AN
ANSWER
TO
A
LETTER
TO
A
BISHOP
,
&c.
IT
is
not
my
present
Task
to
enquire
,
nor
is
it
material
to
the
Cause
herein
debated
to
know
,
whether
the
Letter
to
a
Bishop
was
composed
by
one
or
more
:
I
shall
cite
it
as
the
Work
of
a
single
Person
,
and
treat
the
Authour
of
it
with
all
Christian
Candor
and
Charitable
Decency
,
that
he
may
conclude
Christianity
to
be
the
Practice
of
the
Refusers
of
the
New
Oaths
,
as
well
as
Conscience
to
be
their
Guide
.
I
shall
not
pursue
him
in
any
other
manner
than
the
subject
in
controversie
and
his
Discourse
shall
lead
me
to
,
and
his
Arguments
deserve
;
for
the
Design
of
these
Papers
is
,
not
contumeliously
or
with
bitter
reflexions
to
provoke
or
exasperate
any
person
or
party
to
a
scurrilous
Reply
;
but
fairly
to
debate
that
momentous
point
of
the
Oaths
wherein
not
a
few
persons
are
very
deeply
concerned
.
However
plausible
his
Arguments
about
the
Oaths
may
seem
to
an
unwary
Reader
,
yet
on
a
serious
and
strict
Review
,
most
of
the
Allegations
will
be
as
transparent
as
the
Lawnsleeves
,
to
whom
they
are
directed
;
and
will
be
found
to
want
a
more
close
and
solid
substance
to
terminate
the
enquiry
and
satisfie
the
conscience
of
a
considerate
Refuser
.
The
Authour
saith
,
Page
2.
That
he
will
not
judge
what
Reasons
of
dissatisfaction
some
of
his
Superiours
may
have
.
Perchance
his
Inferiors
also
may
have
the
same
Reasons
to
plead
for
themselves
.
It
is
obvious
from
those
words
to
infer
,
that
he
is
not
certain
of
that
point
for
which
he
writes
,
but
may
be
under
mistakes
,
because
he
knows
not
all
the
Reasons
which
may
be
alleged
in
contradiction
of
his
Sentiments
.
I
shall
wave
those
strong
and
numerous
Arguments
which
are
taken
from
the
matter
of
the
old
Oaths
of
Allegiance
and
Supremacy
,
wherein
we
have
solemnly
renounc'd
and
abjured
the
Popish
principles
of
deposing
Princes
,
and
absolving
Subjects
from
legal
Oaths
;
and
passing
by
other
various
and
dreadfull
Considerations
,
which
forcibly
dissuade
from
taking
the
new
Oaths
;
I
shall
confine
my self
to
an
impartial
Examination
of
what
the
Letter
to
a
Bishop
allegeth
,
and
by
fair
and
plain
Answers
make
it
appear
that
his
Reasons
are
not
sufficient
to
determin
the
Judgment
,
to
satisfie
and
secure
the
Conscience
;
but
that
the
Gordian
knot
of
the
old
Oaths
remains
as
yet
undissolved
.
There
are
two
things
proposed
by
our
Authour
,
by
the
proof
whereof
he
hopes
to
remove
all
doubts
and
scruples
.
The
first
is
,
That
the
Oaths
of
Supremacy
and
Allegiance
to
King
James
do
cease
to
oblige
us
.
Page
3.
The
second
,
That
we
may
lawfully
transfer
the
Oaths
on
K.
W.
and
Q.
M.
On
the
full
proof
of
these
the
truth
and
the
stress
of
the
Cause
depends
;
and
,
when
they
are
fairly
proved
,
they
may
be
inducements
to
comply
.
But
notwithstanding
what
he
hath
artificially
and
smoothly
attempted
by
specious
insinuations
,
the
scruples
remain
unsatisfied
,
the
light
is
as
dimm
as
it
was
before
,
and
we
cannot
induce
our
judgments
to
comply
with
what
the
understanding
doth
not
perceive
;
but
whether
the
failure
is
in
our
faculties
,
that
like
vitious
organs
are
indisposed
,
or
in
the
arguments
,
which
like
delusive
objects
exhibit
false
representations
,
is
now
to
be
considered
.
The
foundation
that
he
lays
to
prove
his
first
point
is
,
Page
3.
That
Oaths
cease
to
bind
when
the
Government
of
that
Person
to
whom
they
are
taken
is
at
an
end
.
This
is
an
ill
foundation
,
and
there
is
no
hopes
that
a
firm
building
can
be
erected
on
such
a
basis
.
't
is
the
onely
thing
he
desires
may
be
granted
to
him
,
in
order
to
ascertain
his
Cause
and
establish
his
Argument
.
I
would
fain
be
obliging
,
and
grant
him
what
he
craves
,
since
't
is
but
one
thing
civily
desired
,
could
I
be
just
to
my self
,
and
a
friend
to
truth
by
such
a
complyance
.
In
this
postulatum
there
is
both
sophistry
and
falshood
,
and
therefore
I
cannot
but
deny
it
.
It
is
craftily
put
,
but
it
is
not
generally
true
.
He
was
mistaken
about
it
,
when
he
thought
,
none
would
deny
it
;
and
that
he
is
mistaken
,
is
plain
to
him
that
reads
the
old
Oaths
;
for
therein
we
swore
not
onely
Faith
and
Allegeance
to
the
King
,
but
by
our
Oath
we
recognized
his
Right
also
;
for
in
the
Oath
we
declared
him
to
be
our
Rightfull
King
;
and
this
we
testified
in
our
Consciences
and
before
God
.
Now
,
I
think
,
none
will
deny
,
though
an
actual
exercise
of
the
Government
may
cease
,
yet
then
and
there
the
Right
may
continue
:
a
possession
may
be
in
one
,
and
the
right
in
another
;
or
else
what
will
become
of
the
distinction
de
jure
and
de
facto
,
in
deed
and
in
right
.
I
would
also
willingly
know
,
whether
the
Oaths
to
the
Right
of
King
Charles
the
First
,
did
cease
when
he
ceased
to
govern
?
And
,
I
think
,
none
will
deny
,
but
that
his
actual
Government
ceased
a
considerable
time
before
he
was
murthered
.
Neither
is
it
impertinent
to
demand
,
how
the
years
of
the
Reign
of
Charles
the
Second
are
computed
?
from
the
years
1648
or
1660
?
To
humane
appearance
his
Government
seemed
to
be
at
an
end
,
as
much
as
King
James's
at
present
,
and
something
more
,
if
you
put
Ireland
and
Scotland
into
the
balance
.
Can
he
be
so
hardy
as
to
say
,
that
our
Oaths
then
ceased
,
because
't
was
thought
his
Government
was
then
at
an
end
?
and
,
was
his
Government
at
an
end
when
he
continued
to
reign
?
and
,
was
he
not
said
to
reign
,
because
his
right
continued
,
though
he
was
out
of
possession
,
and
could
not
actually
exercise
it
any
more
in
England
than
King
James
at
present
doth
?
When
our
Authour
saith
,
The
Government
is
at
an
end
,
he
speaks
with
relation
to
King
James
,
as
his
following
words
do
manifest
,
and
without
such
a
reference
his
supposition
would
have
been
as
impertinent
as
't
is
now
notoriously
false
.
By
,
an
end
,
doth
he
mean
totally
,
perpetually
and
irreversibly
so
?
is
he
infallibly
sure
of
this
?
if
not
,
how
can
he
be
certain
,
that
the
Oath
is
at
an
end
?
is
King
James's
Government
totally
at
an
end
?
and
,
doth
he
cease
to
be
a
King
in
Ireland
?
if
it
is
said
,
Ireland
affects
not
us
in
England
,
let
it
be
remembred
,
that
we
have
recognized
him
in
the
Oath
to
be
rightfull
and
lawfull
King
and
supreme
Governour
in
all
his
Dominions
and
Countries
;
and
Ireland
was
then
certainly
reckoned
in
that
number
when
we
swore
.
It
seems
then
by
this
Authour
,
that
if
one
who
had
formerly
taken
the
Oaths
should
be
in
Ireland
,
his
Oath
would
not
cease
to
bind
,
because
King
James's
Covernment
is
not
there
at
an
end
.
According
to
this
doctrine
the
Oath
may
be
split
,
and
commodiously
said
to
bind
,
or
not
to
bind
,
according
to
the
diversity
of
Climates
,
and
that
the
Latitude
of
the
Conscience
is
to
be
measured
by
the
Elevation
of
the
Pole
,
and
according
to
the
Variation
of
the
Longitude
.
To
this
Consideration
I
shall
not
here
improperly
add
one
more
,
about
the
New
Oath
,
which
(
as
it
must
be
granted
)
was
made
to
K.
W.
and
Q.
M.
as
King
and
Queen
;
and
they
are
to
be
look'd
on
in
the
Oath
to
be
King
and
Queen
,
as
the
Convention
hath
declared
them
to
be
;
and
that
is
of
England
,
France
and
Ireland
;
now
I
would
be
informed
,
what
sort
of
King
and
Queen
of
Ireland
,
W.
and
M.
are
,
since
according
to
our
Authour
they
are
neither
so
de
jure
nor
de
facto
.
Not
this
way
,
because
King
James
doth
not
cease
to
be
King
de
facto
;
if
de
jure
,
then
for
the
same
reason
,
that
they
are
so
in
Ireland
,
they
must
be
so
in
England
too
,
which
yet
the
Convention
abhorr'd
to
swear
to
.
If
the
Right
is
in
them
,
why
should
any
scruple
to
recognize
it
by
Oath
?
If
not
,
where
is
the
Right
lodged
?
Is
the
Kingly
right
either
voted
or
disputed
out
of
the
World
?
If
it
remains
in
King
James
,
then
the
inference
should
be
,
Render
to
all
their
due
,
and
seek
not
to
deprive
him
of
that
which
is
his
right
.
The
Kingly
right
must
be
in
James
,
or
William
and
Mary
,
or
in
the
People
,
or
is
altogether
ceased
:
and
't
is
worth
a
man's
knowing
what
is
become
of
it
,
that
we
might
doe
right
to
every
one
,
and
no
wrong
to
our
own
Consciences
.
Whereas
't
is
said
,
Page
3.
that
,
The
Oath
ceaseth
to
bind
,
when
the
Government
of
the
Person
to
whom
we
have
sworn
is
at
an
end
;
I
answer
farther
,
That
a
temporary
cessation
of
a
Government
(
and
no
more
can
be
certainly
meant
as
yet
)
doth
not
void
the
full
obligation
of
the
Oath
,
that
is
absolute
.
For
though
the
variety
of
circumstances
,
and
the
necessity
of
affairs
,
and
the
impossibility
of
some
performances
,
may
for
the
present
suspend
the
actual
exercise
of
some
duties
,
which
in
other
circumstances
the
Oath
might
require
,
yet
they
do
not
totally
null
the
obligation
,
when
't
is
justly
required
,
and
can
be
truly
and
honestly
paid
;
the
Conscience
is
still
bound
,
though
the
particular
acts
pro
hic
&
nunc
are
forborn
,
and
we
may
safely
say
with
the
Moralists
,
that
the
Oath
binds
semper
,
though
not
ad
semper
;
always
,
but
not
at
every
time
.
From
hence
,
and
from
our
Author's
Position
,
we
may
undeniably
infer
,
That
if
the
Government
should
revert
,
(
and
who
can
tell
what
will
be
,
or
shall
come
to
pass
)
then
't
was
not
at
an
end
;
and
if
not
at
an
end
,
then
the
Oath
doth
not
cease
to
bind
;
and
what
satisfaction
can
any
one
give
me
,
if
I
should
be
eventually
,
and
certainly
forsworn
?
Lastly
,
His
desired
Principle
is
not
grantable
,
but
't
is
denied
as
false
,
and
detested
as
impious
;
for
,
where
an
Oath
is
made
to
divers
persons
distinctly
,
and
successively
,
as
the
Oaths
of
Allegiance
and
Supremacy
are
to
the
King
,
his
Heirs
and
lawfull
Successors
,
by
the
Oath
I
am
as
firmly
bound
(
respect
being
had
to
the
time
)
to
these
as
to
him
.
What
consequence
then
can
there
be
?
what
show
of
reason
to
infer
,
that
because
the
Government
of
King
James
(
taken
in
his
own
sense
,
whatever
it
be
)
is
at
an
end
,
therefore
the
Oath
doth
cease
to
bind
to
his
Heirs
and
lawfull
Successors
?
or
thus
,
because
King
James
ceaseth
to
be
a
King
,
I
will
be
perjured
to
others
;
he
is
fallen
from
the
Crown
,
and
I
will
renounce
my
Oath
,
my
Truth
,
my
Sincerity
,
and
my
Conscience
,
all
which
I
pledg'd
and
plighted
when
I
swore
;
and
the
words
of
the
Oath
will
declare
what
,
and
how
I
have
sworn
.
Upon
this
hopefull
basis
we
may
conclude
,
what
a
noble
Pyramid
will
be
erected
to
entomb
a
living
King
,
and
the
Consciences
of
his
Subjects
,
and
to
bury
both
out
of
remembrance
;
but
should
I
examine
by
a
larger
disquisition
each
particular
in
his
Building
,
his
Edifice
,
like
the
Pyramids
,
would
dwindle
into
an
imperceptible
extremity
.
His
first
advance
is
to
give
us
several
instances
(
the
same
,
which
are
to
be
found
in
a
certain
Ascham
.
Book
,
condemn'd
by
the
Decree
of
the
University
of
Oxon
1683.
)
whereby
the
Government
of
a
particular
person
may
cease
.
1.
By
Death
,
of
which
there
is
no
doubt
;
and
,
which
if
it
could
have
been
proved
of
King
James
,
some
of
his
Enemies
would
have
thought
it
a
much
better
instance
than
all
the
rest
.
2.
When
the
Person
will
govern
no
longer
,
and
voluntarily
deserts
the
Government
.
3.
When
he
is
Conquer'd
,
and
involuntarily
withdraws
himself
,
and
can
protect
his
Subjects
no
longer
.
These
two
last
ways
are
all
the
rest
,
as
he
calls
them
,
and
by
his
disjunctive
(
or
)
makes
no
more
,
as
't
is
evident
to
him
that
reads
the
third
Page
of
the
Letter
,
and
yet
presently
divides
them
into
three
,
and
omits
the
popular
way
of
protection
,
which
he
had
mention'd
before
;
if
the
proof
of
one
of
these
three
had
been
sufficient
to
satisfie
all
honest
men
,
as
he
thinks
,
was
it
not
to
think
all
honest
men
unreasonable
,
or
his
work
superfluous
,
to
undertake
the
proof
of
more
?
But
how
all
these
ways
can
be
applied
to
King
James
,
I
think
it
a
very
difficult
task
to
prove
either
to
honest
,
or
dishonest
men
,
though
he
may
not
think
it
so
;
and
for
this
very
reason
I
judge
it
no
easie
attempt
,
because
the
ways
contain
,
and
evidently
exhibit
such
things
,
as
the
unlucky
men
of
a
disputing
Age
call
Contradictions
;
for
(
except
he
flies
for
refuge
to
the
dispute
of
mixt
actions
in
Morality
)
voluntarily
and
involuntarily
are
contradictory
terms
;
and
if
it
be
proved
that
he
was
conquer'd
,
and
forc'd
away
involuntarily
,
it
will
not
easily
be
apprehended
how
he
Abdicated
;
and
(
pag
.
7.
)
he
says
,
That
the
Government
was
subverted
in
the
Parliament
after
Monmouth's
Rebellion
:
And
I
am
of
opinion
with
him
,
that
if
the
Government
was
subverted
,
the
constitution
was
at
an
end
(
in
his
own
words
)
except
he
will
be
so
critical
,
as
to
say
,
that
the
Government
may
be
subverted
,
and
yet
not
at
an
end
,
which
would
be
destructive
both
to
his
argument
,
and
his
method
of
arguing
;
and
yet
(
pag
.
14.
)
he
affirms
,
that
the
King's
voluntary
withdrawing
was
a
receding
fully
from
his
Government
;
and
(
pag
.
21.
)
the
late
King
fell
perfectly
here
from
all
Sovereignty
,
by
deserting
the
Government
;
whereas
(
pag
.
22.
)
he
saith
,
the
late
King
did
lose
his
Kingdom
;
and
(
pag
.
4.
)
the
late
King
ceas'd
to
govern
as
King
of
England
a
good
while
before
the
Prince
of
Orange
Landed
here
.
Now
I
would
willingly
know
how
the
Government
was
at
an
end
,
when
the
King
did
not
cease
to
Govern
:
or
if
it
was
at
an
end
in
Octob
.
1685.
how
came
it
to
an
end
by
the
King's
leaving
his
Kingdom
,
when
't
was
at
an
end
above
three
years
before
?
Is
not
this
to
kill
a
dead
man
,
and
to
repeat
,
and
re-act
,
what
was
never
said
or
done
before
?
Though
,
by
the
way
,
if
the
Writer
of
the
Letter
had
respected
Truth
as
much
as
his
Cause
,
he
might
have
opportunely
,
and
easily
,
without
the
racking
of
his
brains
,
distinguish't
between
withdrawing
out
of
the
Kingdom
,
and
receding
from
the
Government
;
for
though
King
James
quitted
the
Kingdom
,
his
Letters
,
Declarations
,
and
the
manifold
Post-facts
evidently
demonstrate
,
that
he
did
not
voluntarily
quit
the
Government
,
except
the
Author
will
say
,
that
he
knew
the
King's
mind
better
than
the
King
himself
did
,
or
could
;
to
which
our
Author
seems
to
pretend
,
by
presuming
to
know
some
of
the
King's
Intreigues
about
his
return
,
which
the
King
never
discover'd
to
him
.
I
will
add
one
Remark
more
,
That
whatever
deference
of
honour
he
would
be
thought
to
pay
to
the
Wisdom
of
the
Nation
met
in
the
Convention
,
or
however
justly
severe
against
the
saucy
Author
of
the
Dissenter's
Case
,
for
want
of
Manners
,
he
seems
to
fall
under
the
same
condemnation
,
by
attempting
to
prove
a
Conquest
,
the
thoughts
whereof
the
Prince
of
Orange
disclaim'd
,
as
wicked
,
in
his
Declaration
;
and
the
Convention
,
waving
all
pretences
of
a
Conquest
,
vacated
the
Throne
on
the
account
of
Abdication
:
How
dares
he
then
to
say
't
was
a
Conquest
,
when
the
Convention
voted
it
an
Abdication
;
but
if
Conquest
and
Abdication
be
the
same
vacating
,
I
cannot
ken
the
subtilty
of
our
Writer
to
distinguish
them
in
the
foundation
and
process
of
his
discourse
.
Whoever
shall
impartially
weigh
,
and
compare
these
things
together
,
will
think
it
as
improper
,
as
inconsistent
,
to
apply
these
contradictory
ways
to
the
case
of
King
James
:
If
then
his
general
lump
proves
naught
,
't
is
to
be
doubted
,
the
Particulars
will
not
be
found
on
tryal
very
sound
;
nor
that
to
be
saleable
in
the
Retail
,
which
is
not
vendible
in
the
Gross
.
But
before
I
undertake
the
Discussion
of
any
one
of
these
particulars
,
I
crave
leave
to
tell
the
Reader
,
and
thereby
to
obviate
all
unjust
Censures
,
that
my
design
herein
is
not
to
affront
the
present
Powers
,
nor
to
justifie
any
Male-administration
,
nor
apologize
for
any
Violations
of
the
Subject's
Rights
,
nor
excuse
any
unjust
Prosecutions
,
or
illegal
Proceedings
.
This
would
be
a
Theme
for
a
Sycophant
,
as
fordid
and
as
gross
as
the
attempt
would
be
vile
and
barbarous
to
trample
on
crowned
Heads
,
to
blacken
all
the
Royal
actions
,
and
aggravate
all
their
humane
failures
into
monstrous
Crimes
,
and
unpardonable
Errors
;
whatever
some
Men
in
their
great
Wisdoms
may
think
,
the
wisest
of
Men
hath
taught
us
,
Not
to
curse
the
King
in
the
Bed-chamber
.
Few
there
are
who
consider
the
anxious
cares
,
the
vexatious
sollicitudes
,
the
numerous
troubles
,
and
the
unaccountable
miseries
that
seize
the
Crown
,
and
continually
haunt
the
Throne
.
It
may
be
said
of
most
Diadems
,
what
Pope
Adrian
the
Sixth
said
of
himself
,
That
it
was
a
miserable
thing
to
be
a
Pope
,
because
he
could
not
do
what
good
he
would
.
What
base
ends
and
projects
do
busie
and
designing
Courtiers
,
under
fair
pretences
,
suggest
to
Kings
,
and
with
repeted
Clamours
,
and
specious
Allegations
,
insinuate
into
the
sacred
Breasts
of
easie
Princes
most
flagitious
methods
to
accomplish
their
wicked
designs
.
If
all
publick
Acts
and
Counsels
were
sent
home
to
their
proper
Authors
,
the
King's
share
would
be
found
less
than
the
proportion
of
many
others
;
and
if
every
one
was
to
bear
their
own
burthen
,
the
King
might
find
ease
,
whilst
others
sink
under
their
weight
;
't
is
neither
common
Charity
nor
Justice
to
load
the
King
with
all
the
corruptions
of
Courts
,
and
the
miscarriages
in
his
Officers
.
