cording to the highest principles of passive obedience, that another sovereign Prince might make war on a king so abusing his power: and that this was the case in fact, will not be called in question by any Protestant. So then here was a war begun upon just and lawful grounds, and a war being so begun, it is the uncontroverted opinion of all lawyers, that the success of a just war gives a lawful title to that which is acquired in the progress of it. Therefore King James, having so far sunk in the war that he both abandoned his people and deserted the government, all his right and title did accrue to the King, in the right of a conquest over him: so that if he had then assumed the crown, the opinion of all lawyers must have been on his side: but he chose rather to leave the matter to the determination of the Peers and people of England, chosen and assembled together with all possible freedom, who did upon that declare him their king: so that with relation to King James's rights, he was vested with them by the successes of a just war, and yet he was willing with relation to the people to receive the crown by their declaration, rather than to hold it in the right of his sword."[1]
I cannot but consider this a most improper course to be pursued by a Bishop of the Anglican Church: and within the space of two years after, the same view was taken by the House of Commons. The notion of a right in King William by Conquest was asserted in a pamphlet, intitled, "King William and Queen Mary Conquerors:" and when this obnoxious
- ↑ A Pastoral Writ by the Right Reverend Father in God, Gilbert, Lord Bishop of Sarum, to the Clergy of his Diocese, concerning the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. 4to. London, pp. 20, 21.
