in due limits. Was it not extremely needful to give this Publie Advertisement, and this very advantageous precaution in this Matter? Without it, there would have been some sort of Folks, without all doubt, who would have said, why had not William of Nassan a Right to dispute the Crown of England with King James, seeing he was already Prince of Orange before? Does not the Principality of Orange give a very good Title to the English Crown? This Author wanted an occasion, to make a Defence, by the by, for the King of France, for the ill Services he has done his present Majesty in that Principality; and therefore he was obliged to bring in the Principality of Orange in this place, only for this end, that he might have the occasion to say, that William Henry of Nassau, was justly deprived of his Principality, because it belonged to the House of Longueville, which descended from that of Chaalons, whereas the House of Nassau had only kept it by mere Usurpation. The French Court was resolved too late, to do Justice in this Affair, to the House of Longueville. Henry IV; Lewis XIII. and Lewis XIV. himself were very backward in rendering to their Subjects and to their Servants, that which appertained to them, and in accommodating the differences that have been depending amongst them. The truth is, if this pitiful Scribbler had been Wise, he would not have touched upon this Point, and would not have recalled into Men's Minds, such Ideas, which cannot take place without causing Horror and a just Indignation. To restore to the House of Longueville a Possession that so justly belonged to them, it was not necessary to lay it desolate, as they did, to demolish and raze the Castles, to levelly the Walls with the ground, to Plunder the Town several times, to quarter an Army at discretion, in a small subjected Country, and which never made any Resistance, to Imprison the principal Inhabitants of that small State, and to commit against them the utmost Violences. It is not to Orange only that his Majesty has found Pretenders. In Burgundy in the Franch county, and every where else, where King William had Possessions and Lands, there were not wanting Houses of Longueville, in favour of which the Lands of a Prince were seized, with which the Usurpers had nothing to do, and by such base Artifices as have begot the hearty Concern of all Princes, they opposed William of Nassau, on all occasions when he could not defend himself without ever declaring War against him. These are Instances of a base and unworthy Revenge for two Kings to take. For the English King was in League with Lewis to Abandon his Son-in-Law to Rapine and Desolation. This is one of the Obligations that the Son-in-Law has to his Father-in Law, and for which public Fame bears him upon her Wings for a stupendous Example of Ingratitude. The Prince has already sustained damage enough in his Principality of Orange and Lands of Burgundy by his Father-in-Law's good Offices. But I cannot say but he will demand new Costs and Charges at the Hands of the most Christian King. We shall see, if he can hold out to be as easily Victorious over William III. King of England, as he laid desolate the Possessions of William of Nassau BURGER of the Hague, for so the Prince was called at Paris. This Burger of the Hague gins now to strike Terror in the Grand Signior of Versailles, who has been so terrible to many, and I am very apt to think that his fear will not prove to be in vain, and that the mighty Mounsieur shall not escape so.  
The same Author tells us, that we must show standing Laws that allow a Son, as the next Heir to the Crown, to make himself his Fathers-in-law Judge, to invade his Kingdom with a Fleet of five hundred Ships: Indeed this Orator would not have done amiss to have spared his Breath, to have reserved his Rhetoric and his Eloquence to Answer the Demands that William of Nassau, in all likelihood will make, 'ere it be long, to Lewis XIV. for if it should so happen, that he prove the stronger, one day he has very good reason to call him to an account, and ask him, by what Laws he invaded and retained Lorain, and possessed himself of Strasburg in the time of Peace; by what Laws he laid the principality of Orange Desolate, and treated the same as a place subjected to him by an absolute Conquest, why he reduced the Palatinate, and the Towns and Villages on the Rhine to Ashes, treating it as a Country destined by the most Savage Proscription, to perpetual Desolation, and why he seizes the Possessions of every one, and keeps Faith with none?  
This insolent Author repeats the Case of the De Wits and imputes the Misfortunes that befell them and others to King William, whom he alleges to have managed the Multitude for the accomplishment of his Designs. But was it during the Years of his Minority, or after they were passed, that he gained the Multitude? Did he Court that small People? Did he require any thing of them? Did he complain to them of the wrongs that had been done to him? Was there one Man of that People, to whom he was personally known, or with whom he had the least Conversation imaginable? As for the then deposed Magistrates if they were Established by Law, they were laid aside by Law; This is done by the order of the States of Holland, who are the Sovereign Governors of the Province. This was to put a stop to the Rage of the People, who being reduced to the brink of Destruction, seized on the Magistrates, right or wrong. There were no other means left of dispelling that Mist, but by changing the Governors. And, to be short, this business was not carried on by a sudden Enterprise, but was managed with a great deal of Prudence. All the Magistrates who were rejected, were Enemies to the Prince, who being invested with the Office of General Stadtholder, and placed at the Helm of the Government, was obliged to put in such Magistrates as were on his own side, otherwise they had torn the Commonwealth by their contrary Methods, and the State would have been thereby infested with such Divisions that would have exposed it to unavoidable Ruin. As for the Elections in their Cities; The Prince in managing them used no force, made no use of the settled Army, he Besieged no Town, Imprisoned no Person by his own Authority. When there was a design of putting into Offices such Persons as could not have that Correspondence with him that was necessary amongst the Governors of a Commonwealth, He only made use of the Authority of the States, and of the Court of Judicatory, according to the Laws and Rights by which he held his Office and his Character, great were. The Cries and Lamentations (saith the same Author) for the Ships that were destroyed, which he had disposed of, without the Consent of the City of Amsterdam, to which they did belong. He means the Fleet, that was cast away, returning from the Sound, in the Month of November, Anno. 1683. this Man has impudence enough to impute to the Prince, the Shipwreck of all the Vessels, that have been lost by Stormy Wether, since the Year, 1672. and to think him answerable for all the Works of Heaven. If the City of Amsterdam had not advised the sending out of that Fleet, his Consent could not have been necessary: When the charge of a Naval Force is computed and agreed upon by the States, it may be disposed of by the Admirals and the Admiralities, according to their own Prudence, with the Suffrages of the major part of the Counsel, for the good of the Commonwealth, provided they do not engage in a War without their consent. If there was no good understanding, at that time, betwixt the City of Amsterdam and the Prince, that was the result of the Intrigues of France, which by a Diabolical Artifice, sowed Divisions in the Cities and Members of the States. The violent Suspicions (he goes on) though he frequently gave of making himself the Master of those, whose Minister