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 [Page 2]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 Oxoni [...]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 [Page 3]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 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.

[Page 4]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 [Page 5]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 its 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 [Page 6]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, That Principle is the Constitution of the Government, and consequently, they are the Men that break the Constitution of the Government, who Declare or Act against that Prin­ciple. And as for the Liberties and Privileges of the Kingdom, no doubt the Wisdom of the Kingdom in Parliament thought their Liberties and Privileges better preserved by that Prin­ciple, than by the contrary of letting the People take Arms against the Government, when-ever they thought themselves agrieved. They had experience of both; and we must believe they consider'd the Matter very well. And that it ought not to be shaken by the Authority of this Author, who is so young in this Opinion, that he knows not by which handle to take it; at least, he will not let us know. For [Page 7]he tells us not his Scheme of Government, nor pitches upon any of those, which are already set up, by those of his New Party.

Several Schemes of Government.Of which some lay the Foundation of all Government upon the Municipal Laws of the Land; so that if a King goes about to break the Laws, he thereby forfeits his Crown, &c.

Others think, That Laws, which are the Result of Govern­ment, cannot be the Foundation of Government: However, that it is not to be alleg'd in a Country where the Law it self makes it unlawful to Resist the King. Which Dr. Tillotson has materially urg'd in his Letter to my Lord Russel. See the Appendix, n. 14.

Others therefore fly higher, to Original Contract, which is suppos'd to be prior to all Municipal Laws; and on which all Laws must depend.

But others again think this Plea to be too precarious; and that it cannot be sufficiently prov'd. And therefore they chuse another sort of a way, which they call Abdication. Which some think as perplex'd as any of the rest, even in the pre­sent Case.

Lastly, there is a wiser Set, who think it most convenient to be always on the stronger Side; and therefore they cry up Success as a Divine Right. They have only one point of Prudence to observe, not to Turn too soon, least they mistake Providence.

Now this Author comes last, and, like a Man a Drowning, he catches at some, or all of these, but holds by none. They are too slippery, and fly from him; it must be part of the one, and part of t'other, that will serve this Hypo­thesis; and therefore he does wisely not to pitch upon any one. But yet without pitching upon some one, and forsa­king all other, sticking close by it, he can never demon­strate the Truth, nor speak consistently with himself. How­ever we must follow him as he pleases to lead us, though he fights in Clouds of Dust, that it is not easy to find him out.

You have seen his Principles as to Government, which he hides in Generals. But it is plain they are Antii-monarchical, [Page 8]though we cannot tell exactly the Glass to which they belong.

But what proof he offers for them is in his Introduction, wherein he pretends to prove, That a King who designs to de­stroy a People, Abdicates the Government of them. Thence c. 2. and 3. his business is to shew, That King James had that Design. Ergo—

But c. 1. he goes a little aside, and undertakes this Sub­ject, viz. That it is Lawful for one Prince to interpose between another Prince and his Subjects,The Case of one Prince in­terposing be­twixt another Prince and his Subjects.when he uses them Cruelly.

I do not meddle with this Chapter, for two Reasons. First, It is undertaken by another hand. Secondly, My bu­siness is with the Duty of Subjects, in which only they are Concern'd for whose benefit I write.

But I will give you this General Notion of it. That by the Arguments he advances, it is Lawful not only for every Prince, but for every Neighbour to inspect into his Neighbour's Family, and to dispossess him of his House, of his Estate, of his Tenants, Servants, Children, of his Wife, when he uses them Cruelly. And this Charitable Interposer shall seize upon them all for himself, on pretence of using them better.

He gives Examples of several Princes, who have thus in­terposed 'twixt their Neighbour Kings and their Subjects, and so he might many more; the World is full of such Ex­amples, and of many other Examples, which perhaps this Another won'd be a sham'd to justify.

But suppose that good Kings (who have been so reputed) have done this? What then? May not good Men have their Failings? I do not think that David's Decision 'twixt Ziba and Miphihosheth, would be a good Rule for future Justice. Though our Author has not truly represented all the In­stances that he produces, which will be shewn. But if they were true, it is no Angument.

I shall only mind our Author of his own Words, which I will have occasion to mention hereafter; viz. That it is a most Unlawful Thing for any to call in a Foreign Force, or erect a new Government to Redness unjust Laws— And again, That it is Intolerable for the Members of any State, to flee to Foreign [Page 9]Succors out of Pretence, that their own Governours have made Laws against Reason, Conscience, and Justice, and Foolish to alledge in their defence, That all Mankind is of one Blood, and bound to help one another.

I leave our Author to Recant this, or Reconcile it, at his Leasure to this first Chapter of his Book. Which be­cause I do not expresly Undertake. I will pass for this time, and return to his Principles of Subjection to Government, which is my present Task.

The Author's defence of his Principles.Let us now come to examine the Defence he makes for these his Principles.

First, We will consider his Arguments. Secondly, His Quo­tations and Authorities.

The Point he is to prove, we will take in his own Words, n. 1. of the Introduction, viz. That a King who designs to de­stroy his People, Abdicates the Government of them. And here as to his Reasons, or Arguments to prove this,From Reason. he disappoints us. For his whole Introduction (wherein he undertakes the Proof of this) is nothing but Quotations, which we are to examine by themselves. But he tells us not his own Opinion, you shall not fasten upon him.

He begins. It is granted by some— and I might answer, What is not granted by some? He is afraid at his first setting out. N. 1. he has one Quotation out of Grotius, and another out of Hammord. N. 2. one out of Dr. Hicks, and another out of Faulkner. N. 3. he Quotes the Homilies, and Dr. Hicks again. And then, N. 4. (which is the last) concludes from their Authorities. All which is to be consider'd, when we come to the second Class I have design'd to speak to, that is, his Quotations.

But for his Reasons he puts us to the pains to gather them by an innuendo, viz. That what he Quotes out of others is his own Opinion.

Therefore, laying aside his Authorities to their proper Place, we will examine the Reasons which are produc'd.

Thus then he sets forth. It is granted by some of the highest Assertors of Passive Obedience, that if a King design to root out a People, or destroy one main part of his Subjects in favour of another whom, he loves better, that they may prevent it even by opposing him with force; and that he is to be judg'd in such a case to have [Page 10]Abdicated the Government of those whom he designs to destroy, contrary to Justice and the Laws.

This he does not offer to prove. I suppose he thinks it self-evident. Therefore we will examine it very care­fully.

First Reason, of a King's de­signing to de­stroy his whole People.There are three Things to be consider'd in it. First, a King designing to root out a People, that is, the whole People; to destroy all the whole Nation whom he Governs. Secondly, his design to destroy a part only of his People. And Thirdly, the point of Abdication, in such a Case.

For the First. Grotius, as Quoted by our Author, says, that it cannot enter into the heart of a King, who is not mad; for that would be to destroy himself. And History affords no Example of this sort, since the World began. None of these quoted by this Author, p. 13 do reach this Case at all. Neither Nero, Caligula, Domitian, nor Philip the Second of Spain, design'd to destroy their whole People; though this Author in that Section would fain insinuate it. But it cannot pass upon any who are in their Senses; some in a Huffing fit might wish, That all the World had but one Neck, that they might strike it off at a blow: Hence our Author would presently conclude as he does, c. 2. s. 1. n. 3. That a Prince may design to destroy his Subjects, i. e. all his Subjects; He might as well draw an Argument from all the vaporing Stuff of Almanzor. And if our Author will insist upon this, every sober Man will think him as mad, as Grotius thought that King who should attempt any such Thing. What hands should the King imploy to destroy all his Subjects? But I will give over this point, least I too should be thought mad to labour such a Case.

Seond Reason, of a King's de­signing to de­stroy a paert of his People.The Second Point is, The King's design to destroy a part only of his People.

And the Question naturally rises, What part? Every Man is a part of the People. And there is absolute necessity to have this determin'd, otherwise no Government can possibly subsist. For if all People, who think themselves oppress'd under any Government, have Liberty to rise in Arms against the Government, there would be little Peace in the World.

[Page 11]Again: If the design of a Government to destroy a Man does dissolve their Authority over that Man, then it would follow, that Men condemn'd to dye, or out law'd, though for Rebellion, were no longer Subjects, nor ow'd any Duty or Allegiance to the Government, which is contrary to the general Sense of Mankind, and I suppose our Author will not have the Confidence to assert; yet it follows unavoida­bly from his Principle.

Third Reason, Invading of Property.But will nothing less than a Design to take my Life dis­solve the Government? Yes; Invading my Property, or do­ing me the least Injury, by this Author's Principles, does dissolve the Government, and set me at Liberty to take Arms against them: For he that does me a small Injury may doe a greater, and he that takes my Goods may take my Life too, &c.

Thus c. 3. s. 8. n. 2. p. 97. this Author lays it down as a Principle, That where the Government ruins the Proper­ty of the Subject, that Government dissolves it self.

Here we must ask (as in the former Case of destroying a part of the People) How much Ruine of Property is suffi­cient to dissolve the Government? And he seems to answer it by putting in the word Intirely, viz. where a Govern­ment Intirely ruins the Property of the Subject.

But he will not stick to this: That word was put in only to amuse; for the Property of Subjects can never be In­tirely ruined, while one Man has a Groat in the King­dom.

May be he will say, That though they have it in their Custody, yet they have no Property to it, if there be a Power in the Government to take it from them. But this will doe him as little Service; for at this rate no Subject in the World has, or can have, any Property; because in all Constitutions of Government, there must be a Legisla­tive Power lodged in some hands or other; which is equal­ly arbitrary in all the Species of Government; and all have power of Levying Money from off their Subjects.

Here some may fansie to make a Distinction, That in Free States, as we call them, the Subjects who consent to [Page 12]the Constitution, do thereby consent to their Raising of Money, &c.

And if the People be the Original of all Government, their Consent to the Constitution is as much implied in Mo­narchies.

Therefore I suppose our Author's meaning must not be as to the Power of the Government, (which, as I said, is Equal in all Governments,) but as to the Administration; viz. If the Government should take my Goods wrong­fully, or should lay Designs to take them from me. And in this case, if they take but a Penny, the Design may be carried as to all, and then the Government is dis­solved, &c.

So that the word Intirely, which our Author put in, signifies just nothing at all, in his way of improving the least Injury to infer the greatest.

And to shew you that this is his meaning in this same Section, n. 8. p. 74. he asserts, That the Governments ta­king away the Charter of Derry unjustly, as he says, was a sufficient Ground for them to take Arms against the Go­vernment, which he calls, Doing themselves Justice. But you may think that there was something else in the Case, besides the business of the Charter. No, he says, If there had been no other temptation but this, they were not to be blamed, to withdraw themselves from a Government they durst not trust. And he gives the same Reason I have told above, of im­proving every thing to the utmost: For, says he, They concluded that a Government that could take away their Charter, their Priviledges, might as easily and unavoidably find another nicety to take away what remained, together with their Lives.

Fourth Reason, Disarming a part of his Sub­jects.But farther, not only meddling with our Property shall be Pretence enough to dissolve the Government; but if the Government should offer to disarm those whom they knew, and this Author confesses, to be their mortal Enemies, the Case of my Lord Deputy of Ireland disarming the Protestants there, who, after all their disarming, this Author confesses, p. 111. had Arms enough to make the Papists affraid, and to beat [Page 13]them too. And the Generality of the Protestants in that Kingdom, who were out of the reach of the Government, were then actually in Arms against the Government; yet disarming such of these, as the Government could come at, this Author proves by his usual Climax to be a Design even of Massacre. For had they not reason, says he, p. 115. to believe that they were disarm'd purposely that they might be the more easily Robb'd or Massacred? And, p. 112. he calls that Disarming, perfect Dragooning, terrible Dragooning.

Now consider what a Scheme of Government this Au­thor has given us, viz. That if the Government have a Design against our Lives, the Government is dissolv'd. And if they take a Peny from us, or so much as dispute the Charter of any Town, or presume but to Disarm any of their Subjects, though they be actually in Arms against them, this shall be improv'd into a Design of Massacre; and then we owe no more Obedience to the Government: It is dissolv'd, &c.

The Author's Rule of Ab­dication consider'd.I come now to the Third Point, that is, of Abdication; and the only true Notion of it, by all Civilians, is,

A King's Voluntary Resignation of the Crown to the next Heir.

But take it in that Sense which by some of late has been put upon it, and it will by no means help this Author's Cause: For I suppose none, even of them, will allow that it is left to every private Person to determine what sort of Withdrawing himself shall be judged an Abdication in the King, so as to Dissolve the Government, and Absolve the Subjects from their Allegiance.

King Charles the First fled to Scotland, to save his Life from those who pretended to make him A GLORIOUS KING.

King Charles the Second withdrew himself into foreign Countries for several Years; yet neither of them was ever said to have Abdicated.

And it was debated strongly in the Convention, Whe­ther King James the Second's Withdrawing was an Abdi­cation, or not?

[Page 14]This shews that they thought the Decision of some Re­gular Assembly necessary to settle that Point; and that it was not lest to every Man to decide so great a Matter, whereon the Safety of the Nation does depend.

Therefore this Author's justifying what his Protestants of Ireland did upon the Account of King James's Abdication, will do them no Service, upon that Notion of Abdication, set up by the Convention in England; because they were up in Arms against King James before the Convention in England declared him to have Abdicated, and even be­fore his Withdrawing himself; upon which they pretended to ground their Sentence of Abdication.

But this Author must not stay for that. He gives every Man Authority to pass Sentence of Deprivation against his Sovereign when he pleases.

C. 1. n. 8. p 10. he says, By endeavouring to destroy us, he (the King) in that very Act abdicated the Government— and therefore in all Equity we are absolved from Oaths made to him as Governor.

In that very Act! Nay, even his Design, as you have heard, to take a Peny from us, or to bring a Quo Warranto against a Charter, that is, to take the Benefit of the Law against any of his Subjects, in a Legal manner, shall be a Dissolution of the Government, and Absolution from our Oaths, &c.

Fifth Reason as to the dis­solving Oaths of Allegianee.Here is very good Learning as to the Nature of Oaths, and Arguments most convincing: He goes on in the same Section, n. 10. p. 11. That King James consenting to Re­peal the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland, proved either that be designed to Release us from the Peculiar Obligation a­rising from them (our Oaths of Allegiance) as too strict, or else that he did not design to depend on our Oaths for our Loyalty, (whoever does will be mistaken, you have given demonstra­tion,) and therefore laid them aside as of no force to oblige us; ei­ther of which must proceed from an Intention to destroy the Ancient Government with which he was entrusted.

Now let us suppose, with this Author, That King James (having seen and experimented the little Security Oaths were to Government, against the Byass of Interest or In­clination) were willing to remove such a Stumbling-block for the future, and that Men should Swear no more: would [Page 15]this absolve the Oaths that were taken before? Again, most know the Objection which the Papists have against our Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, viz. That it depresses the Pope's Power in Spirituals. Now because K. James Repeals this, our Author would infer, That he meant to Release the Protestants from their Allegiance to himself in Temporals. Does this Author think, That K. James Repeal'd this Oath because it was too full of Loyalty? or because there was something else in it, which K. James thought was against the Tenets of the Church of Rome? I am asham'd to ask the Question, none are ignorant of the Reason of it.

Our Author will find this Argument of his Verbatim al­most in the Writings of the Cameronian Presbyterians. (I know not if he had it from them, but at least he sees how near he is come to them; for when Men jump in the same Principles, it is likely they will find out the same Arguments.) These Cameronians do prove, That K. Charles II. consenting to Repeal the Covenant did thereby Remit the Subjects Allegiance, by an­nulling the Bond of it. Vid. The Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence, Printed at London, 1692. p. 49.

This Covenant was Established by Act of their Parliament as well as General Assembly; and K. Charles II. consented to it, and took it, and swore by his Coronation Oath in Scotland to maintain it; and it swore Faith and Allegiance to him; and therefore this Author would do well to think of a Dis­parity 'twixt his Argument and that of the Cameronians; 'twixt K. Charles II. consenting to Repeal the Covenant, and K. James II. consenting to Repeal the Oath of Supremacy. Each Oath was to Establish a Supremacy over the Church, the one a Lay-Regal, the other a Lay-Elder, and Presbyterial Su­premacy. And the one King might think the one as faulty, as the other thought the other. But that either of these Kings meant to weaken the Allegiance of his Subjects, by taking away these Oaths, the one is as true as the other.

Our Author has one Argument more, why this Allegiance to K. James did cease; He (K. James) having left none (no Oath of Allegiance) that we know of in this Kingdom, which any Law obliges us to take. And what then? Is there no Al­legiance due, where there is no Oath? Our Allegiance is due, by the Law of England, prior to the King's Oath to us, [Page 16]or our [...]s to him. Oaths in that Case do not create the Duty; they are only in Confirmation of what was our Duty be­fore.

In the Eastern Monarchies they do not use Coronation Oaths, nor Oaths of Allegiance. And Augustus was so wise (says the Unreasonableness of a new Separation on account of the Oaths, p. 40.) as when they offered him their Oaths, he re­fused them for this Reason,Dio. l. 54. He consider'd well, saith Dio, that if they gave 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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19]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.

[Page 20] 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 [Page 21]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.

[Page 22] 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. How the Empire was to be Divided betwixt the Turk and the German Princes, and the Dauphin to be King of the Romans, Savoy was to be brought under Pupillage, the Princes of Italy to be Frighted, Bought, or Wheedled, Genoa to be Bomb'd, England Bought, and Holland Drown'd (alass! Poor Holland!) The Queen of Spain designedly made Barren, and the Prince of Wales a Cheat.

There's a Plot for you!

And p. 10. he asks K. James, What business had he with an Army?

But leaving his Politicks, let us come with him a little to the Argument.

He has Established it before, That Jealousies and Fears are not to pass for Arguments against the certain and plain Duty of Obedience to Lawful Governors. But that what is brought a­gainst them ought to be so Plain and Evident that the Consciences of Mankind cannot but see and be convinc'd of its Truth.

And yet he brings here against K. James such Trash as Grub-street would be asham'd to own; and, if the Sermon were not so common, I should be afraid to Quote, least it should be thought an Imposition upon this Author. But he has set his Name to it, and Dedicated it to the Lords Justices of Ireland, before whom he Preach'd it.

Of all the Instances above-nam'd, we are more immediate­ly concern'd in that of the Prince of Wales; Pr. of Wales. against whom he gives no other proof but p. 5 of his Sermon, where he says, We are satisfied, i.e. of his being a Cheat.

If these Gentlemen (for whom, and in whose Name, this Author here speaks) had been so Good, or this Author for them, to have told us what Evidence they had to satisfie themselves in a Point so Important as this?

Now when all the sensible Men of England are fully satis­fied to the contrary, viz. That the Prince of Wales was truly born of the Queen.

[Page 23]When it is no longer made a doubt of, nor endur'd to be mention'd at Court or Parliament, The but Questioning of it is a stob at the heart of this Prince, (says the History of the Desert. p. 107.) you need not ask which Prince it is who does not love to hear of it? And who they are who press it to be heard and examin'd? For which I refer you to n. 16. Append.

It is likewise well known, that this was but the tail of an old Plot, to say the same of any Son the Duke of York should ever have, of which n. 17. Appendix contains a Proof suffi­cient: And shews the indefatigable Pains of that Phanatick, Republican, Hogan Mogan Party, to render the Bill of Exclusion effectually servicable to the End for which it was intended.

This was thought to have been handsomly cover'd, when Zuylestein was sent over to congratulate the Birth of the P. of Wales.

Nay, he was publickly Prayed for as P. of Wales in her Royal Highness Chappel at the Hague, where Dr. Burnet him­self did often Officiate.

To say that they did not believe him to be P. of Wales at that time, is to accuse them of such Atheistical Hypocrisy, making a mock of God in his solemn Worship, as would ren­der them an abhorring to all Flesh.

To avoid this terrible Charge, you will be forced to ac­knowledge, That their Highnesses, and Dr. Burnet too, did not then believe the Reports of the Queens False-Belly; for they were spread abroad long before.

And what Evidence they have got since, besides these same Reports, is what the Nation wants to know, but are not like to be satisfied.

Nihil Dicit is confessing of Judgment.

Yet our Author says that he, and the Irish Protestants of his Party, are all satisfied (for those I suppose he means by the We all are satisfied) of the Imposture of the P. of Wales. And, by his Principles here laid down, their Proofs must ex­ceed Jealousies and Fears, and be so plain and evident as the Con­sciences of Mankind cannot but see, and be convinced of their Truth. And then why should not he Produce them?

If he says, as I suppose he must, that he once thought it was Evident. So it was for some time thought by the Gene­rality of the People of England, that the 3500 Irish, who [Page 24]were disbanded by K. James before he went away, were about to Massacre all England, and had actually begun the Work, and the whole Nation was terribly allarm'd.

There is nothing so Ridiculous may not be put upon some People as Plain and Evident in some Junctures.

Earl of Essex.That the Earl of Essex was assassinated went down greedily with some sort of People, for a while; though People of sense did not then believe it, nor his Lady, as she de­clared to many noble Relations of his Lordship, and her own.

But now the Trick is all come out, and how that whole matter was managed. Mr. Hook, then Chaplain to the Duke of Monmouth, and who came over with him from Holland, wrote a Narrative of it at Amsterdam, as himself declared, for a Preparatory to their Undertaking. Another was wrote by Col. Danvers, and another at Amsterdam, and was taken in Col. Danvers's House in London. And they bragg'd how much Service it did in the West, and stirr'd up the People against K. James, and to join with the Duke of Monmouth.

A Committee of Lords was appointed since this Revolu­tion to Rake into that matter again; but after long Sitting, and Examinations, could make nothing of it, and were forced to let it fall, I suppose now for ever.

Sir Richard Haddock, at present first Commissioner of the Navy, declared before the said Committee, That he saw the Earl of Essex lying in his Blood, and having considered the narrowness of the Place where he lay, and all other Circumstances, he could not have been so Murther'd by any but himself.

Braddon's Tryal it self is enough to Detect it to any un­prejudiced Reader.

But that this Author may not be accus'd for proving of nothing that he says, he has undertaken to make out the Grand League before told; in the aforesaid Sermon, from a Letter of Bishop Maloony's to Bishop Tyrrel, which our Au­thor has printed in the Appendix of his Book.

There, Page 363. Bishop Maloony is inveighing against K. James's Politicks, in trusting too much to the English, and seeking to please them, while he rejected the assistance [Page 25]which the French King offered him. If the King of France, says that Bishop, had not been too Generous, and too Christian a Prince, were it not a sufficient Motive for him to Reject the King in his Disgrace, that upon those rotten Principles Rejected his Alliance. This is that Alliance with France (says our Author in his abovesaid Sermon, p. 5.) which Maloony, the Popish Bishop of Killa loo, in a Letter of his to Bishop Tyrrel, is so very angry that some Trimmers (as he calleth them) oblig'd King James to disown. These Trimmers were the abovesaid rotten Principles, as that Bishop calls them, of trusting to the English. And these oblig'd King James to disown such an Alliance with France which he Rejected, and yet found that his People were allarm'd with the Report of it, which was designedly spread abroad.

And what Reason can this Author give why King James should not disown it, since there was no such Thing? And that his Principle of trusting entirely to the English, and let­ting them know so much, should oblige him to disown an Alliance which he had Rejected, meerly out of his Confi­dence in them? This Bishop Maloony says, And that This fair Politick, as he calls it, hindered him (King James) from ma­king up a Catholick Army that would stick to him, instead of a Protestant one that betray'd him; hindered him also from having any Succor from France offered him. There is none here but knows that Succor was offer'd him from France against the Prince of Orange, and that he Rejected it. Now who would ever Guess that the abovesaid French League could be prov'd from hence? From these Words of Bishop Maloony's Letter! which speak the direct contrary. Yet this is all our Author's Proof, and he boasts in it, and crys out, This is the very Source and Fountain of all the present Calamities of Europe, but more particularly of ours. Is not this Magnificent! This is a Hardiness of no common Hero. To bring, without a Blush, the strongest Objection against him, as an Argument for him. What better Proof could have been brought, to shew there was no such League, than the Confession of a Popish Bishop, one of their Managers, in a Letter from Paris to his Correspondent, another Popish Bishop who was Secretary of State in Ireland, and which neither of them De­sign'd should ever be seen by Protestants? Would they dis­semble, [Page 26]and not speak their Thoughts freely to one another? Would they tell one another that King James had Rejected the French Alliance, if it were not so? Yet these very Words of this Bishop, our Author brings to prove that there was such an Alliance.

If you say, there is still a Jealcusy of these Things. Our Author has barr'd that from being any Pretence against the plain and certain Duty of Obedience to Lawful Governors. Yet these our Author names among the Pretences for throwing off our Lawful Governors, as well in this Book, as in his said Thanksgiving Sermon; which I shall have more occa­sion to mention hereafter.

I only name this, to shew you his way of Arguing; and withal to tell you that they are such Things, of which, he (at that Distance from Affairs, and his Correspondence con­sider'd) could have no other Account than from the com­mon News Letters, and Observators, and such small Intelli­gencers. And yet he would put this upon us (who live nearer the Helm, and know the value of these Coffee-house Papers) as such infallible Proofs, that it is not in our Power not to see, and be convinc'd of their Truth.

But this is no new Matter. It is the constant and never-failing Method in all Rebellions and Commotions of State. They all say their Grievances are apparent and undoubted: And generally the greater the Calumny, the Asseverations are the more positive, to make it be believ'd. Matchiavil prescribes, fortiter Calumniare, Bespatter confidently; Throw much Dirt, some will stick.

Of King Ch. 1. and Archbi­shop Laud's being Pa­pists, &c.How many in England were made believe that Charles the First, and Bishop Laud, were Papists? How many believe it still? I refer this Author to a Pamphlet printed this Year, called, A Letter from Major General Ludlow to Sir E. S. com­paring the Tyranny of the first Four years of King Charles the Martyr, with the Tyranny of the Four years Reign of the late Ab­dicated King. And there he will find King Charles made much the greater Tyrant of the two, the greater Invader of our Laws and Liberties, our Properties, our Lives; and that the Case is full as plain and apparent as that against King James. And he has printed two or three Vindications of it since.

[Page 27]There are many, very many, in England of that Opinion; and so positive in it, that they think all Men mad, or obstinately prejudic'd, who offer to deny it; or, in our Author's Words, they think that the Consciences of Mankind cannot but see it, and be convinc'd of the Truth of it.

Yet there are many who will not confess it, but think King Charles to have been a good Man, and a Martyr; and that he stood up more for the Laws, and Liberty of the Subject, than his illegal Murtherers, or Deposers; who of­fended more against the Law, and much more apparently by their Rebelling against him, than he did, if all they charg'd him with had been true. Our Author himself was once of this Opinion.

Dathan and Abiram their Charge against Moses.Never any Charge against a Government was averr'd to be more apparent and undeniable than that of Dathan and Abi­ram against Moses, (Num. 16.13, 14) where he was accus'd of Arbitrary Government, and Breach of Promise. It was as plain as the Nose on ones Face, as we use to say, as any Thing we see with our Eyes, that he might as well perswade them to disbelieve their Eye-sight, as not think him Guilty. Is it a small Thing that thou hast brought us up out of a Land that floweth with Milk and Honey, to kill us in the Wilderness, except thou make thy self altogether a Prince over us? Moreover, thou hast not brought us into a Land flowing with Milk and Honey, or given us Inheritance of Fields and Vineyards: wilt thou put cut the Eyes of these Men?

And besides this positive Assurance which they had, they likewise (as our Author) had the Faculty of improving a Breach of Promise, or an Arbitrary Design, into a Design against their very Lives. Because he disappointed them, as they were very sure, in their Inheritance in their Fields and Vineyards, and had a mind to make himself more Arbitrary, altogether a Prince over them, therefore they charg'd him with a Design to kill them in the Wilder­ness.

Now if People could be so impos'd upon by the Cunning of designing Men, as to believe the falsest and most noto­rious Untruths against the best Governor as ever was in the World, what Government can subsist upon our Author's Principles, which give a Latitude to every Man to try his [Page 28]hand upon the soft part of the People? And if he can per­swade them into an ill Opinion of their Governors and cry it is certain and notorious, absolves them ipso facto from all Obedience to their Governors, from their Oaths, and all tyes of Humane or Divine Law, and so frees their Conscience, which is the chief hold Government has upon Men. And what Evils that can be suffered from Government can be of such destructive Consequence to the People, as these loose Principles, which unsettles them every Minute, and puts it in the Power of every Boutefeu to set the Nation in a Flame at his Pleasure?

The Author's Distinction of Evil.N. 3. of his Introduction was design'd to obviate this, its Title in the Heads of Discourse is in these Words, The Argu­ments of Passive Obedience from Reason and Scripture reach only Cases where the Mischief is Particular or Tolerable.

