Account of which he may be deprived of c. And pag. 23. he says of these Principles That they have poisoned the very Springs and Fountains of Government and so deeply tinctur'd Mens Minds that he prays God we may not still live to see the miserable Effects of it Thus Dr. Sherlock even since his Conversion But you may say how does it appear that this Author now sets up these Principles You shall be Judge Pag. 49. he says That it is ill trusting any one any King with such a Power This is in his c. 3. s 1. n. 8. Again c. 1. n. 10. p. 11. he expresses himself in these Words viz. The antient Government with which he the King was intrusted p. 41. he falls upon those who stopt the Bill of Exclusion with this wholsome Advice Never to trust Men of King James's Principles and Religion with a Power that may destroy us Here the King's Power is onely what the People please to trust him with Pag. 57. He says That it is not the King's Money that pays the Soldiers but the Kingdoms and thence it will follow that they are not the King's Soldiers but the Kingdoms 67. He says That every Law is certainly a Compact between the King and the People wherein by a mutual Consent they agree on a Rule by which he is to govern and according to which they oblige themselves to pay him Obedience That therefore the People may as lawfully dispence with their Allegiance to the King 68. as the King dispence with the Execution of a Law That the Subjects have no other Security for their Liberties 77. Properties and Lives except the Interest they have of chusing their own Representatives in Parliament Whereby he will exclude by very much the greatest part of the Nation from having any security for their Lives c. i. e. all but the Electors of Parliament men for none other have any Vote in chusing their own Representatives But the Author makes them amends by giving every one of them a power to dispence with their Allegiance to the King when ever they think that the King dispences with the Execution of any Law He makes them all Popes to dispence with Oaths or any other Duty when they think it reasonable And as he gives them Power over their Oaths of Allegiance so he does over the King's Treasury and Army It is Their Mony Their Army and why should not They command them The King himself acts but by their Commission and by all Rule and Right every Man is accountable to him from whom he has his Commission But now our Author is upon the Rode you shall see how he improves He derives the Eccles Authorily from the People p. 206. he stops at nothing And since he is a granting to the People they shall have all even the Ecclesiastical Authority which is trusted in the Crown shall be derived from the People and transferrable by them to whom they think fit For he makes King James's breach of trust in the Ecclesiastical Authority a provoking temptation to his People to think of transferring it to some other Person This will gratify the Phanaticks as well as Commonwealth-men That even the Ecclesiastical Authority is derived from the People His Interpretation of its not being Lawful upon any Pretence to take Arms against the King c. pag. 221. n. 3. And now to Crown all He gives as large and loose an Interpretation of that famous Principle of the Ch. of England viz. of it s not being Lawful upon any Pretence whatever to take Arms against the King c. as Bradshaw Rutherford Bellarmin or Mariana could desire viz. He says it was only meant That private Men should not take up the Sword or resist the King upon any Pretence that is says he upon any Pretence of private Injury or Wrong done to them in particular Beyond this none of the Republicans Phanaticks and Jesuits in the World could go So that this was no very distinguishing Principle of the Church of England as we us'd to call it But if you will allow the same Parliament which enacted the abovesaid Principle of Non-Resistance to the King c. to understand their own Meaning or think that the declared Sense of the Legislators is the true Sense of the Law then our Author has widely mistaken his Mark and misinterpreted this Law For 12 Car. 2. c. 30. it is declared That neither the Peers nor Commons nor both together nor the People Collectively nor Representatively in Parliament or out of Parliament nor any other Persons whatsoever have any Coercive Power over the Kings of England Now judge whether all this is meant only of Private Men as our Author would make you believe And take Notice that this is not to be taken as a Grant from that Parliament It is a Recognition wherein they declare what was the Law before them And they vouch that this Prerogative of the King to be exempt from all Coercive Power is by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom And that neither Lords nor Commons nor any other Persons not only now have not or hereafter shall not have any such Power over the King but that they never had or ever ought to have such Power I hope our Author will confess That this is somewhat a greater Authority and ought to have greater Weight with us than his single Opinion which he has taken up but of late And to confound that Distinction of the Parliament being Coordinate with the King and making the King but one of the three Estates which would imply their having something to do with the Sword which is the Supreme Power of Government joyntly with the King and therefore in some Cases might restrain him by Force which was the Pretence in 41. to obviate all this the Militia which is the Sword of England is by Act of Parliament put in the Hands of the King alone And it is declared in express Words 13 Car. 2. That the Sword is solely in the King's Power and that neither one nor both Houses of Parliament can or Lawfully may Raise or Levy any War offensive or defensive against his Majesty c. The Title of this Section p. 221. is King James and his Party endeavoured to destroy the Protestant Religion by misrepresenting the Persons and Principles of Protestants But it is not in the Power of Jesuit or any you can imagine to misrepresent the Protestant Principles more than this Author in this same Section as you have seen that is if you will allow that the Protestants did ever represent them Right before And whereas he Objects in the foremention'd Place That by it the abovesaid Principle of Non-Resistance it was never intended to give up the Constitution of the Government or to part with the Liberties and Privileges of the Kingdom The Answer is very easy for by the Judgment of what he calls the Constitution of the Government viz. King and Parliament
This is the Author's Quotation wherein I find fault first with his Translation of Grotius and leaving out some of his Words on purpose to hide his meaning and next I will shew that it is nothing to his purpose if it were as he would have it First The Case which Gratius cites out of Barclay is Si Rex vere Hostili animo If a King really with a â—ostile Mind that is as an open Enemy in totius Populi exitium feratur do attempt the Destruction of his whole People Now our Author to bring this Case nearer to his Design and to pass upon the English Readers instead of a truly hostile Mind which is being a perfect Enemy words it only the King having Malice in his Mind a malicious Design which may be easier pretended and infer'd from a hundred things than an open hostile Attempt to cut off a whole Nation if it be not true for Peoples Eyes will undeceive them in that But what would our Author make of this a King's Design to destroy the whole People Grotius says in the above-quoted place That it is hardly possible to enter into the heart of a King who is not mad And our Author does not so much as pretend it against King James but only that he design'd to destroy the Protestant Interest in Ireland Therefore we must come to the other part of what Grotius says viz. That if a King Govern many People it may happen that in favour of one People he may desire the other were destroy'd Thus our Author But Grotius gives his Reason in the Words which our Author conceals viz. Ut Colonias ibi faciat which governs what he said before viz. That a King may design to root out a People where he intends to make a Colony That is so far as to make room for his Colony as it is with our Plantations in Ireland and in America which no Man will stretch farther than to bring the Natives under Subjection not to destroy them all And take notice that these Words Ut Colonias ibi faciat are all the Words which remain of that Section our Author has quoted viz. De Jure Belli Pacis lib. 1. cap. 4. § 11. Our Author has repeated every Word of that Section except these four Words which do conclude it and shew plainly Grotius's meaning to be quite different from what our Author would have us believe why otherwise he should be at the pains of Transcribing that Section and putting it verbatim in his Margin and omit only the four last Words he will give us a Reason in his next Besides Grotius consents to Barclay in that Case of a King 's designing to destroy his Whole People that he thereby demits the Government of them because as he rightly infers a Will to Govern and to Destroy cannot consist together but he does not say that a King may not destroy a part to preserve another Part or that if he does he does thereby Abdicate the Government of those whom he so seeks to destroy There is no such thing in Grotius and there is nothing else would have been to this Author's purpose Remember the Reason of the Thing we were upon before we are now only upon the Quotations And Grotius in this Quotation as set down by our Author puts the Case not only of a Governor's Design to Destroy his People but that he Professes himself an Enemy to his whole People And this is the Act which Grotius says supposes him to be mad and to abdicate his Kingdom which will no ways serve our Author's purpose unless he prove that King James did not only design but profess himself an Enemy to his People nor can you make him Abdicate by this Quotation unless you make him to be mad at the same time But I have said enough as to Grotius From Hammond the next Authority he produces is Dr. Hammond who this Author says in his Vindication of Christ's reprehending St. Peter from the Exceptions of Mr. Marshal approves this Passage of Grotius And so he might without making any Thing for this Author's purpose as I have shewn but how does Dr. Hammond approve it Dr. Hammond says That Grotius mentions some Cases wherein a King may be Resisted as in Case a King shall Abdicate his Kingdom and manifestly Relinquish his Power then he turns Private Man and may be dealt with as any other such Dr. Hammond says That Grotius said so but does Hammond approve of it No not in that place but he brings it as an Objection of his Adversaries which they Quoted out of Grotius against him and he thought it made so little against him that he said they would find little Joy in it and other their like Quotations our of Grotius whom the Doctor in the same place strongly vindicates And indeed what Joy could Mr. Marshal or the Author find in that Saying of Grotius to serve their Principle of Resistance For if a King should voluntarily and manifestly Relinquish his Power and Abdicate his Kingdom and becomes thereby a Private Man and though he may then be Resisted Will it follow that a King may be Resisted That would make this sort of Argument viz. Because a Private Man may be Resisted therefore a King may be Resisted and as Dr. Hammond said I wish our Author Joy of this Quotation But pray tell me if you can imagine what it was could possess our Author to appeal to Dr. Hammond Will he abide by Dr. Hammond's Judgment in this Cause No certainly he will not he writes in flat opposition to him What then Did he think to pick up some odd scrap out of him to give credit to his Cause by naming Dr. Hammond on its side Whereas every one that reads him must see that he runs diametrically opposite to the Principles for which he is produced Nay in the very Paragraph which this Author quotes Dr. Hammond is vindicating Grorius's Principles for maintaining That neither Publick nor Private Persons may lawfully wage War against them under whose Command they are and That it was the greatest injury that could be done to the Ancient Christians to say That it was want of Strength not of Inclination that way that they defended not themselves in time of most certain danger of Death and much more to the same purpose From Hicks The next Man this Author quotes is as unlucky for his Design It is Dr. Hicks Dean of Worcester who wrote Jovian in Answer to Julian the Apostate He is now one of the Deprived Clergy of this Kingdom for his constant adhering to his old Passive Obedience Yet this Author will needs quote him on his side and would have the Reader believe that he is against Passive Obedience even in that Book which he wrote purposely in its defence Some of which you have already heard quoted Well! let him be produced we will hear what he says in this Cause First our Author states the Question Suppose a King endeavours to destroy his
Absolute and Despotick Power in the King They were fit Instruments to sacrifice the Laws and Religion of the Kingdom to the Will of their Sovereign P. 40. They neither knew nor feared nor cared for the Laws P. 82. The Members of Parliament would not stick to sacrifice the Liberties and Laws of the Kingdom to the King 's Will. P. 153. They devolv'd the Power of Making and Repealing Laws on the King's Pleasure P. 24 It was impossible the Grand Segnior should have fitted himself better with Instruments for promoting an Arbitrary Government than he K. J. did P. 31. No body can deny but they were well chosen for the Work for which he designed them Yet this Author could not think they were so very well chosen when he makes them stand up for the Laws and struggle with the King against Arbitrary Power till they made his Nose burst out a bleeding for vexation as you have heard before Now would you believe that this K. J. who was so highly bent to be Absolute and Arbitrary would be content to be a Vassal to France Yet this Author asserts it so positively p. 45. as to say that it is manifest And p. 183. That he took care to put it out of his own Power to help the Protestants Qui occidere quemquam nolit posse velit It is not natural for an Arbitrary Man to desire any thing to be out of his Power much less would he take care to put it out of his own Power If he did it must proceed out of an inveterate malice to the Protestants yet they all think His being there was their Preservation that he hindered the Irish not only from Massacres but from Burning or Plundering Dublin and the whole Country when they left it and many other Outrages And our Author when he is upon painting out the Barbarity of the Irish does frequently confess it and insist upon it and as frequently deny it when his Spleen rises against K. J. He cries out c. 3. s 13. n. 3. d. 4. p. 172. And when men were thus slaughtered with his K. J's approbation This is a very heavy Charge and what was the reason of it Because says he they were killed with K. J's Protections in their Pockets I am afraid there is no Case where we could come upon the Comparison betwixt the Protestant and the Irish Army in Ireland Of K. J. keeping his Protections with more disadvantage to the Protestants than that of keeping their Protections or punishing the Breaches of them In this I appeal to Secretary Gorge's Letter in which he gives a remarkable Instance of K. J's both granting Protections to the Protestants and making it good to them notwithstanding the greatest provocations viz. Secretary Gorge's Wife and Family were not only Protected and