WHither away in so much haste? One word with you for the sake of Old Acquaintance, when we were fel­low-Murmurers in the late Reign.

Pray be brief then, for I am upon the King's Business, and must lose no time.

It is very well if His Majesty's Affairs have lost no time in the hands of Men of your Opinion. But you may pardon me, if I ask what King you mean? King William, or the late King?

What a Question is that to one in such an Of­fice as I have under King William.

I very well know your Office, tho' how you came into it is a Mystery; and I cannot but observe [Page 2]the steps which you have taken since you had it: Nay, know how much you value your self with your Party upon being the same Man which you were, when you shewed your parts in opposing this King's coming to the Crown; and therefore I may very well ask you, under the Rose, whether you will own King William to be your King?

I should be very unworthy if I did not; since I have not only Protection, but Profit and Prefer­ment from him.

I grant it would be Unworthiness, and down­right Treachery not to own him; but that makes it never the clearer to me that you do.

I have sworn Allegiance to him, and do you think I would Perjure my self?

I cannot tell how far you may have improv'd in Romish Equivocations, to evade the plain meaning of what you have sworn.

I make no Evasion; for I either declared at the time of swearing, or it is implyed in my Oath, that it obliges me no farther than not to oppose him or his Arms, till I may be able to do it with a fair prospect of Success, and without the imputation of acting like a Mad-man.

Did you mean no more when you swore Al­legiance to King James?

Yes, much more, and upon very good Reason; for in my very Oath I recogniz'd him to be lawful and rightful King, and I swore to do my best Endeavour to disclose and make known unto His Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies, which I shall know or hear to be against him, or any of them.

I can see no cause to doubt, but if you had never sworn Allegiance to King William, yet you are bound to the same Allegiance to him which you owed to the late King, in vertue of that very Oath which you took to the former, as King William is his Successor.

That is very good indeed! a Successor to a man alive, and in Possession of his Kingdom! and the Possession of part, is in Law a Possession of the whole, befides, 'tis Heirs and Successors, and you will not say, that this King or Queen can yet, at least, be Heirs to the last.

I have long since learnt from Bracton and others, that an Heir is from the Inheritance; and where-ever the Law or Lawful Authority places that, our Allegiance is to follow.

I know of no Authority that can make this King more than King in Fact.

Have not the Nation duly declar'd him King upon the other's Abdication? And does not that De­claration manifest, or make, a Right?

King James could not lose his Right, it was inseparable from his Person, which he cannot but bear about with him, should he go to the Indies. In­deed this King got into Possession of part of his Do­minions by force, King James retir'd out of fear, with an intention of returning, and we submitted to the Prince of Orange in the day of his Power.

According to you he is neither King of Right nor in Fact, as long as the late King is Powerful in Ireland.

Not a word of that, I beseech you, till his Rival has left England, who in the mean while may be called King; he has the Sword in his hand, and [Page 4]we may be allowed to take Quarter, and promise not to fight against him; especially since we never lay under any Obligation to fight for the other.

You seem to believe, that King William has conquer'd England.

Yes surely; does not the Fate of a Nation depend upon its Head? If King James was beaten, or ran away, this must be a virtual beating of the whole Nation.

Then at least King William is Rightful King, as he is King by Conquest.

I beg your pardon for that: For, 1. There ought to have been just cause of War. What had he to do to call a Soveraign Prince to Account, if he had treated his Subjects as Slaves? Besides, all that has been said against him, or the Servants of his Crown, are but the Clamours of Male-contents, and blushless Lies, as has been well observed by the Elo­quent Author of The Magistracy and Government of England Vindicated. Third and last Part of The Magistracy and Govern­ment Vindica­ted. p. 1. 2. Admit this King had Right to free an Oppressed People, and they really had been Oppressed; however, he ought, according to the Law of Nations, to have made a Formal Decla­aation of War before his coming.

Tho' I admire not your Author, whose Cha­racter you may see in the Man-Hunter, Vid. The Man-Hunter, in An­swer to the third and last Part of the Magistracy, &c nor believe that King William coming for our Rescue, had need to Proclaim a War; yet I must confess, the want of Proclaiming War, may be a full bar to a Right by Conquest of the Nation. But all you say against King William's Right by Law, and the Declaration of the People, is but a begging the Question:

You will not easily convince me that I go up­on wrong grounds.

Whatever your lurking Reasons may be, me thinks you should consider the Obligation of the Oath which you have taken to be faithful, and bear true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, by which as much is plainly implyed as was expressed in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to James II. and requir'd by the Statute 3 Jac. I. No more being re­quired by that Statute, setting aside what relates to the Pope, than was at the Common Law meant in being faithful, and bearing true Allegiance to a King of England. And by consequence if the late King is still King with you, the Oath which you have ta­ken to this, is contradictory to the former.

Do you think a Man shall be Perjur'd by Con­sequences?

Yes, no doubt but he may, if they are so pal­pable that he cannot but discern them.