But this gives us no surer Marks than we had before. For what does he mean by Tolerable? Tolerable. If it be as much as a Man can bear. No Passive-Obedience-man can stretch it higher. Since no Man can bear more than he can.

Therefore he must mean, what a Man can bear Easily, or till he begins to think the Burthen to be Intolerable, that is Hard to be born, and then you may be sure he will not let it grow too heavy for him.

And no Rebel in the World can desire a greater Latitude than this. For whenever he says he is hurt, or has a mind to bear no more, then no more Passive Obedience.

Thus much for the Word Tolerable. Now for the other Qualification,Universal. viz. Particular; that is, as he explains it, p. 3. when the Mischief is not Universal.

Universal, may be either as to its Tendency; that is, where a Mischief done to a particular Person may be a Precedent to have the like done to another, and another, and so till it comes to be Universal. And in this Sense our Author will not allow that any Mischief from a Government can be par­ticular. If the King take one Man's Life or Property from him contrary to Law; this will not be call'd a particular Case, but the Case of the whole Kingdom. Thus Mr. Hamb­den contested his Assessment (which was about 20 Shillings) and brought on the whole Case of Ship-money, which em­broil'd the Reign of King Charles the First. Magdalen-College [Page 29]was not thought a particular Case, and did no small Service against King James 2. In short, all Mischief is done to some Particulars, and Universal is but many Particulars: There­fore what is done to one, may be inferred to the rest; and in this Sense no Mischief can be Particular. Will this Author say, that the Business of Glenco (n. 19. Appendix) was only a particular Mischief?

On the other hand, if by an universal Mischief, you mean where the Mischief does, not only in its Tendency, but Actually assect the Universal, that is, the whole People. In this Sense, it is not Universal, if any part of the People be Excepted. And then, according to our Author's own Rules, Passive Obedience takes place in all Cases, except where the Go­vernment designs the Destruction of the whole People, that is, as Grotius has explain'd it, where the Governors are all sup­pos'd to be mad. Which has been spoke to already.

But not to take any Advantage of this (for no King, not Nebuchadnezzar, was ever so mad as to design the Destruc­tion of a part of his People; Then the Question will be, Whether it be greater Destruction to the People to run the hazard of this, under the Protection of God, while in Obe­dience to his Commands, rather than to raise a Civil War to Remedy this?

And our Author seems to answer this, n. 4. of his Intro­duction, which bears this Title. A War not always a greater Evil than Suffering.

Observe here the Modesty, and withal the Cunning of our Author. He calls it a War; which is a general Word, and therefore may lead you off the Question; which is not at all concerning Lawful War, as that may be betwixt Inde­pendent Princes, But concerning Subjects Levying War against the King, or the Government, under which they Live; which therefore is called Rebellion. And it is of this only that our Question proceeds, viz. Whether This, or Suffering, be the greatest Evil?

And our Author says, It is not always a grea [...]er Evil than Suffering.

This was Cautious indeed. It is not always so. But what if it be so for the most part? Is it therefore to be Chosen? [Page 30]This, or nothing, is our Author's meaning. He begins this, n. 4. p. 5. thus. If then in some Cases the Mischiefs of sub­mitting — may be worse— than a War— which is beg­ging the Question, and point blank contrary to the Law of the Land, and which this Author has often subscribed, viz. That such a War (of Subjects taking Arms against the King) is not Lawful; upon any Pretence whatsoever. Which if it be true, then our Author's, in some Cases, is but a Deceit. For the Law allows of no such Cases, nor any Pretence whatever, to take Arms against the King.

One would think it pretty hard for our Author to get over this.A Passage out of Faulkner misapply'd. He attempts it (but faintly,) c. 1. n. 8. p. 10. where he says, That this may not seem a new Doctrine, I would have the Reader observe, that I only transcribe the learned Faulkner, &c.

Why? Who said it was a new Doctrine? Was that the Que­stion? No doubt, many have, and do hold it. In the next place, suppose you do transcribe Faulkner, will that excuse you? You will not stand by all that Faulkner says in that Book, for you know no Man is more opposite to your now Opinion, if it be your Opinion. Why then do you Quote one part of him, if you will not believe another? For either he must contradict himself (and then his Authority cannot be great either way) or else you lay no value upon his Judgment, while you plainly dispute against his Notion of Passive Obedience, which you cannot deny, and is visible to every one that reads his Book, and I will shew you presently when I come to examine his Quotations more at large.

But our Author has pick'd up this Sentence out of him. And though all the Words our Author quotes are in Faulk­ner's Christian Loyalty, l. 2. c. 5. l. 2. n. 19. yet I must charge him with a false Quotation; for he leaves out such Words, as plainly shew, that Faulkner does not set this down as his own Opinion, but only to follow upon a Supposition, which he Quotes out of Grotius, but does not say that he ap­proves of it. Grotius thinks, says he, that ultimo Necessitatis presidio, such defence is not to be condemned— And if this be true, says Faulkner, it must be upon this Ground, that such Attempts of Ruining, do ipso facto include a disclaiming the Governing of those Persons, as Subjects, and consequently of being [Page 31]their Prince or King; And then the Expressions of our publick De­claration and Acknowledgment would still be secured, that it is not Lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King.

Thus Faulkner, as our Author quotes him; and all he says is, that upon the Supposition of a King disclaiming the Government, and consequently, ceasing to be King, then though we do take Arms against him, we do not break the abovesaid Declaration, of not taking Arms against the King, because then he is no King. For a King that disclaims the Government is no longer King; and, says Faulkner, if Gro­tius's Position be true, it must be upon this Ground. But he does not say that Grotius's Supposition is true. On the con­trary, in the very next Words, as if it were confuting this Opinion of Grotius, he quotes an Authority against him, which is Bishop Bilson (whom our Author too quotes) for having set down this Opinion of Grotius with what he sup­poses to be the Ground of it, he immediately subjoyns a contrary Authority. But Bishop Bilson, says he, speaking of such Popish Cruelties, adds, That if the Laws of the Land do not permit them to guard 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. as Faulkner there quotes him.

Now judge what reason this Author had to produce this Passage of Faulkner, and how sore the was put to it, when he could find nothing else to say, to bring himself off from that Declaration, which, pursuant to the Law of the Land, he had so solemnly read in the Presence of God, and His Church, in the Time of Divine Service.

The Evils of Tyranny, and of a Civil War, com­par'd.But leaving his Quotations to be Examin'd in their proper Place, Let us go on with him to the Merit of the Cause, to the Reasons he has to offer, why submitting to the Tyranny of our Lawful Governors is a greater Evil, than raising a Civil War in the Nation to prevent it; for that is the Case. And is the Explanation of what he meant above by Tolerable and Universal Evils. N. 3. p. 3. viz That we ought to bear only with Tolerable Evils from our Governors, or when the Mischief is not Universal; or if it be Universal, where it is yet Tolerable, [Page 32] and not so mischievous in the Consequence as a Civil War. Thus our Author.

And indeed he has given advantage enough against him, in this Comparison, which he advances of the Evils of Ty­ranny and Rebellion, or a Civil War, as he more gracefully Words it.

For do but bear with any King, and think nothing Intole­rable from him, till he destroy as many as a Civil War,— I will not take the full advantage of the Comparison; Do but stay till he destroys the thousand part as many, or bring such universal Ruin and Devastation to the Kingdom, and I'll undertake there is no Passive-Obedience-man in the World but would conclude him as mad as Nebuchadnezzar, and no more to be obey'd than a Man Raging in a Feaver. So vast a Disproportion there is 'twixt the Evils of Tyranny and Rebellion! So much is the Remedy worse than the Disease! The Cruelty of a Tyrant, says one, is like a Clap of Thunder, it strikes with great terror: But a Civil War is like an Inun­dation, which sweeps down all before it without noise. Thus one Man brought upon the Scaffold by the Arbitrary Com­mand of a Tyrant, makes more noise than Ten thousand kill'd in the Field in a Civil War. But that does not make the Evil the less, but the greater, while we are made wil­ling to destroy our selves: And do it more effectually in one day, than the bloodiest Tyrant could find in Heart to do in his whole Reign. All the Men put to death by the Arbitrary Command of Tyrants since the beginning of the World, in all the Kingdoms of the World, will not amount to half the Number of those who perished in the Roman, or the English Civil Wars: Those who have perished within these Three years in Ireland, are many more than all the English Tyrants ever put to death. So much safer are we in God's hands, than in our own! In their hands where God has plac'd us; and though he often makes them, like the Sun and Sea, scourges for our Sin, yet he has promis'd to keep their hearts in his hand, and to turn them as seemeth best to him;Prov. 21.1. we have more promise of Safety there, than when we are delivered over to the Beasts of the People, whose mad­ness David compares the Raging of the Sea. Psal. 68.30. In short, the [Page 33]Restraint of Government, is the true Liberty and Freedom of the People; since if they were at Liberty from Government, they would be expos'd to one another, which would be the greaten Slavery in the World. The great Mistake is in the foolish Notion we have of Liberty, which generally is thought to consist in being free from the Lash of Government, as School-boys from their Master; and proves, in the Conse­quence only a Liberty to destroy one another.

This Author's Remedy for Tyranny to kill half the Nation.And yet to purchase this Liberty, our Author thinks it worth the while to cut the Throats of one half of the Nation. These are his Words; To lose even half the Subjects in a Civil War is more tolerable than the loss of Liberty.

Here is a terrible Sentence! one half of a Nation cut down at a Blow! we must expect some very good Reason for this. He says, An Age or two will repair the Loss of Sub­jects — But if Liberty be Lost it is never to be retrieved.

Now I thought the quite contrary to this had been true. That Men might be Rescu'd from Prison, but not from Death. That therefore. Liberty might be retriev'd, but Lives never. He says, An Age or two will repair the Loss of Lives; that is, other Men will live. But does that Retrieve those that are Lost? He may as well say, That I regain my Liberty, if another Man gets his Liberty. But he says, If Liberty be lost it is never to be retrieved. Why then would he Sacrifice half the Nation to seek to retrieve it? He says, It brings certain and infallible Destruction. And will he contend against Infallible Destruction?

I would ask, whether he thinks the Irish Protestants did not loose their Liberty under King James? If they did not, His whole Book is false. If they did, Has not K. W. retriev'd it? If not, Let him answer his Thansgiving Sermon. But if K. W. has retriev'd their lost Liberty, then his Position is false, viz That if Liberty be lost it is never to be retrieved: So far is it from being certain and infallible, as our Author as­sures us.

But let us see if we can find out the Reason of this strange Assertion. And you have it not obscurely hinted, in the Words immediately before; viz. And indeed the greatest Mis­chief of a Civil War, is the Danger of subjecting the State to the [Page 34]Absolute Power of some potent General, as it hapned at Rome, Florence, and in England, in the late Civil War.

This indeed is the Mischief and Danger of a Civil War. Since the same Power that enabled your Deliverer to Rescue you, will enable him also to keep the Power when he has got it. And who will not keep it, when it is in his Power? As Oliver did in the late Civil War of England, and happen'd in Rome, Florence, &c.

But now our Author has told us the Disease, he ought to have given us the Remedy, if he knows any. For you cannot take Arms against a Tyrant, but under the Command of some General. And then how do you know but he will prove a Tyrant? It is natural for Men to affect Absoluteness. Who Loves to be Controul'd? We must always be under the Power of some or other, and the effect of a Revolution is but Changing the Person; wherein you must run a Hazard; for as one said upon a certain occasion, There is nothing so like as Two Kings. And it is a terrible sort of a Cure, to slaughter half the Nation upon an Experiment, which our Author himself confesses to be very uncertain, or indeed im­possible, to have any good Effect, if lost Liberty cannot be retrieved, but the Danger and the Mischief is certain. And our Author does not see a Remedy. It is the common Fate of these Rebellions for Liberty, to be made a Prey to their Deliverers: And then half the People must be destroy'd by a new Deliverer, to gain Liberty to the other half. And if they be mistaken in the Man, then half of the remaining half must go: And if they be mistaken again, then half of that half, and so on for ever. This is our Author's Re­ceipt for Liberty. And he says, It is for the Good of the People.

Of which People? I beseech you, of those that are Kill'd to gain Liberty for the rest? But how do you compute the Good of the People? Is it not from the Major part? This Author, I have heard, is a good Mathematician, he cannot be mistaken Reckoning.

Now if half of the People be destroy'd, to purchase Liberty to the rest, here is no Good but Hurt done to the People: Be­cause there is greater Hurt done to the one half of the [Page 35]People, than the fancy'd Good can be to the other. I sup­pose our Author has not represented himself in his own mind, to be one of that half which was to be Destroy'd: But being one of the surviving half, he thinks it best the other half should be Destroy'd, to purchase Liberty for those that remain. But if this Experiment be repeated a a second Time, and half of the remaining half be taken off, then there is no Comparison, but this must be for the Hurt of the People. Especially considering that this Principle opens a door to an Eternal Halfing them at this Rate. And we may see it by Experience where this Doctrine obtains, that that Country (I am sorry England should come into the Account) seldom enjoys a longer Respite from the Ruin of one Revolution, than to take breath, feed up, and fat­ten for another: And what can prevent it, where People are thus Disciplin'd and Encourag'd to Rebellion? And have a never-failing Pretence given them to Kick when-ever they are Wanton? Nothing but a Miracle can stop them, till Ruin upon Ruin has humbled them, and convinc'd them by Demonstration of the pernicious Consequence of these loose Principles of Government.

Plutarch, in the Life of Timoleon, tells, That the Towns in Sicily would not trust him, being lately over-run with Violence and Outrage, and exasperated against all Leaders of Armies, for the sake chiefly of Calippus an Athenian, and Pharax a Lacede­monian Captain, and the Mischiefs they had suffered by their Treachery; For both of them having given out that the Design of their coming was to introduce Liberty, and depose Tyrants, they did so Tyrannize themselves, that the Reign of former Oppressors seem'd a Golden Age, if compar'd with the Lordliness and Ex­action of these pretended Deliverers, who made the Sicilians reckon them to be far more happy, that did expire in Servitude, than any that had liv'd to see such a dismal Freedom. Thus Plutarch.

And Lucan reck'ning over the Miseries of the Civil-Wars of Rome, which were all for Liberty, envies the happy Con­dition of those who live under Absolute Tyrannies. He crys out,

[Page 36]I could give 1000ds of Instances of the truth of this in all Nations; they are enow to make a History: And if a History were written of the Mischiefs of Liberty, and Publick Good, or the Good of the People, that is, what Mischiefs have been wrought in the World under the Pretence of Publick Good, the Good of the People, and asserting of their Liberties, I will undertake the Comparison, That more visible Mischief has come to the People, more Destruction of the Publick Good, and greater Loss of Libery and Property, by this one Method, than by all other Sins and Wickedness of Mankind put together: And consequently, that there is no Comparison 'twixt the Evils of Tyranny, and of a Civil War for Liberty and the Publick Good; and that the Mischief of this Pretence of Publick Good is infinitely less Tolerable, and a more universal Ruin to the People, than any Tyranny of Lawful Governors that ever was in the World. It is by many Degrees the Greatest and most Lawless Tyranny of the two; and always brings greater Evils, Confusion, Disorder, Rapin, Violence, Contempt of Laws, and Legal Establishments, more intolerable Mischiefs of all Sorts, than those it pretends to Remedy.

But of all Pretences for Rebellion, Religion is the most Ridiculous; because a Civil War introduces greater Immo­rality, loosens the Reins of Discipline, and is more con­trary to the Spirit of True Religion than any other Thing in the World. True Religion is not Propagated by the Sword; It is a small still Voice that cannot be heard in War. It is built, like Solomon's Temple, without the Noise of a Ham­mer; War confounds it, and debauches it. The most Pro­fligate and Licentious Court bears no Proportion in Wicked­ness to the Lewdness, Blasphemy, and Contempt of all that is Sacred which Reigns and Overflows in Camps. It was an old saving, Nulla fides, Pietas (que) viris qui Castra sequuntur.

I desire this Author to make a just Computation betwixt the Godliness of the Protestant Army in Ireland this Revolu­tion, and the common strain of Wickedness which was Practic'd there before by the People in time of Peace.

I have been told that this Author did express his just In­dignation against the wild and bare-fac'd Debauchery of the Army, from his Pulpit in Dublin, so far as to say, It was come to that pass, that it was a Scandal for any Woman of [Page 37]Reputation to be seen in Company with a Red or a Blew Coat; for which he incurr'd the heavy Displeasure of the Sparks and Beau's in the Army; who practis'd all mad Lewdness and Prophanity with both hands earnestly, with all their Strength and Power, with the same Zeal and Fer­vor that they Rusht into the Battle. They thought the one as much their Duty as the other. Dr. Gorge, in his Letter from the Camp, (n. 2. Appendix) tells us, That they thought Religion but Canting, and Debauchery the necessary Character of of Soldiers. And he had good Reason to know, being at that time Secretary to the General.

But the Case is notorious, all Men know it. The truth is, that Army has Debauched generally all that they have left alive in that Kingdom; and have left the Marks of their Wickedness as deeply imprinted in that Country as of their unbridl'd Violence, Plunder, Burning, and Destruction of Protestants and Friends as well as Enemies. This War has taught those People Wickedness they never knew be­fore; in comparison, they never knew what Wickedness was before.

Now let us compute how Religion is serv'd by all this: The Spirit of Atheism is let loose, and has overspread all the Land; It is the Common-place of all our Men of Wit to run down and ridicule the Holy Scriptures, and all Reveal'd Religion, and this Publickly, in Coffee-houses, every where, without any Restraint or Shame: So far from that, that they Laugh at and Despise all those who pretend to believe the Revelations in the Bible, or that God ever spoke to any Man, or gave them any Law by Moses, or any body else, other than by giving Men Wisdom to invent good Laws, as Solon, Licurgus, or the like: And no other Account do they make of Moses, or the Prophets, or of Christ.

I am sorry to say it, that I am a Witness to the truth of this; if it needed any Witness, for it is notorious and uni­versal, but more within these Four years, and more Pub­lickly own'd, than since we knew the World.

In short, we have lost Christianity both as to Faith and Practise. This is the Advantage Religion has gain'd by our Wars.

[Page 38]But all is no matter, so we beat down Popery. And yet Popery was never more Tolerated in Ireland than since the Conclusion of our War against Popery, even by the Articles and Agreements of the War. And how freely it is Tolerated in England we all know. Nay, it is taken ill if any call this a Religious War. Are we not Confederate with the most Bigot Popish Princes in Christendom? But we will keep Po­pery out of England for the time to come.

If it be by letting in Atheism, or Socinianism, it were better keep the old Popery still. This is the Method to reconcile Men to Popery, when they see you advance in its place Prin­ciples more Antichristian than it self, and introduce them by all the Wicked and Prophane Practises in the World.

To my knowledge several have turn'd Papists, and more are in danger, from the Scandal of this Revolution, the Lewdness of the Army, and base Apostacy of the Clergy, as they call it, have turn'd their hearts against us, they think we have no Religion. It may seem a Paradox, but it is true, That there have been more Converts to Popery in England these last Four years, than in the Four years before.

Indeed all that King James was a doing did prove to the Ruin of Popery in England: And if he had been suffer'd to go on, he had turn'd all English hearts, for ever, against it: So far were we from the Danger of Popory in his Reign. But now Men's Rage at Popery is abated, by seeing the very wicked Artifices have been used against it: I wish our Me­thods to keep it out do not bring it in.

It is a Rule that seldom fails, but never almost in Religion, That Civil War and Rebellion prove in the end to be the Destruction and Undoing of those good Things which are made the Pretences, and for the Preservation of which Men are perswaded to Rebel.

That is commonly the end of Reformations made by the Sword, especially of Subjects against their Sove­reign.

And it is for such a Reformation as this, that our Author can give up the half of the Nation to the Slaughter. And all the Care he takes, is, An Age or two will repair the Loss [Page 39]of Subjects. Murther will be a small Sin upon this Account. It was counted a Tyrannical Expression in the Prince of Conde, when one told him, That he expos'd his Men too much in the Storm of a Town; he replied, There are as many Bastards gotten in Paris last Night, as I shall loose Men to Day. But this was modest, by many Degrees, to the fierce Sen­tence of this Author. He had not time, in his Fury, to consider the Reason God gives, Gen. 9.6. why shedding of Man's Blood is so Grievous a Sin in his Sight, that he will re­quire it from the Beasts of the Field, much more from his Guilty Brother.

This Author makes nothing of destroying the Image of God; What is the Matter? Another Age will get more Images. This was spoke like a Divine! But, good Sir, there is something else, which, if you would give me leave, I would presume to mind you of, in your own Profession, which is, The care of Souls.

Sir, in this Slaughter you make of Bodies, there will some Souls be lost: And an Age or two will not Repair that. I am sorry this did not come into your Consideration. For in this Revolution which you suppose, and in which you are content to Sacrifice half the Nation (you reckon about the Number it cost in your Country, as themselves compute it.) In this Quarrel, Sir, you cannot suppose both Parties to be in the Right. There must be Rebels on one side or other.

And you used to tell us, That Rebellion was a damning Sin. And is it nothing, in your Account, to send half the Souls of the Nation to Hell! Are these the Bowels of a Spiritual Guide! Good God! Whether are we come! Here is no face of Christianity! This is propagating Religion with the Sword, beyond the Principles of Mahomet.

But will an Age or two cure the Infection of universal Debauchery and Prophaneness which this Civil War has spread over the Face of Ireland, and in proportion of Scot­land and England, where the Armies have come? Does this Author find it so easy a Task to remove all Lewdness and Prophanity where it has once taken root? Or to hinder it to Descend to the next Generation? And it is not only this War, but it has been observ'd of War in all Ages, that it de­stroys Men's Principles, takes them off all Foundations of [Page 40]Sobriety, and instills a Dissoluteness of Life, and an Insensi­bility and Difregard of Religion, and of all Rules of Justice 'twixt Man and Man, most of any Thing in the World: And of all Wars, such universal Corruption of Manners is most fruitful in a Civil War, and sticks longest to our Posterities; leaves Seeds of Animosities, till one Revolution begets ano­ther, and entails Blood and Destruction, Hatred, Treachery, Re­bellion, and all Wickedness, from Generation to Generation. And no Evils these can Cure, are so Intolerable as these.

This made some of our Forefathers of so much a contrary Opinion to this Author, as to make it a Proverb, That the worst Peace is more Eligible than the best War: However, from the Consideration above said, of all Pretences, Religion is the most Ridiculous for a Civil War; because a Civil War is more destructive to Religion than any Thing it can Re­medy.

There is another Thing this Author has forgot, while he had his Eyes upon nothing but new Bodies of Men being rais'd up next Age, and so all the Evils of this to be done away. God has threatned to visit the Sins of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation. His Blood be on us and our Children, (Matth. 27.25.) lyes heavy upon the Jews to this Day.

And, Sir, that Ocean of Blood spilt in one of your Revo­lutions must lye at some door or other; And an Age or two will not do away the Guilt of this. I am afraid the Blood of Charles the Martyr, and all shed in that Rebellion against him, lyes still upon these Nations. They cannot Repent, while they maintain the same Principles which rais'd that Rebellion. They are come to that, that they are not afraid, nor asham'd publickly in Print, and in Coffee-houses, to justifie that Civil War, as our Author would call it, against King Charles the First. In this Years Almanacks, sold about the Streets (Partridge's Almanack for the Year 1692.) the 30th. of January is left out, with Good-friday, Ashwednesday, and other Superstitious Days: And instead of these, he puts into his Chronology some of the black Aspersions cast upon King Charles the First, as the Murther of King James the First, and what he thinks were the Arbitrary Proceedings of his Reign, and setting up of Popery. And he reckons [Page 41]as Festivals, the Successes of the Parliament Army against the King; as the Battle at Naseby, Fatal, says he, to the Tories and Papists so he styles the Loyal Party. He tells you of that King's deserting his Parliament (which is as good as Abdication) of his dispensing Judges, &c. and Bishop Laud being Beheaded for Treason against the Nation. That was the style of Treason in these days; and best lik'd still, set up even by this Author, who give Army, Treasury, and all from the King to the Nation, as before is told. These are small Signs of Repentance. And therefore we have but small hopes, that this Age is yet free'd from the Blood spilt the two or three last Ages. In which there is yet a farther Consideration; and that is,

That Children may not only suffer Temporal Punishments for the Sins of their Fathers: But that Men may really make other Mens Sins their own, by Approving and Incou­raging them; Nay, but by consenting to them; as St. Paul reckon'd himself Guilty of the Murther of St. Stephen, be­cause he only held their Clothes who stoned him. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy Neighbour, and not suffer Sin upon him, or, that thou bear not Sin for him, as our Margent reads it. Lev. 19.17. This is every Man's Duty: But especially of the Clergy, who are appointed by God, Watch-men, for this very purpose. And if God will require at their hands the Blood of all the Souls that Perish through their Negli­gence or Cowardise, in not warning them against their Sin, as we are expresly told, Ezek. 33. What will become of those Clergy-men? What will their Judgment be, who lead their Flocks by their Example to Sin? Who justifie and main­tain their Sin? And imploy their Wit and their Learning to find out Distinctions and Salvoes, to keep their Flocks from Returning and Repenting? Who defend or palliate the Wickedness of former Ages, to give Countenance to the Crying Sins of this, That (as our Saviour told the Jews, Matt. 23.35, 36.) all the Blood shed in all former Ages from Abel may come upon this Generation? Surely those Clergy who plead for the Murthers and Rebellions of former Times, make themselves more Guilty of that Blood than many of the Ignorant hands that shed it.

[Page 42]And thus we may not only bring upon our selves the Blood which we incourage other Men to spill in our own Time, and what has been spilt in former Ages, by our de­fending it; But we involve our selves more expresly in the Guilt of the Blood that shall be spilt to the end of the World, by the Influence of our Actions, or Writings: Be­cause to incourage and contribute towards the commit­ting of a Sin, is in some sort being the Author of it; at least, it is being Guilty of it in a nearer degree than only approving of it, when it is done.

These Considerations I earnestly recommend to this Au­thor's second Thoughts; that he may have a view of the vast Sin he has run himself into, if his new Principles do not hold; The Blood that is, has been, or shall be spilt upon this Quarrel to the end of the World. Some conjecture, That the Reason of Dives being so importunate for the Sal­vation of his Brethren, was not out of Charity to their Souls, which is not suppos'd to be in damn'd Spirits; but because his Sufferings increas'd in Hell to the same propor­tion that his Example upon Earth incourag'd others to Sin, whereby we may suppose his Brethren to have been chiefly Infected. The Application I make, is, the Danger of trans­mitting any thing to Posterity in Writing, which may in the least favour any Sin, especially that of Blood, which crys till it be avenged.

And the greater credit our Author's Book has with some for of People, its infection will be the greater, and he have the more to Answer for. Therefore he ought to be very sure that his Reasons are good, upon which he Pawns the Salvation of his own Soul, and of so many Millions.

With this Preparation I hope he will look again with an impartial Eye upon these Reasons he has produc'd, and con­sider, whether they will bear such a Weight, as he has laid upon them.

He says, p. 3. n. 3. If we look into History we shall find the best, the happiest, and most prosperous People, most jealous of their Liberty, and while they continue firm in their Resolution of main­taining it against the Enchroachments of their Governors, even with the hazard of their Lives, they have continued Great and Happy.

[Page 43]This is but saying, instead of proving; and it is absolutely denied: You have seen the Opinion of a Roman and a Greek, Plutarch and Lucan, upon the Case; and many more are to be produc'd, to shew that Rome and other Countries were never so miserable as in their Contests for Liberty against their Governors. Among all of whom there is not a more preg­nant and sad Example than that of England.

Nor will the Fate of Holland be an Exception from this Rule. Reckon first, their many years Civil War, and innu­merable Slaughters which their own Histories relate were occasion'd by their Contests for Liberty against the Crown of Spain, to which they were then Subjects.

And they have liv'd since in almost continual War with all their Neighbors. They have been in daily danger of being swallow'd up, as by the Sea, so by France sometimes, and sometimes by Spain; and have been kept up chiefly as a bal­lance 'twixt contending Princes. It was but in Queen Eliza­beth's Reign that they stil'd themselves the poor distressed States; and it is but a very few Years since we saw France in pos­session of most of their Towns; and had been of all the rest, if King Charles II. had not interpos'd, and taken that critical Minute to rescue his Nephew the P. of Orange from that Contempt to which the States had reduced his Family; and they were forc'd to make him their S [...]at-holder, as the Con­dition of saving their Country.