Preserved by K. J. in Dublin while he was in so considerable a Post against K. J. as to be Secretary to the General Schomberg then at the Head of an Army in Ireland to drive K. J. out thence but upon their application to K. J. he gave them leave and his Pass port to go to the Secretary to Schomberg's Army And thus by K. J's Clemency he had his Wife and Family restored safe to him at the same time that he was endeavouring to dispossess K. J. of all he had in the World The Secretary in his Letter aggravates the Breach of Protections and want of Discipline in Schomberg's Army by shewing how regularly King James governed his Army and not only threatned severe Penalties upon the Breach of his Proclamations and Protections but duly exacted them The respective Penalties injoyned in the said Proclamation says the Secretary viz. K. J's Proclamation against plundering and other Irregularities are severely and impartially executed on the respective Offenders My Family tells me that the Week before they left Dublin there were two private Soldiers publickly executed before a Protestant Baker's Door for stealing two Loaves not worth a Shilling And a Fortnight before a Lieutenant and Ensign were publickly executed at a place where on pretence of the King's Service they prest a Horse going with Provision to Dublin Market Two others were condemned and expected daily to be executed for the like Offence These severe Examples confirming the Penalties of these publick Declarations contribute so much to the Quiet of the Country that were it not for the Country Raparees and Tories theirs 't is thought would be much quiâ—ter than ours The truth is too many of the English as well as Danâ—s and French are highly oppressive to this poor Country whereas our Enemies have reduced themselves to that Order that they exercise Violence upon none but the Proprieties of such as they know to be absent or as they Phrase it in Rebellion against them whose Stock Goods and Estates are seized and set by the Civil Government and the Proceed applied for and towards the Charge of the War These are the Words of the Secretaries Letter where you see it was K. William's Army that destroyed and K. James's that protected the Country And as many Protestants as staid at home and trusted themselves to King James's Protection preserved their Goods and Improvements and live now plentifully while those that fled from him lost what they had and smart now severely under these Necessities which their Neighbours escaped who either would not or could not fly from the Mercy of their Natural Sovereign The Secretary says here That they seized the Estates of the Absentees But I must add to this That where any Application was made in behalf of Absentees and any tollerable Reason given for their not returning there was not only no advantage taken of their not coming in within the time limited in K. J's several Proclamations to that purpose but they had Time sine Die given them come when they could and in the mean time their Goods were preserved and though seized by the Sheriffs for the King's use being forfeited by the Laws there the King commanded the Sheriffs to deliver the Goods into the hands of such Friends of the Absentees as made Application for them And where the Irish Sheriffs refused or delayed to deliver such Goods they were severely punished and forced to do it or others put in their places that would For you cannot imagine but it went mightily against the Grain with them to be forced to restore the Goods of those who as they supposed were in actual Rebellion and their declared Enemies and which they expected and they thought reasonably as a Reward for their Services For who would not take the Spoil of their Enemies The Irish understood it as if the King still had an Eye towards his Protestant Subjects and preferred their Interest though in Rebellion against him before that of the Irish though at that time serving him or as Dr. Gorge words it better That King James considered the Protestants who were in Arms against him rather as deluded Subjects than as obstinate Rebels The Irish Protestants who staid
make a Return of near a Hundred Voices These this Author leaves out Was it for the length do you think No it would have quite Ruined his Plot of making a Parallel 'twixt the Reasons for K. James's holding a Parliament in England 17. Nov. 88. and in Ireland May 89. viz. That there was an Enemy in the Kingdom which is indeed no reason and none of the Reason the King gave But such an Enemy as can make a Return of near a Hundred Voices would indeed hinder the Freedom of a Parliament in all its Circumstances Now let us see how many Voices the Enemy could Return in Ireland not one but of two Burroughs that is Derry and Enneskillen all the other Burroughs and all the Countys in the Kingdom were in the Kings Hands Now let our Author Judge of his Parallel and of his Ingenuity in Misquoting the King's Answer For he that does not tell the whole Truth that is Material is a False-witness He says p. 152. Several Corporations had no Representatives because they were in the Enemies Hands And yet the whole Number is but two as abovesaid But he thought the Word several would carry more in the Reading Add to this the difference there is 'twixt a Forreign Enemy being in the Country and the Insurrection of the Subjects A Subject that Rebels and will not Obey the King's Summons to Attend him in Parliament is a different Case from his being under a Forreign Power that will not let him come In the first Case he has forfeited his Right to Sit in Parliament and there is no reason that there should not be a Parliament because he will not come But in the other Case it cannot be a Free and Full Parliament where so many Members are under a Forreign Power But our Author has protested before GOD That he has not Aggravated nor Misrepresented any Thing and therefore we must suppose That it was only to Save himself the pains of Writing or his Reader of viewing these eight words which he leaves out in the Kings Answer to the Lords 〈◊〉 of the four Words ut Colonies ibi faciat which he forgot in his Quotation out of Grotius of which I made mention before Tho' it is plain that both these Ommissions do quite alter the Sence of the Words our Author quotes against that Interpretation which he would put upon them And therefore it must be confest that they were very Materially and if I were not awed by this Authors serious appeal to God I should have said Designedly omitted by this Author to Misrepresent the Sence of both these Quotations and for an Aggravation against K. James But for the present I shall only say this That where this Author seems most Exact and sets his Quotations as you would think Verbatim in the Mangent that you might suspect nothing as he does in these two Quotations of Grotius and K. James's Answer to the Lords there you are chiefly to suspect and you must stand upon your Guard C. 1. n. 6. He brings another Quotation out of Grotius de Jure c. l. 2. c. 25. n. 8. to shew That Tho' Subjects might not take Arms Lawfully even in the extreamest necessity it would not follow from thence that others might not take Arms in their behalf I know no No-body that sayes it would follow from thence But as to his Quotation Grotius sayes in the very same place That this pretence of Helping others has in all Ages been made use of to colour their Designs who intend to Invade their Neighbors Right Scimus quidem ex Veterib Novisque Historiis alieni Cupiditatem hos sibi quaerere obtentus sed non ideo statim Jus esse desinit si quid a malis Usurpatur Navigant Piretae ferro utuntur Latrones and that meer Possession does not give Right for that there are Pirats and Robbers who get things by Force All this the Author has wisely left out of his Quotation it would have spoiled the Design for which he brought it But I cannot imagin to what end he sets down another Quotation out of the same Book Lib. 2. c. 20. § 40. Where he tells us That it is so much more Honourable to Avenge the Injuries done to another than our selves by how much there is less Danger that the sense of anothers Pain should make us exceed in exacting such Revenge than of our own or Byass our judgment By this Rule he that Avenges the Injuries done to another must have no By-Ends of his own no Profit or Advantage accrue to himself by such Revenge else it may Byass his Judgment and make him Exceed in his Revenge viz. Instead of reducing his Neighbour to Reason to Seize upon all he has for himself How far this is Conducing to the End for which the Author produc'd it I leave to himself to consider But I will make an end of this unsavory Subject raking up the Absurdities and Contradictons into which a Mans Malice does betray him I will give but one Instance more upon this Head You have heard before now positively he asserted that the Irish were the Aggressons in the late Revolution that not one Protestant Acted any thing in opposition to the Government but only defending themselves against Robbers nor Acted against these Robbers till actually Assaulted by them c. as you have it p. 105. Yet c. 3. § 13. p. 178. as it is printed for it is wrong pag'd it ought to be p. 186. n. 4. He forgets this and gives several Reasons why the Irish papists Were not the Aggressors as That they lay under the strictest Obligations not to begin Acts of Cruelty from the Odium and Ill Success their Murders in Forty One had That the Protestants were extreamly Cautious not to give the least offence That it would hurt K. James's Interest in England c. The Matter is he was here Answering the Objection That very few Protestants lâ—st their Lives in Ireland under K. J. This he Grants to be true and it was a severe Objection For to represent a Man as the most Bigotted and Merciless Tyrant that design'd no less than the Total Extirpation of one main part of his people upon which Supposition this Author Grounds his whole Book and then when he has Subdu'd these Subjects of his and Redâ—c'd them by Arms after what to be sure he thought Rebellion in them and their Proclaiming another for their King and some part of them still standing out in Arms against him and those under his Power Betraying him all they could aâ—d deserting him every day which gave him just Grounds to believe that they wou'd all as they did joyn with the P. of Orange when he Landed These were the Greatest Provocations can be suppos'd and the Fairest Occasion given to such a Cruel Tyrant to wreck his Malice upon those whom he design'd to Destroy And yet after Representing a Man to be such a Bloody Monster to find that he Kills none
present Government Thus excellently does our Author argue Now Imagine he had such a Story as Glencoe to tell of any of King James's Officers in Ireland how easily cou'd he by his Art make it Reflect upon the King himself and absolve all those High-landers from their Allegiance and give them leave to Protect their Lives another way O what Declamations we should have had of the Bloody Irish Cut-Throats Massacrers c And what use would he have made of their giving it under their Hands that what they did was by the Kings Express Command and none Punish'd for it He would never have given K. James Liberty to Deny it or make any Defence but would have Represented to the Three Kingdoms what they were to Expect from him who could give such Orders exceeding in in Cruel Barbarity the Wild Irish or Tartars He would have made more of this than of all the Storys he has Collected in his Book if they were all true But his Zeal must be Commended p. 206. n. 8. where he reckons as a means of Destroying the Protestant Religion the Debauchery and universal Corruption of Manners that then prevail'd Take his own Words p. 207. The Perjuries in the Courts the Robberys in the Country the Lewd Practices in the Stews the Oaths â—lasphemys and Curses in the Armys and Streets c. And these indeed are a means to Destroy not only the Protestant but any Christian Religion I cannot wish as I hear one did that the Irish Army were more Guilty of this than the Protestant Army But that these are Increas'd beyond former Examples in the Protestant Army all of them that retain the least sense of Religion do bemoan with Regret but I have mentioned this already I am sure it can be no good Religion which is promoted by these Means or suffers them to secure any Interest whatsoever God does not need our Vertue much less our Vices to help him to Govern the World And he will not be serv'd by the Breach of his Commands Can we expect says Dr. Gorge in his Letter Sodom to destroy Babylon or Debauchery to destroy Popery Our Enemy says he Fights with the Principle of a Mistaken Conscience against us we against the Conviction of our Principles against them I might inlarge upon this Subject But to returne to our Author He speaks with Just Indignation p. 173. against General Rosen's Stratagem of bringing the Protestants in that Country before the Walls of Derry and to threaten to Destroy them all if the City would not receive them which would have brought a Famine into the Town and forced them to Surrender I need not take pains against the Barbarity of this design For K. James express'd his Just Resentment of it and Countermanded it upon the first notice And in his Circular Letters to the Governors of Towns and Officers Commanding in chief in the North to whom these Orders of Rosens had come he Commands them by no means to obey these Barbarous Orders of Rosen's And accordingly Rosen's Orders for the Driving were not Executed in most places in the North. This I have from the Officers to whom these Orders were sent and from several Protestants who have seen them and can produce them But our Author discovers his skill in War when he says that he never met with any thing like it in History nor do I believe says he it was ever Practis'd by any Nation unless the French have used it in their late Wars Many instances might be given him of as Barbarous Exploits in War particularly that of Reducing places by Famine But to speak Impartially Is not Starving a County or a Province as Barbarous as Starving a City And was not Crowding all the Irish Men Women and Children over the River Shannon done on purpose to reduce them to Famine And it had its effect and many of them Dyed and Women Miscarried and many were Starv'd in that Driving over the Shannon insomuch that some of the Protestant Officers who were employed on that Expedition expressed the greatest Regret to see such Lamentable Spectacles and were asham'd of their Commissions And those who were thus Driven had King William's Protections in their pockets In exposing these things our Author should take care not to Wound the Government through the Sides of the Irish But his Zeal carry'd him too far where in the Heads of his Discourse he makes this one That when the Bishop of Meath apply'd to King James concerning this Driving King James he sayes excus'd Rosen And when you turn to the Book to see this made out p. 174. All you find is that King James told the Bishop That he had sent Orders to stopt it and if he Rosen had been his own Subject he would have call'd him to Account for it This is a strange way of excusing him But it shews how sharp-sighted this Author is in finding Faults You may be sure by this that none have escaped him Nor can he spare them even where it plainly Reflects upon the present Government which he pretends to Complement But this is only by Innuendos Tho' he has brought it so near as to make the Application very easie This Author Renders the Kings Preregative Hateful to the People and Inclines them to a Common Wealth This is more pardonable than his plain and express proclaiming War against K. William and Q. Mary That is Sounding an Alarum to the Nation to beware of them and watch them narrowly as their greatest Enemies He sayes p. 4. That Certain and Infallible Destruction will be brought to England as it was to Rome and in a Great measure to Florence if ever the Prerogative do swallow up the Liberties and Priviledges of the Subject p. 77. That their choosing their own Representatives is the only Barrier they have against The Encroachments of their Governor p. 57. That it is the Kingdoms money that payes the Souldiers p. 85. That Abuses in the Kingdom proceeded from the Long Disuse of Parliaments p. 133. n. 6. He would Limit that Prerogative of the Crown of Coyning Money and by his Quotation in the Margent would take it quite away giving the King no power To change his Money nor impair nor inhanse nor make any Money but of Silver without the Assent of the Lords and all the Commons Yet he cannot forget to have heard of Leather Money Coyn'd in England and past-board in Holland Here he discovers what he would be at To Depress the Prerogative even to a Common-Wealth And this or Arbitrary Monarchy must be the Consequence of dividing the Interest of King and People and setting them up to Fight against one another to Watch and Guard against one another as the Greatest Enemies that if one prevail the other must be destroyed A Kingdom divided Mat. 12.25 This is not altogether so pleasant a prospect as the Passive-Obedience-Men afford us while they represent the Prerogative as the greatest Safe-guard of the Rights and Priviledges of the People