As a Divine of our Church tells us, A Modest Ex­amination of the New Oaths, by a Divine of the Church of England; Printed for Randal Tay­lor, p. 4. All Oaths and Promises are to be taken in the sense of the Impo­ser, but had the framers of the Oath any design to im­pose an acknowledgment of the King and Queen's Title, they might easily have made use of such Expressions as would have put the Matter out of all doubt.

Could our Law-makers think true Allegiance due to a King without a Lawful Title? Besides, you must admit, that if there is Evidence that they lookt upon the Title as Lawful, it is not to be doubted, but they required Allegiance upon that account.

I do not remember any Act of theirs, from whence you can clearly shew this.

The Lords and Commons, in the Bill of Rights, as the Representatives of the Nation, truly, firmly, assuredly; and in sincerity of their hearts, Recognize, Acknowledge, and Declare, That King James the Se­cond [Page 6]having Abdicated the Government, and Their Ma­jesties having accepted the Crown and Royal Dignity, Their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm, our Soveraign Liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen, &c. Here is of Right as well as by Law.

That was no Parliament.

If it were not, yet God is become a Witness and Party to that Oath, which you have taken in their presumable sense.

This Declaration was not made till after I had taken the Oath.

At least it referring to the time of the Ac­ceptance of the Crown, is a fair Evidence upon what account they required the Oath of Allegiance.

Let them have required it as to Lawful and Rightful King and Queen, yet I deny that the Com­mon-Law-Allegiance requires more than Passive Obe­dience, and I am sure our Divines, who are the best Directors of our Consciences, tell us so.

It seems Sir Roger has lost his Office: But for these matters, I take Lawyers and Historians to be much the better Directors, and could produce Testi­monies of Divines for this. But what Reason can you give why the Clergy should be tyed to Active-Obe­dience to their Ecclesiastical Superiours, in all things Lawful and Honest, and yet Temporal Superiours may be glad to get Obligations from their Subjects, only not to fight against them?

The Law requires no more.

I shall hope to satisfie you, that Active-Obedi­ence is due by Law to our Liege Lord, and that this is the true Allegiance, or Tye to him, which your Oath obliges you to.

As sure as can be you will bring something [Page 7] from amongst the Records of the Obsolete Gothick Feudal-Laws, Reasons why the Rector of P. took the Oath of Alle­giance. and would infer that it must needs signi­fie at this day some Active, Warlike Endeavours in be­half of the Soveraign; because the tenure of those times was upon Condition that the Tenant should attend his Lord to the Wars, and the Security they gave to per­form this, was swearing to bear faith and true Alle­giance to them.

Tho' this is no contemptible Evidence what has from the beginning been meant by Allegiance, yet I shall confirm this by the positive Law of this Realm; for which end, I must take leave to detain you with a Translation of part of the Confessor's Law, expresly received by William the First, and his Great Council, or Parliament.

That Law, speaking of the Folkmote, Leg [...]s St. Edw. Tit. Grev [...] or General Assembly of the People, to be held every first of May yearly, where among other things they were to provide by Common Council for the Indemnity of the Crown of the Kingdom, and for repressing the Inso­lence of Malefactors for the profit of the Kingdom.—

I find already this is a Cheat, devised by some Common-wealth's-Man in the time of Noll's Usurpa­tion, when they would have made him King; it talks of the Crown of the Kingdom, and repressing Malefactors for the Profit of the Kingdom; as if any but a King could have Interest in the Crown, or the benefit of the Kingdom could be of any weight without regard to its Head. I am sure Bishop Sanderson has admirably explain'd that Maxim, The Safety of the People is the Supream Law, by shewing that the safety of the King is prin­cipally intended, as he is the Head of the People.

You will not hear me out. Popull omnes & Gentes uni­versae. The Confessor's Law Ordains, That all People, and all Counties shall [Page 8]meet once in every Year, and there with a true Faith and Oath, Confederate and consolidate together as one Man and sworn Brethren, to defend the King­dom against Strangers, and against Enemies, to­gether with their Lord the King, and to preserve his Lands and Honours (with him) and that they will be faithful to him as their Liege Lord and King, within and without the Kingdom of Bri­tain.

A very pleasant Sham! you have invented a Law for an Oath to suit your purpose, as if you were bound to the King no longer than he is [with you] and defends the Kingdom. But that will not help you, since he is at the Head of a French and Irish Army in its Defence. But if your Quotation were true, do you think I am bound according to the meaning of Obsolete Antiquity?

The Confessor's Laws, how Ancient soever, are not Obsolete, or out of date, but as far as they are express, are a fair transcript of the Common-Law of England. And that Common-Law must shew what is meant by Allegiance.

If William the First, and others since, swore to maintain the Confessor's Law, they must needs have done it, as they were forc'd to it, not voluntarily and of their own motion.

Nay, if you look into the Laws particularly Enacted by William the First, made by the Common-Council of his whole Kingdom, you will find a Law more express for Active Service, Leges W. 1.59. if possible. There 'tis required, That all Free-men of the whole King­dom be sworn Brethren to defend, and manfully preserve his Monarchy and Kingdom, with their Strength and Fortunes, to the utmost, against Ene­mies, [Page 9]and to maintain the Peace and Dignity of his Crown entire, and to give right Judgment, and do Justice constantly by all means to their power, without fraud, and without delay.