Therefore we know not well how to compute the Suc­cess of this staggering Commonwealth, which is not yet an hundred years old, and owes its Life to the Contention of its Neighbours; and by Foreign Wars secures Peace at home, which lasts no longer than they can have leisure and time to worry one another, and shew the natural Effects of Popular Government, which was worthily celebrated in Mobbing the De-Wits, and will shew it self again when the [...]e shall be occasion.

But notwithstanding of all this, our Author will allege, that they had reason to take Arms, rather than pay these un­reasonable Gabels and Taxes which were impos'd upon them by their King. To which I will n [...]w only say, That they have paid much greater Taxes to their Deliverers than to their Kings.

[Page 44]But they fought for Religion as well as Taxes; and they have got what they fought for, for they pay the greatest Taxes in the World, and they have got all Religions in the World. Their Church is calculated for nothing but the Advancement of Trade, and therefore has no other Authority than the States please to allow; no more than a Company of Taylors, Wea­vers, or any other Society set up by the State. Their Clergy are only Tools which the State makes use of for the better support of Temporal Government: They may be call'd a Corporation or Committee of Religion, but do not deserve the name of a Church, who can forfeit their Charter to the State, and are dismissable by them at their pleasure. Erastus ra­ther than Calvin was Moderator of these Assemblies General. I would gladly have our Author's Opinion upon this Point.

He will perhaps say, That they grow rich, and thrive by these means. No, it is not by these means; but their Scitu­ation, Soil, and other Circumstances, forces them to Industry; they must work, starve, or drown: and God has brought them under that happy Necessity, to shew the World an Example of the great value and force of Industry, how much it alone can do, without the assistance of any other Vertue. Therefore their Case will not be a Rule to other Nations.

But our Author says, That at this day—we shall find every Nation Happy and Thriving—according as they have preserved themselves from Slavery. He means Ireland, of which he writes, which at this day has glorious Effects of Happiness and Thriving to shew, being reduc'd to a Wil­derness from a Noble and a Plentiful Countrey, and one half of the Souls in it are Perished, and all Impoverished, up­on the Pretence of Preserving themselves from Slavery. He says, All Countreys under unlimited Monarchies de­cay in their Strength and Improvements. By this he means poor France, and the Eastern Monarchies, whence we bring all our Riches. But suppose it were granted, That France has decay'd in Strength since its King grew Absolute, and that there were no Riches in the Indies; yet the Subjects of these Absolute Monarchs are free from Civil Wars: Rebel­lions are rare among them; they enjoy Peace, which alone outweighs all the Pleasure of Riches, if Civil War and Dissen­tion [Page 45]go along with them; as Solomon says,Eccles. 4.6. Better is an hand­ful with quietness, than both the hands full with travel and vexa­tion of spirit. Better is a Dinner of Herbs, where Love is, Prov. 15.17. than a stalled Ox, and hatred therewith. Riches are a Blessing; they may be likewise a Curse; Luke 12.15. A mans Life consisteth not in the Abundance of the things which he possesseth. Peace and Quietness are more valuable than Riches; for Riches, without them, af­ford little satisfaction: and it were better be Poor, than to have Riches to serve only for a ground of Debate; or that Plenty should make us wanton, so as to kick against our Governors, and devour one another: therefore till you can free your Principles of Liberty and Freedom, as you call 'em, from this main Objection of being an Inlet to Civil War and Confusion, even Slavery and Beggary will be preferable to them, in the judgment of wise men, and of all that are not mad and intoxicated with the mere Name and Sound of Li­berty, tho the Effects of that prove the most absolute and mise­rable Slavery in the World; who think there is no Liberty but in being free from Government, tho they are thereby ex­posed to the Lawless and Arbitrary Attempts of their Equals and Inferiors: but this they think nothing of, so they may not be under their Lawful Superiors.

These are occasional Observations of this Author, who would have you believe them without examining. I hasten to give you a further view of his strain of Argumentation.

You have seen already the bent and force of all his Argu­ments; viz. That a King who does design to destroy one part of his People, does thereby Abdicate the Government of those whom he designs to destroy. But King James had this De­sign against the Protestants of Ireland, ergo, he proves that King James had this Design, Chap. 2. whose Title is,Seventh Rea­son. Destroying our Religion. That King James design'd to destroy the Protestant Religion. Now I say this is no Consequence; for he might design to root out the Protestant Religion, but not to destroy the Persons of the Pro­testants; which is the foundation upon which this Author builds all his Arguments. All Governments set up some Re­ligion as the Established Religion of their Country, and there are none which are in earnest with Religion but would wish all others to be of their Religion: but that therefore they would destroy all who will not be of their Religion, is [Page 46]our Author's Consequence; which if it fail, there is no Ar­gument in his Book.

England, no doubt, would gladly rid it self of Popery; to which end, it is made Treason to turn Papist; and their Priests are banished upon pain of Death; and the Law debars Papists from Places of Trust, and many Advantages which the other Subjects freely enjoy: But that therefore the Government intends to cut the Throats of all the Papists in England, or those that have now submitted in Ireland, and therefore has Abdicated the Government of them, is the Author's Doctrine, which would be needful for him to explain; for Reason is Reason in England and in Ireland; and whoever should ad­vance such an Argument in England, I'm confident would be looked on by the Government, not only as a very weak and inconsiderable Reasoner, but that he ought to be animadver­ted as an invidious, seditious, and Treasonable Incendiary, who by this means endeavoured to render the Government odious, and stir up the Subjects to Rebellion.

The same Argument will justifie what Dundee and the High­landers have done in Scotland against the Present Government: and it will justifie the Episcopal Party there, if they should take Arms every day, in opposition to the present Settle­ment of that Kingdom. By the publick printed Accounts of the Persecution and violent Rabbling of the Episcopal Ministers and others of their Principles, they have suffered more from the Presbyterians in Scotland, than even this Author was afraid of from King James in Ireland.

But not only the Papists in England, and Episcopal Party in Scotland, and the present Papists in Ireland, may justifie their taking Arms against the Present Government when they please; but the Irish Papists in 41 might have justified their Rebellion against King Charles I. by this Author's Principles, which do indeed justifie all the Rebellions that ever were in the World, or all that can be invented; for none can want some of the Pretences which he allows for Rebellion.

But especially it gives full Liberty to all Dissenters in Reli­gion to take Arms against the Government; but more plain­ly if the Government shut them out from Places of Trust and Profit; for such a jealousie of them, may easily be improved into a Design for their Destruction. But if any Penal Laws [Page 47]be made against them, then the Design is apparent; it goes beyond a Design; it is a real Attempt upon them, actually assaulting them, &c.

But of all things, How could the Irish, who adhered to K. James be made Rebels to K. William before they submitted to him? How could this be do [...]e by our Author's Principles?

If you say he had Title to Ireland, by being King of Eng­land, because Ireland is but an Appendix to the Crown of England: Answer; But from the beginning it was not so; and the Government of England being dissolved (as you say) by Ab­dication, and returned back to the suppos'd Original Contract or first Right of Mankind to erect Government for their own Convenience; of consequence the Tye which England had up­on Ireland by Conquest was dissolved, and Ireland left as well as England in their suppos'd Original Freedom, to chuse what Go­vernment and Governours they pleas'd. But all this notwith­standing, this Author's Principles freed them from K. William because of the Presumptions they had to think, that K. William intended to invade their Property, Lives and Religion. He decla­red that he came to Establish the Protestant Religion. By his Declaration of Grace, 7 July 90, he pardons none, either as to Life or Estate, but only Poor Labourers, Common Souldiers, Country Farmers, Plow men and Cottiers, and such Citizens, Townsmen, Tradesmen, and Artificers, who should return by the 1st of August: and even these were to forfeit all but their personal Chattels, as you will see in the Declaration, N. 6. Appendix. And by the publick Resolution of his Judges 21 Nov. 90. (which you will see in the Appendix N. 7.) very few had hopes lest them either of Life or Estate even upon their submitting to King William, and living peaceably under his Government, pursuant to his Declarations: And I am told that thousands of them are out-law'd since they sub­mitted to his Protection, notwithstanding of the many fair Promises which were made to them afterward upon several Occasions; particularly, General Ginckle's Proclamation printed at Dublin, 4 Feb. 90. wherein he assures the Irish Pa­pists, in their Majesties Names, that all of them who w [...]d submit to their Majesties Government should be protected as to their Religion, Estates and Liberties.

These following Words, are verbatim the Words of that Proclamation; viz. Their Majesties hereby giving demonstration [Page 48]to the World, that it is not their Design to oppress the Inhabitants of this Nation, either by persecuting them for their Religion, Ruin­ing them in their Estates and Fortunes, or Enslaving them in their Liberty. These are the Words of that Proclamation: which have not hinder'd the multitude of Out lawrys, and other Proceedings and Forfeitures against those Irish who sub­mitted to the Government. As to their Religion, they do not complain but that K. William has been very Gracious to them; and they enjoy it in more ample Manner than ever they had it under any Protestant Prince: But as to their Persons, Estates, and Liberties, they cry out heavily of Breach of Publick Faith, and Great Oppression.

If our Author had the improving of these and other their Circumstances, how easily could he argue them into the law­fulness of taking Arms for their Defence? But if the Argu­ment of Glenco were on his side, no doubt, he would sum­mon the Nation to rise as one Man, and would Abdicate all the Governments in the World. It is well for the Govern­ment that this Author is not touched by the late Act imposing the Oaths in Ireland; the Refusal of which is no less than Premunire, which does not only invade your Property, but makes you uncapable of having any Property at all, so much as to the Cloaths upon your Back; or ever to breath the common Air out of a Jayl; and none above eighteen years of Age, no not Women of any sort, Maids, Wives, or Widows, are exempted. What Declamations could our Au­thor make upon this! How far would he make this exceed the French Dragooning, or even the Spanish Inquisition! if he had such a Handle against King James!

Some Instan­ces of the Au­thor's manner of Argumen­tation.I have heard from some who are acquainted with this Au­thor, that he is a Man of good Reason. But in this Book, I must say, that his Zeal has transported him, to take that for Reason which is the farthest from it in the World; and which it is impossible he should think to be so, in any other Case.

C. 3. s. 8. n. 6. p. 102. He tells how Derry shut its Gates against the Earl of Antrim's Regiment: And n. 7. p. 103. he proves they were obliged to do thus by their Foundation; and names the Charter granted by K. James I. One would won­der how the King should grant a Charter to oppose himself. The Author's Reason is, That this Town was founded to be a Shel­ter and Refuge for Protestants against the Insurrections and Massacres of the Natives.

[Page 49]The Natives had before that time made frequent Rebellions, and Derry was built as a Security against them; therefore our Author thinks, that if ever it should so happen, that the Protestants should turn Rebels, and the Natives be Loyal, the King's Charter was meant to support the Protestants in their Rebellion! This is too extravagant to need Confutation.

C. 3. s. 12. n. 16. p. 154. He inlarges upon the Reasons they had in Ireland, as well as in England, to dread Papists in a Parlia­ment; and grounds his Argument from Q. Mary's House of Com­mons; which was not well thought on for his Purpose; for though that Parliament did overturn the Protestant Religion, and set up Popery in its place; yet the Protestants of England thought it their Duty, for Conscience sake, to suffer Martyrdom under those cruel Laws, rather than to take Arms against their Popish Governours.

It is a Topick as ill chosen, which he urges in the third Pa­ragraph of n. 18. of the same Section, p. 160. where the Argu­ment he uses to cure the Folly of those Jacobites, who were At­tainted in the Act of Attairder in Ireland, and notwithstanding that Provocation continue Jacobites still, is not from Principles either of Honour or Conscience; but that if K. James come again, they were not to hope for Pardon or Preferment. This is suppo­sing them to Act out of no other Consideration but temporal Ad­vantage; which is so great an Imputation, that it ought to have been proved before it was supposed; but as to the Author's Ar­gument it seems to operate point blank contrary to that for which he brings it. For if that Act of Attainder is so worded as that it is not left in K. James's Power to pardon any who are thereby Attainted, as our Author tells us, and consequently that these Attainted Protestants can have no Security for their Lives, much less of Preferment, under K. James; this would seem to argue that it cannot be Temporal Interest which guides these Men, or else they must be very great Fools indeed!

C. 3. s. 17. n. 7. He argues that K. J. claim'd a Despotick Power over the Church, because (the Bishop being fled) he appointed a Chancellor in the Diocese of Dublin (who this Author confes­ses went no further than the Probate of Wills) after he had taken away the Oath of Supremacy by an Act of his pretended Parlia­ment.

The Argument from the taking away of that Oath has been consider'd already. But I was much surpriz'd to see this Author [Page 50]give such a handle to K. J. to Retort upon K. W. that he and his Pretended Parliaments after abrogating the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, &c. had by their meer Lay-Authority Depriv'd the English and Irish Bishops and Clergy, and overthrown Episcopacy it self in Scotland. If K. J. had done any thing like this!

And this Author will not allow the Depriv'd Bishops to re­tain so much as the Character or Title. See with what Insolence he speaks, in the same place, of the Lord Bishop of Galloway. He (K J.) appointed (says our Author) one Gordon, who call'd himself Bishop of Galloway in Scotland, to be Chancellor in the Diocese of Dublin: This Gordon was a very Ignorant Lewd Man, and a profest Papist— Which was notoriously false (if we may be­lieve the Irish Protestants whowere then in Dublin) for this Bi­shop was then, and all along, a Profest Protestant; and, as I have heard, a Man of Learning and Parts.

But if he had been a Papist (whether in Masquerade or otherwise) I would gladly know this Author's Opinion, Whether that would have Un-Bishop'd him?

Had he been Consecrated in a Flagrant Schism, and by those who took Part with and Communicated with the Schismaticks, and consequently were such themselves, there had been Ground indeed to Question the Validity of his Orders, and call'd him a Pretended Bishop. But this Author is in Justice oblig'd to shew upon what account he laid so Great an Imputation upon the Lord Bishop of Galloway; and to shew his own Principles in this most Important Point, upon which he bestows up and down such Loving Glances, but will not speak out.

You have now seen the Manner and the Strength of this Au­thor's way of Reasoning upon the Subject in hand, of which many more Instances might be given; but I would not detain you.

This Author's defence of his Principles from Autho­rity. First, from the Scriptures.We come now to the next Head; that is, his Quotations and Authorities, wherein I will begin with the Scriptures.

And here I must confess he is very modest, he says no more than that he is Apt to believe that the Reasons given for Non-Resi­stance from Scripture reach only Tolerable Evils. Introduct. n. 3. p 3. but he does not answer, nor so much as name any of Those Texts, which he knows are urged for Non Resistance.

Only at the end of this n. 3. p. 4. he brings a Comparison betwixt the Command for observation of the Sabbath, and that of Obedience to Governors, and says, there was a Tacit Ex­ception in the Command of the Sabbath for Works of Ne­cessity [Page 51]and Mercy; and therefore infers, that it may be so too in the Command for Obedience to Governours, though the Command be in general Words, without any Exception, ex­pressed. It being as true, says he, That Governours were made for their Kingdoms, as the Sabbath for Man.

This I freely grant [...]im, That Governours were appointed by God for the good of the People; not that the People were cre­ated merely for the Pleasure of a King, or a Parliament, or any other Governours.

But then I must say likewise, from the Reasons which have been partly told above, that it is for the good of the People, not to have that Latitude left them of Rising up in Arms against their Lawful Governours upon any pretence whatso­ever: because first, such Pretences will never be wanting, nor malicious and designing Instruments to set them on foot; and secondly, a Civil War is of so much more mischie­vous Consequence to the People than any Male-Administra­tor can be, or ever was in any Government.

Next I say to our Author's Argument for the Sabbath, that there is Exception in the Scripture for Works of Mercy to be done on the Sabbath-day; and our Saviour has expresly de­termined it, as our Author confesses. Now let our Author produce any Exceptions in Scripture from the general Com­mand of Obedience to Governours, and they will be allow'd; otherwise this Instance is nothing to his purpose. There is an Exception likewise as to Marriage, in the Case of Forni­cation; but what is this to any other Case save that of Forni­cation? or to any other general Command which has no Ex­ception or Countermand in the Scripture?

I will have Mercy rather than Sacrifice, says the Scripture: Here is sufficient Authority to prefer Mercy to Sacrifice, and it is an Exception from the general Command of Sacrifice. Let the like be shewn as to Government, in any of the Instan­ces which the Author produces, and we have done.

But let us consider what that Mercy is which the Author would recommend to dissolve Government: He has told us in the same Page, to slaughter even half the Nation in a Civil War for Liberty. This we have examined already; and this is the tacit Exception he would have us suppose in the Com­mand [Page 52]of Obedience to Government as well as in that of the Sabbath.

That of the Sabbath, is no tacit Exception; for though it be not expressed in the Fourth Commandment, yet it is in other Scriptures. But the Exception our Author would have to be of the Fifth Command is tacit indeed; for there is nei­ther Precept nor any approved Example of it in all the Scripture, but many of both to the contrary; which are so well known and largely treated of in many Books upon that Subject, that I will not take up your time in setting them down here.

His Precepts disproved from Scrip­ture.I will only give you some few Examples which may an­swer to the very Hypothesis our Author sets up; viz. the Sup­position of a King designing to destroy one main part of his Subjects, in favour of another whom he loves better, and of submitting on­ly to tolerable Evils, &c. which you have heard already.

1. The Jews in Egypt.The first Instance I give is that of the Jews in Egypt; they were about the same time under Egypt that Ireland has been under England, that is, 'twixt four and five hundred years: but with this difference, that the English came into Ireland by Conquest, whereas Israel was invited into Egypt by their King: and it was but a due return of Gratitude from him; for Jo­seph had miraculously saved Egypt from the common Destru­ction which befell the Nations about, and made it the Gra­nery of the World, and the richest Nation upon the Earth at that time. The Jews were a different People from the Egy­ptians, as the Irish from the English; of different Manners, Re­ligion, Interest. They did not live mixed with the Egyptians, nor under their Laws, as the Irish do with the English, but had the Land of Goshen assigned them peculiar to themselves. They lived more like an Independent People than the Irish, yet they suffered the greatest Oppression from their King that ever was in the World. His Design to ruin them was appa­rent, destroying their very Children; and they had given no manner of Cause or Provocation on their side. They durst not offer Sacrifices to the Lord without apparent danger of being ston'd to death: so that they were oppressed most Tyrannically in their Religion as well as their Persons, which were condemned to the Brick-kills. They were able [Page 53]to have delivered themselves,Exod. 12.37. being an Army of Six hundred thousand Men, besides Children, and a great mix'd Multitude. And though God himself sent Moses to deliver them from that Ser­vitude, yet (it is the peculiar Observation of the whole Convoca­tion of the Church of England, and they say it is not to be omit­ted but that we take notice of it, That) God would not suffer Mo­ses to carry the Jews out of Egypt till Pharaoh their King gave them leave to depart. Afterwards also, when the Jews being brought into subjection to the Kings of Babylon, did, 2. In Babylon. by the Instiga­tion of false Prophets, Rebel against them, they were in that respect condemn'd by the Prophet Jeremy; and in all their Captivity (which shortly after followed) they lived, by the Direction of the said Prophet, in great subjection and obedience; they prayed not only for their Kings, and their Children, that they might live long and prosper, but likewise for the State of their Government; the good Success whereof they were bound to seek and regard, as well as any other of the Kings most dutiful Subjects, and thus they lived in Babylon, and other Places of that Dominion, till the King gave them leave to depart; notwithstanding in the mean time they en­dured many Calamities, and were destitute for many Years of the Publick Worship and Service of God, which was ty'd to the Temple, and might not elsewhere be practised or attempted. Thus Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book, c. 28. p. 58.

These Jews were finally Destroy'd, their Temple Burn'd,3. Under the Romans. and City Razed by the Romans, and those that escaped of them dispers'd over the face of the Earth, in Slavery and Servitude, like a cursed Generation; and all this fell upon them, (the same Convocation Book teaches us, c. 33. p. 77.) not only for their obstinacy against Christ and Crucifying of him; but that the immediate and apparent Cause of it was, their obstinate Rebellion against the Emperors of Rome, their then Lawful Governors.

This History of the Jews from their Servitude in Egypt to their Destruction by the Romans, will, in every Circum­stance, more than over-ballance the parallel of the Irish Nation under the English.

You see how God blessed the Jews, protected and delivered them when they submitted to their Lawful Princes, who de­signed, attempted, and almost effected their Destruction and Ex­tirpation. And on the other hand, with what Fury poured [Page 54]out, he visited their Rebellion against their Lawful Gover­nors, though for the Preservation of their Religion, Liberty, Property, and their very Lives.

4. Under A­hasuerus.Who does not know the utter Extirpation and Massacre of the Jewish Nation, not only design'd but expresly ordered by Ahasuerus? And that the Jews would not take Arms in their own Defence, till they had the King's Letters and Com­mission, wherein the King granted the Jews to gather themselves together, and to stand for their Life. Eith 8.11

And the Glorious Effect of this, for the Advantage of the Jews, every one has read.

5. The Gibeo­nites.I might instance here too the Case of the Gibeonites, whom Saul sought to destroy, after their being 400 Years under the Government of the Jews, or Incorporated into one People with them, as the Irish are with the English in Ireland. And their Case was exactly what the Author puts, viz. of a King's designing to destroy one People under his Government in favour of another, whom he loves better; for the Text tells us,1 Sam. 21.22. That Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in his zeal to the Children of Israel and Judah, and that he consumed them, and devised against them,Ver. 5. that they should be destroyed, from remaining in any of the Coasts of Israel.

6. Our Sa­viur Christ.But to come down to Christianity; Christ came with a Commission to form a Society called after his own Name, distinct and Independent from all other Societies and Governments in the World. Of different Religion, Manners, and Interest; Living under different Rules and Governors.

Primitive Christians.Assoon as they appeared, all Kings and Governors fell upon them to root them off from the face of the Earth, and Persecuted them with all the Violence and Rage that Hell could suggest, and Slaughtered them in Multitudes in most Barbarous and Savage manner.

Now what were these Christians to do, to preserve them­selves? Were they to take Arms against their Governors, who thus apparently sought their Ruin, in favour of other of their Subjects whom they loved better?

No: They were totally barr'd from that, and if any so so much as sought to save his Life by such means, he should not only lose it here, but his Soul hereafter. Damnation was preached to those who Resisted their Lawful Governors. Did [Page 55]they judge, with our Author, that their Persecuting Kings had Abdicated the Government of those whom they design'd to destroy?

No; they were taught to own them as God's Represen­tatives, Rom. 13.1, 5. 1 Pet. 2.18, 20, 23. his Deputies, and Ministers, and as such to obey them, with all Reverence, not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake; and that not only to the Good and Gentle but even those who Persecuted them for Well-doing. And they were to take it patiently without Reviling or Threatning.

And this was not for want of Power to do otherwise (it is in any Man's Power to Revile and Threaten) but for Con­science sake.

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.

[Page 56]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 [Page 57]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, Jerobo [...]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 R [...]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 [Page 58]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, that none should withstand him, or rise up against him; and that nothing can be more pernicious to the Commonwealth in any Government, than that the Subjects should have a Power of taking up Arms to defend their Liberty and Religion. — All these are Dr. Hicks his Words in the same Chapter our Author quotes: and whe­ther they all relate only to private Injuries, and the ordinary Male-Administration of Government, as our Author would have you believe, I will not provoke your Patience to say any more towards it, than barely setting down the Words.

But for the Homilies, it may be more material to know if they make for his purpose, because they are every Word confirm'd by Act of Parliament and Convocation, which this Author and all the Clergy have subscribed; and (which is more) Julian Johnson himself, the Patron of Resistance, says, that it is the next best Book to the Bible.

Let us see therefore, whether what they say relate only to private Injuries, or the ordinary Male-Administration of Go­vernment.

From the Ho­milies.And first, for the Original of Government, the first Homily against wilful Rebellion tells you, That it cometh neither of For­tune and Chance (as they term it) nor of the Ambition of mortal Men and Women, climing up on their own accord to Dominion; that there be Kings, Queens, and Princes, and other Governors over Men being their Subjects; but all Kings, Queens, and other Governors are specially appointed by the Ordinance of God. — But to come to our Author's Purpose; The Case is put of Kings that seek to Ruine and Destroy, and Undoe their Peo­ple: and these Scriptures are quoted; When the Wicked do Reign, then Men go to Ruine. A foolish Prince destroyeth the People, and a covetous King undoeth his Subjects. And the Question is put, Whether Subjects may Resist such Princes? Which is ruled absolutely in the Negative with a God forbid! and many Reasons are given, particularly that Rebellion is the greatest of all Mischiefs, and that the naughtiest and lewd­est Subjects are aptest to find Faults, and that it would be un­reasonable to let them be Judges; what Princes were Tolerable, [Page 59] and what were Evil and Intolerable. That a Rebel is worse than the worst Prince; and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto hath been. That such Lewd Remedies are far worse than any other Maladies and Disorders that can be in the Body of a Commonwealth.

But to leave no room for a Reply, the Objection is farther urged; What if the Prince be Indiscreet and Evil indeed, and it is also evident to all Men's Eyes that he is so? Neither is this allow'd for a Cause of Resistance, but on the contrary, we are admonished to Reflect, That it is our Sins have brought such a King to Rule over us. God (saith the holy Scripture) maketh a wicked Man to Reign for the Sins of the People;Job 34.10. for Sub­jects to deserve through their Sins to have an evil Prince, and then to Rebel against him, were double and treble Evil, by provoking God more to Plague them. Nay, let us either deserve to have a good Prince, or let us patiently suffer and obey such as we de­serve. And that you may not think these were only Mode­rate and Tolerable Evils, or Private Injuries, or not Universal enough, immediately after the Case is put, of the Christians under Caligula, Claudius, or Nero, and the Jews under Ne­buchodonosor, who slew their Kings, Nobles, Parents, Chil­dren, and Kinsfolks, burn'd their Country, Cities, yea Jeru­salem it self, and the Holy Temple, and carried the Residue remaining alive Captives with him into Babylon. And then is shewn how both Christians and Jews, by the Command of the Apostles and Prophets, were not only barr'd from Resistance, but were obliged to Pray for these Cruel, Heathen Tyrants, Murtherers, and Oppressors of them, and Destroyers of their Countrey, with a Confession that their Sins had deserved such Princes to Reign over them.

Yet all this is not thought so bad nor mischievous to a Country as Resistance, which, as this Homily says, does more mischief than Foreign Enemies would or could do. And the mischief is more Universal, for the Homily says, Such Rebels do not only Rise against their Prince, against their Natural Country, but against all their Country-men, Women and Children; against Themselves, their Wives, Children and Kinsfolk; and by so wicked an Example against all Christendom, and against whole Mankind, of all manner of People through the wide World.

[Page 60]The second Homily inlarges upon the Case of Saul and David, and then puts the several Pretences for Rebellion into Questions or Demands, which are all resolved from the Command and Example of David. Viz.

Shall not we, specially being so good Men as we are, Rise and Rebel against a Prince hated of God, and God's Enemy; and therefore likely not to Prosper either in War or Peace; but to be hurtful and pernicious to the Commonwealth? Shall we not Rise and Rebel against so unkind a Prince, nothing consi­dering or regarding our true, faithful, and painful Service, or the safeguard of our Posterity? — Shall we not Rise and Rebel against our known, mortal, and deadly Enemy, that seek­eth our Lives? — Shall we not assemble an Army of such good Fellows as we are, and by hazarding our Lives, and the Lives of such as shall withstand us, and with all hazarding the whole Estate of our Country, Remove so Naughty a Prince? — Are not they, some say, lusty and couragious Captains, valiant Men of Stomach, and good Mens Bodies, that do venture by force to kill and depose their King, being a Naughty Prince, and their Mor­tal Enemy? They may be as Lusty and Couragious as they list, yet, saith Godly David, they can be no Good nor Godly Men that so do — And so having answered all the above Queries in the negative, after his own Example, and the Command of God, at last this Quere is put, What shall we then do to an Evil, to an unkind Prince, and Enemy to us, hated of God, hurtful to the Commonwealth, &c. Lay no violent hand upon him, saith David, but let him live until God appoint, and work his End, either by Natural Death, or in War by Lawful Ene­mies, not by Traytorous Subjects. Thus would Godly David make answer; and St. Paul, as ye have heard, willeth us also to Pray for such a Prince.

These are the Rules this Homily sets down concerning Rebelling against Evil Princes, Unkind Princes, Cruel Princes, Princes that be to their Subjects mortal Enemies, Princes that are out of God's favour, and so hurtful, and like to be hurt­ful, to the Commonwealth.

