AS there are divers opinions in the Society, respecting the presont Government, and doubts in the minds of some, whether it be right or proper to withdraw their obedience from preceding rulers and powers, and to submit to rulers and powers, who are separated from, and set up in the stead and without the consent of, the former: The right understanding and settling of this point appears to be the first necessary consideration. I would therefore, in the first place, observe and lay it down as an axiom, that, in cases of such maguitude as the present, there must certainly be something more than human, and that God Al­mighty, the Supreme Governor of the Universe, who is no re­specter of persons, who doeth whatsoever he pleaseth with the powers of this world, setteth up and pulleth down whomsoever he pleaseth, and, for causes best known unto himself, hath allow­ed and permitted, and still doth allow and permit, changes and alterations in and of states and empires, to take place. It may not be amiss to call to mind the va­tious mighty and well-known re­volutions that he hath permitted at different times, not only a­mongst the people of Great Bri­tain, but most if not all the em­pires and people upon the face of the earth, to the subduing and setting aside one, and raising up another in the room thereof, from the times of Saul and David down to this very day; some of which, for the sake of the doubting, un­informed, or inconsiderate, I shall remark, as concisely as conveni­ently may be.

The kingdom of Saul, which was the first we read of in Holy Writ, although regularly and so­lemnly established, yet by degrees was weakened and reduced, and that of David by degrees raised over it; the introduction and rise of whose government we may see 1 Sam. 22, where we find that, on account of Saul's tyranny, David fled ‘and escaped to the cave of Adullam, and when his brethren, and all his fa­ther's house heard it, they went down thither to him, and every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discon­tented, and gathered them­selves unto him, and he be­came a Captain over them:’ This was the beginning of Da­vid's power, and these men, we learn, continued together with David until he was made King in Saul's stead, which, though by the order and appointment of Providence, yet it may be ob­served that it was contrary to na­ture, as well as to the usual cus­toms of all ages, since David not being heir to the crown, the claim thereto upon those principles be­longing to the house of Saul, which I think, was notwithstand­ing declared should grow weaker and weaker, and that of David stronger and stronger.

[Page 2] And of Solomon, (David's son and immediate successor) the Lord declared, ‘Forasmuch as thou hast nor kept my covenant and my statutes which I have com­manded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days, I will not do it, (for David thy father's sake) but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom, but will give one tribe to thy son, (for Da­vid my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, which I have chosen.’) And in the next verse it is expressly declared, that ‘ The Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the E­domite.’—And in the 23 d verse it is again said, that ‘ God stirred him up another adversa­ry, Rezon the son of Eliadah.’ Which passiges clearly manifest, that the hand of the Lord is in such events, and particularly the fulfilling of the foregoing pre­diction, which we find consumed by the declaration of the Prophet to Jeroboam, as also by the exem­plification of the rent garment; the Prophet telling him in the name of the Lord, "I will take thee, and thou shalt reign accord­ing so all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be King over Israel," ver. 37.—which accordingly came to pass by the revolt of the ten tribes, as we may see in the 12th chap. upon the unjust, ha [...]sh and insolent answer, which Re [...]oboam gave to the petitions of the peo­ple.

Another instance of the deal­ings of the Lord with the king­doms of men, we may see in the 16th chap, of I. Kings, where "the word of the Lord came to Jehu, the son of Hanani, against Baasha, (King of Israel) saying, forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee Prince over my people Israel, and thou hast walked in the way of Jero­boam; behold, I will take away the POSTERITY of Baasha, and the POSTERITY of his house."— And in the 9th of II. Kings, we find that the Prophet Elisha fore­told the reign of Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, (though a servant) in preference to his master, who had 70 sons, saying unto Jehu, by a messenger which he sent for that purpose, ‘Thus faith the Lord God of Israel, I have anointed thee King over the people of the Lord, even over Israel, and thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master,’—which was accordingly fulfilled, notwith­standing the contemptuous speech of the impudent woman Jezebel, who, upon his entering the city of Jezteel, cried out, ‘Had Zimri peace, who flew his master?’—but she lived not long to repeat her folly:—Of this Jehu, although he flew his master and his 70 sons, by orders for that purpose, yet, according to the 30th ver. of 10th chap. the Lord said unto him, because thou hast done my will in exe­cuting that which is right in my eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab, according to all that was commanded thee, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.

Our ancient friend George Fox, in an address to Kings and Rulers of all sorts, wherein he speaks of the Lord's power and dealings, says, ‘his hand is turned against Kings, and shall turn wife men [Page 3]backward, will bring their crowns to the dust, and lay them low and level with the earth.—Journ. p. 135.’ And the same friend, in a paper given forth in the year 1660, p. 309, says,— ‘All friends, concerning the changing of times and go­vernments, let not that trouble any of you, for God hath a mighty work and hand there­in’—

Edward Burrough, in a piece called a representation to Lon­don, an. 1659, page 610 of his works, says,— ‘Now friends, do but truly consider, and with an humble mind, what the work of the Lord hath been in these nations, for divers years, and how he hath proceeded to over­throw and overturn powers and authorities, princes and rulers, and made them of no account before him; and because of the oppression of Rulers among us, the nation hath groaned, and been left without a com­forter from any man, and could not repose confidence in its Princes and Rulers, and this was that the nation might look unto the Lord, and that thro' him they might be saved, and expect healing from him alone; and in all these overturnings, you need not fear but the hand of the Lord hath been in them, and his arm hath suffered and even brought these things to pass; and therefore, why should you murmur against God, and be unsatisfied in what he hath done.’—The same author, page 672, speaking concerning the sufferings of King Charles, says,— ‘As for the afflictions and sufferings sustained by him, so far as they were just and righ­teous judgments from God because of iniquity, can no man be charged with, but that is on God's account, who was pleased to chastise with afflicti­ons and sufferings, and no man can be blamed with injustice, for that affliction which cometh from the hand of God.’ The public causes of Charles's suffer­ings are well known, and who can say but the case is the same at this very time; of which the very permission of the present op­position is a strong presumptive proof.