This Law was very imprudently penn'd, to make People Judges of Right and wrong, and joyn them in a Confederacy against the Crown, when­ever they think that a King wholly departs from the Rule of Law.

If these Authorities will not satisfie you, that you were bound actually to serve and obey the Law­ful Commands of James II. while he continued King, and that by vertue of your Oath to this, you now owe him that Duty which before was owing to the other, I will make it plain to you, that in swearing Allegiance to this King, while you believe the Ob­ligation to the other to remain, you must needs swallow palpable Contradictions.

I love you for that; do you think I understand not how to avoid Contradictions as well as any Whig of ye all? Or at least you must grant me that our Clergy do; and tho' numbers of them believe King James his Right to continue, and mean him when they Pray for [the King] yet they make no seruple of taking the Oath to this King and Queen.

Can you blame them? By this Craft. they keep their Livings. But the Question is not, what either they or you understand, but what you do.

I find you have never read the Reasons why the Rector of P. Vid. Reasons why the Rect­or of P. took the Oath. took the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.

Yes I have, and by a very good Token, I remember that he labours to prove, Pag. 2. with the sub­tilty of a School-man, that notwithstanding his Oath [Page 10]to this King and Queen, he has not put himself out of a Capacity to perform what he swore to the last.

Right: And what think you of that?

Before I tell you my thoughts, I must Re­mark upon one Artifice of his. In the Oath of Allegiance to the late King, he swore to Defend him against all Conspiracies and [Attempts] whatsoever, which he cunningly turns into [Contempts] that is, says he, That we will assert him to be our Rightful and Soveraign Prince, not to hold his Crown by favour of the Pope, nor to be deposable by him, or any other person or power whatsoever. But the unhappiness is, the Discovery of this Cheat opens the Contradicti­on.

For my part I do not see where it lies.

Suppose for once, that the Allegiance which you have sworn to King William did not Oblige you ac­cording to the sense of the Common-Law, or that the Common-Law-sense did not import Active Assi­stance. Yet you see if King James still remains your King, you are bound to Defend him against all [Attempts] even such as may be made by this King, to whom you have sworn to be true and faithful.

I see it is of good use that it should be [Con­tempts] instead of [Attempts] and I will believe the Vechum Saterdotis before a Statute-Book.

Methinks your Priest seems by his Equitoca­tions to be one of the Romish Cut.

I find your usual Malice against the Church, pray profane not the Sacred Order.

I see he is resolved not to be depriv'd from his Office or Order for not swallowing an Oath: but such Men would do well to maintain their Character, by not going beyond their Office: I wish the witty Author of the Grounds of the Contempt of the Clergy, would exercise his Talent on this Subject. But what think you of this Opinion of Treasons and Traite­rous Conspiracies?

I like it very well, 'tis an Opinion one may thrive by, and it qualifies me for being privy to King William's Secrets, without danger of being thought to lie under an Obligation to discover them; because he is in actual War with King James, and his Designs against our rightful King cannot be Trea­son or Traiterous.

If King William could carry on the War alone, indeed it were something, but it must be managed by many hands, Orders must issue out through se­veral Offices, the Ministers of State must have Meetings and private Debates; all these, it seems, you are bound to discover.

Yes, why not? I am true and faithful to King William, since I discover nothing which I have from his own mouth: But we are bound to observe the Meetings and Cabals of King James his Subjects, Rector, p. 3. dive as much as we may into the matter of their Consults, use all diligence first to inform our selves, and then, the King or his Officers, of any Plot or Practice that we shall learn to be carrying on against him.

You well know of many carrying on against this King, his Crown and Dignity, are you true and faithful in not discovering them?

I am not bound to speak all the truth I know.

But if you know of any Treasonable Conspi­racy against the Life of this King, or his Government, you are guilty of Misprision of Treason at Common-Law, if you do not discover it; but the concealing could not be a Crime, if the discovery were not a Duty, and if it be a Duty, it is implied in swearing Allegiance, and by consequence the acting contrary to that Legal Obligation, is Perjury.

You would Perjure half the Nation.

No, I would have all swear without Perjury: but your own Casuist condemns you of wilful Per­jury.

I can find nothing like it in that Golden Apology of the Rector of P.

What think you of this? Speaking of his A­pology, Rector of P. It concerns not, says he, those who have en­joyed any Offices or places of Trust under him, who are hereby bound faithfully to discharge the Duty and Service belonging to them, and such if they should en­ter into any new Covenant, or promise, to cease or forbear acting according to the tenour of such Trust or Com­mission, have no benefit of this Apology.

I see now the Parson is a Rogue, he would have none but Clergy-men gain by a Government which they disown; he shall no longer have the guidance of my Conscience, but I will betake my self to the Reverend Dr. VV.

Do you mean that learned Divine of our Church, who wrote the First Part of the Protestant Reconciler?

