AN ANSWER To the PAPER Delivered by M&rsup; ASHTON at his Execution TO Sir Francis Child: SHERIFF of London, &c. Together with The Paper it self. ― ― LONDON: Printed for Robert Clavell; at the Peacock in S. Paul's Church-Yard. 1690. ― ― M&r.sup; Ashton's Paper.

Mr. Sheriffe,

&Hic;AVING observed that the Methods of making Speeches at the place of Execution was not alwayes attended with the designed Success; And thinking it better to imploy my last Minutes in Devotion and Holy Communion with my God; I have prepared this Paper to leave in your Hands, as well to assert my Principles as to testifie my Innocency. As to my Religion I professe, by God's Grace, I dye in the Faith into which I was baptized, that of the Church of England, in whose Communion (nothing doubting of my Salvation thro the Merits of my Saviour) I have alwayes thought my selfe safe and happy; according to her Prin&rehy;ciples and late much esteemed Doctrines (tho now unhap&rehy;pily exploded) I have regulated my Life, beleiving my selfe obliged by my Religion to looke upon my rightfull law&rehy;full Prince (whatever his Principles were or his Practises might be) as God's Vicegerent, and accountable (if guilty of Male-administration) to God only, from whom he receiv&rehy;ed his Power, and alwayes beleiving it to be contrary to the Laws of God, the Church, and the Realme, upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against him, and let all the World take notice, in this Beleife I dye. But I have more particular Obligation to the King my Master, whom I have honour to serve, and received many signal Favours from for sixteen years past, so that Gratitude (a thing not much esteemed at this time) as well as Duty and Religion Com&rehy;manded the utmost Service I could pay him; and when I add these Considerations that we were born his Liege Sub&rehy;jects, that we have solemnly professed our Allegiance, and of&rehy;ten confirmed it with Oaths, That his Majesties Usage after the Prince of Orange's arrival was very hard, severe, (and if I may so say) Unjust; And that all the new Methods of settling this Nation have hitherto made it more miserable Poor, and more exposed to Foreign Enemies. And the Reli&rehy;gion we pretend to be so fond of preserving, now much more than ever likely to be destroyed: There seems to me no way to prevent the Impending evils, and save these Nations from poverty and destruction, but the Calling home our Injured Sove&rehy;reign, who as a true Father of his Country has (notwithstand&rehy;ing all his Provocations and Injuries) a natural love and ten&rehy;derness for all his Subjects, and I am so far from repining at the loss of my life, that had I ten thousand I should think my self obliged to sacrifice them all rather than omit any just and honest means to promote so good and necessary a work; and I ad&rehy;vise and desire all my fellow Subjects to think of their Duty and return to their Allegiance, before the severe Judgment of God over&rehy;take them, for their Perjury and Rebellion, but certainly the good and Interest of these Nations, abstracted from all other Considera&rehy;tions, will ere long convince them of the necessity of doing it.

Having thus frankly declared my Principles, I know the Infe&rehy;rence will be, that I have acted accordingly and consequently that am I now justly condemned; but as I ingenuously own the Premisses, so as I positively deny the Consequence; for whatever my Inclinations or Actions have been, yet, as to the Matter I was sentenced to dye for, I declare my self innocent, and will appeal to the Judges themselves, whether or no, upon my , there appeared the least proof that I knew a tittle contained in the Papers, but Presumption was, with the Jury, thought sufficient to find me guilty, tho I am told, I am the first Man that ever was condemned for High Treason upon bare Suspicion or Presumption, and that contrary to my L. Coke's and other eminent Lawyers Opinions. The knowledg of my own Innocency, as to the Indictment and Charge against me, was that that armed me with so much assurance, and occasioned my casting my Life upon the first Twelve Men of the Pannel, without chal&rehy;lenging any. But tho I have, I think, just reason to complain of the severe Charge given by the Judges, and hard measure I have received, not to mention my close Imprisonment, the hasty and violent Proceedings against me, nor the Industry used in the Return of fitting Persons to pass upon me, the denying me a Copy of the Pannel, &c. Yet, as I hope for Pardon and For&rehy;giveness at the hands of my God, so do I most heartily pray for, and forgive them, and all my Enemies, all the World, nay even that Judg and Jury-Man who did so signally (contrary to common Justice) expose themselves to destroy me. But let the Will of God be done: I rely wholly upon his Mercy and the Merits of my blessed Saviour for Salvation, I do chearfully and entirely resign my self into his Hands, as into the Hands of a faithful Creator, in sure and certain hopes of a happy Resur&rehy;rection. Bless, protect, and strengthen, O Lord God, my good and gracious King and Master; in thy due time let the Virtue, Goodness, and Innocency of the Queen, my Mistress, make all her Enemies blush, and silence the wicked and unjust Calumnies that Malice and Envy have raised against her; make her and these Nations happy in the Prince of Wales, whom from unan&rehy;swerable and undoubted Proofs I know to be her Son; restore them all when thou seest fit to their just Rights, and on such a bottom as may support and establish the Church of England, and once more make her flourishe, notwithstanding the Wounds hath received of late from her prevaricating Sons.

Forgive, forgive, O Lord, all my Enemyes, bless all Friends, comfort and support my deare afflicted Wife, and poor Babes, be thou a Husband and a Father to them; for their sakes only I could have wished to live; but pardon that Wishe, O good God, and take my Soule into thy everlasting Glory. Amen.

Jn Ashton. ― The ANSWER.

