I Have with some impatience and wonder beheld the bandying of the Non-resisting Doctrine to and fro in this disturbed Kingdom, for so many Months, and to so little purpose; because I am not able to comprehend what any of the contending Par­ties would be at, nor why that Doctrine, rather than any other, should be made now the Subject of our Disquisitions and En­quiries.

For what if God has forbidden us upon pain of Damnation, to resist our Lawful Princes when they do amiss; and has reserved to himself the Censure and Punishment of his own Ministers, as I'be­lieve all Lawful Princes are such; and that God has for great and wise Reasons tied up our hands; Doth it therefore follow from hence, that James is still the Lawful King of England? Or that when he was so, we that believe the Non-resisting Doctrine, were bound to sight for him, whatever he did?

And on the other side, what can the Friends of their present Ma­jesties pretend to palliate their Contempt and Scorn of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience? It was indeed dangerous to them when he first entered England, because all that believed themselves bound by it, were obliged not to take up Arms for him against King James; and so consequently it deprived him of their Assistance: But when he had once subdued the Forces, and obtained the Throne of that Infatuated Monarch; of what use can it be to him to have his Sub­jects so frequently told, That it is lawful for them to take Arms and Defend themselves, their Rights and Religions against him? I doubt not but His Majesty intends to Govern us with the utmost Clemen­cy and Mercy according to our Laws: But when neither Moses nor [Page 2] David could always please their Subjects; It is to be feared the best of Princes may at one time or other need the Influence of the Do­ctrine of Passive Obedience to restrain the madness of the People: and therefore they can be no Friends to Government in general; nor to him, or his, in particular, who are so zealous to have the Do­ctrine of Non-resistance extirpated out of the World. The con­sequence of which, is, That it is Lawful for every Man to Rebel against his Lawful Prince, whenever he think [...] it necessary.

My design therefore in this Discourse being to put an end, as far as I can, to this unseasonable Dispute. I shall endeavour to prove these Particulars, as to the Friends of the late King.

1. That th [...]se that believed it, were not thereby bound to assert the Mis government of James the Second.

2. That seeing he has deserted his Throne, and withdrawn his Person and Seals, they are not thereby obliged to endeavour the re­storing of him.

The Doctrine of Passive Obedience doth not oblige a Subject to assert the Mis-government of his Prince: For it supposeth the Prince may command what he ought not, and then it obligeth me to suffer rather than to resist my Prince, or to break the Command­ments of God, or the Laws of my Country, or do any other ill Action in Obedience to his Commands. Now what is this to the purpose? King James had notoriously subverted all our Constituti­ons and Laws, both in Church and State, and would suffer no re­dress; the Church of England, on the other hand, Petition'd him from time to time by her Bishops and Nobility, to suffer a Parlia­ment to meet and redress our Grievances; but this he would not yield, and what should they do in this case?

Why, said the Jesuit, in the Answer to the Petition of the 17 th of November, 1688. (when they had set forth, That in their Opinion the Only visible way to preserve his Majesty and this his Kingdom, History of the Deser­tion, p. 48. would be the calling of a Parliament Regular and Free in all its circumstances.) ‘I hope to make it out, that the summoning a Parli­ament now, is so far from being the Only way to effect these things, that it will be one of the Principal Causes of much Misery to the Kingdom. And, I am sure, both our Duty to God and our holy Re­ligion, as well as to His Majesty and our Country, doth plainly en­joyn us to use one other effectual means, &c. which is the keep­ing inviolably to our Allegiance to our Sovereign; and effectually joyning with him to resist all his Enemies Whether Foreign Aggres­sors, or Native Rebels.’ That is, let the King do what he please [Page 3] to you, you are bound to fight for him and expel the Prince of Orange, and subdue all his Adherents.

I can very well remember what small effect this Oratory had then upon the minds of all Men. There did not seem to be one Protestant in the Nation, who could not distinguish between the Doctrine of Non­resistance and that of actually aiding a Prince to destroy and enslave his People. His late Majesty however persisted in his Opinion, that no Parliament could be holden till the Prince of Orange was driven out; and the Clergy and Nobility in theirs, that this was the Only visible way to preserve the late King and Kingdom: which im­ply'd, that all fighting was dangerous to both, till this was done. And accordingly, as we had no disloyal Exhortations from Press or Pulpit to perswade Men to fight against their Prince; so neither had we any to perswade us to fight for him: but the thing was com­mitted to God to determine as he thought fit.

In this our Bishops, Clergy, Nobility and Gentry; and in general all the Children of the Church of England behaved themselves like good Christians and good Subjects too; this difficult Case could then be no otherwise well and justifiably managed; and if some few for­got their Duty, and declared too soon for the Prince of Orange, his now Majesty; this they only are responsible for; those that ad­hered to the late King till he actually left the Nation and the Go­vernment, fell for want of the first Mover, are not responsible for their Miscarriage if it was one.

In the Primitive times, when this Doctrine was best both under­stood and practised, their Loyalty was one of their lesser Virtues, upon which they never valued themselves. It would have been then a mean piece of Virtue for a Man to have alledged he had been ever Loyal to his Prince, when a Rebel or a Traytor Christian was a thing they looked upon with horror and affrightment; they expected Martyrdom every moment, and were preparing for it at all times; they were told then, at their first admission into the Church, that they must expect Persecution, and every one who took up that Profession, did it with that Expectation: And the Religion being contrary to the Established Laws, whoever came in to it, knew beforehand that at one time or other he might be called to lay down his Life for it, and when it happened, it was no new or unexpected accident, but foreseen and provided for.

But then they were not so silly as to be fond of their Persecutors, or to wish or fight for it: Ad Scapu­lam c. 2. We are (said Tertullian) defamed as Enemies to the Emperour's Majesty; tamen nuaquam Alainiani, [Page 4] nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani; Yet never was any Christian found like Albinus, Apolog. C. XXXV. Pescennius, Niger or Avidius Cassius Ʋsurping the Throne, and Invading the Government. They prayed for the Emperor, and performed all the Duties of good Sub­jects till he persecuted them, F [...]seb. H. E. and endeavoured to destroy the Church of God; lib. 7. c. 1. but then they changed their Notes, Quales erg [...] leges ist, lib. 10. c. X. quas adversus nos soli exequuntur impii, injusti, turpes, truces, vani, de Vita. dementes? What Laws are these which none ever put in Exe­cution against us, Const. lib. 2. but impious, unjust, base, barbarous, vain and mad Princes? c. 2. Tertul. Who ever pleaseth may see enough of this laid together in Jovian, Apol. cap. 6. pag. 161. and 162. There is not one of those Princes who persecuted the Church, but he is represented to the World by the Fathers and Church Historians in the blackest Characters. That little Book that was written by Lactantius to shew the dismal Ends, and sad Catastrophies of the Persecuting Princes, shews how far they were from being fond of Persecution or Persecutors; and by what hand soever the enraged Fool fell, the deliverance was ascribed to God, who makes use of such instruments as he thinks fit to punish bloody and tyrannical Men. And let any Man shew me that the Primitive Christians were discontented when they were delivered, if he can.

So far were some of the Ancient Fathers from fighting for the persecuting Princes, when they hapned to be dethroned or invaded, that they would not suffer a baptised Person to list himself in the service of a Pagan Prince, Anno Chri­sti 295. Tertullian, de corona, cap. 11. To which purpose he alledgeth that passage of our Saviour. He that takes the Sword, Cum Eccle­sia pace gauderet: & proinde in Maximi­lianum a­nimadverti­tur ob spre­tam Mili­tiam, non ob fidem Christia­ [...]am. shall perish by the Sword: But then, saith he, Plane si quos militia praeventos fides posterior invenit, alia conditio est. Those who were admitted to Baptism after they were listed in the Service of the Emperor, were not under the same obligation. And we have the Passion of one Maximilian, an African, who suffered Martyrdom for no other Cause, but for that he would not serve the Emperor as a Soldier. And the Council of A [...]les, which first admitted baptized Persons to take up Arms, limited the Grant to times of Peace; which was all one with the saying, They would not allow it under Pagan Prin­ces. From all which I may reasonably infer, They did not think themselves bound to bestir themselves for Pagan or persecuting Princes, as if the Church must have perished, if they had not had the Honour to preserve every Prince God had set over them till he had ended his Reign and his Life together.

[Page 5] Yet in all these times the Doctrine of Passive Obedience was at the Highest never call'd in question, never doubted of. It is as true also, The Roman Emperors, under whom they lived, were abso­lute Independent Princes, whose Will was the Law; and the consti­tution of the Empire differed vastly from that of England. So that we are not under the same Obligations they were, because our Princes have not the same Legal Powers the Roman Emperors had: but then, I doubt not, but we are as much bound to submit to the Legal Commands of a King of England, as the Primitive Christians were to the Legal Commands of their Princes. But this was no part of the Controversie under the Reign of James II. who had as little Law as Reason for what he did.