No, I mean him that wrote the Second, for the first is as if it had never been, he having retracted it, as too favourable to the Schism; which he clawed off in his Preface to the second Part, by way of Penance [Page 13]for his former, and his endeavour to widen the terms of Communion, and let the Rabble into the Church.

Well, for once you shall chuse your Weapon; but what is it you would prove out of him?

I will prove that you ought to be hang'd.

Nay, God be thanked, you have done enough to deserve that if the late King should come again, nor can you expect to be trusted by him. But what further would you prove out of Dr. VV.

I will prove, that admit I should know of Traiterous Conspiracies against this King, I should not before God be guilty of Misprision or concealing of Treason.

You must have some very subtle distinction to help you off.

You must understand, that as there is a King in Fact, and a King of Right, so there is Treason nominal, or so call'd, and Treason real; but there cannot be re­al Treason against a King only in Fact, at least not such as I shall incur Damnation for. Confiderati­ons humbly offered for ta­king the Oath, p. 57. That which we tran­slate Damnation, in the Original is [...], that is, Judg­ment. Now by our Law Treason may be committed against a King de facto, and that is punishable by the judgment of Death; it therefore may be Judgment to resist the King de facto, in favour of the King de jure, i. e. it may be an Offence, which by the Law will render me obnoxi­ous to Judgment.

If you are strong enough then, that you may prudenly venture for your King de jure, you do but your Duty?

Very true.

I fear by the sense which you put upon [...], you give all Subjects the like liberty even against a King of Right.

No, Pag. 45. they shall receive Damnation, who resist the present Powers, which by the Law are such, however they demean themselves in the Government.

Before you are aware you will make the Powers the Apostle speaks of, to relate only to them that are Lawful; and if they are unlawful, either in the exercise, or acquisition, it seems the Apostle takes no care of them. But by what Rule do you make [...] to sig­nifie Damnation when applied to resisting a King of Right, and only Temporal Judgment when applied to the other, tho' he acts beyond the Power which God or Man had entrusted him with?

Because one is by Law, and the other not.

You mean one had some Power by Law, the other none; but still that Power which he exercised beyond the Law was none in the Eye of the Law; and either [...] is threatned only against resisters of a lawful Power, or whether the Power be lawful or unlawful, resistance is in all cases damnable.

I am sure 'tis at least Damnation to resist him that has the Right.

Yes, to that Power which he exercises. But by what Law will you judge which has the Right, or what that Right is?

By God's Law, for this is a Divine Right.

Do you mean, that God has ascertain'd not only the Rights of Princes, but appointed the very Persons?

I mean as Dr. Hicks means, Preface to Jo­vian. p. 54. who tells us, God hath given the Crown to the Royal Family for a perpetual In­heritance, and hath by his Providence ordained, that it should come to one of them after the decease of another, according to Birth-right and proximity of Blood.

If the Doctor had considered the broken Suc­cession, he would never have argued thus from Pro­vidence; [Page 15]for if, as it will appear upon an exact enquiry, more have come to the Throne out of the course than according to proximity of Blood: Then all that can be inferr'd from this, rectified by the true History, is, that God has in his Providence given it to a Family, but not tied it to the next in Blood, and by conse­quence King William and Queen Mary are our Right­ful King and Queen.

You don't consider what Prejudice you do His Majesty by detaining me so long.

I should hope to do King William good Service, if I could bring you to a due sense of the Obligation of the Oath which you have taken to him: and since Dr. W. is a Judge which you have chosen, I must refer you to his Preface for what may give you full satis­faction.

I am for the Book rather than the Preface; for as the Preface to his Second Part of the Brotestant Recon­ciler was written after he had smarted for his Offici­ousness; perhaps the last was written when some pro­sperous Accident to King William made him lay aside those Niceties, with which men were to pretend to me­rit on both sides: and perhaps he may be of the same mind with those prudent Divines of the North, who were going in a full body to take the Oath of Alle­giance, but made an halt upon a Report of Major-General Mackay's being defeated in Scotland.

That may be: but in his Preface he says, P [...]eface to Consid. He does by no means condemn those Writings which plead for ta­king the imposed Oath upon such grounds as do more fully justifie the title of our present Governours: And is so modest to own, that he has not knowledge enough in the Law, to pass an exact Judgment in that matter.

Then it seems he turns us off to the Lawyers, and makes no determination in the point.

Tho' he pretends not to Law, Preface to Consid. he produces Evi­dences out of History to shew that VVilliam I. was received upon an Election and Compact, that the keep­ing St. Edward's Laws was part of the Bargain, that this became part of the Coronation-Oath of our Kings. And that our Learned King James the First declared in a Speech to his Parliament, That he was bound to observe that Paction made to his People by his Laws, in framing his Government agreeable thereto— And therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom, leaves to be King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Law.

King James you know was a timorous Prince, and full of Dissimulation, no doubt he thought to wheadle his people into something, which might insensibly give him that power which he disclaimed: But for Dr. W. I doubt he is of Republican Principles, he would never else talk of a Compact between Prince and People.

What if you should find the same thing in the Au­thor of the History of Passive Obedience?

That is impossible.