Francis Howgill, an ancient and eminent minister and author amongst us, in an address to the army, committee of safety, and parliament, p. 325 of his works, about the year—, speaking of the end and intent of rule and authority, saith,— ‘For the thing intended being lost, the Ruler or Rulers rule no more for God, neither doth he ac­count them such, whatever they may account themselves; and therefore hath raised ano­ther thing to overthrow that power, as hath been evident in this nation, in these many re­volutions, although that pow­er which was first in being," (no doubt meaning the King's) which was ordained for the end aforesaid, might say to that which rose up against it, that it was rebellion and treason, and declare it to be such in the ears of the people, as hath been done by divers, which is in the memory of most; so that I need not instance, when I say it was not so accounted by the Lord, and he hath given a testimony of this by the over­throwing of the former, and [Page 4]raising up the latter;’—and a little further, speaking of the form of government, says,— ‘Was not Israel governed some­time by Judges, sometime by Elders, and sometime by Kings? and while they stood in the counsel of the Lord, the peo­ple hearkened to them, was not the Lord among them, and sometimes raised up unlikely means, as David a shepherd's boy, and Gideon a thresher, and he was made a Judge and a Redeemer of Israel out of their slavery.’—By which ob­servations it appears, that Francis Howgill was a strong friend to public justice, and that he did not apprehend an attachment to any particular form of govern­ment merely as such, by any means essential or indispensible. —The same author, page 320, further saith,— ‘Now many are so doting on the name of a parliament, as though it were essential, or the name to be the foundation of government, and cry up the privilege of parliament, as some have done prerogative, and would fight about a name in their heat and passion, and lose the thing in­tended, though they be the representative of the people, to do good to the people, and not hurt, they are accounted as good servants to God, and to them that elected them; but if they would, so soon as got together, set up a particular interest to the imbondaging of the whole," (as the parliament of Great-Britain towards this country "in all cases whatsoever") and then cry up their privilege to do what they list; then it is no rebellion in God's account, neither in the account of just men to call them away, w [...]a they do not perform the thing intended, and will not hearken to the cry of their masters (the people) but perhaps call them rebels and traitors, if they should be turned out.’—And page 329 of the same work, speak­ing of the conduct of the parlia­ment, with regard to their ob­struction of the liberties of the people, he saith, ‘Therefore the army in putting a stop to that which did retard and draw back from the end aforesaid, in God's sight and in the sight of illuminated men, is no re­bellion, no treachery.’—

The numerous changes and revolutions in the kingdoms and empires of the earth, clearly de­scribed and foretold by the Pro­phets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos and Zephaniah, particularly concerning the Phi­listines, Ammonites, Edomites, Mo­abites, Damascus, Babylon, Jeru­salem, Tyre, Sydon, Media, Per­sia, Graecia, Assyria, Ethiopia, &c. as may be seen in holy writ, and which, for brevity sake, are not now repeated, fully prove the truth of the axiom laid down in the beginning; and though that mode of communicating to man­kind the will and purposes of God concerning the powers of this world, may be now almost ceased or at least suspended, yet the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who seeth from everlasting to e­verlasting, no doubt takes the same cognizance, and exercises the same superintending and exe­cutive power he did in days of old.

The prous and judicious Rollin, author of the ancient history, [Page 5]considering and remarking the great changes, which often take place in human affairs, and par­ti [...]u [...]arly the case of Nebach [...]d­n [...]zzar, says, they ‘shew the predigiou, case with which all the power and riches of a king­dom are carried away, when God appoints the revolution, and shift like a garment to a new Owner.’ Vol. 1, p. 100. —The same author, vol. 7, p. 340, speaking of the fall of Car­thage, says, that ‘Scipio, on that occasion, reflected that cities, nations and empi [...]es, are liable to revolutions no less than particular men,’ and had the truth (observes Rollia) en­lightened his soul, he would have discovered what we are taught in the Scriptures, that ‘because of unrighteous dealings, inju­ries and riches got by deceit, a kingdom is translated from one people to another.’ Ecc. 10, 8.—And [...] 298 of the same vol. treating of the accomplish­ment of Daniel's prophecies, re­lative to earthly kingdoms, says, ‘What man but must adore that sovereign power, which God exercises in a secret manner, over Kings and Princes, whose very crimes he renders subser­vient to the execution of his sacred will, and the accom­plishment of his eternal de­crees; in which all events, both general and particular, have their appointed time and place fix [...]d beyond the possibi­lity of failing, even those which depend most on the choice and liberty of man­kind.’ He further informs us, vol. 8, p. 298, that, on ac­count of the arbitrary and unjust behaviour of Antiochus, (to whom part of Daniel's prophecy related) the people revolted from him; and page 369, speaking of his successor S [...]l [...]u [...]us, whose fate ap­p [...]ars to be predicted by Daniel, chap. xi, v. 20, where the text says, ‘then shall stand up in his (Antiochus) estate, a raiser of taxes, in the glory of his king­dom, but within few days he shall be destroyed;’ or, ac­cording to the Hebrew text. ‘There shall arise up in his (Antiochus) place, a man who, as an extortioner, a col­lector of taxes, shall destroy the glory of the kingdom;’ which clearly point out the mi­serable effects, and just punish­ment, consequent of such arbi­trary conduct: The foregoing author, at the conclusion of his history of the ancients, p: 224, recounting the varions kingdoms, states and empires of the world, their governments, customs, arts, sciences, grandeur, power, rich­er, &c. remarks thus, ‘But whilst we are in admiration of so many shining accomplish­ments, the Supreme Judge, who can alone estimate all things, sees nothing in them but trifle, meanness, vanity and pride; and whilst man­kind are continually busied in perpetuating the power of their families, in founding king­doms, and eternizing them­selves, (if that were possible) God from his throne on high overthrows all their projects, and makes even their ambition the means of executing his o­perations and designs; [...]llagres are present to him: He [...] from everlasting to everlasting. (Ecc. 39, 19) He has [...] [Page 6]all empires their fate and du­ration. In the different revo­lutions, (which he had related) we have seen that nothing has come to pass by chance.’—

Before I leave this part of the subject, it may not be amiss to insert some further observations of E. Burrough before mentioned, in answer to some queries propo­sed to the people called Quakers, by one of King Charles's friends, supposed to have been the Earl of Clarendon; to which Edw. Bur­rough replied thus, ‘Yet not­withstanding must still say, and it is my judgment, that there was very great oppression and vexation under the go­vernment of the late King, and Bishops under his power, which the Lord was offended with, and many good people op­pressed by; for which cause, the Lord might and did justly raise up some to oppose, and strive against oppressions and injustice, and to press after reformation in all things. This principle of sincerity, which in some things carried them on in opposing oppressions, and press­ing after reformation, I can never deny, but acknowledge it.’—See Sew [...]ll's hist. p. 283.

The foregoing precedents and observations one would think might be sufficient to satisfy the doubting, that the present revo­lution is the work of the Lord, and according to the plan and design of his providence, and tend to prove the safety and pro­priety of a submission to the pow­ers which now rule: But it may be objected in justification of the present scruples and refusal by some, that the present powers and government are usurped and con­trary to law: To this it may be answered, that the same objection would have held good under eve­ry revolution which has hereto­fore been brought about, as they must no doubt have been contra­ry to the authority of the pre­ceding powers, and by their friends and adherents been deemed usurpations, which might also have been alledged against the present constitution of Great­Britain, as may be hereafter re­marked.