he only was. He never gave cause to such violent Suspicions, but it was the Instruments of the French King who raised them; for they were continually employed to diffuse Jealousies through the State, against the Prince. There was none of his most innocent Actions that they did not misrepresent. In their Judgement, it was Criminal for him to maintain his own Rights, against those who had a design to Invade them. They had made so great a Progress, before the Year, 1672. by this Conduct and by the Jealousies they had kindled in Men's Minds, against the House of Orange, that there was no Defence left against their Practices. It is false that the Prince had given a Suspicion of any Intention to make himself the Supreme Governor of the United Provinces. On the contrary, he generally rejected all the occasions that were offered him to accept of that Dignity. The King of France made him an Offer of Holland, with full Sovereign Power, and he refused it, Anno. 1672. During the Consternation that these Countries were in, by reason of the French Army, the City of Amsterdam, more than ordinary jealous of her Liberty, consented to bestow on the Prince both the Rights and Title of Earl of Holland. The Prince would by no means accept of it. The States of Geldre, having signified their Intentions to make him Duke of that Province he refused the offer, and referred himself to the Opinion of the other Provinces. The Low Countries have great reason sure to complain of the Prince's Government, since the Year, 1671. He found a Commonwealth oppressed under the Yoke of a Foreign Power, having its Bowels torn to pieces, destitute of Arms, destitute of Forts, without Friends and without Allies; and he accomplished his design by the most wise Conduct imaginable, taking Possession of their Hearts beating back the Common Enemy by his Courage, engaging all Europe in a Joint Alliance (which crushed all the French Designs) Engaging the English Interest and causing the Treaty of Peace to be concluded at Breda. He defended his Nation against all the pernicious Intrigues of the French Counsels; he by his wise Conduct, restored Trade to its former Splendour, and made it again to flourish. It is now in the highest Esteem that ever any Commonwealth was in. He was Umpire of the most Important Peace, that has been concluded these hundred Years past; which was made betwixt the two Crowns. These are the great disorders that the Prince of Orange committed in the Republic, and the truth is, they are very great disorders in respect of France, whose purpose is to reduce all her Neighbours into Confusion and Servitude for her own ends.  
Now it is worth the knowing who this Famous Author is. He is one whom France hath kept in Holland as a Spy and as an Incendiary. He has not been idle, during his Abode there, he has not so much as omitted the most impertinent Occurrences, that never passed the Frontiers of the State before; and which were only the talk of the Mobile. Such is the application of the Words of the Prophet Esay, to the Birth of the Prince of Wales. Before she was in pain she brought forth, before she Traveled, she was delivered of a Man Child. See what he imputes to the Prince as a Crime; and calls it a profanation of Holy Scripture, to uphold his Pretences against the Prince of Wales. He also justifies King James from the Accusation that is brought against him in the Prince's Declaration, for having had a Design to suppress the Religion and overthrow the Laws of the Land. He thinks, in a moment, to possess the Minds of Men with a Prejudice against the Prince; as if his Expedition could not have been undertaken for the Preservation of Religion, as not being of the English persuasion, but a Presbyterian. He is obliged (saith he) according to the Calvinstical Doctrine to believe, that all Ministers have equal Authority, that Episcopacy is an unlucky Pillar of Papal and Antichristian Tyranny. The Presbyterians destroyed the English Church, banished the Prelates, and abolished the Liturgy during the Commonwealth, and behold a Presbyterian and an Army of Calvinists, who pass into England, to deliver the English Church, which they have always looked upon as Professing a false Religion. Upon this Subject the Author shows, what an able Man and great Divine he is, he multiplies Words and idle Reflections. We answer him in a Word, that the English Church never Condemned the Presbyterians on this side of the Sea, and never beheld their Religion as false. She has only remonstrated the Extravagancies of the English Presbyterians, and possibly i● that, she is not much in the wrong. The Presbyterians, on this side the Sea, in like manner, never Condemn Episcopacy as an Appurtenance of Antichristianism. The difference in Point of Government never hindered the English Protestants, and those in these Parts, from being ready to afford one another mutual Assistance, as being of the same Religion. Queen Elizabeth helped the Dutch and French Protestants. King James did the same, and which is more, he sent his Divines and Bishops to the Synod of Dort, which was otherwise all composed of Presbyterians, that action alone is an undoubted proof of the Communion that the Bishops and Presbyterians maintained amongst themselves. If the English Bishops have Assisted the Presbyterians on this side the Sea, as their Brethren, when they were like to be oppressed, why may not the Presbyterians here, with very good reason, go and assist the English Church, which they have always looked upon to be a true Protestant Church.  
Again, this Author endeavours to prove first that the Late King of England, in his suspending the Penal Laws, had no other end but the Establishment of a perfect Tranquillity in his Kingdom, taking from his Subjects all occasion of Persecuting one another upon the account of Religion. This is the Old Song, but all those, who speak so are not in hopes to persuade others, nor are they themselves persuaded of the Truth of this allegation. They know very well, and all the World is sensible of it, that King James did extremely hate the Presbyterians, Independants and Anabaptists, looking upon them as the Authors of his Father's death and as his own Enemies. It is very well known, that during all the time that he was Duke of York, he did cruelly Persecute them, to do the English Church a Pleasure, thinking to be so much a gainer thereby, as to do afterwards whatever he pleased. It was not then in Favour of the Non Conformists his Sworn Enemies, that he intended to repeal the Penal Laws; it is notoriously known, that it was never in his thoughts to take them away, but for the sake of the Roman Catholics, and that he included other Dissenters for no other end, but to palliate his designs. It is beyond all dispute, King James II. of England was a great Enemy of Persecution: He made his inclinations manifest, whilst he was as yet Duke of York; possibly it cannot be denied, but that that King had a very great Zeal for his own Religion, for this Author does him that great Honour as to avouch it. He had consequently a passionate desire to Establish it in England. Can this be denied? if he acknowledge it, (for he must be destitute both of common sense and honour to deny it) he must also own, that all his Actions tended to that end, if all his Actions tended to that end with better reason, so important a one did, such as was the suspension of the Penal Laws. Can he deny it, or can any Person do it for him? It is therefore plain, that he had a design of Establishing his own Religion. He had therefore a design to destroy all others, and consequently, to ruin the English Church, the Presbyterians and the Independants; for it is known by the whole World, that the Popish Religion never looks upon herself to be Established till once she has made her Way through the Ruins of all other Religions.  