And to shew that all this is not meant only of Particular Persons, but of the whole Nation; it is thus expressed at the end of this Homily, viz. That the whole Jewish Nation (be­ing otherwise a stubborn People) were to be obedient to the Com­mandment [Page 61]of a Foreign Heathen Prince, and this doth prove that Christian Rebels, against Christian Princes, are far worse than the stubborn Jews, whom we yet account as the worst of all People — And howsoever they call themselves, or be named of others, yet are they indeed no true Christians but worse than Jews, worse than Heathens, and such as shall never enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven. And the third Homily speaks in these Words; How horrible a Sin against God and Man Rebellion is, cannot possibly be expressed according to the greatness thereof: For he that nameth Rebellion, nameth not a singular, or one only Sin, as is Theft, Robbery, Murther, and such like; but he nameth the whole Puddle and Sink of all Sins, against God and Man, against his Prince, his Country, his Country-men, his Parents, his Children, his Kinsfolks, his Friends, and against all Men universally; all Sins, I say, against God, and all Men heaped together, nameth he, that nameth Rebellion — And besides the dishononor done by Rebels unto God's holy Name, by their breaking of their Oaths made to their Prince, with the Attestation of God's Name, and calling of his Majesty to Witness.

And in the fourth Homily having shewn the horrible de­struction of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, and others, for their Rebellions and Murmurings, Now, says the Homily, if such strange and horrible Plagues did fall upon such Subjects, as did only murmur and speak evil against their Heads; What shall become of those most wicked Imps of the Devil, that do Conspire, Arm themselves, Allemble great Numbers of Armed Rebels, and Lead them with them against their Prince and Country, Spoiling and Robbing, Killing and Murthering, all good Subjects that do withstand them, as many as they may pre­vail against.— Though not only great Multitudes of the Rude and Rascal Commons, but sometime also Men of great Wit, No­bility and Authority, have moved Rebellions against their Law­ful Princes. — Though they should pretend sundry Causes, as the Redress of the Commwealth (which Rebellion of all other Mischiefs doth most destroy) or Reformation of Religion, (whereas Rebellion is most against all true Religion) though they have made a great Shew of Holy Meaning, by beginning their Rebellion with a Counterfeit Service of God (as did wicked Ab­salom begin his Rebellion with sacrificing unto God) — Yet neither the Dignity of any Person, nor the Multitude of any [Page 62]People, nor the Weight of any Cause, is sufficient for the which Subjects may move Rebellion against their Princes. — And for so much as the Redress of the Commonwealth hath of old time been the usual feigned Pretence of Rebels, and RELIGION now of late beginneth to be a Colour of Rebellion, let all Godly and Discreet Subjects consider well of both; and first concerning Re­ligion, What a Religion it is that such Men by such Means would restore may easily be judged; even as Good a Religion surely as Rebels be Good Men, and Obedient Subjects, and as Rebel­lion is a good means of Redress and Reformation, being itself the greatest Deformation of all that may possibly be. But as the Truth of the Gospel of our Saviour Christ being quietly and so­berly taught, though it do cost them their Lives that do teach it, is able to maintain the true Religion; so hath a frantick Reli­gion need of such furious Maintainers as is Rebellion, and such Patrons as are Rebels.—Now concerning Pretences of any Redress of the Commonwealth made by Rebels, every Man that hath half an Eye may see how vain they be; Rebellion being, as I have before declared, the grearest Ruin and Destruction of all Commonwealths that may be possible. — Wherefore to conclude, Let all good Subjects, considering how horrible a Sin against God, their Prince, their Country, their Country-men, against all God's and Man's Laws, Rebellion is; being indeed not one several Sin, but all Sins against God and Man heaped together; consider­ing the mischievous Life and Deeds, and the shameful Ends and Deaths of all Rebels hitherto; and the pitiful undoing of their Wives, Children, and Families, and disinheriting of their Heirs for ever; and, above all things, considering the Eternal Dam­nation that is prepared for all impenitent Rebels in Hell, with Satan the first Founder of Rebellion, and Grand Captain of all Rebels; Let all good Subjects (I say) considering these Things, avoid and flee all Rebellion as the greatest of all Mischiefs: And, as the fifth Homily ends, knowing these the special Instruments and Ministers of the Devil, to the stirring up of all Rebellions, avoid and flee them, and the Pestilent Suggestions of such Foreign Usurpers, and their Adherents, and embrace all obedience to God, and their Natural Princes, and Sovereigns, &c.

These are the Words of our Homilies, which have much more to the same purpose. But I am afraid I have trans­gressed upon your Patience in repeating so much of them: [Page 63]But I was in more than ordinary concern to see our Author so gravely vouch the Homilies on his side, which might pass with those who have not consulted them; therefore forgive my insisting so long upon them, and I will not trouble you to apply all this to his Hypothesis. I should reckon it an Affront to your Understanding to attempt it. Only, I pray, keep this with you, That you know what stress to lay upon this Author's Confident Vouching.

We are now come to our Author's lesser Quotations, which might be spar'd; for after examining what he offers from Reason, from Scripture, from the Homilies, and Publick Acts of our Church, and from our Acts of Parliament, and the Laws, what Private Writer can have Authority to over-ballance all these?

But, if even those very Authors he quotes either make no­thing for him, or make directly against him; then we must suppose, That he thought his Cause very destitute, when he could find no more to say for it.From Grotius.— He begins with Gro­tius, Introduction n. 1. p. 2. these are the Words of his Quota­tion; This is Grotius's Opinion, says our Author, in his Book De Jure Belli & Pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 11. where citing Barclay, he says,Ait idem Barclaius amitti Regnum si Rex vere hostili animo in totius Populi Exitium feratur, quod con­cedo; consistere enim simul non possunt voluntas imperandi, & vo­luntas perdendi: quare qui se ho­stem Populi totius proficetur, is eo ipso Abdicat Regnum: sed vix vi­detur hoc accidere posse in Rege mentis compote. Qui uni Populo imperet: quod si plu [...]i n [...] P [...]pulis imperet, accidere potest ut unius Populi in gratiam alterum velit perditum. If a King be carried with a malicious design to the Destru­ction of a Whole Nation, he loseth his King­dom; which I grant, since a Will to Govern and to Destroy cannot consist together; there­fore he who professes himself an Enemy to a Whole People, doth, in that very Act, Abdicate his Kingdom: But it seems hardly possible that this should enter into the heart of a King, who is not mad, if he govern only one People; but if he govern many, it may happen, that in favour of one People, he may desire the other were destroyed. 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 [...]ostile Mind, [Page 64]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 [Page 65] 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 [Page 66]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 People; by which we must mean the whole People, as already shewn out of Grotius; otherwise if this Author would have it meant only of a part of the Peo­ple, he should tell us what part, and how circumstantiated, that we might know his meaning. But Dolus latet in Generali­bus. In which this Author has indeed an excellent faculty; for it is harder to know where to have him, than to confute him.

But to the Case in hand: Jovian says, That to suppose this, is plainly to suppose the utmost Impossibility. But supposing it, then our Author quotes him again, saying, that in such a [Page 67]Case, his good Subjects would desert him. By which he means no more, as he there explains himself, than not Assisting him in such wicked Designs, which certainly would be the part of a good Subject. But what is this to Deposing, Abdicating, taking Arms against him, and putting another in his place? But he goes on with Jovian, and quotes p. 152. where he says, He should be tempted to pray for the Destruction of such a Prince. What Ground or Reason does Jovian give for this? He says in the Words immediately before, (which our Author forgot to s [...] down) that all this was upon the Supposition of such a Prince as Julian, who had sinned against a Series of Divine Miracles, and discovered a Diabolical Malice against Christ, and [...] breach of Charity might be supposed upon Scripture Principles to have sinned against the Holy Ghost, and become incapable of Repentance. And upon that Supposition, says Jovian, I should be tempted to pray for his Destruction, as the only means of delivering the Church. Dr. Hicks knew no other way of Deliverance for the Church in the Time of Persecution but what came from God, that is, either God's Converting or Removing the Persecutor who was our Lawful Governour. Now if you will suppose him inca­pable of Repentance, it is a suppose indeed, which we have no certain means of knowing; but supposing it, as old Gre­gory probably did in the Case of Julian, then there is no other way but his Destruction; and whether we should Pray, even for that, is a Question which Dr. Hicks does not determine, unless it be in the Negative: He says, he should be Tempted to pray so. Now whether does this Argue that Praying so was a Duty or a Sin? We are said to be Tempted to Sin, not to our Duty. Lead us not into Temptation, does not mean, Lead us not to our Duty. God tempteth no man, but every Man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own Lusts, Jam. 1.13, 14.4.1. and inticed, as to Curse or Resist his Governors; from which Lusts [...]me Wars and Fightings, says St. James: Therefore Dr. Hicks calling it a Temptation to pray for the Destruction of his Prince, though a Julian, argues that he thought it a Sin; at least, even this Author will not have the Confidence to [...]y, that Dr. Hicks by this Expression was positive in its being our Duty to pray to: But this he was Positive in, viz. That you must do no more than Pray. These are his [Page 68]Words, which follow those this Author has Quoted. I must also declare, says he, that I would do nothing but pray against him. I would draw fourth no Squadrons against him, but such as old Gregory did against Julian, Squadrons of Prayers and Tears. I would Dye rather than Resist him, or those that were put in Authority under him.

Now I would gladly know, What it was which tempted this Author to leave out these Words of Dr. Hicks's, which would have abundantly shewn his Principle in this Matter, to every the meanest Reader: We must conclude that our Author did not intend it, But to amuse them with the first part to mistake the Doctor, as if he had been for Resistance. But his Practice is such an undeniable Comment upon his Writings, That this Author could not have light upon a way to expose both himself and his Book more effectually than by Quoting Dr. Hicks as one whose Opinion he follows.

From Faulk­ner.The last Quotation he brings is from Faulkner's Christian Loyalty, B. 2. c. 5. n. 19, 20. Let us hear the Words he pro­duces. They are these, viz. But if ever any such strange Case as is supposed should really happen, I confess it would have its great Difficulties. Who ever doubted it? I cannot imagine what he brought this for. I suppose all the meaning was to shew, That the Passive-Obedience-Men would not have such Cases to be put. And can you blame them? Disloyal and Seditious Spirits, to stir Men up to Rebellion, do make Cases that never were in the World. And it is next to Im­possible that ever they should be; as a King going about to Destroy All his whole People, or Half, or a Quarter of them.

Who would endure it, if any Man should publish such Cases of the Parliament; as suppose an Act of Parliament were made to Hang every Man at his Door, to Sell the Na­tion to the French, to Massacre the Whole, or Half, or Quarter of the People. If any Man should raise such Suggestions of the States in Holland, and desire to know what the People were to do in such Cases, I suppose there is no Government but would stop his Mouth, without being at the Pains of satisfying his Curiosity. Yet this Author is very Angry that the Non-Resistance-Men should desire such Cases not to be put. Hear Dr. Faulkner's own Words, which our Author [Page 69]thinks do him so great service. But in truth the Case above-mentioned ought not at all to be supposed, or taken into Consi­deration; for there is greater hurt to be feared from the making such Suppositions, than from the Things supposed; since it is much more likely that such Designs should be imagin'd, and believ'd to be true, when they are false, (as they were in the unjust Out­crys, against our late Gracious Sovereign) than that they should be certainly true. And every Good Man, yea every Reasonable Man, may have as great Confidence that no such Case will re­ally happen, as can be had concerning the future state of any thing in this World. Thus Dr. Faulkner.

Our Author may perhaps say, That all this is made out in his Book concerning K. James; but that is begging the Que­stion. And this I may say, I am sure without offence, That this Author will never make any Man believe that K. James did design the Extirpation or Massacre either of the whole Prote­stants in Ireland, or half, or quarter of them. He had them all (except two small Towns) in his mercy for a whole Summer, and did not kill a Man of them; though he be­lieved (and it proved true) that their Hearts were against him, and would Joyn with his Enemies when ever they could (of which their daily Deserting him, and giving Intel­ligence to the Enemy was a Demonstration) yet he preser­ved them from being destroyed, and took pains to hinder those who were ready enough to have done it.

I will not deny out that he might desire to 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 [Page 70]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 [...]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 Peopl [...] is m [...]a [...]t? That this is an Eternal pretence for all Restless Spirits, &c.

[Page 71]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 wou [...]d be glad likewise to have his Opinion of the Carriag [...] of the Protestants towards Queen Mary.The Prote­stants unde [...] Qu. Mary. He will not say but [...]ir Circumsta [...]ces were much more D [...]plorable than under King James, even at the worst that he does represent him. There Numbers were fewer, and she as much bigotted [Page 72]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 proceed. We have now seen our Author's Prin­ciples, and how he has supported them from Reason, and Scripture, and other Authority.— I should now shew you how widely these are different from his former Principles; but I will leave that till we have occasion to give an Account of him, together with others of his Brethren.

The Matters of Fact related by this Au­thor.We will go now to consider his Matters of Fact.

Errors in Judgment may befall good Men, but any wilful Mistake in Matters of Fact is past all Excuse, and is not re­concilable to an honest Intention; especially where we pro­test, before God, as this A [...]thor does, pag 239. That we have not aggravated nor misrepresented any thing against our Adversaries.

Before I enter upon this Disquisition I desire to obviate an Objection I know will be made, as if I were about wholly to [Page 73]vindicate all that the Lord Tyrconnel and other of K. J's Ministers have done in Ireland, especially before this Re­volution began, and which most of any thing brought it on. No, I am far from it: I am sensible that their Carriage in many particulars gave greater occasion to K. J's Ene­mies, than all the other Male-Administrations which were charged upon his Government.

But after K. J. came in Person into Ireland, there was no Act, which could properly be called his, that was not all Mercy and Goodness to the Protestants; and as many of them as do retain the least sense of Gratitude, do ac­knowlege it: Of which you will see several Instances, in clearing the Matters of Fact which this Author Produces.

And I must do that Justice, even to the Lord Tyrconnel, that I have heard several Irish Protestants say, That the Objections they had against him were for his Carriage to­wards them before the beginning of this Revolution; but that afterwards he manag'd with Moderation and Prudence, and more Favour to the Protestants than they expected: And that he was against repealing the Acts of Settlement.

I cannot say I have examined into every single Matter of Fact which this Author relates; I could not have the Opportunity: But I am sure I have the most material; and by these you will easily judge of his Sincerity in the rest, which could not all come to my Knowlege. But this I can say, That there is not one I have enquired into, but I have found it false, in whole, or in part, aggravated or misrepresented, so as to alter the whole face of the Story, and give it perfectly another Air and Turn. Insomuch that though many things he says are true, yet he has hardly spoke a true Word, that is, told it truly and na­kedly, without a Warp.

Wh [...] [...] the A [...]gr [...] s [...]rs [...].But let us come to the Test. I will begin with that Matter of Fact which is of most Importance; that is, who were the Aggressors in Ireland in that miserable Destruct [...]on which was brought upon that Kingdom, and begun, Anno 16 [...]8. Because the Aggressor is not only answerable for the Mis­chief he does to another, but for what h [...] receives himself.

And this Author positively avers, c 3. [...]. 8. n 3. p. 9 [...]. That it was the unanimous Resolution of all the Protestants [...]n [Page 74]the Kingdom, (of Ireland) that they would not be the Ag­gressors, and that they held stedfastly to their Resolution.

And yet, in the same Sect. n. 9. p. 104. he tells of those who did not keep to that Resolution, and that by way of an Excuse. He pleads in behalf of these Protestants, That the Shutting up of Derry against the Earl of Antrim's Regi­ment, was all that was done by any Protestant in Ireland in Opposition to the Government, till K. J. deserted England, ex­cept what was done at Eneskillen, where they refused to Quarter two Companies sent to them by the Lord Deputy.

This was modestly worded; for they not only refused to quarter them, but marched out in Arms against them, to the number of 200 Foot and 150 Horse, and drove them away before they came near the Town; as we are told by Mr. Hamilton in his Actions of the Eneskillen-men, p. 3. who was himself one of them, and then present in the Action.

But what does he mean by saying, That this was all that was done by the Protestants; was not this enough? To seize the King's Forts, to Enlist and Array Soldiers, and march in Arms against the King's Forces? Did our Author re­flect what Construction the Law puts upon all this?

Was this keeping stedfastly to their Resolution of not be­ing the Aggressors? Was this the so deep a Sense of Loyalty, and mighty Veneration to the very Name of Authority, which made them abhor any thing that lookt like an Insurrection against the Government, as this Author just before, in the same Sect. n. 2. expresses it? And yet he confesses that this was acting in Opposition to the Government: For he says, That this was all that was done by any Protestant in Opposition to the Govern­ment, till K. J. deserted England; and yet, as above, That ALL the Protestants in Ireland held stedfastly to their Resolution of not being the Aggressors.

But he proposes some Advantage, by adding this Qualifi­cation, That this was all done before K. J. deserted England.

Here he would bring in the Point of Abdication, which he by this supposes did commence upon K. J's going out of England; and thereby he would justifie all that was done after that time in Ireland.

• First, He has by this yielded the Cause against himself; for he confesses that Derry and Eneskillen had opposed the Go­vernment [Page 75]in Arms before that time; and I will shew you by and by many more Instances besides those of Derry and Eneskillen.
• Secondly, This Author will not venture, for these Reasons, to limit K. J's Abdication to his leaving England; for, as I have quoted him before, p. 14. he avers, That K. J. by endeavouring to destroy us, in that very Act did Abdicate.

I will not repeat what I have said before upon that Point of Abdication; That, even in the Sense this Author and some others take it, it ought to be declared (by their own Principles) in some Convention, Parliament, or Judicial manner, before private Men can lawfully act upon it.

And the Abdication was not determined in the Convention till February 1688. long before which time the Irish Prote­stants were in Arms.

But take it, as this Author here puts it, to refer to the time of K. J's going out of England: His first leaving Whitehall, when he went to Feversham, was the 11th of Dec. 88. but he came back to London, and did not go out of England till Dec. 23. 88.

And it was a good while after, before they knew of it in Ireland. This therefore can be no excuse for what the Pro­testants in Ireland had done long before.

But to come home to our Authors Assertion; Was there nothing done by any Protestant in Ireland, in opposition to the Government, till K. J. deserted England, except that of Derry and Eneskillen?

I am told by persons, who say they were Eye-witnesses, That long before K. J. left England, the Protestants in the North of Ireland were generally all in Arms, appointed them­selves Officers; Inlisted Men; Arm'd and Array'd them; they Regimented themselves, and had frequent Rendevouzes; they appear'd in the Field with Drums beating and Colours flying; they chose Governors of Counties, and appointed Councils and Committees to carry on their Business; they Disarmed the Irish, and such of the Protestants as they suspected not to be Cordial to their Cause: I need not mind you, that all this was not only without any Authority from the King, but that it was not so much as pretended; on the contrary, i [...] appears by what they did after, and boast of here as their [Page 76]Merit, that all this was intended, at least by many of them, in direct Opposition to the King.

You cannot imagine, that they could in a moment march out Horse and Foot in good Order, and all Officer'd, as they did at Eneskillen against those two Companies that were sent to quarter there. It is therefore certain, that sometime before this they had Marshall'd themselves, Inlisted their Men, chosen their Officers, &c. which was Treason by the Law, tho they had not entred upon Action; and I believe no Man in the World, but our Author, will deny this to be in Opposition to the Government: What Government would not think it so? Therefore the shutting up of Derry Gates against the E of Antrim's Regiment, and Eneskillen refusing to quar­ter two Companies sent to them by the Lord Deputy, was not all that was done by any Protestant in Ireland, in opposition to the Government, till K. J. deserted England, as our Author words it. Their former Preparations in order to that Resist­ance they then made, was as much Treason in the eye of the Law, tho not so great Treason, as the Resistance it self.

But when did they begin to make these Preparations? We are told in one of the Accounts, Printed by the Irish Pro­testants, intituled, A faithful History of the Northern Affairs of Ireland, from the late K. James's Accession to the Crown, to the Siege of London-Derry; by a Person who bore a great share in th [...]se Transactions.

We are told in this Account, p. 7. That they began to Arm, and to engage themselves in Associations, about Sept. 88. (before those written Associations which were afterwards published.) In the Prosecution of which Affair, the Lord B. in the Counties of Armagh and Monaghan, and Sir A. R. in Down and Antrim appeared most forward. This was when the report grew hot of the P. of O's design'd Expedition into England; they then, as that Author says, p. 6. did presume too far upon the Opinion of their own strength, and finding the Affairs of England run successfully on the Protestants side, rashly fancy'd themselves able enough to attempt their Deliverance. I am the rather inclin'd to believe him, not only because he says, that himself bore a great share in those Transactions, but I find him so far from being a Friend to K. James, or writing on his side, that he dips his Pen in Gall against him, and [Page 77]represents him even with Virulence; and he writes on pur­pose to vindicate their Proceedings in the North, of which himself, he says, bore a great share, and therefore not like­ly to speak with any Design to Prejudice their Cause; and he tells us quite contrary to our present Author; That the Protestants in the North of Ireland began very early, two Months before the P. of O. Landed here, and were from that time gathering strength, Arming, Marshalling and Training their Men to the Discipline of War, and the use of their Arms (in which I am told they were very diligent) till at length they were able to make that first opposition which our Au­thor speaks of at Derry and Eneskillen.

This was before the P. of O. came into England, and I find a little after, viz. about the end of Novemb. 88. When the happy tydings of the P. of O. Landing had reached our Ears in Ireland (says Mr. J. Boyse, in his Vindication of Mr. Osborn in reference to the Affairs of the North of Ireland, (p. 11.) Mr. Osborn was entrusted by his Brethren the Nonconformist Mi­nisters, and other Gentlemen of Note and Interest in the Province of Ulster, to get some Gentleman or other sent over from Dublin to the Prince, with these following Instructions, sign'd by those two whose names are subscribed in the name of the rest.

• 1. That in our Name you congratulate the arrival of the P. of O. into England, and his success hitherto in so glorious an under­taking to deliver these Nations from Popery and Slavery.
• 2. That you Represent the Dangers and Fears of the Protestants in Ireland, and particularly in the Province of Ulster, and hum­bly beseech him to take some speedy and effectual care for their Pre­servation and Relief.
• 3. That you Represent our readiness to serve him and his Inte­rest in Prosecution of so glorious a Design, as far as we have access.

Subscribed

• ARCHIBALD HAMILTON.
• ALEXANDER OSBORNE.

Accordingly on Dec the 8th. they sent over a Gentleman, now in Town (says the Book) who in pursuance of these Instructions delivered in a memorial enlarging on these heads (for they begg'd no particular favour for a Party) to the then P. of O. the Originals of [Page 78]both which Papers are in my hands, says Mr. Boyse, whose Words these are.

Now I must inform you that the Nonconformists are much the most numerous Party of the Protestants in Ulster, which is that is called the North of Ireland; some Parishes have not ten, not six that come to Church. While the Presbyterian Meetings are crowded with thousands covering all the Fields; this is ordinary in the County of Antrim especially, which is the most populous of Scots, of any in Ulster, (who are ge­nerally Presbyterians in that Country) in other of the Northern Counties the Episcopal Protestants bear a greater Proportion; some more, some less: But upon the whole, as I have it from those that live upon the Place, they are not One to Fifty, nor so much, but they would speak within Compass.

From hence we may conclude, That the abovesaid Ad­dress to the P. of O. may be said to be the Address of the Protestants of Ulster, especially considering that none of the others did Discent from it, I suppose many Joyn'd in it, for the Contest then was, who should be most forward in shew­ing their Affection to the Cause; and who could first meet his Highness, thought they had most title to his favour.

And this our Author knows was before King James de­serted England; and I suppose he will not have the hardi­ness to say, That this was nothing done in opposition to the Government.

I will give one Instance more. We have heard, and this Author could not but know, of the great Alarm of an in­tended Massacre of the Protestants in Ireland upon the Ninth day of Decemb. 1688. The whole of this arose from a Letter said to be found in Cumber-street, which was carried to the Earl of M. discovering the said Massacre intended: The foolish but artificial Alarm of the few Disbanded Irish cutting all our Throats in England did not fly more Incredibly, to be in all Parts of England on the self same Night, than this of the Letter found at Cumber flew through Ireland, and wrought Prodigious Effects upon a People fitted for such an Impres­sion. When this News arrived in Dublin (as the faithful History before quoted tells us, pag. 8.) It so alarm'd the City, that above 5000 Protestants appeared in Arms, that same night; and many Hundred Families embarqued from all Parts [Page 79]in such confusion, that they left every thing but their Lives behind them, and yet all this, as this Historian says, he is very well assured was only a contrivance devised, as the readiest means to engage the E. of M. (who till then was deaf to all arguments for entring into their Association) and to animate a dejected People, who of themselves were backward to all Arguments of that na­ture. Thus the Historian and that Letter did attain its de­sired end, for not only the said E. of M. did heartily engage, and after took upon him to be General of the Association in the North, but the generality of the People, as if all set on fire at one, How to their Arms as readily as they could be commanded, so that the whole North of Ireland appeared on the sudden all in one Blaze, all in Arms, all Marching up and down, and all in confusion, as themselves give the Ac­count.

It was this made Derry shut their Gates, and was the oc­casion of all the confusion that followed. The Man they first pitcht upon for their General was the E. of Granard, who was upon all accompts more competent for that Im­ployment than any amongst the Associators. Pursuant to this Resolution, Mr. Hamilton of Tollimore went to Dublin, to Re­present to his Lordship the number and posture of the Prote­stants in the North, and to invite his Lordship to put himself upon the Head of their Troops. But that Noble Lord would not suffer himself to be perswaded by the seeming Advanta­ges of appearing so early, and in so considerable a Post for the P. of O. wherein he might by all humane reckoning, have turn'd the Ballance of that Kingdom; For he wisely consi­dered, that tho the Protestants in the North were numerous and arm'd, and of Resolution and Courage to excess, yet they were Undiciplin'd, all Voluntiers, and consequently not Party for a form'd Army; he told Mr. Hamilton, that he did not know what it was to command a Rabble. But be­sides, that he had lived Loyal all his Life, and would not de­part from it in his old age; and he was resolved, That no Man should write Rebell upon his Gravestone, this was his very expression, and he pursu'd it, for he not only refused to Command the Associators in the North, but persuaded them to leave off their mad Enterprise, told them they would be ruin'd, as it came to pass, and Sign'd several Proclamations, [Page 80]declaring them Rebels, and summoning them to lay down their Arms.

Now this Alarme of the intended Massacre, and Mr▪ Ha­milton's Invitation to the E of Granard to Command the Army of the Northern Association, was in the beginning of December 88. about the 6th. or 7th. and therefore before K. James left England, and before the shutting up of Derry against the E. of Antrims Regiment, and before Eneskillen re­fused to quarter the two Companies sent to them by the Lord Deputy, which was the 16th. of December 88. as you will see in Hamiltons actions of the Eneskillen Men, p. 3.

So much has the Authors Information fail'd him, when he avers, without any hesitation, That the shutting up of Derry Gates, and this of Eneskillen, as avovesaid, was all that was done by any Protestant in Ireland, in opposition to the Government, till King James deserted England.

Though, as I have shown before, it would not have ser­ved much to the use for which our Author brought it, if it had been done after the King went away, or any time before the Convention declared his Recess to be an Abdica­tion, &c.

But now here is a more material Thing coming; and that is, The Descent of King James's Army into the North of Ire­land in March 1688.

Our Author would make us believe, That it was wholly Causeless, as to any Provocation given by the Protestants, but that it was only a Design of my Lord Tyrconnel's, to involve the Kingdom in Blood, and that therefore he made all the haste he could to send down that Army, and that no Perswasions would prevail upon him to defer fending it till the King should come, lest there should be any Terms proposed or accepted by the People in the North, and so that Country escape being Plundered and Un­done.

This is in his num. 10. § 8. of ch. 3. p. 106 which has this Title in the Heads of his Discoure, viz. Lord Tyrconnel hastned to run them into Blood before King James's Coming. In the num. before, p. 104, 105. he tells us, there was no Pro­vocation, or not Sufficient, given for the Descent of that Army; and here, p. 106. what was the true Cause of it. We will Examine both.