I could never meet with one single Protestant, how discontented soever he was, that James II. is not still King of England, who would pretend to justifie or excuse any of his Actions; no, they all grant his Design was certainly to extirpate the Protestant Religion, to enslave, and consequently to extirpate the English Nation: but then say they, What of all that, no evil is to be done; we ought not to rebel to save a Church or a Nation.

Why, what then? supposing all this were true, What is this to them? Have any of them rebelled? Yes, say they, all that have sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties, have made defection from James II. who tho' he were never so bad a Man, is still our law­ful Prince, and we are bound to swear Allegiance to no other, as long as he is alive.

To this I reply, If the things laid to the Charge of James II. in the Prince of Orange's Declaration, are true, and I think no body questions that, for all the same things, in a manner, are complained of in the Bishops Proposals, but one or two, which were too high for any Subject to take notice of; why then, I say, That Prince had a just Cause to make War upon James II. and if he was conquered by him, he has as good Right to our Allegiance, on that score, as ever any conquering Prince had.

But this is not all, It is well known, His now Majesty offered to submit all his Controversies to the Decision of an English Parliament, which is more, perhaps, than was ever done by any invading Prince before; but James II. was resolved, That neither he nor we should have any Right or Redress; but rather than submit to that, he would go make a Voyage to his most Christian Majesty for his Assistance to make a second Conquest of us.

[Page 6] There has been much bandying, Whether James II. went volun­tarily away, or were forced; and this is a Question not worth one Farthing, at the bottom. For if he went voluntarily, he was forced; and if he was forced, he went voluntarily.

I suppose no Man ever said or thought he freely resigned the Crown, but that his Mis-government had raised such Jealousies and Discontents in the Minds of his Subject, that they neither could nor would fight for him till he had in Parliament done Right, first to his People, and then to the Prince. This he was resolved not to grant, be the Event what it would; and when he saw himself de­serted by all the World, still he persisted in his Resolution; and after he had promised a Parliament, broke his Word with the Prince and the Nation, and withdrew his Person and Seals, and left us in Anarchy and Confusion. Now, I say, he was not forced to do this: he might, and as the case stood, he was bound to have granted a Parliament, and then he might have staid with good safety to his Person and Sovereignty.

Now, if there be nothing asked of a Prince by his Neighbour-Prince upon an Invasion, but what he ought to grant and may grant; he is forced by no body but himself, if he will run away from his People, rather than do them and his Neighbour Right.

But then, when we say, His retreat was voluntary, we do not pretend there was no force made use of, but that it was not made use of to that end. All that was asked by the Prince or his own Subjects, was a free and legal Parliament; and all the force that was used was to that End: And this he might and ought to have granted; but if he would not, the Prince is not to be supposed to have brought 14000 Men, only to make a vain Shew with all, but either to force him to do him Right, or force him out of his Kingdom.

This Prince was no Subject to King James, nor to any other Prince, and consequently was no Rebel: He had as well good Right as a good Cause to invade this injurious Prince who had injured both him and his good Subjects, and without a War would do no right either to the Prince or us. For the Prince had tried all fair waies before he tried Force, as is notoriously known to all the World.

But our Jacobites prate of the Force that was used against him by another Sovereign Prince, as injurious, only because it was Force. Why, the Prince was no Subject, and if James II. would do him no right without Force (tho' we that were then his Subjects had no Right to compel him) HE might lawfully compel him by Force to do what he ought to have done without it, but would not.

[Page 7] What Stupidity is it to deny a Sovereign Prince may make use of Force against a neighbouring Prince that has done him Wrong?

Well, but say they, His Subjects ought to have fought for King James: To which I say, Why did they not, who hindred them from fighting? No, they would not fight, or, which is all one, they durst not; and now he is gone, they think to make him amends, by a fullen disclaiming of the present King's Sovereignty.

But tho' they will not swear, they will promise to live peaceably under this King: That is, they will not own him for the lawful King of England, but they will submit to him as they did to Oliver Cromwel, till they have an Opportunity to dethrone him, and de­liver him into the Hand of King James; and for this they would be allowed the same Condition with those Subjects that have sworn Allegiance to him. Is this reasonable? will they admit a Servant or a Rival on the same Terms into their own Families?

Well but some of his Subjects forsook, and others of them fought against him, and almost all the rest stood still, and would not fight for him. 1. What is this to them, if they have done as much for him as they could or ought, they shall answer for no body but themselves. 2. What was the Reason, and who gave the Cause of this general Desertion? 3. It is denied that King James his Subjects were bound to stand by him and fight for him. He had notoriously invaded and destroyed all our Civil and Religious Rights and Liberties, and designed the Ruine and Destruction both of them and us, and would give us no Assurance, we could rely on, to do otherwise for the future; and therefore if it were unlawful to resist him, it was also as unlawful to assist and enable him to destroy the true Religion, the English Liberties and Immunities; nay the very Nation.

Now Jovian tells us, pag. 272. ‘Whosoever acts contrary to Law, in this Realm, to the Prejudice of any other Person, must be subject to make Reparation by Law; against which the King himself can protect no Man, as long as the Courts of Law are kept open;’ (this has been sufficiently confuted) ‘so that there can be no Ty­ranny, nor any Persecution, but a most exorbitant and illegal Per­secution, which must presuppose, That Justice is obstructed, the Laws and Lawyers silenced, the Courts of Judicature that up, and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword.’ (The Courts were indeed open, but we know for all that, no Man could have any redress; but the Consequences were the same as if they had been shut up.) ‘But to suppose this’ (saith [Page 8] the Doctor) ‘is plainly to suppose the utmost possibility, which is next to an impossibility, a possibility indeed in Theory, but scarce to the reduced into Practice, For in such a violent Ʋndertaking all good Men would withdraw from the Service and Assistance of the King;’ (mark that) ‘ and the Bad durst not serve him, because if he died, or repented of his Ʋndertaking, they must be answerable for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service.’ And a little lower he tells us, ‘To shut up the Laws or obstruct and pervert Justice, would prove an exceeding difficult and almost impracticable Un­dertaking, because all his good Subjects, and all the bad too, that tendered their own Safety, would desert him; nay Foreigners, upon this account, would make a Difficulty to serve him, because he could not protect them against his own Laws.’

Now all this was done and averred in the Face of the Sun, this Possibility was brought into act, and things driven on to the utmost Extremity; and the only Question then was, Whether we should intail this arbitrary tyrannical exorbitant Persecution on our Poste­rity, without any Hopes or Possibility of Redress, or whether we should withdraw from his Service, and secure our Rights and Religion by it? And this was done by all but the Irish and Pa­pists, both Good and Bad, in a manner, as the Doctor foretold it would; and to me it seems altogether justifiable. I know the Doctor means only a Civil Recess; but if it was highly punishable and Infamous to have persisted in a co-operation and Assistance of these things, it was worse and more punishable to have fought for them.

And from hence I conclude, All that did withdraw from the Service of the late King, when they saw he was resolved on these illegal exorbitant Courses, are not to be blamed; and that the best of the Primitive Christians would have done the same thing, if it had been their lot to have fallen under such a Prince.

Tertullian, de corona, c. 12. expounds that Place of Scripture, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Give the Man to God, and the Penny to Caesar. The Man bore God's Image, as the Penny did Caesar's; and when God and Caesar were in opposition, the whole Man was God's Right. So far were they from thinking, their Loyalty to their Prince obliged them to be disloyal to their Religion, even then when they never thought of Resisting, their hands were tyed up neither to assist nor resist a against persecuting Prince, they would do neither of these tho' they (perished. And are not we still under the same Obligations as to [Page 9] the latter as well as to the former? For Shame, let no Man boast of that Loyalty to his Prince, which makes him Disloyal to God and his Church, to whom his Duty is first owing; for in this Case it is our undoubted Duty, to obey God rather than Man. Art thou then (saith Tertullian) a Servant and Soldier to two, to God and Caesar too; certainly thou wilt not be for Caesar when thou owest thy Service to God: even in common things, I yield to the better: or I believe thou wilt be for the better. So far were they then from valuing themselves upon the score of their Loyalty to their Prince.

The Disloyalty of two other Parties have made the Church of England take into the contrary Extreme; and as a Jesuit wished it might do her much good, in Scorn: So she had like to have paid too dear for the Pretence; and they that would now again sacrifice her to their Interest and Reputation, are, to speak softly, none of her best Friends.

They pretend we have not suffered enough for our Religion, to justifie our Resistance? Why, according to their Principles we are never to resist, whatever we suffer, but to suffer on till there is not one Man left to resist. Now did ever any Man, before they, complain, That for the Elect's sake God had shortned those. Daies▪ If they think we have not suffered enough for our Religion, they may be pleased to go for France or Ireland and there make up what is wanting: But if they love Company, and would needs have us suffer with them too, I do not understand the Favour. If they are Prodigal of their own Lives and Fortunes in this World, they ought to be tender of other Men's; Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus; We neither worship nor wish for Crosses, said Octavius, a Pri­mitive Christian: And it is madness to desire to be, and to bring others into affliction and Trouble, when God doth not willingly afflict or grieve the Children of Men, and hath sent us a Delive­rance, before we expected it, and sooner than some Men are well-pleased.