Secondly, This Author endeavours to prove, that the Prince only fought a pretence against his Father-in-Law. Because (saith he) he reproaches him for having suspended then Penal Laws, in Favour of the Roman Catholics, and has not considered him as having also suspended them in behalf of the Presbyterians and other Sectaries, as if it were possible for him to have transgressed the Limits of his Power with respect to the one and not to the other. He calls this an unreasonable distinction, etc. All this is nothing else but a piece of affected malice and ignorance. This mighty Lawyer ought to know, that the Penal Laws were only enacted against the Papists. The Oaths, if there were nothing else, do sufficiently attest this. They were made against those who believe the Pope to be the Head of the Church; that there is another Jurisdiction within the Realm then that of the King; that there is such a thing as Transubstantiation, and that the Invocation of Saints is no Idolatry. There are no Protestants who believe there things. It is not against them, that the Penal Laws and the Oaths were made; but if the Penal Laws, some few Years ago, were extended to the Presbyterians, that was done by evil designs of James Duke of York, who did sow Divisions betwixt the two Parties; and therefore the Prince ought to have taken it in good part, that he did relax then, as to the Presbyterians, because that is consonant to the purport and true meaning of the Penal Laws, and he ought to have taken it in ill part, that the same Favour was allowed to the Roman Catholics, because that is contrary to the express Decisions of the Law. All the Penal Laws were made to serve as a Bulwark, not only for the English Church, but for all Protestants, in general; and therefore all Protestants of all sides, set themselves against the Declaration of Liberty of Conscience in general, because they saw very well whither that did tend. Besides, the Addresses, by which this Author would prove, that the Presbyterians ●●ok'd upon the suspension of the Penal Laws, as an obligation that they owed to the King, were nothing else but cunning Artifices, and Suppositions for the most part, or made by three or four Quakers, Independants or Papists who presented those Addresses without the consent of their Respective Bodies, in whose name they yet pretended to speak. This we know by good hands, and we have derived the Account we have had hereof, from the very Fountain; and it appeared sufficiently by the Unanimous concurrence of those Communities (on whom the said Addresses were Fathered) with the Prince of Orange. The Author concludes this Reflection with two considerations. The first is a mighty Elegy, on the Roman Religion, which he commends by reason of its Antiquity and Extent, by its Sanctity and the Saints it has given to England. The other consideration is of the Power that the Church of England allows the King, in Spiritual Causes; whence he concludes, that the Church of England would be very unreasonable, if it were of the Opinion, that that Power could be restrained without Cause, in respect of that, which is, of all things, most grateful to the World, which is, to Allow the Free Exercise of their Religion to those of his Subjects, who, with himself, are of the most Ancient Religion of all that maintain the Adoration of Jesus Christ. That is to say, in a Word, that if the King has Power to dispense with the Penal Laws, with respect to New Sects, he ought, in all reason, to have the same Power, with respect to the Ancient Religion that is professed by himself. This Consequence is denied. If the King of England has Power in Spiritual Causes, it i● not an Arbitrary Power, is bounded by the Laws, but the Laws do not forbid a Toleration of the Presbyterians, but they forbidden a Toleration of the Popish Religion, because that so Ancient a Religion, and which is so far spread through the World, and is so holy, is a common Enemy of all other Religions, whether true or false. Those other Religions which give, may also receive Toleration; but who is obliged to grant a Toleration to the Popish Religion which Tolerates none, which destinies all those to the Fire and Sword, who do not submit themselves to it.  
The Author puts an end to this part of his Defence of King James, touching his Religion, by taking a review of the Church of England; he turns it on every side and finds it safe and sound, without so much as Spot or Wrinkle. She was the same under the Catholic King that she was under the Protestant Kings. She had her Bishops, her Cathedral Churches, her Parochial Churches, her Ecclesiastical Revenues. The King built very near twenty Chapels at his own Charge. And this is that for which he makes all this Cry. Thus our Gentleman concludes, that it is an imposition upon the World, and a manifest token of want of sense, to call that a Subversion of the Religion that was established by Law. Certainly the People of England were very far in the wrong, that they had not patience, till King James brought their Religion to the same Issue, as Lewis did the reform in France. It is true, that King James established the Popish Service in all the Cities and Burroughs within the Realm, where there were Papists. It is true, that the Jesuits were so bold as to open Schools up and down. It is true, that by this time, London was provided with Monks of all Orders. It is true, that the Jesuits remained in the Court, and that Father Peter was the Head of the English Church, by virtue of the entire Influence that he had on the King, and the precedency that he had at the Council Board. It is true, that the principal Offices of State were taken out of the Hands of Protestants, and given either to Papists, or to those who had no Religion at all. It is true, that the Earls of Clarenden and Rochester the King's Brothers-in-Law, lost their Places of Trust, for refusing to change their Religion. It is true, that the most part of the Judges of the King's Bench were Papists. It is true, that the Justices of the Peace in the Country, were not a few of them, Roman Catholics. It is true, that the Papists were possessed of Magdalen College in Oxford. It is true, that the Archbishopric of York being vacant, was designed for a Jesuit, or some Priest. It is true, that the Offices in the Militia, the Government of Counties, and the Lieutenant ship of Ireland, the Town and Fort of Portsmouth, and all the places of strength on the Seacoasts were in the hands of Papists. It is true, that when any one presumed to speak publicly of Religion, he was put from his Pulpit, if not from his Benefice. It is true, that when the Bishops refused to read the King's Declaration of Liberty of Conscience to Roman Catholics, under the Name of Dissenters, they were sent to the Tower. But to what purpose is all this? they were alive still, they Preached, they had Pulpits and Churches, whereas in France there was no such thing to be seen: I, but there was always reason to believe, that King James who was so true a Friend to Lewis XIV, and zealously bend on the same courses; in agreement with him, would in time, push on things to such an issue, (to take effect in his own or his Successors days, whom he was setting up) as has already fallen out in France. They were afraid of it, I say, and they had reason, for the Popish Religion is a most insatiable Monster, an implacable Enemy: If it be allowed but room for one foot, it will quickly usurp an entire Possession of all. It makes profession of admitting no Partnership, and of suffering no Rivals. The English had forgot this Truth, I know not how, and suffered a Popish Prince to ascend the Throne. The Cause of James II. his Misfortunes is to be looked for in the conduct of the French King. It is he, and he only that was the Cause thereof. The English must of necessity have been very fast asleep, not to awaken at the Cries of the infinite Numbers of miserable Creatures, who went to carry their Afflictions and their Complaints to the Ears of the English Nation, and who without speaking, did pathetically express the meaning and weight of this important Advice, Learn to have a care of Tyrants and Kings that are possessed by Jesuits.  