Does he not excuse Bishop Bilson for justifying the Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain, Hist. of Passive Obedience, First Part, p. 27. upon supposition that the Government in the Low-Coun­tries was founded in Compact? This you cannot but re­member that he does, and therein admits that some Go­vernments may be so founded.

But the Second part of that History shews, Second Part, p. 72. that Bishop Bilson is wilfully mistaken, and that what he says, relates only to such Republicks and States, in which, upon the Invasion of Subject's Priviledges, they are allowed by fundamental, written, known Compact, as in Germany by the Bulla Aurea, to resist; as if that were applicable to Free Monarchies, and particularly England, contrary to his own express Assertion, That the Subjects [Page 17] of England have not that warrant to draw their Sword without consent of their Prince. Bilson, p. 518, 519. where he says he proves it at large.

I am satisfied no Prince will consent it should be drawn against himself; but I take St. Edward's Law, which shews, that a King of England may cease to be King upon his violating his Coronation Oath, of which the maintaining that is part to be as full a Compact as the Golden Bull. And Jasper Main, one of the Historian's Authors, admits that the Instances of the Cases of E. 2. and R. 2. may be proper, if any Original Compact can be produced, where 'tis agreed, that where the King ceases to govern according to Law, he shall for such misgovernment cease to be King. Besides, if Bishop Bilson lays down any gene­ral Rule for resisting in all Monarchies, not absolutely despotick, 'twill be hard for you to prove that Eng­land is to be excepted, till you produce Bishop Bil­son's own words, without taking that Historian's Judgment, who refers you to Passages, where he will have his Assertion in relation to England to be prov'd at large.

Does not Bishop Bilson expresly condemn the Papists for saying the People may punish the Prince? Farther yet, does he not say, that God has reserv'd the Magistrate to be punished by himself.

Very true; and yet says that which justifies re­sisting a King of England in some cases.

If you may resist him, you punish him; but he says, God has reserv'd the punishment to himself.

What is done for necessary defence of the Con­stitution, tho in consequence it may be a punishment, is not so directly: and I am sure Bishop Bilson says, Bilson of Chri­stian Subjecti­on, Ed. 1586. p. 279. If a Prince shall go about to subject his Kingdom to a Fo­reign Realm, or change the form of the Commonwealth [Page 18]from Imperie to Tyranny; or neglect the Laws esta­blisht by common consent of Prince and People, to execute his own pleasure; in these, and other Cases which might be named, if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment, and Laws, they may not well be accounted Rebels.

However, he speaks not a word of a Compact here in England.

He supposes that in all Governments the Peo­ple have a power for preserving the foundation, P. 280. freedom and form of their Commonwealth; which, says he, they fore-prized when they first consented to have a King.

Bishop Bilson, I find, did not understand the consequence of admitting, that Princes can have their Crowns from any consent or election of the People.

Is not that better than to have no Title at all? but pray what is the consequence of supposing an Ele­ction?

The late Bishop of Winchester, Hist. of Passive Obedience, ad part, p. 147. in his Sermon at the Coronation of King Charles the Second, says, As Monarchy by Usurpation is res fine titulo, so Monar­chy by Election is titulus fine re.

Admirable chime! but how does he prove it?

For, says he, Elective Kings are but Conditio­nal Kings, and Conditional Kings are no Kings.

I must confess I did not apprehend that Condi­tional Kings should be no Kings, even while they per­formed the Conditions.

But what say you to the late Historian's Proofs, That the Doctrine of the Church of England is abso­lutely against resisting Princes, in any case what­soever?

I am of the same mind, that no King, while such, or till he ceases to be King, is to be resisted. [Page 19]But I must confess I am to seek what he means by the Church of England; what by a King of England.

By the Church of England he means the Church­men.

I hope, though he contracts the Church in this, he does not take in Romish Churchmen to make up the number.

Yes but he does, and with very good grounds; for as Infallibility attends St. Peter's Chair, in relation to the Government of the Church, whoever comes into it; so they that come into the Preferments of the Church of England, succeed to their Doctrines in Government, though as to other matters they have a latitude of dissenting. Thus the bloody Romish Bi­shop Bonner, though at one time he retracted what he had declar'd at another, is an Authority when he spake right, because, says our Historian, P. 4. he spake not his own sense, but the sense of the whole Church of Eng­land.

I thank you for explaining his Notion of the Church of England; but if we take in the Romish Clergy, I should think that famous Bishop of Lincoln, Grosthead, who said, Vid. Matth. Par. Hist. that all who died on the side of the Barons in the War against H. 3. were Martyrs, was as much of the Church of England, and as great an ornament to it, as Bishop Bonner. But I am yet to learn what your Historian means by a King of Eng­land; does he mean a King only with Title, or in possession any way?

No, he shews out of Bishop Sanderson, P. 133. that we are no otherwise to comply with the Persons of a pre­vailing usurped Power, than I may submit unto Com­ply with, or make use of a High-way Thief, or Robber, when I am fallen into his hands, and lie at his mercy.