It appears to me that it is for those who chuse not to have any hand in the formation of govern­ments, to take governments such as they find them, and comply with their laws, so far as they are clear of infringing religious rights and matters of faith toward God: It cannot perhaps be found that friends, ever since they were a people, ever refused to assist in the support of govern­ment, but have ever held it right and necessary to comply with the laws of the various governments under which they lived; for as, according to our own repeated declarations as a society, (see Sewell's hist. p. 748, &c.)—the ‘setting up and putting down Kings and Governments is God's peculiar prerogative for causes best known to himself, and that it is not our work or business to have any hand or contrivance therein, nor to be busy bodies in matters above our stations.’ Whether then can such a people, by any means, undertake to weaken or oppose the present government, seeing these things are allowed to belong only unto God, is a matter wor­thy of consideration: for though some may say that the King's [Page 7]right is infringed, and that no other power than the King hath a right to this country and the go­vernment thereof, it may be al­ledged in return, that the King hath long since actually and ex­pressly put the people of this country out of his own protecti­on, without distinction of per­sons, whether private or public, civil or religious: But I would seriously ask how any one knows, or can undertake to say, that the above assertion, on the part of the King, is really the case, and al­together right in the sight of God, who doth whatsoever he pleaseth in the kingdoms of this world. How know we, but as hath been the sentiment of divers living and powerful servant [...] of the Lord, and members of society in these days, but that the Al­mighty, ‘for canses best known unto himself,’ may have a special hand in this work, as was generally agreed by friends that he had at the beginning, even in the apparently usurped revolution under Oliver Cromwell, as may be seen by the epistles of Francis Howgill, E Burrough, and di­vers others written to him; which if it be the case, we possibly, and not without strong probability in the view of some, may ‘be found fighters against God,’ which is a most awful considera­tion, and ought strongly to ope­rate in the minds of all; so that if they cannot actively unite with, they be very careful, by no means, to op [...]ose [...] powers that now are, and which we are now under; unless they can say as a church, that it is clearly revealed unto them from God, that this government shall not stand, but come to nought, which I judge none will adventure to say: Let us then, I beseech of us, attend to the above mentioned profession and declaration, and see that if we are to have no hand in such matters, it may be uniform, if not on one side, neither on the other; for our declaration is that we have no hand ‘either in the setting up or p [...]lling [...]own,’ neither by this way or that way, as a religious society, there is no distinction made of what King or of what government, if not as to one, so neither as to another: if not by encouraging, so neither by discouraging.

As to the acknowledgement of submission and fidelity to the diff­erent governments we have lived under, the aeras or time in which such acknowledgments have been necessary, have been so distant, and so few, that there has not been much said on that head in the society; indeed the assenting practice of friends on these occa­sions, where no oath has been re­quired, has been so common and uncontended, that it has hither­to occasioned ve [...] little observa­tion, and now one would think needed little or nothing said on the occasion: Nevertheless it is necessary to observe that George Fox, in a letter to Oliver Crom­well, during his protectorship, an. 1655, tells him, ‘many are cast into prison, and made a prey upon, because they can­not take the oath of abjurati­on, though they denied and that is ABJURED in it; and by that means, many of the mes­sengers and ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ are cast into prison.’—Jour. p. 152. From which it appears clearly, that the refusal, even of the ministers in [Page 8]society, at that time, and under that revolution, which was built not only upon the opposition but hanishment and destruction of a King, arose from no other seru­pie than merely because it was [...]ministered in the form of an path, which otherwise, as appears by this letter, they would reacily have taken, although it was not simply a declaration of fidelity, but an abjuration ; that is to say, a renouncing of all opposite pow­ers, claims, and pretensions: in­deed the common and f [...]quent answer of friend, when they were questioned or persecuted for not taking the oaths of allegi [...]ce and supremacy, was, ‘we can­not take an oath, if we could take any oath, we could take this’—Now if George Fox and the friend of that day could have [...]fely and freely given a de­claration of fidelity to Oliver Cromwell, [...] w [...]ll as a renuncia­tion of all other temporal autho­rity, what hinders that the s [...]me may be done [...]—

At the revolution which hap­pened under King William, upon James's being obliged to quit the kingdom, it appe [...]rs by Sewell's hiaory, p. 705, that the parlia­ment, in compliance with the people called Quakers, framed and enacted a Test, which, tho' of a very str [...]ct and binding na­ture, W. Sewell speaks of with great satisfaction, notwithstand­ing it was to be performed to a [...]son, who (though worthy of the trust reposed in him) yet, by her [...]di [...]ary right, had no claim to the crown.

The Test is as follows: ‘I A. B. do sincerely promise, and solemnly d [...]clare before God and the would, that I will be true and faithful to King William and Queen Mary; and I do solemnly profess and declare, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and re­nounce, as impious and here­tical, that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes ex­communicated, or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be de­posed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatso­ever. And I declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Pre­late, State or Pot [...]n [...]a [...], hath, or ought to have any power, j [...]isdiction, superi [...]ri [...], pre­eminence or authority, eccle­s [...]tical or spiritual, within this realm.’ This was the Tes [...] mad [...] for and accepted by the society, although expressly for [...]ec [...]a [...]ion of the natural lawful [...]eir, who, at the very same time, maintained a court, and was en­couraged and supported by one of the most powerful states in Eu­rope; a Prince who had [...]dered the society many signal services and favours, and who, it is re­marked, had received more ad­dresses from the people he go­verned, than perhaps any other King in the same space of time; particularly from the London friends, who, but about two years before this act of abj [...]rati­on or renunciation, told him, ‘It should be their ende [...]vour (with God's help) ALWAYS to approve ourselves the King's faithful and loving subjects,— praying God to bless him, his royal family and people, with grace and peace, and that af­ter a long and prosperous reign here, he might receive a better crown among the blessed.’— [Page 9]See the address in Sewell's hist. p. 683—Also the whole body of friends, in and from the yearly meeting of London, 1687, in the conclusion of an address, tell him that ‘ while we live, it shall be our endeavour (thro' God's grace) to demean ourselves, as in conscience to God, and du­ty to the King, we are obliged, his peaceable, loving and faith­ful subjects.’

Several other instances might be adduced on this occasion, but it is apprehended that these may be sufficient to shew, that not­withstanding preceding obligati­ons, attachments and declarati­ons, the society have not appre­hended themselves implicitly and unexceptionably bound to any King or Power, further than they governed according to the funda­mental principles of the empire; but that they were dissolved from their promises and declarations, when the Prince manifestly and actually attempted to subvert the principles of the constitution; otherwise how can we reconcile the solemn declaration and pro­mises made to King James, with the promises and declarations made to King William, and those who succeeded.