&Tic;HE Paper which passeth under the Name of Mr. Aston's SPEECH seems to me to be com&rehy;posed with too much Art and Care to be the Work of one who professeth, he thought it better to employ his last minutes in Devotion: And if he was so illiterate and unskilled in the Law, as he said at his Tryal, Fol. III. one may justly wonder not only at such Terms as Impending, Pre&rehy;varicating, Premisses, and Consequence, &c. but at such a pe&rehy;remptory Judgment as he gives about the Laws of the Realm, in a Case that must be acknowledged by all ingenuous men of his own Party to have a great deal of Difficulty in it.

But there are some Men who think to bear down all others by their Confidence, and would have it taken for granted that the whole Nation (themselves excepted) is under the guilt of Perjury and Rebellion.

These are the modest Terms in this Speech, which at least do not become the Charity of one just going out of the World. Therefore I rather believe it to be drawn up by some Persons of more Art and Leisure; who thought it best to convey their own Sentiments (as they call them) under the more popular Name of one who suffered for their Cause.

But the Weight of what is said doth not depend on the Person, and therefore I shall calmly and impartially consider the Things themselves and shew how unjust and unreasona&rehy;ble the Insinuations are which respect the present Government, and all such who act in Obedience to it.

There are two Things this Paper is said to be design'd for, to assert his Principles and to testify his Innocency. For his Principles he professeth, that he dyes in the Faith and Communion of the Church of England. And he might have lived longer in both if he had pleased; for I cannot see how the Faith and Communion of the Church of England obliged him to do that for which he suffered: But, by the Faith of the Church of England he means the Doctrine of Passive Obedience. Be it so: however he suffered not for his Passive Obedience, but for the want of it: If he had regulated his Life by this Prin&rehy;ciple, he had preserved it; yet he saith he did so, and dyed for it. There must be certainly then some great Mistake a&rehy;bout the Doctrines and Principles of our Church. I alwayes thought those are to be found in the Articles and Constituti&rehy;ons of it. Which of these did he suffer for?

They are, he saith, her Principles and late much esteemed Doctrines tho now unhappily exploded.. I know of no Doctrines or Principles of the Church of England which are exploded among us; and therefore this is unhappily insisted on by a dying Man, unless he had given some Proof of it.

Well; but he believed himself obliged by his Religion to look upon his Rightful, Lawful Prince (whatever his Principles were or his Practices might be) as God's Vicegerent, and accountable to God only, from whom he received his Power. All this he might have done, and have been alive still; for the Matter in dispute is not whether Rightful, Lawful Kings are to be obeyed, but who in our present Circumstances is our Rightful, Lawful Sovereign; not whether Kings be not God's Vicegerents, but whether God doth not sometimes confer the Right of Sovereignty by a Law superiour to the Laws of par&rehy;ticular Countries, that is, by the Law of Nations, which esta&rehy;blisheth such a Right upon the success of a just War; not whether Sovereign Princes are not accountable only to God, but whether Allegiance be not due where the Rights of Sovereign&rehy;ty are placed, by an extraordinary Act of Providence and the concurrent Consent of the Nation. But he goes on; And alwayes believing it to be contrary to the Laws of God, the Church, and the Realm, upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against him, and let all the World take notice in this Belief I dye. I had much rather have taken notice that in this Belief he lived; for I see no Reason of his dying for it. For, why must a Man be said to die for not taking up Arms, who was Con&rehy;demned to die for a Design just contrary, viz. for the subvert&rehy;ing the present Government by Domestick Insurrections and Foreign Power?

So that the Question is not about Passive Obedience but to whom it is due; I grant that the Laws of God and of the Realm are to determine the Measures of our Obedience; but here lies the only Point, whether the Rights of Sovereignty may not be transferred by the success of a just War and the Con&rehy;sent of the People: For if they may, then according to his own Principles he suffered justly. And if the Directors of his Conscience did not speak to this Point, they led him into a dangerous Error, and have been too much the Occasion of his suffering.

Therefore to clear this whole Matter, and to prevent the like Mistakes in others; I shall endeavour to state the present Case of our Government, so as to shew both that it is our Duty to submit to it, and that no Principles or Doctrins of the Church of England are violated thereby.

To do this, we must of necessity look back to the Occa&rehy;sions of this great Revolution: And there were two principal Occasions of it.

First, Great and violent Presumptions of an Injury to the Right of Succession.

Secondly, Too great Evidence of a formed Design to sub&rehy;vert the established Religion and Civil Liberties of the Nation.

Now there are two very material Questions which arise from hence.

First, Whether these were the just Occasions of a War?

Secondly, Whether upon the success of this War the Rights of Sovereignty were duly transferred?

If these were just Occasions of a War, and upon the Suc&rehy;cess thereof the Sovereignty was duly transferred, then there can be no Dispute left to whom our Allegiance is due.

It is taken for granted by all who understand these Mat&rehy;ters, that as there is a Law of Nature, which determines the Rights and Properties of particular Nations; and that all pri&rehy;vate Persons are bound to submit to the municipal Laws of those Societies for their Peace and Security: So there are other Laws which concern those Nations, as they make up several independent Governments upon each other. And there are se&rehy;veral Rights which belong to them with respect to one ano&rehy;ther, which do not belong to private Persons as they live in subjection to any particular Government.

And as there are such Rights, so there must be a just and lawful way for Reparation of Injuries. In particular Govern&rehy;ments, the thing is plain by established Laws and Courts of Judi&rehy;cature, whose Sentence is Executed by the Civil Power; but in Separate Nations and Independent Governments, al&rehy;though there be Laws by consent called the Law of Nations; yet there is no common Judicature to determine of Right and Wrong, and therefore in case of Injury there is an al&rehy;lowance for the injured Party by this Law of Nations to Right himself by Force, as there would be to every particu&rehy;lar Person, if there were no Laws nor Power to see them executed.