Ye are a very wise sort of People, to publish and cry up such Books now, when at the same time while ye would be thought true and faithful to King William, ye deny that he is King by Right. But I must needs say, I do not well know of any Foundation of Right setled by your Historian, but what is in the Clouds, or in Obeyance, till the right Heir from Adam start up with his Pedigree about his Heels.

He had no occasion to prove wherein a Princes Right consists; 'tis enough that he shews Instances of Passive-Obedience in all Reigns.

Yes, indeed he brings Instances of it, where himself owns, that the Law had damn'd the Title; but does not consider, that he carries it further than your Passive-Obedience-Men would have him, and brings a Confessor, Bishop Coverdale, to shew, that Bodies, Goods, and Lives, are to be at the Com­mandment of the Prince who is not Rightful by the Law of England.

You mistake him, I am sure, for he speaks that in Queen Mary's Reign.

I grant it; P. 22. but then he tells us, That Queen Mary had been Disinherited by Act of Parliament, (a Bill of Exclusion pass'd into the formality of a Law) and that for Illegitimacy, as it is there declared.

What is that to the purpose? She had a Di­vine Right of Succession, which no Law could alter.

By what Law did She succeed to E. 6.

By the Divine Law; and that contrary to the Law of England; P. 26. for the Historian shews, that both the Sisters were declared illegitimate, and that by Act of Parliament; and were they not so, yet being [Page 21]but of the Half-blood to the King, by the Law they could not succeed.

As he admits their Title contrary to Law, I fear he leaves nothing but the Consent, or Choice of the People for the late King, joyn'd with his being of the Blood Royal.

I cannot apprehend your consequence.

Indeed few Tories can see three consequences off; but if James I. had no Title by Law, what had James II. in the third Descent from him.

The Historian, I am sure, says nothing against the Title of James I.

But he shews, that by the same Law of Eng­land, no Foreigner could succeed, and James I. was a Foreigner.

You still drive at your Commonwealth-Princi­ple, as if Kings could have any right from the Choice of the People.

You, I am sure, are either against all Right by Law, or for placing it where it is by Law deter­mined.

I'll warrant it, you will go about to prove that King James, by laying aside his Political Power, to exercise his Imperial Law, ceas'd to be King of England; when in this he did but put on his Royal Robes.

Tho I know of no Imperial Law, beyond what is allowed by the Political Constitutions, and could pro­duce good Authority to prove, that a King, who Re­nounces that Power which the Law gives him, ceases to be King in a legal Acceptation, as much as if he should in the most formal manner resign his Crown: Yet I shall make shorter work of it.

It may be you think to bring an Act of Parlia­ment, recognizing and acknowledging that their present [Page 22]Majesties were, are, and of right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm, our Sovereign Leige Lord and La­dy, &c.

You Name but one Act, when in truth there are two; for the Bill of Rights in the last Parliament, agrees almost in words.

Can such Recognitions alter the Right?

At least, Acts of Parliament may be allowed to settle and declare the Right. You know the Rule urg'd by your Advocate, Third Part of the Magistracy, &c. Vindicated, P. 2. It is a good and sure way to believe the last Judgment. If this be a Rule among your Party, even in Relation to the most Arbitrary Judgments of Westminster-Hall; methinks it should persuade you to submit to the Judgment of the highest Authority of the Nation.

What Argument is that to one, who questions the Authority of this Parliament; and the Being of the last, which you call a Parliament?

Whatever you think of the last, I am sure, this has been call'd by Writ from a King in Possession, and the Laws made in such Parliaments have in all times been adjudg'd good and effectual. And this Parliament has enacted, That all and singular the Acts made, and enacted in that which you call only a Con­vention, were, and are Laws and Statutes of the King­dom, and as such ought to be reputed, taken and obey'd.

I very well understand your concern, to have the Acts of the late Parliament, as you call it, pass for Laws; for you well know unless they do, you have no Parlia­ment which can Act now. But I need not urge that here, since this Act of your present Parliament is unin­telligible, and signifies nothing; for to Enact that they were Laws, is neither good English, nor good Sense.

You might have spar'd one of your Reflecti­ons at least; for if it be not good English, it will be difficult to make Sense of it, without putting a meaning upon it, which the English words will not bear.

However you must grant, that to enact that they were Laws, is not good English; for to enact, is to make a new Law.

As if it were improper by a new Parliamen­tary Consent, to declare a former Law to be in force. What is enacting that they were, other than declaring, as a Parliament, that they were? Or could they declare this as a Parliament, without en­acting?

If it were good Sense to enact for the time past, it must be the declaring of the Laws to be good, which past in a Parliament not call'd by Writ, or due form of Law, which is destructive of the Legal Constitution of this Monarchy; and may be of evil and pernicious consequence to our pre­sent Government under King William and Queen Mary.

I am glad you own the Constitution of this Mo­narchy to be Legal; and I am sure no Man, who has look'd into its Ancient Constitution can think there is any weight in the Objection. Such may observe, that the Constitution provided for the Meetings of the Great Councils at stated times, as appears by what I before observed of the Folemotes: and if Writs of Summons were then in use, it was only upon Emer­gencies happening within the time fixt by the Consti­tution, which has likewise warranted the Assemblies and Acts of the People, in many Vacancies of the Throne.