Now seeing this has been the real and declared sentiment and conduct of society on former oc­casions, would it not be hard for them to censure or condemn those who apprehend themselves ex­cusable for conforming or sub­mitting to the present powers, which, according to Scripture, must be allowed "to be of God." This appears to some to be going a great length; but let us consi­der that if we examine the con­duct and characters of former Rulers and Governors, particu­larly those concerning whom the Apostle makes that solemn ac­knowledgment, we shall have reason to believe that they were not more likely to be ordained of God, than the powers which are now set over us, seeing they were superstitious and warlike Hea­thens immersed in gross idolatry: —But it may be objected the proceedings against King James, and the subsequent conformity of friends and others to the succeed­ing powers, was chiefly upon a religious account and principle, which he evidently attempted unlawfully to infringe: This is granted; but are not all laws and obligations between men conditi­onal, and no longer binding than the terms, upon which they were made, are kept and observed, agreeable to that well known maxim adopted by Wm. Penn in his famous trial, — ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessa [...] Lex.’ That is, The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself ceaseth: This must have been the princi­ple upon which they acted; and shall those be now censured for acting as to civil affairs, what the society itself did as to religi­ous concerns? Are not promises and obligations made equally va­lid in both, and the breakers of the one criminal (in such cases) as well as the other?

Without entering far into a political disquisition of the merits of the cause now in agitation, I would just refer to consideration the glaring undeniable and re­peated strokes given to, and breaches made in the constitution under which we have heretofore lived, by those who were bound and sworn to maintain it inviola­bly, [Page 10]even at the risque of their eternal salvation, as may be ga­thered from W. Penn's works, v. I, p. 685, &c. where, amongst other things, he recites the sen­tence pronounced against the breakers of the articles in the Great Charter, which is as fol­lows: — ‘In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Ho­ly Ghost, Amen. Whereas our Sovereign Lord the King, to the honour of God and of Holy Church, and for the common profit of the realm, hath granted for him, and his heirs for ever, these articles above written. Robert, Arch­bishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, admonished all his province, once, twice and thrice, because that shortness will not suffer so much delay, as to give knowledge to all the people of England of these presents in writing: We there­fore enjoin all persons of what estate soever they be, that they, and every of them, as much as in them is, shall uphold and maintain these articles granted by our Sovereign Lord the King, in all points: And all those that in any point do resist or break, or in any manner hereafter procure, counsel, or in any wise assent to resist or break those ordinances, or go about it, by word or deed, openly or privily, by any manner of pretence or colour; We the aforesaid Archbishops, by our authority in this writ­ing expressed, do excommuni­cate and accurse, and from the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and from all the company of Heaven, and from all the sa­craments of Holy Church do sequester and exclude.’

Upon which W. Penn observes, ‘We may here see, that in the obscurest times of popery, they were not without a sense of justice and a care of freedom, and that even Papists, whom many think no friends to liber­ty and property, under dreadful penalties, enjoin an inviolable observance of this Great Char­ter, by which they are con­firmed. And though I am no Roman Catholic, and as little value their other curses pro­nounced upon religious dissen­ters, yet I declare ingenuously I would not, for the world, incur this curse, as every man DESERVEDLY DOTH, that of­fers violence to the fundamental freedoms thereby repeated and confirmed’

Now if Kings, as well as o­thers, deserved the penalties here mentioned, for a breach of that charter, then the mere renuncia­tion or refusal of their right to a small spot of this earth, must cer­tainly be considered in the mild­est point of view. Plutarch (in Pyrrh. p. 390) says that ‘Kings, when any revolution happens in their dominions, are apt to complain bitterly of their sub­jects unfaithfulness and disloy­alty; but they do them wrong, and forget that it was them­selves, who gave them the first lessons of their disloyalty, by disregarding justice and fideli­ty, which they sacrificed to their own particular interests.’

The judicious Rollin, author of the ancient history, vol. 2, p. 288, after treating of the cause of the declension in the Assyrian empire, says, ‘Surely the oaths by which Treaties were sealed and ratified, and the Deity [Page 11]brought in not only as present but as guarantee of the condi­tions stipulated, (as was the case between the Kings of Great-Britain and their sub­jects) is a most sacred and au­gust ceremony, very proper for the subjecting of earthly Princes to the Supreme Judge of Heaven and Earth.—Now if Princes, by their unfaithful­ness, will teach their people not to stand in fear of the Su­preme Being, how shall they be able to secure respect and reverence to themselves?—Nor is it all astonishing, that the contempt which an impious Prince, who has no regard to the sanctity of an oath, shews of God and religion, should shake the very foundations of the firmest and best established empires, and sooner or later occasion their utter destructi­on.’ And page 275, the same author says, that ‘Among other causes which brought the ruin of that empire, the four follow­ing may be looked upon as the principal: Their excessive mag­nificence and luxury, the ab­ject subjection and slavery of the people, the bad education of their Princes, and their want of faith in the execution of their Treaties, Oaths and Engagements.’

As to the renunciation of the King's heirs and successors, which seems to be a material cause of objection with some, do we not find that when any person or per­sons forfeit their estates to the King or country where they dwell, that their heirs and succes­sors are also deprived of the same; indeed nothing can be claimed by an heir, as such, but in virtue or right of his ancestor or proge­nitor; and if there be no right in them, or the right, if any, were forfeit or lost, it is also lost to their heirs and successors; for though right not forfeited or ali­ened, does not die, though it may sleep, yet right once for­feited or properly lost, can never properly be regained: Beside the King (as hath been observed) has already put the people of this country, without distinction, out of his protection, by express de­claration; and as protection and allegiance being reciprocal, is an established maxim in all states, and is according to the nature and reason of things: Upon this principle, by the King's own act, the allegiance of the people is dis­solved —The same may be said with regard to these States, if, by the will of Providence, they should hereafter be subdued, and no longer capable of yielding protection; which is according to the declaration of Congress, as well as to the preamble of the act for securing the present govern­ment, which expressly declares that protection and allegiance are reciprocal: This is the object and ultimatum of the act, and is the natural, simple and true con­struction of the same, being, without doubt, no other than what must be intended and ex­pected at the framing of the same, as is allowed by the judg­ment of those now in power, nor can it indeed be otherways right­ly understood.

Having said thus much as to declarations of fidelity and renun­ciation, it may not be amiss to add something on the subject of the payment of Taxes.

For this purpose I shall pro­duce [Page 12]an epistle of George Fox, taken from his book of epistles, p. 137, where he advises, ‘ All friends every where, who are dead to all carnal weapons, and have beaten them to pie­ces, stand in that which takes away the occasion of wars, which saves mens lives, and destroys none, nor would have others;—and as for the Rulers that are to keep peace, for peace sake, and for the advan­tage of truth, give them their tribute; but to bear and carry weapons to fight with, the men of peace, (who live in that which takes away the oc­casion of wars) they cannot act in such things, under the seve­ral powers, but have paid their Tribute, which they may do still for peace sake, and not hold back the earth, but go over it, and in so doing friends may better claim their liberty.’

W. Penn, in an address to the high court of parliament, anno 1671, vol. 1, p. 41, tells them, that "We both own and are ready to yield obedience to every ordinance of man, relating to hu­man affairs, and that for consci­ence sake; and that IN ALL RE­VOLUTIONS, we have demeaned ourselves with much peace and patience, disowning all contrary actings; and that we have lived most peaceably under all the vari­ous governments that have been since our first appearance,"— which could not have been said with propriety, unless they had submitted to the civil ordinances of men, as above declared.