There is then a Right in every Sovereign and Indepen&rehy;dent Prince to exercise Force against another Prince, who detains any Right from him, or doth any Injury to him, or to those he is bound to defend.

The Question then comes to the Just Occasions of such a War, and here are two assigned,

First, great and violent Presumptions of an Injury to the Right of Succession. This is expresly mentioned and insisted on, in the Declaration of the then Prince of Orange (our present King) in these Words &horfill; "But to crown all, there are great and violent Presumptions inducing us to believe that those evil Counsellors, in order to the carrying on of their ill designs, and to the gaining to themselves the more time, for the effecting of them, for the encouraging their Complices, and for the discouraging of all good Sub&rehy;jects, hath published that the Queen hath brought forth a Son; tho there have appeared both during the Queen's pretended Bigness and in the manner in which the Birth was managed, so many just and visible grounds of Suspi&rehy;cion, that not only we our selves, but all the good Subjects of these Kingdoms do vehemently suspect that the pre&rehy;tended Prince of Wales was not born of the Queen: And it is notoriously known to all the World, that many both doubted of the Queens Bigness, and of the Birth of the Child, and yet there was not any one thing done to sa&rehy;tisfie them and to put an end to all Doubts. And since our Dearest and most entirely beloved Consort, the Prin&rehy;cess, and likewise we our selves have so great an Interest in this matter, and such a Right as all the World knows to the Succession to the Crown &horfill; And since the En&rehy;glish Nation hath ever testified a most particular Affecti&rehy;on and Esteem both to our Dearest Consort and to our Selves; We cannot excuse our Selves from espousing their Interests in a matter of such high Consequence, and from contributing all that lies in us, for maintaining both of the Protestant Religion, and of the Laws and Liberties of those Kingdoms, and for the securing to them the conti&rehy;nual Enjoyment of all their just Rights.

Here we have an Hereditary Right to the Crown asser&rehy;ted both remoter in Himself and nearer in the Queen, who was unquestionably the next, if there were no Heir Male: It was possible this Right might be really defeated by a Prince of Wales, and it was possible it might be pretended to be so when it was not: For there have been many In&rehy;stances in History of suborned and supposititious Princes, and therefore there was reason that sufficient Evidence should be given in a Case of such Importance and which was un&rehy;der so great Suspicion. But if there was no reasonable care taken to prevent or remove these Suspicions, then the Par&rehy;ties most concerned have a Right to assert their own Pre&rehy;tensions in such a way as the Law of Nations doth allow.

And in this Case no private Depositions or confident Affir&rehy;mations of such as are Dependents or otherwise liable to Suspicion, can in Reason be taken for satisfactory Evidence; for let any one consider what the Laws of Nations have thought fitting Evidence in a Case of this Nature, and he will soon find how very much short such proofs are of what the Nature of the Thing hath been thought to require &horfill; The Civil Law is very strict where there is any occasion of Suspicion.

D. 25. Tit. 4. "It requires notice to be given twice a Month to the Parties concerned that they may receive full satisfaction, That the Mother is to be kept in a House by itself: That thirty Days before she expects to be delivered, she must give Notice of it to those who are most concerned, that they may send such as they can trust to be present: that there ought to be but one Door where she is to Lie in, and if there be more, they must be done up; that at that Door there are to be Three Men and Three Women and Two Assistants: That all Persons are to be searcht who go in, especially at the Labor, at which time there must be sufficient Light in the Room. When the Child is born it ought to be first shewn to the Parties concerned, and great care is taken about the Persons in whose Hands he is put, and Satisfaction must be given from time to time that it is the same Child, and if Satisfaction be not given as to these things, the Roman Law doth not allow any Right of Possession.

By the Old Common Law of England, in case of Suspi&rehy;cion, a Writ of Inspection was allowed, the Form whereof is in the Books, and if there were any doubt, the Woman was to be put into a safe place, where no Suspicious Persons were to come near her till she was de&rehy;livered. Bract. l.2. c.32. This was then thought so reasonable a thing, that the Old Law Books have a Chapter on purpose De Partu Supposito, wherein Directions are given to prevent and discover a Subornation. Fleta l.1. c.15.

These things I mention to show what Satisfaction is ne&rehy;cessary to be given in case of Suspicion, and the higher the Persons are, and of so much greater Importance as the Succession is, so much clearer ought the Evidence to be, that no occasion of Doubt may remain: But if no such care was taken, If the principal Persons concerned had not the least Satisfaction given them; If the whole thing were managed with Secrecy and suspicious Circumstances, then I can see no Reason to exclude those who are most concern'd from a Right of demanding Satisfaction by Force of Arms.

But Mr. Ashton thinks he hath cleared this matter, when he affirms that he knows there was no Supposititious Birth by unanswerable undoubted Proofs and this is put into his Prayer, that it might look like an appeal to God as to the Truth of what he said. This is one of the boldest and most artificial Strokes of the Penner of this Speech, not barely to make him af&rehy;firm it with so much assurance, but to do it in his Prayer too. But a matter of so great Consequence is not to be de&rehy;termined upon the Testimony of any single Wittness, although he were the most competent Witness as to such a matter, which doth not in the least appear as to Mr. Ashton: For how could he know it by unanswerable and undoubted Proofs; when considering the Circumstances that were in this Case, it was hardly possible to produce such Proofs, as would pass for unexceptionable Evidence upon a Legal Trial? For there hath been such a Trial here in England within the Memory of Man, wherein the Father and Mo&rehy;ther and Midwife have all sworn to the Truth of the Birth of a Son, and yet the Jury upon hearing the whole Evidence have given Judgment that it was Supposititious. In the Case of one Robin's Child, at Hereford Assizes about An. 1668.