But it is very pleasant that you should urge the Consequences here, as dangerous to the Government under Their present Majesties, when you strike at the very Foundation of it; and besides, would have it fail for want of necessary Supplies from the People; for according to you, neither the last Parliament, nor This, nor any which can be called by Their present Majesties, can be of any Authority.

Yes, they may when King James and the Prince of Wales are dead; but till then, there can be no Par­liament with power of acting; for if this Parliament has none, you must allow me, that no other can; but this Parliament could not be qualified to act, till it had taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, which were altered by the last Parliament, or Conven­tion, chuse you whether. So that unless this and following Parliaments will take the Oaths, as they were before the Alteration, made since King James went away, I see not how they can act.

Very fine! they should under King William swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King James, and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preeminences and Authorities, granted or belonging to him; and to avoid all question, whether any belong to him, they should profess, testify and declare, that King James is lawful and rightful King of this Realm.

There is no help for it, this must be done if they will act regularly. Besides, the want of Writs of Summons is our least Objection against the last re­puted Parliament, which gives the only Authority which this, or any other under King William and Queen Mary can pretend to; for the last which you will have to have been a Parliament, made the supposed qua­lifications of future Parliaments, before the Members [Page 25]had taken the Oaths which should qualify them­selves; for they altered the Oaths in the very same Act, wherein they declared themselves a Par­liament.

I foresaw, that though you were loath to say so much, you were not only for disabling Their Ma­jesties and their Parliaments from levying Taxes, or making any Laws; but for denying that King William is so much as King in fact in a legal consideration.

Whatever I think, I have not yet said so much.

To use the words of your old Friend Dr. W. Considera­tions for ta­king the Oaths, p. 53: A due Title may be either such, as according to the strict Rules of Justice bears that name, as being obtain'd by due means, and conferr'd without inju­stice or injury done to any person.—

Admirably well said! I am sure King James had wrong done him.

You are so transported with this, that you can­not hear out what makes for you. The Doctor says farther.

Or that may be styled a due Title which is legal, or allowed of by the Law, and which is conferr'd with those formalities of Law, and with those usual Ceremonies, and Rites, which customarily are ob­served in the most regular Collations of Titles.

Bating what he says about conferring Titles, which savours of the Republican, this may not be much amiss; and puts me in mind of the Objection made by our Friends, that you Commonwealths-men, who would have the choice of the People at least to design, or mark out the Person of your King, Potestas desig­nativa Person [...]. cannot pretend that here was a Choice, or Designation made by their Representatives; for the Convention had not [Page 26]taken the Oaths which should qualify them to act as their Representatives.

That is to say, you would have them swear to be true and faithful to the late King, when they be­liev'd that he ceas'd to be King, and the Contract between him and the People was broken? If it were broken, then no doubt but they might do all that was necessary for subjecting themselves to King Wil­liam and Queen Mary, without regard to the Obliga­tions enter'd into to the other as he was King of England.

I thought I should draw you into an Ambus­cade: Last part of the Magistra­cy, &c. p. 8. If you urge the Vacancy, as the Author of the last part of the Magistracy and Government vindicated has smartly argued, you must grant that the Government was dissolv'd, every thing reduc'd to its primitive state of Nature, all Power resolv'd into Individuals, and the Particulars only to provide for themselves by a new Contract.

To use your Friend Dr. Brady's Expression; yours is but an aiery Ambuscade, suitable to the Judg­ment of your wordy Author: according to whom our Common and Statute-Laws have had many an interruption. But the great Civilian Pusendorf would tell him, that no Nation can be presum'd so sottish, to intend at the first setting up of a King, that their Laws should determin with their Prince's Life or Title.

You still talk of the People's Choice, when it is contrary to the Maxims of our Law, that there should be any instant of time wherein we are with­out a King.

You mean when the course of Descents goes on, but have there never been Interruptions?

Yes, but not of right.

But had the Laws no force, while they who you suppose to have had the right, were out of pos­session?

That may deserve consideration; but I am sure the Right could never be lost; for it was first acquired by Conquest, and it is not to be presum'd that a Conqueror would have his Right depend upon any Condition.

Not to trouble you with too many things at once, I shall put you to prove four things.

1. That W. I. was a Conqueror. 2. That his Conquest was absolute, without any manner of Terms. 3. That he gain'd a Right for himself, and his Heirs, by proximity of Blood. 4. That the Rule to judg who was his Heir, is not the Law of the Land, but something more sacred; for as your own Historian has shewn, J. I. History of passive Obe­dience. sup. had no right by the Law of the Land Prior to the Peoples Choice, more than any body else of the Blood-royal; and consequently accor­ding to your Advocate, the People have been with­out any Government ever since the death of Queen Elizabeth. Nay the Consequence will strike off both the Protestant and the Catholick Queen.

I never trouble my head with Consequences at such a distance. But nothing in the English Govern­ment, except what is done by the Monarch, can be justified, unless a Precedent can be shewn for it. And I am sure no Precedent can be found, where ever any English Parliament declared any one to be lawful, and rightful King, while one who had the Right remain'd alive.