The defence for King James, is destined against King William Prince of Orange. The Religion established by Law was entire, and therefore his present Majesty (as the Man reasons) could have no just cause for passing into England. Besides, the Author endeavours to strengthen his Argument, by the measures His Majesty took in Holland (a Country where he had signalised himself more frequently than in England) where he made it be blown about (as this man says) that his Father in Law was about to suspend the Penal Laws. There are certainly Penal Laws in Holland against the Roman Catholics, but it is as certain, (saith he) that the wisest Magistrates did judge, that it was the Interest of the Republic to suspend their execution, especially, in the Province of Holland, which is the most considerable amongst them. God be praised for it. You may now at last take notice of a public confession that is express and in print, That the Roman Catholics are not persecuted in Holland. Thus both Mr. Arnauld and all the Apologists for the French Persecution, who were so bold as to complain of the Persecutions that their Church suffered in the Low Countries, are declared to be Slanderers. Note this well; for these Gentlemen will say the contrary the very next day, because they always speak according to their Interest; but here it is their Interest to confess the truth, that they may be in a capacity to conclude, that the City of Amsterdam, that of Rotterdam and that of Harlem had Power to suspend the Penal Laws; that a King, who is a Sovereign Prince, can do as much as a particular City; That if the Dutch, without betraying their Religion, might do this, we have no reason to complain of a Catholic, who was willing to show the same gentleness to those of his own Religion, as a Protestant Commonwealth does. It is necessary, that King William himself be concerned in the Proof. He had a very great Number of Catholics in his Guards, and likewise amongst his Domestic Servants. It is not then an Argument of Religion (saith he) that he does charge it as a Crime, upon his Father-in-Law, that being himself a Catholic, he did suffer the Catholic Religion to be exercised within his Dominions. Our Author is not ill to please, his Premises are false throughout, and his Conclusion is very bad. He supposes that the Prince of Orange would answer thus, that his Father-in-Law permitted the Exercise of the Roman Religion in England, as it is in Holland; this is false; Mijn Heer Fagel's Letter was Penned to show the contrary to King James. The Prince does agree, that such Penal Laws should be repealed which might endanger the Lives of the Priests, and might ensnare the Conscience. He does allow, that the Papists be tolerated in England, as they are in Holland. He does again suppose falsely, that King James had granted nothing to the English Papists, but what the Dutch had granted to the Romish Religion, in their Countries. It is Impudence without Example, to affirm this. It is notoriously known that the toleration of Papists in Holland is not established by any Law, nor by any Decree suspending the Laws. It is well known, that the Papists have not entered into any Office of Justice and of the Government of the State; they are only admitted into Military Employs; but King James was for receiving them into all the Offices of the Kingdom, and not only for suspending the Execution of the Penal Laws by a  Toleration of Religion, as it is in Holland, but by an express Cessation of the Laws themselves. In the third Place he does falsely suppose, that the King of England has the same Power with respect to Religion, that the States of Holland have in their Country: This is not so; the States of Holland are Sovereign and Absolute in their Provinces, without limitation; for it is they who make Laws, but the King of England makes no Laws but with the joint Assent and Authority of Parliament, and can change nothing in such as concern Religion, any more than he can do in other Laws, without the Parliament. Lastly, He is infinitely mistaken, when he compares the Quality of the Toleration of the Popish Religion, that is admitted in Holland, to that which he would have established in England, because, in Holland, the Sovereign Authority is Protestant, and, in England, the Sovereign Authority was Popish. There is a very great difference betwixt having Popish Subjects and Servants, and having Popish Masters. The States of Holland are very well content to have Popish Subjects, and the Prince will admit Popish Servants, but they would not have Masters of that Religion. This was designed to be done in England; Their Great Master was a Papist, and that Master endeavoured that all others should become so: And so it does not follow, from the Prince's Goodness, in admitting of Papists amongst his Servants, that he ought to suffer, that his Father-in-Law should commit the Offices and Places of Trust within the Kingdom into the hands of Papists.  
The words also of Popery and Papists, used in his present Majesty's Declaration, are not pleasing to our Opponent. That Man ought to have known, that those Words are used in the English Laws and the Public Records of the Kingdom, when they speak of the Roman Religion and of those who profess it; as in France we are called the pretended Reformed, in the Edicts and Public Ordinances; this Name is no more honourable for us than that of Papists for them who call themselves Catholics. But he likewise takes exception at this Expression, To introduce Popery into three Kingdoms. On which he spends a great Article, to prove, that nothing can be worse expressed; that the business is not about introducing the Catholic Religion into three Kingdoms, where it always was, and where it is still. And here he falls on Controversy, to prove, that the Roman Religion is the Ancient Religion, that ours is an Innovation, that is, without Mission and without Miracles. Must he not be very destitute of Judgement, to show himself so mightily pedantic, on a Subject that is purely politic? Is it not hereby very manifest, that he loves to leave the Point, and take occasion of one Word, upon which he may exercise his talon, by making thereupon a common-place? To answer in good earnest Reflections that are so impertinent, would argue one to be Master of as little sense as he is who makes them.  