They have another Objection, which is full as extravagant as this; If, say they, King William has conquered King James, why doth he not claim the Crown by Conquest? Why, he that has seve­ral Rights to the same thing, may use his best, and wave the rest. Nemo juro suo quod cum damni periculo conjunctum est, Grotius. uti cogitur; No Man is bound to produce an invidious Title: Should King William have treated us as a conquered People, they would have been the first that would have complaimed; who now complain, only, be­cause they have not that Case. The truth is, they would have [Page 10] him claim as a Conqueror, that they might thence take occasion to ruine him; but he has the Right of a Conqueror, and the Right of a Lawful Successor too; and tho' his own personal Right of Suc­cession is more remote, that of his Lady is immediate; and by it be claims, to our great Good, and his immortal Honour: And they, in the mean time, might, if they pleased, be as satisfied in the Right he has by conquest, as the Saxons were, when King William I. won the Crown in a Battle, and wore it, under the Pre­tence of an Election, because he could lay no Claim to it by Suc­cession: And Henry. VII. twisted his Right by Conquest with his Descent from Lancaster, and his Right by Marriage. But these Men seem not to care which way our Ruine come, if we may but be miserable; we have not suffered enough under King James, but he, too, would fain come in by Conquest; and if ever he get the Crown again that way, these Gentlemen will have no reason to complain of the Want of Sufferings.

Tertullian, who wrote his Apology for the Christians, in or about the Year of Christ CC. as Pamelius stateth the Time, in his Annals of the Life of that Father, saith in his first Apology, c. 37. If we Christians would become your publick and declared Enemies, or secret Revengers of our own Wrongs, should we want Force and number to support it? We exceed the Moors, the Marcomans, and the Par­thians, or any other one single Nation in the whole World; we are but of Yesterday, and yet we have filled all your Places, your Cities, your Islands, Castles, Corporations, Councils, Tribes, Companies, Palace, Senate and Forum or Market-Place; and we have left you nothing to enjoy alone but your Temples; now we who so willingly lay down our Lives, are we not thereby fitted and prepared, do you think, to manage any War, tho' we were very much inferior in Number; if our Religion did not oblige us, rather to suffer Death than to inflict it? we might without Arms or Resistance, barely by disagreeing with you, and the Envy of a Separation, very much endager and disquiet you; for if so great a part of the Empire, as we now make, should break it self off from the rest, and retire into any remote Corner of the World, it would cer­tainly confound your Dominions, to lose so many Subjects, be their Qua­lity what it will; yea, our very departure from you would be a severe Punishment; the Desolation and Silence we should leave behind us, would strike you with an Horror and Amazement, as if the World were expi­ring; you would be forced to seek for new Subjects to supply our Places; and perhaps we should leave you more Enemies than Subjects or Defenders. This Place has been often cited to prove the Doctrine of Passive [Page 11] Obedience; and in truth it is a noble Testimony of the Faith and Patience of those Saints: But then the Church continued after this under Pagan and Persecuting Princes one hundred and ten years, and something more, in which short time there is reckoned about twenty nine Emperors; their times being short, and their ends Bloody; they almost all of them pershing by the Sword. Did any of the Primitive Christians in those days make any scruple to submit to the prevailing Power? The same Author, in this very Apo­logy, puts the Question to the Pagans, Ʋnde Cassii, Nigri, & Albini, &c. De Romanis (nisi fallor) id est, de non Christanis. From whence are all your Ʋsurpers, Traitors, and Rebels? They were ( if I am not deceived) all Romans, that is, no Christians. Those very Loyal Pagans, that Persecuted the poor Christians, because they would not sacrifice for the safety of the Empire and Emperor, Those Loyal Pagans, who would swear falsely by all their Gods, rather than by the single Genius of the Emperor, they were the Men that so frequently deposed, murthered, and destroyed their Princes; that in one hundred and ten years there was about thirty of them, and scarce three in all that time that died a natural Death.

But where the Numerous body of Loyal Christians in the mean time, Cap. 2. who, as he tells Scapula, were so great a Multitude that they were almost the greatest part of every City; Tanta ho­minum mul­titudo, pars pene major Civitatis cujusque. and as he tells us in the other Apology, they were fit to have undertaken any the most dangerous War, though they had been inferiour in num­bers, who so stoutly and fearlessly suffered deaths, that were ex­traordinarily dreadful for their Religion? Why did they not appear in the defence of some of these poor miserable Emperors, who were thus slaughtered one upon the neck of another? How could they satisfie their consciences to pay their Allegiance to thirty Emperors in one hundred and ten years, and suffer above twenty of these to be deposed and murthered without ever in the least concerning themselves what became of them, or who was in the Imperial Throne. Certainly here was some reason for this, it was not Cowardice; never in any Age were there greater numbers of Heroical Martyrs than in this Century; four of the ten Persecutions fell in this short period of time; and they bore them with all the bravery that any of their Ancestors had shewn. The Deposing Doctrine was not then dreamt of; At the end of this dreadful Century they were as Innocent as at the beginning of it, there was never a Traytor or Usurper to be yet charged upon [Page 12] the Christian Church. Well, but what then, why did they suffer the Pagans to murther their Princes at this rate? How could they in conscience pray for thirty Emperors in one hundred and ten years, most of which were stained with the Royal Bloods of their Predecessors; and who had no other. Title than that of a Pros­perous Usurpation and a successful Rebellion? Let the Iacobites of our Age come forth now, and try if they can justifie these Primitive Christians in all this; let them produce their Arguments and form Apologies for them, which shall not at the same time be unanswerable Objections against their own Practice.

All that I can say for these Holy Menl, is this, They followed the Example of our Saviour; and, as he said in another case, who made me a Judge and a divider of Civil Inheritances, or of the Titles and Claims of Princes? So they said here, who has given us Power or Command to interest our selves in these things? If we do our Duty and submit to and pray for those Powers that we find set over us, by Men as the Instruments, by God as the great disposer of Crowns and Scepters, we are safe; for it is he that Ruleth in the Kingdoms of Men, and sets over them The basest of Men, Dan. 4. 17. such as Oliver Cromwel was, Kings given to sinful Nations in his Wrath, and sometimes as suddenly again taken away in his Anger; and at others continued longer for the Tryal of his People or the chastisement of wicked Men. St. Austin saith, De civitate Dei, lib. V. Let us ascribe the gift of Kingdoms and Imperial Powers to none but the True God; cap. 21. he that gives eternal felicity in the Kingdom of Heaven to none but the Pious: but the Earthly Kingdom, both to the good and to the bad, as he pleaseth, who is not pleased with injustice: For though we should in this case say all we know, yet it would at last be impossible for us, to search the hearts of Men, and by a clear discovery to judge of the justice of (God in relation to) Kingdoms. That one True God therefore, who needs neither the Approbation (Judgment) nor assistance of Men, when he pleased, and as far as he pleased, gave the Empire of the World to the Romans, who gave it before that to the Assyrians and Persians. And a little lower, ‘He that gave the Kingdom or Empire to Marius, gave it to Julius Caesar; he that gave it to Augustus, gave it also to Nero; He that gave it to Vespasian and Titus, two merciful sweet Princes, gave it also to Domitian, a most cruel Prince: And that I may not be forced (saith he) to run through all the Particulars, he that gave it to Constantine, a Christian, gave it to Julian an Apostate, whose great parts [Page 13] and Sacrilegious and detestable curiosity was deceived by the love of Empire; who trusting afterwards in those vain Ora­cles to which he was too much addicted, and being too secure of the Victory they had promised him, burnt his Navy on the Tigris, which should have supplied his Army with Pro­visions, and rashly pursuing irrational Designs, was deservedly cut off in the Enemies Country.’

Now I would fain have our Jacobites tell me, whether the same True God has abandoned the Government of the World, and when he did so? Did he give the Empire of the World to Nero, to Domitian, to Julian the Apostate, all Usurpers, and some of them Murderers of their Predecessors? nay, to Marius, who was the very Image of Oliver Cromwel? and has he not since that done any thing of that Nature? Did not he that gave the Kingdom of England to King James, give it also to King William? Did not the Primitive Fathers submit to, and pray for Nero, Domitian and Julian, though Murderers and Usurpers, as well as to Claudius, Titus, and Constantius. It was well known, Claudius left a Son, whose birth was never questioned, and that Nero was set up by the Intriegues of Agrippina his Mother; Yet St. Paul owned his power to be God, Rom. 13. For in that Princes Reign, this Epistle was written, as Bishop Pearson proves in his Annals of St. Paul, pag. 15. But the Christians were few in number then. Well, but they were numerous enough in the second and third Century, but they were all of St. Augustin's mind then too, and left God to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World as he thought fit. Now how did they know that he had given the Empire in their times to this of that Man, but by the event? and was that sufficient to justifie them in their acquiescing in, and submitting to, the Will of God thus disco­vered and will not the same be sufficient to us too? Is not the same Providence as powerful and as vigilant in our times as in theirs?