[Page 81]For the first, he asserts, p. 105. They (the Protestants) were not so much as summoned by him (the Lord Deputy.) This shows the unreasonable haste and precipitancy of the Lord Deputy, To send an Army, and enter into Blood, without so much as summoning the offending Party. But our Author goes on, Nor did they (the Protestants) enter into any act of Hostility, or Association, or offend any till assaulted. But finding that continual Robberies and Plunderings were commit­ted by such as the Lord Deputy—had intrusted with Arms and Employments— The Gentlemen in the North, to prevent their own Ruin, entered into Associations, to defend themselves from these Robbers; their Associations did really reach no farther than this; nor did they Attempt any thing upon the Armed Robbers, except in their own Defence, when Invaded and Assaulted by them: Insomuch that I could never hear of one act of Hostility committed wherein they were not on the Defensive— This was all the Reason the Lord Deputy and Council had to call them Rebels, and to charge them in their Proclamation, dated March the 7th. 1688 with actual Rebellion, and with Killing and Murthering several of his Majesties Subjects, and with Pillaging and Plun­dering the Country; whereas it was notorious they never kill'd any whom they did not find actually Robbing— And for Plun­dering, it is no less notorious that they Preserved the whole Country within their Associations from being Pillaged, when all the rest of Ireland was Destroyed And their great Care of themselves and their Country was the Crime which truly provoked the Lord Deputy, and made him except from pardon Twelve of the principal Estated Men in the North, when he sent down Lieut. General Hamilton with an Army, which he tells us in the same Procla­mation would inevitably occasion the total Ruin and Destruction of the North.

This is his Charge, and in his own Words. In Answer to which I will not take Advantage of his misquoting this Pro­clamation, which we may suppose, for that Reason, he for­got to Print among the very many Papers of far less Conse­quence which fill up his Appendix. But we have it Printed in one of the late Irish Protestant Pamphlets, called, An Apo­logy for the Protestants of Ireland, &c. and I have annexed it to this, that you may see it; the Author calls the excepted Persons, Twelve, whereas in the Proclamation there are but [Page 82] Ten. I lay no great stress upon that difference of Number, it will not inhaunce the matter much: But it sh [...]ws, that the Author has not been so exact in his Vouchers as he ought. Of which, or something worse, it is a much greater Proof, that in reciting the Causes which that Proclamation names for the Descent of that Army, he does not keep to the Words of the Proclamation, which instances Particulars this Author could not deny; as Breaking of Prisons, Discharging of Pri­soners— Seizing upon his Majesties Arms and Ammunition, Im­prisoning several of his Majesties Army, Disarming and Dis­mounting them, &c. But the Author wisely avoids naming any of these, least he should be oblig'd to disprove them; only says in general, as you have heard, That the Proclamation charges them with Rebellion, Killing, Plundering, &c.

Which he manfully denies every Word of it. Therefore let us fairly Examine what I have before Quoted our of him. And that we may fix his loose and artificial way of Dealing in Generals, sliding unperceivably from one Matter to ano­ther, and huddliug many Things together to distract the Reader, I will reduce his Charge to these Heads First, That before the Descent of the Army, with whom came the Proclamation dated the 7th. of March. 1688. the Lord De­puty did not so much as summon the Associators in Ulster. Secondly, I will Examine who those great Robbers were in the North, who Plundered the Protestants there. And thirdly, We will see whether the Northern Associators gave no other Provocation to the Government than to defend themselves against these Robbers.

For the First, We are furnished with a Confutation of him, from the very Proclamation he Quotes, viz. That of the 7th. of March 1688. which mentions a former Procla­mation, requiring the Associators to disperse, and promising them Pardon. There was one of this Nature, (I know not if there were any more) dated the 25th. of January 1688. which was sign'd by several Protestants of the Council, as the Earl of Granard, Lord Chief Justice Keting, &c.

Besides this, Mr. Osborn was sent down to the North, by my Lord Deputy before the March of the Army, to use all Perswasions to them to lay down their Arms, to tell them the very Day the Army would March, and he kept it. That [Page 83]though Ten were excepted in the Proclamation, yet he would insist but upon Three; and if it should appear that they took up Arms meerly for Self-preservation, then he would Pardon even the said three Persons also. That he de­manded no more of them than to deliver up their Arms and serviceable Horses, as you may see in Mr Osborn's Letter to the Lord Mazereene of the 9th. of March, 1688. which I have taken out of the abovesaid Apology for the Protestants in Ireland, and affixed to this n. 3.

Add to this the offers which my Lord Deputy sent to the Gentlemen in the North by Sir Robert Colvill, viz. That if his Country-men would continue Quiet in their respective Habitations, they should be only Charg'd with the Incum­brance of two Regiments. This is told in the Faithful Hi­story, p. 10. and this was long before the March of that Army to the North. I have heard of several other Messages, and even Arts, that my Lord Tyrconnel used to Quiet the Disturbances in the North, of which he was, at the begin­ning, very Apprehensive, and used his utmost Endeavours to appease them, as all the Accounts the Irish Protestants have Printed here do with one Consent declare: And I have heard some of them say, That they dreaded nothing so much as that Tyrconnel durst not send an Army against them, and that the Irish would submit without any Opposition, and so they would get no Forfeitures, so much they overvalued, and their Enemies feared the strength of the North, though both lived to see themselves mistaken.

Let this suffice as to the first Point, viz. That my Lord Tyrconnel did not forget to summon the North, before he sent down the Army against them in March, 1688. If repeated Proclamations and Messages may be called Summons.

As to the second, of the great Robbers in the North. We do not speak now of the common Robberies of High-way-men. That has always been, and will be in all Countries, more or less; but of such Armed Bands of Robbers as forc'd the whole North to Arm and Regiment themselves, and enter into Associations and Confederacies, and a formal War to defend themselves against these Robbers, who, he says, were Men intrusted by the Lord Deputy with Arms and Employments; so not common Robbers. And by the Account of all that [Page 84]came from the North, this was so far from being true, that the Irish there were in mortal Fear of the Protestants, and commonly durst not sleep in their Houses, but lay abroad in the Fields least they should fall upon them: No Irish were suffered to live in the Country who did not take out Pro­tections from such of the Protestant Gentry as were allowed by the Associators to grant such Protections: Nor durst they Travel from their own Houses without Passes, The Protestants made them contribute equally, at least, with themselves in all their new Levies, and forced them to work upon their new Fortifications, at their Pleasure, which they did without grudging, and any thing to please those who were absolutely their Masters, and in whose hands they reckoned their Lives to lye every moment; and many Insults and Threatnings they bore from the Commonality of the Pro­testants, who made full use of their finding themselves at Li­berty from all Government, and to domineere over those who were intirely at their mercy: The Faithful History, p. 9. says, Amidst those Convulsions (Robberies in other Parts) the North only remained undisturbed.

Our Author himself, in what I have already quoted, says plainly, That the Protestants kept the whole Country within their Associations from being Pillaged. Where then were these great Robberies he speaks of? He may say, In other Parts of Ireland. But that is not our present subject, but only the Condition of the North. And the Author places the Scene there, when he says, That they (the Gentlemen in the North) did not attempt any thing upon these Armed Robbers, except in their own defence, when Invaded and Assaulted by them, nor killed any but whom they found actually Robbing. So that all this must be in the North, where many Witnesses attest, and the Author himself confesses, there was no such thing. But p 100. he endeavours to prove it from Judge Keating's Letter; the Passage is, p. 349. where the Judge says, In this Juncture of Affairs, the Thieves and Robbers are become numerous, &c.

First, When was this? The Letter is dated the 29th. of Dec. 1688. This, as has been shewn, was after the Associa­tions in the North, and their being actually in Arms. And indeed when the Reins of Government were taken off the Necks of the People, there was nothing but Robbing and [Page 85]Depredations on all hands, which was the natural effect of it. But Judge Keating does not say it was the Irish robb'd the English, nor the English the Irish, for indeed they robb'd one another where they were able, and stood in equal fear, as he tells you, of one another; just as the Parts of the Country were planted, that is, as the Irish or the British were most numerous, or in best posture for War. And he says plainly, p. 348. That the Protestants far exceeded them (the Irish) in the Northern Parts, and were extraordinarily well Arm'd and Hors'd. So that in the North the Irish stood in fear of the Protestants, and therefore they were not the Robbers there.

But our Author draws several Observables, p. 100. from this Letter. 'Tis observable, says he, in this Letter, First, That the Lord Deputy owns— So he makes this Letter the Act of the Lord Deputy; because, as he says before, it was written by my Lord Deputies command, and perused by him. This he only asserts, and we have proof what stress is to be laid upon that; besides, he raises a mean Character of his Friend Judge Keating, to think that he should write Lyes for the Lord Deputy's command: If he did not, then it was not the Irish Army, but the Cottiers and Idlers who were the Robbers. For so his Letter says; And this, says our Author, sufficiently shews the Falshood of the Allegation whereby the Papists would ex­cuse themselves, as if they had not begun to Rob, till the Protestant Associations were set on foot, whereas those were sometime after this Letter, and occasioned by the Robberies mentioned in it.

This is contradicted by every Irish Protestant, and all their Narratives, as has been shewn; but nothing abates the Au­thor's Talent of Asserting boldly. Whence in another Ob­servable upon this Letter, he would have it believed that the Papists were in no fear from the Protestants: Which is not only against Matter of Fact, and fully attested, But it is against common Sence, or even Possibility. Whoever knows the Temper of both Sorts of these Men could never think it pos­sible, That where the Protestants were many more in Number, and all up in Arms, chiefly pretended to be in odium to the Irish Papists, whom they called Bloody Dogs, Inhumane Mur­therers, Cut-throats, &c. and Remember 41. which was the usual Salutation they gave them, Who will think those Irish [Page 86]were not afraid? Yet our Author will by no means allow it, for he has said it.

Now we are come to the third Point, viz. Whether the Northern Associators gave no other Provocation to the Government, than to defend themselves against those Robbers? And this need no longer be insisted on, having shewn, That there were no such Robbers.

But I pray the Author to resolve, If the beginning of their Associating in Sept. 1688. and their actual Address to the P. of O. in Nov. following, was only to save themselves from Robbers? From being Robb'd by those poor Irish whom they had panting under their Feet, in as much Subjection as ever a Hawk had a Lark? He says, The Associators never attempted any thing even upon the Armed Robbers, except when they were Invaded and Assaulted by them.

This was modest indeed! But were the Inhabitants of Eneskillen Invaded or Assaulted by the two Companies, against whom they march [...] out in Arms four Miles before they came near the Town? Or was Derry Assaulted by my Lord of Antrim's Regiment before they Fir'd their Cannon from the Walls against them?

But I have some further Questions to ask, from what I have learn'd out of the Irish Protestants Narratives, and from some of themselves; our Author says, It is notorious, that the Protestants (he means before the Descent of King James's Army into the North in March 1688. for that is it we are speaking of) never killed any whom they did not find actually Robbing. But I must tell our Author, that it is much more notoriously known, and granted by all the Irish Protestants, nemine contradicente, That upon the 11th. of Feb. 1688. there were some of Colonel Cormock O Neil's Troop of Dragoons killed by the Protestant Forces at Tuam upon Loughneagh: the Quarrel you may see in the Faithful History, p. 26. viz. They endeavoured that way to escape the Associators, and get to their Quarters. But the Associate Troops were too wa [...]nful, pur [...]ed them, killed some, and having given them a to [...] Defeat, dispersed that Troop of O Neil's (he was the [...] [...] [...]o [...] Protestant) and built a small Fort at the Pas [...] [...] G [...]r [...]son'd it with Sixty Men. This mightily en­rag'd the Lord Deputy, That the Associators should not [Page 87]be content to stand upon the Defensive, but to be the first that should enter into Blood in a Hostile manner; of which there were several other Instances, Capt. Poe was killed, as he was a Foraging, by the Garison of Newrie.

Eut to return to the Story of Colonel Cormock O Neil; He having frequent Notices sent him from Friends of his about Moyrah where liv'd Sir Arthur Rawden (generally then known by the Name of The Cock of the North, because of his Bold­ness and great Forwardness in carrying on the Association) that Sir Arthur intended to seize him in his House, and make him Prisoner, he, for his Security, retired to Carrickfergus, where part of his Regiment of Foot was Quartered, leaving his Lady at his House near Borogh-shane, with the Chaplain of his Regiment Maurice Dunkin Clark, Vicar of Glanarme in the County of Antrim, within eight Miles of Brogh-shane; thinking that a Protestant Clergy-man, and well known to all that Country, would be a Protection to his Lady, and the House, she being a Roman Catholick, but the Colonel at that time a professed Protestant: She hearing that the Confederate Associators had fallen upon her Husband's Troop of Dra­goons at Tuam upon Logh Neagh, on Mund. 11. Febr. 88. grew apprehensive of danger to her self, and on Tuesday the 12th. she went to Mr. White's House in Borogh-shane, a Presbyterian Minister, who did protect her, not without some difficulty, from a Regiment of the Confederates under the Command of Mr. Adare (then made a Colonel by the P. of O. and since a Knight by K. W.) assisted by Lieutenant Mitchelburn since made a Colonel. These marched through Borogh-shane to the Siege of Carrickfergus (of which presently) upon Ashwed­nesday, 13 Febr. 1688. a notorious Day which they did thus Solemnize!) and would needs Rifle this Lady, because she was a Roman-Catholick, and her Husband a Colonel in Car­rickfergus, which they were going to Besiege. Mr. Dunkin, thinking he might have some Interest among them, at least for his Character, endeavoured to perswade them from such a brutal Action; but they looked upon him as an Enemy, because he was in the King's Service, and they not only Robb'd him, and besides what was his own, took from him a Silver Bowl belonging to the Colonel, but stript him, and his Man, and one Arthur Dobbing, a Gentleman attending [Page 88]upon the Lady; and would have broke into the House to have Robb'd her, if not worse, had not Mr. White violently interpos'd, and had that Credit with them, to preserve the Lady, who was half dead with fear, and could hardly be led into her Coach: But Mr. White went with her him­self, till he brought her near Shanes-Castle, the House of the Lady Marchioness of Antrim, to whom Mrs. O Neil fled for Protection, and where she had a great fit of Sickness, occa­sioned by these Frights. The Associators having let her thus Escape, thought fit to Plunder her House, which they did effectually, leaving nothing they could find belonging to the Colonel, or to her.

Was this Lady, was Mr. Dunkin, were the Servants of the Colonel's House, or his Stock, Goods, and Furniture, actually Assaulting and Robbing these Associators?

Had they read the Comminations of that Day in the Service of the Church, they might have found what Thanks they deserv'd at God's hands; and what Blessings these Nations were to expect for what Things they were a doing that Day. The Anniversary of which Day was Celebrated with the Sa­crifice of Glenco in Scotland, 13 Febr. 1692.

But to Return to our History. The Associators did pro­ceed, and resolved to Besiege Carrickfergus, of which you have a pleasant Account in the Faithful History, p. 27. to 31. They first ordered such Provisions us were design'd for that Place to be intercepted, and amongst others Colonel Edmunston, by command from the Grand Council of the Association, seiz'd on a Boat laden with Provision, at Broad Island; which was intended for my Lord Antrim's private Family. They do not pretend they sound this Boat a Robbing, or that it Invaded or Assaulted them. In short, they actually Besieged Carrickfergus about the 20 Febr. 1688 it is true they did not take it. The Misfortunes of that Siege I leave to the Chro­nicle. But it is not to be doubted they had prevail'd, if they had had either Cannon, Mortar, or Scaling Ladder; for the Men upon command Marcht up, and Fired their Musquets against the Walls; and after they were Saluted by the Cannon from the Castle, they went back again. The truth is, They thought to have Surprised it, but it would not do.

[Page 89]Therefore on the 21^st February 1688. they consulted how to come off with Honor, and enter'd into Articles, not to Surrender the Town, but to Raise the Siege: And these Articles were made to consist with the Reputation of the Confederate Generals of the Association. One was, That Colonel Cormock O Neil should Disband his Regiment (which was not in his Power to do.) Another, That the Earl of Antrim should be Permitted to take such and such Provisions into Carrickfergus; and Permitted to send such Letters to Dublin, as he should shew to the Earl of Mount-Alexander, and other of the Confederate Nobility and Gentry. This was Great! It was taking something more upon them than meerly to Defend themselves from Robbers, when actually Assaulted by them, which our Author says, was all they did.

But it not being likely that these Articles should be kept, therefore (as a Salvo for the future Breach of them) it was put in the eighth Article, That these Articles should con­tinue in force whilst no more Popish Forces were Sent into, or Raised in the Province of Ulster.

The Confederate Associators would not be stinted from Rai­sing what Forces they pleas'd: But they would Limit the King, that he should Raise no more. This was not very likely to hold. And therefore these Articles were not long liv'd. But they serv'd to grace the Retreat of the Confede­rate Army from before Carrickfergus.

The same unfortunate Stars prevented their several De­signs upon the Garisons of Newry and Charlimont. So that though they often attempted, nothing succeeded with them, except my Lord Blaynie's surprising a Troop of Dragoons at Ardmagh, whom they disarm'd, took their Horses from them, and made the Officers Prisoners. Did they find these Men actually Robbing whom they surprised in their Beds, or cureless in their Guard-house?

They were not so lucky in their Design upon Sir Thomas Newcomen's Regiment at Lisburn, though several of the Officers of the Regiment were upon the Plot, as Captain Leighton, Captain Brimingham, Lieutenant Barnes, Lieute­nant Tubman, &c.

And though, as the Faithful History tells you, pag. 12. Gaptain Leighton engaged to disarm the whole Garison, with [Page 90]the Assistance only of as many Men as might serve to bring off their Arms, and that Sir Arthur R. was advanced with 500 Men within five Miles of the Town to make good the Attempt, yet it miscarry'd; the Plot was discovered, and Sir Thomas marched away his Regiment; only those Officers who had ingaged to betray the Guard, and deliver the Arms, thought fit to stay behind, and run the Fate of the Association.

Take notice here that this was one of the two Regiments which by my Lord Tyrconnel's Ingagement were to be the Quota of the North, to free them from all fear, or a possi­bility of their being either Assassinated or Plundered by the Army among them; who, by this means, were so few, as to be perfectly in the Power of the Country, and Sir Tho­mas, who commanded one of them, was a Protestant. The other Regiment was my Lord Antrim's, and both these (as the Faithful History tells, p. 11.) hap [...]ed at this time to be Garison'd in Lisburn, Belfast, Carickfergus, and other adja­cent Places. When upon a solemn Debate by a Committee of such as had Subscribed the Association it was concluded, that both these Regiments should be disarm'd, and the Castle of Carrickfergus secured, in which were Arms for two Regiments more.

Upon the strength of this Attempt they purposed to have oppo­sed Tyrconnel upon equal Terms; and by putting a Garison into the Newry, they hoped to have stop'd that Pass, and thereby to have secur'd the two Counties of Downe and Antrim for the Protestant Interest.

These are the Words of the History. And let our Author judge if this was only Acting upon the Defensive, never At­tempting any thing but in their own Defence, when Invaded and Assaulted by Robbers. Which he asserts as a notorious Truth.

At a Place called Killough in the County of Downe, The Associators seized some Barrels of Gun-powder, which the Lord Deputy was sending to Londonderry.

Long before this, Sir Gerard Irwin a Protestant, whose Estate lies near Eneskillen, carrying Arms, by order of the Govern­ment, to some of the King's Forces in the North, was set upon, in the County of Cavan, by Gentlemen of the Association, all the Arms were taken from him, and made use of to Arm their own Men. They did not find him actually Robbing, nor [Page 91]did he Invade or Assault them. All these things our Author has to Answer.

And many more Instances might be given: They tell me that hardly a Day past in the North, without something of this Nature. The Prison at Cavan was broken open by the Associators, and the Prisoners set at Liberty. The like was done in other Northern Counties; for ought I know in all. Of this the Lord Deputy complains in that same Parliament which our Author quotes of the 7th of March 88. Our Au­thor should have considered, whether these Prisoners or their Creditors were actually Robbing and Assaulting these Asso­ciators, or whether this was no Offence against the Govern­ment, at their own hand, and without Law, to release Deb­tors, Fellons, Thieves, and Murderers? and how he will bring this about to be meerly Acting on the Defensive. As likewise their ordering the Collectors of the Revenue (most of whom, if not all, in the North, joyn'd with them) to bring in to them the King's Money (after the Example of their Friends in England) being for their Majesty's Service. But their Reign was so short, that I think their Accompts amoun­ted to no great matter.

But to make an end of this Head, viz. Whether the Nor­thern Associators gave no other Provocation to the Government be­fore the Descent of the Army in March 88. than to defend them­selves against Robbers? Before this Army came down, they had received Commissions from the Prince of Orange, even before he was declared King in England; for his Commissi­ons bore date before that time, viz. Feb. 5.88. as you will see by one of the subaltern Commissions which was shewn to me, the Copy of which I have annexed numb. 18. These Commissions were brought over by Captain Leighton, whom the Associators sent to the Prince, to manage their Business, and procure thess Commissions, which I am told his High­ness was very unwilling to grant, thinking it rash and un­seasonable; but was over-powered by their Importunity. In short, they not only acted by these Commissions, but pro­claimed the Prince for their King, before the Descent of that Army. This you will allow to be somewhat of a higher na­ture than bare Self-defence against Robbers. And now judge, whether, as our Author says, this, (viz. Defending themselves [Page 92]against R [...]) was all the reason the Lord Deputy and Coun­cil had to call them Rebels, &c. and to send that Army to Reduce them. Yet this Author, from p. 111. to 117. in­veighs bitterly against the Government's disarming the Prote­stants in Dublin 24 Feb. 88. and again by King James's Pro­clamation dated 20 July 89. and makes this no less a Tyran­ny than the French Dragooning, and a plain Design to rob them of all their Estates and Property, and put them to a Mas­sacre.

But because he must foresee how horribly ridiculous, even to madness, it wou'd appear to make all these Declamati­ons for disarming ones Enemies, which none but Fools would neglect, he brings himself off thus. C. 3. s. 8. n. 20. p. 116. It may perhaps be imagined (says he) by those who are Strangers to our Affairs, that we had abus'd our Arms to oppress or wrong our Neighbours, or to oppose the King, and therefore deserv'd to lose them. But it is observable, that it doth not appear that any one Protestant in Ireland, before this disarming, had us'd his Arms to injure any Roman Catholick, nor did they hurt any that was not either actually Robbing them of their Goods, or Assaulting their Persons; no not in the North, where they refus'd to give up their Arms; they kept even there on the Defensive, and offended no Man but when first assaulted: so that there was not the least Reason or Colour to disarm us. Thus our Author; and a great deal more to the same purpose.

You have heard what the Protestants did before the first Disarming, 24 Feb. 89. But the second, which was 20 July 89. was in the very heat of the War 'twixt King James and the Northern Associators: Kirk was come from England, and Riding with his Ships in Lough Foyle, for the relief of Derry. This Disarming was but ten days before Lieutenant-General Mack Carty was defeated, and himself taken Prisoner at Eneskillen, and but eleven days before the Relief of Derry, which was the first of August, and the other the last of July 8 [...]. and a Month after, Schomberg landed with the whole English Army. Yet all this notwithstanding, our Author is very sure, that not one Protestant in Ireland, before this Disarm­ing, no not in the North, had oppos'd King James; so that there was not the least Reason or Colour to Disarm them. This Author knows very well, that long before this the People of Derry [Page 93]took out their Pardon for shutting their Gates against the Earl of Antrim's Regiment; which was a confession of some sort of Guilt. Though none could imagine he had ever been inform'd of these things. It is true he was in Dublin at that time, and so might not know, if you can think that possible. But he has been since in the North, where his Friends and Relations live, and is now in a great Post there, even in Derry, and was a considerable while before he wrote this Book: and if his Intelligence can be so bad, where he pre­tends, it is capable of knowing most, we may justly suspect him in other matters, and where he assumes to pass Judg­ment upon the Arcana of all the States of Europe, as if he had been of the Cabinet Council to all the Governments in Chri­stendom. He tells you, p. 9 where King Charles the Second mistook his Measures; and if he had taken the Author's Ad­vice, wou'd, in all probability, have humbled that French Monarch to the advantage of all Europe. And p. 14 and 15. he reads the same Politicks to France, Savoy, the Emperor, &c. and tells them their true Interest, and what may ruin their Countries. But this is so familiar with him, and you will meet with it so often, that I will not trouble you with Quo­tations; you may trace him by the Observator. Thus much for what he asserts n. 9. p. 105. viz. That there was no Provocation given by the Protestants in the North for the Lord Deputy to send down an Army against them in March 1688.

All this concerns the North, where this Author then was not; but to shew that the Protestants even in Dublin, where the Author was, were not idle, he tells, p. 97. and 98. of a Plot they had; no less than to seize the Lord Deputy himself, with the Castle of Dublin, where the Stores of Arms and Ammunition lay. And this he takes pains to demonstrate to have been very feasible, and discovers plainly a regret, and disdain at their Loyalty who hinder'd it: He in a witty Sar­casm lays the blame upon that mighty Veneration to the very Name of Authority, in which the Protestants had been educated; and particularly he says, Lord Mountjoy laboured to prevent this Plot as if he himself had been to perish in it. That was for his Pains, he needed not to have been so fierce.

[Page 94]But though their not agreeing among themselves, and their being yet tender and unacquainted with Rebellion, and therefore started at the first Sin, like fearful Sinners; tho they had not got rid of the Slavish Non-Resistance Doctrine, (I believe our Author himself was not quite got off it then) yet they had made such Progress at that very Beginning, that none discovered this Plot; and it may be we should not have known it at this distance, if our Author had not oblig'd us with the Discovery; for I never heard of it before; and he tells us that this was long before K. James deserted England. It was when he sent Commissioners to treat with the Prince of Orange: But I think, under favour, that our Author did not do well to make this publick, because it does justifie the Suspicion which the Government had of the Protestants there from the beginning.

But this Author has sometimes a strange faculty of Forget­fulness; for in the very next Words, after telling of this Plot of the Protestants in Dublin, and how prevented, p. 98. he says. The truth is, it was an unanimous Resolution of all the Pro­testants in the Kingdom, that they would not be the Aggressors; and they held stedfastly to their Resolution, as you have heard.

The matter is, in every Paragraph he is too intent to car­ry the Point he is upon to the utmost, lest it should lose by his telling; therefore sometimes he may slip as to the exact­ness of Truth: This is the reason he so often seems to contra­dict himself, and builds that up in one place which he throws down in another. Who would not think he had been in ear­nest. p. 226. where telling how Julian the Apostate put off the Primitive Christians Petitions for Justice, by telling them, their Master advised them to be patient, and pronounced them bles­sed when persecuted. And we, says this Author, did exactly fol­low this Advice, though given in raillery, and did not make the least step to right our selves by Force, till God's Providence appear­ed signally for these Kingdoms, in raising them up a Deliverer; and putting the Crown on their Majesties Heads. Thus our Author. This was to let People think, if they pleased, that the Prote­stants in Ireland did not make the least step to right themselves by Force against King James till the Coronation of K. W. and Q. M. But if that will not pass, then our Author saves him­self by saying, he did not mean that, but till God raised [Page 95]them up a Deliverer. And when was that? I suppose as soon as they knew of the P. of Orange's Design to come and help them: and that was as soon as King James himself does charge them with it. This Author means, they would not take Arms, till they thought to do some good with them: But why did he joyn these two Terms of the Prince's first De­sign and his Coronation, so close together, with the Copulative And, as if he had been speaking of the self same Action? It was to give you leave to take it for the same, it you did not mind it. But all this while, where is this suffering Persecu­tion, which this Author says, they did so exactly follow? He means, they suffered while they could not help it.

But let us go on to some more of his Matters of Fact.

Of Lord Tyr­connel's haste to run the Nation into Blood.The next Paragraph, c. 3. §. 8. n. 10. p. 106. he says, That the War was wholy imputable to my Lord Tyrconnel, who could not be prevailed with to defer sending the Army to the North till King James should come, who was then soon expected, but that he hasted to make the Parties irrecon­cileable, by engaging them in Blood, and by letting loose the Army to Spoil and Plunder. That my Lord Tyrconnel stood in fear of the North, instead of provoking it, I have shewn, and is to be more at large seen in the above Quoted Narra­tives.

But in the next place, as to letting loose his Army to Spoil and Plunder.

The Prote­stants in Ire­land worse treated by K. William's Army than by K. James's.I am sorry we have it to say that they treated the Prote­stants in the North, after all the above said Provocations, with much greater Humanity (whether then put on, or natural, I will not dispute) than their Fellow-Protestants used them when Scomberg went over about the end of August, 1689. who (as I am informed by undeniable Vonchers) committed ten times more Devastations and Barbarities upon the Protestants in a Month than the Irish did from March to August; when all the North, except the Towns of Derry and Enneskillen, were absolutely in their Power.