The Grievances of the Prince and of the English, which they owed to James II. had not only a respect to the Violation of the Laws of the Land, but to the Subversion of Religion. Yet our Author has so much insisted on the point, and spent so much breath on the head of Religion, in such a declamatory method, and with such vigorous efforts, that he has left very little more to say in the justification of his Hero, as to Affairs of State; and therefore he has but one word concerning it, and only touches upon one of the Articles that the Prince has expressed in his Declaration, and that is, that the Liberty that King James gave of placing Popish Judges on the Bench, reduced the Estates and Fortunes of the Subjects to an uncertainty that was extremely irksome, because the Sentences pronounced by the Judges, who were not legal, are reputed to be null and void, tho' they were never so just. Thus those who lose the Suit, seeing themselves lie under the sentence of incompetent Judges, will be sure not to let slip the first opportunity that shall present itself for their relief against that Judgement, which would bring the Estates and Fortunes of private persons into an eternal uncertainty. In opposition to this, our Author pretends to plead; endeavouring to make it appear, that tho' the King should make a Judge illegally, the Judge should nevertheless have a legal authority to give judgement, and that the Sentence that is pronounced by him is without all question valid and binding; for confirmation of which, he citys the Law Barbarius Philippus, by which it appeared, that a Slave having obtained the Praetorship by surprise, it was judged, that his Determinations were not to be questioned. It belongs to the English properly to make answer to this. The Law Barbarius Philippus is a Rule of Prudence, which neither amounts to a Natural Right nor a Necessary Law. Naturally, Acts done by a Subject who is incapable of bearing certain Characters, are invalid. All the Ordinances given by a Tyrant and Usurper are null and void, as soon as ever the Tyrant is put from the Helm. If a Turk should usurp the Papal Chair, or turn Priest, all the Oaths that should be administered by him would be manifestly void. In like manner, all the Sentences given by one who is incapable of being a Judge, and whom the Law bars from sitting on the Bench, are naturally of no force. If the Sovereign, in consideration of the consequence, and to avoid trouble, is pleased to continue them, it is in his power so to do, and they shall bind; but it is absolutely necessary, that the pleasure of the Sovereign intervene, in this case, for giving force to such Judgements. The Law Barbarius makes this easily appear: If the English had any Law, that could give a validity to Judgements and Decrees of a Judge, tho' he were made so contrary to the Laws; it is true, that the Sentences given by Popish Judges might remain in force: but it is so far from being so, that on the contrary, it is manifestly true, the English have Laws, according to which every Sentence passed by Judges appointed against Law, aught to be revised. We are not to spend all our thoughts on these smaller matters, and neglect so many Grievances and Complaints of the Nations, against the Government of James II. Is it nothing, for example, that he usurped a power of dispensing with the Laws? Is it nothing, that he made himself an Absolute Sovereign, and exercised Arbitrary Power? Of what use are the Laws, if it be in the Prince's power to suspend them, by hindering their execution whenever he pleases, and acting directly contrary to what the Laws ordain? If it were thus, I would rather now choose to live at Paris, or Constantinople, than at London, and be subject to Lewis XIV, or Mahomet, than to the Government of a King of England. The Authority of the Judges of the Kings-Bench, who were generally of opinion, that the Dispensing Power was annexed to the Crown, is not sufficient. For it is well known who those Judges were, that most of them were Papists, and by some means or other, those that were not, were brought over to join with the rest. Can it be thought, that a few ill Men, who betrayed their Country, and sold their Liberties, should be the Sovereign Disposers of the Interest of such a Vast Number of People? Is it nothing, that the King of England, prevailing over the weakness of the Kingdom of Scotland, had a considerable success, in the design of making himself Absolute Sovereign, having in his Declarations used a Style that is more Despotic than that of the Grand Signior, affecting to insert therein, almost in every Period, the Terms, (We Will, We Command,) of (Full Power,) of (Absolute Power?) Have we not seen this with our Eyes? Is it nothing, that all the Charters and Privileges were taken from the English Cities and Corporations, and particularly from the City of London, by horrible Violences, and unjust Procedures, to the end that the King might be in a capacity to fill up the vacancies of Offices and Places of Trust, with Court-Slaves, and Enemies of the Protestant Religion? Is it nothing, that the Bishops, who are Peers of the Realm, were imprisoned, against all sort of Law, only because they were so bold as to make a most humble Address to the King, by way of Remonstrance, against his Ordinance? Where are there any Monarchical States, in which it is not permitted to make such Remonstrances to their Sovereign? Is it nothing to threaten all the Judges of the Kingdom, with the loss of their Places, and actually to deprive them thereof, upon their not consenting to repeal a fundamental Law of the Land? Is it nothing to deprive the Lords and the Prime Officers of State of their respective Places of Trust, because they refused to give their consent to the thing? Is this any thing else but to shed the Blood of the whole Kingdom by Apostate Judges and Slaves to the Court, as the Prince complains in his Declaration? Is it nothing to have obstructed the free Elections of Members to serve in Parliament, by depriving them of all manner of Liberty, and making them to depend on the Court, by so many Cabals, so many Violences and Injustices? All these Articles deserve to be considered somewhat more than that of the Invalidity of Judgements given by Popish Judges. It must needs be, that in all these Points, this great Advocate, who is so profuse of Words and Reflections, found nothing to say, in favour of his Hero, and against the Prince. For he that speaks so much elsewhere, would not otherwise have been silent in this matter. After this, take his word for it, and believe him when he tells you, that, if any thing deserves reprehension in the King's Conduct, it was so inconsiderable, that Posterity will be astonished, that there are Christians found, in these Ages, who are so barbarous, as upon that occasion, to give so ill treatment to so good a King, whom all Histories will own to have possessed very Royal Qualities. And in the sequel, he attributes a Great Heart and a Great Soul to him. This Author differs very much from himself, or from one of his Friends, who writ the Letter of M. to M. upon the Affairs of the Times; for instead of ascribing to him Royal Qualities therein, whilst they manifest their discontent and murmuring, they treat him as a Man who in his conduct was destitute both of Sense and Prudence, and as one, who has done just so much as was necessary to destroy himself. That Great Prince seemed to have neither Heart nor Head, in all that Affair. We know well enough what is believed of him, and what has been said of him, in Paris, since they have enjoyed his presence. It is certain, that so many as have known him, whether Friends or Enemies, do all agree, that instead of Royal Qualities, he was endowed with an Extreme Fierceness, with a very little Spirit, and a Heart in a degree below mediocrity. But if he were the most considerable Person in the World, it is very certain, that he abused his power, and this is enough to justify the English Nation. If he had had no other Quality, but that of a declared Papist, it were enough to make him incapable to Reign in England. For it is unspeakable folly to allege, that a Popish Prince can be King of England, a Kingdom that is altogether Protestant, and in which, according to the most impartial calculation, those Papists who live there, are nothing in comparison. The English Nation have abdicated this Error as well as the powerful Cause of it. It was not possible for her to be kept in it for any long time. There were in France a Million of Protestants, and that party was in a condition of making head against the other, when it was declared to Henry iv that the King of France must of necessity be a Catholic.  