For my part I was none of them that did, or durst have resisted or Rebelled against King James: but when he chose rather to leave his Kingdom, than to do his Subjects Right; it was just with God and Men to confirm the Election he had made; and see­ing he would not continue in the Station, God had placed him in (that of a Regular and Limited Monarchy) but aspired to an Absolute and unlimited Arbitrary Empire, and persecuted those who had set him up and preserved him in his Throne; It was just, I say, that God should say unto him as he did to [Page 14] Saul, Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord; he hath re­jected thee from being King. Seeing you have provoked and de­serted your People, and have fled into a strange Country, when you might by observing your Oath and your Laws, have lived happily in your own; you shall the fruit of your own folly, and I will give it to a neighbour of thine that is better than you.

Now I would fain know of my Country men, who are still dissatisfied, what I or any of the other Members of the Church of England, who never resisted King James till he left us, have done more than the Primitive Christians did in the like Circum­stances; and I would have them produce but one Example in all those times of a Christian that did scruple to submit to, or pray for, the Prince that was set over him, be his Title what it would. Lactantius de mortibus persecuto­rum. And when his hand is in, let him shew me the Christian that desired the Restitution of Dioclesian or Liciniu; two persecuting Princes, Euseb. H. E. lib. VIII. c. 13. who were as manifestly laid aside as King James was or could be; supposing he was purely forced, and that there was nothing of his will in it, which yet were a very extravagant Supposition.

2. I come now to the Second thing, I proposed to examine, whether those who stand for the Non-resisting Doctrine are by it bound to endeavour the Restitution of James the Second, now he had deserted the Throne, and withdrawn his Person and Seals?

I have in part anticipated this Enquiry in the former part, as it was impossible to do otherwise, by shewing the Primitive Christians who owned and practised this Doctrine to the highest, did yet never concern themselves for the Titles or Successions of their Princes, but submitted to those they found in the Throne, good, or bad, by what Right, Title or Pretence so­ever they came in.

The only reason that be given for this, is what I have assigned out of St. Augustin, viz. That the Kingdoms of the World were so particularly under the Government of God, that no person could usurp them without his particular Gift and Providence. They did not in this case make any difference between his Approbation and Permission: They knew and ac­knowledged this thing was managed in such manner, that it was impossible for Man sometimes after the utmost search to find out the reason of it; but yet they said also with St. Augustin, [Page 15] God could approve nothing but what was just, and in this be sure nothing could happen but what he approved: no force, no fraud ever prevailed against any Prince that was in Possession, but by the Will, and Approbation of God Almighty.

The only Objection that can be made against this, is, That this will seem to make God the Author or Approver of the ill things that have been done to good Princes in the several Ages of the World. To which I reply, That God has very great Reason and Justice in all his Actions, though it is not always known to Men. The best of Men have been guilty of great offences, some of which have not been known to Men in general, and others that were known have not been committed to writing, and are lost; but when all things shall in the last Day be discovered, then it will appear, That God was just in all his ways, and righteous in all his works.

And though God has pleased to settle the Kingdom of the World in certain Families and Persons as he thought fit, yet he has not thereby bound up his own hands so, that let them do what they please, every person that is by his Providence ex­alted to a Throne must necessarily Reign till his Death, and shall then be succeeded by none but his next right Heir. God never made a personal promise to any Family, but that of David; and after that to Jehu: but in the Family of David (as the Promise was in part conditional) there were many false steps, and aberrations from the true Rules of an Hereditary Succession; and for the sins of Solomen, God rent ten of the Tribes out of the hand of Rehoboam his Son, which never after returned under the House of David; and though this is stiled a Rebellion, yet God owns that this thing was from him, 1 King. 12. 24. And the Family of Jehu ended in the fourth desent, as it was fore­told.

Now put these two together, That there is a particular Provi­dence, that particularly concerns it self in the disposing of Crowns, against which neither Fraud nor Force can prevail: And, That God has an absolute Right, as well as full Power to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World as he please; and accordingly has in every Age of the World, de facto, disposed of them; and the Conclu­sion will be, That whosoever ascends a Throne, and reigns in any Kingdom, doth it by the Will and Appointment of God: And in this no Wrong is done by God, for he may dispose of what is his own, when and how he please: All Princes are Gods Ministers and [Page 16] Deputies, and, when he please, he may lay them aside, and set up others in their stead.

And this in general is true of all Princes, Good and Bad; but as to the latter, to what purpose are Prayers and Tears stiled, The Arms of the Church against persecuting Princes, if they were of no Force? to what purpose should Men cry unto the Lord, be­cause of the King, if he were resolved never to hear them; or which is all one, never to help them? And the Difficulty is the same yet; if I may not accept of a Deliverance, when it comes. Why, if God is pleased to put an end to the Life of an ill Prince, and to set up the next immediate Successor, then I may say I am de­livered? But when did God oblige himself to this? That he would exercise this most Sovereign Jurisdiction, over Princes, only one way; and that every Prince should be succeeded by none but his next immediate Heir: Where has he obliged us to accept of no other Deliverance, and to reject all other Successors but those that we took to be right, with the loss of our Lives and Fortunes? Did the Primitive Fathers of the Church act or write thus, or how come we to be under other Laws than they were?

If James II. governed us as he ought, according to his Laws and his Oath, we are bound, in Gratitude, to desire the continuance of his Government, and to be much concerned that we are not still under his Scepter; for he was once the undoubted rightful King of England: But if it was otherwise, if he persecuted that Church, he promised and was bound to protect, and did not treat us like Englishmen, but like Slaves, what reason have we to desire, now we are delivered, to be again brought into the same Circumstances we so lately groaned under? Nero, Domitian and Decius, the three first Persecutors of the Christian Church, all of them perished by the Sword; but Valerian, the fourth, as he is reckoned by Lactantius, did not escape neither; At illum Deus novo ac singulari poenae genere adfecit, ut esset posteris documentum adversarios Dei s [...]pe dignam scelere suo recipere mercedem: God took a new Course with him, and inflicted upon him a new kind of Punishment, that he might teach Posterity, That the Enemies of God do often meet with a Recompence worthy of their Wickedness; for he being taken Prisoner by the Persians, lost not only his Sovereignty, which he had most insolently abused, but his Liberty also, which he had deprived others unjustly of; and he continued in wretched Servitude to the Day of his Death; not only destitute of Help or Pity, but scorned and trodden upon by his proud Enemy. Did the Christians of this Age petition for their old Persecutor, did they refuse to be [Page 17] under the milder Government of his Son Gallienus, Euseb. l. 7. c. 13. missis literis per­secutionem adversus no­stros com­motam se­davit. because the Father was still living, tho' in Captivity? No, he tells us, That this was added to his Punishment; that though he had a Son, which succeeded in the Empire, yet there was no Revenger of his Capti­vity and Slavery, nec omnino repetitus est, nor was he, in the least, ever demanded or desired.

Next after him arose Euseb. H. E. l. 7. c. 30. p. 231. Aurelian, a mad and a rash Prince, who was cut off in the beginning of his Rage: After him came Euseb. l. 8. c. 13. La­ctantius de mortibus persecut. Dio­clesian, who was hardly persuaded to begin a Persecution, but raged more than any of his Predecessors; soon after he fell into a Sick­ness, and was thought by the Violence of it to have been dead; but tho' he escaped with his Life, he was a long time disracted, and was forced by Galerious, Imperio cedere, to resign the Empire, in the Year 305. Jaacius & chroni­con Alexan­drinum, say, he lived to the Year 316. and although he lived to the Year 313. which was nine Years after he was deposed, none of the Christians of that Age de­sired he should again ascend the Throne.

One of the last of the Pagan Princes, that persecuted the Church, was Licinus, upon whom Constantine made War, for that very Cause, and reduced him to a private Life, in Thrace, in the Year 324. and in the Year 325. put him to death, for endeavouring to recover his Throne: But neither here did the Christians, that were his Sub­jects, desire again to be under their Pagan Persecuting Prince, rather than under their Deliverer, Constantine.

Julian the Apostate was the last Pagan Prince that reigned in the Roman Empire, and he perished in Persia, by an unknown Hand, within two Years and one Month; and was followed, both living and dead, with the Detestation of that, and all the succeeding Ages. S. Ambrose, Lib. 1. cap. 1. § 9. as he is cited by Grotius, de jure belli & pacis, saith, This Apostate had many Christian Soldiers under him, who when he com­manded them, To stand to their Arms, against the common Enemy of their Country, obeyed him; but when he commanded them to sight against the Christians, then they acknowledged the Emperor of Heaven: That is, they refused to serve him in this. And the famous Thebean Legion made this their Apology, We offer our Service against any Enemy; but we esteem in an Impiety to stain them with the Bloods of Innocent Men: You may command our Hands against the Wicked and your Enemies, but we cannot butcher the Pious, and our fellow-Subjects. We do well remem­ber, That we took up Arms for, and not against our Countrymen; and we have ever fought for Justice, for Piety, and the Preservation of the Innocent: These things have hitherto been the Rewards of our Dangers. Shall we, oh Sir, ever be able to keep our Faith and our promise to you; [Page 18] if we now fail of performing our Promise to our God? They were then said to be led into France, to fight against the Bagaudae, a sort of outlawed Christians, who were forced, by the Iniquity of the Times, to take up Arms under Dioclesian; and were all of them destroyed by Maximianus; so that if that Story be true, it is a pregnant Testimony, That he Doctrine of Passive Obedience doth not oblige any Man to lend his Assistance to the Ruine of the true Religion.