If
such
proceedings
were
approveable
,
how
many
Grandees
would
be
rendred
altogether
mute
,
when
they
should
be
required
to
answer
for
all
the
irregularities
of
Tenants
,
that
should
be
committed
in
their
Families
and
Lordships
.
Let
the
Nobles
apply
the
instant
case
,
and
perhaps
they
may
find
a
great
parity
of
reason
to
pity
and
indulge
a
King
,
wherein
they
themselves
may
stand
in
need
of
Mercy
.
It
ought
to
be
consider'd
,
that
scarce
any
illegal
courses
can
be
introduc'd
among
us
without
the
concurrence
of
the
Subjects
;
the
unjustifiable
Commands
of
a
King
,
attended
even
with
frowns
and
menaces
,
will
prove
fruitless
and
vain
,
without
the
instrumental
compliance
of
sneaking
Inferiors
to
actuate
them
,
who
by
their
dastardly
submission
may
prepare
a
disingenuous
method
to
ruine
their
own
Posterity
,
if
not
themselves
,
in
a
turn
of
affairs
,
and
change
of
Governors
,
and
may
be
called
to
a
severe
account
in
a
future
Reign
,
though
they
escape
a
just
prosecution
in
the
present
;
the
Injunctions
of
a
King
may
be
unjust
,
but
can
injure
none
,
except
the
fellow
Subjects
put
them
in
execution
,
which
may
prove
as
fatal
to
themselves
,
as
injurious
to
others
;
and
on
that
the
Maxim
in
our
Law
,
and
the
Practice
in
the
Government
is
founded
,
That
the
King
can
do
no
wrong
.
There
was
scarce
any
thing
attempted
by
King
James
,
but
there
were
specious
pretences
of
Law
alledged
to
justifie
and
maintain
it
;
and
many
,
whose
Office
it
was
(
if
not
their
Oath
also
)
rightly
to
inform
the
King
,
and
to
do
Justice
between
Him
and
his
People
,
who
either
voted
for
its
Lawfulness
,
or
acted
the
thing
.
Were
there
not
a
Lord
Chancellor
,
and
a
Lord
Chief
Justice
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Commission
?
Were
there
not
two
Judges
employed
in
ejecting
the
President
,
Fellows
,
and
Demies
of
Magdalen-Colledge
?
Did
not
many
of
the
Judges
give
their
Opinion
for
Law
for
executing
deserting
Soldiers
in
time
of
Peace
,
and
for
the
Suspending
and
Dispencing
Power
?
Deplorable
is
the
state
of
Kings
,
if
they
must
be
dethroned
,
because
their
Judges
are
not
so
wise
,
nor
so
honest
as
they
ought
to
be
:
when
by
that
Law
their
Opinions
,
and
Determinations
,
and
Constructions
of
the
Law
must
go
for
Law
,
and
yet
it
must
be
unlawfull
for
Kings
to
follow
their
Judgments
,
and
execute
their
Decrees
and
Sentences
;
and
to
act
contrary
to
them
,
is
either
a
breach
of
the
Law
,
or
an
undue
enlargement
,
or
diminution
of
the
Prerogative
,
or
an
encroachment
on
the
People's
Rights
:
How
unhappily
intangled
are
those
Princes
,
who
fall
into
such
intricate
Labyrinths
,
that
they
must
necessarily
offend
in
whatsoever
they
are
directed
,
or
inclined
to
chuse
:
't
is
not
their
Province
to
understand
all
the
difficulties
of
the
Law
,
nor
the
exact
qualification
of
such
whom
they
appoint
to
be
Judges
;
they
see
with
other
mens
Eyes
,
and
approve
by
other
mens
Commendations
.
Now
if
those
that
are
thus
appointed
undertake
the
employment
,
when
they
know
the
Law
doth
incapacitate
them
,
let
them
suffer
for
this
insolence
and
presumption
;
if
they
know
not
the
Law
,
let
their
insufficiency
hasten
their
chastisement
and
removal
for
the
admonition
of
future
generations
.
If
it
be
objected
,
that
King
James
knew
some
incapable
,
whom
he
preferred
to
Employments
:
It
may
be
replied
,
1.
That
the
actual
exercise
of
the
Office
by
such
,
and
not
the
nomination
of
them
to
it
,
is
the
breach
of
the
Law
.
2.
That
the
Judges
,
whose
Office
it
was
to
interpret
the
Law
,
actually
concurr'd
in
the
confirmation
of
them
,
and
in
the
actual
exercise
of
the
Office
by
them
,
were
joyned
in
Commissions
with
them
,
acted
with
them
,
and
were
treated
as
legal
Judges
in
their
proceedings
;
which
,
3dly
,
proves
,
That
not
the
devices
of
the
King
,
who
can
do
no
wrong
,
but
the
acting
of
the
Subjects
properly
,
and
immediately
deprave
the
Government
;
which
Considerations
,
in
some
measure
,
will
invalidate
his
first
Proposition
,
which
is
now
to
be
discuss'd
.
1.
That
the
Oaths
to
King
James
,
as
King
,
oblige
no
longer
,
nor
further
,
than
he
continued
to
be
King
,
i.e.
to
govern
as
King
of
England
;
and
that
he
ceas'd
to
govern
as
King
of
England
a
good
while
before
the
Prince
of
Orange
Landed
here
;
which
was
,
as
he
says
,
pag
.
7.
in
October
,
after
Monmouth's
Rebellion
,
when
the
King
by
resolving
to
continue
some
Popish
Officers
,
altered
the
English
Constitution
,
and
made
a
complete
subversion
of
the
legal
Government
.
Lo
here
an
excellent
rope
of
Sand
to
bind
a
loose
Conscience
;
a
most
curious
receipt
,
if
well
improved
,
to
ease
crown'd
Heads
of
the
burthen
of
their
Diadems
,
and
to
gratifie
all
ambitious
pretenders
,
if
they
can
prove
but
successfull
;
a
doctrine
if
well
confirm'd
,
that
deserves
the
best
preferment
;
but
chiefly
a
most
seasonable
Caveat
to
all
regnant
Princes
to
beware
of
Popish
Officers
,
and
of
perverting
one
single
Law
,
which
,
besides
other
direfull
invisible
effects
,
by
this
Author's
argument
,
destroys
a
whole
Government
,
and
dethrones
a
King
for
ever
,
and
may
be
as
terrible
to
any
other
,
as
to
a
rightfull
Prince
!
I
think
our
Author
will
not
say
that
King
James
broke
all
the
Laws
of
the
Land
;
and
at
present
I
will
not
dispute
with
him
,
but
suppose
that
he
brake
some
of
them
;
though
to
establish
this
supposition
,
and
thereby
make
room
for
his
Inferences
,
he
should
have
evinc'd
,
that
the
Laws
against
Recusants
and
Dissenters
did
equally
bind
the
King
not
to
nominate
such
to
Offices
and
Employments
civil
or
military
,
as
it
did
bind
them
not
to
exercise
those
Employments
;
the
Laws
were
enacted
against
those
that
were
incapacitated
,
not
against
those
that
should
conser
the
places
of
Employment
on
them
;
it
would
be
extremely
rigorous
for
a
Patron
to
lose
the
perpetuity
of
an
Advowson
,
because
his
Clerk
is
a
Papist
;
or
a
Corporation
their
Charter
,
because
the
Town-Clerk
is
a
Recusant
,
or
Dissenter
:
Doth
every
Collonel
forfeit
his
Freehold
Estate
if
he
nominates
an
unqualified
person
to
an
inferior
Office
?
The
Law
provides
a
penalty
for
the
Offendor
,
but
that
can
be
no
offence
which
the
Law
hath
not
forbidden
:
It
had
been
honestly
done
by
the
Author
of
the
Letter
,
if
he
had
prov'd
,
1.
That
the
breach
of
some
Laws
completely
subverts
the
whole
Government
,
and
unkings
the
supreme
Governor
;
and
that
every
act
of
injustice
voids
the
Magistracy
:
It
had
been
a
notable
Exploit
,
if
he
had
proved
the
same
of
our
National
Laws
,
which
Saint
James
speaks
of
the
Divine
,
That
he
who
offends
in
one
,
is
guilty
of
all
:
If
so
,
Lord
have
mercy
on
the
generality
of
this
Nation
.
2.
He
should
have
shown
what
those
particular
Laws
were
,
produced
the
very
particular
proviso's
,
and
branches
of
the
Statutes
,
that
were
broken
by
King
James
,
wherein
the
Kings
of
England
have
bound
themselves
,
their
Heirs
and
Successors
,
under
a
forfeiture
of
the
Crown
,
if
they
break
this
or
that
Law
,
or
preferr'd
persons
who
were
not
qualified
.
3.
He
should
have
proved
plainly
and
clearly
,
that
the
Oaths
were
taken
on
such
a
condition
,
and
with
such
a
reserve
,
that
they
did
bind
no
longer
than
the
King
did
punctually
and
exactly
observe
all
the
Laws
,
and
that
the
Oaths
ought
to
be
,
and
have
been
constantly
thus
understood
.
For
want
of
these
proofs
on
this
Head
of
discourse
,
I
conclude
,
that
by
this
Argument
it
doth
not
appear
,
that
the
Oaths
do
cease
to
bind
;
To
say
,
that
the
King
would
govern
no
longer
,
is
an
Assertion
that
may
please
or
delude
a
credulous
person
,
who
will
not
be
scrupulous
,
because
he
resolves
to
comply
,
but
will
never
be
swallowed
by
him
who
is
govern'd
by
sincere
Truths
,
not
bold
Asseverations
.
Perchance
some
may
understand
hereby
,
that
King
James
totally
abandoned
,
and
willingly
quitted
the
Government
,
and
that
he
never
intended
to
resume
it
actually
again
,
nor
would
,
if
he
might
and
could
,
return
to
govern
again
.
This
is
such
a
bare
fac'd
errant
contradiction
to
common
sense
,
that
it
would
be
little
less
than
a
shamefull
attempt
to
refute
such
a
notorious
falshood
;
and
to
say
,
that
he
subverted
all
Laws
,
because
he
violated
some
of
them
;
and
that
the
Violation
of
a
few
,
or
of
one
Penal
Law
,
presently
dissolves
the
whole
constitution
of
Government
,
is
such
a
gross
inconsequence
,
that
if
the
nature
of
the
thing
would
bear
it
,
it
might
be
felt
,
as
the
Aegyptian
darkness
was
:
If
it
be
a
true
consequence
,
I
know
not
,
whenever
we
had
a
Government
,
when
all
our
Laws
were
duly
observed
,
and
,
I
believe
,
never
shall
;
I
am
sure
they
are
not
at
present
:
And
,
will
our
Author
say
,
we
are
under
a
Dissolution
,
when
his
Title-page
calls
it
a
Settlement
?
but
whether
a
Settlement
in
our
legal
Possessions
,
or
a
Settlement
out
of
them
,
sad
experience
,
I
fear
,
will
resolve
too
many
.
Kings
may
cease
to
be
Regular
Governors
,
and
yet
continue
Regnant
Kings
still
;
the
Government
,
and
the
Right
to
govern
may
remain
,
when
the
Administration
in
some
particulars
is
found
to
be
illegal
:
this
the
Author
frequently
thought
,
when
he
frequently
,
according
to
the
English
Liturgy
,
prayed
for
King
James
after
October
,
Anno
1685.
That
the
King
may
legally
employ
Papists
as
inferior
Servants
,
or
as
common
Soldiers
,
I
think
,
none
can
legally
deny
;
That
Popish
Officers
should
not
be
employed
,
was
the
intent
of
the
Law
;
but
that
the
King
would
cease
to
be
,
when
he
should
resolve
to
continue
such
(
for
their
fidelity
to
,
and
courage
for
the
King
)
as
Commission'd
Officers
,
is
an
effect
,
that
,
I
believe
,
the
Law-makers
were
not
sagacious
enough
to
foresee
,
nor
thoughtfull
enough
to
dream
of
:
If
King
James
by
granting
such
Commissions
,
and
thereby
dispensing
with
one
Law
,
did
forfeit
the
Government
,
how
came
it
to
pass
that
King
Charles
the
Second
continued
the
Government
,
when
he
granted
a
Toleration
to
the
whole
Kingdom
?
and
,
is
it
not
intolerable
partiality
,
to
be
so
severe
against
a
King
for
dispensing
with
the
Oath
,
when
so
many
Protestant
Officers
,
and
the
generality
of
the
Kingdom
,
dispensed
with
themselves
,
by
omitting
to
swear
Allegiance
,
which
the
Law
required
of
them
?
And
is
it
express'd
in
the
Statute
,
or
can
the
construction
of
it
be
?
that
the
King
dispossesseth
himself
of
his
Kingdom
,
when
he
grants
such
preterlegal
Commissions
:
but
whatever
malignity
there
is
in
such
Grants
,
this
is
not
the
very
unkinging
Crime
,
as
our
Author
states
the
point
;
for
then
King
James
would
have
ceased
to
govern
when
he
granted
those
Commissions
,
which
was
before
Monmouth's
Rebellion
.
But
the
fatal
demerit
,
and
the
complete
subversion
is
founded
on
his
Resolution
to
stand
by
the
Grants
of
such
Commissions
.
Page
7.
So
that
if
he
had
only
granted
them
,
but
not
resolved
to
continue
them
,
he
had
not
uncrowned
himself
.
By
the
same
sort
of
Logick
one
might
argue
,
that
the
unlawfulness
of
the
New
Oath
consists
not
in
the
taking
of
it
,
but
in
the
resolution
to
stand
to
it
,
and
keep
it
.
I
wish
we
were
not
more
likely
to
suffer
for
the
former
Oath
at
present
,
than
he
is
for
the
latter
.
I
cannot
but
wonder
at
our
Author's
design
in
enumerating
the
serveral
breaches
of
Law
,
(
pag
.
11.
)
as
if
his
whole
Government
had
been
one
intire
opposition
to
all
Laws
,
[
inferring
according
to
his
usual
practice
,
a
general
from
a
few
particulars
]
which
breaches
happened
after
the
dismission
of
the
Parliament
in
1685.
to
what
purpose
,
I
pray
you
,
when
the
subversion
was
completed
before
;
except
by
a
new-found
rule
in
policy
,
a
subversion
can
be
more
than
complete
.
But
what
is
wanted
in
reason
,
shall
be
supplied
and
supported
by
one
single
authority
;
to
which
end
the
old
Lawyer
Bracton
is
cited
in
these
words
,
Non
est
rex
,
ubi
dominatur
voluntas
,
&
non
lex
.
And
(
pag
.
12.
)
the
Author
hath
another
Citation
,
Nec
nomen
regis
in
eo
constabit
.
An
easie
and
happy
way
of
arguing
it
would
certainly
be
,
if
every
good
expression
of
an
old
Author
could
be
converted
into
a
good
reason
;
is
not
this
to
argue
from
merit
to
reality
,
and
to
conclude
every
one
to
be
no
more
than
he
truly
deserves
?
What
may
not
one
continue
a
King
,
Judge
,
or
Subject
,
though
he
ceaseth
to
be
a
good
and
a
just
one
?
Doth
every
man
cease
to
be
a
man
,
who
doth
not
govern
himself
in
all
things
,
according
to
reason
?
or
,
is
every
living
Traytor
executed
,
that
deserves
to
be
hanged
?
Let
us
beware
of
such
argumentations
,
for
fear
we
should
deprive
our selves
of
what
we
do
not
deserve
to
possess
,
and
devest
our selves
of
all
our
legal
rights
;
because
we
have
not
made
the
Law
the
rule
of
our
obedience
,
and
the
measure
of
our
submission
.
The
Subjects
indeed
may
forfeit
their
rights
,
for
the
Law
and
Practice
hath
determined
so
,
though
some
may
think
it
intolerable
,
it
should
be
so
,
because
their
crimes
and
misdemcanours
are
really
intolerable
.
Whatever
gloss
the
Author
of
the
Letter
put
on
Bracton
,
his
meaning
cannot
be
,
that
the
King
loseth
his
Authority
by
an
arbitrary
illegal
act
,
for
these
are
his
express
words
in
the
close
of
the
same
Chapter
;
Si
autem
ab
eo
(
sc
.
Rege
)
petatur
(
cùm
breve
non
currat
contra
ipsum
)
locus
erit
supplicationi
,
quòd
factum
suum
corrigat
&
emendet
;
quod
quidem
si
non
fecerit
,
satìs
ei
ad
poenam
,
quòd
Dominum
expectet
ultorem
;
nemo
enim
de
factis
suis
praesumat
disputare
,
multò
fortiùs
contra
factum
suum
venire
.
The
same
Bracton
saith
of
the
King
;
Omnis
quidem
sub
eo
,
&
ipse
sub
nullo
,
nisi
tantùm
sub
Deo
.
He
addeth
also
,
Ipse
autem
Rex
non
debet
esse
sub
homine
,
sed
sub
Deo
,
&
sub
Lege
,
i.e.
under
the
direction
of
the
Law
,
[
for
no
other
sense
the
words
can
bear
]
and
only
accountable
to
God
,
but
not
to
man
,
who
hath
no
power
nor
superiority
over
the
King
,
as
Bracton
there
argueth
.
Cap.
8.
li.
1.
But
if
our
Author
thinks
that
every
sentence
of
Bracton
is
good
Law
and
good
Divinity
,
let
him
favour
the
World
with
a
Comment
on
these
words
in
the
same
Chapter
of
Bracton
,
Virgo
Maria
,
mater
Domini
,
singulari
privilegio
supra
legem
fuit
.
We
know
,
Depositions
have
not
been
impracticable
in
this
Land
,
but
a
Forfeiture
of
the
Crown
we
think
(
by
our
Author's
leave
)
to
be
very
monstrous
here
;
and
if
rarity
and
deformity
make
Monsters
,
the
Author's
assertion
will
be
a
very
ugly
one
,
and
no
way
reconcileable
to
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
.
Who
is
sufficient
and
capable
by
the
constitution
of
our
Government
to
determine
the
cause
and
merit
of
a
Forfeiture
?
Who
shall
erect
the
Court
to
examine
the
matter
of
fact
,
and
to
pass
sentence
on
the
allegations
,
but
such
diabolical
Monsters
as
erected
an
High-Court
to
murther
King
Charles
the
First
?
To
whom
must
the
Forfeiture
be
made
,
and
who
shall
take
it
?
If
the
King
be
Supreme
,
and
we
have
sworn
he
is
so
,
can
there
be
a
Superior
to
the
Supreme
?
and
,
where
must
the
Dernier
resort
be
in
our
Constitution
,
which
must
be
acknowledged
in
all
Governments
,
beyond
which
there
lies
no
Appeal
.
The
Crown
of
England
is
declared
by
the
Laws
to
be
Imperial
,
and
the
Statute
of
Praemunire
,
16
Rich
.
2.5
.
expresly
saith
,
that
it
is
immediately
subject
to
God
,
and
none
other
.
If
you
'll
say
,
he
hath
forfeited
the
Supremacy
,
this
is
a
begging
of
the
question
,
and
the
foresaid
demands
will
return
still
.
Suppose
a
Rabble
or
a
Consult
should
vote
a
Forfeiture
,
and
the
King
should
gain-say
it
,
what
effect
can
the
sentence
have
?
If
you
fly
to
force
and
arms
,
this
the
Law
utterly
disclaims
;
and
many
of
the
chiefest
Subjects
have
declared
,
that
it
is
unlawfull
to
take
up
arms
against
the
King
,
upon
any
pretence
whatever
.
And
the
Statute
12
Car
.
2.13
.
hath
declared
,
That
by
the
undoubted
fundamental
Laws
of
this
Kingdom
,
neither
the
Peers
of
this
Realm
,
nor
the
Commons
,
nor
both
together
in
Parliament
,
nor
the
People
collectively
or
representatively
,
nor
any
other
person
whatsoever
,
ever
had
,
hath
,
or
ought
to
have
any
coercive
power
over
the
persons
of
the
Kings
of
this
Realm
:
How
this
agrees
with
the
late
transactions
,
every
one
can
tell
without
much
labour
to
inform
him
.
Where
a
forfeiture
is
supposed
,
there
the
King
is
accountable
;
but
how
he
can
be
supreme
,
and
over
all
,
and
all
judicial
proceedings
issue
forth
in
his
name
,
and
by
his
power
,
and
yet
be
accountable
to
subjects
,
who
have
no
power
over
him
,
who
have
sworn
allegiance
to
,
and
supremacy
in
him
,
is
to
me
unaccountable
,
and
,
in
regard
of
our
Laws
,
to
all
men
invisible
:
Mr.
Prinne's
critical
distinction
would
here
do
good
service
to
our
Author
,
who
makes
the
Parliament
the
supreme
power
,
and
the
King
the
supreme
Governour
;
but
,
hath
the
King
no
negative
voice
?
can
he
govern
supremely
without
a
supreme
power
to
govern
by
?
and
whatever
power
he
pretended
then
to
be
in
the
Parliament
,
yet
the
fore-quoted
Statute
faith
,
that
,
by
the
fundamental
Laws
of
this
Land
,
the
Parliament
hath
no
coercive
power
over
the
King
.