time of Monmouth's Rebellion that the King told some of the Council of which I was one that he was resolved to give Employments to Roman Catholicks it being fit that all Persons should serve who could be usefull and on whom he might depend I think every body advised him against it but with little effect as was soon seen That Party was so pleased with what the King had done that they persuaded him to mention it in his Speech at the next meeting of the Parliament which he did after many Debates whether it was proper or not in all which I opposed it as is known to very considerable Persons some of which were of another opinion for I thought it would engage the King too far and it did give such Offence to the Parliament that it was thought necessary to prorogue it After which the King fell immediately to the supporting the Dispensing Power the most Chimerical Thing that was ever thought of and must be so till the Government here is as absolute as in Turkey all Power being included in that one This is the sense I ever had of it and when I heard Lawyers defend it I never changed my Opinion or Language However it went on most of the Judges being for it and was the chief Business of the State till it was looked on as settled Then the Ecclesiastical Court was set up in which there being so many considerable Men of several kinds I could have but a small part and that after Lawyers had told the King it was legal and nothing like the High Commission Court I can most truly say and it is well known that for a good while I defended Magdalen Colledge purely by Care and Industry and have hundreds of times begg'd of the King never to grant Mandates or to change any thing in the regular course of Ecclesiastical Affairs which he often thought reasonable and then by perpetual importunities was prevailed upon against his own Sense which was the very Case of Magdalen Colledge as of some others These things which I endeavoured though without Success drew upon me the Anger and ill Will of many about the King The next thing to be tried was to take off the Penal Laws and the Tests so many having promised their Concurrence towards it that his Majesty thought it fecible but he soon found it was not to be done by that Parliament which made all the Catholicks desire it might be dissolved which I was so much against that they complained of me to the King as a Man who ruined all his Designs by opposing the only thing could carry him on Liberty of Conscience being the Foundation on which he was to build That it was first offered at by the Lord Clifford who by it had done the work even in the late King's Time if it had not been for his Weakness and the Weakness of his Ministers Yet I hindred the Dissolution several Weeks by telling the King that the Parliament in Being would doe every thing he could desire but the taking off the Penal Laws and the Tests or the allowing his Dispensing Power and that any other Parliament tho' such a one could be had as was proposed would probably never repeal those Laws and if they did they would certainly never do any thing for the support of the Government whatever Exigency it might be in At that time the King of Spain was sick upon which I said often to the King that if he should dye it would be impossible for his Majesty to preserve the Peace of Christendom that a War must be expected and such a one as would chiefly concern England that if the present Parliament continued he might be sure of all the Help and Service he could wish but in case he dissolved it he must give over all thoughts of foreign Affairs for no other would ever assist him but on such terms as would ruine the Monarchy so that from abroad or at home he would be destroyed if the Parliament were broken and any Accident should happen of which there were many to make the Aid of his People necessary to him This and much more I said to him several times privately and in the hearing of others but being over-powered the Parliament was broke the Closeting went on and a new one was to be chosen Who was to get by Closeting I need not say but it was certainly not I nor any of my Friends many of them suffered who I would fain have saved And yet I must confess with Grief that when the King was resolved and there was no remedy I did not quit as I ought to have done but served on in order to the calling another Parliament In the midst of all the preparations for it and whilst the Corporations were regulating the King thought fit to order his Declarations to be read in all Churches of which I most solemnly protest I never heard one word till the King directed it in Council That drew on the Petition of my Lord the Arch Bp. of Canterbury and the other Lords the Bishops and the Prosecution which I was so openly against that by arguing continually to shew the Injustice and Imprudence of it I brought the Fury of the Roman Catholicks upon me to such a degree and so unanimously that I was just sinking and I wish I had then sunk But whatever I did foolishly to preserve my self I continued still to be the object of their Hatred and I resolved to serve the Publick as well as I could which I am sure most of the considerable Protestants then at Court can testifie and so can one very eminent Man in the Country whom I would have persuaded to come into business which he might have done to have helped me to resist the Violence of those in power but he despaired of being able to doe any good and therefore would not engage Some time after came the first News of the Prince's Designs which were not then looked on as they have proved no body foreseeing the Miracles he has done by his wonderful Prudence Conduct and Courage for the greatest thing which has been undertaken these thousand years or perhaps ever could not be effected without Vertues hardly to be imagined till seen nearer hand Upon the first thoughts of his coming I laid hold of the opportunity to press the King to doe several things which I would have had done sooner the chief of which were to restore Magdalen Colledge and all other Ecclesiastical Preferments which had been diverted from what they were intended for to take off my Lord Bp. of London's Suspension to put the Counties into the same hands they were in some time before to annull the Ecclesiastical Court and to restore entirely all the Corporations of England These things were done effectually by the help of some about the King and it was then thought I had destroyed my self by enraging again the whole Roman Catholick party to such a height as had not been seen they dispersed Libels
AN ANSWER TO A BOOK Intituled The State of the PROTESTANTS IN IRELAND Under the Late King JAMES's Government In which Their Carriage towards him is Justified and the Absolute Necessity of their endeavouring to be Free'd from his Government and of Submitting to their present Majesties is Demonstrated London Printed in the Year 1692. TO THE READER READER I Did not intend to have troubled you with any Preface But this is occasioned by a Pamphlet lately published called An Answer to GREAT BRITAIN's JUST COMPLAINT wherein pag. 54. there is this Character of the Book I have Answered which he calls Dr. King's whom I have not nam'd but now may from the Authority of this Author A Book says he writ with that known Truth and Firmness of Reason that every Page of it is a Demonstration which hath been often threatned with an Answer but the long silence of the Party shews Guilt and Despair For the long silence I must tell the Reader That this Answer was prepared upon the first coming out of Dr. King's Book and therefore the Quotations of the Page are according to the first Edition of it in Quarto in the later Editions the Doctor has found cause to make some Amendment which I have taken notice of That this Answer has not before this time appeared in Print has been occasioned by the severe Watch that is kept over all the Presses which has made many interruptions and long delays considering which it is more to be wonder'd at that it has now got through the Briars than that it has stuck so long This must excuse a Difference you will find in the Paper in some Sheets and other Eye-sores of the Impression being done at different Times and Places For these I shall be less concern'd if you will pardon one which was occasioned by the Importunity and Fears of some of the Printers that is to call People by their usual though not proper Names like the Woman of Samaria's de Facto Husband Joh. iv 16. or as Oliver was called a Protector and Absalom a King This Answer to Britain's Complaint recites some of the grossest Mistakes of Dr. King's Book and from his Credit delivers them for most undoubted Truths As pag. 54. That the Repeal of the Acts of Settlement was carried on by King James 's own Sollicitation and that he did struggle with his Bishops and Judges to carry it and after he was duly informed of the Cruelty and Injustice of it that he still pressed it and at last got it passed The notorious Falshood of which I have shewn from undeniable and good Protestant Vouchers and more are to be had if either of these Authors have the hardiness not to submit upon that Point Pamphlet pag. 55. Every where Protestant Churches were taken from them by Force and given to Popish Priests by the Order or Connivance of the late King Which is so far from Truth that Dr. King himself gives Instances to the contrary and tells c. 3. s 18 n. 11. how King James did struggle against the Popish Clergy in behalf of the Protestants and turn'd out the Mayor of Wexford for not obeying His Majesty's Orders in Restoring the Protestants Church there which the Popish Clergy had usurp'd and that He appear'd most zealous to have the Church Restored and exprest himself with more passion than was usual upon that occasion And Dr. King cannot name one Protestant Church in Ireland that was taken from them either by King James's Order or Connivance His Majesty was so very careful in this Point that even at Dublin where he kept his Court neither the Cathedral nor any Parish-Church in the whole City was taken from the Protestants The King only took Christ-Church for his own use which was always reputed as the King's Chappelâ— And Dr. King himself and others then preached Passive Obedience in their own Pulpits in Dublin to that degree as to give offence to some of their Protestant Hearers who thought they stretched it even to Flattery Pamphlet This was done in those parts of Ireland where the Protestants were very peaceable under King James That is where they were so under his Power that they durst not stir for none else then in that Kingdom were quiet and even those who lived under King James's Protection were giving Intelligence against him and betraying him all they could which Dr. King does not only confess but justifies it and was himself one of the Chief which I have sufficiently shewn and I suppose he will not deny but reckons it now as his Merit Pamphlet Those Protestants who scaid in Ireland were oppressed c. But it is evident that they preserved their Effects Houses and Improvements better than those who left the Kingdom and now live Richer and have more to shew which they preserved by King James's Clemency than their Neighbours brought with them from the Countries whither they fled from his Protection Pamphlet Upon Complaint no Protestant could have Redress I have shewn many who had And I believe Dr. King cannot shew one who had not as far as was in the King's Power to grant it And that much more than they deserved at his Hands by their own Confession at this Day and many of them do complain that their Grievances have not been so well Redressed since And if King James can be represented by these Men as a Tyrant and a Bloody Persecutor while he Courted them and sought by all winning Ways to gain them which was certainly the Case while he was among them in Ireland it may bring Men into suspence to believe what is told of the French Hungarian or of any other Persecution But I will not Anticipate what you will find in the following Leaves to which I refer you Only I think it necessary to acquaint you That Pag. 8. of this Answer upon the Head of One Prince interposing between another Prince and his Subjects when he uses them Cruelly I refer to a Book which I thought would have been Published as soon as this and therefore said little to that Point But now that I see no Hopes of its coming out give me leave to enlarge a little and tell Dr. King what advantage the Jacobites make of this Doctrine They say it would justifie King Lewis or any other King to interpose between them and King William For they pretend that they are much more Cruelly used by King William than even Dr. King himself says the Protestants were by King James In England they tell us That their Clergy are Deprived that they are imprisoned without Law for no other fault than Reading the Liturgy of the Church of England in their Houses They complain of Double Taxes Excessive Fines and Bail and Illegal Imprisonments That in Ireland besides the Deprivation of the Clergy all Men and Women who refuse the New Oaths incur a Premunire That in Scotland they are Fined Imprisoned Massacred as Glen-coe c. and put to the Torture against the very Claim of Right