Beside these Pagan Princes, Socratis H. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 12, 13, 27. there were some Arian Princes, who treated the Catholicks of their Times very hardly; and though none of the Christians of those Times rebelled against them, yet neither would the Catholicks assist the Arian Princes against the Catholick Bishops, as is plain in the Story of S. Ambrose, and the many Tumults at Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria, in those Times; and when these Princes sell by the Justice of God, in Civil or Foreign Wars, their Ends were looked upon as deserved: Thus Valens perished in Thrace, and Valentinian, the younger, at Vienne, the one by the Hands of the Goths, and the other by the Procure­ment of Arbogastes, an Usurper; and the untimely Deaths of these two Princes, proved the Exaltation of Theodosius, the Resettler of the Catholick Religion, and the extirper of Arianism, in the Ro­man Empire.

In all the various Events of these Times, the Providence of God ordered things for the good of his Church, and the Christians of those Times, left them to his Disposal, and submitted to those he set over them, quietly, and without disputing their Rights or Titles; whereas Procopius, who claimed the Empire, as cousin to Julian the Emperor, perished in the Attempt, without pity, or the Regard of the Church.

There is no part of the Reign of James II. that has not been examined and represented by many pens; so that it were a needless, but an ungrateful Task for me, to rip it up again; it may suffice to say, in general, Never any of our Princes so openly attempted the Ruine of the English Liberties, or went so far in it; never did any Man more openly endeavour the Ruine of an established Religion, or by more illegal Courses than he: nor Laws, nor Oaths, nor Promises, nor Gratitude could restrain him; he broke through all the Barriers God and Man had put in his Way, and seemed re­solved to ruine us or Himself; no Remonstrances from abroad, no Petitions at home, could work upon him, till he saw the Sword coming to cut up the Gourd he had planted, and was so fond of; then indeed, he seemed to relent and to give back; but still he [Page 19] would be trusted; he would yield up nothing, but so as that he might, when the Danger was over, re-assume the same again. An English Parliament was the thing, in the World, he most hated, because he foresaw, if it was Free, there was an end, for ever, of the Hopes of setting up Popery in this Kingdom; and that was his main and almost only Design; and yet, as fond as he ever seemed to be of an Absolute and Uncontroulable Power, if he had been of our Church, he would not have hazarded all for it, but he would have managed Things with some Reserve; but the Jesuites he took into his Bosom, and his Queen, especially, spurred him on; and put him upon these Courses, only by representing to him the Glory and Merit of extirpating the Northern Heresies, and settling the Catholick Religion in England.

Well, but what has he done since he left us, that may give us any Assurance, we were mistaken, as to what was past, or may hope for better Usage for time to come? Why, there have been some General Promises made: In the Letter, pretended to be sent to the Lords and Commons of England, and after wards printed in London, he, or some other Person for him, tells us; We are resolved, No­thing shall be omitted on our Part (whenever we can with Safety re­turn) that can contribute towards the Redress of all former Errors, or present Disorders, or add to the securing of the Protestant Religion, or the Property of every individual Subject; intending to refer the whole to a Parliament, legally called, freely elected, and held, without constraint; wherein we shall not only have a particular regard to the Church of Eng­land, as by Law established, but also give such Indulgence to Dissenters, as our People shall have no reason to be jealous of, not expecting, for the future, any other favour to those of Our own Persuasion, than the exercise of their Religion in their own private Families.

This Letter bears date at S. Germans en Laye, Feb. 3. 1688-89:

A Jesuit, who printed a small Paper, under the Title of Advices given to his R. H. M. the Prince of Orange, by one of his most faithful Servants. Your Emissaries ( saith he) made use of the Mantle of Religion, to create in the Minds of the People (of England) false Im­pressions, of the Designs of the King their Master; whilst they who knew the Bottom of the Business ( the Jesuites) and his true Intentions as well as you, are fully perswaded, That this is a good Prince, who desireth nothing but to pass the remainder of his Life in Peace; and who would be well-contented to obtain from his Parliament, the free Exercise of his own Religion, without giving the least Disturbance to that which the greater part of his Subjects profess. It is not possible for you to take too much care to hinder this Truth from spreading it self amongst the People, &c.

Thus the late King promiseth and threatneth; and the true hearted Jesuite, who would not for the World speak one Tittle of Untruth, to an Heretick of the first Magnitude, voucheth for him, and would make the whole Society, that Holy Society, which [Page 21] has so great an Influence over the Mind and Actions of that good Prince, Garantee for the Performance of all these fine things: Nay, I will undertake, if the English Hereticks will once more put their Heads into the Yoke, That Lewis the Fourteenth, too, shall pass his Royal Word and unquestionable Faith, That James the Second shall, for the future, keep his Faith with them, in spite of all the Canons of the Church of Rome to the contrary, as well as he himself has his to his own Protestant Subjects.

The Letter to the Convention of Scotland, was dated on Board the S. Michael, a French Ship, then in the Road of Brest; and the late King was then passing in her into Ireland; where he arrived the 12 th of March at Kinsale, with twelve French Men of War, three Fire-ships and eight Merchant-Ships. Now, notwithstanding the King's Promise of Pardon to those of Brandon, several were indicted at the Assizes, insomuch that thirty or forty of them fled and came to Bristol; being frighted at the Bloody Proceedings against one Mr. Brown of Cork, who was hanged, drawn and quartered at the same Assizes. Several Petitions were also preferred for the Pardons of Sir Thomas Southwel and Captain Mills and many others, who being taken in their Way to the North, were carried to Galloway; and there tried and con­demned to die, but the King rejected their Petition; but however, re­prieved them for three Weeks, deferring it till his Arrival at Dublin, to which Place he set forward on the 21st of March.

Nor was the rest of his Proceedings, in that miserable Kingdom unlike this beginning, all the English being plundered of all their Horses and Arms first, then of their Cattle and Houshold-stuff, and at last of their very Cloaths, that they might be reduced to a neces­sity of perishing by Hunger, Nakedness and Want; and great num­bers of them destroyed by pretended Legal Proceedings, because they would not at first Summons open their Doors, and suffer the Rabble to plunder them of all they had; which I have had from some of my near Relations, who fled on that account.

The twenty fifth of March a Proclamation was issued by him for the sitting of a Parliament the 7th of May, at Dublin, as it accor­dingly did: wherein they passed these Acts.

• I. An Act to levy 20000l. a Month for 13 Months.
• II. For repealing the Act of Settlement, and restoring old Pre­prietors.
• III. For Liberty of Conscience.
• [Page 22] IV. For taking off Penal Laws and Oaths.
• V. For taking off all Writs of Error and Appeals to England.
• VI. For taking off Valuation Money and other Rights from the Clergy.
• VII. For repealing the Act of the 23d. of October, 1641.
• VIII. No benefit of Clergy for two Years.
• IX. All Patents for Offices void.
• X. Ireland to be independent of England.

They seized in the mean time all the Protestants Estates who fled into England; and all this they effected by the 26th of June.

• 1. After this they passed an Act for repealing Poyning's Law.
• 2. Against counterfeiting Foreign Coins.
• 3. And an Act for the attainting of many hundreds of the Nobi­lity and Gentry of Ireland, who were fled to England.

But the Town of London-Derry holding out, and an Army being every Day expected from England, the 18th of July this Parliament was prorogued till October: And notwithstanding their Act for Liberty of Conscience, and the dreadful Expectation of a sudden Revenge from England, the Popish Clergy took possession of the Tithes and Church Revenues; and many of the Protestant Clergy, were clapt up in Prison, in order to be sent into France.

All that our discontented Party, here in England, have to say to all this is, That we must not believe all is told, as out of Ireland; but they mean, That we must believe nothing of it, but call in King James, and try if he will use us at the same rate.

We have a Proverb, That Experience is the Mistress of Fools; and certainly none but such will come a second time under her Disci­pline, when they have so lately tried it; and see every Day hun­dreds of the Nobility, Gentry and Clergy of Ireland flee hither to save their Lives, with the loss of all besides, who agree very exactly one with another in these dreadful Stories.

Now let it be considered, That nothing was asked by the Bishops, in their Proposals, and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in their Petition of the 17th of November, but a free and legal Par­liament, and the redress of our Grievances; and that this was the principal thing insisted on by the Prince of Orange in his Declara­tion; viz. That a free and legal Parliament might settle and adjust all things in Difference or Dispute; and that it was obstinately [Page 23] refused till the 28 th of that Month, and then granted when it could be no longer denyed, the greatest part of the Nobility and Army being then gone over to the Prince.