Thomas Story, in his Journal, p. 269, speaking concerning a law made to enforce the bearing of arms, which he disapproved, yet in the course of the debate, which he had with the judge of a court, saith,— ‘I began with the example of Christ himself for the payment of a Tax, tho' applied by Caesar unto the uses of war, and other exigences of his government;’ and was going to shew the difference be­tween a law that directly and principally affects the person in war, requiring personal service, and a law which only requires a general tax, to be applied by Rulers as they see cause;—for though we as a people readily pay such taxes impartially assessed, yet as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, his servants will not fight, though they may and ought to pay taxes, accord­ing to the example of Christ their head:" And what that instance and example was, he relates p. 410, where he says, that "The Lord Jesus Christ obeyed all the righteous laws both of Jews and Romans, so far as his condition in this world subjected him to them: For though he was, and is the peaceable Saviour, and came not to destroy mens lives, but to save them, yet in obedience to the laws of men, where not opposite to or interfering with the laws of God, he wrought a miracle to pay a poll-tax, where in strictness the law did not require it of him, nor of his disciples; for having Roman privileges by virtue of an old league between the Jews and Romans, whereby they were as children and not strangers, never­theless to obviate all occasion of offence, he submitted to it, tho' only an ordinance of men, and his apostles likewise, as an exam­ple to his church through all ages then to come."

[Page 13] Though this example is gene­rally well known, it may not be improper here to recite it, which was thus: "And when they came to Capernaum, they that received Tribute money, came to Peter, and said, doth your master pay Tribute? He saith yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, what thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the Kings of the earth take Custom or Tribute; of their own children or of strangers? Pe­ter saith unto him, of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free. Notwithstanding lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: That take, and give unto them for me and thee." Mat. 17th, v. 24, 25, 26, 27.

It is here remarkable that our Saviour appears to have revolved in his mind the whole nature of the case, and of the demand that was made; for upon Peter's in­forming the Tax-gatherers, that his master paid Tribute, our Lord took occasion to remind him by a gentle rep ehension, that he had gone further in his reply than he was bound to do, or than was re­quisite from the nature of their condition and circumstances; and immediately upon Peter's enter­ing the house, prevented his speaking by making use of a very strong and lively argument to convince Peter, that he had been quite as quick as was necessary; and that instead of being bound to pay the Tax, they were, ac­cording to the custom of the country, exempt and free; yet notwithstanding this freedom and privilege, or without the least objection to the use to which the money might be applied, though the Romans were in general Hea­then idolaters, and about that time, as appears from history, actually engaged in war on seve­ral sides, and the character of their Emperor Tiberius marked as debauched, unjust, cruel, tyran­nic, sanguinary and inhuman.— Yet Christ our Lord, tho' cloath­ed with majesty and power above all the laws and powers of this world, and was thereby able to have subdued all things unto himself, and made them subser­vient to his will, was so tender of giving uneasiness to the powers that then bore rule, that he or­dered Peter, by producing an a­stonishing miracle, as we have read, to comply and pay the Tax for this very striking reason, " let we should offend."

Thomas Story before mentioned, in his journal, page 413 saith, ‘That the sufferings of the faithful in Christ, in all ages, have not arose from the breach of any laws relating only to ci­vil government, which they do readily observe and conscien­tiously obey.’—And in the same page, adds, ‘That as there always is and must be, in the nature of things, a great and necessary charge attending go­vernment, (a kingdom or state being but as one great house or family, and no private or par­ticular family c [...]n subsist with­out charge) for that cause, all are to pay Tribute, as justly (or equally) imposed by the legislature.’

The said author, in a confer­ence had with the Czar of Mus­covy, [Page 14]saith, ‘Though we are prohibited arms and fighting in person, as inconsistent (we think) with the roles of the gospel of Jesus Christ; yet we can, and do, by his example, readily and cheerfully pay unto every government, and in every form, where we happen to be subjects, such sums and assess­ments as are required of us by the respective laws under which we live. For when a general Tax was laid by the Roman Czar, upon his extensive em­pire, and the time of payment came, the Lord Jesus Christ’ (according to Scripture, Mat. 25, as recited by T. Story) ‘wrought a miracle to pay a Tax, where yet it was not strictly due; we, by so great an example, do freely pay our Taxes to Caesar, who of right hath the direction and application of them, to the various ends of government, to peace or to war, as it pleaseth him, or as need may, accord­ing to the constitution or laws of his kingdom.’ Jour. p. 125.

W. Penn, vol. 2, p 33, saith, ‘That since we are as large contributors to the government as our antagonists, we are in­titled to as large protection from it.’—Now this saying could not have been true, unless they paid all the public Taxes, in common with other men, which no doubt their antagonists did; and by analogous conclusion, if we, under the present dispensati­on, refuse to contribute to the government under which we live, how can we expect to be intitled to its protection, not only at pre­sent, but in case the Almighty should see meet further and fully to establish it.

The said Author, in the same vol. p 788, in answer to some objections made against the soci­ety, observes among other things, that it was said ‘The Quakers will not support civil govern­ment,’ &c.—To which he an­swers, ‘This is also untrue upon experience; for what people, (says, he) under government, pay their Taxes better than they do.’

Samuel Bownas, in the account of his life, relates an epistolary argument he had with one Ray, a Priest, who charged friends with an inconsistency in that, while they actually paid and even collected Tax for the purposes of carrying on a war against France with vigour: They yet refused to pay Tythes and Militia-assess­ments.— To which S. Bownas re­plies, ‘We are still of the same mind with R. Barclay, that wars and fightings are incon­sistent with the gospel princi­ples, and still lie under suffer­ings with respect to the militia, being careful to walk by the rule of Christ's doctrine; and yet do not think ourselves in­consistent in actively comply­ing with the law of Taxes, in rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and he may do therewith what pleaseth him.’—Where it may be well to observe, that he there speaks of Taxes as due unto Caesar; thereby no doubt meaning the power that for the present bears rule, whether Emperor, Protec­tor, King, or Congress.

From what has been observed, I think it may plainly appear that friends heretofore have been so far from censuring or condemn­ing their members on such occa­stions, [Page 15]that they have rather en­couraged the Payment of Taxes, (except those in lieu of personal service) and advised a submission to the powers that bore rule, un­der the various governments and revolutions in which they lived; but if this be doubted, or any thing has been advanced that is not conformable to the truth, it will be well for any one to point out the same; but if they are consistent with reason, justice and truth, it will be well to be cau­tious how any thing is acted op­posite thereto; and whilst we de­clare that we cannot have a hand in public revolutions, (as belong­ing unto God) by promoting and encouraging, we may beware of taking an active part by opposing and discouraging, whether as to Non-payment of Taxes, or other civil acts; and then of conse­quence, none can, with propriety or consistency, be censured or condemned concerning the same, especially in cases where no pre­cedent for censure or condemna­tion can be found in the history or proceedings of friends.