shewn For being by a particular Clause in that Act enabled by themselves or whom they should appoint to try and purge out all insufficient negligent scandalous and erroneous Ministers they erected Tribunals in every Presbytery as arbitrary but more senseless than the Inquisition and did but one good Act to purge out those Episcopal Presbyters who complied with their Schism and Usurpation for which they could never want a pretence because Ordination or Collation from Prelates was always made one Article in their Visitations and thought erroneous enough to spew any out of their Churches But as to these Deprived Clergy I must here take notice of a distinction much used in England to mollifie Lay-Deprivations viz. That the Bishops and Clergy Deprived by Act of Parliament lose not their Character only are barr'd by the Secular Power to exercise it in such Districts But Act 35. of Sess 2. of the first Parliament of William and Mary in Scotland those Ministers who did not Pray for King William and Queen Mary and were therefore Depriv'd were afterwards prohibited to preach or exercise any part of the Ministerial Function either in Churches or elsewhere upon any pretext whatsoever And in the 38th Act of the same Session they do as much confound our State-distinction of de Facto and de Jure which they say is cunningly of late spread abroad to weaken and invalidate the Allegiance sworn to their Majesties And therefore they order a Certificate to be subscrib'd by all who take the Oath declaring K. W. and Q. M. to be King and Queen as well de Jure as de Facto And they say That in all these things they have dealt more frankly and plainly if not more honestly and sincerely than we have done in England They think it more fair and open Dealing plainly to Foresault the King for Male-administration than to Abdicate him for flying to save his Life And when he is gone that he should not take the Right to the Crown along with him and leave K. W. nothing but a de Facto Possession which they think a Betraying K. W. to the last Degree and making him no better than an Usurper They think it the same thing to debar Clergy-men from the Exercise of the Ministerial Function as to leave them no Place to exercise it in And as Charitable to allow nothing to the Depriv'd as to name something for them and put it into Hands where they are sure never to come by it But I know not so well how they 'll solve that Contradiction which seems to be betwixt their Claim of Right 11 Ap. 89. and their Confession of Faith Ratified and Established Act 5. of 2 Sess 1 Parl. William and Mary Read over in their Presence and inserted Verbatim in the Body of the Act. The Claim of Right begins in these Words Whereas King James being a profest Papist did assume the Regal Power c. And the first of their Claims is in these Words That by the Law of this Kingdom no Papist can be King or Queen of this Realm And yet in the abovesaid Confession of Faith Chap. 23. It is Decreed and Established as the true Christian Doctrine in these Words viz. Infidelity or Difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authority nor free the People from their due Obedience to him But I must not exceed the bounds of a Preface For if I should only Name all the Hardships and Oppressions the illegal and arbitrary Proceedings of which the Jacobites complain of in Scotland say they are ready to make good by undeniable Vouchers I should swell this beyond the Bulk of Dr. King's Book and that the Truths of the Proceedings in Scotland would if possible out-number the Falstoods he relates of Ireland But for a fuller Account of these Scots Affairs I refer you to a small Tract called A Letter to a Friend giving an Account of all the Treatises that have been Publish'd with Relation to the present Persecution against the Church of Scotland Printed for Jo. Hindmarsh Among these as to the State Affairs be pleased to consult that Tract called The late Proceedings and Votes of the Parliament of Scotland contained in an Address delivered to the King And for the Affairs of the Church An Account of the present Persecution of the Church of Scotland in several Letters The Case of the present Afflicted Clergy of Scotland The Historical Relation of the late General Assembly held at Edinburgh And the Presbyterian Inquisition And there you will find such Cruelties used towards the Loyal and Episcopal Party in Scotland as were unheard of in Ireland and by Dr. King's Principles would justifie any Foreign Prince to interpâ—se on their behalf And if it be true which he lays down as the Foundation upon which he builds all that he says in his Book viz. That if a King design to destroy one main Part of his People in favour if anâ—ther whom he loves better he does Abdicate the Government of those whom he designs to destroy contrary to Justice and the Laws If this be true the Episcopal Party in Scotland think it would free them from all Obligation to K. William's Government But how far it is Applicable to the Protestants in Ireland to justifie their Carriage towards King James will be seen in what follows Suppose say they it were true which Dr. King asserts as it is most false That K. James while he was in Ireland did endeavour totally to overthrow the Church Established by Law there and set up that which was most agreeable to the Inclinations of the major Number of the People in that Kingdom who are Roman Catholicks The Jacobites ask if this were so Whether it be not fully vindicated in the 4th Instruction of those which King William sent to his Commissioner in Scotland dated at Copt-Hall 31. May 89. in these Words You are to pass an Act Establishing that Church Government which is most agreeable to the Inclinations of the People By which Rule they say That it was as just to set uâ— Popery in Ireland as Presbytery in Scotland And that the Law was not more against the one in Ireland than against the other in Scotland That the Parliament in Ireland was liable to less Exception than that in Scotlandâ— The one called in the usual Form by Writs from their Natural King to whom they had Sworn the other by Circular Letters from a Foreign Prince to whom they ow'd no Obedience who could not nor did pretend any other Authority over them or Right to the Crown besides The Inclinations of the People Which therefore they say in return for their Kindness he has made the Standard for Church Government as well as the Government of the State That it is only alleged that King James intended to do in Ireland what he did not do when it was in his Power and what King William actually did in Scotland viz. To overturn the Church then by Law Established
P. 34. l 36. r. in reckoning P. 51. l. 19. r. from the Sabbath P. 52. Margin r. his Principles P. 61. l 5. r. worse P. 91. l. 8. r. in that same Proclamation P 92. l. 1. r. against Robbers l. 35. r. 89. P. 96. l. 17 r to want P. 100. l. 9 r. came to Dublin P. 120. l. 25. r. their Apostacy P. 128 l. 31 r. Corban P. 151. l. 11. r. the day after P 160 l. 10. r. so far P. 167. l. 6. after other add P 171 l. 32. r. in his Penitentials P. 175. l. 2 r. as of P. 188. l. 26. r new-made Officers P. 191. l. 1. r. the Case of Page 161 and 162. are double pag'd Appendix P. 5. l. 1. r. how faithfully P 28 l. 13 14. r. 27 March 1689. P. 58. l. 3. r. Edinburg 20. Apr. 92. P. 67. l. 17. r. 3d of May. P. 72. l. 19. r. pollute our Altars P. 76. l. 8. r. at the Boot Page 35 and 36 are misâ—ag'd and page 48 is printed 42. AN ANSWER to a BOOK Intituled The State of the Protestants in Ireland under the late King James's Government c. THIS Book I am about to Answer does not only undertake to Vindicate those Protestants in Ireland whose Cause it defends from the Imputation of Rebellion in this present Revolution and as the Ground-work of their justification to cast the blackest Aspersions upon King James But if I can Reason aright it is calculated for the Dostruction of Mankind by setting up such Principles as countenance Eternal Rebellions and afford Pretences for War and Confusion to the end of the World and makes Settlement and Peace impracticable among Men. If this Charge can be made good for which I must refer to what follows then the Pains I have taken must be computed not only as a Just Vindication of K. J. from those Aspersions which are falsly laid upon Him but as a Service to Mankind to these Nations in an especial manner who of late Ages have most of all the Nations on the Earth been subject to Rebellion and Revolution And if that has been chiefly occasion'd by such Principles as are set out in this Book then the Discovery may be of use to those who are still pursuing of them blindfold and a Caution to others not to engage to the Destruction of Soul and Body or if engaged to Repent and Return If Learned Men think their Time and Labours well bestowed in rectifying Mistakes in Ancient Histories meerly for the Truths sake much more is it incumbent on us to examin into those Matters of Fact by which we guide our present Actions and for which we shall be accountable at the Day of Judgment as likewise that we suffer not Untruths and False Representations to descend to Posterity unreproved especially of our own Natural Kings whose Fame and Reputation we are in Conscience obliged to Defend as well as their Persons so far as is consistent with Truth and to be silent in such a Case is bearing False Witness at least virtually and slandering the Footsteps of God's Anointed K. James has been loaded with more Calumny by this Author than in all the scurrilous Pamphlets since the Revolution put together which is the Reason this Book of his has been so industriously propagated it goes now in its Fourth Edition and his other Narrative and bitter Invective called a Thanksgiving-Sermon of which I shall have occasion to speak has been spread in all shapes and sizes through the Nation from a Quarto to a Two-penny Duodecimo But I will detain you no longer nor seek to anticipate your Judgment I divide this Book of our Author 's into his Principles and Matters of Fact Division of the Book into Principles and Matters of Fact His Principles hard to be collected Not set down in Method First For his Principles It is no easie Matter to know what they are For tho his Book is digested into great exactness of Method that is not as to his Principles which he no where sets down in plain and express Terms but leaves us to collect them from small Hints and Inuendo's which are scattered immethodically up and down his Book And this was not done by chance but he was asham'd all of a sudden to disown his former Principles nemo repente It is natural for Men to endeavour not to be thought Changeable and Unconstant and to hide or gloss it all they can This we may reasonably suppose to be our Author's Case They are the old Commonwealth Principles For the Principles which he exhibits yet endeavours to conceal in this Book are all the old Rotten Rebel Commonwealth Principles which we formerly exploded in De Jure Regni Rex Lex and other Fanatical Authors condemn'd in the Decretum Oxoniâ—â—se and the Universal Current of the Divines of the Church of England by none more than this Author as you will see hereafter Therefore it is not to be wonder'd that he lets these Principles of his which he has so lately embrac'd drop from him in a covert way as if they were not clean and would foul his Fingers Yet something he must say to them to clear his Passage The Doctrine of Passive Obedience must be remov'd To perform which he employs his Introduction page 1. containing as he tells us an Explication of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and stating the true Notion and Latitude of it And yet he does nothing else in it but to tell us what some People thought of it He begins It is granted by some and then gives three or four Quotations without telling his own opinion otherwise than as you may gather it from his more favourable Representing one side than another In the Heads of the Discourse he promises much fairer than you find the Performance in the Book Numb 1. of the Introduction is That a King who designs to destroy a People abdicates the Government of them Which Position does need a great deal of Explication and stating the true Notion and Latitude of it because a mistake in it would prove of most destructive consequence But our Author leaves it all in the Generals make of it what you can By what I can collect out of him his principle is the same with Bradshau in his Speech upon the Tryal of King Ch. I. viz. That all Power is from the People That Kings are but their Deputies and therefore are accountable to the People and may be deposed by them Against this Dr. Sherlock inveights most bitterly in his Sermon before the House of Commons last 30th of Jan. 91. page 18. where he reckons it as one of the most Fatal Evils of such Examples as that of the day that it infects Mens Minds with loose Notions of Government and Obedience which are at first invented to justifie such Actions and which People are sooner taught than untaught As that all Power is radically in the People and therefore but a Trust which a Prince must give an
their free Consent they would do what they promised without Swearing and if they did not all the Oaths in the World would not make them Did Augustus for this expect no Allegiance from his Subjects Or are not the Eastern Monarchs pretty Absolute because the Law in those Nations does not require Oaths But after all by the Common Law in England and Ireland all above 16 are to swear Allegiance to the King and it may be exacted from them in their Leets And this is the Reason they gave for imposing the new Oaths in Ireland to King William and Queen Mary before there was an Act of Parliament for it And therefore there was as much Law of the Land for swearing of Allegiance to K. James in Ireland after his Repeal of the Oath of Supremacy as our Author can pretend there was for swearing to K. William in Ireland before the new Act imposing the Oaths there So that our Author is out too in matter of Law Sixth Reason in answer to the Question Who shall be Judge But the main of the Difficulty is yet behind and that is That upon our Author's Scheme of dissolving Oaths and Government for such Reasons as he thinks fit he has not told us who shall be Judge of these Forfeitures or Abdications This I have urg'd already but you have not heard our Author's answer He says c. 2. s 1. n. 2. p. 12. it is commonly Objected Who shall be Judge and he resolves it thus That either the People must be left to judge of the Designs of their Governors Or else they must be oblig'd to a blind and absolute Submission without imploying their Understanding in the Case Thus our Author like a mighty Man Yet this Sophism is as poor a one as the last about the Oaths For in the Case we are upon of determining a Cause 'twixt the Government and the Subjects when we say who shall be Judge The meaning is not who shall have Power to think in his own Mind We say Thoughts are free And this sort of passing Judgment or of being a Judge can no more be taken from any Man than his Power of Thinking But when there is a Contest 'twixt King and People which is the Case we are upon the Question who shall be Judge is who has Authority to determine the Cause betwixt them as a Judge does between two contending Parties In which Sense none can be a Judge but he that has a Commission from some who has Power to invest him with that Authority viz. to judge 'twixt King and People which none can have but God alone And to say that every Man who is not such a Judge as this has not leave to imploy his Understanding in the Case because he has not Power Authoritatively to determine the Case so as to oblige and tye up the contending Parties is what this Author would slily pass upon you undiscover'd but it is too plain to bear an Argument Well then The Question is concerning an Authoritative Judge and our Author proceeds I dare appeal says he to all the World whether it be safer to leave it to the Judgment and Consciences of a whole Kingdom to determine concerning the Designs of their Governor or to leave it to the Will and Conscience of the King whether he will destroy them One of these is unavoidable and I am assured it is less probable that the Generality of a Kingdom will concur in a Mistake of this Nature and less mischievous if they should mistake than that a King by Weakness wicked Councellors or false Principles should design to make his People Slaves subvert the Antient Government