Therefore bare Affirmations of some Persons concerned are not Evidence sufficient in Case of strong and vehement Pre&rehy;sumptions to the contrary; and such Evidence ought to have been given as might have either prevented or removed any just grounds of Suspicion.

But since no such unanswerable undoubted Proofs were made to those who were most concerned, the same just Right doth remain to the undoubted Heir of the Crown, as it did in the for&rehy;mer Case to the next Heir at Law, who upon a fair Trial and the Verdict of the Country, recovered the Estate. But be&rehy;tween Princes there are no such ways of Trial or Courts of Ju&rehy;dicature, and therefore in such Cases the Right of War is al&rehy;lowed by the general Consent of Mankind.

Secondly, There was a further just Occasion for that Expe&rehy;dition, which was the Design to subvert our Religion and Ci&rehy;vil Liberties. As to the Particulars they are fully set down in the Declaration, and need not to be repeated; that which I am to make out is, that the then Prince of Orange by his Re&rehy;lation to the Crown had a just Right to concern himself in the Vindication of both, and that this is not repugnant to the Doctrines and Principles of the Church of England.

It was not thought disagreeable to them for Q Elisabeth to assist the Dutch against the King of Spain; yet she had no such reason for it as our King and Queen had to prevent the suppres&rehy;sion of their own Religion here, and the Rights of that Peo&rehy;ple to whom they were so nearly related. For there was nothing in her Case so considerable as the growing Power of Spain and the danger of overturning the Religious and Civil Liberties of a neighbour-People. Alberic. Gent. de Jure Bel. l.1. c.16. The Queens Professor of Law in Oxford at that time saith, that it was then made a Question by some whether Q. Elis. had just Reason for that War in assistance of the Dutch, and he resolves the Lawfulness of it upon 3 Grounds: First, That it was to pre&rehy;vent ensuing Mischief; Secondly, From the ancient Alliance be&rehy;tween the two Nations; Thirdly, That if the Dutch were total&rehy;ly vanquished by the Spaniard, they would be made Slaves un&rehy;der an Arbitrary Power. The Queen herself owned this as the Ground of her Resolution, That it was Christian Piety to relieve them who were of the same Religion which she pro&rehy;fessed, and Wisdom to prevent the pernicious designs of her Ene&rehy;mies. And in her Declaration she published this as the Rea&rehy;son of her sending Forces to the Aid of the Netherlanders, That they might peaceably enjoy their ancient Freedom.

In the latter end of the Reign of King James I. the War broke out in Germany wherein the Emperor used his utmost en&rehy;deavour to establish absolute Power and Popery together. There was occasion offered to try whether the giving Assistance against these were against the Principles and Doctrines of the Church of England. For the Prince Elector Palatine was cho&rehy;sen King of Bohemia, and sent over for King James's Advice about it: But his Designs lay then so much another way, that he had no mind he should engage in it: But the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Letter to Sir R. Naunton then Secretary of State, saith, That God had set up this Prince his Masters Son in Law, as a Mark of Honour throughout all Christendom, to propagate the Gospel and to protect the oppressed; that for his own part he dares not but give Advice to follow where God leads, apprehending the Work of God in this and that of Hungary; that he was satisfied in Conscience that the Bohemians had a just Cause; that the King's Daughter the Elector's Lady had professed, she would not leave herself one Jewel, rather than not maintain so Religious and so Righteous a Cause.

In the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First, when I suppose it will be granted, That the Doctrins and Principles of the Church of England were understood and followed; the King of Denmark had taken up Arms, to settle the Peace and liberty of Germany, as he declared: But he met with a great Defeat. Whereupon King Charles the First thought him&rehy;self concerned to give Assistance to him: And Archbishop Laud was then employed (as Dr. Heylin confesseth) by the King's Command, to draw up a Decla&rehy;ration, to be published in all the Parishes of England; which was read by the King, and approved by the Council, wherein the Greatness of the Danger they were in is set forth, and the People are exhorted to serve God and the King, and to labour by their Prayers to divert the Danger. Life of Archbishop Laud, fol. 161. Wherein lay this Danger? It is there said to be, That by the Defeat of the King of Denmark, there was little or nothing left to hinder the House of Austria from being Lord and Master of Germany. And what then? Why then there will be an open way for Spain to do what they pleased in all the West part of Christen&rehy;dom. It seems then, it was not thought disagreeable to the Principles and Doctrins of our Church, to hinder the growth of a Western Monarchy, although it be by assisting Subjects against their Princes who promote it; And then follow these remarkable Words;

"You are to know therefore, that to prevent this is the present Care of the King and State; and there is no probable way left, but by sending of Forces, and other Supplies, to the said King of Denmark, to enable him to keep the Field, that our Enemies be not Masters of all on a sudden. And not long after &horfill; "If he be not presently relieved, the Cause of Religion is not only like to suffer by it in some one part, (as it hath already in a fearful manner in the Palatinate) but in all places where it hath got any footing. So that if we supply not presently our Allies and Confederates in this case, it is like to prove the Extirpation of true Religion, and the Replanting of Romish Superstition in the Neighbouring parts of Christendom. And the Coldness of the State shall suffer in all places, as the Betrayers of that Religion elsewhere, which it professeth and honoureth at home; which will be an Imputation never to be washed off: And God forbid this State should suffer under it. &horfill; And in the last place; "You are to call upon God your selves, and to incite the People to joyn with you, in humble and hearty Prayers unto God, That he will be pleased now, after long Affliction of his dear People and Children, to look in mercy both upon them and us; and in particular for the Safety of the King of Denmark, and that Army which is left him, That God would bless and prosper him against his and our Enemies. Thus far Archbishop Laud.