Let also that Passage in the Proclamation of the 30th of No­vember be considered. For the reconciling all Publick breaches and obliterating the very Memory of all past Miscarriages, We do here­by Exhort and kindly Admonish all our Subjects to dispose themselves to Elect such Persons, for their Representatives in Parliament, as may not be byassed by Prejudice, or Passion, but qualified with Parts, Experience and Prudence proper for this Conjuncture, and agreeable to the Ends and Purposes of this Our Gracious Proclamation. And after this, that by his Message of the 8th of December, sent by the three Lords to the Prince of Orange, He promised, That he would consent to every thing that could be reasonably required for the secu­rity of those that came to it; that is, to the Parliament. And that the 10th of December he sent for the Lord Mayor and Al­dermen and Sheriffs of London to Whitehall, and again passed his Word to them, That though the Queen and Child were gone for France, He would stay with them; And though this Evening he received such an Answer from the Prince to his Proposals, that he could not but acknowledge, It was fairer than he could or did expect; Yet after all these solemn ingagements he burnt the Writs for the Summoning a Parliament, and went the very next Morning away for France, as his Roman Catholick Friends had foretold he would above a fortnight before. And who accor­dingly sent a Letter to him whilst he was at Salisbury, per­swading him to come back from thence, and withdraw himself out of the Kingdom, and leave it in confusion; Assuring him, That within two years or less the Nation would be in such Disorder, that he might come back and have his Ends of it: That is, Ruine both our Civil Rights and our Religion.

When all these solemn promises were thus easily broken, or rather never intended to be kept at the very time they were made, and all those he has since made have been violated in Ireland, where only he had power to keep or break his word, what can we con­clude, but that, as a Minister of State told our Planters, It is very undecent, not to say undutiful, to tax (this) King with his Promises; Who of all Mankind has shewn the least regard in time past to them, and for time to come can never be blamed for any breach? the Parties that take his word being alone responsible for their In­corrigible folly.

[Page 24] Some of these Men have confessed to me, That if ever he be re­stored they expect to be treated as they were before (without Truth, Justice or Mercy) but yet if it be his Right, he must have it. And they cannot think his Right can be determined but by Death or a voluntary surrender, or a Conquest made by meer Foreigners, to the utter Ruine of the English Nation. And they will admit no Answer to these their Scruples, but what shall be palpable, con­victive to that degree that they can make no Objection against it. Now if they admit all the dreadful consequences that attend this relapse, and yield up both Church and Nation to certain and inevitable ruine, only that they may not be damned for Perjury and Disobedience to a King that has left them when he might have staied; and now offereth to return and do what he then refused; What shall we also consent and sacrifice our selves and our Posterity to the humour or scruples of these Men? Shall we suffer the English Church, Liberties, and the very People of Eng­land to be destroyed to gratifie two or three hundred persons? I have been told from good hands, Bishop Ken. That one of our Bishops said, Though he could not satisfie his own Scruples, yet he thought the English Nation fools if ever they suffered King James to return; and I may from hence reasonably conclude the far greatest part of our Scruplers are satisfied in the main, and do heartily wish they could also be of the same mind with the rest of their Bre­thren in the rest; so that the cause is half obtained against them, and those that shall finally persist will, I hope, not meet with much Compassion, it being scarce possible there should not be a very great deal of Will in so much blindness.

Our Neighbours abroad have observed with wonder, L [...] vrai In­teret des Princes Chretiens, P [...] 176. That Eng­land was delivered from an Arbitrary Government, which threatned the Ruine and Desolation of the whole Nation, and the Destruction of our Religion, without the shedding any of our Blood, and that the Ar­my of our Deliverer has committed no Disorder or Rapine in any of our Places through which it passed. Now one would think the man­ner of our Deliverance were a Mercy almost equal to the Deli­verance; No, they cry, if King William the Third had entered England as William the First did, and had slain fifty or sixty thousand English Men in a Battle, then it had been a true Conquest, and would have justified our submission, and God would not have been offended with us if we had transferred our Allegiance from the beaten James to the Victorious King William. Now if Men were like Beasts, altogether distitute of the use of Reason, and ca­pable [Page 25] of no Reflection but the terrour of a brandished and irresistable Sword, then there might perhaps be some force in this reason: but if a Man is conquered whenever he is brought to submit to another; the Noblest as well as the most effectual Con­quest is that of the Pen; Swords conquer Bodies only, Reason and Interest, Justice and Mercy, subdue Souls too, and at once bring the whole Man under; whereas Brutish force can triumph over none but the brutish half of a Man. A Lyon or a Woolf may master my Body and bring me under his power, so that I nei­ther can nor durst resist him; but none but an Hero can bring me to a willing Submission when I am free, none but an Hero would with his own hazard deliver me from Slavery when I were oppress'd. St. Peter saith, [...]. By whom a Man is overcome, him he must serve; That is, he can­not resist him; and it is as true, he whom I neither can nor durst resist, has conquered me. When James the Second was desired to leave Whitehall and go to Ham; and sent to his now Majesty for leave to go rather to Rochester, than to any other place; It was a plain Confession he was no longer Free, i. e. That he was brought into bondage, and consequently that he was conquered: if Con­quest be nothing but the depriving a Man of the power of re­sisting, as I take it to be; and that Servitude or Bondage is no­thing but the effect of that deprivation. And in his Letter from Rochester he saith, He did not think it convenient to expose himself to be secured so as not to be at liberty to effect it (to re­deem the Nation from Slavery) and for that reason to withdraw, &c. That is, he left England, because as long as he staied in it he was a Captive and liable to be secured. And by conse­quence he was conquered. The Roman Catholicks too, and those few of the Church of England, who still adhere to him, were conquered by force of Arms; for they durst not resist, nay they durst not Print the Reasons why they will not comply, which is a plain Confession they are subdued. The rest of the Nation too was conquered not by the Sword, but by the Justice of his Arms; and his Kindness to a miserable enslaved People designed for Ruine. And after all this, to query whether it is a real Conquest, is very absurd.

But every Conquest will perhaps not create a just and good Title, but here it is confessed the present King had the most just cause to make a War upon James the Second, that ever Man had, by them who scruple to submit to him; He managed this [Page 26] War also with the utmost justice, he did not enter into it till he had tried all other ways to obtain Justice, and was de­nied it and persecuted into boot, he offered to submit all his pretences to an English Parliament: and when that was rejected he managed the War with so exact a disciplie, with so little in­jury to the rest of the Nation, that the want of the effects of War, Blood and Rapine, is objected against his Victory.

Every Man has not the Right of making a Conquest: a Subject that rebels against his Prince is but a Victorious Traytor if he prevail; but William the Third was a Sovereign Prince when he entered England, and by the Law of Nations had a right to vindi­cate his, and his Ladies Injuries, and obtain by the Sword, what he could not get by a fair Treaty.

But to what end is War allowed at all, if the Cause and the Ef­fect must be separated, and the most just War in the end leave the Conqueror in the same state he was before? No, but all Subjects, Right or Wrong, are bound to stand by their Lawful Princes in their most unjust Quarrels: and if at last they are subdued, their Allegi­ance must be reserved for the injurious beaten Prince till he die or freely resign; that is, Victorious Sovereign Prince and a Prosper­ous Rebel, and a just and an unjust War, shall, according to these Men's Notion, have the same effect.

Evagrius, in his Apology for the Christian Religion against Zo­zimus the Pagan Historian, Hist. Eccl. lib. III. cap. 41. thus bespeaks him: ‘Let us, if you please Sir, consider the ends of those Princes who imbraced the Pagan Su­perstition, and the Deaths of those Princes that were Christians. Did not Caius Julius Caesar the first of them that obtained the Em­pire of Rome, perish by Treachery? And was not Caius Caligula Murthered by his own Souldiers? Was not Nero slain by one of his own Servants? Did not Galba, Otho and Vitellius all perish by the Sword in the space of sixteen Months? Did not Domitian poison his Brother Titus, and then he himself fall by the Sword of one Ste­phanus? What will you say of Commodus? Did not Narcissus lay vi­olent hands upon him? And did not Pertinax and Julian fall by the same means? Antoninus, the Son of Severus, slew Geta his Brother, and soon after fell by the Sword of Martialis himself. Was not Macrinus the Emperour taken Captive by his own Souldiers, and being led about the Streets of Byzantium afterwards, was he not most Traiterously slain by them? Aurelius Antoninus the Emperour who was born at Emisa, a City of Syria, was slain with his Mother. To what end should I speak of Maximinus, who was slain by his [Page 27] own Souldiers? Of Gordian, who fell by the Swords of his too who were stirred up to it by Philip? And were not Philip and Decius both slain by their Foreign Enemies? Gallus and Velusi­anus by their own Armies? And had not Aemilian the same Fate? Was not Valerian taken prisoner, and carried about by the Persians till he died? Was not Galienus, the Son of Valerian, slain by Treachery, and Carinus beheaded, and so the Empire fell into the hands of Dioclesian and those he associated to him in the Em­pire; of which Maximianus Herculius, and his Son Maxentius and Licinius all fell by the Sword? But from the time Constantine, a Christian Prince, became Emperour, to this, see if you can find any one who has reigned in Constantinople, except Julian the Apostate and Valens the Emperour, who have fallen by the hands of their own Subjects or of Foreigners, who both so grieviously afflicted the Christians; nor has any Tyrant usurped against any of our Princes except Basiliscus, who rose up against Zeno the Emperor, and drove him from his Palace; but was after­wards overcome by Zeno, and put to death. You cannot as­sign any other Emperor, but these two, that was slain in all this time. This happened in the Year of Christ 476. And Licini­us was put to death in the Year 325.’ So that in the space of 151. Years no Christian Prince had been Deposed or Murther­ed by Domestick or Foreign Enemies in the East: And whereas, I observed before in the latter times of the Pagan Superstition, in the space of 110. Years, there were twenty nine Emperors in this period, which makes 151 Years, there was but twelve, of which number Julian and Valens were cut off by the Justice of God for Persecuting his Church. Now the force of all this Argument lies in this, See the 1. Collect, for the 5 th of Novemb. That the Providence of God watcheth over Pious Princes to preserve them from Violence: and as he suffereth not persecu­ting Princes to end their daies in Peace, he looks graciously upon his Servants to preserve their Souls from violence and wrong, be­cause they are such. But if it is said he has suffered some good Princes to be oppressed as he did Henry the Sixth and Charles the First; I say the Judgments of God are sometimes unscrutable, and those that have any hand in such Actions, shall doubtlessly be responsible for it. But as for those who are meerly passive, as they could not hinder the ill things that happened in their times, they may and ought to commit them to God; who in his due time will punish all unjust Usurpers, either in their Persons or in their Posterity.