From the same infected Source do spring two great Articles, to prove, that the Free Parliament, about which the Prince made so great a Noise in his Declaration, and which was the great Hinge of the Motions of the Kingdom, is as great a Chimaera, as a Mountain without a Valley, considering the condition into which the Prince had reduced the Nation by his Invasion. All this effusion of Words may be reduced to two Arguments: The first, That to make a Parliament free, the King must of necessity, have at least, as great Liberty as the Members of Parliament, that he may be in a capacity to propose to, and demand of them whatever he pleases. This Article may be very well questioned, for the Definition of a Parliament does not consist in a liberty that the King has to demand and to propose. He has always enough, and oftentimes he loses a great deal. The nature of a free Parliament lies in this, that the Members thereof have been freely elected by the Counties, Cities and Burroughs, and where the said Members may speak their Opinions, even in opposition to the King's pleasure, without danger. It was a long time since there were such Parliaments in England. For it is known, in what manner those were treated, who durst oppose the King's Will; But let us suppose what he says, that the nature of a free Parliament does require, that the King have a perfect Liberty, as aforesaid. Who hindered this Liberty? If James II. upon the Prince's arrival in Exeter, had, of his own accord, given his consent to the calling of a free Parliament, there might have been sufficient assurance given, as of a thing most certain, that he might have had all manner of freedom, to propose, to speak and to demand of the Parliament, whatever he pleased; Who would have barred him from this? He had his Guards, he had his Army, consisting of about 40000 Men, against ten or twelve thousand, whom the Prince had taken with him. It is certain, that the Army would have proved faithful to him, and not one person would have joined with the Prince, against him, if, at that instant, the King had called a free Parliament: But God, who intended to Ruin him, did leave him to be blinded and made obstinate, by Popish Counsels, so as not to consent to the sitting of a free Parliament. The Papists had reason to give him such Counsel; but the King was very much in the wrong to take it: The Papists had reason; for a free Parliament had ruined them, as it did the King in the issue, and reduced them to a worse condition than they were then in; but the King had no reason to follow that counsel; for it is not to be doubted, but that it was better for him, to Reign under the Restraint of the Laws, which hindered the Establishment of his Religion, than not to Reign at all. That which we allege, viz. That the King had nothing to fear, as to his Person and Dignity, if he had called a free Parliament at the first, is not a bare conjecture. There is no English Man but says it, and is ready to depose it upon Oath. And, in my opinion, every one of them ought to know what he thinks; but that which perverted the Army and provoked the People, is, that fierceness with which the King rejected the Request which was presented to him, at London, at that time, by Fifteen or Twenty Lords, as well Spiritual as Temporal, and which was afterwards backed with a more considerable number. Then it was seen, that the Religion, Laws and Liberty of the Kingdom lay at stake, and that if the King should get the better of the Prince, they were to expect the last extremity of Rigour. And this made the face of things to change in a moment, and did the Prince's business, without effusion of Blood. It is true, that at last, the King (at a pinch) consented to the Calling of a Parliament, but it was then too late; and they knew very well, that that was only to gain time; yet tho' as late as it was, it is yet true, That if the King had stayed, his Enemies could never have done any thing against him; the Parliament had taken his part. This is soclear by the manner of the carriage of many of the Members of the Convention, that he must be blind who cannot see it, or be very hard of belief, not to acknowledge it. As for the King's Friends, they would have had no liberty of speech, (saith my Author) how dare he say so, seeing that in the Convention, the King having left the Kingdom, and the Prince of Orange being in the possession of his Army, and the House of Commons declaring against James II. yet even then his Friends durst speak for him; It was proposed in a full Assembly, to call him back. Many Lords-Spiritual and Temporal protested against the Vacancy of the Throne, and with so little danger and disgrace, that some of them were afterwards made Members of the Privy Council. What could not the Friends of James II. have said, if Himself had been present? It is past all doubt, that they had carried it for him; or kept the Affairs of State in a most equal Balance. If the Prince had had any design to do violence to the Members of Parliament, would not the whole Nation and all the Forces thereunto belonging, have joined together to oppose him, as a treacherous person, who came to destroy their Liberty, after having so solemnly declared, He would Maintain it? Can the Prince, with his 10 or 12000 Foreigners have made one day's resistance? It is therefore certain, that neither the King nor his Friends had any reason to be afraid, in that case.  