As it is queried by some, whe­ther Friends paid their Taxes un­der the government of Oliver Cromwell, although there is as great or greater reason to con­clude they did, than there is to suppose or prove that they did not; yet it may be observed that the practice of friends, ever since the time of Geo. Fox, has been to keep a particular account of the sufferings they sustained, and the amount thereof, when it was on a conscientious or religious account, which have been record­ed, and transmitted down to as from time to time: Now as it never yet has appeared in the ac­counts of friends sufferings, that any thing was taken from them, on account of Taxes, even under Cromwell's government, the com­mittee of safety, or any of the then powers, which, if on a reli­gious account, they had refused to pay, would have amounted to a very considerable sum, equal if not superior to any re­corded by them, and would no doubt have been taken particular notice of amongst their other suf­ferings; but as nothing of this kind appears, it is therefore more than probable, and may be very safely concluded, that they sub­mitted in these respects to the se­veral governments, of what kind soever, under which they lived; and that they paid their Taxes for the support of those govern­ments, in common with other men, according to their uniform practice as a people.

To the above Testimony of the dead, let us attend also to one of the living, an anonymus author; though well known to be Timo­thy Davis; a worthy friend and minister of the gospel; in a letter to some of his intimate friends on the subject of paying Taxes to the present government, printed at Watertown about two years ago, and sold by B. Edes, near the Bridge, has fully declared his sentiments in the following man­ner:

"If it be safe to follow the ex­ample of our predecessors, why not comply.—"What did they do?"—I answer, they have from their very first appearance, as a separate society, been subject to such who were invested with the authority of the nation, without meddling with the various dis­putes that have arisen since their [Page 16]time, concerning regal authority, and on whom it ought to devolve. For a farther consideration hereof, you may remember, that Friends made their appearance in the reign of King Charles the First; who by his too much aspiring af­ter sovereignty or despotism, a­larmed the people; who, headed by Oliver Cromwell, prevailed against the king, and took the reigns of government into his own hands, and governed the kingdom himself, under the cha­racter of lord protector.—

Here we do not find but that Friends, who had paid their alle­giance and their taxes to the king, continued to pay them to Oliver Cromwell, during the time he held the reins of government: And what can be said of him, but that he headed the populace, and was an opposer of kingly autho­rity, not merely as such, but as it became, through the hands of the king, subversive of the rights and priviledges of the people: What harder things can be said of those who are at the head of the present opposition, that may render them less worthy of recei­ving taxes to defray the charges of government. By all that I have been able to discover, our society in England have ever made a point of being careful and exact in paying all taxes that are legally assessed, except the Priests rates.

After CROMWELL, king Charles the second came to the throne, and they paid taxes to him also. After which, the crown continued in the family of Stew­arts, until the disturbances in king James the second's reign; who, by his favouring popery, justly alarmed and incens'd the people against him, that thinking himself not safe among a justly provoked people, took shelter in France, which made way for the Prince of Orange. Here we find the line of Stewarts interrupted again, which devolved on them according to legal succession, and the Prince, in conjunction with the people, opposing the then kingly government in James; much the same as is laid to the charge of those who are at the head of the present opposition; and Friends who were desirous to live in peace with all men, paid taxes to him likewise; but say they—"James favoured popery and endeavoured to introduce po­pish government, and therefore forfeited his right to the crown." Be it so—but is favouring popery the only instance in which the kings of England can forfeit their rights to reign over a free peo­ple?"—I should think, that when the sword is put into the hands of a king, to be directed for the punishment of evil doers, and praise to them that do well, we might have some reason to expect him to act, in some measure, an­swerable to his exalted station, and the trust the people have re­posed in him, (askingly authority originates from the people)—But if to the contrary he should act so far below his exalted station as to turn the point of [...]e sword at the vitals of the people, it must be very alarming, especially when they have confer'd all the favours upon him, that were in their power, consistent with the safety of the kingdom, he as fully for­feits his right to reign over them, as in the case of popery.

Every considerate man, no doubt, would be glad of such a [Page 17]form of government as might be unexceptionable; but we have no reason to expect it, in this imper­fect state of things: Yet we ought to use all just and reasonable means to rectify all disorders in government, that are in the com­pass of our power, consistent with the peaceable profession we make; and at the same time, to be as careful not to complain without just cause, but be as content as we can, under such a form of government, as it hath pleased Divine Providence to cast our lots: And it must be a very bad one indeed, that is not preferable to a state of anarchy. In a word, let a man be under any form of government he can imagine to himself, where he receives any advantage by it, and while he remains under it, he ought to bear his proportion of the charge of it; for the thoughts of having our lives and every thing that is near and dear to us, lie wholly at the mercy of every invader, with­out any possibility of redress from any legal authority, I should think would incline us to be wil­ling to bear our just proportion of the charge of such government as we are under, if it should not in every respect be consistent with the most perfect system.

Our Saviour hath set this mat­ter in an indisputable light to me, by the conversation he had with Peter on that subject, at a time when those who received tribute­money came to Peter querying with him, whether their Master paid Tribute or not, Peter said he did. Christ willing, it appears, to take advantage of this oppor­tunity to leave an example to fu­ture ages of his approbation of paying taxes, in a case similar to the present, in every thing essen­tial to the present argument, and as an additional weight to the holy example, introduc'd a con­versation with Peter, not waiting for him to introduce it, or pro­pound any questions on the sub­ject, but prevented him, as if with design to remove every hesitation, proceeded thus, What thinkest thou Simon, of whom do the kings of earth take custom or tribute, of their own children or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. As much as if he had said, "then have they no just demand on us, we being children, may very well refuse paying of it.—Nevertheless, least we should offend them, it is best it should be paid, therefore I would have thee do it," which he was enabled to do by an extraor­dinary miracle. I cannot see how it is possible for any thing to be express'd more clearly to remove every scruple. It is further ob­servable, that there is not one word of objection either from Christ or Peter, that part of this tribute money went to defray mi­litary charges, (for it undoubted­ly did) which we might expect to find here if any where, seeing they were then upon the point of paying taxes.

If our rulers pursue measures for the defence and support of civil government, that we think not strictly consistent with the rules of the gospel, even by re­pelling force by force, to the shed­ding of human blood, it is out of our power to help it; they pro­ceed in the defence of govern­ment as it suits them best; and if their manner doth not suit us, that may not hinder, but we may [Page 18]receive as much advantage from it as if they pursued such mea­sures as we may think we could point out. However, let them proceed in a hostile manner or not, in the defence of our rights and privileges, it is certain, if we receive advantage from civil government, we ought to bear our part of the charge of main­taining of it, or else have no recourse to it in any case whate­ver; for it would be very odd for us to seek protection against the encroachments or abuse of our fellow creatures, from an autho­rity that we refuse to help to sup­port. It may farther be observ­ed, that the tribute that Peter paid by our Saviour's direction, was at a time when the Jews were under the Romans and Cesar at great expence in supporting his legions for the defence of his em­pire: That as Christ by the hand of Peter, paid a tax, He must consequently pay a proportiona­ble part of such charge.