And
another
Statute
in
the
same
King's
reign
hath
declared
the
Militia
to
be
solely
in
the
King
.
Where
can
there
be
a
supreme
power
,
that
hath
not
a
coercive
power
?
Let
the
point
of
forfeiture
be
as
plainly
proved
from
our
constitutions
,
and
let
our
Author
tell
us
in
what
Statute
Forfeiture
is
to
be
found
;
as
we
can
,
that
the
King
is
Supreme
in
all
causes
,
and
over
all
persons
,
and
unaccountable
,
and
subject
to
none
but
God
;
and
then
't
will
appear
that
he
hath
omitted
something
which
he
ought
to
have
performed
.
But
to
call
things
by
what
names
he
pleases
,
and
then
to
give
what
sense
he
pleases
to
those
names
,
is
not
enough
to
satisfie
inquisitive
honest
men
.
He
who
supposeth
and
would
prove
a
forfeiture
,
must
infer
and
acknowledge
the
excellent
and
usefull
doctrine
of
deposition
,
which
,
I
believe
,
our
Author
hath
renounced
more
than
once
or
twice
;
for
,
I
believe
,
he
hath
taken
the
old
Oaths
,
and
subscribed
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England
in
the
Articles
and
Homilies
more
than
thrice
.
For
if
a
forfeiture
be
voted
,
and
a
King
will
not
submit
thereto
,
how
can
the
forfeiture
take
place
,
except
a
deposition
be
enforc'd
?
and
to
what
purpose
is
a
forfeiture
,
except
a
deposition
doth
ensue
?
To
this
our
Author
subjoins
a
wild
,
uncharitable
,
and
unaccountable
supposition
,
and
then
makes
a
demand
thereon
;
If
a
King
should
impose
taxes
by
his
sole
authority
,
and
levy
them
by
borrowed
French
Dragoons
,
should
annul
our
laws
,
rights
and
properties
,
and
should
require
obedience
without
reserve
,
by
what
names
should
such
practices
be
called
?
I
answer
,
unjust
,
tyrannical
,
illegal
practices
;
such
unkingly
violences
would
declare
a
wicked
and
merciless
temper
of
mind
,
but
would
not
properly
null
the
Laws
,
which
were
not
made
,
nor
can
be
repealed
by
his
single
act
;
their
obligation
and
sanction
would
continue
,
though
they
were
grosly
invaded
and
violated
for
a
while
.
But
if
a
King
should
attempt
to
alter
the
whole
frame
of
Government
,
and
make
his
free-born
subjects
bond-slaves
,
Must
patience
be
the
onely
business
in
such
a
season
?
and
,
can
a
loyal
heart
either
with
honesty
make
,
or
with
patience
yield
to
such
vile
and
indecent
surmises
?
Did
our
Author
really
believe
that
King
James
intended
such
things
?
if
not
,
why
doth
he
suppose
them
?
if
he
does
,
was
it
not
a
strain
beyond
episcopal
rhetorick
for
our
Author
in
his
Addresses
and
Petition
to
style
King
James
his
most
excellent
and
gratious
Majesty
after
the
cessation
of
his
Government
by
male-administration
,
and
not
many
months
before
his
departure
?
if
such
practices
import
grace
and
excellency
,
may
the
invention
of
the
complement
be
the
Author's
honour
,
of
which
,
I
believe
,
none
will
bereave
him
,
and
to
which
at
present
I
'll
make
no
return
.
But
granting
what
is
disingenuous
to
suppose
,
if
such
practices
should
ever
happen
,
which
God
avert
from
this
Nation
,
the
innocent
and
most
Christian
remedy
which
I
know
of
,
and
which
the
Scripture
allows
,
is
,
with
patience
to
submit
to
that
which
legally
I
cannot
prevent
nor
remove
.
The
Law
is
our
Director
,
which
says
,
It
is
not
lawfull
to
take
up
arms
against
the
King
on
any
pretence
;
and
submission
is
our
refuge
:
Resistance
by
force
of
arms
is
not
our
Counsellor
or
Sanctuary
,
the
Law
pronounces
it
unjust
to
bear
arms
offensive
or
defensive
against
the
King
,
and
Christianity
dooms
it
sinfull
;
except
we
can
plead
one
Crime
to
be
a
cure
for
another
,
and
that
the
best
remedy
to
preserve
some
Laws
is
,
to
break
many
more
,
that
are
more
necessary
to
the
safety
and
ends
of
Government
.
I
believe
there
is
scarce
any
one
but
will
assert
,
that
some
inconveniences
of
an
unjust
Government
are
far
more
eligible
and
tolerable
than
Rebellion
with
all
its
deplorable
attendants
,
effects
and
consequents
:
if
we
compare
this
years
war
and
changes
with
the
last
years
violations
and
oppressions
,
I
believe
,
some
may
say
,
we
have
bought
a
very
dear
bargain
,
when
some
must
sell
their
estates
to
preserve
their
properties
,
exchange
their
liberty
for
a
prison
,
possessions
for
ejectments
,
and
when
the
Tradesmen
are
ruined
in
hopes
to
increase
the
trade
of
the
Nation
.
The
two
main
hinges
and
fundamental
supports
of
our
Government
are
said
to
be
,
Legislation
,
and
Administration
,
both
which
our
Author
says
were
subverted
by
King
James
,
and
both
which
shall
now
be
considered
.
The
legislative
power
is
in
King
,
Lords
spiritual
and
temporal
,
and
the
Commons
assembled
in
Parliament
.
The
King
is
the
Lord
paramount
,
principal
and
supreme
in
that
power
,
therefore
the
Laws
are
called
the
King's
Laws
,
and
the
form
of
many
is
,
that
,
The
Commons
pray
the
King
,
that
it
be
enacted
,
and
it
is
enacted
by
the
King
;
the
Lords
and
Commons
beseech
the
King's
Majesty
.
Now
though
the
Laws
be
made
by
the
advice
and
assent
of
the
Lords
and
Commons
,
yet
they
are
said
to
be
enacted
by
the
King's
Majesty
,
whose
royal
le
veult
gives
life
,
vigor
and
force
to
the
petitions
and
draughts
of
the
Lords
and
Commons
,
which
before
were
but
as
dumb
,
formless
and
dead
letters
.
The
Lords
and
Commons
are
subordinate
and
ministerial
in
that
power
,
being
summoned
and
dissolved
at
the
King's
pleasure
and
by
his
rightfull
power
;
all
their
votes
pass
into
laws
by
his
impression
and
ratification
,
without
which
,
all
their
debates
and
resolves
can
acquire
no
higher
title
nor
stronger
obligations
than
that
of
Counsels
:
Now
if
le
Roy
le
veult
actuate
the
Parliaments
votes
,
and
it
is
necessary
(
as
our
Author
says
)
to
make
them
to
pass
into
Laws
,
then
it
will
necessarily
follow
,
that
without
the
King's
consent
no
Law
can
be
legally
enacted
;
Page
5.
and
to
make
Laws
without
and
against
the
King
,
is
,
to
break
off
one
of
the
hinges
of
our
Government
,
as
our
Author
speaks
;
on
which
grounds
it
may
be
modestly
and
inoffensively
enquired
,
whether
the
present
settlement
of
the
Crown
by
the
Convention
be
a
Law
or
no
?
If
a
Law
,
then
le
Roy
le
veult
is
not
necessary
to
a
Law
,
and
so
,
according
to
our
Author's
principle
,
the
Convention
hath
subverted
the
Government
,
by
assuming
the
whole
legislative
power
,
which
by
the
Law
,
as
we
grant
,
belongs
not
solely
to
them
,
and
thereby
have
forfeited
their
right
,
and
the
right
of
the
people
:
If
no
Law
,
why
then
is
submission
required
as
to
a
Law
,
under
severe
penalties
?
where
there
is
no
Law
,
there
can
be
no
obligation
;
and
is
it
not
hard
and
unreasonable
to
punish
for
that
which
no
Law
requires
to
observe
?
Our
Author
farther
saith
,
Page
4.
That
the
three
Estates
are
necessary
to
make
a
Law
,
wherein
,
I
think
,
he
is
mistaken
;
for
though
Lords
spiritual
and
temporal
are
of
right
to
be
summon'd
to
Parliament
,
yet
if
either
Estate
be
legally
summon'd
,
and
refuse
to
appear
personally
,
or
by
proxy
,
the
act
of
the
other
Estate
in
the
house
of
Lords
shall
be
reputed
as
valid
as
if
both
appeared
;
and
this
appears
by
ancient
practice
;
for
though
they
be
two
Estates
,
yet
they
make
but
one
House
of
Lords
,
which
is
determined
by
plurality
of
voices
,
whether
Spiritual
or
Temporal
;
if
the
majority
of
suffrages
of
each
Estate
was
necessary
to
every
act
of
that
House
,
the
Statute
of
Mortmain
,
I
believe
,
had
not
pass'd
in
the
days
of
Edw
.
1.
nor
the
Act
to
take
away
Bishops
voices
in
Parliament
in
the
reign
of
Charles
1.
their
concurrence
then
is
not
necessary
to
the
doing
of
that
which
without
them
can
be
sufficiently
done
;
what
their
presence
cannot
legally
prevent
,
their
voluntary
absence
cannot
null
.
An
house
of
Lords
is
necessary
to
the
enacting
of
a
Law
,
but
the
presence
of
both
Estates
is
not
necessary
to
make
that
House
,
the
majority
of
the
present
Estate
conclude
the
absent
also
,
and
the
reason
is
,
because
both
the
Estates
sit
in
the
House
in
respect
of
their
temporal
Baronies
,
which
are
of
the
same
tenure
from
the
Crown
,
though
different
in
the
manner
of
their
descent
.
We
are
told
(
pag
.
5.
)
That
the
Essence
of
a
King
of
England
is
,
Page
5.
that
he
is
one
sitting
on
the
Throne
,
and
governing
by
the
known
Laws
of
the
Land
.
From
whence
I
infer
,
First
,
That
the
Coronation
is
not
needfull
,
because
all
that
may
be
without
this
;
for
what
is
unnecessary
,
is
no
part
of
an
essence
,
as
some
old
Logicians
have
told
us
:
and
yet
with
respect
to
his
definition
,
there
can
be
no
difference
assigned
between
Protector
Cromwell
and
some
regnant
Kings
,
but
Coronation
onely
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
Cromwell
governed
not
according
to
the
Laws
,
yet
the
definition
will
agree
to
any
Usurper
that
doth
.
If
it
be
replied
,
that
he
cannot
govern
according
to
Law
that
usurps
contrary
to
Law
,
then
't
will
unavoidably
follow
,
that
he
who
hath
the
Essence
of
a
King
,
must
have
a
legal
Right
to
govern
according
to
Laws
,
and
what
then
will
become
of
a
great
part
of
our
Author's
Scheme
.
Secondly
,
Others
may
infer
from
hence
,
that
then
King
Charles
the
First
,
in
his
Imprisonment
,
and
King
Charles
the
Second
,
in
his
Banishment
,
were
no
Kings
,
because
they
did
not
fit
on
the
Throne
,
and
govern
by
the
Laws
of
England
.
Thirdly
,
I
infer
,
That
the
known
Laws
of
the
Land
must
be
such
Laws
as
are
known
to
the
King
,
or
else
he
cannot
govern
by
them
:
but
how
can
he
know
many
of
them
,
but
by
the
information
of
his
Counsel
,
and
the
interpretation
of
his
Judges
,
wherein
,
if
they
happen
to
mistake
,
must
he
unhappily
cease
to
be
a
King
?
or
,
in
our
Author's
language
,
lose
the
Essence
of
a
King
?
The
Essence
of
a
King
of
England
I
take
to
be
,
That
he
is
a
rightfull
supreme
Governour
;
a
regular
King
I
take
to
be
one
that
governs
according
to
Law
;
and
a
bad
King
,
to
be
one
that
perverts
and
violates
the
Laws
;
now
a
bad
King
,
by
a
violation
of
the
Laws
,
and
an
invasion
of
the
Subjects
rights
,
no
more
ceaseth
to
be
a
King
,
than
a
bad
Landlord
ceaseth
to
be
a
Landlord
by
the
invasion
of
some
of
his
Tenants
rights
and
customs
;
or
a
disobedient
Subject
ceaseth
to
be
a
Subject
;
for
if
his
disobedience
makes
him
no
Subject
,
how
many
have
lost
the
rights
of
Subjects
,
and
how
can
they
reasonably
suffer
by
the
Power
to
which
they
are
not
subject
.
Certainly
our
Author
did
not
want
Skill
nor
Learning
to
distinguish
between
the
Power
,
and
the
abuse
of
it
;
between
a
Governor
,
and
his
ill
administration
;
between
a
King
,
and
his
irregularities
.
Should
it
be
meted
to
many
of
us
with
the
same
measure
,
we
should
be
forc'd
to
quit
that
Kingdom
,
which
King
James
is
said
to
have
Abdicated
.
But
confused
Arguments
are
most
suitable
and
seasonable
for
times
of
confusion
.
The
only
Argument
which
he
produces
to
prove
,
that
King
James
subverted
the
Legislative
Power
,
one
of
the
Fundamentals
of
our
Government
,
is
,
Page
6.
That
he
to
all
intents
and
purposes
assumed
the
Legislative
Power
to
himself
;
and
this
he
did
,
because
he
dispens'd
with
some
few
Laws
,
(
one
,
according
to
our
Author
,
was
enough
to
dissolve
the
Government
,
)
the
consequence
whereof
he
proves
thus
,
Because
no
Law
could
do
more
than
the
Dispensing
Power
did
.
Page
7.
All
this
is
of
a
thred
,
and
so
finely
spun
,
that
it
will
scarcely
endure
the
gentle
touch
of
a
tender
Examination
;
a
small
puff
will
blow
all
this
into
its
primitive
nothing
;
in
all
which
he
doth
no
more
than
stoutly
affirm
and
suppose
,
what
he
should
truly
prove
,
viz.
1.
That
the
breach
of
a
Law
is
the
repeal
of
a
Law
.
2.
That
the
dispensing
with
a
few
,
or
but
one
Law
,
destroys
the
whole
Legislative
Power
,
and
the
fundamental
constitution
thereof
.
Now
if
the
Dispensing
Power
did
really
and
truly
(
which
it
did
not
)
null
the
Laws
to
all
intents
and
purposes
,
it
did
but
reduce
us
to
the
same
condition
,
wherein
we
were
before
the
making
of
those
Laws
;
and
certainly
we
had
then
a
Government
,
a
Legislative
Constitution
,
as
extensive
and
authoritative
as
now
we
pretend
to
.
3.
That
King
James
by
his
Dispensing
Power
,
and
Suspending
Power
,
did
intend
to
Repeal
those
Laws
;
and
that
those
that
reaped
the
benefit
of
those
Indulgences
,
did
thereby
believe
and
take
them
as
repealed
;
for
't
is
very
difficult
to
believe
,
that
such
a
publick
act
should
have
such
a
general
effect
without
the
intention
of
the
dispenser
,
or
acceptation
of
the
dispensed
;
especially
since
't
was
so
generally
known
,
what
Closetings
,
and
Regulations
of
Corporations
,
with
other
curious
and
precious
Arts
,
were
made
use
of
to
compass
such
a
Parliament
,
as
would
repeal
what
the
King
had
only
suspended
and
dispens'd
with
,
and
ratifie
all
his
Indulgences
by
their
solemn
Act
;
for
if
it
had
been
thought
,
that
the
King
could
have
perfected
a
Repeal
without
a
Parliament
,
to
what
purpose
were
all
those
industrious
artifices
,
superfine
politicks
,
and
superlative
fetches
to
procure
a
complying
Parliament
,
without
which
,
't
was
concluded
,
the
design
would
be
imperfect
.
4.
He
should
have
proved
,
that
the
assuming
of
more
Power
by
the
King
,
did
not
only
lessen
,
but
totally
destroy
all
that
he
had
:
this
is
a
pretty
method
of
Substraction
by
the
art
of
Multiplication
,
of
losing
all
by
gaining
more
:
The
Courts
at
Westminster
do
not
presently
cease
to
be
,
when
the
persons
in
Authority
there
assume
more
Power
than
of
right
belongs
to
them
.
He
farther
saith
,
That
the
Kingly
Power
was
subverted
in
the
subversion
of
the
Government
,
and
this
subverted
by
a
dispensing
with
a
Law
.
What!
is
the
Kingly
Power
totally
subserted
,
when
it
commenceth
arbitrary
,
and
is
enlarg'd
?
or
do
all
the
Royal
Rights
fail
,
when
some
of
the
Laws
relating
to
the
Subject
are
perverted
?
by
what
Law
or
Reason
can
this
be
proved
?
and
was
our
Government
completely
subverted
by
the
Dispensations
,
when
all
the
legal
Courts
of
Justice
were
open
;
Terms
,
Assizes
,
and
all
sorts
of
proceedings
observ'd
;
and
when
the
Magistrates
acted
in
their
several
stations
and
capacities
,
in
their
Courts
,
Gowns
,
Cities
and
Jurisdictions
?
or
did
we
lose
any
particular
Rights
,
because
some
evil-doers
were
pardon'd
?
or
were
we
illegally
ruin'd
on
that
very
account
,
because
some
were
illegally
preferr'd
,
and
we
undone
,
because
some
were
saved
from
their
deserved
penalties
?
Is
there
such
a
malignant
influence
,
such
a
diffusive
venom
in
one
illegal
Dispensation
,
that
it
marrs
all
the
Regalities
,
and
inevitably
dethrones
the
King
without
a
possibility
of
Restauration
?
If
this
was
known
by
our
Author
some
years
ago
,
why
did
he
not
then
discover
this
hidden
mystery
,
which
was
never
heard
of
before
,
nor
will
ever
be
found
,
so
much
as
in
the
Original
Contract
of
the
Demogogical
King-makers
?
And
why
did
our
Author
so
frequently
pray
for
the
King
,
as
his
King
,
after
the
Subversion
of
the
Kingly
Power
,
and
Rights
of
the
People
?
and
Address
him
with
his
Sovereign
Titles
,
when
he
thought
him
to
be
no
King
;
and
submitted
to
him
,
as
to
the
most
rightfull
,
actual
,
supreme
Power
?
It
had
been
far
greater
sincerity
and
integrity
to
have
transferr'd
all
these
things
on
the
next
rightfull
Heir
,
upon
whom
(
by
our
Author's
doctrine
)
all
the
regal
Rights
were
devolved
.
But
for
what
reason
a
King
loseth
his
regal
Rights
,
when
he
assumes
an
Arbitrary
Power
,
I
do
not
as
yet
perceive
,
nor
can
find
in
the
Letter
to
a
Bishop
;
the
People's
Rights
may
be
subverted
,
when
the
Kingly
Power
remains
,
as
well
as
,
and
something
better
,
than
,
a
King
be
Conquer'd
,
and
not
his
Kingdom
.
Hath
the
Constitution
been
totally
subverted
,
when
the
Community
hath
invaded
one
or
more
of
the
Prerogatives
of
the
Crown
?
if
so
,
I
doubt
't
is
not
yet
patch't
up
again
.
He
tells
us
,
that
we
swore
to
the
Constitution
;
but
what
,
when
,
and
where
we
swore
,
he
tells
us
not
,
and
,
I
believe
,
no
body
remembers
:
He
adds
,
we
only
swore
to
the
King's
Authority
;
but
if
he
pleases
to
peruse
,
and
reade
over
his
Old
Oath
,
he
will
find
,
that
he
swore
to
the
King
,
and
to
defend
his
Person
;
and
there
he
will
find
also
,
that
his
Oath
was
not
pactional
,
or
conditional
,
but
absolute
,
and
independent
;
and
there
he
will
find
no
foundation
for
a
distinction
between
the
King's
personal
and
politick
capacity
,
which
his
last
Assertion
too
plainly
intimates
.
5.
He
should
have
proved
,
that
the
King's
Dispensation
is
as
valid
,
and
as
secure
,
as
an
Act
of
Parliament
;
or
else
how
,
to
all
intents
and
purposes
,
is
it
the
making
of
a
Law
?
or
how
can
he
say
,
the
Law
can
do
no
more
than
the
Dispensing
Power
?
was
the
Law
dead
by
the
Dispensing
Power
,
and
its
force
totally
and
perpetually
nulled
?
why
then
is
it
now
revived
without
an
Act
of
Revivor
,
and
some
of
the
penalties
thought
fit
to
be
inflicted
by
the
judgment
of
some
of
our
Legislaters
?
What
is
repealed
by
Parliament
is
certainly
void
,
and
there
is
no
fear
of
suffering
thereby
;
and
what
is
enacted
by
Parliament
continueth
its
force
and
obligation
,
though
't
is
not
at
present
put
into
execution
;
and
like
certain
politick
dilatory
poysons
after
many
days
and
months
,
proves
dangerous
,
if
not
fatal
:
A
particular
dispensation
doth
not
infer
an
universal
dissolution
;
some
persons
thought
(
as
our
Forefathers
,
and
antient
Lawyers
did
,
and
't
is
but
what
the
Convention
assumed
to
themselves
)
that
the
King
might
remit
or
dispense
with
the
penalties
of
some
Laws
;
yet
I
never
heard
,
that
they
said
,
the
King
by
his
sole
Power
might
make
new
Laws
:
Let
our
Author
remember
,
what
he
hath
often
heard
,
if
not
read
publickly
at
the
close
of
Briefs
,
which
is
yet
continued
,
Any
Law
,
Statute
,
Act
or
Ordinance
to
the
contrary
notwithstanding
.