Let those who now with as much Ignorance as Confidence, upbraid Men with Renouncing the Doctrins and Principles of the Church of England, read and consider these Passages; and if any thing will make them more wise and humble, this will. Did Archbishop Laud go off from the Church of England, or King Charles the First, who both suffered for the sake of it? But some Men have never throughly penetrated into the Doctrins and Principles of our Church, but look only on some Principles in opposition to the late Times of Rebellion, and think there is nothing farther to be looked after. Whereas the Consideration is very different as to our Duties, with respect to our own Princes, and those of a more general Concern&rehy;ment as to the state of Religion and Government in the World. But from hence it is plain, that it was then thought not only Lawful, but a Duty, to prevent the dange&rehy;rous growth of such a Monarchy, which designs to suppress Religion and Civil Liberties; and not only to give Assistance to those who joyn in the same Design, but to pray God to bless and prosper it. And accordingly a Form of Prayer was then Appointed for those Dangerous Times.

Not long after this a Breach with France hapned, and the King Published a Declaration of the ground of the War; wherein it is laid down as the first Gound, "That the House of Austria Conspiring the Ruin of all those of the Reformed Religion (as plainly appeared in the Affairs of Germany) had such an Influence on the Councils of France, as to make them break Promise in such a manner, as hazarded the loss of the whole Party in Germany. The next is, "That he had broke his Articles with his Protestant Subjects, when he had been a Mediator of Peace between them, and they had done nothing to violate them. So that a Design to suppress the Protestant Religion, in a Neighbour Country, was looked on as a just Cause of War, when he was concerned to preserve it. And then another Form of Prayer was Ap&rehy;pointed to be used suitable to that Occasion; which plainly evidence, That such a Design was no ways thought repugnant to the Doctrins and Principles of the Church of England.

But since the French Conduct seems to be now admired by this sort of Men, I shall bring some remarkable Instances from them.

It is Notorious to the World what Powerful Assistance the French gave to the Confederate Pinces of Germany, against the Emperour, their Lawful Prince, and what Defence they made for this. They Published an Account to the World of the Reasons of it, and the Chief was this; viz. "That they had Reason to suspect, that from Charles the Fifth's Time the difference of Religions had been secretly supported by the Emperours, in order to their making themselves Absolute; and that the Changing the Form of Government in the Empire, was sufficient for a Neighbour Prince to interpose by force of Arms. Motifs de la France pour la guerre d'Allemagne, p. 94,95,117.

In the Revolt of Catalonia from the King of Spain, their Lawful Prince, the French King accepted of the Sovereignty over them, being offered him by the States of that Country, and caused Discourses to be written in Justification of their Transferring their Allegeance: And yet their Complaint was nothing but the Severity of the Spanish Government, and a desire of some greater Liberties than they enjoyed under it. Why then should it be now thought an Unjust thing, for a Sovereign Prince (so nearly related to the Crown of England) to espouse the Cause of our Religious and Civil Interests, when the Design was so apparent for the Suppressing them? If that Opportunity had been lost, they might before this time have been past all reasonable hopes of Recovery.

II. But suppose this were allowed; yet here is another Difficulty ariseth, concerning the transferring Allegeance from a Lawful Prince, to him that met with unexpected Success in his Design.

And here I shall endeavour to make it plain, That this is not against the Doctrins and Principles of the Church of England. If we allow the Church of England, to have de&rehy;clared its Sense in the Matter of Government, it can only be with respect to Subjects. But I think the Measures of our Obedience, are not to be taken from the Rules of the Church; but from the Laws of the Realm: Because they are not the same in all Countries where the same Religion is Pro&rehy;fessed; as is plain in the Case of France and Poland: The Reason of the different Measures in these Countries is not from the Church, but from the different Constitution of the Kingdoms.

And I do not see how the Rules of the Church can alter the Fundamental Laws: For the Church only enforceth the Duty of Obedience on the Consciences of Men; but it doth not prescribe or limit the Bounds of it.

Whether our Monarchy be Absolute, or Limited: or if Limited, whether in its Exercise of Power, or in the Right of Sovereigny; how far the Limitation gives a Right of Re&rehy;sistance, in case of the Breach of it; are nice Questions, but not to be Resolv'd by the Rules of the Church; but by our Legal Constitution and the General Reason of Mankind: And therefore in such Cases, where the Right of War and a Foreign Power are concerned, we are not to judge meerly by Muni&rehy;cipal Laws, but we are to proceed by a more General Law, viz. that of Nations, which takes in the Effects of a just War, which the particular Laws of a Country have no regard to.

But where hath the Church of England declared its sense about the Right of War? The Articles of our Church de&rehy;clare, that the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, doth appertain to the Civil Magistrate: But they no where say, that in a just War the Supream Power cannot be acquired; or that God doth never confer it in an extraordinary me&rehy;thod.

The Book of Homilies is very severe against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion; but it is no where said, that where the Right of Sovereignty is transferred by a successful War, there is no Allegeance due to those who possess it: On "the con&rehy;trary it is said in the first Part, That If God for their wickedness, had given them an Heathen Tyrant to Reign over them, they were by God's Word bound to obey him, and to pray for him." Can it then be agreeable to the Do&rehy;ctrins and Principles of our Church, to refuse Allegeance to good Religious Princes, whom God hath made the happy Instruments of preserving our Religion and Liberties?