The other Argument, by which this Man endeavours to prove, that the pretence of a free Parliament is really a Chimaera, is, because the Parliament could not make Laws, without the King's consent. And if it be granted, that this pretended free Parliament had met, the King would have opposed all their Resolutions; He would have refused to pass the Bills. And the Parliament could never have done any thing, at least could not but by force. Upon which account, it would not have been a free Parliament, seeing the King could not have his Liberty. It may also be (saith our pious Author) that the Hand of God, which is not shortened, was so gracious to that generous Prince, as to make him hearken to their Threats, with the same Firmness of Resolution, with which St. Lew is heard the Saracens, whose Prisoner he was, when a hundred drawn Swords ready to dispatch him, could not shake him from his steadfastness, and oblige him to take an Oath, the thoughts of which were more terrible to him. What is to be done on such an occasion? Behold, this pretended free Parliament is arrested all on a sudden; and all the fair fruits that were expected from it, become abortive. The English ought to answer this. They know their own Laws, and we do not; but according to the Light of good Sense and the Laws of Nature, we may make him Answer, by two Things, that are very weighty. The first is, that we ought to distinguish betwixt those Laws that are already made, and those Laws that are only a making: That the Consent of the King of England is not necessary for the Preservation of those Laws that are made. But there were Laws requiring the Exclusion of all Papists from Offices and Places of Trust, as well Military as Judiciary and Civil. There were Laws that prohibited, upon the Pain of Death, the Priests, and especially the Monks, coming into the Kingdom. There were Laws standing, that required the demolishing of the Romish Chapels, and hindering all Public Exercise of the Popish Religion. There were Laws that declared every Person of the Realm guilty of High-Treason, who should keep correspondence with the Court of Rome, and who should hid Priests and Monks. There were Laws enough for the Security of the Protestant Religion. The Parliament had nothing to do, but to put those Laws into strict Execution▪ The King's consent was not necessary, for the enacting of new Laws for that purpose. But seeing he has the executive Power of the Laws in his hands, what is to be done, if the King will not put those Laws in execution? Then and in that Case, it is evident that the Parliament might lawfully appoint some Persons who should execute those Laws; for otherwise, for what end are Laws made, if it be always in the Power of one individual Person to hinder their Execution? It must be supposed, that those who made the Laws, were no Fools; but certainly they had not been wise, if they had reserved no Power to themselves, for the Execution of the Laws, whensoever the King should refuse so to do. It is not then necessary, that there should be new Laws to bear down Popery, which shown herself bare faced. Neither were there any new Laws necessary to oppose the King, and to declare him incapable of the Government. For all the Laws, which before that Time, had been made against Popery, make it manifest, with great Force and Necessity, that a King of England must be a Protestant, that without doing any Violence to the Law, they might declare to James II. that they could not otherwise consider him, but as a private Person.  
But again, there is no Law expressed in so general and so precise terms, but admits of an Exception of Cases of Necessity: And according to this Rule, we are to understand the Laws of England, That the Parliament cannot make a Law without the King. Let us suppose, that in a Kingdom, such as England is, where the Estates have reserved to themselves one Part of the Sovereign Power, a King goes about to alienate all, or any Part of the Realm, to bring in a foreign Power, to abrogate the Ancient, to revoke all the Privileges of the People, to harrass his Subjects with an Army, to cause to Murder all those who comply not with his Pleasure, or all those whom he pleases so to treat: Will any one say, that the Estates, or the Parliaments, who are the trusties, Guarantees and Protectors of the Liberties of the People, have not a Power according to Law, to issue forth such Orders, and to take such Measures as may hinder the Violences committed by that Prince? and that for this Reason: The Parliament can do nothing, without the King's confent; and therefore cannot oppose the Violences done by him, for the King will never consent to it; I maintain, that he that would argue thus, has utterly lost his Wits. In vain have Parliaments reserved to themselves the Legislative Power, if they had no Authority to exercise it. In vain have they preserved their Privileges, if they had no Power for that Purpose. The Supreme Law does always interpret all other Laws, and make exceptions therein; And that Law is, The Safety and Preservation of the People; according to which Law, we ought to explain or limit that Law which says, The Parliament can do nothing without the King's consent. When the King and the People are opposite, the Parliament is Judge; But a Judge does not stand in need of the Consent of either of the Parties to give force to the Sentence that is pronounced. When the Parliament and the King are agreed, for the Preservation of Religion and of the Society, in that Case alone it is, that one can do nothing without the other. To make this Truth manifest, we need only invert the Position, and say, the King can do nothing without the Parliament; does it therefore follow, that if a Parliament is so headstrong as to render all the Laws of no effect, and to ruin the Nation, a King of England may not lawfully oppose them, and bring the Parliament within its due limits? He may do it without all doubt; in like manner, a Parliament may lawfully provide for the Security of the Nation, contrary to the King's Pleasure.  
My Author goes back to the Prince's Declaration, alleging it to be filled with sanguinary Orders. And what are those sanguinary Orders? They are such Clauses of the Prince's Declaration, which appeared to him to carry the greatest force in them. In one place, he calls those who have betrayed their Religion, and subverted the Laws of their Country, Execrable Offenders, who have justly deserved Death. In another place, He declares, that all Papists who shall be found with Arms in their Hands, or concealed in their Houses, about their Persons, or otherwise; or who shall be in any Civil or Military Employment under any Pretence whatsoever, shall receive no Quarter from his Army, but be treated as Highway Men, and Banditti by his Soldiers. In a third place, the Prince does say, That they who shall take Arms under any Popish Officer, and march under his Command, shall be considered as Complices in their Crimes, and Enemies to the Laws, and to their Country. And lastly, William of Nassaw saith elsewhere, That those Magistrates, and other Persons who shall refuse to assist him, and in Obedience to the Laws, to perform strictly whatever he does require of them, etc. shall be looked upon as the Greatest Offenders, and the most infamous of all Men, as Traitors to their Religion, to their Laws and to their Country, and that he will not fail to treat them accordingly.  