In one place Christ saith, Ren­der to Caesar the things that are his; but in the instance before us, he sets us an example of paying the requisition of civil authority, not only when the soldiers recei­ved a part of it, but even where not strictly due, rather than give offence; altho' it helped to up­hold a government under which they ( i. c. the Jews) were [...]ed [...] ­ced by the dint of sword; an ex­ample of meekness that ought to have place in every considerate mind; that whilst we remain stea­dy to our testimony against shed­ding human blood, we may pre­serve ear consciences v [...]id of of­fence toward God and man, and by no means, at any time, throw out any unbecoming reflections against those in authority, nor mistake will for tender scruple of conscience in paying taxes, or in any thing else, nor give civil au­thority any unnecessary trouble."

The matter now under consi­deration is serious. Many valua­ble members of society, both public and private, at this time, in different places, do not think themselves called or bound to join in the refusals and scruples which some make, and many more who have not yet fully considered the matter, will probably be of the same mind; if this be allowed, which I believe may safely be done, will it not be exceeding hard that they should be denied the privileges of that society, in whose ways they have been edu­cated, and whose religious prin­ciples they profess and hold, and to which they are closely attach­ed? In time past, though there was diversity of sentiments with regard to some matters, yet we bore one with another without censure, in that spirit of conde­scension and brotherly regard, which is peculiarly characteristic of the followers of the lamb, and shall we now, in very similar ca­ses, give up that christian tem­per, cast one another off, and produce a sparation, when love and union might be preserved as well as in former days, and for which there is probably as much occasion as ever there was since the foundation of the province.

If indeed we think it proper as a society, to maintain an oppo­sition to the present powers of government, in civil as well as religious respects, it may preclude the use of the present observati­ons, or at least render any ser­vice, which might be expected [Page 19]from them, very improbable; but as that would appear to be so contrary to the profession we have made, as well as inconsistent with our established principles, that I presume it cannot really be the case: I have therefore taken the freedom of laying these observa­tions before us for our serious consideration.

Never was there a people more deeply interested in the event of public proceedings, than we now are. We are considerably nume­rous in various parts of the conti­nent, and particularly so in this state. We are not only in­terested ourselves, but future ge­nerations may likewise be deeply affected by the part we now act. I wish us therefore so to conduct, as that Jew nor Gentile, or the church of Christ, either at this or any future time, may have just occasion of offence.

Now, notwithstanding what has been offered, as there may be some who may alledge that their scruples and non compliance with the demands of the present go­vernment, as to civil affairs, a­rises from a principle of consci­ence, which I am sensible is a very delicate point to touch upon, yet as I have no other end in view, but the good of society, as well as individuals, I would therefore beg them to consider that con­science, according to the general idea annexed to it, is a very sa­cred thing. Let us therefore be cautious how we apply is to com­mon, civil, and merely human affairs, lest we make the plea for it upon more important occasions of too light ellimation: It is deeply expedient for us to consi­der its nature, or what we are to understand thereby in religious affairs, and what are the proper and sit objects and subjects there­of, which may be necessary to claim and assert as independent of the power of the civil magis­trate: For this purpose let us ob­serve Rob. Barclay's sentiment of the matter, who, in the latter part of the 5th and 6th propositi­on, after speaking of the light of Christ, and the light of man's natural conscience, saith, ‘To the light of Christ then in the conscience, and not to man's natural conscience, it is that we commend men: This, not that, it is which we preach up and direct people to, as to a most certain guide unto eter­nal life.’—From hence we may safely infer, that no objecti­on arising from any thing short of the light of Christ, can be suffici­ent to operate with the professors of Christ our Lord, as a christian church, in their proceedings and determinations; so that it essen­tially be [...]oves them, certainly to know, that it is altogether from the illumination and power there­of, and not at all from the other, that they are a [...]tuated: —This appears to be abso­lutely and indispens [...] necessa­ry for the right and true support of a pure christian testimony, and which I heartily with only be deeply and sufficiently att [...]ded to by all the active members of society; for in vain is it [...]o en­deavour to list up a standard to the nations, unless in and by that power alone which is able to strengthen for the work; without which pure and unmixed qualifi­cation it will prove too large and too heavy; so that being beaten and driven by the winds, it will fall to the ground, to the shame [Page 20]and confusion of those who at­tempted to erect and support it.

The said author, in the 14th proposicion of the apology, treat­ing of the power of the civil ma­gistrate, saith, "The question is first, whether the civil magistrate hath power to force men in things religious, to do contrary to their consciences, and if they will not, to punish them in their goods, li­berties and lives? This (saith h [...]) we hold in the negative — but secondly,— as we would have the magistrate to avoid this extreme of incroaching upon mens con­sciences; so, on the other hand, we are far from joining with or strengthening such libertines, as would stretch the liberty of their consciences to the prejudice of their neighbours, or the ruin of human society.—We understand therefore by matters of conscience, such as immediately relate be­twixt God and man, or men and men, as to meet together to wor­ship God in that way which they judge is most acceptable unto him; and not to incroach upon or feek to force their neighbours, otherwise than by reason, or such other means as Christ and his a­postles used, viz. preaching, and instructing such as will hear and receive it; but not at all for men under the notion of conscience, to do any thing contrary to the mo­ral and perpetual statutes general­ly acknowledged by all christians; in which case the magistrate may very lawfully use his authority." — The doctrine here preached is excellent both for those in, as well as those under authority, as it may clearly appear from thence that "in things religious," such as he there mentions, he appre­hends the magistrate has no just power, and that conscience may safely be pleaded; but observe the care and caution with which he writes, and how positively he excludes from that sacred claim ‘any thing that is acted contra­ry to the moral and perpetual statutes generally acknowledg­ed by all christians.’—But it may be asked, what are those moral and perpetual statutes? I at once take it for granted, that the laying and paying of Taxes for the support of human and ci­vil governments, and acknow­ledging the authority of the same, are material parts; seeing they have been very generally assented and submitted unto by christians of all sects and denominations, at and from the personal appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, in all countries, and under all revolu­tions, down to this very day; and without which "human so­ciety" could not be supported, but inevitably verge into confu­sion and ruin:—From which I would as concisely as possible, according to the worthy author's manner, and nearly in his own words, lay down a position, and then draw and prove what I ap­prehend to be an undeniable and conclutive argument, as follows: —Pos. That it is unlawful and improper to counteract the moral and perpetual statutes generally acknowledged by christians.