In the same Part, The Jews are commended for praying for the King of Babylon, when they were in Captivity, that they might live under his Protection, and do him Service, and find Favour in his sight. And what is this short of Allegeance to one, who had nothing but bare Success in War, to plead for his Title to it? If any Princes of their own Religion had rescued them from that Captivity, would they have scrupled Allegeance to them, when we see how far the Maccabees went in the Defence of their Religion and Laws?

In the Second Part, the obedience of the Jewish Nation to Augustus is commended; and it is evident that he had no Au&rehy;thority over them, but by the Right of War. And our Blessed Saviour's example is mentioned, who being brought before the Roman President, acknowledged his Power and Authority, to be given him from God. And how was this Authority conveyed to him, but by the success of War?

So that we can find nothing, in the certain established Doctrin and Principles of our Church, which is repugnant to our Allegeance to the present Government. I might easily produce considerable Testimonies, of some of the greatest Divines of our Church, which assert, that Sovereignty may be transferred by a just War; but I leave that to others, and proceed.

Mr Ashton saith, That we were born leige Subjects to another; that we have solemnly professed our Allegeance, and often confirmed it with Oaths. I know no body denies it. But is this all? Is our Allegeance so inseparable from the Person we have once sworn to, that no Case whatsoever, can alter it? Not the Case of plain voluntary Dereliction? Not the Case of putting the Kingdom under a Foreign Power? Not the seeking the utter Ruin and Destruction of the People? Is Allegeance inse&rehy;parable in these Cases, because we were Born Subjects and did swear Allegeance? If not, then it is not always so, notwith&rehy;standing the Oaths. For these and several others are allowed, by such who have written the most warmly against the repub&rehy;lican Principles. But we need not run to any difficult Cases: Ours is only the case of a just War: which is allowed by all sorts of Casuists, who do agree, that Allegeance is due to the Party that prevails in it; and if it be due to one, it can&rehy;not be due to another, at the same time, altho' he be living and do not discharge Persons from their Oaths; for the ob&rehy;ligation of Oaths, depends on the nature and Reason of things, and not upon the Pleasure of those to whom they are made. But where there is a Right to govern, there must be a Duty of Allegeance: And that Success in a just War, doth give such a Right, I could produce so many Testimonies, of all kinds of Writers, as would make the Reading of them as tedious, as of those in the History of Passive Obedience. Nay, some go so far, as to assert a Right of Sovereignty to be acquired by success, even in an Unjust War: But we need none of these Testimonies.

But doth not all this resolve this whole Controversy into a Right of Conquest, which is not so much as pretended in our present Case.

I Answer, That we must distinguish between a Right to the Government, and the Manner of Assuming it. The Right was founded on the Just Causes of the War, and the success in it: But the assuming of it was not by any ways of force or vio&rehy;lence, but by a Free Consent of the People, who by a volun&rehy;tary Recognition, and their Majesties acceptance of the Go&rehy;vernment, as it is setled by our Laws, take away any pre&rehy;tence to a Conquest over the People, or a Government by Force.

Thus I have endeavoured to set this matter in as clear a light, and in as little a compass as I could: I now return to Mr. Ashton's Speech.

Next to his Obligation on the Point of Religion, he men&rehy;tions that of Gratitude to the King his Master, whom he had ser&rehy;ved 16 years, &horfill; But this, he adds, is a thing not much esteemed at this time. As little as it is esteemed, I know no body would have blamed his Gratitude, if it had not carried him beyond the bounds of his Duty. But it is strange, he should be so much for Gratitude, and yet should allow none for so great a Deliverance. What is 16 years service to the Pre&rehy;servation of a Nation, from the imminent danger of Popery and Arbitrary Power? Such men look but a very little way, who talk at this rate: And can they imagine a French Power, under our Circumstances, could secure any thing to us, but Ruin?

As to his Master's usage, which he saith, after the Prince of Orange's Arrival, was very hard, severe; and, if he may say it, unjust. I would desire his Friends to consider a little better, and to think, if any such thing as Severity had been intend&rehy;ed, how easy it had been to have Executed it, and to have prevented his going away; and consequently, a great deal of the charge of the War, he complains of immediately after. Let them name any one Person in such Circumstances, who was allowed so great freedom as he had, of disposing of himself: But this is very far for Mr. Ashton's occasion of Suffering.

Well, But all the new Methods of Setling, have hitherto, he saith, made the Nation more miserable, poor, and exposed to Foreign Enemies. It is possible such may believe, that the Nation would be less miserable and poor under the French Power, than it is now. But no man who observes the vast designs of France, and the incredible industry of the French Monarch, to inlarge his own Power and Dominions, can think (if he thinks twice) that ever he should undertake so great a Work, out of kindness to any but himself; much less, out of perfect good will to the English Nation. Hath he given so much evidence to the World of his Sincerity in his Promises, when the keeping of them hath been prejudicial to his Interest? Suppose he should compass his end upon us, and under so fair a Colour, make Provinces of these King&rehy;doms; what possible remedy would there be for this, then indeed, poor and miserable Nation? What comfort will it then be to say, they did not think he would have broken his word so with them? In the mean time, Is it not great Wisdom and Policy, to venture our Religion, and all our Liberties on the sincerity and kindness of France? But if there be any pre&rehy;sent hardship, it is no more than a necessary War involves our Neighbours in as well as our selves; and that in a com&rehy;mon Cause, for preserving the Liberty of Europe, against the growing Power of France, as it did formerly of Spain.