When
all
these
Considerations
are
weighed
,
I
hope
others
,
if
not
our
Author
,
may
be
satisfied
that
King
James's
Dispensations
were
not
of
that
fatal
consequence
to
the
Legislative
Power
,
nor
a
total
dissolution
of
our
Government
,
nor
a
subversion
of
the
King's
Power
,
nor
our
complete
ruine
,
as
he
supposes
them
to
be
;
except
it
be
said
,
what
is
most
true
,
that
the
clamours
about
them
ministred
occasion
,
and
pretences
to
effect
all
those
things
that
have
ensued
since
.
I
wish
there
had
been
no
grounds
,
nor
the
same
arguments
to
retort
all
upon
a
Revolution
of
a
later
date
;
whether
here
,
or
elsewhere
,
too
many
can
tell
without
consulting
the
Oracles
.
Upon
our
Author's
principles
he
,
as
much
as
in
him
lyes
,
subverted
the
Government
by
making
new
Laws
without
the
concurrence
of
the
Legislative
Power
;
for
he
hath
justified
arm'd
resistance
,
and
asserted
forfeiture
,
which
is
a
doctrine
of
subversion
:
Are
these
Laws
of
our
Kingdom
,
or
not
?
if
not
,
then
he
insists
on
that
for
legal
,
for
which
there
is
no
Law
;
if
they
are
Laws
,
let
us
know
when
,
and
by
whom
they
were
made
,
and
where
now
to
be
found
?
If
King
James
nulled
our
Constitution
by
making
that
a
Law
,
which
was
no
Law
,
and
contrary
to
Law
;
doth
not
our
Author
,
as
much
as
in
him
lyes
,
do
the
same
?
Beside
,
if
we
allow
his
principle
,
it
will
prove
too
much
to
justifie
the
present
settlement
;
Page
5.
for
he
hath
told
us
,
That
if
the
Parliament
without
the
King
make
a
Law
,
one
hinge
of
the
Government
is
broken
off
;
and
if
it
act
,
and
fit
contrary
to
Law
,
the
other
hinge
of
Government
is
broken
also
,
and
so
the
legal
Government
ceases
.
Now
,
according
to
his
own
arguing
,
the
dispensing
with
a
Law
is
to
all
intents
and
purposes
the
making
of
a
Law
;
and
is
not
,
5
Eliz
.
1.
both
suspended
and
violated
?
since
the
present
Parliament-Members
have
not
taken
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
,
as
that
Act
requires
,
before
they
can
legally
fit
;
and
disables
every
one
from
being
a
Knight
,
Citizen
,
or
Burgess
to
Vote
in
Parliament
,
that
takes
it
not
,
with
which
disability
the
King
himself
cannot
dispense
,
as
Cook
says
,
(
3.
Instit
.
cap
.
Simony
;
)
and
if
the
King
cannot
,
who
,
without
an
higher
Supremacy
,
can
?
And
't
is
further
observable
from
the
same
Statute
,
that
what
is
done
by
such
disabled
persons
,
is
made
null
and
void
;
for
they
shall
be
reputed
,
as
if
they
had
never
been
returned
for
Knights
,
Citizens
,
or
Burgesses
.
Will
our
Author
now
say
,
that
this
makes
the
Law
of
none
effect
,
and
erects
an
arbitrary
and
illegal
Power
?
And
can
he
say
,
that
the
Government
subsisteth
,
when
't
is
destroyed
,
by
his
own
Position
,
and
in
his
own
Expression
?
He
would
seem
reverent
to
crowned
Heads
by
a
pretended
averseness
to
aggravate
their
crimes
:
But
can
King
James
be
rendred
more
black
and
enormous
,
or
his
Government
more
monstrous
than
he
hath
represented
both
to
be
;
he
hath
affirm'd
of
them
a
subversion
of
the
Government
,
the
ruine
of
the
Subjects
,
and
a
forfeiture
of
the
Crown
;
whereby
he
provokes
Children
and
Subjects
against
him
;
and
what
can
be
added
more
,
but
a
sentence
to
the
Block
?
for
which
some
of
his
Authors
could
have
furnish'd
him
with
as
good
,
and
as
proper
arguments
,
as
they
have
done
for
a
forfeiture
:
He
spares
not
to
particularize
every
thing
that
can
be
objected
;
and
rather
than
the
particulars
shall
want
either
number
or
weight
,
uncharitable
conjectures
and
groundless
censures
about
French
Dragoons
,
&c.
are
added
to
the
tale
.
Having
thus
discuss'd
what
our
Author
hath
affirm'd
of
Legislation
,
I
proceed
.
In
the
second
place
,
to
consider
the
other
fundamental
of
our
Constitution
,
viz.
Administration
,
and
to
debate
whether
King
James
did
cease
to
be
King
,
because
he
did
not
govern
according
to
Law
,
as
the
Writer
of
the
Letter
saith
,
who
gives
a
particular
Catalogue
of
divers
breaches
of
the
Law
,
wherewith
he
chargeth
King
James
.
Before
he
had
pass'd
this
peremptory
sentence
,
it
might
have
consisted
with
good
manners
,
and
would
have
prevented
an
unwary
opposition
,
if
he
had
considered
what
the
Prince
of
Orange
declared
in
the
second
Paragraph
of
his
Declaration
,
viz.
That
King
James's
Counsellors
overturn'd
(
and
is
not
this
a
subversion
)
the
Religion
,
Laws
and
Liberties
of
this
Realm
,
and
subjected
,
not
secretly
only
,
but
openly
,
Conscience
,
Liberty
and
Property
,
to
arbitrary
Government
:
Here
all
is
imputed
to
the
Counsellors
,
and
nothing
to
the
King
;
in
the
Author's
Letter
all
to
the
King
,
and
nothing
to
the
Evil
Counsellors
;
and
in
the
additional
Declaration
they
are
styled
the
Suberters
of
the
Laws
and
Religion
of
these
Kingdoms
:
But
let
the
particulars
of
his
List
be
as
true
as
he
would
have
them
to
be
,
is
there
any
tolerable
consequence
in
his
arguing
?
Because
King
James
did
those
illegal
things
,
therefore
he
subverted
the
whole
Constitution
;
except
he
could
have
proved
,
that
the
whole
Constitution
did
consist
in
those
particular
Laws
which
he
is
said
to
have
;
and
that
because
he
did
not
govern
by
some
Laws
,
therefore
he
govern'd
by
none
at
all
;
and
because
he
brake
some
,
therefore
he
violated
all
the
rest
.
These
consequences
are
so
mighty
wide
,
that
something
more
than
ordinary
Logick
is
required
to
tack
them
and
the
premises
together
.
It
is
a
bold
adventure
to
call
those
Laws
,
which
King
James
brake
,
the
Essence
of
our
Constitution
;
and
the
Essence
of
a
King
to
govern
according
to
those
numerical
Laws
;
yet
this
was
the
task
,
and
this
should
have
been
the
proof
,
and
without
it
all
the
rest
must
be
inconclusive
.
Is
not
a
legal
King
our
right
,
and
part
of
our
Constitution
?
and
are
there
not
many
particular
Laws
which
respect
the
King
,
his
Person
,
Safety
,
Crown
and
Dignity
,
and
many
other
Laws
which
respect
the
Subjects
?
and
most
of
the
branches
of
Magna
Charta
,
which
this
Author
cannot
in
conscience
say
were
broken
by
King
James
?
How
strange
and
uncouth
is
it
then
to
say
,
the
whole
Constitution
was
subverted
,
when
the
greatest
part
of
it
remain'd
untouch'd
and
unchang'd
:
the
Essence
of
our
Constitution
no
more
ceaseth
by
the
breach
of
some
Laws
,
than
a
man
ceaseth
to
be
a
man
,
because
he
hath
lost
some
of
his
toes
,
or
when
the
Cramp
hath
seiz'd
some
of
his
fingers
,
or
he
hath
broken
a
leg
or
an
arm
:
neither
doth
an
irregular
King
,
for
promoting
or
licensing
some
particular
irregularities
,
any
more
cease
to
be
a
King
,
than
a
Mayor
,
or
a
Justice
of
Peace
ceases
to
be
such
,
if
one
keeps
a
disorderly
Tiplinghouse
,
or
the
other
doth
not
punish
every
Drunkard
and
Swearer
,
whom
he
actually
knows
to
be
such
:
the
Office
continues
to
be
legal
,
though
the
Officer
acts
illegally
,
untill
he
is
legally
discharg'd
.
But
who
can
say
unto
the
King
,
What
dost
then
?
or
who
is
impower'd
by
our
Laws
to
give
him
his
discharge
and
Quietus
?
and
though
an
illegal
act
may
render
an
Officer
obnoxious
to
a
legal
Penalty
,
yet
it
doth
not
presently
divest
him
of
his
legal
Power
and
Right
to
the
employment
;
for
his
Power
is
founded
on
the
rightfull
authority
of
his
Commission
,
not
on
the
goodness
of
his
personal
Acts
;
from
whence
't
will
follow
,
that
the
Office
of
a
King
continueth
,
notwithstanding
some
illegal
practises
committed
by
him
,
unless
an
inferior
Magistrate
hath
a
firmer
Title
than
the
supreme
Power
hath
;
and
if
the
Office
of
a
King
continues
,
he
does
not
lose
the
Essence
of
a
King
;
except
it
can
be
said
,
That
one
may
have
the
true
Office
of
a
King
,
and
not
be
a
King
.
The
Author
of
the
Letter
saith
,
He
that
doth
not
govern
by
Law
,
doth
not
govern
at
all
.
If
by
the
Law
he
understands
the
whole
Law
,
or
the
Law
in
general
,
with
what
truth
or
prudence
can
any
one
admit
the
consequence
?
how
inconsiderate
,
unreasonable
and
intemperate
must
that
King
be
,
who
rejects
all
Laws
,
and
will
govern
by
none
?
It
is
not
conceivable
,
that
any
Prince
should
be
so
extremely
furious
,
so
void
of
common
sense
and
reason
,
as
to
attempt
so
much
violence
and
injustice
,
as
to
violate
all
the
Rules
of
Government
to
his
own
trouble
and
shame
,
and
the
confusion
of
the
State
,
and
the
ruine
of
his
People
.
But
if
by
Law
the
Author
understands
some
particular
Laws
,
(
which
he
must
if
he
applies
it
to
King
James
,
for
none
,
without
impudence
,
can
say
he
broke
all
the
Laws
,
)
how
notoriously
false
,
and
grosly
illogical
,
must
it
be
,
to
argue
from
a
particular
to
a
general
?
But
such
are
our
Author's
confused
Methods
and
Assertions
,
by
making
something
to
be
every
thing
,
and
some
Laws
to
be
all
Laws
.
But
granting
that
King
Jame
,
did
not
govern
at
all
,
because
he
did
govern
by
some
particular
Laws
;
how
consistent
is
this
principle
with
the
practice
of
our
Author
,
and
others
of
his
judgment
,
who
frequently
and
solemnly
in
the
House
of
God
,
and
in
their
Prayers
called
King
James
their
Sovereign
Lord
and
Governor
,
after
all
the
breaches
of
the
Law
now
particulariz'd
by
him
?
Is
it
sincerity
to
own
such
a
one
to
be
a
Governor
,
and
yet
to
justifie
,
that
he
did
not
govern
at
all
?
There
is
one
thing
that
our
Author
saith
,
He
had
almost
forgot
,
Page
11.
viz.
King
James's
laying
aside
the
Oaths
of
Allegiance
and
Supremacy
,
which
he
calls
an
instance
of
the
Dispensing
Power
,
and
a
condemnation
of
the
Oaths
as
unlawfull
.
Could
he
have
truly
evinc'd
,
that
King
James
did
dispense
with
the
Oaths
in
such
a
sense
,
that
thereby
he
did
to
all
intents
and
purposes
release
and
discharge
all
the
Takers
of
the
Oaths
from
the
obligation
of
them
,
that
would
have
given
more
satisfaction
than
all
the
Letter
beside
can
truly
effect
:
But
this
wants
proof
,
and
had
nothing
to
support
it
but
a
bare
insinuation
:
A
dispensing
from
the
taking
of
the
Oaths
,
is
certainly
no
relaxation
from
the
Oaths
already
taken
;
though
the
Scrupulous
are
exempted
,
yet
the
Swearers
are
not
absolved
.
Whatever
King
James
thought
of
the
Oaths
,
it
doth
not
appear
by
any
evidence
from
our
Author
,
that
the
King
thought
the
Oaths
unlawfull
:
If
he
had
thought
so
,
a
Prohibition
had
rather
been
his
duty
,
than
a
Dispensation
an
act
of
his
favour
;
a
Dispensation
doth
not
necessarily
suppose
or
infer
the
unlawfulness
of
the
matter
,
from
which
we
are
dispens'd
,
any
more
than
a
permission
of
Conventicles
infers
the
sinfulness
of
the
Church-service
,
because
the
Dissenters
are
indemnified
for
being
absent
from
it
;
or
that
the
Old
Oaths
are
unlawfull
,
because
the
Convention
hath
abrogated
them
,
and
Abrogation
is
something
more
than
a
Dispensation
.
Suppose
the
King
thought
the
Oaths
unlawfull
,
doth
the
Error
of
his
Judgment
lay
a
good
foundation
to
free
us
from
that
obligation
,
about
which
,
we
believe
,
he
is
very
much
mistaken
?
and
unless
he
had
been
mistaken
,
he
would
not
have
cancelled
the
obligation
:
And
allowing
this
to
be
so
,
doth
the
discharge
to
the
present
King
,
on
a
mistake
,
totally
exempt
us
from
that
bond
of
the
Oaths
to
the
Heirs
and
Successors
,
who
may
think
otherwise
of
the
obligation
and
lawfulness
of
the
Oaths
.
Whatever
the
King
might
think
of
some
passages
in
the
Oaths
,
yet
certainly
a
great
part
of
the
Oaths
belonged
to
the
King's
Ancestors
in
the
days
of
old
;
and
the
old
homagium
ligeum
bound
the
Subject
to
be
the
King's
man
of
life
and
member
;
and
this
was
never
thought
opposite
to
Popery
.
If
the
King
disliked
that
part
which
related
to
the
Pope
,
yet
he
never
freed
any
from
the
obligation
to
that
obedience
and
fidelity
which
was
a
right
belonging
to
the
Kings
of
England
,
whether
Protestants
or
Papists
.
If
the
forms
of
the
Oaths
were
his
complaints
,
certainly
the
Allegiance
was
never
his
grievance
,
unless
it
was
,
because
it
was
no
better
kept
.
If
he
discharg'd
his
Subjects
from
those
bonds
,
why
doth
he
charge
some
in
England
,
and
hang
others
in
Ireland
for
the
breach
of
them
?
and
why
doth
he
in
his
Declarations
require
the
Allegiance
of
his
Subjects
?
If
we
suppose
he
thought
the
Oaths
unlawfull
,
can
it
therefore
be
inferr'd
,
that
he
hath
actually
releas'd
us
from
the
Obligation
?
And
supposing
he
hath
freed
some
,
hath
he
therefore
freed
all
?
And
if
he
thought
some
part
unlawfull
,
will
it
therefore
follow
,
that
the
Swearer
is
freed
from
that
part
which
the
King
thought
lawfull
and
obligatory
?
or
because
some
had
the
liberty
not
to
take
the
Oaths
,
had
others
therefore
indulgence
not
to
keep
them
?
because
some
would
not
swear
,
therefore
others
might
forswear
?
This
is
a
new
sort
of
Logick
and
Divinity
adapted
to
the
Cause
and
the
Modes
of
the
times
.
Where
there
are
divers
particulars
conjoyned
in
one
Oath
,
that
only
part
ceaseth
to
bind
,
whose
matter
is
sinfull
;
but
to
as
much
as
is
lawfull
,
there
remains
an
obligation
to
observe
it
punctually
:
He
that
remits
part
of
a
Bond
,
doth
not
thereby
remit
all
;
and
he
that
lends
Money
to
John-a-Nokes
,
does
not
thereby
cancel
all
the
Bonds
of
his
solvible
Debtors
.
To
prove
therefore
this
instance
,
he
should
fairly
and
justly
make
evident
,
1.
That
King
James
thought
all
the
Oath
,
and
every
part
thereof
,
unlawfull
.
2.
That
what
he
thought
unlawfull
,
we
were
not
bound
to
by
the
Oaths
,
nor
by
the
Law
of
the
Land
to
observe
;
so
that
if
he
had
thought
the
Supremacy
to
be
in
the
Pope
,
we
were
bound
to
acknowledge
it
so
,
at
least
not
to
be
in
the
King
.
3.
That
by
his
Declaration
he
declar'd
his
Judgment
,
and
condemn'd
the
Oaths
as
unlawfull
.
4.
That
by
his
Dispensation
he
cancell'd
their
Obligation
,
and
discharg'd
all
from
their
Bonds
.
5.
That
a
remission
of
something
in
and
about
the
Oaths
to
some
persons
,
is
an
entire
absolution
of
all
from
every
thing
contain'd
in
the
Oath
.
If
these
things
had
been
cleared
,
few
scruples
could
have
remained
as
to
the
obligation
of
the
Oaths
to
King
James's
Person
,
but
that
he
granted
as
real
a
Relaxation
from
the
sworn
Allegiance
,
as
ever
the
noble
and
generous
King
Ferdinand
did
to
the
Neapolitans
from
their
Oath
and
Homage
,
when
in
person
he
told
his
Nobles
,
Gentlemen
and
Citizens
,
that
because
he
was
willing
to
secure
their
honour
,
and
preserve
them
from
ruine
,
whom
he
could
not
at
present
protect
from
the
power
of
the
French
Forces
,
he
freely
absolved
them
,
and
gave
them
leave
to
make
the
best
terms
they
could
with
their
prevailing
Adversaries
.
The
whole
scope
of
this
specious
Plea
in
the
Letter
may
be
summarily
reduced
to
this
,
—
Our
Oath
to
King
James
ceaseth
,
because
he
ceaseth
to
be
a
King
;
he
ceaseth
to
be
a
King
,
because
he
ceased
to
govern
by
Law
;
he
ceaseth
to
govern
by
Law
,
because
he
hath
completely
subverted
the
Government
(
though
the
Covention
in
the
Instrument
of
Government
say
onely
,
he
did
endeavour
to
subvert
it
;
)
he
subverted
the
Government
,
because
he
subverted
the
fundamentals
of
our
Constitution
,
Legislature
and
Administration
;
and
this
he
did
,
because
he
suspended
and
dispensed
with
some
few
Laws
:
These
are
the
lincks
to
bind
a
King
and
unshakle
his
Subjects
;
these
groundless
and
inconsequent
assertions
are
as
true
,
as
that
King
James
finished
our
ruine
,
(
for
so
our
Authour
saith
(
pag
.
7.
)
when
the
King
gave
Commissions
to
Popish
Officers
and
resolved
to
stand
to
it
;
and
that
he
ruin'd
the
Government
by
his
dispensations
;
as
if
there
were
no
difference
between
sickness
,
and
death
;
a
male-administration
of
some
things
,
and
a
destruction
of
the
whole
.
According
to
this
rule
he
may
prove
the
present
settlement
to
be
a
dissolution
,
because
the
hereditary
Crown
law
is
altered
,
and
that
the
Parliament
hath
subverted
the
Constitution
,
as
sitting
without
the
King's
Writ
,
or
his
Consent
first
had
,
and
without
taking
those
Oaths
which
the
Constitution
of
our
Government
did
require
;
and
that
many
of
the
Kingdom
have
forfeited
and
lost
their
rights
in
the
Constitution
,
because
they
have
taken
up
arms
against
their
rightfull
King
James
,
then
in
possession
of
the
Crown
;
which
is
contrary
to
Law
and
their
Declaration
:
To
justifie
which
our
Author
saith
,
that
King
James
ceased
to
be
King
,
which
very
few
at
the
Prince
of
Orange's
invasion
did
either
believe
or
think
of
;
for
since
his
date
of
subversion
in
1685.
had
we
no
Government
?
did
we
live
in
a
state
of
Anarchy
?
was
nothing
done
by
King
James's
royal
Power
,
nor
any
administration
of
Justice
in
his
royal
Name
?
are
all
the
Commissions
granted
since
that
time
void
?
and
are
all
the
Acts
of
Justice
null
and
of
none
effect
?
if
not
,
then
King
James
did
not
cease
to
be
King
,
because
he
govern'd
as
a
King
,
though
not
according
to
every
particular
Law
.
All
Promises
,
and
solemn
Oaths
,
and
Declarations
to
a
King
signisie
but
little
,
when
all
must
cease
to
bind
,
by
saying
,
he
ceaseth
to
be
a
King
;
this
is
a
summary
way
to
promote
and
justisie
all
Rebellions
;
for
if
it
be
not
true
to
say
so
,
't
is
easie
to
pretend
it
;
this
is
an
excellent
method
and
art
to
cut
the
Gordian
knot
,
which
could
no
otherwise
be
untied
.
The
Author
tells
us
farther
,
Page
12.