I suppose you will admit Dr. Gorge as a good Evidence in this Case, who was at that time Secretary to the General Sch [...]mberg, and therefore had best reason to know. Besides in [...] Letter directed to Colonel Hamilton (which I have in­serted [...] 2. Appendix.) he appeals to him (whose Estate [Page 96]lies in that Country) and it was notorious to all the Pro­testants there. In this Letter, the Dr. tells, how it was Re­solved to treat the Irish Protestants of Ulster rather as Enemies than Friends,—that the Goods and Stocks of the Protestant Inhabitants once seized by the Enemy were Forfeited and ought not to be Restor'd, but given as encouragement to the Soldiers—that their (the Pro­testants) Oaths and Complaints were neither to be Believed nor Redress'd, that so an easier and safer approach might be made to invade the little left them by the Irish— That free Quartering was the least Retaliation that Protestants could give, for being Re­stored to their former Estates— If you add to these, the Pressing of Horses at pleasure, Quartering at pleasure, Robbing and Plun­dering at pleasure, Denying the People Bread, or Seed of their own Corn, though the General by his publick Proclamation requires both, and some Openly and Publickly contemning and scorning the said Proclamation, whereby Multitudes of Families are already reduced for want of Bread, and left only to Beg, and Steal, or Starve. These being the Practices, and these the Principles, and both as well known to you as to me, it cannot be wondered that the oppress'd Protestants here should report us worse than the Irish.

May be you may think that these poor Protestants had provok'd the Army some way. No, says the Dr. To me it seems most strange, but yet it is true, that notwithstanding all the Violence, Oppression and Wrong, done by these (the Enneskillen and Derry Forces) and other of our Army on the Impoverished, Oppressed, and Plundered Protestant Inhabitants of this Province (Ulster) and the little Encouragement and great Discouragements they have had from us, yet you know what I esteem as a great Presage of future Good, they continue and remain as Firm and Faithful to us, as the Irish Papists against us. How frequently do we hear them tell us, That though we continue to Injure them, Rob and Destroy them, yet they must Trust in us, and be True and Faithful to us? &c.

These are the Words of the Doctor's Letter, and I sup­pose will be thought but an over good Retortion of this Au­thor's Objection, viz. of the Spoil and Plunder committed by King James's Army. Whose Discipline and good Govern­ment the Dr. in that same Letter does commend exceedingly above that of King William's Army.

[Page 97]And now as to the other Point, viz. My Lord Tyrconnel's haste in sending that Army into the North, I suppose our Author intends this for Politicks: and upon that head (with­out medling with the Goodness or Badness of the Cause) I think my Lord Tyrconnel was rather too slow, to suffer the Protestants in the North to be Arming, Inlisting, Associating, against the Government, actually Assaulting the Kings Forts and Garrisons, Disarming his Souldiers, and killing some of them; at last, publickly renouncing the King, and proclaim­ing a Foreign Prince for their King, and acting in his Name, and by his Commission; and all this was a doing, and visi­bly carrying on from September to March, which truly in Po­liticks was rather too long to suffer it to run. And if that Ar­my had not gone down when it did against the Associators in the North; it wou'd never have been able to reduce them as it did: which appears by the Defence a few of them made afterwards at Derry and Eniskillen. And therefore I do not see any ground to blame my Lord Tyrconnel for sending that Army so soon, considering that he thought it a good Cause in which he was engag'd. But especially considering that our Author himself calls him a Fool for not dealing more briskly with the North in time. He laughs at the Lord Deputy for leaving Derry so ill guarded, as that they were able to seize it; It proceeded (says this Author, c. 3 [...]. 8. n. 6. p. 103.) from his (the Lord Deputies) own Igno­rance or Negligence, who had left that Garrison, the only one of any considerable Strength in Ulster, where most Protestants lived, without one Soldier to guard it. This is the Thanks be got for giving them that Opportunity which they had, and they cry out upon him as a bloody-minded Man because he would not give them longer time, then above three Months after their first seizing of Derry; for it was so long before he sent the Army against them. It was the 7th or 8th of December 88. that the Protestants seized Derry the first time, and the Irish Army did not come to Drommore in the North till the 14th of March following, tho all that time the Protestants were im­proving their Opportunity, and every day committing Insults upon that small part of the Army (only two Regiments) which was Quartered among them: But, as our Author says [Page 98]in the same Page, the Lord Deputy bethought himself too late of his Error, but could never retrieve it.

Mr. Boyse's Narrative, p. 13. says, That my Lord Tyrcon­nel deferr'd the sending down his Army twenty days after it had been first resolved on in Council.

I have another Account which confirms all this; viz. The Earl of Granard upon his leaving Dublin, about the beginning of Feb. 88. to go to Castle Forbes, desired a Person who went with him as far as Chappelisard, to pretend some Business with my Lord Deputy, on purpose to find out whether he designed to send the Army against the North; and that Person went to the Lord Deputy that same day, and asked him why he would suffer a Rabble in the North to affront the Govern­ment; seeing a few of the Army would disperse them, the Lord Deputy adswered, That he was unwilling to ingage in Blood, hoping they would of themselves reflect and come to a better temper. But that now since GeneralThis was a Son of the Lord Masse­reen's, whose Souldiers as­saulted the King's Forces at Tuam. Scevington had made the first Rupture by falling upon and killing some of the Souldiers at Tuam he would send with what Expedi­tion he could to Quash the Rebellion, and let them blame themselves for the Consequence. This I have from that Person himself; and yet the Army did not go to the North till the 11th. or 12th. of the March following.

But this Author says (as above c. 3. § 8. n. 10.) that if he had delayed a little longer till King James had come, then in all Probability, if King James himself appeared amongst them, and offered them Terms, they would have complied with him at least so far as to submit Quietly to his Government.

If the Author thinks this, I confess, he is the first Prote­stant of Ireland that ever I found of that Opinion.

And the issue did pretty well prove it: For after, when the Associators were beaten, at Drumore, at Colerain, at Clady, and driven into Derry and Enneskillen, and when King James appeared amongst them, and offered them what Terms they pleased, they value themselves upon refusing all Terms, and holding out: But may be this Author thinks, That if they had beaten King James's Army, they would have been better disposed to have received Terms from him.

[Page 99]But, pray,The Author's Character of K. J. how does all this agree with the Character which this Author raises of K. J. in this Book? Wherein he represents him as a faithless, merciless, and bigotted Tyrant, who designed to destroy all the Protestants, and went as far in it as he could, and employed Persons most inclined and fitted to do it; and that no Trust was to be given to his Word, or to his Oath, &c.

And yet this is the Man, whom in all probability, this Author says, the Protestants in Ireland would have submit­ted to, if he had but appeared amongst them, and offered them Terms.

But I must tell the Author, That as to K. J. in his own Person, there is another Man has given his Character, who had more reason to know him than this Author, and is at least as good a Judge; that is the Lord Danby, (stil'd at present Lord Marquess of Carmarthen) who in the Speech he made to the Gentlemen assembled in Yorkshire, Lord Danby's Character of K. J. in the Infancy of this Revolution, represented K. J. to them un­der as fair a Character as could be given of a great Prince and a good Man; and that no Nation in the World would be happier in a King, if he were but rescued from the evil Counsel of the Priests and Jesuits, &c. And I never heard any about his Person say, but that he was a very good natur'd Man. Even his Enemies charge his Miscarriages to his Zeal for Religion: A very singular fault in these Times!

And even as to his Carriage in Ireland, K. J. opp [...] th [...] Act of At­tainder, [...] Repeal of [...] Acts of Settle­ment▪ I have heard not a few of the Protestants confess, That they owed their Pre­servation and Safety, next under God, chiefly to the Cle­mency of K. J. who restrained, all he could, the Insolence and Outrage of their Enemies; of which I can give you some remarkable Instances, and good Vouchers. I appeal to the E. of Granard, whether Duke Powis did not give him Thanks from K. J. for the Opposition he made in the House of Lords to the passing the Act of Attainder, He encouraged the Protestant Lords [...]o sp [...] against it [...] Pa [...]lia [...]. and the Act for Repeal of the Acts of Settlement; and desired that he and the other Protestant Lords should use their En­deavours to obstruct them. To which, the Lord Granard answered, That they were too few to effect that; but if the King would not have them pass, his way was to en­gage [Page 100]some of the Roman Catholick Lords to stop them. To which the Duke replied, with an Oath, That the King durst not let them know that he had a mind to have them stopt. And yet this Author, c. 2. s. 5. n. 3. p. 23. would have us believe That the Duke used his Interest with the King to put a stop to them, but was not able to do it. I farther appeal to that noble Lord the E. of Granard, whether the same day that the News of the driving the Protestants before the Walls of Derry come to Dublin, as his Lordship was going to the Parliament House, he did not meet K. J. who asked him where he was going? His Lordship answered, to en­ter his Protestation against the Repeal of the Acts of Set­tlement: Upon which K. J. told him, That he was fallen into the hands of a People who ramm'd that and many other things down his Throat. His Lordship took that occasion to tell his Majesty of the driving before Derry. The King told him that he was grieved for it; That he had sent imme­diate Orders to discharge it; and that none but a barba­rous Moscovite (so he stiled General Rosen, who comman­ded that driving, who thereby it seems was bred or born in Moscovy,) could have thought of so cruel a Contrivance.

Let me add to this Testimony of my Lord Granard's what I had from the Mouth of a Scots Clergyman, who be­ing in King James's Army the 26th of June, 1690. (the Thursday before the Boyne) asked Major-General Maxwell, a Roman Catholick, how K. J. came to pass the Act of Attainder, and the Repeal of the Acts of Settlement, being at that time so visibly against his Interest? The General replied, Sir, if you did but know the Circumstances the King is under, and the Hardships these Men (the Irish) put upon him, you would bemoan him with Tears, instead of blaming him. But what would you have him to do? All his other Subjects have deserted him; this is the only Body of Men he has to ap­pear for him; he is in their hands, and he must please them. Yet this Author affirms confidently, c. 3. s. 12. n. 20. p. 163. That K. J. of his own accord was the first who motioned the Repealing of the Acts of Settlement, in his Speech at the opening of the Parliament in Dublin. But the Author has not annexed that Speech in his long Appendix, where many other Papers of greater Bulk, less Consequence, and much [Page 101]harder to be procured, are inserted at large: But no doubt he had a Reason for it; therefore I have annexed it to this, No. 1. and there you will see not a Word of what this Author avers, but rather the contrary, viz. That the King did not desire a Repeal of the Acts of Settlement, but only a Relief to such as had been injured by those Acts, which may happen in the justest Acts in the World, especially of the Settlement of a whole Nation, after such a Rebellion and terrible Revolution as that of 41. And K. J. there desires no farther for them, than may be consistent with Reason, Justice, and the publick Good of his People. All the Words of his Speech, which relate to the Acts of Settlement, are these, I shall also most readily consent to the making such good and wholsom Laws as may be for the general Good of the Nation, the Improvement of Trade, and the Relieving such as have been injured by the late Acts of Settlement, as far forth as may be consistent with Reason, Justice, and the Publick Good of my People. These are his Words; and if our Author had set them down, he would have thought it a hard Task to have found fault with them. I never heard any Protestant say but that there were many hard Cases, and even unjust, in the Acts of Settlement: But they excuse it, by saying that it is impossible to be otherwise in so general and great a Settlement, where so many thousands are concerned; and that it is better to bear with that, than to unsettle a Na­tion, which may have worse Consequences, and fall into the like Mistakes again and again. And this seems to be King James's Sense of that Matter all along. But will any say that such as shall appear to be injured ought not to be redressed, if a way can be found agreeable to Rea­son, Justice, and Publick Good? This would be to plead ex­presly against Reason and Justice, and likewise against the Publick Good. I am told that King James's meaning was, to have a Sum of Money raised for such as had been injur'd by the Acts of Settlement; but by no means to encroach upon the Acts: And what Fault could our Author have found with this? unless he thinks that Justice ought not to be done to the Irish, or not to be executed against Prote­stants; which may be the Reason why in all his Railings at the cruel Act of Attainder, he has forgot to give one [Page 102]Reason why Rebels should not be attainted, or why these Irish Protestants should not have been so dealt with, suppo­sing them to be Rebels, as K. J. and that Parliament did certainly suppose. But was it not very cruel to attaint so many? To this they will reply, was it not as cruel, and more criminal, that so many should be Rebels? But this is said only for Arguments sake; for it is most certain that K. J. did not propose, nor was inclined, either to this Act of Attainder, or to the Repeal of the Acts of Settlement, as this Author slanderously reports of him; but with exceed­ing ill luck as to his Vouchers, of which he gives another Instance, c. 3. s. 12. n. 2. p. 145. where he says it is cer­tain Chief Justice Nugent and Baron Rice succeeded in their Design, when they came over to England, in Spring, 88. to concert the methods of Repealing the Acts of Settlement. Whereas all here upon the place know that K. J. did then positively refuse to consent to it; which my Lord Sunder­land does witness in his Letter of the 23 of March, 89. and says that the King was resolved not to think of that year, and perhaps never. And yet this Author confidently quotes that very Letter in this same place, as a Voucher on his side; but 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 [Page 103]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 [Page 104]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, P [...]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 [Page 105]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 against the Repeal. In his Book where he comes to prove this, he only says that the Protestants were denied to be heard at the Bar of the Lords House, and an Order made that nothing should be offered in their Favour. First, This is only his saying, he produces no such Order, nor any Vouchers. Secondly, If the Lords made such an Order, What is that to the King? They did many Things against His Will, as I have shewn the Repeal it self to be; and this Author knows it, yet he char­ges all upon K. J. himself. Well! God forgive this Author, he has written every Word with the Spirit of Malice against his much injur'd Sovereign, to whom he had sworn, who fell by other Mens Faults rather than His own; and being down, all press upon Him, and try who can wound Him deepest; even those who Flattered Him, Addressed to Him, and were obliged by Him when in Power.

This Author was guilty of Treason against K. J. when un­der His Proto­ction and Favor.Nay, I have been told, That the Author owes it to King James's Mercy, that he now lives to thank him for his Goodness. Was not be accused for holding Correspon­dence, and giving Intelligence to the Rebels (as they were then called) both in England and the North of Ireland? [Page 106]And was it not true? Did he not give frequent Intelligence to Schomberg by one Sherman, and keep constant Correspon­dence with Mr. Tollet and others in London? He knows this would have been called Treason in those days, and a bloody­minded Tyrant would have found another Remedy for it than a short Imprisonment.

And you may see, by the vast number of Papers which he kept, and Entries of all that past to K. J's Disadvantage, that he all along intended him the Kindness he has now pay'd. I suppose he will not deny it. He makes no Secret of it, but plainly justifies it, c. 3. s. 20. n. 6. p. 224. Nor can any reasonable man (say she) blame those amongst us who desired or assisted in this Deliverance, and to their utmost power laboured to procure it.

One would reasonably ask upon this, How it came to pass that so very few Protestants lost their Lives in Ireland under K. J. being so universally involved in Treason against him. Our Author in answer to this, c. 3. s. 3. p. 179. (but it is falsly pag'd, it ought to be p. 187.) among other Reasons, gives this for one, That they (the Protestants) were so true to one a­nother. Which this Author repeated, and further explain'd, soon after the Revolution there, in a Letter to an Irish Pro­testant Bishop then in London; wherein he said, That tho it was in almost every Protestants Power to hang the rest, yet, they were so true to one another they did not discover it. This shews how generally they were guilty of Treason against K. J.

Add to this what I have been told by Protestants then in Dublin, That K. J. had once so good an Opinion of this Author, that he had him frequently in private, and trusted him in his Affairs, till at last he found him out; and his old Friend the Lord Chief-Justice Herbert was so far mistaken in him, that he vouched for him at the Council-Table with so much zeal, as to say, That he was as Loyal a Man as any sat at that Board; which did retrieve this Author from some Inconveniencies that then lay upon him, and continued him some time longer in the King's good Opinion.

There is another Passage very surprizing. I know a Person to whom this Author wrote about Sept. 88. when the News was hot of the Prince of Orange's intended De­scent into England; and before the Depositions concerning [Page 107]the P. of Wales were published; and this Author did in his Letter mightily bemoan that there was no care taken to make some proof of his Birth, to stop the Stories were every where spread about it, without any Answer to them, which made some give the more Credit to them. If, said this Author, any thing of this sort were done to satisfie ra­tional Men of the Birth of the Prince, I am confident the Church of England would once more (as in the Bill of Exclusion) venture to oppose the Current of the Nation, and stand by the Truth. Accordingly, when all this was done by the Depositions which were published in October, 88. we heard of no more Objections from this Author, as to the P. of W. and suppose he was satisfied; of which no Man could doubt, with any tollerable Charity for a Man of this Author's Character, considering that till the Battel of the Boyne he did acknowlege this same P. of W. as P. of W. in his solemn Addresses to God, in the face of the People: Nay, even after the Boyne, a Gentleman told me that this Author did mightily complain to him, That the Parliament in England had neither proved the Imposture of the Prince of Wales, nor the French League, with which the Nations had been so allarmed; and that it was impo­sing upon the Nation, to think to make them swallow these things without Proof. And yet, all this notwithstanding, in his Thanksgiving Sermon, 16 Novemb. 90. for the. Vi­ctory of the Boyne, &c. he speaks of that League with as much Assurance as if he had transacted it himself, and makes it the chief head of his Declamations against K. J. and the great Reason for our Abdicating of him; a Taste of which I have given you before: And of the P. of W. he says in the same Sermon, p. 16. That it was not so much as a well contrived Cheat. And, p. 5. We all are satisfied, says he, that this (Popish Contrivance) was the only Womb that conceived a P. of W. for us, and gave him a Birth. He tells us not what new Light he had got in these Particulars; but you ought to suppose that he was very well assured of them, before he brought them into the Pulpit; and yet being so well assured) as this Author himself perhaps, if not, others of his Brethren will tell you now) That he, with the rest of the Dublin Clergy, pray'd daily for this ill contrived [Page 108]Cheat, The gross Hypo­crisie of the Irish Clergy, in Praying for K James and the Prince of Wales. as P. of W. and for his Father too, That God would give him Victory over all his Enemies, when that was the thing they least wisht, and confess that they laboured all they could against it: Good God! what Apprehension, what Thought had these Men of their publick Prayers; bantring God Almighty, and mocking him to his Face, who heard their Words, and saw their Hearts! Is not Atheism a smal­ler Sin than this, since it is better to have no God, than to set up one, to laugh at him! I am not able to spare them in this.

Before the Association in the North of Ireland, Septemb. 88. they prayed for K. J. The beginning of March fol­lowing, they proclaimed the P. of O. King, and prayed for him. The 14th day King James's Army broke their Forces at Drommore, in the North of Ireland, and reduced all but Derry and Eneskillen.

Then they prayed again for K. J. That God would strengthen him to vanquish and overcome all his Enemies. Au­gust following, Schomberg went over with an English Army. Then, as far as his Quarters reacht, they returned to pray the same Prayer for K. William; the rest of the Protestants still praying for Victory to K. J. and for the P. of W. and yet now they tell us, That all that while, they all meant the same thing; four times in one Year Praying forward and backward, point blanck contradictory to one another: And one would believe that they never thought of it, or considered whether it was a Fault or not: For, as if there had been no such thing, they tell K. W. in their Address to him, No. 26. Appendix. We do not doubt, say they, but God will hear the Prayers of His Church, and Crown your Ma­jesties Arms with Success, &c. And so they go on most Loy­ally to make him a Present of their Prayers; and assure his Majesty, That, with the most hearty Importunity, they would pray for him. This, I suppose, was put in, that he might not think they would pray for him, as they did for K. J. that is, Hypocritically, and against their own Heart, to that Degree, that the Bishop of Meath, in his Speech, at the head, and in the name of the Dublin Clergy, (No. 8. Append.) takes pains to clear himself and them to K. W. from ha­ving been so much as Trimmers towards K. J. while he [Page 109]was there among them; that is, they were his inveterate Enemies, [This was about a Week after this Bishop offered his Service to K. J. to attend upon him to the Boyne.] and their Praying for him all that time was only matter of Form, to please him: It was at once both innocent and neces­sary, [to keep to the Bishop's Words] and fit to be observed to a Power that was able to Crush us far worse than it did. Who would stick out for a little praying? God knew their Heart, that they did not mean a Word of what they said, even while they received the Sacrament, where they pray'd for K. J. at the very Altar, as they do now for K. W. and in the Collect after the Ten Commandments, they did ac­knowlege before God, That K. J. was His Minister, and had His Authority; and prayed for His Grace faithfully to serve, honour, and humbly obey King James, in God and for God▪ according to his Blessed Word and Ordinance; and yet at that time they thought him not God's Minister, nor to have His Authority; were not resolved, nor thought it their Duty to serve or obey him, nay, not so much as to Trimm on his side. They thought him not their lawful King, but that K. W. was their King, and had God's Authority; and that they were obliged to obey K. W. in God, and for God, according to God's Blessed Word and Ordinance, whom yet in their Address to K. J. they call an unnatural Usurper. Was there ever such broad hardened Affronting God to his Face? What did these Divines, or others, think, when they received the Sacrament with such a Lye in their Mouths? It makes ones Hair stand on end!

O God, look not upon this, forgive the Iniquity of our holy things!

Will this Method persuade Men to have Regard to your Prayers, or your Principles?

But nothing of all this touches upon our Author; he is still very confident, p. 238. That they were not guilty of any servile or mean Compliances, or, as the Bishop of Meath words it, of no Compliances, but such as were at once both inno­cent and necessary.

What will our Adversaries say to this Excuse? Was it both innocent and necessary in them to abhor and detest K. W. (whom they thought their only true and lawful King) [Page 110]as an unnatural Usurper, and all those as Rebels and Tray­tors, who took his part; and to plight their Faith, and pro­mise their Allegiance, as they do in the abovesaid Address of Parliament, with one Voice, Tongue and Heart, to K. J. whom they thought to be no longer their King, but to have Abdicated? And yet they did thus endeavour to per­suade him into an intire Confidence and Dependance upon their Loyalty to him; making him a Tender of their Lives and Fortunes, against the said Usurper the P. of O. and his Adherents, and all other Rebels and Traytors whatsoever.

If these were not servile or mean Compliances, I desire the Author to tell us what can be so? Most solemn and Par­liamentary Lying upon Record, in the Face of the World, and to all Posterities! Perjury, Dissimulation and Treachery to the last Degree; persuading that Prince to trust them, whom they at the same time were resolved to destroy! And that no humane Eye should discover them, they car­ried on their Hypocrisie, even to pray solemnly to God every day in their Churches, for Victory to K. J. when now they all tell us, that in their hearts they wisht it to K. W. If to deceive Men, was neither servile nor mean, was it both innocent and necessary thus to mock God?

Was there not (may Papists say) just Grounds for what this Author tells of K. J. c. 3. s. 20. n. 4. p. 222. That he ‘gave Advice to the Earl of Salisbury's Brothers, to be­ware of the Company of Protestants; but above all, says this Author, he forbad them conversing with the Bishops and Clergymen; for, said he, they are all false to me, and will pervert you to Disloyalty and Treason.’ This the Author calls loading the Protestants with the most odious Calum­nies and Misrepresentations. But suppose K. J. or any of his Friends, should ask this Author, whether one Word of it was false? Will he say that they were true to K. J. or did pray sincerely for him what they daily repeated in their Common Prayers? And consequently that they gave no manner of Ground, but were perfectly innocent of the Charge with which this Author says the Papists loaded them, viz That they had no Religion at all; that they only pretended to it, but were Atheists and Traytors in their Hearts?

[Page 111]It is true indeed they treated K. J. with all imaginable Demonstrations of Loyalty and Affection (but how sincere themselves will tell you now) wherever he came the Bi­shops and Clergy were the first to make their Court. He Landed on Tuesday the 12th of March 1689, at Kinsale, next Morning the Vicar, Mr. Thoms, went to the Fort to kiss His Majesty's Hand, being introduc'd by the Lord Bi­shop of Chester, as he tells in his Journal; and, says he, on Thursday the 14th of March, we came to Cork, and lodg'd at the Bishop's Palace, and I brought the Bishop and the Clergy to the King, who receiv'd them very kindly. Fri­day the 15th I went with the Bishop of Cork to the King's Levee, and tarried at Court till I saw the Rebels of Bandon at His Feet, and the Minister in an Elegant Speech begging their Pardon, which he granted them. And the Bishop of Cork constantly attended at the King's Levee, while His Majesty stay'd there. Friday the 22d of March, K. J. came to Kilkenny, where the Bishop and Clergy were intro­duc'd by the Bishop of Chester to kiss His Majesty's Hand, who received them very graciously. Sunday the 24th the King came to Dublin. Monday the 25th (1689) Primate Boyle, Arch-bishop of Ardmagh, advised the Bishop of Che­ster to accept of the Bishoprick of Cloghor then void: which was owning K. J. to have had at that time full right to con­fer it, and consequently to be Rightful King. But that was fully and absolutely owned, in ample form, on Wednesday the 27th of March, 1689, by the Bishop of Meath, and Proctor of the University, in the Name, and at the Head of the Body of the Clergy, and University. The Bishop printed his Speech, and is inserted, No. 8 Append. But the Proctor, thô commanded by the King to print his Speech, modestly declined it, he was more cautious, and considered, that it was framed only for that Juncture, and is very well satis­fied that we have it not now to print with the Bishop's. Tuesday the 2d of April, 1689, K. J. told the Bishop of Chester that complaint was made to him, that the Clergy of Dublin did not readily pray for the Prince of VVales

Upon which Notice the Dublin-Clergy met, and consulted, and thô they did not believe the reality of the Prince of VVales, yet they resolved the King should not have that [Page 112]Pretence against them, they would trust themselves in the Hand of God rather than Man, presume Deliberately to act the Hypocrite with God, and pray against their Conscien­ces, rather than displease the King. But enough of this before.

There is another thing: Not one of these complying Irish Protestants but will freely acknowledge, That if K. VV. or any other King should turn Papist, and do all that K. J. has done, they wou'd and ought to serve him as they did K. J. They cannot otherwise justifie their Carriage to­wards K. J. The consideration of this made the Parlia­ment in England abolish that Declaration, viz. That it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King, &c.

But this, by some neglect, is left still upon the Irish Pro­testant Clergy, under the Penalty of forfeiting their Livings. And as many as have come into any Livings since this Re­volution, have read the said Declaration publickly in time of Divine Service; and are to continue so to do, and de­clare that they will do it, till some Parliament take it a­way. This will be called as gross a mocking of God, as their former praying for K.J. that is, whether they believe, or do not belive that Declaration. If they believe it, they condemn themselves in taking Arms against K. J. If they do not belive it, they make it visible to all the World, That there is no Tye or Obligation, Civil or Sacred, can touch their Consciences, when they so Solemnly, while they are Officiating in the Divine Service, and offering up to God the Prayers of their Flocks, dare, at that very time, and with the same Breath, declare before God, and the People, that they do believe it, when they do not belive it, and the People know that they do not believe it: For they make no Secret of it, will tell every one that asks them; nay they stay not to be asked, they Preach against it, and Dispute against it, and Instruct their Congregations against it, and would call any one a Jacobite and a Papist who durst own it, and hunt him to the next Goal. And, yet to save their Livings, they continue still to subscribe this hated Declara­tion before their Ordinaries, and take Certificates under their Hands and Seals, that they have done it (as they are [Page 113]obliged by the Act) and publickly and openly Read the same upon the Lord's Day, in their Parish Churches where they Officiate, in the presence of the Congregation there Assembled, in the time of Divine Service, &c.

They Read it in the Desk, and Preach against it in the Pulpit, and when they come out of Church rail at the Par­liament that Imposed it, and say, That it was soon after the Restauration, Anno 1660. when People were Drunk with Loyalty, after being wearied with the direful Effects of Re­bellion under all its specious Pretences; and thought they could never run far enough from it, till they run to the quite contrary Extreme, and advanc'd Prerogative to the utmost.

And they Wonder, and Curse the hard Fate, that this De­claration was not taken out of the way in Ireland as well as in England, and wish it were done. But in the mean time they will lose nothing by it, they can swallow— and it will swallow them, if they do not Repent. God grant them Grace to do it: And that the Shame of this their Sin may Convent, and not Harden them.

But this Charge is general: Our Author is only involved in it with many others. Let us return to what is more Particular as to himself, which I think I am obliged to give you an Account of, (only so far as relates to the present Business,) because it ought to weigh with you in the Credit you are to give of what he says, where he brings no other Reason than his own Averring.