[Page 28] But then this new Doctrine of standing by wicked persecuting Princes, to the apparent and visible Ruine of the Church, or at least of those that imbrace it, was never heard of in the Church before, was never taught or practised by the Primitive Christians; and is not any part of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non­resistance: As they would not rebel against their Princes, how wick­ed or cruel soever they were; so neither would they against God, whose only Right it is to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World; without whose Approbation as well as Permission, no Force ever did, or ever shall, prevail; who when he pleases punisheth the Wicked, and when he pleaseth pulls down not only unjust Usurpers, but those who have the justest Title. Thuanus, Ann. 1559. The great Thuanus makes this Re­flection on the Deposition of Christian the Second, King of Denmark if Princes will Reign well and happily, they must govern their Affections, and not out of a violent lust of insulting over their Subjects give up them­selves to the Conduct of their Passions, or otherwise they ought to assure themselves, God is a severe revenger, alway ready and delighting to pluck off their Thrones the most Proud and Insolent who shall abuse that Power he has intrusted them with. Nor is this less true of lawful Princes, than of unlawful Usurpers, no Title can exempt a Prince from being responsible to the Justice of God, and he will use his Power as he thinks fit, and punish one Man after one manner, and another in another; some in this World, and others in the next; and the Church in the best of times accordingly left it to him to dispose of the Government of the World: and as she did not an­ticipate his Judgments by disturbing the Peace of the World, what­soever she suffered; so neither did she think her self more wise or just than he, but submitted to those he was pleased in his Providence to set over her; and would certainly have been very thankful for such a Deliverance as we of the Church of England have had, by the Ministery of our King, who like another Constantine has de­livered us out of the hands of our Enemies, who designed to enslave and ruine us and our Posterity for ever.

The Primitive Church in the best times took the words of St. Paul in their plain and literal sense, Rom. 13. [...] [...]. The powers that are, (i. e. in Possession) are ordained or order­ed of God. They never formalize or make any Exception, but Conquest, Election, Usurpation, were to them all alike, if once the Man was Established in the Throne; And whereas they so frequent­ly affirm, Empires are given by God, according to that of Tertul­lian, Apolog. cap. XXX. We Invocate for the Preservation of the [Page 29] Emperors, the Eternal, True, Living God, him whom the Emperors themselves would wish propitious above all others, for they know who gave them the Empire (they know it as Men,) and who ga [...]e them their breath. They feelingly know that he i [...] the only God in whose Power they only are, &c. There is no power but that of God that can touch the Person, the Power or the Life of any Prince. Thus Soz. in his Ecclesiastical History, Lib. VI. c. 35. repre­hends the vanity of the Pagan Philosophers who had been too Inquisitive to find who should succeed Valens; and the over great severity of that Prince in Executing many who had no hand in it, because their Names began with the Letters pretended to be disco­vered. If (saith he) these things are once agreed to depend ( [...]) on the Motion or Course of the Stars, we ought to expect ( [...]) The Prince that is thus decreed for us, whosoever it is: But if these things are ordered by the counsel of God, why do Men prie curiously into them; for the fore-sight or endeavours of Men can never find out the Will of God. And if is were possible, it is not fit to be done, because the wisest of Men can­not order them (the succession of Princes) better than God. The Ancient Fathers and Primitive Christians do every where ascribe the Setting up and Pulling down of Princes to God only, as they do Raine and other such things; and you shall never find any Exception, of lawful, or unlawful Powers, that were supreme in Fact in the Writings of the first Ages. To this purpose, see that Passage of St. Augustin De Civitate Dei, lib. V. c. 21. cited above.

Some have alledged in answer to this, That we in England are under other Circumstances than the Primitive Church were, both in Relation to our Laws and our Oaths; for the Law, Sir Edward Coke in his Pleas of the Crown, Chap. 1. p. 7. saith, upon the 25 E. 3. c. 2. This Statute is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom; for if there be a King Regnant in Possession of the Crown, although he be Rex de facto & non de jure; yet he is Seignior le Roy within the Purvieu of this Statute, and the other that hath Right and is out of Possession, is not within this Act. Nay, If Treason be commit­ted against a King de facto & non de jure, and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown, he shall Punish the Treason done to the King, de facto. And a Pardon granted by a King de jure, that is not also de facto, is void, for which he cites 11 H. 7. c. 1. 4 E. 4. 1. 1 Ed. 4. 1, 2.

[Page 30] The words of the Statute are as followeth.

[Page 31] Which is to be understood of the King in being, as the rest is, and against the same King. To this Statute it is alledged, That the Title of the Crown was then so ambiguous and uncertain, that it was hard to know where the Right lay; which is a meer Cavil. The Title was as well known then as it is now, and is a thing of that Nature, that it can never be universally known; but the greatest part of Mankind take those that are set over them, without further inquiry; nor is it reasonable any Man should suffer for obeying them whom he cannot nor ought to resist: So that what some have said, That every one is bound to take notice of the right Title at his Peril is true, if the Person is in Possession, but false if he is out of Pos­session.

Conquest, a voluntary Surrender, and a wilful Desertion of a Crown, will put an End to the best founded Title in the World, as I think is universally agreed; so that if the Party pretending, has a Title, why is he not in Possession too? if he is outed by his own Act, I am absolved; if by the Force and Power of another, why then, he is conquered: and both waies (especially if I had no hand in it) I am, and ought to be absolved before God and Man.

But then not only the three Estates of England, but all the Prin­ces and Sovereign States in Christendom (except the King of France) have allowed King William and Queen Mary, as the rightful Sove­reigns of England; which is a kind of giving Judgment against the late King, after hearing what has been alledged on both sides. So that this Case is determined by all the ways that are possible; and must absolve any Man that submits now to that which is the only Supreme Power in England.

As to the Oaths taken to the late King, they create no new Obliga­tion upon us as to the Extent or Duration of our Allegiance; I was under the same Obligations of Allegiance, before I was sworn, as I was afterwards; and every Subject of England, oweth, by the Laws of England, a natural Allegiance to his Prince before he is sworn, as every Man ows naturally Obedience to God, before he entreth into the Baptismal Covenant: And so the Primitive Christians were un­der the same Obligation to their Princes we are, tho' I do not find they ever swore any Allegiance to them.

2. This Allegiance is no everlasting Obligation as to time; Death, a voluntary Resignation, a wilful Desertion, or a lawful Conquest will put an End to it.

3. Magna cha. c. 29. 2 E. 3. c. 8. It is no wild, unlimited Obedience, whilst it lasteth, but is plainly limited by the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land, and [Page 32] if I obey further actively, I am responsible to God and Man for it.

I come now to the Words of the Oaths, which may seem to create any Scruple; which in the Oath of Supremacy I suppose may be these. I do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Al­legiance to the King's Highness, his Heirs and Lawful Successors ( and to my Power) shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King's High­ness, his Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm.

Where first I observe, No Man is bound beyond his Power, but that all those who stuck to the late King, till he left the Nation, and another took Possession of his Place, are thereby disabled and freed from attempting any further.

2. That the Authorities I am to defend are such only as belong to the Crown of England by the Laws of England; which are to limit my Allegiance; but by the Law of England, my Allegiance is now transferred to another, and cannot be due to two in opposition each to other; so that if I persist in my Allegiance to James II. I am punishable by these very Laws; therefore my Allegiance, which was a legal Allegiance is determined.

That in the Oath of Allegiance, which may be objected, is this,

I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend, to the uttermost of my Power, against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their Persons, their Crown and Dignity, by reason or colour of any such Sentence or otherwise, &c.