That
the
Declaration
about
taking
Arms
against
the
King
was
for
the
preservation
of
the
Government
;
but
doubless
and
principally
of
the
King
,
who
therein
is
express'd
,
but
the
Government
is
not
;
and
if
he
pleases
to
consult
the
Statute
,
and
consider
the
occasion
of
that
Act
,
and
what
happened
to
King
Charles
the
First
,
may
perchance
be
induced
to
believe
,
that
it
was
enacted
for
the
King's
safety
,
whom
he
thinks
not
sit
to
include
in
the
application
of
it
.
Had
King
James
prevailed
against
the
Prince
of
Orange
,
these
casuistical
Salvo's
would
not
have
exempted
some
from
the
Charge
of
Rebellion
and
Treason
,
and
from
the
Violation
of
their
Oaths
and
Declaration
,
for
which
(
according
to
our
Author's
Scheme
)
they
could
not
have
suffered
without
Tyranny
and
Usurpation
,
because
long
before
King
James
ceased
to
be
King
,
though
none
had
the
skill
or
the
luck
to
demur
to
the
Jurisdiction
of
any
Court
,
by
which
they
were
fined
and
sentenced
to
execution
.
Strange
was
the
Mystery
,
and
dark
was
the
Ignorance
both
of
King
and
State
,
to
have
no
King
,
and
yet
not
to
know
it
;
to
have
a
governing
King
,
and
yet
no
Government
;
an
unaccountable
happiness
surely
to
enjoy
three
years
peace
and
prosperity
under
a
King
that
was
no
King
,
and
in
a
dissolved
constitution
,
that
no
body
thought
so
;
for
whatsoever
our
Author
saith
,
his
practices
declared
,
that
he
did
not
then
believe
it
:
I
cannot
but
wonder
,
that
none
should
have
that
fineness
of
wit
,
sagacity
of
apprehension
,
largeness
of
reading
,
or
depth
of
judgment
to
understand
this
mystical
demise
;
nor
yet
so
much
honesty
or
courage
to
assert
the
devolution
of
the
Crown
on
the
next
Heir
;
if
these
things
had
happened
,
many
warm
debates
and
earnest
tuggings
about
Abdication
would
have
been
prevented
;
which
point
also
gives
us
as
little
encouragement
or
satisfaction
to
take
the
new
Oath
,
as
the
pretence
of
a
total
subversion
of
the
Government
doth
to
the
renouncing
of
the
old
Obligations
;
which
point
of
Abdication
I
am
next
to
consider
whether
it
can
satisfie
our
Consciences
,
that
the
old
Oaths
cease
to
bind
,
and
that
the
new
one
may
be
righteously
taken
.
Let
it
not
seem
insolent
to
debate
that
point
of
Desertion
which
the
Convention
hath
already
determined
;
there
is
a
strong
impulse
,
and
it
can
be
but
highly
reasonable
to
speak
of
that
wherein
our
Consciences
,
Rights
and
Interests
are
so
much
and
so
nearly
concerned
;
't
was
thought
wisdom
to
debate
it
in
the
Parliamenthouses
,
within
whose
walls
perchance
neither
the
word
Abdication
was
ever
heard
of
before
,
nor
the
thing
argued
there
;
and
for
which
no
legal
Precedent
can
be
(
at
least
hath
not
been
)
produced
.
Let
it
not
now
seem
a
breach
of
good
manners
to
treat
of
that
wherein
our
Religion
and
Interest
is
so
much
concern'd
:
For
whatever
deference
is
to
be
paid
to
the
Assembly
of
the
Nation
,
I
do
not
,
cannot
rely
on
their
decisions
so
as
to
be
infallible
.
Certainly
many
Assemblies
have
grosly
erred
,
and
shamefully
miscarried
;
sive
times
was
the
Sentence
of
the
Spencers
in
four
Kings
reigns
enacted
and
repealed
:
in
six
months
time
King
Henry
the
Sixth
and
Edward
the
Fourth
were
both
voted
Usurpers
,
and
rightfull
Kings
;
and
if
the
Wisdom
of
a
Nation
(
as
a
Parliament
is
called
)
should
be
the
Rule
of
a
Man's
Conscience
and
Christian
Conversation
,
it
must
be
said
,
that
they
did
very
well
who
turn'd
Papists
,
and
renounc'd
Protestanism
in
Queen
Mary's
days
,
and
subscribed
little
less
than
Contradictions
in
her
Father's
;
and
they
in
foreign
parts
do
well
to
continue
Papists
,
Turks
,
and
Heathens
on
the
very
same
principle
.
The
first
time
,
Tho
.
White's
grounds
of
Obedience
and
Government
.
that
(
I
remember
)
the
word
occurreth
in
the
English
Print
,
is
in
White
the
Popish
Priest's
book
,
wherein
he
treats
of
the
Deposing
of
Princes
;
and
shews
the
meaning
of
the
word
in
our
days
,
and
in
the
days
of
Henry
the
Third
of
France
:
many
years
before
White
wrote
his
book
,
the
said
Henry
is
said
to
abdicate
without
either
quitting
his
Government
or
his
Kingdom
:
from
that
Romish
Priest
and
some
of
his
brethren
too
many
politick
principles
have
been
suck'd
in
by
many
of
the
English
Nation
;
How
ominous
it
is
let
others
judge
,
I
will
not
add
any
farther
censure
.
Deposition
and
Abdication
are
two
distinct
terms
,
and
of
different
signification
in
their
ancient
and
modern
usage
;
the
first
is
involuntary
,
the
second
voluntary
;
but
how
to
distinguish
them
in
King
James's
Case
,
I
do
not
know
,
nor
do
I
pretend
to
art
enough
for
such
an
undertaking
,
unless
,
by
a
dispensation
from
the
Criticks
,
I
may
call
a
Deposition
an
Abdication
in
the
Kingdom
,
and
an
Abdication
a
Deposition
out
of
the
Kingdom
;
mutato
nomine
,
I
know
no
other
difference
.
It
would
have
been
a
great
satisfaction
to
a
great
many
persons
,
if
King
James
could
have
been
proved
to
have
laid
down
his
Government
,
as
really
,
as
truly
,
and
as
formally
,
as
the
Emperor
Charles
the
Fifth
,
or
Christina
Queen
of
Sueden
did
,
though
he
had
left
no
better
resignation
than
Richard
the
Second
,
or
Edward
the
Second
,
Kings
of
England
,
did
sign
;
but
no
such
Instrument
was
ever
seen
or
heard
of
.
In
the
case
of
Abdication
it
is
acknowledged
by
the
learned
Grotius
,
by
others
,
and
by
the
use
of
the
word
in
Classick
Authors
,
and
by
the
practice
of
the
thing
,
that
(
Abdicatio
)
Abdication
doth
import
a
free
and
spontaneous
Cession
from
the
Government
,
without
any
just
fears
,
fraudulent
arts
,
or
compulsary
violence
;
when
a
King
quits
his
Government
with
an
intention
,
and
full
resolution
of
quitting
it
,
and
totally
abandoning
it
for
ever
,
without
any
thoughts
or
reserves
of
resuming
it
:
If
such
a
resolution
of
King
James
at
his
departure
could
be
proved
,
it
would
be
equivalent
,
or
tantamount
to
a
solemn
resignation
:
But
to
argue
as
our
Author
doth
,
that
King
James
by
a
voluntary
withdrawing
himself
out
of
the
Kingdom
,
receded
fully
from
his
Government
,
is
neither
truth
in
facto
,
nor
truth
in
jure
;
neither
sound
in
the
supposition
,
nor
conclusive
in
the
consequence
.
Can
it
be
found
in
our
Law
?
(
and
,
I
hope
,
that
must
be
our
guide
,
)
or
was
it
ever
heard
from
History
,
or
Records
,
that
a
King
of
England
,
by
sailing
into
France
,
lost
his
Right
to
England
?
An
excellent
Topick
for
the
French
to
plead
,
that
he
Abdicated
France
also
by
sailing
into
Ireland
.
Whether
King
James
withdrew
willingly
,
or
unwillingly
,
I
cannot
see
any
reason
how
it
should
,
or
how
it
can
affect
his
Right
of
Government
,
which
doth
not
depend
on
his
willingness
,
or
unwillingness
to
go
into
France
,
but
on
the
Gift
of
God
,
and
the
Laws
of
the
Land
.
Now
if
our
Author
could
make
out
by
those
Laws
,
that
it
is
a
total
subversion
of
our
fundamental
Constitution
for
a
King
of
England
to
go
into
France
,
(
voluntarily
,
or
involuntarily
,
)
and
a
forfeiture
of
all
his
regal
Rights
to
sail
thither
without
the
consent
of
the
People
in
general
,
or
of
a
Convention
in
particular
,
he
would
have
argued
much
better
,
and
more
pertinently
,
than
now
I
can
commend
him
for
.
It
is
not
pretended
,
that
if
King
James
withdrew
unwillingly
,
that
then
his
Government
was
at
an
end
.
I
will
therefore
examine
these
two
things
:
-
1.
Whither
King
James
withdrew
willingly
,
or
unwillingly
?
-
2.
That
,
if
he
withdrew
willingly
,
whether
thereby
his
rightfull
Power
ceas'd
?
1.
The
best
way
to
clear
the
first
,
is
to
consider
the
circumstances
of
affairs
,
when
King
James
went
away
,
and
his
own
sense
of
things
;
of
which
,
without
doubt
,
he
was
able
to
give
the
best
account
.
So
long
as
the
state
of
things
was
peaceable
and
calm
before
the
Landing
of
the
Prince
of
Orange
,
we
hear
of
no
inclinations
,
or
resolutions
to
quit
the
Kingdom
,
and
yet
that
had
been
the
season
for
so
grand
an
affair
of
relinquishing
his
Government
with
a
willing
mind
;
nay
,
after
the
Landing
of
the
Dutch
,
so
long
as
his
Army
and
Subjects
seemed
firm
,
his
Intentions
and
Actions
were
in
order
to
meet
,
and
engage
with
the
Prince
,
and
not
to
fly
the
Kingdom
:
But
when
the
Insurrections
,
and
the
Prince's
Forces
encreas'd
,
and
his
Army
decreas'd
;
when
his
Soldiers
,
who
ate
of
his
Bread
,
lifted
up
the
heel
against
him
;
when
his
Children
,
his
pretended
Friends
,
his
Servants
and
his
Subjects
forsook
him
;
when
his
Affairs
daily
declined
,
and
his
Condition
seem'd
little
less
than
desperate
,
(
and
the
event
proved
it
so
,
)
then
't
was
that
he
resolved
on
a
departure
,
but
in
order
to
make
a
better
provision
for
the
management
of
affairs
,
and
procuring
his
own
re-settlement
in
his
Throne
,
with
the
peace
of
his
People
,
and
a
legal
settlement
of
all
things
in
the
Government
in
all
its
due
requisites
;
the
fears
of
danger
,
and
the
better
hopes
of
safety
,
made
him
fly
;
and
when
he
was
gone
,
't
was
his
desire
to
return
,
and
to
meet
his
People
in
a
free
and
legal
Parliament
,
and
to
preserve
Liberties
and
Properties
both
in
Church
and
State
:
For
the
proof
whereof
,
I
appeal
to
the
King's
own
Letters
to
the
Earl
of
Feversham
,
and
the
Lords
and
others
of
the
Privy
Council
,
wherein
the
King
gives
an
account
of
Himself
,
and
the
Reasons
of
his
departure
;
and
who
can
pretend
to
know
them
better
than
himself
?
Who
is
best
able
to
state
the
Reasons
of
the
King's
fears
?
the
King
,
or
our
Author
?
or
who
is
the
best
and
proper
Judge
of
them
?
and
yet
,
if
we
believe
the
Author
,
he
might
have
continued
secure
in
his
Palace
,
and
taken
care
of
the
Government
?
Of
what
Government
,
I
pray
?
Page
14.
of
the
Kingdom
,
that
was
dissolv'd
and
ruin'd
according
to
him
;
and
how
could
he
take
care
of
that
which
was
at
an
end
,
and
not
in
being
?
Thus
the
Author
imposeth
on
his
Reader
,
and
a
little
forgets
himself
.
He
urgeth
two
Reasons
(
such
as
they
are
)
to
prove
a
voluntary
Cession
;
Page
14.
one
is
,
because
the
King
was
actually
on
a
Treaty
with
the
Prince
.
What
then
?
doth
an
actual
Treaty
remove
all
fears
and
suspicions
from
a
King
,
and
make
him
willing
to
do
every
thing
that
he
is
not
inclined
to
,
and
,
as
our
Author
says
,
he
had
not
reason
to
do
?
Doth
a
Garrison
willingly
quit
their
Hold
,
which
they
think
not
tenable
,
when
they
in
the
interval
of
a
Truce
steal
away
,
for
fear
they
should
not
find
honourable
terms
and
mercifull
dealing
on
a
fair
surrender
?
His
second
Reason
is
just
of
the
same
weight
,
and
is
no
more
,
nor
better
,
than
this
:
the
Popish
Parties
design
was
to
persuade
King
James
to
withdraw
himself
;
therefore
he
withdrew
willingly
;
there
is
need
of
the
strength
and
length
of
an
hundred
Cables
to
hold
these
things
fast
together
:
How
many
things
do
Men
with
much
averseness
perform
,
to
which
they
are
persuaded
by
others
?
If
the
Popish
Party
thought
the
King
in
danger
,
(
as
the
sequel
hath
proved
it
a
little
too
true
,
)
and
were
as
willing
,
as
obliged
,
to
preserve
him
,
they
had
reason
to
persuade
him
to
depart
;
and
what
he
did
out
of
fear
of
danger
,
can
never
be
truly
deemed
a
spontaneous
action
;
nor
doth
the
generality
of
men
think
it
so
;
but
if
he
willingly
quitted
the
Realm
,
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
the
Disbanding
of
the
Army
was
a
demonstration
of
it
;
or
that
,
2.
He
willingly
quitted
and
surrendred
the
Right
of
Government
;
if
he
went
,
as
he
was
persuaded
by
the
Roman
Catholicks
Letter
,
(
of
which
our
Author
gives
an
account
,
)
that
he
might
return
,
Pag
.
14
,
15.
and
,
as
it
is
phrased
,
have
his
ends
of
us
,
in
as
bad
a
sense
,
as
others
have
had
of
him
;
't
is
a
plain
evidence
,
that
he
did
not
torally
surrender
and
abandon
the
Government
,
because
he
did
intend
to
resume
it
as
soon
as
he
could
;
and
shall
a
Man
be
blamed
for
parting
with
that
which
he
could
not
keep
,
though
he
was
willing
?
and
for
returning
to
his
State
before
he
can
,
and
is
able
?
And
shall
this
be
thought
a
just
and
sufficient
Abrogation
of
our
Oaths
?
And
is
this
as
formal
a
Resignation
as
the
Queen
of
Sueden
made
,
who
never
pretended
an
unwillingness
to
resign
,
nor
a
willingness
to
return
to
what
she
had
resigned
,
since
her
retirement
to
Rome
?
both
which
are
notorious
to
the
World
in
the
case
of
King
James
;
his
Letters
,
Declarations
,
and
other
Overt-acts
in
England
,
France
,
and
Ireland
,
plainly
demonstrate
it
,
and
of
which
no
rational
Man
can
doubt
.
Now
if
she
raised
no
Forces
,
nor
imployed
any
Armies
to
continue
in
,
or
repossess
her
Throne
,
as
King
James
did
,
and
doth
;
if
her
Resignation
was
formal
,
solemn
,
and
perpetual
,
without
the
reserve
and
power
of
Revocation
;
and
King
James's
Divestiture
was
only
pro
tempore
,
Page
15.
(
as
our
Author
speaks
,
and
,
for
how
long
,
he
would
have
done
well
to
have
told
the
World
,
)
their
cases
are
not
parallel
,
nor
is
their
Government
equally
at
an
end
;
the
Author
hath
instanc'd
in
the
similitude
,
but
't
is
much
unequal
in
the
application
,
as
any
one
may
perceive
;
shall
then
the
strength
of
the
obligations
of
our
Oaths
depend
on
the
disbanding
of
an
Army
,
which
could
no
longer
be
kept
nor
paid
,
and
a
departure
of
a
King
out
of
his
Kingdom
,
where
he
thought
he
could
not
safely
tarry
.
To
which
Cases
the
Oaths
in
no
wise
reserred
when
we
took
them
;
and
scarce
will
there
be
found
any
one
that
took
them
in
that
sense
,
which
without
a
prophetick
Spirit
he
could
not
certainly
foresee
.
Fidelity
is
not
confined
to
one
numerical
place
;
a
Subject
may
be
guilty
of
Treason
without
the
Kingdom
as
well
as
within
,
and
it
ought
to
be
remembred
,
that
we
have
recognized
the
King's
Titles
in
all
his
Dominions
,
as
't
is
in
the
old
Oath
of
Allegiance
,
and
to
him
in
all
of
them
Allegiance
is
due
.
How
we
were
left
(
by
the
King's
departure
)
to
a
rabble
and
to
a
disbanded
army
let
loose
upon
us
,
our
Author
,
who
hath
said
it
,
Ibid
.
is
best
able
to
declare
his
own
meaning
thereabout
;
as
for
the
common
disbanded
Soldiers
they
suffered
more
by
their
disbanding
,
than
all
the
Kingdom
from
them
;
and
if
their
case
was
examin'd
,
it
will
be
found
,
that
they
suffered
as
many
affronts
and
misusages
,
as
an
incogitant
and
furious
rabble
are
wont
to
confer
on
persons
in
the
like
circumstances
;
fewer
really
feared
them
than
they
were
afraid
of
,
and
many
of
them
did
scarce
know
whither
to
fly
for
succour
or
shelter
;
there
was
indeed
a
great
consternation
upon
a
bruit
of
the
Irish
Soldiers
burning
Towns
and
Villages
,
and
most
of
the
Fires
that
happened
afterwards
were
generally
imputed
to
mercenary
and
desperate
Irish
,
but
all
was
noise
and
sham
,
the
hurt
was
none
,
the
fears
and
frights
were
all
.
But
why
he
should
aggravate
the
Desertion
by
being
left
unto
the
rabble
is
not
easie
to
divine
,
since
the
rabble
was
celebrated
from
a
publick
place
by
somebody
(
as
't
is
said
,
and
perchance
not
unknown
to
our
Author
)
for
what
they
had
done
.
If
Queen
Christina's
Resignation
and
King
James's
Cession
be
compared
,
I
must
comply
with
the
Author's
saying
,
that
our
condition
(
and
the
consequence
)
is
far
worse
than
that
of
Swedland
;
for
their
Peace
and
the
Laws
continued
without
any
alteration
or
interruption
,
but
we
are
involved
in
an
unnatural
,
bloudy
and
expensive
War
,
and
God
onely
knows
what
bitterness
,
effusion
of
bloud
and
ruine
will
be
in
the
end
.
I
wish
we
may
not
lose
those
things
,
which
by
ways
,
not
very
justisiable
,
we
have
sought
to
defend
.
We
find
no
Law
nor
Precedent
alledged
by
our
Author
to
justisie
his
stated
Dereliction
;
but
many
Kings
have
withdrawn
out
of
this
Realm
,
and
were
not
concluded
to
abdicate
the
Government
,
or
their
Right
thereto
.
William
Rufus
went
out
of
the
Kingdom
,
and
left
no
Commission
for
a
Vicegerent
;
Edward
the
Fourth
withdrew
,
when
the
Earl
of
Warwick
appeared
too
strong
against
him
;
Charles
the
First
fled
into
the
Isle
of
Wight
;
and
what
is
it
that
makes
a
difference
between
a
withdrawing
thither
,
or
into
France
or
Ireland
?
Charles
the
Second
fled
from
Worcester
Fight
into
(
the
same
)
France
,
and
yet
they
were
never
thought
to
abdicate
the
Kingdom
:
If
you
say
Charles
the
First
went
into
his
own
Territories
,
I
think
none
will
say
,
that
King
James
went
out
of
all
his
when
he
went
into
France
;
for
if
that
was
not
his
rightfull
Territory
,
the
Convention
can
tell
why
they
bestowed
the
Title
thereof
on
King
William
.
Neither
do
I
find
it
agreed
,
where
the
Epocha
of
the
Abdication
is
to
be
fix'd
;
if
on
King
James
his
first
departure
,
't
is
answered
,
he
withdraw
no
farther
than
the
Kentish
shoar
,
which
belongs
to
the
English
dominion
;
and
after
this
he
was
treated
and
owned
as
a
King
,
sate
in
Counsel
,
and
in
a
Royal
manner
signed
an
Act
of
Counsel
,
as
't
is
publickly
confess'd
.
If
the
Aera
be
plac'd
on
his
second
departure
,
it
may
be
ask'd
,
Did
King
James
willingly
consent
to
the
change
of
his
Guards
?
Did
he
willingly
condescend
to
be
hurried
out
of
White-hall
by
a
midnight
Order
?
his
Strength
and
his
Forts
were
seized
,
and
his
Revenues
employed
for
another's
use
,
and
the
best
thing
that
was
left
him
,
was
an
opportunity
of
saving
himself
by
departing
from
that
People
,
who
in
a
surprizing
manner
had
first
left
him
,
and
left
him
nothing
,
but
his
Person
,
to
secure
;
which
desolate
and
forlorn
condition
called
to
his
remembrance
the
fatal
example
of
his
martyr'd
Father
,
and
his
too
true
an
observation
,
That
the
Prisons
of
Princes
and
their
Graves
are
not
far
distant
,
as
K.