or destroy one part of his People whom he hates in favour of another Thus our Author And the Case is plausibly laid down and no doubt would gain the Cry at an Election But there is another Prospect of this Case which our Author takes care to conceal and that is What if a Cunning and Designing Incendiary makes a Party and prevails Universally among the People and perswades them to their own Destruction Misrepresent their Governor and Impose upon them That a Civil War is better and by this means get them to Destroy and Consume one another Thus did Absalom thus did Sheba thus Oliver and all the prosperons Rebels There is no other way of moving the People unless you could bring them all to a fair Vote which is only Impossible at least it was never done and therefore we justly may suppose it never will be Let us leave these Disputings in the Clouds and bring this Author to matter of Fact Are not all Revolutions carried on by making Parties Combinations of Leading-men Aspersing your Opposites using all Arts to Byass the Mob to your side Did ever any in such Cases speak nothing but the honest Truth of the Governour against whom they took Arms Did they leave it freely and impartially to the Judgment of the People without any Misrepresentations or invidious Insinuations And was it Equal to them whether the People upon a fair Hearing determin'd against them as Rebels or for them as Patriots Can there be a Method for the People to have such a fair Hearing of the Cause and to determine it Judicially If our Author cannot say that any of these Things has been or are ever likely to be done he must acknowledge That there is infinitely more hazzard of Giddy Peoples being debauch'd by Insinuating Crafty Men who seek their own Advantage in it to entertain Jealousies and Fears of their Governor's Designs and to over-rate every Hardship and ill Usage they receive from him than that a King should design to destroy his People which would be to destroy himself And if one of these is Unavoidable as our Author says It is easy to see where the most danger lyes The one has been our own Case and is almost every day The other is Imaginary without an Instance in the World in the Extremity our Author puts it and at the worst many degrees preferable to a Civil War as will be shewn Nor will the Number of the People or Greatness of their Leaders excuse any thing It makes their Rebellion more Fatal Numb 16.12 In the Rebellion of Korah there were 250 Princes of the Assembly famous in the Congregation Men of Renown And All the Children of Israel The whole Congregation c. 14. v. 24. mutiny'd against Moses and Aaron and were chusing another Captain and returning into Egypt And Korah gather'd all the Congregation against them c. 16. v. 19 41 49. and on the morrow all the Congregation murmured against ' em For which God destroy'd 14700 by a new Plague Now judge with your self if such a Governor as Moses could not secure himself from the Power which Ten Leading Men had with the People for they were no more who caus'd this Mutiny of the whole Congregation Num. 14.2 viz. Ten of the Twelve Searchers of the Land what Governor 's Virtue Sufficiency or
Diligence can secure him We know how Absalom stole the Hearts of the People from David his Father And they follow'd him in the simplicity of their Hearts says the Text as many did at first in the Rebellion against Charles the Martyr But I cannot tell if our Author will allow that for an Instance I know not how far his new Principles have carried him It is hard to stop in such a Course Their Repentance is Rare especially of those who are Converted to it from contrary Principles And if there be a visible Motive of Interest it makes their Return still more difficult But to conclude this Point in our Author's Phrase I dare appeal to all the World whether it be more dangerous to exempt the King from the Judgment of the People or to put it in the Power of any Discontented or Ambitious Men to endeavour to disgust the People against the Government and lead them into a Civil War at their Pleasure For that is the true state of the Question We know how many Mahomet has perswaded And by what means False Religions and Seditious Principles have spread through the World No doubt this Author intended his Book should take among the People He knew People could be Impos'd upon and never so much as when they are cajol'd and told fine Stories of their Power Paramount to all Kings and Governors That it is in their hands to pull down one and set up another to bind their Kings in Chains and root up all Governments at their Pleasure for this Argument of our Author's militates equally against all Sorts of Government And he may appeal again to all the World The Question Who shall be Judge apply'd to Parliaments and States Whether it be safer to leave it to the Judgments and Consciences of a whole Nation to determine concerning the Designs of their Governors whether Parliaments or States or to leave it to the Will and Conscience of the Parliaments or States whether they will destroy them And one of these is unavoidable If you say It is not likely that a Parliament or States should design to destroy the People That is another Question Compar'd with Kings But pray tell me Would any Member of the Parliament of States loose so much by the Destruction of the Kingdom as the King Therefore it is less probable that he should Design its Destruction than any of them There may be an Equivalent given to any of them to Betray and Ruin his Country and there are Examples of it in all Ages Jugurtha Brib'd the whole Senate of Rome even when he was at War with them About 20 Years ago the French Faction among the Burghers of Amsterdam were able to Out-vote the other And some believe it is so still How has the allarm of French Pentioners disturb'd our Parliaments But more that of Court Pentioners Who are Free to give our Money the sooner we shall have done but Deaf to Grievances and Miscarriages Was there ever a Parliament Convention or Senate where the major Number was Un bribable Or was there ever a Bribe offer'd to a King to Betray or Sell his Country Deceiv'd he may be or take wrong Measures but it is inconceavable he shou'd Design the Ruin of his Country Therefore whoever you make Judg of the King's Designs must from a stronger Reason be Judg of the Designs of Parliaments and States And this will unhinge all Governments in the World But our Author endeavours to smooth all this by saying in the beginning of this Section Of Fears and Jealousies n. 1. p. 12. That Fears and Jealousies in such a Case ought not to pass for Arguments or be brought in Competition with a certain and plain Duty that is with Obedience to Lawful Governors The Arguments therefore brought by Subjects to prove their Governors design to destroy them ought to be so plain and evident that the Consciences of Mankind cannot but see and be convinc'd of their Truth especially the Generality of the Subjects themselves ought to be fully satisfied and acquiesce in them But all these fine Words leave us just where we were For every Man is Judge still and he is Judge when he himself is satisfied and will acquiesce in the Arguments brought against his Governor And Men that are Deceived do think themselves in the Right else they were not Deceived So that the Rule of Government is still left Loose and Precarious as Uncertain as the Giddy Motions of the Mob And laid open to all the Attempts of Ambitious and Designing Men. Our Author says That Jealousies and Fears in such a Case ought not to pass for Arguments This needs some Explanation For what more can there be of a Governor's Design to destroy us which is the Case in hand besides a Jealousy and Fear of it Till the Action be done we cannot be sure of it not so sure as our Author requires viz. we can have no such Security that ought to be brought in Competition with a certain and plain Duty that is with Obedience to Lawful Governors There is hardly an Action in the World but may be done out of several Designs and none so much as the Actions of Governors and Matters of State And therefore there is nothing so easy as to be Mistaken in these Designs Especially if these Designs be kept as Secrets of State among Princes themselves French League Such was the suppos'd League which K. James was said to have made with K. Lewis of France to Root out all the Protestants not only of England Scotland France and Ireland but all the World over This was so Industriously spread abroad and vouched with such Confidence that it was given out the P. of Orange had procur'd the Original sign'd by both Kings and would produce it in Parliament This was believ'd and clamour'd about by Multitudes of silly People But neither the Prince in his Declaration nor the Convention in their List of Male-administrations against K. James did mention the least tittle of this which would have served more to their purpose than all the rest they had to allege And the might have added that Lord Sunderland in his Letter n. 15. Append. quoted in this Author's Book p 145. protests he never knew of any and that French Ships were offer'd to join with our Fleet and they were refused Nor has it been heard of since from the mouth of any who pretend to common sense or the least knowledg of Affairs till we were Rattl'd with it out of the Pulpit in this Authors Thanksgiving Sermon before the Lords Justices of Ireland Nov. 16. 1690. A League says he Notorious and Remarkable for its Folly and Falshood so contrary to all Sense as well as Faith that the Great Princes concern'd in it are yet asham'd to own it But he knows better Things he understands all their Cabals He tells page 5. 9. 16. of the Sermon How England Holland the Pope and the Emperor might be cully'd and wheedled
Their Master was stronger and commanded more Armies than all their Enemies And this Author knows very well that Tertullian in his Apology for the Christians told the Emperor Non Deesset nobis vis Numerorum that it was not for want of Power or Numbers that the Christians did not defend themselves against him for they fill'd his Armies his Cities his very Court but that it was from the Principles of their Religion which would not allow them to take Arms against their Lawful Emperor though a Persecutor But I need not mind my Author of this he has taught it often and zealously He knows the History of the Thebean Legion and a Thousand Examples of this Case that are never to be answered upon his new Principle which runs contrary to the History of the Church both under the Law and Gospel and God's own Determination in the very Case this Author puts for the most Advantage of his Cause As the Scripture so our Author named the Homilies he quotes nothing out of them it was not best He says They press with great force the Inconveniencies of such a War that is a Civil War for Liberty or Religion Our Author's defence of himself from Jovian And that the Author of Jovian design'd his First Chapter to shew That Resistance would be a greater Mischief than Passive Obedience and tells us in the Body of the Chapter That the Inconvenience of Resisting the Sovereign would be of ten times worse consequence than it which our Author confesses in the general is true as it relates to private Injuries or the Ordinary Male-administration of Government This has been sufficiently Answered in what is said before but as to the Authorities he quotes I cannot but observe to you with Admiration how directly contrary they are to the use for which he has vouched them That Chapter he cites of Jovian is so far from stinting Non-Resistance to relate only to private Injuries or the ordinary Male-administration of Government that in the very beginning of that Chapter after he has told what Sovereignty is he makes it essential to the Rights of Sovereignty to be free from Resistance or forcible Repulse and to be unaccountable It is Pag. 241. of the Book where he proves that if it were otherwise It would make the Subjects Judge over the Sovereign and in effect destroy Sovereignty and make the Sovereign inferior to the People and therefore says he pag. 242. to cut off all Pretences of Resistance in the English Government the Three Estates as I have proved before have declared against all defensive as well as offensive War it being impossible for the Sovereignty to consist with the Liberty of that Pretence In all Sovereign Governments they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Sovereign The King is bound in Justice and Equity and for Example sake to observe his Laws but if he will lay aside all Conscience and the Fear of God his only Superior the Rights of Soveraignty secure the Tyrant as well as the Good King from Resistance If he will not act as becomes God's Vicar if he will obstruct or pervert the Laws and govern Tyrannically yet still there is left no remedy to his Subjects by the Law but moral Perswasion for the Laws Imperial of this Realm have declared him to be an Inconditionate and Independent Soveraign See Sir Orl. Bridgman's Speech pag. 12 13 14. and exempted him from all Coërtion of Force If they will turn Tyrants neither fearing God nor the Censures of good Men they are by the Laws of the English Empire as free from Punishment Compulsion or Resistance as the Caesars were He may bear the Sword not for the Defence but for the Offence and Destruction of his Subjects but if he do they have no Authority to Resist him they cannot without sinful Usurpation oppose their Swords to his Grotius condemus all violent Defence against unjust Force from publick Authority Contra vim injustissimam sed Publico-nomine illatam If they Kings do Wrong if they Tyranize it over their Subjects He God will punish them and turn their hearts if he sees fit But their Subjects must not defend themselves by violence against them they must not take up Defensive Arms against them because they are in God's stead for Whosoever Resisteth the Power Resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that Resist shall receive to themselves Damnation as it was written by the Apostle in the time of a wicked Tyrant Grotius says That Reason compels us to confess that Oppression is to be endured lest too much Liberty follow upon the contrary and the Examples of the Ancient Christians teach us that any Violence is to be endured which the Supreme Power lays upon us upon the account of Religion for they are in a great Error who think that the Christians before the time of Constantine abstained from Resistance because they wanted sufficient Strength If the former the Doctrine of Non-Resistance make a Land obnoxious now and then to a Tyrant the latter the Doctrine of Resistance would make it perpetually obnoxious to the Rage and Fury of the deluded Rabble who in Riots Tumults and Insurrections for which they would never want Pretences were Resistance in any Case allow'd are able to do more mischief in a week than ever any Tyrant did in a year The Rage of the worst of Tyrants generally wrecks it self upon particular Persons or Parties of Men but in a Civil War which is worse than any Tyranny all must suffer without distinction Had our Saviour allow'd Subjects under pretence of defending themselves and their Religion to Resist their Sovereign he had come indeed to destroy Mens Lives Though Tyranny be ill yet he knew Resistance was worse Let them suppose him to be a complicated Tyrant to be Pharaoh Achab Jeroboâ—am and Nebuchadnezzar all in one nay let the Spirit of Calerius Maximin and Maxentius come upon him yet I 'm sure it will cost fewer Lives and less Desolation to let him alone than to resist him but if it would not I had rather dye a Martyr than a Râ—bel I appeal to the late Rebellion which the Rebels called a Defensive War to verifie this Doctrine for there was more Blood spilt in it in one Battel than in all the Tyrannies and Persecutions of the Nation since the Conquest and in the two Kingdoms there hath been more Christian Blood shed in Rebellions since the Reformation by pretended Undertakers of Defensive War than throughout the whole Roman Empire in nine of the first ten Persecutions Let us imagine a Popish Prince as biggoted in Religion and as Sanguinary in his Temper as may be now Reigning over us yet he could not likely cause so much Ruin Bloodshed and Desolation in his whole Reign as a War between him and his Resisting Subjects would cause in one Year Wherefore it is plain That it is the Interest even of the People themselves that so great a Power should be in the Soveraign