This Author was formerly a zea­lous Man for Passive Obedi­ence, even in the beginning [...] this Revolution.Know then, that (according to certain Information I have had) that no Man was, or could be a higher Assertor of Passive Obedience, than this Author has been all his life, even at the begining of this Revolution; that he told a Per­son of Honor, from whose Mouth I have it, ‘That if the P. of O. came over for the Crown, or should accept of it, he pray'd God might blast all his Designs. That there was no way to preserve the Honor of our Religion, but by adhering unalterably to our Loyalty. That it would be a glorious Sight to see a Cart full of Clergy-men go­ing to the Stake for Passive Obedience, as the Primitive Christians did. That it would prove the Support and Glory of our Religion, but that a Rebellion would ruine [Page 114]and disgrace it. He said if it were no more than that Declaration which he had Subscribed, of Its not being law­ful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King, &c. he would dye a Hundred Deaths rather than do it.’ At a Meeting of the Clergy of Dublin, in the be­gining of this Revolution in 88. to consider what Measures they were to take; he declared, That their taking Arms in the North of Ireland, at that time, was Rank Rebellion, if there could be any Rebellion; particularly Derry shutting their Gates against the King's Forces sent thither: And when one there present did affirm, That the Subjects might take Arms in Defence of their Laws, &c. This Author did violently oppose it, even in relation to Derry, and urged that the Bishop of Derry (Hopkins) who was then there, did pro­test against their shutting out the King's Forces, and refu­sed to joyn with those who did it; for which, and other Reasons, this Author then gave, he was against any Bodies going to the North, or joyning with them, as being a joyn­ing in Rebellion.

About the Year 86. or 87. After his going from Wexford Waters to several of the Bishops of Munster, he wrote a Letter to a Person of undoubted Credit, giving an Account of what happened in his Journey, and of the Substance of what he Discoursed with the Bishops of Waterford, Corke, and Cloyne; he wrote, ‘That, among other things, he advised them (as the only way to prevent the Dangers that were imminent) to a steaddiness in their Loyalty and Religion, and that he asserted, that if the King and our Temporal Governors should enact unjust Laws, that the Subject has no Remedy but Patience, against whom we allow no other Weapons but Prayers and Tears; and that it was a most unlawful thing for any to call in a Fo­reign Force, or erect a New Government to redress un­just Laws: And adds, That it is a sad thing that it is not observed that Rebellions in the State, and Schisme in the Church arise from this one Principle; to wit, That Sub­jects may in some Cases resist, or seperate from their Law­ful Governors set over them by God: Whereas the Prin­ciple of Non Resistance is a steady Principle of Loyalty, and it will be found no easier Matter to shake either the [Page 115] Church or State, that is settled on it. And he repeats it again, That it is intolerable for the Members of any State to flee to Foreign Succors, out of Pretence, that their own Governors have made Laws against Reason, Conscience and Justice; and foolish to allege in their Defence, That all Mankind is of one Blood, and bound to help one another.’ [Which now he has made his great Argument in this Book, Chap. 1. Sect. 5]

What is above-written, I have from the Person to whom he wrote it, and more to the same purpose; and if he de­sire it, his Letters shall be produced.

The same Person told me that about the beginning of this Revolution he was in Company with the Author, and ano­ther Gentleman (I think it was Dr. Dun) who blamed the preaching of Passive Obedience so high, as the cause of what had befallen us; whom this Author smartly reproved, and vindicated the Doctrine of Passive Obedience to the highth.

But that Zeal and Courage has left him with his Princi­ples, or while he counterfeits his Principles, [there is a dif­ference of assurance in defending some Causes] which makes him now shun all those who knew his former Principles, and have not changed as well as himself: He refused to see, all the time he was in London last August and September, a Deprived Bishop, with whom he was as intimate as any Man, and had contracted a great Friendship: and when he was minded of it to see his Old Friend, he would not, said they should fall into Heats. And beginning of this last October 1692, being in Oxford, on his Road to Ireland, Mr. Hudson of University-College was with this Author in the Schools-Quadrangle, at the very time Mr. Dodwell his admired Ac­quaintance was going up to the Library, and Mr. Hudson asking whether he should call after him, our Author forbad him, saying, He knew Mr. Dodwell would be angry with him. If he thought that Mr. Dodwell was in an Error, he ought to have endeavoured to convince him. No, he knew that Mr. Dodwell stood upon the same Ground where he left him: and that it was he himself had Prevaricated, and for­saken his first Love, and therefore was ashamed to meet with the Man who knew his Principles so well before, and who had stuck close to them in the Day of Tryal. The ve­ry [Page 116]sight of such a Man is an upbraiding of their Cowardise and Unconstancy who have deserted their Principles, and raises Guilt in their Faces which their Eyes would discover, though they were hardened against a Blush.

From the well reputed and deserving Dr. K. who honoured and admired, and loved Mr. Dodwell, above most Men, would have gone far to see him, and was proud of corre­sponding with him! and now shuns his sight, as Guilty Sin­ners would the Face of Heaven! O, if this Author had re­tained his Integrity, how much greater would he have ap­peared in the Friendship, Esteem, and Fellow-Suffering of this Great Man, then in his Guilty Purple? But Deserters must shew their Zeal, and discover their own Shame.

Behold now how he starts, and quotes it as a full Proof of King James's Arbitrary Designs, That it was Enacted in their Act of Recognition in Ireland, That the Decision, in all Cases of a misused Authority by a Lawful Hereditary King, must be left to the sole judgment of God. Indeed, I was ama­zed to see him quote this as so strange a thing, which is over and over to be found in the Acts both of England and Scotland and Ireland; as if he had not only forsaken, but quite forgot what he had formerly taught. He has got new Principles and a new Language, p. 182. (it ought to be 190. for it is false Printed,) he says K. J. was ungrateful to the Irish Protestant Clergy: This is very familiar; but what was the King's Ingratitude? Because, if they had been disloyal in Monmouth or Argile's Rebellion, they might have made an Insurrection, &c.

So that this Author thinks the King is in their Debt for not Rebelling. And I suppose this is all the way that they brought him to the Throne, as this Author says in the same place.

It seems these Irish Clergy have been mighty Men, and we have not known it. But he says that by their Zeal for King James, they lost the Affections of their People. This is a Scandal, I verily believe, upon the Irish Protestants: They were, I hope, better Men; I have known some of [Page 117]them, and this Author ought to know them better. I have not heard that any of the Irish Protestants took Offence at that Passage which this Author Printed in the Preface to a Sermon of the Lord Bishop of Kilmore's, preached in the Author's Church of St. Warborrough's in Dublin, in March, 1684. the first year of King James's Reign: It was enti­tuled St. Paul's Confession of Faith: There, in a Letter of this Author's to the Lord Bishop, which is Printed in the Preface, he avers positively in these words, viz. It is im­possible for any one of our Communion to be disloyal without re­nouncing his Religion.

This past better with the Irish Protestants, Dr. Till. Ex­tent of Loyal­ty in his Serm. 2 Apr. 80 be­fore K. C. 2. than that Super-Loyal Strain of our famous Dr. Tillotson (which he Preached before the King at Whitehall, Apr. 2. 1680. upon Josh. 24.15. did please the Church of England-men here, other than those who took the Court for the Standard of their Reli­gion. The Passage is, Pag. 11. & Sect. 2. of the Sermon; where the Doctor, in profound Adoration of the Royal Authority, and the Legal Establishment of a Nation, makes it unlawful to preach against the established Religion of a Nation, (though it be false) unless we could justifie our Commission by Miracles, as the Apostles did. ‘All, says he, that Persons of a different Religion can in such a Case reasonably pretend to, is to enjoy the private Li­berty and Exercise of their own Conscience and Religion; for which they ought to be very thankful, [because, by the way it is impossible for any Government to hinder any Man from the private Exercise of his own Conscience and Religion,] and to forbear the open making of Proselytes to their own Religion, (though they be never so sure that they are in the right,) till they have an extraordinary Commis­sion from God to that purpose.’

Now, because some do think That that extraordinary Commission, Matt. 28.19, 20 Go teach all Nations—be­longs to the Successors of the Apostles to the end of the World, to which time Christ there promises to assist this Commission of his, and to be with those who preach it, therefore the Dr. barrs that Pretence in what is said above; for he not only requires That such Men should be extraor­dinarily Commissioned, as the Apostles and first Publishers of [Page 118]the Gospel were, but that they be able to sustifie that Com­mission by Miracles, as they did. This indeed does ef­fectually secure any People from being disturbed with the hearing of the Christian, or ony other Religion, but that wherein they were bred, till a new Age of Miracles shall arise.

If our Author had gon to this length of Passive Obedience, I should not wonder that some Irish Protestants had been of­fended; for it did not relish with us here, notwithstanding the good Dr. was at the pains to print it twice for our In­formation.And 5 Nov. 78. before the H. of Com. And that he had two Years before Instructed the Honourable House of Commons, in the same flight of Loy­al Principles, in his Sermon preached before them, 5 Nov. 1687. upon Luke 9.55, 56. Where, in the second Head of his Discourse, p. 17. he speaks ‘Of an evil Spirit in the World, which not only contrary to Christianity, but the common Principles of Natural Religion, which by Fals­hood and Perfidiousness, by Secret Plots and Conspira­cies, or by open Sedition and Rebellion— by Deposing and Killing of Kings— by the ruine of their Countrey, and betraying it into the hands of Foreigners— by all the wicked Ways imaginable, doth invite Men to promote and advance their Religion. But when Religion, says he, p. 19. once comes to supplant Moral Righteousness— to lye for the Truth, and to kill Men for God's sake; when it seems to no other purpose, but to be a Bond of Conspiracy, to inflame the Tempers of Men to a greater fierceness, and to set a keener edge upon their Spirits— then surely it loses its Nature, and ceases to be Reli­gion.’

‘For let any Man say worse of Atheism and Infidelity if he can. And for God's sake, What is Religion good for, but to reform the Manners and Dispositions of Men, to restrain humane Nature from Falshood and Treachery, from Sedition and Rebellion!’

It is true indeed that the Christian Religion is the most conducive to promote Temporal Peace, and good Govern­ment of any thing in the World: But we have been taught (and I hope it is true) that it has much more Spiritual and greater Ends than these; viz. Eternal Happiness in [Page 119]the clear Vision of God, and Enjoyment of him for ever And therefore that it is good for something else than Tem­poral Quiet among Men, which it does not always procure; nor is it always a Blessing, unless when accompanied with Truth; Peace and Security in our Sins is the greatest Curse. And therefore a Religion which happens to disturb the out­ward Peace of this World, may not be worse than Infidelity or no Religion, as the Dr. supposes; for, Let any Man say worse of Atheism and Infidelity if he can, says the Dr. with great Courage! But, good Sir, if you would give me leave, Does not Atheism and Infidelity lead to Hell and Damnation? And that is a little worse, I humbly conceive, than any Imbroylments in this World, that were ever cau­sed for Religion, even that of Joshua among the Ca­naanites; which, by all the Arguments in this Sermon, was an attempt contrary to the Nature of true Religion, and must have byast all who look no farther than Temporal Quiet against Joshua's Religion, and to embrace rather that of the Canaanites, who acted only on the Defensive But I will not be so unjust to this learned Dr. as to conceal the Strength of his Argument. That Hell is worse than Tempo­ral Disturbance, does indeed carry the Vogue among un­thinking People; and consequently they do suppose, con­trary to the Dr. that Atheism and Infidelity are worse than the Disturbance of our Quiet here. But he has taken pains to instruct them in his Sermon Preached before the Queen, 7 March 90. upon Matt 25.46. and Printed By their Ma­jesties special Command; That all God's Threatnings of Hell may be only in Terrorem, to Frighten Men; but that there is no Necessity nor Certainty that Hell will be Eternal, as is threatned, or that there will be any Hell at all: But a less threat than that of Eternal Punishment, he says, is not suf­ficient to deter Men from Sin: And therefore that God did wisely to threaten it: But the Dr. (to prevent God from Deceiving of Mankind) has told this great Secret. Has God said ye shall surely dye? But the Dr. says, Ye shall not surely dye. Taste of my Knowledge, and it will open your Eyes. For, as he goes on in that Sermon on the 5th. of Novemb. abovesaid.

If you think the Titles of Renegado and Apostate, to be too plain Dealing, I cannot help it; they are the Doctors own Words; and, no dout, proceeded from a godly Z [...]al and Indignation, against such base Deserters of these Prin­ciples of Loialty, which are taught by the Church of Eng­land, in her Homilies, Canons, Articles, and Authentick Records.

As did likewise that pious Ejaculation of our Author, c. 2. s 7. n. 2. p. 29. That he is a very dishonest man that dis­sembles, or alters his Opinion, without any other visible motive besides Gain or Preferment—And that their living so long in the profession of the Protestant Religion (he is speaking of Con­verts to Popery and you may apply it to the Converts from Passive Obedience to the Doctrine of Resistance and Common­wealth [Page 121]Principles,) if they did not believe it, was to all honest men an Argument of so great Hypocrisie, that the person guilty of it, one would think, should not have been trusted by any that valued either Truth or Honesty; but if this Declaration (viz: of their new Opinion) was only feigned, as I am apt to be­lieve it was in many, then their Conversion was on Effect of Covetousness or Ambition, and an Act of Hypocrisie, to be ab­abhorred by all good men. However, to persuade the World that they were real, they were very mischievous to Protestants in general, (to those whose Principles they had forsaken,) espe­ceally to those that had been kind to them whil'st in an inferiour condition. And it was observable of these Converts, That they, immediately on their Reconcilement, made themselves signal by some eminently wicked Act. Thus our Author: And he says, p. 31. The truth is, they were people that made no distinction between Right and Wrong, but as they served their Interest.

It would perhaps be thought malicious, if I should retort every word of this upon our Author, in relation to his present Conversion from his former Principles of Loyalty and Passive Obedience And if his present Principles be not true, he has hansel'd his Conversion by an Act much more eminently wicked beyond all Comparison, by the writing of this Book, than what he observes of Converts to Popery in Ireland. What Proportion is 'there twixt tossing a Butcher in a Blanket, which he tells, p. 29. or two or three small Murders in the heat of Blood, and breaking a Cry­er's head, which is set out, p. 30 as the first Fruits of these Papists Conversion; what Proportion do these bear to a Bishop's deliberate giving up of half the Nation at a time to the Slaughter, and Hallowing it in all past and to all suture Generations? This I have enlarged upon already. Again, if his Matters of Fact be false, or but in the least aggravated or misrepresented, how eminently wicked will this first remarkable Act of our Author's Conversion ap­pear, when he takes God to Witness, and protests before him (p. 239) that he has neither aggravated, nor misrepre­sented?

But before I take leave of this Author, with the rest of his Brethren, the Dublin Clergy who remained there, and complemented, as it proved, K. J. with full assurance of [Page 122]their adhering unalterably to their Church of England Loy­alty (who durst doubt it?) even with Relation to K. J. after he was declared Abdicate, and a new King (even K. W. himself) set upon the Throne, and claiming the Allegiance of his Subjects in Dublin, and the rest of Ireland; even then, did the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Meath, at the Head, and in the Name, of their Dublin Clergy, with some others, as many as could get thither out of the Country, again affirm their Allegiance to K. J. in most express Terms, and all the Rhetorick he could invent to perswade K. James, into an entire Confidence of their adhering to him as their Rightful King, and that it was pursuant to the Principles of the Church of England so to do: Which Speech we had here printed two Years agoe, together with another of the same Bishop to K. W. when he came to Ireland, in the Name of the same Clergy, and I have annexed them to this, with the Answers of both Kings. No. 8. Appendix.

Now before we part with these Gentlemen, I would earnestly desire them to answer me (with the same Sinceri­ty with which they addressed to one or both of these Kings) Whether it King James had suceeded at the Boyne, and been then re-established in England, they would have put that Comment upon their Speech to him which they did after­wards in their Speech to K. W? And whether if any Man should have charged them for meaning it with that Reserve, they would not have called it a base Calumny, and sworn to the contrary, if K J. had required it, at least if an Act of Parliament had been made to have Deprived them if they did not?

I ask again, Whether they would have confest, as now they do, that they did not mean sincerely in what they Prayed for K. James, viz. That God would give him strength to vanquish and overcome all his Enemies?

Nay farther, Whether they would not have boasted of their Loyalty, and sincere Intentions towards King James, and reproached those of Disaffection to Him, who had forsa­ken Him, and of quitting the true Principles of the Church of England? and that they were ready to suffer not only much more than they did, but even Death it self, without Threat­ning, or Reviling, much less Resisting the Lord's Anointed, [Page 123]according to the Command of Scripture, the Practice of Christ, and his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians, and the express Doctrine of our Homilies, &c.

All these good Words we should have had from them [...] no doubt, these only had been the Men of Principles, Firm­ness, Courage, nay even of Christianity!

But they are detected God would not suffer such masked Hypocrisie to deceive the World. It is told, Luke 2.35. as one of the Effects of Christ's coming into the World, That the Thoughts of many hearts should be revealed.

The Behaviour of the Clergy in taking the Oaths.This has been remarkably fulfilled in this Revolution; but especially in the Clergy. There never was so sudden and so shameful a Turn of Men professing Religion; and the manner of doing it so impolitick, as to make it evident they took the Oaths with at least a doubting and scrupalous Conscience, (the Sentence of which they may read Rom. 14.23.) for they did not take them freely, but haggled, and kept off, some to the last day, roaring against them all the while, and then coming about all at once, with new coyn'd Distinctions and Declarations, point blank con­trary to the declared Sense of the Imposers. They dif­fered among themselves; every one had a particular Sal­vo for his own Conscience. Some pretend they keep to Passive Obedience still; others, that they were never for it. It is a severe Jest that the Common People have got up against the Clergy, That there was but one thing formerly which the Parliament could not do, that is, to make a Man a Woman: But now there is another, that is, to make an Oath which the Clergy will not take.

In short, they have shewn such Unwillingness, such poor pittiful mean Arts, to shift, to compound, to accommodate this Oath to their Interests, that K. W. has no reason to trust them nor their Oaths. They will find a Distinction to leave him, if ever they can make their Account by it. But no doubt he understands them.

Of the D [...]pri­ved Clergy.I will not enter upon the Case of the Deprived Clergy; only say this, That their Firmness to what the People think to have been the uncontroverted Doctrine of the Church of England, that is Passive Obedience, has kept many Men from rank Atheism, and believing all Religion to be really [Page 124]no more than Priestcraft, and a mere Cheat: while they see Divines turn for a piece of Bread, and damn that to day, which they enjoyned yesterday upon pain of Dam­nation. But on the other hand, when they find so many, and the greatest of them, part with all they have in the World, Honours, Estates, and ready, as they have given good Reason to believe, to lay down their very Lives in adhering to those Principles which they have preacht; this forces People to reflect that these Men are in earnest with Religion, and that there may be such a thing. For the greatest Danger to which we are now exposed, by this De­fect of so many of our Clergy, is not only Popery or Phanati­cism, whose Principles they have embrac'd, but a contempt of all Religion, which is now spread over the Land, in a manner unheard of in former Ages. The Lord avert this sad Omen! and grant us Repentance to prevent his Judg­ments, for Christ Jesus sake.

This is a sad Subject, to look upon the Nakedness and Reproach of so many who were once Members of that Renowned Church of England! Let us turn our Eyes to some less afflicting Prospect.

Roman Catho­lick Loyalty.Among these melancholy Discoveries we have made of the Failings of our Friends, let us not forget those of our Opposites of the Church of Rome, lest they glory in our Downfall.

I go not abroad, nor meddle with the Confederacie of Pope Innocent XI. the Emperor, King of Spain, and other Roman Catholick Princes, to set up a Protestant Prince against a Roman Catholick King, who has no other Crime laid to his Charge, by our Author's own Confession, than what he calls the natural Effects of Popery: And for this, Thou­sands of Armed Papists came to dispossess him!

It is said, That Religion was not the only Quarrel, and we easily believe it. It has the least share in our Quarrels, though it is always made the Pretence. It would have been made the Pretence and Loialty in abundance, as with the Dublin Clergy, so with the Irish Papists, if they had pre­vail'd; and it would have been hard to disprove them.Particularly of the Irish. But now they too are detected.

[Page 125]I speak not of all. I [...]e [...]e not to ma [...]e any National Re [...]ion; no doubt there are many [...]onest and gallant [...] that [...] other Nations; and they have shewn it, [...] always will shew in. But I am looking upon the [...] of [...]y others of them in this Revolu­tion, [...] that there was more of Interest [...] their D [...]igns, than pure Principles of Loialty.

Wi [...]n [...]ss their forcing K. J. to call a Parliament, when it was so very unseasonable, in the midst of his short time of Action, and threatning to lay down their Arms and de­sert him, if he would not pass the Bills of Attainder, and Repeal of the Acts of Settlement; Their hindering him so many times to go to Scotland, which was then visibly his Interest, and suffering none they could help, English or Scots, though Roman Catholicks, to be employ'd; even for­cing some of his Ministers from him, whom they supposed no Friends to their Interest: Insomuch that the King com­plained to a Scots Gentleman, who was pressing him to mind his Affairs in Scotland, What can I do? You see I am left alone, I have none to do any thing for me. But above all, some of them moving to him for leave to cut off the Protestants, which he return'd with Indignation and Amazement, saying, What, Gentlemen, are you for another Forty-One? Which so gall'd them, that they ever after look'd upon him with a jealous Eye, and thought him, thô a Roman Catholick, too much an English-man to carry on their Business. And I am told by persons come from thence, That the generality of the Irish Papists do at this day lay all their Misfortunes up­on K. J. because he would not follow their Measures, and was so inclinable to favour the Protestants.

Lastly, their Surrender, or Selling of Limerick (as some say, but I know nothing of it) but this is certain, that they were well able to have held out till the French Succors could have come: And some of these Irish have since been re­warded by K. VV. and have found their Account in the Articles granted them, and made no scruple to take the Oath of Allegiance to K. VV. and Q. M. which is agreed to in the Articles of Limerick, and now taken generally by the Irish Papists all over Ireland, by direction of their Cler­gy. But these Irish for got that it was chiefly upon their Ac­count, [Page 126]by shewing favour to them, that K. J. brought up­on himself all his Misfortunes. Putting them into Power, and displacing Protestants to make room for them, made more noise, and rais'd K. J. more Enemies, than all the other Male-administrations charg'd upon his Government put together.

But when some of them saw that he could no longer se­cure them their own Estates, or give them those of the Pro­testants, they gave over His Cause, and found no difficulty to swear to another Prince, though a Protestant, and posses­sed of K. J's Crown.

It was not much better they serv'd his Father; first brought him under Calumny for pretended Kindnesses to them and their Religion; counterfeited Commissions under his Name, (which Sir Phelim O Neal confess'd at his Death) and endea­vour'd to cast the Odium of their Rebellion and Massacre upon Him: And after, when they made a shew to return to their Loyalty, they disappointed him of the Succors they had agreed to send him against the Rebels in England, joyn'd with the Pope's Nuncio against him, and invited over a Foreign Prince, the Duke of Lorrain, to Rule over them.

I have heard some of the Irish attribute their ill Success in the Rebellion of 41. to the barbarous Massacres by which they began it, and their unfaithful dealing with K. Charles I. And some of the soberest among them now do make the Reflection, That their ill Usage of K. James II. when he came among them, (sacrificing his Interest to the carrying on of their own Designs) did justly deserve that Judgment which fell upon them in the Issue of that War.

We have done with their Loyalty; at least their Mouths are stopt against the Defection of so many of the Church of England.

Of the Roman Catholicks of England.And I think the Roman Catholicks of England too are not to insult: For though the Oaths be not come to them, and therefore we cannot say certainly whether they will Swear or not, yet there lies this against them, viz. in their publick Chapels here in London, they pray for K. W. and Q. M. which some of their Communion told me.

I hear that all the Protestant Non-Jurors say, There is the same Argument against praying as swearing: And of all [Page 127]their number, none did allow himself to pray but Dr. Sher­lock alone, who, as he tells in the Preface to his Recanta­tion, stood single among the Non-swearing Clergy upon this account; and you see he did not stay with them. But the same Principle that led him to pray, brought him to swear too, rather than stick out. Therefore let not these Roman Catholicks be high-minded, because others have fallen, but rather fear lest having gone already Dr. Sherlock's length of Praying, they may come to Swear like him, if they should be pinch'd as he was: Nay, I have heard several of them argue for the Lawfulness of it, only they would keep from it as long as they could. I say not that this does conclude upon others who do not so; but it may make them more modest in rejoycing over our Fall.

Non-Jurors of the Church of England.Upon the whole, I must say, That there are none have cle­verly stuck to the Principles they profess'd, but the Non-jurors of the Church of England: For, as they profess'd them all a­long, in the same sense they have stuck to them now; and have given that demonstration of their being in earnest, that they are content to lose all, rather than deviate from them.

And this is one Discovery, among the rest, that this Re­volution has made: It has discovered the inflexible Loyalty of these Men, whom neither personal Injuries, nor Attempts upon their Religion, Liberty or Property, can move from that Duty to the King which they think a Principle of their Re­ligion; and this is a high Vindication of their Religion, and a Recommendation of it. But now we are upon the Disco­very, let us not forget to do Justice to all. We cannot forget the Rise and Source of our Disease, whence all these Evils we now feel and foresee, have come upon us; and that is our wicked Presbyterian Rebellion against K. C. 1. which banished his Children into Popish Countries; God thereby fulfilling a just Judgment upon these Unchristian Rebels, Presbyterian Loyal [...]y. permitting his Son to suck in the Principles of Ro­man Catholick Religion, of which these Hypocrites, against their own Consciences, accus'd his Father, and on that pretence instigated his deluded Subjects to Rebell against him: Therefore it is plainly the Presbyterians we have to thank for K. J's being a Roman Catholick, and all the ill Consequences which depend upon it.

[Page 128]God often in his All-wise Providence suffers Rebellion to bring on those same Evils, for prevention of which we chose to Rebell; as the Jews crucified Christ, lest the Romans should come;Joh. 11.48. and his Death brought the Romans, who did take away their Place and Nation.

This had been an Application more befitting a Divine, and to have warn'd us of those Sins which have provok'd God to send his Judgments amongst us, rather than to bite the Stone, not minding the Hand that threw it; to lay all up­on K. J. if it had been true. But to tell down-right Un­truths of him, or to misrepresent the Truth to appear other than really it is, which is likewise Lying, and perhaps the more wicked of the two, being harder to be discovered, and so more apt to impose upon unwary and unthinking People. This is direct Diabolical, the Office and the Deno­mination of the Adversary and false Accuser.

Popish Prin­ciples which are embraced.It had been a more proper and serviceable Undertaking of this Author, to justifie himself and others of his comple­ction from this Imputation, and several other things for­merly rail'd at against Popery; as, the Deposing Doctrine, Dispensing with Oaths, Jesuitical Equivocations, and Mental Reservations, Not keeping Faith with Hereticks, &c. where we own we must have kept the same Promises made to ano­ther; and all this, or any other Falsity or Immorality, to be allow'd for the Good of the Church.

If to preserve the Protestant Religion, will excuse us to dispense with God's Commands, as much as we say the Pa­pists have done to preserve their Church, we must expect that the Protestant Religion will grow as hateful to all good Men, as the Church of Rome is to the most Bigotted against it; or the Jewish Doctrine of Corban, which dispenses with the fifth Commandment upon the same Pretences, viz. for the Good of the Church, to enrich the Treasury of the Temple; or the Phanatick Confession of Faith, That Dominion is founded in Grace.

But all these have the Advantage of our Church of Eng­land Clergy. The Jews had the Tradition of their Elders to plead, and the Church of Rome have their Great Council of Lateran for the Deposing Doctrine, the Council of Constance for Violating Faith to Hereticks, &c. and they have their [Page 129] Traditions too for the Benefit of the Church; and the Presbyte­rian has his Solemn League and Covenant.

But the Church of England Clergy are destitute of all these Helps: There is nothing of these, but the direct contrary, in all her Articles, Homilies, Canons, Rubricks, or any Constitutions of her Church.

The Church of England Vin­dicated.And the Metropolitan of all England, with a Quorum of Bi­shops, and several hundreds of the Inferiour Clergy, have ad­hered to the Doctrine of their Church, and suffered them­selves to be Deprived, rather than act or teach contrary to it. Therefore this cannot be called a Defection of the Church of England, but only of particular Persons, who have done it in opposition to their Superiors in the Church as well as in the State; and let them answer for it; but let the Reputa­tion of the Church be preserved: It has already received both a Testimony and a Vindication from the Mouth of K. J. himself, who (as some present have told) when an Irish Lord at Dublin, attending upon His Majesty at Supper, began to reproach the Church of England for her Apostacy from her former Principles of Loyalty, &c. The King re­ply'd, They are the Church of England, who have kept to the Principles of the Church of England. The Lord made An­swer, But, Sir, how few are they in comparison with the rest? The King said, They are more than Christ had to begin Christia­nity with.