James
writes
in
his
Letter
to
the
Lords
of
the
Privy
Council
.
Let
none
be
so
furiously
rigorous
as
to
say
,
he
took
no
care
for
the
Government
before
he
went
;
if
we
impartially
weigh
all
his
circumstances
,
and
the
circumstances
of
that
distracted
time
,
what
could
be
well
expected
more
,
than
what
he
did
?
He
left
the
Commissions
of
Peace
,
and
the
Militia
,
as
well
as
Regal
Commissions
could
make
them
?
He
left
a
Lord
Chancellor
,
[
I
dispute
not
here
for
his
goodness
,
but
his
authority
]
but
he
was
imprison'd
;
he
left
authorized
Judges
,
but
they
were
not
permitted
to
act
;
and
he
sent
a
Letter
to
the
Privy
Council
to
take
care
of
the
Kingdom
till
his
return
;
this
was
such
an
effectual
Deputation
,
that
if
our
Authour
could
have
produced
as
plain
a
Resignation
from
him
,
the
Cause
would
have
been
irrefragably
gained
,
loudly
proclaim'd
,
and
a
Triumph
assuredly
appointed
.
But
if
none
of
these
things
had
been
done
in
England
by
King
James
,
what
was
possible
more
to
be
done
for
Ireland
than
K.
J.
did
,
or
that
Kingdom
could
in
all
respects
desire
?
considering
what
has
happened
;
unless
it
was
,
that
he
left
a
Popish
Deputy
,
and
a
Popish
Army
;
if
nothing
else
could
be
said
,
the
event
must
necessarily
commend
the
wisedom
(
though
not
the
legality
)
of
that
practice
;
for
thereby
he
hath
secured
something
of
his
just
Right
,
and
preserved
a
part
of
that
Kingdom
to
himself
,
and
thereby
the
greater
hopes
of
regaining
something
that
he
had
lost
.
't
is
granted
by
our
Author
,
Page
17.
that
if
King
James
departed
willingly
,
he
had
notwithstanding
animum
revertendi
,
which
shews
most
plainly
,
that
it
was
not
a
total
Dereliction
,
nor
that
he
resolv'd
to
govern
no
longer
,
as
the
Letter
hath
affirmed
;
from
which
Supposition
of
a
willingness
to
return
,
he
makes
many
barbarous
Inferences
on
K.
J.
Ibid
.
his
intention
to
come
with
borrowed
Forces
from
France
to
destroy
the
Protestant
Religion
,
and
the
Civil
Constitution
:
This
shews
rather
the
rancor
of
his
mind
against
K.
J.
his
Person
,
than
a
sincere
aim
at
Truth
,
to
ascertain
this
Argument
;
he
sets
up
a
deformed
mark
,
and
then
shoots
at
rovers
,
to
beat
it
down
;
if
unkind
jealousies
and
feigned
suppositions
were
good
proofs
,
't
was
easie
to
exhibit
a
large
scroll
,
that
would
not
tend
to
our
Author's
satisfaction
,
nor
the
delight
and
honour
of
the
times
.
He
tells
us
(
pag
.
9.
)
Page
9.
He
was
not
willing
to
aggravate
the
crimes
of
Princes
:
To
recompense
this
tenderness
to
crowned
Heads
,
he
invents
those
faults
which
he
will
not
aggravate
,
and
in
civility
creates
a
guilt
,
which
,
in
truth
,
he
could
not
severely
chastise
.
As
for
borrowed
Forces
,
whence
could
King
James
have
them
,
but
from
France
?
and
why
should
not
a
borrowing
thence
be
as
good
,
and
as
lawfull
to
regain
his
undeniable
Right
,
as
for
some
of
his
Subjects
to
borrow
Foreign
Forces
to
drive
him
from
his
Kingdom
,
and
keep
him
from
his
Throne
.
Our
Author
tells
us
,
that
it
signifies
nothing
to
the
dereliction
,
whether
King
James
intended
to
return
,
or
not
.
Truly
,
in
my
poor
opinion
,
it
signifies
,
that
he
was
willing
to
continue
to
govern
,
and
therefore
did
not
willingly
cease
to
govern
:
But
by
the
Cession
was
King
James's
Government
at
an
end
?
and
could
not
the
Constitution
subsist
in
such
a
case
?
Well!
then
it
seems
the
Government
was
not
at
an
end
by
the
King's
subverting
Dispensations
,
as
the
Letter
said
before
;
but
if
it
was
at
an
end
by
the
Dispensing
Power
,
then
the
Constitution
might
subsist
in
such
a
case
for
three
months
longer
,
as
well
as
for
three
years
before
;
and
that
the
Government
(
in
respect
of
King
James
as
Governor
)
did
not
cease
by
his
departure
,
I
appeal
to
the
sense
and
practice
of
the
generality
of
the
Kingdom
to
confirm
it
,
who
by
their
constant
Prayers
owned
him
as
supreme
and
rightfull
Governor
,
untill
the
Convention
met
,
and
for
some
days
after
that
time
also
;
and
very
few
thought
otherwise
of
him
,
whatsoever
some
intended
to
attempt
against
him
by
some
new-fashion'd
charming
expressions
,
and
innovation
words
.
Many
did
not
think
what
would
be
done
;
some
thought
that
impossible
,
which
was
afterwards
done
;
and
many
were
surprized
at
the
opening
of
the
design
,
and
more
were
amazed
to
consider
what
was
done
,
after
the
Abdication-Vote
was
enacted
.
Our
Author
,
in
his
super
abundant
zeal
to
his
Cause
,
doth
positively
affirm
,
that
King
James
at
his
Cession
made
no
provision
for
the
Government
;
for
the
disproof
of
this
,
I
refer
the
Reader
to
what
I
have
already
said
;
and
if
he
did
make
provision
,
(
such
as
he
was
able
,
and
none
can
require
more
,
)
then
,
by
the
Author's
concession
,
his
Government
was
not
at
an
end
:
He
needed
not
to
have
put
the
case
,
Whether
a
Nation
ought
to
continue
without
a
Government
,
till
the
Governor
thinks
of
returning
;
for
King
James
was
as
willing
to
return
,
if
he
could
,
as
others
were
willing
to
prevent
him
,
and
industriously
contrived
to
keep
him
out
,
when
he
was
gone
:
And
did
he
not
send
a
Letter
to
the
Convention
about
it
?
whether
they
would
peruse
the
Letter
,
or
not
,
disproves
not
his
willingness
to
return
;
but
the
refusal
declares
theirs
,
that
he
should
not
:
His
willingness
to
leave
us
for
ten
years
,
is
far
less
tolerable
,
than
to
absent
for
two
or
three
months
,
let
our
Author
say
what
he
will
.
To
suppose
that
a
Prince
should
be
willing
to
leave
his
Kingdom
for
ten
years
,
without
taking
care
for
the
Government
,
is
such
a
gross
imagination
,
such
a
piece
of
Knight-errantry
,
so
disagreeable
to
common
sense
and
reason
,
of
which
certainly
Kings
have
a
share
,
that
for
common
civility
to
a
crowned
Head
,
and
for
the
honour
of
our
Nation
,
we
should
wave
such
ungentile
and
unaccountable
surmises
,
especially
when
the
King's
actions
evidently
confute
them
.
If
the
Kingdom
had
prepared
for
his
return
on
a
firm
settlement
of
affairs
,
on
the
just
and
lasting
foundations
of
Law
and
Equity
,
Conscience
and
Religion
,
our
Reputation
might
have
been
better
provided
for
than
now
it
seems
to
be
,
and
the
less
scandal
would
have
been
taken
against
our
Principles
,
Professions
,
and
Practices
;
our
Peace
would
have
been
secur'd
,
and
a
much
better
prospect
of
Happiness
,
than
at
present
many
can
pretend
to
.
To
conclude
this
Head
of
discourse
:
If
King
James
hath
not
quitted
the
Right
of
Government
,
then
he
hath
not
quitted
the
Right
to
the
Obligation
of
the
Oaths
:
If
he
is
willing
to
govern
,
I
cannot
sincerely
think
but
that
he
is
willing
my
Bond
of
Allegiance
should
continue
;
and
if
he
hath
not
releas'd
me
from
it
,
I
firmly
believe
,
no
humane
power
can
.
I
am
not
bound
,
without
sufficient
proof
,
to
believe
what
our
Author
doth
;
nor
is
his
bare
persuasion
the
proper
foundation
of
another
Man's
judgment
:
He
believes
the
King
withdrew
willingly
;
and
therefore
,
he
thinks
,
he
may
lawfully
take
the
New
Oath
:
Another
is
persuaded
,
that
the
King
went
away
involuntarily
;
and
therefore
according
to
our
Author's
,
and
others
concession
,
he
ought
not
to
swear
.
But
whatever
the
Author's
aim
may
sincerely
be
,
certainly
he
never
intended
that
any
one
Man
should
believe
all
his
Letter
:
For
if
King
James
receded
voluntarily
from
his
Government
,
as
he
saith
,
and
any
one
can
and
doth
believe
it
,
the
same
Man
cannot
believe
that
he
went
away
involuntarily
,
through
the
force
of
a
Conquest
,
(
as
the
Author
affirms
also
,
)
which
is
next
to
be
consider'd
.
Page
18.
Of
CONQUEST
.
COnquest
supposeth
a
War
;
and
all
Wars
are
either
offensive
or
defensive
:
but
to
which
of
these
to
reduce
the
War
on
which
the
pretended
Conquest
is
grounded
,
I
cannot
easily
determine
,
considering
some
things
and
some
sayings
.
A
Man
would
think
that
the
Invasion
should
make
the
War
offensive
:
but
to
this
I
dare
not
assent
,
because
the
Prince
of
Orange
in
his
Declaration
saith
,
he
came
over
to
defend
himself
;
and
declares
in
the
Dutch
Abstract
,
that
he
came
not
with
Intention
to
invade
.
Now
I
can't
think
,
that
to
defend
,
is
to
offend
any
more
,
than
an
offensive
and
defensive
War
to
be
the
same
.
Neither
do
I
know
how
to
call
it
a
defensive
War
,
since
none
of
King
James's
Forces
invaded
the
Prince's
Territories
,
nor
any
of
his
Allies
,
nor
threatned
nor
annoyed
in
an
hostile
manner
him
,
his
Subjects
,
or
his
affairs
;
but
all
King
James's
endeavours
were
to
defend
his
own
Possessions
,
not
to
drive
the
Prince
of
Orange
out
of
his
.
King
James
complain'd
of
no
injuries
from
the
Prince
,
required
no
reparations
,
nor
threatned
,
nor
declared
any
War
.
The
Dutch
,
though
in
Alliance
with
King
James
,
and
knew
the
design
of
the
Prince
of
Orange
,
and
lent
him
Forces
,
and
conceal'd
and
(
as
some
say
)
disown'd
the
design
when
by
King
James's
Minister
pressed
about
the
Preparations
;
yet
never
pretended
any
fears
or
troubles
,
or
War
from
King
James
:
I
can't
comprehend
how
it
should
be
a
Defensive
War
,
where
was
no
actual
Enemy
,
or
pretended
Adversary
to
defend
themselves
against
:
there
can
be
no
defence
by
force
,
where
there
is
none
with
force
to
assault
.
But
though
we
are
at
a
stand
,
what
Additional
Title
to
bestow
on
the
Prince's
Enterprize
;
Certain
it
is
,
that
the
bloody
and
miserable
effects
of
it
will
enforce
us
now
to
call
it
a
War
;
though
we
can't
call
the
success
of
the
Attempt
in
all
its
premises
,
ingredients
,
and
concomitants
,
either
a
proper
Conquest
,
or
such
an
one
as
can
free
us
from
the
Bond
of
Allegience
,
which
we
have
sworn
to
King
James
,
and
his
Heirs
,
and
Lawfull
Successors
.
We
cannot
acknowledge
it
a
Conquest
,
for
the
ensuing
Reasons
,
Instances
,
or
Matters
of
fact
.
1.
It
appears
in
the
Abstract
of
the
Dutch
Resolutions
,
wherein
the
Prince
of
Orange
declares
,
That
in
his
going
over
into
England
,
it
was
not
the
least
insight
or
intentions
to
invade
or
subdue
that
Kingdom
,
or
remove
the
King
from
his
Throne
,
much
less
to
make
himself
Master
thereof
,
or
to
invert
or
prejudice
the
lawfull
Succession
.
To
subdue
and
conquer
,
I
take
leave
to
think
the
same
:
and
to
make
a
Conquest
without
an
Intention
of
subduing
,
I
think
it
to
be
such
a
lucky
chance
,
that
was
never
heard
of
before
;
and
if
something
had
not
happened
since
,
a
Man
of
reason
might
have
doubted
of
it
,
because
of
its
rarity
,
as
well
as
unlikelihood
.
2.
The
Prince
in
his
Declaration
,
and
in
the
Additional
,
and
in
his
Letter
to
the
English
Army
,
saith
,
He
came
to
defend
and
secure
the
Settlement
of
Religion
,
Liberties
and
Properties
;
that
they
who
thought
otherwise
,
had
hard
thoughts
of
him
;
he
calls
a
Conquest
a
wicked
attempt
,
a
wicked
design
,
and
appeals
to
the
English
Nobility
and
Gentry
that
accompanied
him
,
to
cover
him
from
all
such
malicious
Insinuations
of
those
that
gave
out
he
came
to
conquer
the
Nations
.
He
then
(
though
it
be
our
Author
himself
,
for
I
can't
help
him
out
of
the
Condemnation
)
who
asserts
the
Prince
came
to
make
a
Conquest
,
is
guilty
of
malicious
Insinuations
against
King
William
;
and
if
a
King
condemns
a
Man
for
Lying
,
who
shall
dare
to
contradict
him
?
If
the
Author
pleads
a
Conquest
,
then
he
makes
the
Prince
of
Orange
guilty
of
wicked
designs
and
attempts
:
and
this
is
to
be
as
civil
to
the
present
King
,
as
he
was
true
and
faithfull
to
the
former
.
If
he
thinks
to
evade
this
by
his
fine
distinction
of
a
Conquest
of
the
King
,
and
not
of
the
Kingdom
;
the
vanity
of
that
distinction
shall
be
expos'd
,
before
I
part
with
the
Subject
of
Conquest
.
3.
The
third
reason
for
which
we
can't
take
it
for
a
Conquest
,
and
so
not
take
the
Oath
on
that
soundation
,
is
gather'd
from
the
proceedings
of
the
Convention
in
the
Instrument
of
Government
,
and
their
Act
of
Settlement
,
wherein
Conquest
is
not
so
much
as
mention'd
;
which
is
something
less
than
a
bare
waving
of
that
Title
:
but
they
insist
upon
the
point
of
Abdication
,
upon
which
they
found
their
Votes
of
vacating
the
Throne
,
and
on
the
account
of
both
transfer
the
Crown
on
King
William
and
Queen
Mary
:
Accordingly
King
William
thankfully
accepts
what
they
offer'd
.
Now
to
Vindicate
the
present
Settlement
,
(
as
the
Author
of
the
Letter
doth
,
)
and
to
contradict
the
very
foundation-work
thereof
;
what
is
it
,
but
to
remove
his
very
Basis
,
and
alter
his
Corner-stone
,
and
an
intimation
of
no
great
deference
of
honour
to
those
,
who
are
called
the
Wisdom
of
the
Nation
?
Neither
is
it
very
comprehensible
,
how
the
Prince
of
Orange
could
thankfully
receive
that
as
a
gift
,
which
was
his
own
before
by
right
of
Conquest
,
and
the
title
of
Possession
;
for
if
it
was
his
by
the
right
of
Conquest
,
the
Convention
had
no
right
to
give
it
:
and
if
the
Crown
was
a
deed
of
gift
and
by
the
Election
of
the
Convention
he
was
made
and
declared
to
be
King
,
and
by
the
acceptance
own'd
it
to
be
their
Gift
,
(
or
Offer
,
call
it
which
you
please
,
)
then
he
had
it
not
by
Conquest
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
he
remitted
his
pretence
of
Conquest
,
and
relied
on
the
Donation
of
the
People
:
then
his
Plea
of
Conquest
falls
,
and
neither
the
Old
Oaths
cease
,
nor
the
New
one
to
be
admitted
on
that
consideration
.
For
since
by
the
consent
of
all
,
the
Oath
is
to
be
taken
in
the
Imposer's
sense
,
and
founded
on
their
own
grounds
;
and
since
by
their
own
Overt-acts
they
have
disclaimed
Conquest
,
it
can
be
no
security
to
a
Conscientious
man
to
renounce
his
former
Oaths
on
that
consideration
.
4.
We
cannot
acknowledge
it
a
proper
Conquest
of
a
Foreign
Prince
;
but
are
verily
persuaded
,
it
was
a
down
right
Rebellion
of
the
Subjects
at
home
:
For
though
the
Prince
of
Orange
was
a
Foreign
Prince
,
and
independent
of
the
Crown
of
England
,
and
thereby
could
not
incur
the
guilt
of
a
proper
Rebellion
:
yet
't
is
to
be
observed
he
invaded
the
Kingdom
,
not
as
a
principal
Aggressor
;
but
as
an
Assistant
,
brought
his
Auxiliary
Forces
to
help
the
English
Subjects
against
their
Natural
Leige
Lord
and
Sovereign
,
and
to
maintain
their
Religion
,
Laws
,
and
Liberties
;
to
the
doing
of
which
,
the
Prince
of
Orange
in
his
Declaration
expresly
saith
,
That
he
was
invited
by
the
Lords
Spiritual
and
Temporal
,
Gentlemen
,
and
other
Subjects
;
and
more
plainly
in
his
Speech
to
the
Gentlemen
of
Somersetshire
and
Dorsetshire
,
Nov.
15.
—
88.
he
saith
,
[
You
see
we
are
come
,
according
to
your
Invitation
,
and
our
Promise
,
&c.
]
't
is
evident
then
,
that
he
was
invited
,
and
at
the
Instance
of
the
English
Subjects
he
invaded
England
to
free
them
from
what
they
loudly
complain'd
of
.
And
in
the
Declaration
the
Prince
says
,
He
could
not
excuse
himself
from
espousing
the
Interest
of
the
English
Nation
.
Indeed
the
Prince
tells
those
Countrey
Gentlemen
,
that
he
wanted
not
their
Military
assistance
so
much
as
their
Countenance
and
Presence
;
but
withall
he
publishes
in
his
Additional
Declaration
,
That
the
Forces
which
he
brought
along
with
him
,
were
disproportioned
to
that
wicked
design
of
conquering
the
Nation
.
And
certainly
how
zealous
soever
the
English
Nation
seem'd
for
their
Religion
,
Laws
,
Liberty
and
Properties
against
the
late
Illegal
Usurpations
;
yet
they
enter'd
into
no
Conspiracy
,
nor
Combination
to
conquer
,
nor
dethrone
their
King
;
nor
talked
of
any
Conquest
,
or
vacating
,
before
King
James
had
(
in
their
expression
)
Abdicated
the
Government
:
neither
would
the
English
endure
the
Expression
of
a
Conquest
,
if
the
Dutch
Soldiers
would
have
dared
to
term
it
so
:
And
Dr.
Burnet
,
in
his
Sermon
before
the
Prince
of
Orange
,
Dec.
23.
1688.
hath
these
words
;
[
Our
Deliverer
—
came
,
detesting
the
Imputation
of
Conquest
that
was
cast
upon
him
.
]
To
all
this
it
may
be
added
,
That
after
the
pretended
Conquest
King
James
was
own'd
to
be
our
King
,
Lord
,
and
Sovereign
in
all
Churches
,
and
in
St.
James's
Chapel
too
.
So
that
a
Conquest
is
no
more
reconcileable
to
the
publick
acts
and
honour
of
this
Nation
,
than
to
the
Practices
and
Declarations
of
the
Prince
of
Orange
.
And
after
all
our
Author
acknowledgeth
,
that
the
Prince's
business
was
not
to
conquer
here
,
Page
21.
but
to
preserve
his
and
his
Princess's
right
,
and
the
Government
in
Church
and
State
:
And
might
not
this
be
done
without
a
War
,
or
a
Conquest
?
But
it
seems
it
was
our
Author's
business
to
make
a
Conquest
,
which
was
not
the
Prince's
design
nor
business
;
and
by
his
Assertions
to
create
a
greater
Victory
than
the
Prince's
Arms
pretended
to
.
5.
The
fifth
reason
is
taken
from
the
usual
acceptation
of
a
Conquest
,
which
cannot
properly
be
so
styled
,
so
long
as
there
is
a
Contestation
for
the
Throne
,
and
an
actual
War
between
the
Competitors
of
the
Crown
:
And
this
is
evident
from
the
State
of
Ireland
,
and
not
a
little
from
Scotland
.
The
subduing
of
one
Province
,
and
of
one
Kingdom
,
entitles
not
the
Conqueror
to
all
the
rest
:
And
if
King
James
was
conquer'd
in
England
,
it
follows
not
as
yet
,
neither
in
facto
nor
jure
,
that
he
is
totally
vanquished
in
Ireland
.