But the laying and paying of Taxes for the support of human and civil governments, and ac­knowledging the authority of the same, are of those moral and perpetual statutes, &c.

Therefore, it is unlawful and improper to counteract them.

If the cause of refusal and non­compliance were a matter of mere [Page 21]faith and conscience toward God, the case would be exceedingly different, and there would pro­bably be no dissent; but as it appears to be only of civil con­cern, and relates solely to human affairs, it is therefore apprehend­ed not censurable by the church, or properly cognizable thereby: And here I cannot but remark one reason why I believe many among us are led into a mistake, and scruples arise against paying of Taxes for want of a well in­formed judgment. It is a receiv­ed opinion among us, that all wars without distinction are sin­ful: Hence arises this scruple a­gainst paying of Taxes for the support of war; but this is not the genuine doctrine of our anci­ent friends, as will fully appear in the following extract from the writings of Isaac Pennington, where speaking to what he very properly stiles "a weighty ques­tion concerning the magistrates protection of the innocent." It is to be observed, that this en­lightned author views magistracy and defensive war, as the same thing, or, if I may use a simile, as one building (tho' consisting of divers parts) standing on the same foundation. The question is as follows: Vol. 1st, p. 444. ‘Whether the magistrate, in righteousness and equity, is engaged to defend such, who (by the peaceableness and love which God hath wrought in their spirits, and by that law of life, mercy, good-will, and forgiveness, which God, by his own finger, hath written in their hearts) are taken off from fighting, and cannot use a weapon destructive to any creature.’

Answer: ‘Magistracy was in­tended by God for the defence of the people; not only of those who have ability, and can fight for them, but of such also who cannot, or are for­bidden by the love and law of God, written in their hearts so to do. Thus women, children, sick persons, aged persons, and also priests in nations (who have ability to fight, but are exempted by their function, which is not equivalent to the exemption which God makes by the law of his spirit in the heart) have the benefit of the law, and of the magistrates protection, without fighting for the defence of either.’

Now if magistracy be appoint­ed by God, and it be the magis­trates duty to defend such, who are either not able, or cannot for conscience sake defend them­selves; is it possible any can be right who lay waste this ordi­nance, or speak of such defence as sinful? If any man be appoint­ed by God to defend my life, is it possible that God can authorise me to call him a sinner for doing his duty? or is it possible that I can, consistent with my duty, re­fuse him that tribute which is ab­solutely necessary to enable him thus to defend me? But had I much greater abilities to speak to this subject than I am conscious of, no reasoning of mine could be of equal authority with the author above quoted. Hear him therefore again, p. 448, where, treating on this peaceable princi­ple professed by the society, he says, ‘I speak not this against any magistrates or peoples de­fending themselves against fo­reign invasions, or making use [Page 22]of the sword to suppress the violent and evil-doers within their own borders; for this the present state of things may and doth require, and a great bles­sing will attend the sword, when it is uprightly borne to that end, and its use will be honourable; and while there is need of a sword, the Lord will not suffer that government, or those governors, to want sitting instruments under them for the management thereof, who wait on him in his fear to have the edge of it rightly directed; but yet there is a better st [...]te which the Lord hath alrealy brought some into, and which nations are to expect and travel to­wards.’

A candid and judicious author, to wit, Richard Finch, in a Treatise called Second Thoughts concerning War, see page 95, after the above quotation, further adds, ‘It is evident that this great man holds forth plainly the divine oeconomy I have hinted at above. We see it was his judgment that men using the sword, in this gospel day, may be God's instru­ments; and that herein, tho' not come to the better state or summit of christian perfection, they may yet be good enough to use or direct the sword to be used religiously in God's fear: When perhaps many would think that religion in all, in­stead of using the sword, would if regarded, lead directly from the use of it; but it seems this writer, though a great advo­cate for our doctrine, thought otherwise; and I profess my­self to be his proselyte, though at present, it there are a few persons so pious, I should al­most as soon expect to find the philosophers stone, as an whole army of such warriours: And I am persuaded a due regard to what may be urged upon his and my principle, will re­quire more benevolence and reflection of mind than can be expected from unthinking bi­gotry.’ Again the same au­thor, ‘I admire the wisdom and charity of this writer, in his prudent and generous conces­sions, though some may think he thereby gives his cause a­way; but I believe them so essential to the preservation of it, that what he writes is the very truth, and that without such concessions it will be im­possible to maintain our ground against a keen adversary. All attempts to explain and defend our doctrine, which go upon the literal sense of the precept, or consider defensive war as a thing in itself wicked, how specious soever worked up or received by shallow judges, instead of honouring and serv­ing, have injured a good cause by multiplying many if not needless absurdities and con­tradictions upon all such ill judged attempts to state and clear the controversy.’ The same author, page 100: ‘The sword then which in tenderness of conscience thou canst not draw, may in another (whom for wise reasons it hath not pleased God to lead in the manner he hath cone thee) become the cutward providen­tial means to preserve thee and others, as well as himself; up­on which principle his arms may protect thy person and [Page 23]property, and thy virtue and piety be a defence and blessing upon his arms.’ Again, p. 118: ‘King William the Third was a great warriour, and a great blessing to England, as he interposed for its deliver­ance in a trying time, when the liberty of the subject, un­der a specious solemnity of preserving is, was secretly un­dermined; and the great duke of Marlborough, instead of being convinced of our princi­ple, was a glorious instrument in a warlike way. From what has been laid down we may strongly conclude, that though a measure of divine grace, ac­cording to scripture, is given to every man, yet there may be an infinite diversity in de­grees, and all things consider­ed, it seems even impossible that it should by the giver, in every age and person, be de­signed to make precisely the same discoveries, and exalt to the same degrees of knowledge and perfection.’

The above doctrine corre­sponds with a matter of fact, wherein the apostle Paul himself was nearly interested: It was at the time when upwards of forty of the Jews had "bound them­selves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul." Acts 23d chap. from the 16th to the 24th v. And when Pauls sister [...] son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the cas­tle, and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurious unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him. So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee. Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and ask­ed him, What is that thou hast to tell me? And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to-morrow into the council, as though they would enquire some­what of him more perfectly. But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me. And he called unto him two centuri­ons, saying. Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Cesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night. And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor." It is evident here that the apos­tle's life was preserved through the interposition of the chief cap­tain; and Paul hesitated not to put himself under his protection, although he had been previously assured of the Lord's particular providence and protection; the Lord having stood by him, and said, "Be of good cheer, Paul, for as thou hast restined of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."

[Page 24] Upon the whole, much more might be produced to shew that it is perfectly consistent with the doctrines of christianity, and the practice of friends to acknowledge allegiance to the government that God, in the course of his provi­dence, has thought proper should take place, and to conscientious­ly pay our proportion of Taxes for the support thereof; but it is hoped the above is sufficient with every unprejudiced mind.