put the Sword in the hands of those of his own Religion and to make them the Ballance of the Nation which was natural enough for him to wish yet I do not Justify it But that ever he design'd to Massacre or Extirpate the Protestants I confess I cannot believe And his Carriage in Ireland by all the Accounts I could have of it nay take it altogether even as this Author tells it is a Demonstration to the contrary But I am too long upon this Subject Let us return to our Author's Quotation And here I must tell him That though Faulkner is against having such Cases put as abovesaid yet it is not that an Answer cannot be given for he gives it out of Bishop Bilson in the very same Place which our Author Quotes but he takes care to conceal the Words which if he had set down it would have appeared very ridiculous to have said as he does that Bishop Bilson seems to allow the Doctrine of Resistance The Bishop's Words are these as quoted by Faulkner first finding fault with such Cases being put That they are able says he to set Grave and Good Men at their wits end But then he adds yet we stand not on that and positively determines in these words which I had occasion partly to Quote before If the Laws of the Land where they converse do not permit them to save their Lives when they are assaulted with unjust force against Law or if they take Arms as you do to depose Princes we will never excuse them from Rebellion Thus Bilson And the very first words of the Chapter which our Authour quotes of Faulkner viz. Book 2. c. 5. puts the Case as directly against our Authors Position as if he had read our Author's Book and wrote on purpose to confute it There have been some says he who grant the unlawfulness of taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince to be a General Rule for ordinary Circumstances but yet they pretend there are some Great and Extraordinary Cases in which it must admit of Exceptions And the proposal of these Cases as they are by them managed is like the Pharisaical Corban an Engine and Method to make void the Duties of the Fifth Commandment And then he goes on and undertakes in this Chap. the defence of that Assertion of Barckley who proposeth the Question Nulli nè Casus c. May there no Cases fall out in which the People by their Authority may take Arms against their King And his Answer is Certainly none so long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat This is the same he Quoted Dr. Hammond for before viz. that the Person who was King may be Resisted when he does voluntarily Relinquish his Power and becomes a private Person for then indeed ipso jure he of Right ceases to be a King But may be our Author will say that ipso jure and ipso facto â—e ceases to be a King whenever he Designs to destroy a part of his People I will not repeat what I have said before in Answer to this as to tell what part of the Peoplâ— is mâ—aâ—t That this is an Eternal pretence for all Restless Spirits c. But it brings into my mind an Answer a Scots Presbyterian Minister whose Principles as to Government our Author has but licked up gave to the Objection in the 23 Chapter of their Confession of Faith upon the Head of the Civil Magistrate viz. That Infidelity or Difference in Religion does not take away a King 's Right to his Crown nor absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance to him The Minister replied That is true for if a King turn Infidel he does ipso facto cease to be a King So that our Author was not the Original of this pretty Distinction Faulkner in the same place shews our Author's Doctrine to be borrow'd from Mariana Bellermine and other Jesuitical Doctors Jesuit and Puritan are convertible Terms in the Point of Loyalty only that the Jesuit is the Elder Brother and determins against them N. 3. That the Agreement of the Whole body of the People or the Chief and Greater part thereof can give no sufficient Authority to such an Enterprise viz. of taking Arms against the King And with respect to this Kingdom he quotes our Laws which declare it Unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though Jointly to take Arms against the King Faulkner goes on and proves as directly against our Author in this same Chapter which our Author quotes on his side as Words can be fram'd But there are none so blind as they that will not see These are all the Quotations he brings to support his new Hypothesis and how far they serve to his purpose I leave it to the Reader and from the whole I shall only mind our Author of the Instances I have already given him viz. The Condition of the Jews in Egypt in Babylon under Ahasuerus and the Romans The Gibeonites under Saul and the Primitive Christians in their several Persecutions more especially in the last Decennial Persecution And then apply this to the Rule he has given us viz. That Non-Resistance does reach only Tolerable Evils and where the Mischief is not Universal I wouâ—d be glad likewise to have his Opinion of the Carriagâ— of the Protestants towards Queen Mary The Protestants undeâ— Qu. Mary He will not say but â—â—â—ir Circumstaâ—ces were much more Dâ—plorable than under King James even at the worst that he does represent him There Numbers were fewer and she as much bigotted as King James married to the King of Spain overturn'd our Religion by Law and set up Fire and Fagot broke her Promise to the Protestants who set her upon the Throne in opposition to Queen Jane a Protestant There was but one Branch of the Royal Family that were near the Crown a Protestant that was the Princess Elizabeth and she was declared Illegitimate by Act of Parliament and to secure the Business was sent to the Tower in order to have her Head cut off And after her the Royal Line run out of Sight among the Papists so that the Protestants had a very lamentable Prospect Yet they bore it with an admirable Patience till God with his own hand wrought their Deliverance taking away Queen Mary without their Guilt or Rebellion and placing that condemned Princess upon her Sisters Throne to establish the Protestant Religion in a Legal manner And these Protestant Martyrs even at the Stake declared it Unlawful to take Arms against Queen Mary in defence of their Religion but exorted their Fellow Protestants to Patience and Resignation to the Good Will of God But by no means to Rebel for that was Damnation They did not Plead that their Evil was Intolerable when they were going into the Fire or that it was Universal reaching to their whole Religion in the Kingdom These were Excuses they were too dull to find out to save their Lives and their Religion But let us
he has not put it in his Appendix Therefore I have annexed it to this No. 15. I will give you a farther Proof of K. James's Zeal to preserve the Acts of Settlement It is well known that the Address of the Lord Chief Justice Keating in behalf of the Purchasers under the Acts of Settlement and Explanation and the Lord Bishop of Meath's Speech set down at large in this Author's Appendix were subsequent to several Conferences K. J. had with several of the Members of the House of Commons and with a Committee of that House in Presence of the Lord Chief Justice Nugent Lord Chief Baron Rice Judge Daily and Attorney-General Neagle and others of the Privy Council where K J. plainly laid before them the Unreasonableness of their Proceedings That it was not proper to enter upon so great a matter as the destroying the said Acts in time of War when all Parties could not be heard and some of the Roman Catholick Judges declared not only to the King but to the said Committee and to several of both Houses of Parliament and of the Privy Council That it was unjust to break the Acts and destroy Purchasers Widows Orphans Merchants and all Traders on pretence to relieve Widows and Orphans And one of the Roman Catholick Judges did reduce this into Writing and shewed it to the Lord Chief Justice Keating who had a Copy of it as appears under his hand and that the Lord Bishop of Meath had the Perusal of it and as I am credibly informed had a Copy of it All which was before the said Address and Speech and though shotter is as full for the Preservation of the Settlement as the said Address and Speech And it appears plainly by what Duke Powis said from the King to the Earl of Granard c. that K. J. did encourage the Protestant Lords of Parliament to oppose the Repeal of the Acts of Sertlement and therefore their appearing in this matter ought by no means to be made an Objection against K. J. but in truth is an Argument of the pains he took to oppose the Repeal and it would be a Scandal to doubt but that these Protestant Lords meant it at that time sincerely for King James's Service which is farther demonstrable from the Loyal zeal which carried the Lord Bishop of Meath so far as to desire leave from K. J. to attend upon his Majesty to the Boyne to assist him against his Enemies But Achish excused David with Commendations of his Fidelity 1 Sam. 29. His Lordship was likewise one of the Lords Spiritual mentioned in the Address of the Parliament of Ireland to K. J. on the 10th of May 89. which was Printed with K. James's Speech and is here annexed No. 1. In this Address they abhor the unnatural Usurpation of the Prince of Orange and the Treason of those who joyned with him in England and Ireland and profess to K. J. with Tongue and Heart That they will ever assert his Rights to his Crown with their Lives and Fortunes against the said Usurper and his Adherents and all other Rebels and Traytors whatsoever These are the Words of the Address as you may see in the Appendix Now whether the Trotestant Bishops for no other sat in that Parliament did enter their Protestation against this Address which was made in their Names or whether they did not give their Votes to it themselves know best If they say that they durst not shew their dissent to it for fear of the Irish who would have called it Treason in them I will not argue now how just an Argument Fear is to justifie publick Lying Pâ—rjury and Treachery But if Fear had so great an impression upon themselves how could they at the same time have so little consideration for K. James's Circumstances as to lay such a load upon him for passing the Acts of Attainder and repeal of the Acts of Settlement when they saw him struggle with all his might against it and that the Irish had so little compassion for him not to name Loyalty that they threatned to lay down their Arms and leave him to his Enemies if he did not then immediately pass these Acts and yet they knew that it was highly prejudicial to his Service and consequently if they had thought aright to their own Interest But they were violent found the King was in their Power and made their Advantage of it to the best of their Understandings It is a Melancholy Story if true which Sir Theobald Butler Solicitor General to K. J. in Ireland tells of the D. of Tyrconnel's sending him to K. J. with a Letter about passing some Lands for the said Duke he imploying Sir Theob in his Business gave him the Letter open to read which Sir Theob says he found worded in terms so Insolent and Imposing as would be unbecoming for one Gentleman to offer to another Sir Theob says he could not but represent to the Duke the strange surprise he was in at his treating the King at such a rate and desired to be excused from being the Messenger to give such a Letter into the King's Hands The Duke smiled upon him and told him he knew how to deal with the King at that time that he must have his Business done and for Theobald's scruple he sealed the Letter and told him now the King cannot suppose you know the Contents only carry it to him as from me Sir Theob did so and says he observed the King narrowly as he read it and that His Majesty did shew great Commotion that he changed Colours and Sighed often yet ordered Tyrconnel's Request or Demand rather to be granted Thus says Sir Theobald Many particulars of the like Insolence of these Irish to K. James might be shewn but I would not detain the Reader what I have said is abundantly sufficient to shew how far it was from his own Inclinations either to suffer or do such things as were thus violently put upon him by the Irish in his Extremity Yet nothing of all this it seems has weighed any thing with these Irish Protestants at least with this Author to have any milder Thoughts of K. J. or to confess to the World what they very well know viz. That King James opposed the Passing of the Act of Attainder and Repeal of the Acts of Settlement all that he could and made use of the Protestants who now accuse him to help him in it And this Truth is so apparent that it forces it self sometimes out of their Mouths who endeavour to conceal it This Author c 3. s 9. n. 12 p. 150. says That K. J. made use of them the Protestant Bishops to moderate by way of Counterpoise the madness of his own Party and yet at another time all the madness of that Party must be charged upon the King And K. J. as this Author in the Heads of his Discourse c 3. s 12. n. 20. division 2. undertakes to prove would not hear the Protestants at the Bar