That
is
a
fair
Conquest
,
when
the
Conqueror
is
peaceably
secured
in
the
Government
,
and
the
conquered
incapacitated
to
make
any
probable
,
or
hopefull
attempt
for
a
recovery
.
If
it
be
objected
,
that
this
affects
not
an
English
Man
,
in
respect
of
the
Conquest
,
or
in
relation
to
his
Oaths
:
I
answer
,
it
doth
very
much
;
for
the
swore
Allegiance
to
King
James's
Right
in
all
his
Dominions
and
Countries
,
and
Ireland
is
in
that
number
:
And
he
that
swears
to
King
William
,
swears
to
him
as
made
,
and
declared
King
;
and
that
is
of
Ireland
,
as
well
as
of
England
;
and
the
Proclamation
,
and
the
War
,
and
Taxes
import
no
less
.
To
salve
all
which
,
and
much
more
that
might
be
said
,
our
Author
has
a
superfine
distinction
,
and
refined
Evasion
of
conquering
the
King
,
but
not
the
Kingdom
;
than
which
,
neither
the
Schoolmen
,
nor
the
Jesuits
ever
invented
a
more
nice
decision
But
being
more
curiously
subtle
,
than
truly
solid
,
it
may
perchance
,
to
serve
a
turn
,
please
a
Logical
Disputant
;
but
will
never
weigh
much
in
the
present
Case
of
Conscience
,
which
is
of
so
vast
a
concern
.
1.
If
the
Kingdom
is
not
conquer'd
with
the
King
,
then
the
People
have
not
lost
their
Rights
,
though
King
James
did
his
:
And
then
why
should
the
Oath
be
enforced
on
the
consideration
of
Conquest
,
whereby
the
Conqueror
gains
no
Right
over
the
People
,
nor
the
People
lose
any
Right
by
the
Conquest
?
If
he
gained
any
Right
over
the
People
by
the
Conquest
of
the
King
,
then
the
People
are
conquer'd
:
or
else
how
came
he
by
that
Right
?
If
he
hath
no
Right
to
the
Service
and
Duty
of
the
former
King's
Subjects
,
then
it
is
unrighteous
to
impose
that
to
which
he
hath
no
Right
.
If
it
be
replied
,
that
the
Representatives
(
let
them
be
as
legal
,
as
in
truth
they
ought
to
be
,
)
gave
the
Rights
of
the
Crown
to
the
present
King
;
the
Question
will
recur
,
How
came
they
to
be
Masters
of
those
Royal
Rights
?
how
came
they
to
be
Legal
Proprietors
of
those
Rights
,
which
they
had
sworn
to
be
invested
in
some
body
else
?
The
Oath
of
Allegiance
is
the
King's
Right
,
and
so
saith
the
Law
.
If
then
the
Right
was
in
them
,
(
and
except
it
was
,
I
don't
know
how
they
could
transfer
it
,
)
they
might
have
continued
it
in
,
and
to
themselves
for
ever
:
and
then
what
advantage
would
have
accrued
to
King
William
by
the
Victory
of
a
single
King
?
But
if
it
be
demanded
how
the
Representatives
came
by
this
Royal
Right
,
it
must
be
answer'd
by
one
of
these
two
ways
,
(
for
I
can't
think
of
any
other
in
the
present
case
,
)
either
by
Conquest
,
or
by
a
Demise
:
not
by
Conquest
,
for
to
this
the
Representatives
pretend
not
for
themselves
;
't
was
false
if
they
did
;
and
if
't
was
true
,
then
the
Conquest
was
theirs
,
and
not
King
William's
:
if
by
a
Demise
,
then
the
Allegation
of
Conquest
falls
to
the
ground
.
2.
If
the
King
was
conquer'd
,
and
not
the
Nation
;
the
Enquiry
will
deserve
a
satisfactory
answer
,
of
what
the
King
was
conquer'd
,
and
what
he
lost
by
the
Conquest
:
Certainly
it
must
be
said
of
his
Kingdom
,
and
this
I
take
to
comprehend
the
People
as
well
as
the
terra
firma
:
without
those
a
Kingdom
cannot
be
;
and
without
this
,
at
least
the
Right
to
it
,
(
nec
nomen
Regis
constabit
,
)
the
Title
of
a
King
can't
subsist
.
Will
our
Author
adventure
to
say
,
that
King
James's
Right
to
the
Kingdom
continues
?
If
he
doth
,
this
will
effectually
answer
and
spoil
all
his
Book
:
Or
that
King
James
was
conquer'd
from
the
Kingdom
,
and
not
the
Kingdom
from
him
?
Why
then
it
continues
his
still
;
and
I
heartily
wish
our
Author
may
never
be
forced
to
the
Experiment
of
distinguishing
of
being
taken
from
his
Estate
,
and
his
Estate
being
taken
from
him
:
And
I
assure
the
Reader
hereby
,
that
I
don't
pretend
to
that
sagacity
of
knowing
the
great
difference
between
losing
my
Money
by
being
robbed
,
and
by
being
robbed
to
lose
the
Money
.
3.
Were
the
Dutch
Soldiers
like
the
Syrian
Captains
,
to
sight
neither
with
small
nor
great
,
but
only
with
the
King
?
Were
there
no
Papists
,
nor
Evil
Counsellors
to
be
subdued
?
Against
these
King
William
came
.
Were
there
no
Skirmishes
,
no
Soldiers
slain
?
Did
none
fly
from
King
James
to
King
William
?
And
did
none
of
the
People
submit
?
A
flight
and
submission
gives
a
Victory
,
as
well
as
a
battle
and
a
slaughter
in
the
Field
.
A
Fortress
is
overcome
,
as
well
by
a
Surrender
,
as
by
a
Storm
.
There
are
but
few
that
engage
in
a
Field-Combate
,
in
comparison
of
vaster
numbers
that
willingly
submit
:
these
are
said
to
be
conquer'd
,
when
the
others
are
overcome
.
4.
Had
the
Subjects
no
Right
in
their
King
,
nor
to
his
Protection
,
nor
to
the
Laws
whereby
he
was
inviolably
invested
with
Kingly
Power
and
Rights
?
If
he
then
was
conquer'd
,
and
our
fundamental
Laws
of
hereditary
Succession
,
in
which
we
had
a
legal
Right
,
diverted
:
How
can
our
Author
say
,
that
the
People's
Rights
were
preserved
,
when
the
King
lost
his
?
Is
not
King
William
declared
to
be
a
King
regnant
,
and
not
only
a
nominative
one
,
as
King
Philip
was
in
the
words
of
the
Lord
Coke
?
5.
If
a
King
may
be
conquer'd
,
and
not
his
Kingdom
;
might
it
not
be
replied
,
that
King
William
the
First
conquer'd
Harold
,
but
not
the
Nation
?
But
you
'll
say
,
there
was
a
Battle
fought
,
and
many
Soldiers
and
much
people
slain
.
What
then
?
by
the
help
of
his
own
distinction
I
will
undertake
to
prove
,
that
't
was
not
the
Nation
,
but
Harold
and
his
Army
was
conquer'd
.
And
if
the
distinction
would
hold
in
any
case
,
it
might
be
something
more
usefully
applied
here
,
than
in
his
own
Case
:
For
King
James
never
fought
here
in
his
own
Person
.
But
forasmuch
as
Conquest
is
a
harsh
term
,
and
not
very
savoury
in
England
;
lest
it
should
comprehend
as
much
as
it
doth
signifie
,
the
Distinction
was
usefully
and
commodiously
invented
,
and
applied
to
secure
our
Titles
,
which
we
were
willing
to
continue
;
and
to
null
the
King's
,
which
we
were
not
ever
dutifull
to
preserve
:
For
our
Authour
knew
well
enough
what
the
Prince
of
Orange
suggested
in
his
Additional
Declaration
,
that
the
Conquest
of
the
Nation
doth
void
all
lawfull
Titles
to
Honours
,
Estates
,
and
Interest
;
so
to
preserve
these
't
was
cautiously
resolv'd
,
to
distinguish
between
the
Conquest
of
the
King
and
the
Nation
:
for
if
our
Conquest
had
been
involved
in
the
Conquest
of
King
James
,
more
must
have
been
inferr'd
than
many
were
willing
to
grant
.
But
since
we
are
now
on
Mysteries
of
State
,
it
would
not
be
unacceptable
,
if
the
Author
would
turn
the
Tables
,
and
resolve
this
inquisitive
Age
,
how
a
Kingdom
may
be
conquer'd
,
and
yet
the
King
lose
none
of
his
Rights
.
For
suppose
a
King
of
England
,
Rich
.
1.
or
Edw
.
1.
to
be
in
the
Holy
Land
,
and
the
French
or
Scots
in
the
interim
to
have
invaded
and
conquered
the
Kingdom
,
just
as
the
Prince
of
Orange
hath
now
conquered
the
King
:
Would
they
not
have
been
as
much
out
of
the
Condition
of
Subjection
,
as
now
King
James
is
out
of
a
Condition
of
Protecting
?
and
,
Would
his
Rights
(
to
apply
his
very
words
)
have
been
secure
and
entirely
preserved
,
though
they
had
lost
theirs
?
Perchance
this
side
of
the
Question
will
be
as
intricate
and
obscure
to
our
Author
,
as
his
is
imperceptible
and
incongruous
to
us
.
And
since
Relatives
and
Reciprocals
are
now
so
much
in
vogue
,
this
Correlative
would
deserve
its
consideration
,
with
the
rest
of
the
like
stamp
.
Our
Author
saith
,
That
King
William
pretends
not
to
a
Conquest
over
the
Nation
.
If
this
be
a
good
Plea
,
then
King
James
is
not
conquer'd
,
as
far
as
we
know
;
because
the
Prince
of
Orange
pretends
to
no
Conquest
over
him
,
but
recognized
him
in
the
publick
Prayer
Sovereign
Lord
and
King
in
this
Kingdom
,
after
the
pretended
Conquest
was
made
by
him
,
and
to
which
he
is
now
entitled
.
But
supposing
it
be
a
Conquest
,
(
which
we
don't
believe
,
and
why
should
we
,
when
the
Prince
of
Orange
declared
against
it
,
and
the
Convention
did
not
grant
it
,
but
something
else
that
was
inconsistent
with
it
;
as
it
appears
by
the
Instrument
of
Government
,
which
if
our
Author
thinks
a
good
Law
,
why
should
he
distrust
their
Wisdoms
,
and
oppose
his
own
to
theirs
,
and
do
that
which
Sages
have
condemned
,
when
they
said
,
Neminem
oportet
esse
Legibus
sapientiorem
?
)
Supposing
it
a
Conquest
,
I
say
;
yet
the
Conquest
might
not
be
founded
on
the
Rules
of
Justice
,
nor
confer
a
Righteous
Title
:
so
that
,
if
we
were
certain
of
the
Conquest
,
yet
we
might
still
distrust
the
Equity
of
the
War
;
and
if
there
be
a
failure
in
this
latter
,
there
can
be
but
little
reason
to
rely
on
the
former
by
our
Author's
Concession
.
I
shall
not
enlarge
on
that
Title
which
Conquest
can
give
:
for
this
I
refer
the
Reader
to
a
late
printed
Abstract
of
a
Learned
Person
who
wrote
on
this
Subject
,
when
the
Insolent
Usurpers
over
Charles
the
First
pretended
a
Title
to
Conquest
,
but
shall
only
and
barely
propose
some
Requisites
to
a
Just
Conquest
,
and
leave
the
full
examination
of
them
to
others
,
whether
they
were
punctually
observed
in
the
present
Case
,
and
celebrated
Victory
or
no
.
I
mean
not
hereby
the
usual
and
just
Rules
in
the
very
Exercise
of
Arms
,
and
Management
of
the
War
:
but
the
constant
Preliminaries
which
Just
and
Generous
Warriers
,
and
the
Learned
Civilians
require
,
before
the
Contest
is
begun
,
and
violent
Acts
of
an
open
Hostility
attempted
.
To
a
Just
War
are
required
.
1.
That
an
Injustice
or
Injury
be
done
and
committed
.
2.
That
a
Complaint
be
made
by
the
Sufferer
,
to
the
Aggressor
or
Violator
.
3.
That
no
Complaint
,
Redress
and
Reparation
for
the
Injuries
be
denied
.
4.
That
after
such
a
Denial
,
there
be
a
solemn
and
publick
Denunciation
of
War
made
.
This
was
thought
so
sacred
a
Condition
by
the
Romans
,
that
without
it
a
Conquest
was
but
sneakingly
and
shamefully
stoln
,
nor
fairly
or
gloriously
won
;
and
that
such
Conquerors
were
as
great
Delinquents
in
the
manner
of
executing
Justice
,
as
the
conquered
Enemies
were
to
provoke
and
deserve
it
.
And
how
truly
,
or
how
punctually
these
Conditions
were
observed
in
our
Case
,
I
need
not
tell
the
World
.
The
usual
Reasons
to
justifie
the
present
Attempt
are
,
1.
To
correct
Male-administration
,
and
remove
evil
Counsellors
,
and
to
preserve
the
Government
,
the
Subjects
Rights
,
Laws
and
Liberties
.
But
who
,
or
what
Law
hath
made
the
Prince
of
Orange
a
Judge
in
our
Israel
?
How
came
he
by
the
Right
of
Appeals
from
England
,
or
to
be
a
Superiour
Sovereign
to
our
Supreme
Governour
?
Doth
our
Law
make
him
in
time
of
Complaints
and
Grievances
our
Dictator
and
Regulator
?
or
,
Doth
God
and
Nature
impower
Children
to
chastise
their
Parents
?
Will
any
indifferent
person
justifie
such
Proceedings
?
or
,
Were
such
,
in
all
Circumstances
,
ever
heard
of
before
to
be
acted
by
Religious
Protestants
?
What
King
can
long
be
secure
?
or
,
What
Peace
firmly
preserved
and
enjoyed
?
Where
such
Allegations
are
sufficient
to
justifie
any
unnatural
War
,
may
not
the
next
Pretenders
to
the
Crown
practise
the
same
methods
,
and
be
as
innocent
?
Thanks
be
to
God
,
our
Condition
was
not
so
deplorable
,
that
we
were
under
a
Ruin
or
utter
Desperation
:
and
I
pray
God
the
present
Revolution
may
not
hasten
what
we
feared
;
and
effectually
accomplish
what
we
only
dreaded
.
The
Sword
is
drawn
,
and
the
War
begun
;
and
who
may
live
to
see
that
sheathed
,
and
this
ended
?
Omne
bellum
facile
sumitur
,
sed
aegerrime
desinit
:
non
cujus
potestatis
initium
est
,
ejus
&
finis
,
said
the
Great
Caesar
:
or
,
Who
knows
what
bitterness
will
be
in
the
End
?
We
may
live
to
be
chastisee
with
our
own
Scorpions
,
and
in
the
close
perish
by
our
own
unhappy
methods
.
Certainly
those
days
must
be
evil
,
when
those
of
our
own
houses
are
the
most
imbitter'd
Enemies
,
and
implacable
Foes
.
If
the
Justice
of
a
War
could
have
been
founded
on
K.
James
his
personal
Misdemeanors
,
it
would
have
been
but
equitable
to
have
drawn
up
the
particular
Charge
of
all
those
Crimes
for
which
he
deserved
to
have
a
War
proclaimed
against
him
.
But
in
all
the
Prince's
Declarations
,
I
find
not
one
single
Crime
imputed
to
him
,
but
all
the
ill
Administrations
are
changed
on
the
Evil
Counsellors
.
Now
to
punish
and
conquer
one
Man
for
the
sins
of
another
,
seems
not
very
agreeable
to
the
Rules
of
common
Equity
.
And
if
these
Evil
Counsellors
contracted
a
greater
degree
of
guilt
,
by
endeavouring
to
alienate
King
James
more
and
more
from
the
Prince
and
Princess
of
Orange
:
what
black
and
unnatural
Character
must
they
deserve
,
who
attempt
to
alienate
the
Prince
and
Princess
from
King
James
their
Father
?
I
wish
the
Event
had
never
given
the
unhappy
Occasion
of
quoting
this
part
of
the
Declaration
.
Whatever
Interest
or
Right
the
Prince
hath
to
the
Succession
;
We
,
who
have
taken
the
old
Oaths
,
have
sworn
to
defend
it
:
and
in
Justice
't
is
wished
,
that
he
may
never
deprived
of
it
.
But
yet
a
future
Expectancy
giveth
not
a
perfect
title
to
the
actual
Possession
of
it
.
What
is
future
,
is
onely
contingent
:
and
none
can
be
certain
to
enjoy
it
any
more
,
than
he
can
be
certain
to
survive
the
regnant
Prince
.
't
is
Injustice
to
despoil
any
one
of
his
future
Right
and
just
Inheritance
;
and
't
is
more
to
dispossess
another
of
his
actual
due
.
To
do
one
certain
Act
of
Injustice
,
is
an
improper
Course
to
prevent
a
less
,
because
altogether
uncertain
:
and
and
this
is
to
put
a
pretender
and
heir
into
better
circumstances
than
the
Rightfull
Possessor
.
2.
The
second
pretence
to
justifie
the
Prince's
attempt
is
,
The
setting
up
a
spurious
Prince
of
Wales
,
to
postpone
the
just
Rights
of
others
,
and
of
himself
in
particular
.
The
Consideration
of
this
is
of
so
vast
importance
to
the
Honour
,
Justice
,
Oaths
and
Religion
of
the
Nation
;
and
deserves
the
most
serious
,
calm
,
wary
and
strict
debate
and
examination
.
For
if
the
Prince
of
Wales
was
the
true
Child
of
King
James
and
his
Queen
Mary
,
he
then
is
lawfull
Heir
of
these
Kingdoms
,
and
we
are
inviolably
sworn
to
his
Right
;
Why
should
an
Infant
Prince
be
injured
,
and
multitudes
involved
in
Perjury
?
The
same
Plea
of
Succession
which
justifies
the
Prince
of
Orange
will
justifie
the
Prince
of
Wales
if
true
born
.
Much
more
,
if
this
is
an
Imposture
,
the
matter
deserves
the
severest
Scrutiny
,
and
the
most
impartial
Manifestation
to
expose
the
Cheat
to
shame
,
to
vindicate
our
Reputations
,
and
satisfie
our
Consciences
.
To
struggle
for
an
Impostor
against
the
rightfull
Heir
would
be
Perjury
;
and
to
neglect
our
sworn
duty
to
the
rightfull
Heir
would
be
no
less
.
Presumptions
,
Suspicions
and
vulgar
Reports
,
are
not
weighty
Arguments
to
convince
,
nor
true
Reasons
to
satisfie
;
they
are
too
weak
to
govern
Prudence
,
and
too
shallow
to
direct
the
Conscience
;
they
change
not
the
nature
of
things
;
nor
make
them
true
or
false
.
't
is
not
what
is
said
,
but
what
is
a
proved
Truth
,
that
should
be
the
Rule
to
guide
us
in
this
great
and
consciencious
Affair
.
One
Man's
doubt
doth
not
deserve
another's
full
and
firm
assent
;
and
some
mens
distrust
is
not
a
sufficient
ground
for
another's
peremptory
disbelief
.
Whatever
aversness
there
was
in
the
Court
,
to
satisfie
many
before
,
or
at
the
Birth
;
there
was
a
multitude
of
Testimonies
to
confirm
it
afterwards
;
and
now
't
is
confirmed
the
more
,
because
nothing
done
since
to
disprove
it
,
or
them
.
The
whole
matter
deserved
to
be
re-examined
;
and
the
management
enquired
into
by
a
legal
Parliament
,
according
to
Promise
;
that
so
the
Representatives
might
have
acquired
the
full
knowledge
of
this
grand
Affair
,
that
thereby
they
might
be
prepared
to
satisfie
the
whole
Nation
,
who
have
infinite
reason
to
desire
it
.
How
many
Scruples
would
be
resolv'd
?
How
many
Doubts
removed
?
How
many
minds
would
be
eased
,
if
it
could
be
fairly
proved
whose
Child
this
Imposture
was
?
how
,
and
by
whom
't
was
surreptitiously
brought
in
;
how
the
Plot
was
laid
;
and
how
the
Intrigue
carried
on
;
who
were
the
Contrivers
and
Managers
;
what
Artifices
were
used
to
amuse
some
and
delude
others
;
what
Improvements
of
Art
,
and
Impositions
on
Nature
,
were
used
to
produce
such
a
Fatherless
and
Motherless
Child
;
what
golden
Showers
essected
such
a
miraculous
Birth
;
what
sort
of
Aboriginal
Native
this
Insant
is
;
who
,
according
to
some
popular
Oracles
,
is
like
to
be
the
Wonder
of
Ages
,
without
beginning
or
ending
of
days
?
We
are
concern'd
by
Oath
for
the
rightfull
Heir
;
and
by
Oath
let
it
be
determin'd
who
the
Heir
is
.
We
are
told
by
many
late
Writers
,
that
't
is
not
our
duty
,
nor
is
it
required
of
us
,
to
examine
Titles
;
but
undoubtedly
we
are
to
resolve
,
and
enquire
,
in
order
to
keep
our
Oaths
;
and
since
by
Oath
we
are
engaged
to
the
right
Heir
,
't
is
necessary
to
be
satisfied
who
this
Heir
is
that
hath
the
Title
,
which
we
must
own
,
and
to
whom
our
Oaths
of
Allegiance
and
Supremacy
are
to
be
paid
.