But there is another Insinuation of a higher nature, viz. that the Religion we pretend to be so fond of preserving, is now much more than ever, likely to be destroyed. What is the meaning of this? What! More in danger than when Penal Laws and Tests were taking away in order to the taking away our Religion after them? When the design was as plain, and open as a thing of that nature could be, in such a Nation? When some of the Factors themselves complained, they made too much haste and were too eager and forward to accomplish it. And altho' nothing was then pretended but the setling Liberty of Conscience upon a new Magna Charta, yet all wise Men saw through these pretences, and that no&rehy;thing was really designed but Popery; which the Jesuits did not conceal in their Letters to each other: One of the which hapned to be intercepted; and the thing it self, is now fully owned in the Kings own Letter to the Pope, printed at the end of the late Trials. So that there must be a design, ei&rehy;ther to deceive the Pope, or the Nation; and which is the more probable, let any man of sense judge.

But where lies the danger of our Religion now? Have we not the same Laws, the same Protection, the same Encour&rehy;agement, which we ever had, at any time since the Refor&rehy;mation? If our Religion be now in danger, it is by such men who would bring in the French Power to establish it; however it be disguised under another Pretext.

After this follows a Charge of no less than Perjury and Rebellion, upon his Fellow Subjects; whom, he adviseth to return to their Allegeance, before the Judgments of God overtake them for their Perjury and Rebellion. This is a heavy Charge indeed, upon the Body of the Nation, which hath taken the Oaths of Allegeance to their Majesties: But if it be true, it is accusing the greatest part of mankind of these Sins, who have hapned to live in the time of any great Revolutions, or changes of Govern&rehy;ment. Was the Nation Forsworn, in the times of William the Conqueror, and his two Sons, and his Nephew? Was it Forsworn all the time of King John, and the several Reigns of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Henries? One would think it better became a dying man to judge more charitably of his Fellow Subjects. Had he never heard of the Law of England, requiring Allegeance to the King, on account of the Possession of the Crown; and that our most eminent Lawyers, in peace&rehy;able and quiet Times, have been of that Opinion? Methinks at least, that should make modest men, not so peremptory in such a Charge; for it is to make, such an Oath unlawful, which the Law makes not only lawful, but a Duty. And when the greatest Lawyers this Nation hath had thought this a part of our Law; shall such who confess themselves unskilful in the Law, charge the Nation with Perjury, for taking an Oath, which the Law requires?

But if our Law did not require it, there is such a general consent in mankind about it, that it seems to me, to be a Law of Nations, That an Oath of Fidelity should follow Posses&rehy;sion; because otherwise, there would be infinite snares to the Consciences of all such who are required to obey, but are not bound to enquire into the Rights of War.

Is it Perjury and Rebellion in the new French Conquests, for the Inhabitants to take Oaths of Fidelity to the French King? If not, how comes it to be so here? Is there not the same Right of War here as abroad?

Was it Perjury and Rebellion in the Subjects of the King of Spain in Portugal, to take a new Oath of Allegeance to the Duke of Braganza, when he was declared King? And yet they were all sworn before, not only to the King of Spain, but to his Heirs: And even the Duke himself, had not only taken this Oath; but the Spaniard particularly charged him with Perjury, and great Ingratitude: Yet the obligation to his Countries good was then thought to overrule that Per&rehy;sonal Obligation to the King of Spain.

But if they were all guilty of Perjury and Rebellion; how came the other Princes of Europe so frankly and readily to own his Government; and the French, as much and as early as any, sending Assistance by Sea and Land to support it? But in this Revolution of Portugal, the best Title was the Success of War, founded on a remote Title to the Crown, when the King of Spain had enjoyed the Possession of that Crown to the Third Generation.

But it may be said, That the Practices of other People are to be no Rule to us; and that we are not to be guided by bad Precedents abroad, but by the Principles and Doctrins of our own Church. This were to the purpose, if our Church had any where declared, Taking such an Oath to be Perjury. But where is that done? I confess, I can find no such thing: And if Mr. Ashton (or his Friends) had made such a Disco&rehy;very, they ought to have told the World of it. But if there be no such Declaration to be met with, then we are left to the General Rules of Conscience, and the Common Rea&rehy;son of Mankind; according to which, I see no ground for this heavy Charge of Perjury and Rebellion in our present Case.

But although Mr. Ashton be so abundantly satisfied in the Design he mentions, that if he had ten thousand Lives, he would sacrifice them all in so good and necessary a Work; yet the Remainder of his Speech is spent in clearing his Inno&rehy;cency, as to the Fact for which he was Condemned. If it was so Meritorious an Act to Die in such a Cause, a Man might have been tempted to be thought Guilty.

But before he could think fit to Die in Charity with all the World, he saith several things with a Design to blacken the Judges, the Jury, and the Government.

The Judges he Accuses of a Severe Charge, and the Hard Measure he received &horfill;.

As to the latter, it is a very odd kind of Hard Measure, when he was so very little sensible of it then, that he said, He did not Complain of the Court, fo. 112. and more fully afterwards, fo. 115. I cannot but own I have had a fair Trial for my Life. Where was the Hard Measure then? Therefore this could not be Mr. Ashton's Sense, unless he would contradict himself; and those who would free him from it, must take these Words to have been written by others, who thought to serve another End by it; and were not so near giving an Account for such Calumnies.

The severity of the Charge lay in applying the Statute 25 Edw. 3. to his Fact. Which was a Design to carry into France a Treasonable Scheme and Project of an Invasion, in or&rehy;der to the deposing the King and Queen. This last the Judges declared, had been always held to be High Treason. All the Question was then, Whether such a Fact were an Overt-Act of such a Design; and so it was left to the Jury, whether Mr. Ashton intended to go over with such a Design or not. If there be any Severity here, it must be in the Law; and that all those who suffer by a Law, are apt to complain of.