I will grant it, while the Right remain'd, but they have transferr'd the Right from one to another, [Page 28]and declared the Right to be in one who, excepting that he was of the Blood-royal, had no Right but from their Declaration; as to go no backwarder, ap­pears in the Case of H. VII.

He had it in right of his Wife.

What think you if I shew this before he mar­ried?

The People of that time were better Catho­licks, than to be guilty of such an Injury to the next Heir.

To convince you of this, I will shew you the form of such a Parliamentary Declaration before his Marriage, which follows in these words.

This is to be found in the beginning of the Sta­tutes of H. 7. and was sent to the Sheriffs of the se­veral Counties of England, to be proclaimed.

I listened to hear the words Lawful and Rightful.

I take the Recognition in the time of H. 7. to be more full, for tho the declaring that King William and Queen Mary, are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen, and that the Royal Power is entirely vested in them (as the Bill of Rights, and the last act of Recog­nition declare) strongly implies that King James has no Right; Yet it is not so express as the other, which [Page 30]places it in H. 7. and the Heirs of his Body, and re­nounces the Pretences of all other Persons whatso­ever.

You aim then at an Renunciation of King James's Title? Cannot you be content with driving him away, and setting another upon the Throne, but you must bar the Door against poor King James?

When so many are in your Sense Traytors to K. James; and his Party here is come to such an Head, as to threaten to bring him in without Terms; cer­tainly it behoves every Man, that has it in his Power, at least to disarm those, who would hang them in a short time, if a check be not put to them.

Suppose you should get a Renunciation, that will be the act only of them who consent to it, and what will you be the stronger for that?

I must confess, though an act of Renunciation would be of some benefit, yet I believe without ad­ding a Clause to that purpose in the Oath of Allegi­ance, the Act would fall short of its desir'd Effect.

Is not the Nation sufficiently burdned with Oaths already?

An Oath, I am sure, in this case would be the most proper end of the Strife; no man who swears in any case, and that believes the late King to have no Right, would scruple an Oath to that pur­pose, and it is fit that they who believe K. James to be their King, should shew it, before King William leaves the Kingdom.

According to you, such an Oath is needless; for you will have as much implied in the Oath already required.

The sense which you put upon the Oath, shews that this is no Test for you, and therefore another is requisite.

You would go to limit God's Providence, and renounce his Title who, perhaps, will force his way to his own again.

I think a true Englishman may resolve to ad­here to the cause of his Country in all events, with­out consulting Providence or the Stars.

Do you think King William will thank you for intreaguing his Affairs, and making them Enemies, who otherwise would sit still.

The cause will not bear Neuters now; nor are those Neuters, which you would have believed to be so.

I find you and I have taken different sides: where­fore farewell till we meet in the Field.

I fear you less there, than in the Courts of Princes, or of Justice.

We shall be too hard for you in either of the pla­ces; at Court we are the only men for Monarchy; in West­minster-Hall we have the authority of the last Judg­ments on our side; besides that, we tickle the Judges with giving them a Power over the Laws. And in the Field; we of the Church shall be the body of the Nation.

You, I doubt not, would have the French Mo­narchy supplant the English. But you have a plea­sant way of making your court to this King and Queen, by declaring that the Sovereignty is insepara­ble from the Person of the late King. You think to please Judges who came in upon the restoring our Constitution, by advancing Judgments which would overthrow it. And the Church of England is mighti­ly beholden to you, for making a compound of that and the Romish together, and raising a jealousie in Their Majesties, as if its Members cannot be Loyal Subjects to Them; yet assure your self, how strong soever the Church-Party may be in meer Church-Points, or such [Page 32]as are thought to be so, you may observe that the ge­nerality both of Whig and Tory Members of the Church, are united against the late King, whenever the question is, which King we should obey; not being willing to trust to a pardon, the most solemn promi­ses of which may not only be dispensed with, but, perhaps, it might never be in the late King's Power to make good, even tho he should return, and desire it.

Doubt not that, I will undertake to carry you where you may have City-Security for a Pardon, and good reward, if you will return to your Duty.

Do you think that the French King, by whose Arms and Money the late King, if ever, must be re­stor'd, would suffer him to make good any Promises to Protestants? Certainly you Jacobite-Tories are the blindest set of men that ever was. You had better herd with the other Tories, who would bring Torism in fashion, under a King who came to root it out; than to labour thus to destroy your selves and your Native Country.

I had better turn to you Whigs, than join with those Renegadoes, who are contemn'd by us of whose Party they formerly were; and cannot with any face pretend to be servants to King William and Queen Mary: for they agree with us, that there was no ground for withdrawing their Allegiance from King James, he having done no more than he might by his Prerogative; and therefore that he ought to re­main our King.

For that matter I will leave you and your Bre­thren to fight it out, and am glad to divert your rage from the poor suffering Whigs, to those who are come to us from you, and by having shar'd the spoil with you formerly, are better enabled to bear the brunt.