The Truth is, we cannot tell, if this Man is yet in his right Wits, or rather, if he is not one of those Bedlams who are tied, to prevent the Effects of their Rage. Miserable Soul! Are these the Marks, by which the Cruelty or Clemency of Princes is to be judged? Are they not rather Innocent Stratagems, by which they strike Terror, that no ill may ensue? Is not preventing of Resistance a proper means to hinder the Effusion of Blood? Is there any Necessity, that all such Threaten should be accomplished? How many Commanders and Generals have threatened the Cities which they besieged, that they would abandon them to the Fury of the Soldiers, if they would not surrender; to which nevertheless they afterwards proposed favourable Conditions for a Treaty? Let us trace the Footsteps of this Prince; Are they marked with Blood? What Persons has he put to death? Is there any Man who has lost so much as a Nail of his Finger? We know, that the Papists that are in London, and particularly the French talk with an unparallelled Insolence. The Parliament knows it; the King is informed of it, and hinders the Severities of Justice from taking hold of the Offenders. The Ambassadors of the Emperor and of the King of Spain see it; they acknowledge it, they declare to His Majesty the grateful Sense they have of his Clemency, and they inform their Masters of it. But, (it may be said) the Prince ought not to have denounced those terrible Menaces: If it were so that he ought not to have uttered those Threats, it would not have been the Effect of his Cruelty. It is in Actions, and not in Words that Men look for Blood and Cruelty. Besides that, the Prince had good reason to speak as he did, if he had just cause to do what he did. If he was in the wrong upon the matter, he was to be blamed in every Circumstance; but if he was justifiable in the main, he was justifiable in the whole Affair. For these are the ordinary Measures taken by Conquerors and Generals, in just Wars. They utter Threats, they impress Fear, and strike with Terror; they likewise chastise those who yield not themselves upon such Manifesto's. Those Traitors, who, in favour to the King, had betrayed their Country, Religion and Laws, deserved to be called Execrable by the Prince, and deserved all the Evils with which he threatened them, yet without any design of their Accomplishment, as it appeared by the Event. He commanded the Papists upon Pain of Death, to lay down their Arms. That had been good, if after he had declared War against Popery, upon his entering the Kingdom, he had suffered the Papists to meet together, and form a Body against him. He declares, that it was neither strictly the Persons of Papists, nay, nor their Religion that he had in his view, but that he was resolved to oppose their Attempts by which they endeavoured to destroy the Religion established by Law. Must he not then have been permitted to deprive them of their Arms at least, seeing he left them their Life, Property and Liberty of Conscience? The Man complains loudly, that the Prince, in his Declaration, sounds his Order for the Papists laying down their Arms, upon their Meeting about London and Westminster, with a barbarous Design of making some attempt upon the said Cities, either by Fire, or a Massacre, or by both together. He must certainly be very much in the wrong, who suspects Papists and Popery of such Attempts; they are very little acquainted with them. St. Bartholomew's Massacre, and many others committed in France: The Murders a hundred times attempted upon the person of Queen Elizabeth, and committed upon those of Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth: The Assassination of William Prince of Orange: The Gunpowder Plot for blowing up the Two Houses of Parliament in the beginning of the Reign of James the First: The Burning of London: The Assassination of Justice Godfrey: The Death of the Earl of Essex by a Razor; And that of King Charles the Second by Poison, with a Hundred other Erterprises of this nature, make it appear, that we commit an outrageous violence against Popery, if we believe, that she is capable of inspiring the blackest Designs.  
Now, by this time, the Man who has opposed the current of this present Narrative, thus far gins to vomit torrents of Choler, and accumulates Injuries upon Outrages.  
The Wretch is a Monstrous Exception out of every Rule, and particularly, out of this One, That Men without Judgement are ordinarily endowed with a good Memory; He talks like a Madman, without Judgement, and also without Memory. He has forgot where, and the person for whom he speaks. He speaks in France, and he speaks for James the Second. It is a mark of great judgement to look for Cruelty out of France, and to accuse a Foreign Prince thereof, whilst he lives under the most cruel Government that has been in Europe for these many Ages. A Government under which a Thousand Cruelties have been committed upon the Protestants to make them abjure their Religion. They abandoned them, their Honour and their Life, to the Insolence of the Soldiers. They tormented them by night and day; they burned, they racked, they tortured them. The resolutions of many were shaken by the cruel torments that were used. They massacred, and burnt and tore many in pieces alive. They left infinite numbers of People to perish in frightful Prisons, and in unspeakable Miseries. They snatched the Children from their Mothers, the Husbands from their Wives, the Wives from their Husbands, Friends from Friends, to send them away to perish in the American Islands, in a direful Exile, and horrible Miseries. When King William shall have done so much against the English Catholics, we will agree that they abdicate the Notion of his Royal Clemency. A Government moreover of whose Cruelty Foreign Nations have been sensible, which has not spared either the Honour, the Possessions or the Lives of their Allies and Neighbours, which has reduced into Ashes the most Beautiful Cities of Flanders and Italy, and which carries Horror and Desolation whithersoever she carries her Arms. These are the Men who accuse our Princes of Severity. Get you gone then, you Infamous Man! Go, and read Lectures of Clemency to your own Masters, before you charge ours with Cruelty. Take notice also for whom it is that you speak. You speak for a Prince who alone has spilt more Blood, by the hand of the Executioner, than Twenty of his Ancestors have done together. After the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth, he sent a Monster of Injustice and Cruelty into the West of England. He caused to Hang and Quarter more than two thousand persons in those Counties. An Example of horrible Cruelty, and which possibly cannot be paralleled in History. In the most Criminal Rebellions, the Heads are punished, and the Multitude is pardoned. But he was for cutting off both Leaders and People, and burying them under the same ruins. You speak for a Prince who is suspected to have his hands stained with his Brother's Blood, and to have dipped them in that of the Earl of Essex. You ought to have let these Ideas of Horror sleep, and engage those who wish him well, not to awaken them, and expose them to the view of England.  
This Infamous Libeler acts the Prophet too, and has found by an Astrological Scheme of his own, that the Prosperity of His Majesty of King William will not last long; but the Event without doubt will give this Prophet the Lie; God, by the continuance of his Favours and Blessings, will justify the Conduct of His Anointed, and of His Servant, and make Him Victorious, in spite of all the Efforts of Calumny, and the Machinations of his Enemies.  
FINIS.