He particularly chargeth that Judge, and that Jury-man, who did, he saith signally contrary to common Justice, expose themselves to destroy him. This is a very hard Charge from a Dying man, and ought to have great Evidence to reconcile it to common Charity; but he offers none. The Jury were to Act according to their Consciences; and if they did so, how could they expose themselves contrary to common Justice to destroy him? But what Evidence doth he give, that they did not so? Some have told him, that he was the first man that was ever Condemned for High Treason, upon bare suspicion or Presumption, and that contrary to my Lord Cook and other Eminent Lawyers Opinions.

The main point as to the Jury, was, Whether they were sa&rehy;tisfied in their Consciences, that Mr. Ashton intended to go into France with such a Design? And where the Fact lies in the Intention, there can be no direct Evidence (without see&rehy;ing the Heart;) but it must be gathered from a Concurrence of Circumstances, strong enough to determine an honest mans Judgment: And such the Jury believed to be in his Case. My Lord Cooks words are on the Case of Treason, That the Com&rehy;passing, Intent or Imagination, thô secret, is to be tried by the Peers, and to be discovered by Circumstances precedent, concomi&rehy;tant and subsequent, with all endeavour evermore for the safety of the King.

It is true, he saith afterwards, Fol. 12. That conjectural Presumptions, or Inferences, or strains of Wit, are not sufficient, but there must be good and manifest Proof; but still this Proof must be such as the thing will bear; for there can be no direct and plain proof of a secret Intention: Either therefore no man can be justly Condemned for a secret Intention, manifested by an Overt-Act, or there must be such a Proof allowed, as is sufficient to satisfie a mans Conscience, although it come not up to plain and direct Evidence, as it is opposed to the high&rehy;est degree of Presumption.

But it may be said, that the Presumption lies in judging the Intention from the Overt-Act, but that Overt-Act must be manifestly proved. The Overt-Act in this case was the carrying over Treasonable Papers into France, in order to an Invasion. The sole Question then was, Whether there was manifest proof as to these Papers. That the Papers were found about him was manifestly proved; and he owns Fol. 110. that they were unfortunately found upon him; but he saith that he knew not the Importance of them. It was manifestly proved, that he had an extraordinary Concernment to have these Papers thrown Over-board; which he saith was perfectly out of Friend&rehy;ship, and whether that was a true Answer, was left to the Consci&rehy;ences of the Jury, who were to judge of this by all the Cir&rehy;cumstances antecedent, concomitant and subsequent, by which they did conclude him Guilty. And I cannot see how they went against Common Justice therein; especially since Mr. Ash&rehy;ton well knew, that one of the most material Papers taken, was of his own Hand writing; not the first Draught, but the Co&rehy;py which was shewed him in the Court; and when it was so, he desired, Fol. 106. that the Original may be read, and not the Copy; and he had good reason for it: For as far as I can judge, upon perusal of both, it is the very same Hand in which this Speech was written. But what said Mr. Ashton to the Jury, to clear this matter? He saith, Fol. 129 That his hand was not proved to any of the Papers, and therefore there was nothing but supposition or suspicion against him. It is true, there was no direct and plain proof of the Hand, as there was in the case of my Lord Preston; (and it is a wonder it was omit&rehy;ted, for that would have been plain proof of his knowing what was in those Papers:) However, all the other Circum&rehy;stances put together, were a sufficient proof of his Privity to the Contents of them.

And I wonder how Mr. Ashton, could so confidently in his Paper declare himself Innocent, as to the matter for which he was Sentenced to Die, when he knew the Paper was of his own Hand writing, and plain proof hath been since made of his own delivery of it to a third Person. Can a man be Innocent and Guilty of the same thing?

The only thing to be taken notice of, which remains, is, a Reflection on the Government for his Close Imprisonment, and the hasty and violent Proceedings against him. If there were any thing more than usual in such cases, as to his Imprisonment, he ought to have mentioned the particu&rehy;lars; for otherwise it is to Arraign the Common Justice of the Nation. As to the hasty and violent Proceed&rehy;ings of his Trial; it was then told him, That the greatest Advantage he had, was in putting off his Trial: For by that he knew how to lay the Papers on my Lord Preston; which yet could not clear him, as to those Papers which were not written with my Lord's Hand, nor related any ways to him; but one of them was Written with his own Hand.

Upon the whole Matter, I cannot see how he hath either Proved his Innocency, or that he acted according to the Principles and Doctrins of the Church of England.

As to his Concluding Prayer, I cannot but observe, That in the Beginning of the Speech, the Reason he gives why he would not make any to the People, was, because he would employ his last Minutes in Devotion and holy Communion with God: Which I hope he did. But those who contrived the Speech, were to make a Prayer for him too; but not a Prayer of Devotion, but rather of Faction and Sedition: For it hath no other meaning, than that God would over&rehy;turn this Present Government, and restore the Former, in order to the Flourishing of the Church of England; notwith&rehy;standing the Wounds she hath received from her Prevaricating Sons.

I cannot imagine how a Man could joyn these things together in a Prayer, unless he could think all those are Prevaricating Sons, who are against Popery. For I know no Bottom large enough for Popery, and the Church of England, to stand upon together.

But this I do not think of Mr. Ashton, and therefore Conclude, as I began, That this seems rather the Speech of a Party, than of Mr. Ashton; who made use of his Name and Hand, to convey into the Minds of the People, the most malicious Insinuations against this Present Government, and all who live in Obedience to it.