here do tell it The Earl of Inchiquin and Captain Henry Boyle with the generality of the Protestant Gentlemen in the Province of Munster having entred into an Association in Decemb. 88. as the Protestants in Ulster and Connaught had done they resolved to seize upon Corke and Bandon as the places of greatest Strength and Consequence in the Province Their Design took effect at Bandon which joyned with them But the Lord Deputy having notice of their Proceedings sent Major-General Mac-Carty now Lord Mount-Cassell to observe them He pretending to keep fair with them they attempted bringing him over to declare for the P. of Orange and some of them had hopes of it but he proved too cunning for them prevented their seizing of Corke and when Captain Henry Boyle upon that disappointment fortified his House Castle-Martyr he besieged him there Upon this Sir Tho. Southwell in the County of Limerick and several other Protestant Gentlemen marched with the greatest Force they could make to raise the Siege in their march they seiz'd on all the Papists Horses and this Mr. Browne who was then one of them took the Horses of Neagle of Moyallow who was then High-Seriff of the County of Corke and a Man was killed in the Fray and all this our Author calls only making his escape from those who came to plunder him But to tell out my Story Sir T. Southwell and his Company hearing upon their March that Castle Martyr was surrendred he endeavoured to make his way to Sligo to joyn the Lord Kingston and other Associators in Connaught who were all in Arms and as this Author tells p. 170. he and 200 of his Men were taken by a small Party of K. J's Dragoons not much to the Glory of their Courage And this Author says p. 171. That they were over-persuaded to plead Guilty though they had not been guilty of any Overt Act that could be construed Treason What this Author means by Overt Acts or what by Treason he will tell us in the next and likewise give us some probable Reason why K. J. should Reprieve and afterwards Pardon Sir Thomas Southwell and all the rest who were engaged in that business and have such a particular Malice only at Browne whom he knew as little as any of the rest Otherwise he must give us leave to suspend a little our belief of his Narrative in this matter particularly that K. J. should influence either Judge or Jury to take away Mr. Brown's Life and that he should be inexorable in Mr. Brown's Case alone and yet so very merciful to all the rest is a Contradiction to believe if his Case or Circumstances did in no ways differ from theirs But it is no wonder that this Author cannot keep him self from Contradictions through the whole Series of his Book when the very Titles the Heads of his Discourse are contradictory one to another which one would think an ordinary Care might have avoided C. 2. s 8. n 10. the Title is That K. J's Desire to be absolute induced him to change his Religion And yet c. 3. s 1. n. 5. the Title is Zeal for his Religion made him act against his Interest to that Degree says this Author in his Prosecution of this c. 3. s 1. n. 5. p. 46. that the Protestants could not but conclude that K. J. was so intent upon destroying them that so he compassed that Design he cared not if he enslaved himself and the Kingdoms P. 45. That he had a setled Resolution not to mind any Interest which came in Competition with his grand Design of advancing Popery and the Slavery of the Nations To effect which it is manifest he was content to be a Vassal to France Thus the Author Here are Contradictions upon Contradictions That K. J. should be content to be a Vassal that he might be Absolute If you say that must be understood only of his other Grand Design viz. advancing Popery which had the Ascendant even over his Interest or his desire of being Absolute This will contradict the other Head of Discourse which gives the desire of Absoluteness in him the Ascendant over his Religion as being the Ground-work and Motive which induc'd him to change his Religion And yet page 10. of his Thanksgiving-Sermon Perhaps says he K. J. chiefly desired an Absolute Authority over his Subjects that he might compel them into the bosom of his Church And it does not appear a less Contradiction than any of these that a King should change the Principles of the Church of England as then taught for those of Rome out of a desire to be the more Absolute The Church of Rome 4 Coun. Lat C. 3 c. gives Power to the Popes to Depose Kings and they have shewn many Examples of it On the other hand the Church of England when K. J. forsook her Communion damn'd this Deposing Doctrine and the Practice of it and valued themselves upon the Principle of Non-Resistance to their King upon any Pretence whatsoever as their distinguishing Character and an essential part of their Religion and they had never varied from it nor was it thought by any or themselves that ever they would I am sure if they were not in earnest with it then they can give no demonstration now that they can be in earnâ—st with any thing and it is in every bodies mouth That K. J's trusting too much to their Passive Obedience hastened his Ruin which could not be if he had not thought this to have been their Principle Now for a King of this Opinion to quit this Church and go to that Church which teaches the Deposing Doctrine to do this out of a desire of Abâ—â—luteness is such a Contradiction as this Author would have seen at another time C. 3. s 12. n. 15. p. 153. he makes K. J. most absolute in the Parliament in Ireland That this Parliament openly profess'd it self a Slave to the King's Will and that he was look'd upon as a Man factiously and rebelliously inclin'd that would dare to move any thing after any Favourite in the House had affirm'd that it was contrary to the King's Pleasure Accordingly the Author instances several particulars of K. J's Absoluteness in this Parliament particularly That upon his signifying his dissatisfaction to the Repeal of Poyning's Act the Parliament let it fall with several other Acts tho' the Irish had talk'd much and earnestly desired the Repeal of Poyning's Act it being the greatest sign and means of their Subjection to England Yet p. 37. you have the Irish dispute his Orders and and stand on the Laws and they would not suffer him to dispense with their Act of Attainder c. And yet p. 18. They pish'd at the Laws as Trifles and declared they liked no Government but that of France that they would make the King as Absolute here as that King was there P. 31. The Temper and Genius of these Men were at Enmity to the Laws and fitted for Slavery They promoted and
in Ireland while King James was there will attest the Truth of what I have said I appeal to Thomas Pottinger Esq who was then Sovereign of Belfast the grearest Town of Trade in the North of Ireland whether upon his Application to King James his Majesty did not give him Protection after Protection for Belfast and the Country about And whether such Protections were not made good to them by King James's Officers and where any of the Irish offered to transgress against the said Protections they were not severely punished upon the first Application to the King or those commanding under him This is likewise attested by Colonel John Hill present Governor of Fort-William at Innerlochy in Scotland but living at that time in Belfast in his Letter from Belfast to the Sovereign of Belfast then in Dublin inserted No. 25. Appendix and which Letter he desires the Sovereign to shew to none and therefore spoke his mind in it and not to flatter the Government There he tells how well Grievances were redressed and King James's Army kept to strict Discipline I demand further Whether the said Mr. Pottinger did not upon his application to King James obtain leave for the Merchants of Belfast and of the Country about to return from Scotland and other places whither they had fled even after the time limitted by His Majesties Proclamation for their Return And whether upon a second application to His Majesty and representing that there was an Embargo on the Scots side King James did not grant them time to return without stinting them to any day while any reasonable Excuse could be made for their delay And whether he the said Mr. Pottinger did not send Notice of this to the Belfast Merchants and others then in Scotland And though few or none of them came over till after Schomberg landed in Ireland with the English Army in August 89 yet whether their Goods were not preserved for them all that time by King James's Order still expecting their Return And whether they did not accordingly find their Goods at their Return Nay ever when Schomberg landed and King James was obliged to remove from that Country and leave it to the Enemy Whether he did not give special Directions to Major-General Maxwell then Commanding in Belfast not to suffer any of the Goods of the Protestants to be plundered nor any of the Country to be burnt upon their leaving it And whether these Commands of His Majesty were not punctually observed not only at Belfast but at Lisburn Hillsborough and all that Country and even at Dundalk it self which King James left in good Order for Schomberg to encamp in and make his Frontier his first Campagne Neither will Mr. Pottinger deny That Mr. Thomas Crocker Merchant of Yoghall in the Province of Munster in Ireland and several other Merchants of Yoghall Cork and other places of that Province did complain to him That their Friends which stay'd behind in Ireland while King James was there did make no application in their behalf to King James whether out of negligence or stubbornness which if it had been done they did not doubt but they would have had their Goods preserved for them as they had at Belfast and other places in the North of Ireland indeed in all places which desired it And I likewise desire Mr. Pottinger to tell whether the several Protections he obtained for these parts of the Country about Belfast were not given gratis without any Fees And whether there was any Conditions so much as an Oath required of those who returned and took the benefit of His Majesties Grace And though their taking the Oath of Fidelity to King James was named in one of the Protections granted to Belfast and the Country about here inserted n. 23. Appendix yet whether upon Mr. Pottinger's representing to my Lord Melfort That the Oath might perhaps startle some and hinder their Return his Lordship did not allow Mr. Pottinger and the other Magistrates not to require the said Oaths And whether accordingly the Retinning Protestants and others were not received into Protection without any Oath at all required from them King James had tried the Security of Oaths before They are certain Snares and a very uncertain Security Mr. Pottinger can likewise give Attestation to the Truth of what Secretary Gorge has told in his Letter of King James's not only keeping his Protections to the Protestants in Ireland but of the extraordinary kindness he upon all Occasions expressed to the English How several English Ships which came into Belfast some from the Indies who knew not of the War others by stress of Weather or other Causes and were seized by the Irish were always Released by King James were suffered to unload and to load again and pursue their Voyage to England Mr. Pottinger can tell the Ships their Burthen aad their Masters Names Nay King James did not only release particular Ships upon their application but gave general Orders to Major-General Maxwell and others Commanding on the Sea-Coasts in the North and we suppose the like in other places That no English Ship should be disturb'd which came thither Many more Instances might be given but these are sufficient to demonstrate that King James did not only freely grant and inviolably keep his Protections to the Protestants in Ireland but extended it likewise to as many of the English as came under his Power though against their Will The French Fleet which carried King James into Ireland took some English Merchant-men while His Majesty was on board and some of the Masters were brought before King James who expecting nothing but Death fell down upon their knees begging their Lives which brought Tears into the King's Eyes and he not only restored them their Ships with all their Effects but ordered two Frigats to attend them and see them safe through all the French Fleet. Dr. Gorge has told you of some severe Examples made in Dublin to shew King James's positive Resolution to protect the Protestants and Mr. Pottinger whom I have quoted as to the North can tell how Lieutenant-General Hamilton when he marched into Lisburn after the Break of Drommore was so far from taking the Plunder of the Country that he caused a Soldier to be shot in the Streets of Lisburn for taking a Silver Spoon from one Mrs. Ellis thâ—â—â—â— Mrs. Ellis and many more of the Protestant Inhabitants did beg his Life The 15th of March 88. the day before the Break of Drommore when the Protestants were generally fled and the Irish thought the Plunder was their own the Lieutenant-General upon Mr. Pottinger's Representation sent immediately his Protection to Belfast which preserved it from 400 Men of the Garison of Carrickfergus which is but 8 miles distance who were on their march to have Plunder'd Belfast but they obeyed the Protection The 23d the Lieutenant-General gave Mr. Pottinger another Protection for Town and Country The 3d of June following Mr. Pottinger had that Protection from King
expended by Parliament and little of the Credit come to K. James Whereas in Sir Peter Petts Speech n. 10. Apendix and other Vouchers you will see That K. James expended Millâ—ons out of his own Pocket upon the Navy Then you say in the Latter End of K. James's Regin Innuendo as if he had not minded the Navy from the Beginning of his Reign The contrary to which you will see in the short Abstract of Mr. Pepys's Account of the Navy n. 11. Appendix And no doubt your Informer could have told you this as well as the rest if you had had a mind to be inform'd But the Reason you give of your former Mistake is beyond all this You say You were led into this Inference viz. Of K. James's letting the English Fleet Decay on purpose to Rume the Trade of England that the French might grow Great at Sea by hearing that the then Prince of Orange found no Opposition at Sea when he came for England Could there be no other Reason why the Prince of Orange found no Opposition at Sea but K. James's purposely letting the Ships of England Decay c What if the Prince of Orange missed the English Fleet which was the Case He found no Opposition at Salisbury neither Our Author might hence as well infer that K. James purposely let all the Pikes and Guns in England Rot and Rust c Are these Inferences fit for a Bishop upon his serious Repentance for his publick Breach of the Ninth Command and Slandering the Foot-steps of GOD's Ancinted And yet in the same Breath continuing to do it still again in Malice that grows Ridiculous with its Rage For in the next words after his Confessing his Mistake he would have you believe that K. James did own this Lye against himself But the preceding Discourses of K. James sayes the Author are exactly Related What were these Discourses You have it told in his Book in the same place where his Recantation is viz. c. 3. § 6. n. 1. Where he tells How many Roman Catholicks who pretended to know his K. James's mind confidently affirmed That he purposely let the Ships of England Decay and Râ—t that the French might grow Great at Sea and Destroy the Trade of the English And sayes the Author the King himself could not sometimes forbear words to the same purpose Now this the Author even in Penitentials Affirms to be Exactly Related And no doubt he must think his stock of Credit very great that upon his bare Word we should believe so very improbable a Story as that K. James should himself tell so great a Lye against himself to render himself the most Odious to England that could possibly be Contrived All the Aspertions which his Enemies cast upon Him put together would not Blacken him so much in the Eyes of English-men as such a Design to Ruin their Trade on purpose to let the French get it And indeed it must raise a very strange Idea of him to all People in the World that a King could have so much ill Nature so much Treachery as to Ruin and Betray his own People who were then very kind to him on purpose to bring them into the Power of their Enemies and that he should be transported with such an implacable Malice against them as to be content to Ruin himself to be Revenged on them to make himself a Vassal to France that they might become French Slaves Which our Author sayes is Evident as I have before Quoted him And that a King should be so fond of this Character as to Invent Lyes against himself on purpose to have it believed And to harden the Hearts of all English-men against Him at the same time that He was Courting them and as Dr. Gorges's Letter tells us spoke the kindest Things of them upon all Occasions and as this Author in several places of this Book that He Reckoned much upon His Friends in England And c. 3. near the end of § 13. that the Irish Papists Refrained from Massacring the Protestants in Ireland lest It should shock many of their Friends in England and Scotland from whom they expected Great Matters And that K. James depended on