Now this Oath, which binds us to the Person, as the other did to the Power, is capable of the same Limitation, and is to be limited both as to its Duration and extent, by the Laws of England, and the Law of Nations; and therefore is determinable the same way the other was.

The Power, and uttermost Power, reserved and expressed in these Oaths, is a Legal Power, and therefore no Man is by these Oaths bound to exert his Natural Power for any Prince, when he may by the Laws of England be punished as a Traytor for so doing; it being a Legal and not an Illegal Allegiance we promise by them.

If King James would have been contented with the Preheminences, Priviledges, Authorities and Jurisdictions granted and annexed, or be­longing to the Crown of England, I believe no Body questions but he [Page 33] had been still King of England; but by grasping at others, which did not belong to him, he cut off his own Succours, and hindred those that otherwise would have defended him and them from doing it: He would not be content with those that belonged to him, and they could not fight for, or defend any other; and between these two his Power fell to the Ground, by his own Default; and his with­drawing put an End to his Sovereignty; and put our present King and Queen in the actual Possession of all those Legal Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences and Authorities, which he was for­merly vested with; and it is now the same Sin to resist them, it was formerly to resist him.

There may possibly be some, who will lightly regard what ever I or any other Man of this Age can say to them; will they then vouchsafe to hear one of the most Noble and Royal Orators that ever spoke to men, Constantine the Great, in his Oration to the Holy Assembly.

That is, when they were delivered out of the Hands of perfidious Tyrants, and became subject to a Prince who would keep his Faith and Promise to them.

[Page 35] They may be pleased to consider, How much of this was our Case; and ask their Consciences, If the self-same Divine Justice and Providence has not appeared in our Times also, and whe­ther we have not as much Reason as they to be pleased and thankful.

Having thus dispatched what I think fit for the present to be offered to the Friends of the late King; I come now to that part of the Nation, who being satisfied and highly pleased with the pre­sent State of Affairs; may therefore be called, in contradistinction, the Williamists.

Many of these of late have appeared very pertly against the Do­ctrine of Non resistance and Passive Obedience; and discoursed of it with a Contempt and Scorn, as if it were one of the worst and most exploded Doctrines in the whole World; and full as Antichristian as that of deposing Kings, and disposing of their Kingdoms. Now, these two being directly contrary each to other, in all probability one of them is true. If we of the Church of England are not in the right with the Scriptures, and all Primitive Antiquity on our side; it is fairly probable, They of the Deposing Church are; for their Claim is older than the Peoples: But the Mischief is, the Devils is older than either; for he pretended to our Saviour, when he had shewed him all the Kingdoms of the World, and made a conditi­onal Tender of them, [...]. All this Power and Glory is delivered into my Hands, and I give it to whomsoever I will: Now this was long before People or Pope put in any Claim, and before the latter of these had any Being. The Pope, it is true, claims under the People, but the Devil in his own Right: But I believe neither of them can shew their Charter, though the Devil claimed by a Grant; and so I shall leave him and them, Pope and all, in the intire possession of their several Rights, if any they have.

The Doctrine of Non-resistance has been often proved the genu­ine Doctrine of the best Ages of the Church; and that so fully and clearly, that those who would not yield to the Force of the Proof, have not been able to deny the Truth of it, but have been forced to pretend it was only Temporary, and doth not oblige all Ages; which is hardly Sense; or that the Church is now in other Cir­cumstances than she was then; which is not true neither; for in some Places she is now under the same or worse Circumstances; than she was in the three first Centuries, and consequently, they at least, are under the same Obligations the Primitive Christians were; and therefore this very Doctrine is of eternal Verity, and will have [Page 36] its Use till the End of the World. The command is general, the Examples of it are general, and it is now confessedly necessary in Turky, and all Countries where Christianity is oppressed; and by consequence every where, except some Body can shew, We have one Gospel for the Afflicted, and another for the prosperous Daies of the Church; or one Remedy, viz. that of Patience was pre­scribed to our Ancestors, and another directly contrary to us; which if any Man can shew, when and where it was done, I shall be very thankful.

But it may be pretended it has been stretched too far; and that some of the Church of England have written too much in Favour of Wicked and Tyrannical Princes, even to the encouraging them to do worse than otherwise they would: To this I say, The Heat of Controversie has in other Instances mis-led Men as well as in this; and the Doctrine of Non-resistante is nevertheless true, tho' their Notions of it should happen to prove too loose or too large. Let it then be fairly and truly stated once for all, and then let it be as it ever has been, The Glory of the Church of England, and the Bul­wark of all Religious Kings and States, against the Rage of Muti­nous and Rebellious Spirits, who pretend to sight for God's Truth, against the Laws and Governments of their Coun­tries.

If any Man thinks some of the things that were done in the heat of the late Revolution cannot be justified, without exploding this Doctrine: I say those are the Faults of a few Men, and better it is to leave them to their own Master, than to set up our selves against the Doctrines of Christianity to excuse them. The Men of our Ge­neration have all the Infirmities that have gone along with the for­mer; and being so highly provoked by a handful of perfidious un­grateful Miscreants, what Wonder is it if the Temptation, which was so strong, prevailed over the Restraint, and made them guilty of some Irregularities, which according to the strict Rules of the Gospel, cannot be justified; such things have happened in the best of the former Ages, and will happen again in those that shall follow us. But the Rule of Christianity ought to be preserved, notwith­standing, and delivered down to our Posterity just as we re­ceived it.

Those that have appeared against this Doctrine have done their Majesties Two great Injuries. First, They have exasperated the Dissatisfied Party in the Nation, and made them harder to be won over; they concluding, that this Revolution was not the Work of [Page 37] God, because so many of those who have defended it, have made it their business to ridicule or confute the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, as if there were no other way than that to justifie it. But then they are well assured this is as certain a Principle of the Christian Religion, and was ever practised by the Primitive Church in the five first Centuries; and from thence they conculde, the Men that do this and all other that joyn with them, have made a Defection from this Doctrine, and from the Church of England; and they think themselves bound in Conscience to oppose all those that are thus uni­ted, lest they should seem betrayers of this Loyal, Holy, Excellent Doctrine, and of the Honour of that Church that hath ever taught it.

Secondly, They have deprived them, as much as in them lies, of that religious awe and reverence, which is due to all Crowned Heads and Sovereign States. If they are the Ministers of God, if they are the Powers ordained by God, then is all resistance of them a sin against God. But these Men write as if it were lawful to re­sist when they pleased, and whom they pleased; which, if it is true, I am very confident it will not be long before they will pretend they have cause, or some other for them; and so all Princes shall be de­prived of their best Safegard, the fear of God over-awing their Subjects, as the just avenger of such as rebel against their rightful, lawful Princes, and the Laws of their Country.

As there must be in every Country a Supreme Power lodged some­where, against which there is no Appeal but to God; so that Power must be acknowledged to be Sacred and Irresistable, by the Laws of Christianity: and this is as true of Commonwealths as Monarchies, for wheresoever the Supreme Power is lodged, it is the Ordinance of God, approved by his Word, and settled by his Providence, whosoever then resisteth that Power, resisteth the Ordi­nance of God, and shall receive to themselves Damnation. He, then, that shall endeavour to destroy this Obligation, and to persuade Men they are not bound in Conscience to submit to the Laws and lawful Governors of their Country, contradicts this plain Doctrine of the Apostle, and exposeth the Supreme Powers in all Countries to the Rage and Fury of the Multitude, or any Faction that is potent, and thinks it self injured; and consequently he is an Ene­my to all Government.

But then though I am bound not to resist, I am not equally bound to assist, my hands may be tied both ways; If I live in a Pa­gan Country, where Christianity is Persecuted by the Supreme Pow­er, I must suffer and ought not to resist; but then I am not to lend [Page 38] my assistance to that State to encourage or enable it to destroy this Religion, but I must be meerly passive in that case. And this was the case of England, we were persecuted against Law, by a hand­ful of Men, who expected to ruine us by our own hands; and we were bound not to assist them in this wicked and foolish Project; and for want of our assistance they could not justifie or carry on the Enterprize: and when they came to be called to an Account by a Prince who was no Subject, and consequently was not under the Obligation of not resisting their Injustice and Oppression; so they fell an easie Victim to his Arms, and we were delivered out of their hand, not by any resistance we made, but by refusing to assist them; and they that went no farther than this (which it is certain the greatest part of the Nation did not) are justifiable by the strictest Rules of Christianity, and the Practice of the best Ages.

To conclude, I would advise even those who have no kindness for the Doctrine of Non-resistance, to speak modestly of it; it has such Characters of Divinity to shew, that it will deserve this respect at their hands, if they are Christians: And as to those that are not, those that despise all revealed Religion (for they of late have been very witty against it) they ought to shew some reverence to it, for the sake of Government, and to preserve the Peace of the World in which that sort of Men have a greater in­terest than others; for their All lies in this World, and they pre­tend to nothing in the next; and if the World be imbroyled, let the pretence be what it will, their happiness must necessarily be very much abated, and perhaps their Machines destroyed, and then there is an end of them.