An
implicit
Swearing
is
no
more
commendable
than
an
implicit
Romish
faith
,
and
a
blind
Pepish
Obedience
;
since
the
Oath
is
taken
,
't
is
our
concern
,
and
ought
to
be
our
enquiry
and
business
,
how
it
may
and
ought
to
be
kept
.
How
easie
and
usual
it
is
to
cry
up
,
and
clamour
down
what
suits
with
our
designs
,
and
is
agreeable
to
our
purposes
;
and
to
change
the
Judgment
for
no
other
reason
,
but
because
the
scene
of
Assairs
is
altered
.
Bless
the
Prince
of
Wales
was
the
Prayer
for
one
day
;
and
,
hang
up
the
Cheat
was
the
Sentence
of
the
next
.
't
was
interest
then
,
to
bless
;
and
now
't
is
Interest
,
and
something
worse
,
to
curse
the
very
same
Person
.
But
how
ignoble
,
unmanly
and
unchristian
such
methods
and
changes
are
,
a
little
honesty
may
suffice
to
convince
.
What
Prayers
,
and
what
Solemnities
were
express'd
here
in
England
!
What
Formalities
and
Trasports
of
joy
in
foreign
Courts
!
Addresses
were
made
at
home
,
and
Congratulations
came
from
abroad
;
and
such
seeming
acquiescence
in
the
general
,
that
to
pray
for
the
Prince
of
Wales
was
not
onely
enjoyn'd
,
but
the
Nation
was
contented
to
own
him
before
God
himself
.
Did
not
the
Prince
of
Orange
send
a
Congratulation
for
the
Birth
of
the
Prince
of
Wales
,
and
was
not
the
Prince
prayed
for
in
the
Princess
of
Orange's
Chapel
?
Did
ever
the
P.
of
Orange
complain
of
any
Imposture
of
Fraud
in
this
Affair
,
before
the
Declaration
came
forth
?
and
in
the
Declaration
a
vehement
Suspicion
is
the
Summ
Total
;
and
upon
that
ground
,
the
Birth
of
the
Prince
of
Wales
was
reserr'd
to
the
Enquiry
of
a
Legal
Parliament
:
which
certainly
the
wise
P.
of
Orange
would
never
have
done
,
if
it
had
been
a
certain
Imposture
,
and
thereby
expose
his
own
indisputable
Right
and
Title
to
an
hazardous
Dispute
.
This
momentous
Point
calls
for
a
most
deliberate
and
impartial
Tryal
:
every
pious
and
tenderly
just
mind
,
can
but
desire
to
be
satisfied
herein
;
that
the
Nation
may
not
hereafter
halt
between
two
Pretenders
,
and
continue
doubtful
where
to
pay
their
duty
,
and
shew
their
sidelity
,
being
entangled
with
the
doubts
and
difficulties
of
Conscience
,
the
Aims
of
Princes
,
involved
in
the
miseries
of
a
bloudy
Civil
War
.
Was
there
no
way
to
satisfie
the
Prince
of
Orange
but
by
owning
a
forgery
in
the
Prince
of
Wales
?
Was
there
Inspectio
Ventris
solemnly
desired
?
and
if
desired
,
Was
it
refused
?
King
James
is
not
charged
in
the
Prince's
Declaration
for
denying
one
thing
which
ever
the
Prince
of
Orange
formally
and
publickly
required
of
him
.
And
our
Author
confesses
,
that
the
Affair
of
the
Prince
of
Wales
is
not
strictly
to
be
insisted
on
:
which
others
think
should
necessarily
be
done
,
whether
the
Birth
be
true
or
false
.
The
Memorial
hath
collected
a
great
number
of
Allegations
and
popular
invidious
Surmises
;
but
hitherto
they
want
the
honest
and
legal
evidence
of
sufficient
Witnesses
to
prove
them
.
And
if
the
Birth
is
not
strictly
to
be
enquired
into
;
why
was
it
promis'd
in
the
Declaration
?
why
were
Calumnies
raised
from
thence
to
blacken
King
James
,
and
Surmises
and
Arguments
to
alienate
his
Subjects
from
him
,
and
promote
the
Cause
,
and
provoke
the
minds
of
his
Adversaries
against
him
?
Doth
not
that
deserve
a
strict
Inquisition
,
wherein
the
Oaths
,
Honour
,
and
Justice
of
the
Nation
;
and
the
Right
and
the
Happiness
of
our
Constitution
and
Government
doth
consist
?
It
seems
,
and
so
't
is
believed
;
that
what
cannot
be
proved
,
is
not
strictly
to
be
insisted
on
,
according
to
our
Author
.
Notwithstanding
all
that
hath
been
said
;
if
it
should
prove
true
,
what
some
have
suggested
,
that
the
Design
of
the
Invasion
was
laid
and
carried
on
before
the
time
of
the
Queen's
pretended
Delivery
of
the
Prince
of
Wales
,
how
decently
would
the
pretence
of
the
War
,
from
that
pretended
Prince's
Birth
,
be
committed
to
its
honest
grave
of
oblivion
?
What
other
pretences
others
may
have
to
justifie
the
Prince
of
Orange's
War
and
Conquest
,
I
know
not
:
this
I
know
,
that
the
Author
of
the
Letter
to
a
Bishop
insists
on
no
more
:
and
whether
the
Objections
or
Answers
are
most
satisfactory
,
is
lest
to
the
Reader's
Judgment
to
determine
what
he
pleaseth
;
for
't
is
out
of
my
power
to
make
him
think
otherwise
than
he
resolves
to
think
.
Yet
after
all
,
I
cannot
but
observe
how
cautious
our
Author
is
,
not
to
lay
too
much
stress
on
Conquest
,
lest
that
sole
Plea
should
fail
:
and
therefore
he
twists
two
more
pretences
with
it
to
complete
a
Title
;
and
saith
,
The
Prince
and
Princess
of
Orange
are
in
possession
partly
by
Conquest
,
partly
by
Inheritance
,
and
partly
by
the
Consent
of
the
Nation
.
Without
all
these
together
it
seems
the
Title
would
not
be
whole
and
complete
;
for
where
a
part
is
wanting
,
the
whole
is
not
intire
:
but
how
all
these
are
consistent
or
exactly
true
,
't
is
not
easie
to
comprehend
;
if
only
the
various
passages
of
the
Letter
be
truly
compared
,
much
less
if
the
Acts
of
the
Convention
and
the
Instrument
of
Government
are
but
cursorily
considered
,
and
a
little
compared
.
And
it
seems
to
me
,
whatever
the
Author
pretends
,
Page
19.
he
fairly
quits
them
all
,
by
saying
,
that
the
undoubted
Right
of
Succession
of
the
Prince
and
Princess
of
Orange
was
after
the
death
of
King
James
.
If
then
King
James
be
not
dead
,
it
is
not
their
undoubted
Right
to
succeed
.
The
last
Argument
that
is
insisted
on
to
persuade
us
to
believe
,
that
our
Oaths
to
King
James
do
cease
,
is
,
because
be
ceaseth
to
protect
us
;
whereby
,
and
according
to
which
our
Author
,
and
other
Writers
,
would
have
actual
Allegiance
and
Protection
so
naturally
reciprocal
,
that
this
failing
,
the
other
must
do
so
too
.
To
evince
the
Falshood
of
this
Doctrine
,
I
shall
propose
two
things
,
1.
Argument
;
2.
Example
;
having
first
observed
,
that
the
Oaths
of
Allegiance
and
Supremacy
are
not
taken
on
the
condition
of
actual
Protection
.
In
the
Oaths
there
are
no
Conditions
or
Reservations
made
or
expressed
:
and
't
is
to
be
remembred
,
that
the
Oaths
are
given
to
secure
the
Subjects
duty
to
the
King
,
not
the
King's
duty
to
the
Subject
;
which
is
obvious
to
him
that
reads
the
Oaths
.
And
I
dare
appeal
to
our
Author
,
whether
he
took
the
Oaths
with
a
Condition
of
Protection
the
first
time
after
King
Charles
the
Second's
Restoration
.
1.
The
Argument
shall
be
taken
from
,
and
in
the
very
words
of
the
University
of
Oxford's
Reasons
concerning
the
Covenant
,
&c.
drawn
up
by
that
great
Casuist
Dr.
Sanderson
,
Sect
.
7.
of
the
Salvo's
,
Wherein
the
Zealots
of
that
time
,
pretending
to
satisfie
the
Scruples
of
Loyal
Persons
,
arising
from
the
Sovereignty
of
the
King
,
and
the
Duty
of
Subjects
Allegiance
,
are
brought
in
By
saying
,
Which
(
seemeth
to
us
a
piece
of
unreasonable
and
strange
Divinity
)
that
Protection
and
Subjection
standing
in
Relation
to
each
other
;
the
King
being
now
disabled
to
give
us
Protection
,
we
are
thereby
freed
from
our
Bond
of
Subjection
:
Whereas
,
1.
The
Subject's
Obligation
(
Jus
Subjectionis
)
doth
not
spring
from
,
or
relate
unto
the
Actual
exercise
of
Kingly
Protection
;
but
from
,
and
unto
the
Prince's
Obligation
to
protect
,
(
Jus
Protectionis
,
)
which
Obligation
lying
upon
him
as
a
Duty
,
which
he
is
bound
in
Conscience
to
perform
,
when
it
is
in
his
power
so
to
do
:
the
Relative
obligation
lyeth
upon
us
as
a
duty
,
which
we
are
bound
in
Conscience
to
perform
,
when
it
is
in
our
power
so
to
do
.
His
Inability
therefore
to
perform
his
duty
,
doth
not
discharge
us
from
the
necessity
of
performing
ours
,
so
long
as
we
are
able
to
do
it
.
2.
If
the
King
should
not
protect
us
,
but
neglect
his
part
,
though
having
power
and
ability
to
perform
it
;
his
voluntary
neglect
ought
not
to
free
us
from
the
faithfull
performances
of
what
is
to
be
done
on
our
part
:
How
much
less
then
ought
we
to
think
our selves
disobliged
from
our
Subjection
,
when
the
Non-protection
on
his
part
is
not
from
the
want
of
Will
,
but
of
Power
?
It
is
most
certain
,
that
actual
Protection
,
and
actual
Subjection
,
do
not
mutually
infer
each
other
;
for
all
that
are
actually
prorected
,
do
not
pay
actual
Subjection
,
as
is
evident
from
the
many
Traitors
and
Felons
,
and
other
Criminals
in
peaceable
times
;
and
though
many
pay
actual
Subjection
,
yet
are
they
not
actually
protected
,
as
,
amongst
others
,
the
Society
of
Magdalen-Colledge
can
abundantly
testifie
.
If
any
one
in
a
plainer
Phrase
shall
say
,
That
he
that
is
actually
protected
,
ought
to
pay
Subjection
,
(
including
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
herein
,
)
I
must
say
,
that
this
will
open
an
entrance
for
all
Villany
,
Falshood
,
Treason
,
and
Usurpation
whatever
;
and
being
admitted
,
will
patronize
all
Disloyalty
,
Unfaithfulness
,
and
Perjury
.
If
a
Massianello
shall
seditiously
seize
a
whole
City
,
and
the
strength
of
it
;
will
any
one
say
,
that
Allegiance
presently
becomes
his
due
,
because
the
true
Lord
of
the
City
is
not
capable
at
present
to
protect
the
Inhabitants
?
Or
if
a
Company
of
Night-Robbers
seize
the
House
,
and
the
Inhabitants
;
and
for
the
present
defend
them
from
the
assault
of
some
other
Thieves
:
is
therefore
their
faithfull
Obedience
become
due
to
the
Robbers
?
and
ought
they
for
this
present
defence
to
swear
themselves
Liege
Servants
for
ever
?
Our
Author
tells
us
,
that
King
James
is
altogether
incapacitated
to
protect
us
;
and
are
we
therefore
incapacitated
to
be
faithfull
to
him
?
Because
he
can't
do
what
he
would
;
must
we
therefore
do
what
we
should
not
?
Allegiance
may
be
Suspended
;
but
without
the
King's
consent
it
cannot
totally
be
Abrogated
:
For
having
passed
over
my
Faith
to
him
as
his
due
,
and
he
accordingly
having
accepted
it
,
and
continues
to
demand
it
as
his
due
;
I
can't
without
Injustice
take
from
him
,
what
is
his
due
to
have
,
and
will
not
part
with
.
The
Author
is
very
wary
herein
;
for
though
he
says
King
James
is
altogether
incapacitated
,
he
doth
not
add
for
ever
;
for
of
this
he
can't
be
sure
,
and
so
here
may
be
room
for
a
future
Apology
,
and
to
return
to
a
future
Allegiance
,
because
of
future
Protection
;
which
I
heartily
wish
him
on
all
occasions
and
mutations
.
The
case
of
the
Frontier
Towns
in
Germany
and
Flanders
,
is
not
parallel
to
ours
;
if
it
was
,
a
Foreign
Example
is
no
persect
rule
to
direct
our
Consciences
.
Is
there
not
such
a
tacit
Condition
in
their
Oaths
,
confirm'd
by
the
acknowledged
practice
of
all
Parties
,
and
the
consent
of
their
Governing
Lords
?
Is
their
Oath
the
same
with
ours
?
Do
their
outed
Governors
require
Allegiance
from
them
,
as
King
James
insists
to
demand
ours
?
If
they
are
re-taken
by
force
,
or
a
permissive
surrender
,
are
they
ever
treated
as
Traitors
,
but
rather
govern'd
as
a
new
acquired
Conquest
?
They
do
what
they
can
for
their
old
Masters
;
and
when
that
is
done
,
these
release
them
to
pass
their
Fidelity
on
another
.
But
are
we
released
by
King
James
?
or
can
we
our selves
discharge
our
Obligations
?
Now
though
they
change
their
Faith
with
their
Lords
,
yet
I
understand
not
how
they
are
necessitated
thereunto
,
as
our
Author
expresseth
it
.
But
if
Protection
confers
a
good
Right
,
doth
not
the
Principality
of
Orange
belong
as
much
to
the
French
King
,
as
England
to
King
William
?
and
how
incongruous
to
our
Author's
principles
must
it
be
,
to
proclaim
the
Irish
,
Rebels
and
Traitors
,
for
not
being
protected
?
To
the
Argument
,
I
shall
add
,
2dly
,
Some
Examples
to
convince
us
,
that
actual
Protection
infers
not
actual
Subjection
.
When
King
Richard
the
First
in
his
return
from
Palestine
was
taken
by
the
Duke
of
Austria
,
and
made
a
Prisoner
by
the
German
Emperor
for
fifteen
months
;
his
Right
to
England
did
not
cease
,
nor
did
the
Subject's
Fealty
fall
,
though
he
was
then
(
in
our
Author's
words
)
incapacitated
to
govern
;
and
something
more
in
respect
of
his
Person
,
than
King
James
is
at
present
.
The
Imprisonment
of
King
Charles
the
First
,
(
and
Conquest
,
and
the
Original
Contract
,
and
the
People's
Rights
were
then
pretended
,
as
now
they
are
,
)
and
the
Conquest
,
and
long
Banishment
of
King
Charles
the
Second
,
when
he
had
not
one
Hold
in
his
three
Kingdoms
,
did
not
vacate
the
Oaths
;
nor
would
all
sorts
of
rigour
enforce
the
true
Loyalists
to
quit
their
Faith
,
and
forego
their
Allegiance
.
I
believe
our
Author
was
once
of
that
opinion
,
however
there
was
as
fair
a
Plea
for
Protection
then
,
as
can
be
pretended
now
.
The
last
Instance
shall
be
in
David
and
Absalom
;
a
Case
more
parallel
to
our
present
Circumstance
,
than
I
could
wish
,
though
I
cannot
help
it
.
The
Laws
were
too
grosly
and
notoriously
broken
by
David
;
and
so
much
the
worse
was
he
,
because
the
Laws
were
appointed
by
God
himself
:
He
committed
the
most
injurious
Sins
,
that
one
Man
can
be
guilty
of
against
another
,
which
were
Adultery
and
Murther
;
and
so
,
according
to
our
Author's
Doctrine
,
he
ceased
to
be
a
King
,
because
he
ceased
to
govern
according
to
Law
.
Absalom
complain'd
of
Grievances
,
and
promised
Reformation
and
Justice
,
when
he
should
be
made
Judge
in
Israel
:
by
which
pretences
he
stole
the
Peoples
hearts
,
and
gather'd
a
numerous
and
formidable
Army
:
He
is
proclaimed
King
;
he
seizeth
the
Royal
Palace
;
and
the
People
were
as
ready
to
serve
him
,
as
they
had
been
to
be
commanded
by
his
Father
.
David
flies
,
because
he
had
not
Forces
enough
left
to
fight
,
and
defend
himself
,
(
so
here
is
a
Conquest
too
)
leaves
no
Viceroy
to
govern
the
People
at
Jerusalem
;
flies
over
the
River
Jordan
,
and
so
Abdicates
the
nine
Tribes
and
a
half
:
and
so
not
being
able
to
protect
them
,
their
Faith
became
due
to
Absalom
.
Now
here
is
a
Scripture-Case
too
parallel
to
these
days
,
and
in
every
particular
almost
correspondent
to
our
Author's
arguments
and
allegations
;
like
Elijah
to
the
Child
,
Nose
to
Nose
,
Eyes
to
Eyes
,
Hands
to
Hands
,
&c.
and
so
like
is
the
Child
,
that
the
difference
can
scarce
be
discern'd
.
I
will
make
no
other
Application
,
but
desire
the
Author
of
the
Letter
to
satisfie
the
World
,
if
David
did
not
Abdicate
,
and
was
not
truly
dethron'd
or
dispossess'd
of
the
Crown
;
and
Absalom
partly
by
Conquest
,
partly
by
hereditary
Right
,
and
partly
by
the
consent
of
the
Nation
,
was
not
in
full
possession
of
the
Government
,
and
in
a
capacity
to
protect
the
People
:
It
matters
not
,
in
our
Author's
determination
,
whether
a
month
or
ten
years
?
and
whether
the
Oath
of
Obedience
,
in
consideration
of
Protection
,
was
not
due
to
Absalom
?
and
such
an
Oath
he
hath
found
out
,
Eccles
.
8.2
.
For
if
it
was
in
Solomon's
time
,
't
is
no
unreasonable
supposition
to
imagine
it
to
be
in
use
in
the
Reigns
of
David
and
Absalom
;
since
our
Author
saith
,
Page
30.
it
was
the
manner
of
the
Subjects
of
Israel
and
Judah
to
take
Oaths
of
Allegiance
to
their
Kings
.
Having
now
consider'd
every
Argument
,
and
Allegation
of
every
thing
of
moment
,
pertinent
to
the
present
case
,
as
they
occur
in
our
Author
;
whereby
he
endeavours
to
prove
,
that
our
Oaths
to
King
James
do
cease
to
bind
us
any
longer
:
and
having
,
as
I
think
,
given
a
full
and
sufficient
Answer
to
every
particular
,
I
now
proceed
to
consider
2.
The
second
grand
Point
of
transferring
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
on
King
William
and
Queen
Mary
,
our
new
Lord
and
Lady
;
but
how
they
came
to
be
so
,
when
the
Nation
was
not
conquer'd
,
let
the
Author
tell
.
He
saith
there
was
a
Contract
between
the
Prince
and
the
Nation
.
There
was
a
Contract
indeed
between
some
of
this
Nation
to
change
our
Governor
and
Government
too
.
That
we
are
better
protected
now
than
formerly
,
Ireland
can
prove
;
the
encrease
of
Taxes
,
the
failure
of
Trade
,
Free
Quartering
of
Soldiers
in
private
Houses
,
the
loss
of
Places
,
the
suspension
of
Persons
do
more
than
enough
convince
,
though
not
satisfie
us
,
that
our
Laws
are
preserv'd
,
and
all
of
us
govern'd
according
to
Law
,
is
as
true
;
Witness
the
Laws
relating
to
the
Crown
and
the
Parliament
.
Had
we
no
other
Motives
to
transfer
our
Allegiance
,
these
would
not
contribute
the
best
encouragements
,
nor
be
very
amiable
inducements
:
but
Motives
are
not
the
things
we
hunt
after
,
but
satisfactory
Reasons
to
inform
our
Understandings
,
guide
our
Judgments
,
and
preserve
our
Consciences
.
If
King
James
truly
and
really
,
to
all
intents
and
purposes
,
did
cease
to
be
King
,
and
the
Oaths
as
to
him
were
truly
and
altogether
fall'n
;
yet
that
part
,
which
relates
to
his
Heirs
,
continues
valid
and
still
to
oblige
us
.
Now
if
there
was
no
pretended
Prince
of
Wales
,
or
if
he
could
be
proved
as
spurious
as
some
proclaim
that
he
is
;
yet
the
Prince
of
Orange
is
not
the
next
Heir
in
the
usual
course
of
Descent
,
according
to
the
English
Laws
and
Customs
,
and
as
we
have
sworn
;
and
so
the
Oath
,
as
we
think
,
can't
be
honestly
transferr'd
on
him
,
which
by
right
belongs
to
another
.