some Protestants in England for Succour and Assistance rather more than on the Roman Catholicks c. Judge then how probable it is that K. James should Report such things of himself as He knew must Disgust all these and indeed all Honest Men But the Author finds a Reason for it It was sayes he in his loose Recantation to incourage the Irish Nation into the Facility of Invading England And was there no other way to do it but for King James to tell so Scandalous a Lye of himself And which my Lord Tyrconnel and many others of the Irish Nobility and Gentry besides all the English knew to be false The chief Encouragement they had to come to England was what our Author tells the Friends they supposed they had especially the Protestants in England and Scotland To whom this Account of King James especially from his own Mouth would have been a strange sort of a Recommendation But if that thing in which K. James was most to be admired and took greatest Pains and which was most Visible viz. his care of the Navy can by this Author's Art be thus turn'd into the Greatest and most Invidious Objection against him what fair Representation of K. James can be expected from such an Observator as as this Or what Credit to any thing he has said Who would have you believe him because he takes God to Witness of his Sincere Representing K. James and his Party in this Book And even where he must Cenfess his Error Repents as you have seen But we have been too long upon this Pray God this Author's Repentance for this pretended Repentance and all other his Sins may be more sincere and hearty before he Dye And particularly that God may give him Grace to Repent Sincerely and Confess Honestly all the Errors Willful or Malicious Representations in this Book of his with which I now proceed C. 3. § 12. p. 148. n. 6. He Reflects upon K. Jame's Sincerity who in his Answer to the Petition of the Lords for a Parliament in England presented 17. Nov. 88. gave it as one Reason why he could not Comply because it was Impossible whilst part of the Kingdom was in the Enemies Hands to have a Free Parliament Thus he and to make you believe him very exact he qutoes the Kings Answer in the Margent But on purpose leaves out those Words which would shew the Inference he makes from it to be very Inconsequential his Inference is That the same Impossibility lay on him K. James against holding a Parliament in Ireland The Kings Words quoted in his Margent are these How is it possible a Parliament should be Free in all its Circumstances whilst an Enemy is in the Kingdom There are but a very few Words more in that Answer which are these And can
of these People would make any Body suspect he had not been sairly Represented and that he did not really design any such thing as the Destruction of these People at least not altogether so fully as the French King resolved the voiding the Edict of Nants which this Author avers p. 19. I say who would believe that K. James did as fully determin our Ruin as our Author there Words it since he not only refused to do it when it was in his Power and he Apprehended so great Danger from them but took Pains and used his utmost Authority to keep back others from doing it who were ready and zealous to have done it and thought it their Interest to do it Therefore in this Distress our Author was obliged to find out some other Reasons for this besides K. Jame's Clemency And a Man of less Ingenuity than his cou'd make a shift to find Reasons for any thing There is no Subject upon which something may not be said Pro and Câ—n and so here our Author contrives Reasons for this Clemency of K. James which may not spoil that Bloody Character he had given of him and he turns it upon Policy Interest not to Provoke England c. not foreseeing that the same Interest must remain while ever he was King of England and so secure the Protestants in Ireland and disapoint this Authors whole Book And likewise he was under a Necessity of Contradicting what he had said before of making the Irish the Assaylants and Murderers c. because he is now forced to give Reasons why they were not so You know who should have good Memorys and it is very difficult when a Cause has several and Contrary Aspects It runs a Man some times to bespatter that side which he means to Defend As truly I think has happened in the present Case For if the most Malicious Jacobite had gone about to expose the present Government under the Name of K. James This Author Wounds the Present Government in the Person of K. James and the Papists he could not have done it more effectually than it is done in this Book For Example when England found the old Oath of Supremacy inconsistent with the Present Settlement they wisely abrogated it and made a new one But Ireland could not do this wanting a Parliament And in the Acts of Parliament in Ireland as in England there is a Penalty upon the refusal of this Oath which the then Civil and Military Officers in Ireland avoided by ordering it so That that Oath should not be tender'd to them as it was not at first to the Military nor to all the Civil Officers Now see how our Author exposes this Practice in the Person of the Papists c. 2. p. 38. § 9. He tells of an Horrible Artifice the Papists had to avoid the Oath enjoin'd on all Officers Civil and Military by Act. 28. Hen. 8. c. 13. and 2. Eliza. c. 1. viz. The Oath was never tender'd to their new Officers and Consequently said they they never refused it neither are they lyable to the Penalties of the Act. This was plainly against the design of the Statute a playing with the Words of it and shewed us that Laws are Insufficient to secure us against such Jesuitical Prevarications Thus our Author not Considering that the same Jesuitical Prevarications must by his Rule be Charged not only upon the Irish Protestants as abovesaid but upon the Roman Catholicks in K. Williams Army who are many more in England than K. James had in his Army here and before the Alteration of the Oaths here by Act of Parliament they must either have this same excuse for avoiding these Oaths or have none at all p. 114. He says the Protestants in Ireland chose rather to ly in Jayl than take some new invented Oath that was put to them without any Law to enjoin it Why would not this Author tell us what Oath this was I am told that there was no new Oath Imposed upon the Protestants in Ireland by K. James and it is not very likely where as you have heard from the Sovereign of Belfast and other Vouchers before Nam'd K. James did not trouble the Protestants even with the Oaths enjoyn'd by Law But I have been told that in Cork Limerick and other Garrisons upon the Sea Coast where there were many Protestants the Officers without any Order from K. James thought it reasonable to take that Security of these Protestants when they drew their Men out of these Garrisons into the Field and when they were Alaram'd with the English Fleet that these Protestants would not Joyn with their Enemies but be true to K. J. And I am told likewise that none of these Protestants did refuse it But if they did as this Author says could they take it ill to be secured in Prison who when the Enemy was hourly expected refused to promise not to Joyn with them or betray the Garrison to them Secondly this is an ill Reason for what the Author told us before viz. That K. James had not the least Reason to suspect or Disarm the Protestants and therefore this Author calls it perfect Dragooning of them as bad as was done in France But this Author tells his own Reason why they would rather ly in Jayl than take this Oath viz. Because there was not any Law to enjoyn it and they thought this a Violation of the Law and therefore that they ought to Suffer any hardship rather than Comply with it For if you break one Law you may break all c. Now this is perfect Wounding the present Government and Condemning what the Protestants in Ireland even this Author himself has done viz. Taking an Oath of Fidelity to K. William and Q. Mary without any Law to enjoyn it That is before this late Act of Parliament for abrogating the Old Oaths of Allegiance and Imposing the new Oaths in Ireland But here I must not be mistaken for I am not of our Author's Opinion that there was no Law to enjoyn these Oaths I have shewn before That by the Common Law there is an Oath of Allegiance may be required from the Subjects which for greater Satisfaction I have set down in the Appendix n. 13. as it was Taken to K. J. in Ireland by these Protestants With some Authorities out of the Common Law to Justify the Legality of it But our Author either knew not this or was willing not to remember it and would rather Wound the present Government than miss such a Blow and Reflection upon the Government of K. J. whether this was done in the full sincerity of his Heart without Aggravation or Misrepresenting against K. J. he has taken GOD to witness and there we must leave it The 26. Septemb. 90. There Issued three Proclamations from the Lords Justices of Ireland which I have hereunto Annex'd one Banishing the Wives Children and Familys of all in Rebellion against their Majesties or Kill'd in that Rebellion and of all
the Protestants in Ireland Did the French King use them no Worse than K. James did these Protestants Our Author says as above that K. James used worse Methods towards the Protestants of Ireland than the King of France did with the Hugonots If so Mounsieur Claud has mightily Misinform'd us in his Account of the Persecution of the Hugonots in France And since our Author will have this Comparison because he could not think of another would Render K. James so Odious I have a Curiosity to know his Opinion as to the Cause of these Hugonots viz. Whether their King 's breaking the Edict of Nants and using them as he did was Sufficient to absolve them from their Allegiance and to set up a King of their own Religion where-ever they could find him I doubt not but this Author will Answer in the Affirmative and that it was nothing but want of Power kept them from Abdicating that King who they thought had Abdicated the Government of them by his ill usage of them And this will be a better Plea for the French King to Rid himself of these sort of People than any I have yet heard offered for him But in this Comparison 'twixt King James and the French King our Author makes King James the more wicked Man of the Two using worse Method with his Protestants as you have heard And in his Character of the French King he gives him the Advantage over King James with an Innuendo-reflection upon King James in this same place p. 14. He reports the French King to be a Merciful Man in his own Nature and certainly says he a mighty Zealot for his Honour As if King James were not so indeed he was far from it as this Author represents him You see to what a Height this Authors Zeal has carried him when he will give so fair a Character even of the French King that he may thereby blacken K. J. the more And upon this Head I hope no Man will take it ill at least to do Right to K. James Would any Body desire him to be worse than the French King Therefore give me leave to say and in this I believe I shall have the Major part on my side That if the Hugonots in France had Invited a Forreign Hugonot Prince to enter France with an Army had joyn'd with him and Proclaim'd him for their King and Forc'd K. Lewis to Fly out of France and afterward recovering part of his own he should reduce the Hugonots in Brettaigne for example and they when they were come again under the Power of their Old Master should shew all the Signs of Disloyalty and Disaffection to him Deserting him every day to their new Hugonot King and giving an Account to him of the same disposition in them that could not make their Escape from K. Lewis and K. L. to know all this and that those that staid gave all the Intelligence they could to his Enemies and did all the Mischief they could to him their Natural King under whose Protection they then Liv'd And those of them that were able in Brettaigne to hold out in open Arms against him keeping two Towns in the same Province he had Reduc'd where they Fortify'd themselves and Declared for their Hugonot King and to Rescue those Hugonots that were under King Lewis I say if this had been the Case 'twixt K. Lewis and the Hugonots I believe I shall have the Major part of England of my Opinion That King Lewis would have dealt otherwise with them than King James did with the Protestants in Ireland And perhaps had any King in Christendom but K. James had them in his Power as he had for a whole Summer he would not have left them in a Capacity to have Driven him out of the Kingdom as they did And he was Morally assured they would do so when it was in his Power to have prevented them But rather than Destroy them he put it in their Power to Destroy him which they did without the least sense of all his Goodness to them which they Disdain'd to own but pursued him as a Tyrant Secretary Gorge Assures us in his Large Letter that the Irish Protestants were more Active against King James and were more dreaded by the Irish than any other of K. William's Army If K. James were as great a stranger to us as Caesar or Pompey and the Scene were plac'd as far off as those Times yet who would not have a Zeal to Vindicate the Truth who would not be mov'd to see a King who suffered himself to be visibly Ruin'd by his unprovocable Clemency to Obstinate Rebels represented by them for so doing as the Bloodiest Tyrant in the World To see this Authors Book Transport Men so far without examining as that the Principal Secretary of State should License a Pamphlet call'd The Pretences of the French Invasion Examined which 〈◊〉 14. lays the stress of our Objections against King James upon his Cruelty to the Loyal Irish Protestants while he was among them in Ireland His King James's Carriage in Ireland says the Pamphlet to the Loyal Protestants writ this viz. His implacable hatred to the Protestants in Capital Letters and it must be suppos'd they have Drunk deep of Lethe who can forget all this Thus positively does the Pamphleteer averr upon the Credit of our Author And therefore it is Incumbent upon our Author to produce some Catalogue of these Protestants in Ireland who remain'd Loyal to King James while he was there except those few who were in his Army whom our Author or our Phamphleteer cannot mean because they reckon these among the number of the Persecutors and by some thought worse of than the Papists for Assisting the Papists against the Protestants we desire a List of these Loyal Protestants in Ireland who suffered any thing from King James while he was there Can this Author find so many as their were Righteous Men in Sodom But this is much more certain that King James's Mercy to the Disloyal Protestants in Ireland put them in a Capacity to help to Drive him out of the Kingdom for his pains Does this Author really believe That King Lewis would have used them as kindly as King James did while he knew they were Plotting and would Joyn against him I Appeal to this Author Whether he would have thought himself so Secure in King Lewis's hands if he had been betraying his Councils and giving Intelligence to his Enemies as he was under these Circumstances in King James's Power But our Author never fails to make a round Character That King James should not be so Good a Man as King Lewis is not so great a Matter But now our Author's hand is in you shall see him carry King James's Character to be full as Inhumane as that of the Great Turk himself You have it â—nd of c. 3. § 20. n. 7. p. 224. The Vsage we met with being says the Author full as Inhumane as any thing they the