And all Rightful Kings of England have this Security from the Members of the Church of England more, than from ei­ther Popish or Presbyterian Dissenters, That when either of these two last-nam'd take Arms against the King for the Propagation of their Religion, they act pursuant both to the Principles and Practice of their Churches: but no true Church-of-England man can take Arms against the King, in Defence of his Religion, Liberty, Property, or any pretence what­soever, without at the same time renouncing the Principles of his Church, or, in Dr. Burnet's words, turning Renegado and Apostate from it, and from the constant Practices of its true Professors to this present Age. And though God has sifted Her, and discovered Her unsound Members, most of whom were Phanaticks grafted contrary to Nature, yet we may perceive by the Remnant He has left, that it [Page 130]will end in rendring her more Pure and Glorious, after she has past the Refiner's Fire.

These Considerations have taken me a little out of the Road (if it be out of the Road) of the present Business: I will return to the Author.

We have seen his Sincerity in the Original Matter of Fact, and Mother of all the rest, viz. Who were the Ag­gressors in the late miserable Revolution of Ireland, for they were answerable for all that followed.

Matter [...] of Fact set down by this Author at ran­dom.But there are many other Particulars, besides those to which I have spoken, wherein the Author shews great vari­ety of prevarication: And tho he pretends to so great ex­actness, which any one would believe by his Method, yet it is visible that he set down things at random, meerly for want of pains to examin them.

C. 3. S. 12. at the end, p. 165. he pretends to compute what the Estates of all the Jacobites in England and Scotland are worth. But this may pass more innocently than where it reflects upon any particular Persons Reputation; in these Cases, it is not only uncharitable, but unjust, to say any thing at a venture. If we know not the thing to be true, we are to err on the charitable side, and not mention what may reflect upon another: but if we do, we must be sure to set down our Vouchers, so as to leave no umbrage to suspect the Truth. This our Author, I am afraid, has not so punctually observed through all this Book, particularly in the Characters which he takes upon him to give of so many persons. C. 3. S. 3. he accuses the Judges, particu­larly the Lord Chief Justice Nugent, ibid. n 5. p. 61. of down-right Bribery, That he went sharer in Causes before him, and not only appeared for them on the Bench, but also se­cretly encouraged and fomented them.

I have heard others say, who are no Admirers of that Judge, That they are confident this is a rank Slander and Calumny; and that no such thing can be proved against him. However, an Accusation of so heinous a Nature ought not to have been exhibited, especially in Print, without some Proofs along with it.

This Nugent, says the Author, was pitch'd on by K. J. to judge whether the Outlawries against his Father and his Fellow [Page 131]Rebels should be reversed. Now I am assur'd, That his Father, viz. the Earl of Westmeath was not Outlawed; which if so, this is such another careless Mistake as this Author makes, ibid. n. 3. pag. 60. where he calls Felix O Neil (a Master of Chancery in King James's time) Son of Turlogh O Neil the great Rebel in 41, and Massacrer of the Protestants. That Turlogh O Neil was Brother to the Famous Sir Phelom O Neil, and was not Father to this Felix O Neil.

I have been told by Men of Ireland, That this Felix O Neil's Father's Name was Phelom; and that he was so far from being a bloody Masacrer in 41. that he was civil to the Protestants in those times, particularly to [...] Guilliam, Father to Meredith Guilliam, now a Major in K. W's Army, whom he obliged by his civil Usage of him, when he was Prisoner with the Irish; and the same Guilliam's Relations do still acknowlege it.

But as to the Reversing of these Outlawries, this Author has not done right to K. J. For upon the Representation made to his Majesty by the Earl of Clarendon, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of the ill Consequences of the Re­versal of these Outlawries, particularly the Jealousie it gave of encroaching upon the Acts of Settlement, (which you will see more at large in King James's Letter of the Third of May, 86. to the Earl of Clarendon, and his Lord­ships proceedings thereupon, which are hereunto annexed, No. 20) His Majesty did not press that matter any far­ther; and so there was a stop put to these Reversals, du­ring the Government of my Lord Clarendon in Ireland, and for any thing I can hear, afterwards, till this Revolu­tion. So that this seems rather an Imposition upon the K. (as there were many) by my Lord Tyrconnel and those of his Party, than a thing that sprung immediately from the King's own Breast, or that he pitcht upon Judge Nugent, on purpose to carry it on violently, as this Author sets it out in his Guesses at Random, and would have it pass for some mighty Matter.

To this Class will justly belong what I have before men­tioned of this Author's bold and positive Politicks upon foreign Princes and States, and likewise of the P. of W. Fr. League, &c. which he had from the same Intelligence, and avers with the same Assurance.

[Page 132] By Innendoes, wherein his groundless and unjust Reflecti­on upon the E. of Clarendon.He has likewise an Art of making many things pass by Innendo's, whose Falshood would have appeared if they had been plainly related. For Example, c. 3 s. 12. p. 144. telling of the assurances sent over by King James to Ireland by the Earl of Clarendon Lord Lieutenant, and Sir Charles Porter Lord Chancellor, he says, ‘These Declarations gain­ed belief from the credulous Protestants, especially that made by Sir Charles; who behaving himself with Courage and Integrity in his Office, went a great way to persuade them; which being the Ground of their being persuaded by him, more especially than by my Lord Clarendon, plainly insi­nuates as if my Lord Clarendon had not behaved himself with Courage and Integrity in his Office there.’

This Author is the first Irish Protestant I have heard give my Lord Clarendon an ill word as to his Government in Ireland. On the contrary, they all speak exceeding things of him, particularly of his Zeal and Pains for Supporting the Protestant Interest in that Kingdom; which gain'd their hearts to as great a degree, if not more than most Chief Governours had ever been there; they never parted with any Chief Governour with so much regret: and, as I have been told, none courted him more when he was there, than this Author, who was admitted one of his Excellency's Chaplains; but now thinks fit that should be forgotten, at least kept for a more seasonable Juncture

But C 2. S. 4 n. 1. p. 19. he has an Inuendo of a higher Nature than this: It imports no less than that the Prote­stants of Ireland conquering the Irish there, gives them a Title to Ireland independent on the Crown of England. He places the Scene indeed in another Reign; but the Applica­tion is too obvious to be mistaken.

I suppose none will deny but K. C. 2. at his Restauration in the year 1660. to the Crown of England, had thereby a good Title to Ireland: But this Author plainly insinuates as if the English Rebels who Conquer'd Ireland, as he calls it, un­der Oliver, had thereby gained a Right to it for them­selves; and therefore makes it not a Duty, but a meer Act of Generosity in them, to call home K. C. 2. and says, That they bestow'd Ireland upon him, &c. These are his words, viz.

The Conquerers (viz. Oliver's Army) joined in bringing home [Page 133]K. C. 2. and generously gave up themselves, together with the Kingdom of Ireland, without Articles or Conditions, into his hands. Where observe, They had a Right to have kept him out, and not to have admitted him without such Articles and Conditions as they thought fit; And our Author does not seem to approve of their receiving him without such Articles; as he does not the King's restoring the Conquer­ed, under certain Qualifications, to a part of the forfeited Lands. Kings are in a good condition, when all their Acti­ons are thus to be Arraign'd by every one who can take the Boldness to call them to an Accou [...], and Publish their Cen­sure of Majesty to the World. The same Language is now in many of their mouths, as to the present Reduction of Ireland, and they grudge the Articles of Limerick and Galloway, &c. not considering, that there is no Government, but by the ne­cessity of their Affairs may be forced sometimes to take Measures which may alarm some sort of People; and if, for this, People have liberty to attack the Government in every Coffee-house and Cabal, what Peace can be lasting? tho' they should do it by such discreet Inuendo's as this Au­thor. Kings now indeed are upon their good Behaviour! as this Author of late loyally expressed it on the Thirtieth of January in Christ-Church Dublin, applying it to that Day, to shew the glorious Change of his Principles.

But for a Noble stroke, both for speaking at Random, for Inuendo's, and for weight of Argument, see C. 3. S. 12. n. 21. p. 165. It is thus stil'd in the Heads of Discourse: Protestants lost more in Ireland, than all that favour K. J's Cause in Eng­land are worth. In the Section it self he adds Scotland too. This is a Discovery the Parliament would thank him for, at least Mr. Fuller. I dare not ask this Author by what means he came to know more than King and Parliament, or any in England pretend to, to find out all the Jacobites in Eng­land and Scotland, and the value of their Estates: Well, it must pass by Inuendo, and that cannot be disprov'd. But he inuendo's in the Jacobites Thoughts too, as well as their Estates. And I suppose, says he, it would put them (the Ja­cobites) out of conceit with Him (K. J.) or any other King (there he handsomly brings in K. W. and shews the Opini­on, as he believes, of the Williamites, at least you may con­clude [Page 134]it is his own) that should take away but one half of their Estates from them. There the Government has the stint of his Obedience.

But has not this Author's Intelligence brought him the News yet of the Deprivation of the Archbishop of Canter­bury, and other English Bishops and Clergy, with a greater Number in Scotland, who have lost the whole of their Estates, and it is believed would lay down their Lives too for what they think to be their Duty to their King: And there are many Lay-Jacobites as resolute even as they. Did this Author never hear that Mr. Ashton suffered Death, and would not own this to be a Fault? And that the Bi­shops of Chichester and Worcester asserted it upon their Death-beds; and that they would have gone to the Stake, rather than have forsaken their Passive Obedience, or taken the present Oaths. How is it possible that a Man so well read as the Author, in the Primitive Persecutions, should think losing but half ones Estate so mighty a Matter, in as­serting the Principles of our Religion?

But these things we can better hear, than where he would impose upon us such Incredible Stories as would not pass at a Country Wake.Incredible Matters of Fact. Such is that, c. 2. s. 8. n. 4. p. 33. where he gives us such an Idea of the Wild Irish, as he that said he had seen some of them so tame that they would eat Meat out of his hand. He says that it seemed an unreasonable Hardship to those of them who were Landlords, That they should be called to an account for killing or robbing their Tenants, or ravishing their Daughters. I con­fess this so startled me, from an Author of his Gravity, and living in that Country, that it put me upon the Curiosity of enquiring of some Gentlemen of that Country, who told me it was just as true as their having Hair upon their Teeth. That there were ill Men among them, and Murthers and Rapes have been committed, as in other places; but that they were so savage and ignorant, at this time of day, as not to expect to be called to an account for such horrible Crimes, is an Assertion that astonishes every body that hears of it. If he means that in the time of this War, such Crimes went unpunished, others have the same to say; Witness Dr. Gorge's Letter. But the [Page 135]Author's Topick in this place is not of the time of the War, but of the manner of these People before; so that it is an egregious Imposition upon our English Understan­dings, to think to pass this upon us.

It is almost as strange as this, what he tells, c. 3. s. 11. n. 8. p. 138. That Colonel Luttrel, Governor of Dublin, condemned Mr. Piercy, a Merchant, to be hanged, for saying (very calmly) That he was not willing to part with his Goods, if he could help it: And as strange that Mr. Piercy should escape, because the Governour could not find any of the Provoes.

If you can hardly believe that Mr. Piercy should be con­demned for speaking such innocent words, and that very calmly, you will be no Proselyte to this Author, who as confidently, and with as little Voucher, that is, none at all, tells in the same place, That Mr. Bell, a Protestant Mer­chant, was confined to close Prison, and no body allowed to speak to him, for— I would have the Reader guess the Crime, less, if it could be, than that of Mr. Piercy.—It was without any Crime so much as alledged against him, says our Author. We say, It is easie to find a Stick to beat a Dog. Were the Protestants so Loyal to K. J. or the Irish so dull, that they could make no pretence of a Fault when they imprisoned so considerable a Merchant, and under such severe Con­finement as to allow none to speak to him?

There is suspicion in the very look of this Story; there must be something else in it: Reader, then, take the truth of it thus; This Bell was not only permitted, but encoura­ged by K. J. to pursue his Trade, had Pasports and Safe­guards granted him, and particular Favours, and had seve­ral Returns from France, whereby he feather'd his Wing so well, that he grew Richer than ever before. I have heard some say that he got to the value of 10000 l. while K. J. was in Ireland; and to express his sense of the Favours▪ he had received from K. J. and his Officers, in Sept. 90. after K. W. had risen from before Limerick, he made a Treat for Buno Talbot Esq a Roman Catholick, one of the Commissi­oners of the Revenue in Ireland to K. J. at the Dukes Head in Damas-street, Dublin, in acknowledgment of K. J's Grace, and Mr. Talbot's with others of K. J's Officers Kindness, [Page 136]and many Civilities to him, which he abundantly testified before several Protestants then in the Company; from some of whom I have this. Yet this Author says, ibid. That K. J. would not suffer the Protestants to Trade; and when they brought any Goods from France, they were seiz'd, and put into the hands of Papists, to be disposed of by them, and the right Owners not suffered so much as to oblige a Friend with a little Salt, or a Rundlet of Brandy. Thus Mr. Bell was served, says our Author; and that the only reason of his Imprisonment was, that he might think no more of Trading. But this Author being so well acquainted with Mr. Bell, and one of his Ca­bal and Directors in Dublin, must be supposed to know something of his Imprisonment, as well as of his Trading; He might have told us the whole Truth, if he had pleased; which was, That Mr. Bell being thus encouraged and en­trusted by K. J. made use of it to betray him all that was in his power. In order to which, he proposed to His Ma­jesty a method of sending what Dispatches he thought fit into Scotland; which was, to grant Bell a License to send a Ship with Goods thither; and he having Friends and Cor­respondents there, it would pass unsuspected: and he would undertake to convey any Messenger safe His Majesty should send, and had contrived a private place in his Ship for Papers, &c. if a Search should be made. The King trust­ing to the Integrity of the Man, gave him the License he desired, and sent one Mr. Strauchan in his Ship, with Dis­patches to several of His Friends. Mr. Bell having thus suc­ceeded in his vertuous Design, wrote immediately to his Correspondent in Glasgow, to whom the Goods were con­sign'd, acquainting him with Mr. Strauchan's coming from K. J. and what part of the Vessel the Papers were hid in, and desired him to send this Account to the Council; which accordingly he did, and sent in Mr. Bell's Letter, which was read publickly at the Council-board; upon which, Mr. Strauchan was apprehended, and all his Papers seiz'd, and the Persons to whom He and They were addressed were committed, as the Countess of Erroll, &c. And it was upon Advice of this Treachery from Scotland, that Bell was committed: and K. J. after his Tyrannical manner, would not suffer him to be Prosecuted, but forgave him this [Page 137]piece of Honesty and Zeal for the Protestant Religion.— Some call this, Mercy to a fault.

Our Author having so faithfully related this Passage, you must likewise take his word for what he tells c. 3. s. 1. n. 6. That Sir Charles Murray was clapt up a Prisoner by K. J. in the Fort of Kinsale, because he professed himself a Protestant (which he always was, and K. J. knew it) where he lay without being able to learn any Reason for his Confinement, from the 12th of March 1688. till toward the end of the following Sum­mer—though be cou'd never learn either his Crime or his Accu­ser. Thus our Author.

But not only Sir Charles (who is still in K. J's Service) but almost every body there, knew the reason of his Con­finement, for it was publick, viz. That Sir Charles being aboard the French Admiral coming into Ireland, spoke se­veral disrespectful and reflecting things of the French King; of which the French Admiral acquainted the Count d'Avaux the French Ambassador, who made a complaint of it in his Masters Name to K. J. who could do no less than commit Sir Charles upon it.

But neither of these Stories is so incredible as that Plot, p. 139. to Starve one half of the Protestants, and Hang the other. Which this Author takes a great deal of pains to prove was the Design; and that it was really attempted, by the refu­sing to sell Bread to the Protestants, and taking what they had from them: Whereas Dr. Gorge tells (in his Letter) of the great Care and Kindness which K. J. shewed to the Protestants, particularly in Dublin, (which the Author makes the Scene of this Starving Tragedy) where, as the Doctor's Family told him, among other Instances of Justice done the Protestants while they were in Dublin, that two Irish Soldiers were Hanged before a Protestant Bakers door for stealing two Loaves not worth a shilling: They hung 48 hours, of which several Protestants now in London were Eye-witnesses. This did not look like a Design to starve the Protestants, to let them have Bakers of their own, and pro­tect them so. As unlikely is it, that they designed to Hang the other Half of the Protestants, when in all that time these Protestants were in their Power, viz. in Summer 89. they did not Hang one of them, though some of them [Page 138]deserved it by the Law then, as this Author and Mr. Bell— can witness.

But what need both Hanging and Starving? Why, there were some of these Protestants would not starve. The Author tells, c. 3. p. 13. n. 4. p. 174. That the Irish Generals kept some of them whom they drove before Derry, without Meat or Drink for a whole Week. And Hang that Protestant won't strave in a Week.— But it seems King James had no mind to try the Experiment, for he sent immediate Orders to discharge those Protestants; and themselves confess that Lieutenant General Hamilton, (who was much against that Driving, but Rosen Comman­ded) ordered Meal and other Provisions to be distributed amongst them. I know not the Extent of Irish Abstinence, but with us in England a Weeks Fasting will not easily be belived.

It is as incredible that (as our Author says, c. 3. s. 5. n. 2. p. 79.) There was not one Corporation (in Ireland) found to have forfeited by a Legal Tryal: That all the Cor­porations in the Kingdom were dissolved without the least Rea­son or pretence of Abuse of Privilege, or Forfeiture.

Will any one believe, That Lawyers (and some of them this Author acknowledges to understand their Profession) would bring a Quo Warranto against a Charter, and not so much as pretend any Abuse of Privilege, or Forfeiture? I beseech you, what was it they did pretend? Was it that they had not forfeited? Was that the Reason they gave for bringing a Quo Warranto? But the Author says, they did not so much as pretend any Reason. He may say what he pleases.

I do not question, but there might be many Abuses in the manner of bringing those Quo Warranto's, and of managing them. But that there should not be so much as a pretence of Forfeiture against any one, and yet all be forfeited in a Form of Law, and pleading in a Court, must pass at best, for that way of representing things in this Book to excess, at random, no matter so it be ill enough.

I have heard good Lawyers say, That few Charters of Corporations could stand against a Quo VVarranto, if they were throughly examined: So far is it from a possibility of [Page 139]believing that all the Charters of Ireland could defend them­selves from any breach or abuse of Privilege.

Contradictors mattere of Fact.Though these and many other of his Relations are very incredible, yet that is not so bad as contradictory: Into which Excess he often runs himself, in his Zeal to pursue his Ad­versary even to the Gates of Hell, as the Saying is.

Especially with relation to K. J.The first Example I will shew of this, shall be in his man­ner of treating King James's Person, which surely ought to be with Civility and good Manners from this Author, for the Relation he bears to those who are now on the Throne.

Whom he does not treat with common de [...] ­cy, giving him the Lye, &c.But, these notwithstanding, our Author thinks fit flatly to give him the Lye, c. 2. s. 2. n. 1. p. 15. The Represen­tation, says he, made by him, (K. J.) was no less False, than his Promises were unsincere. He says of K. J's Answer, c. 3. s. 18. p. 211. n. 6. That the whole was a piece of Deceit, a mere Collusion—But this was the Justice we looks for, and constantly met with from him.

He might have learnt more Breeding from what he re­lates of King James, c. 3. s. 11. p. 141. n. 13. That the next day after the Boyne, speaking of the P. of Orange, he call'd him a merciful Prince. This, if true, shewed a great Command of Passion and Resentment; for none could be under greater and fresher Provocations.

But leaving these Matters of Form, you shall see this Author's Passion transporting him to that degree that he forgets himself, even to a Contradiction: When he is in­veighing against the Irish, he makes them force K. J. to all the ill he did; and then K. J. is a good natur'd and a merciful Man, and seeks to save the Protestants from the Cruelty of the Irish. But when a Section comes, wherein K. J. is to be loaded, then he is fifteen times worse than the Irish; then the Irish oppose his wicked Designs, and he cannot bring them to his pitch of Wickedness.

You would think this impossible to befal any Author of common Consideration, but you shall be judge, c. 4. n. 1. p. 225. ‘He owns K. J's natural Compassion and merciful Disposition, c. 3. s. 1. p. 49. n. 8. He tells you of his good Nature, his natural Clemency; and perhaps, says he, if He (K. J.) alone had been to have had the disposal of them [Page 140](our Lives and Liberties) and would have followed his na­tural inclinations, we should not so much have feared to have trusted him; but whilst he had such Ministers about him, —&c.’

Here the fault is in the Ministers, who would not suffer the King to follow his natural inclinations and Clemency. But, c. 3. s. 12. n 15. he says, ‘When it was left to K. J. entirely what hopes could any Protestant have?’ And c. 2. s. 8. n. 5. p. 67. he tells, ‘How the Irish opposed K. J's Arbitrary Proceedings to that degree, that he is said to have fallen into so violent a Passion, that his Nose fell a bleeding.’ And c. 3. s. 12. n. 17. d. 6. p. 159. ‘he severely rates the At­torney-General Neagle, for withstanding his Dispensing Power. And c. 2. s. 5. n. 3: p. 23. he says, Duke Powis used his Interest with the King to put a stop to them (the Acts of Attainder, and Repeal of the Acts of Settlement) but was not able to do it.’ How false this is, I have shewn from the Testimony of my Lord Granard and others: But this is not the matter now; I am not now upon disproving what he says, only to shew the Contradiction of what he avers. Now he puts the blame upon the King himself, and makes him worse than his Ministers: yet c. 3. s. 13. p. 169. he turns about again, and says, They (the Protestants) knew, that if the King did not interpose, neither Juries nor Witnesses would be wanting to destroy them. Now the Protestant Security is in K. J. to save them from the Irish. C. 3. s. 18. n. 11. this Author shews, ‘How K. J. appeared most zealously for the Protestants, and turn'd out the Mayor of Wexford for not Restoring the Church of Wexford to the Protestants, according to His Majesty's Order.’ And c. 3. s. 13. n. 3. p. 168. he tells, ‘How the King carefully exa­min'd and redrest the deceit of the Fryers, and said in great anger, That for ought he saw the Protestants were wrong'd, and misrepresented unto him.’ Yet in the same page he makes K. J. a Monster of Cruelty: He says, the very Irish Judges, Nugent himself, whom this Author makes the worst of them all, were for acquitting Mr. Browne for making his escape from those who came to plunder him: ‘But after he (Judge Nugent) had discoursed His Majesty, he proceeded vigorously against the Gentleman, and procured him to be [Page 141]found Guilty, by a Partial Jury, and notwithstanding the Tears and Petitions of Mrs. Browne his Wife, with 5 or 6 Children, beg­ging her Husband's Life at his feet, reinforced with all the Friends and Interest she could make. Yet he represents K. J. to be proof against all this, and to have Mr. Browne Hang'd, Drawn, and Quarter'd. This awakened (says he) all the Protestants in Ireland; They suspected that Judge Nugent would act the same Part in Ireland, that Chief Justice Jefferies had done in England; and they knew that if the King did not interpose, neither Juries nor Witnesses would be wanting to destroy them.’

If ever there was such a Consequence as this K J. in­clines the Judges to pack partial Juries, and yet He was all the Security against Judges packing such Juries. He says, p. 170. That it was supposed that he (Judge Nugent) was encouraged to do it (viz. to Hang Browne) by K. J. him­self.

The Case of Mr. Brown and Sir Tho. Southwell.But now as to this Crime of Browne (how easie it is to palliate matters!) this Author says it was only for making his escape from those who came to plunder him. But the Story is thus, as the Irish Protestants 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 [Page 142]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 [Page 143]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 Ground­work 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 earn [...]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 Ab [...] ­luteness, [Page 144]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 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.’

[Page 145]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 [Page 146] 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.

[Page 147]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.

[Page 148]The Irish Protestants, who staid 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 [Page 149]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 [Page 150]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.

[Page 151]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, th [...] 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 James, which I have inserted n. 23. Appendix; and it was punctually observed, till the day that Schomberg landed there with the English Army in August 1689. Then Schomberg issued Proclamations of Protection and Encou­ragement to the Irish who should return to their Habita­tions, and follow their Labour; which many accepted, and great part of the Country was thereby planted, some in as full manner as before the Revolution. But not­withstanding, the Protestant Army fell upon them, and soon wasted the whole Country: And when the Irish [...]eld out their Protections, they tore them, and bid them wipe their—with them; and none were punished for this Breach of Protection: For when I have asked some of their Officers the Reason of th [...], all the Answer they gave [...] was, That where they had not Pay, they could not [...] their Army under Discipline. I [...] no [...] di [...]re the V [...]day of this Answer; but the Matter of [...] is [...] [...]le. And if any should lay all this upon [...]ng [...]liam, [Page 152]and say it was with his Approbation, it would be construed a malicious and ill-grounded Accusation.

The Massacre of the Laird of Glencoe, with others of his Clan.Or suppose some lewd Jacobite (for there is no Stop in Wickedness,) should charge upon King William the De­witting of the Mac-Donalds of Glencoe, after they had sub­mitted to his Government, and lived under his Protection; only because the Blood-hound-Officers, who commanded that inhuman Massacre in cold Blood, pretended the King's Commission, and are not punished for it? As you will see by the Copy of the Orders, and the Account of that Mas­sacre from a good hand; but in short, only in a Letter to a Friend, which I have inserted, No. 19 and must serve till a Relation more at full shall be published.

Now who could have the ill Nature to believe King William capable of granting such an Order to cut Mens Throats, at dead of the Night, in their Beds, who had submitted to his Government, come under his Protection, and sworn to him! What though the Murderers are not punished; there is a good time coming to see these Ruf­fains of Officers (who could give or obey such Orders) duly animadverted: Who, under pretence of Royal Au­thority, Butcher'd in one night (viz. the 12th of February last, or 13th at Five in the Morning) Eight and thirty Persons; and had done so to all the rest of that Sept, to the Number of several Hundreds, had not a violent Storm, which happened that night, retarded the March of ano­ther Party of Four hundred, who were ordered to fall in at the other end of the Glen; by which Providence so many of them made their Escape. And though some of these were killed with Protections from King William's Officers in their Pockets, as you will see in the Account above-mentioned, and all of them living under his Pro­tection, yet I am confident this Author will not say that it were just or reasonable to charge this Breach of Prote­ctions upon King William's Account.

As unjust is it which this Author in this same place (viz. c. 3. s. 13. n. 4. p. 172. charges upon King James, [Page 153]in relation to the Protestants in the County of Down; Who (as he avers) had not only their Goods taken from them, but likewise their Wives and Daughters were Ravished by the Soldiers. And yet (says he) these Protestants pro­ceeded no further than to complain of it to the Chief Offi­cers, and to demand Redress from them The Answer they had was, ‘That these Robbers and Ravishers had no Authority from the King for what they did; and therefore they advised the Complainants to fall on them, and oppose them, if they made any further At­tempts on the Country. The poor People were satis­fied with the Answer, and were resolved to do as they were directed; and accordingly fell upon the next Party of Soldiers they found Plundering and commit­ting Outrages on the Country-people, and killed some of them. This, instead of being approved, as they were made to believe it would be, was counted a Rebellion: and immediately Major-General Bohan was sent among them with a Party, who Massacred about five or six Hundred Men of them, in cold Blood, for several days together. Many of those who were killed were Poor, Old, Impotent People: Many were kil­led at their Work, and while they were busie about their own Affairs, and suspected no such matter. King James was so far from resenting the Barbarous Usage of these poor People, that he railed on this occasion against Protestants in general, representing them as False and Perfidious; For, said he, many were killed with my Protections in their Pockets: Not considering the Reflection was on his own Party, against whom, his Protection, as appeared by his own Confession, was no Security.’

These are the Authors own words. And I must beg the Readers patience to examine this Story to the bot­tom, that he may see this Authors Art and his Inte­grity. And I will set down nothing but what the Prote­stants in that Country know to be true, and will, if occa­sion be, depose.

[Page 154]This then is the Story in brief. After the Defeat of the Protestant Associat Forces at Drummore, the 14th of March, 1688. Lieutenant-General Hamilton, willing to protect the Protestants, as well as others, who would live quietly; and having granted his Protection to Belfast and other places, as before is told, and keeping his Soldiers under strict Discipline; yet found the Country molested with Irish Rapperees, or Half-pike men, as they called them; whom when his repeated Orders and Proclamations could not reclaim, and Soldiers were not in all places at hand to defend the Country from them, and the Country were afraid to fall upon them without Order, left it might be construed a Taking Arms against the King; the Lieute­nant-General, for the greater Security of the Country, gave Orders to the Country to seize any such Rapperees, who had no Commission, and to commit them to the next Goal; and if they made Resistance, to kill them.

And this the Author mistakes (I know not if wilfully) for a Liberty to fall upon the Soldiers of the King's Ar­my. As if the General would not take the Punishment of these into his own hands, but leave it to the Discre­tion of the Country People, who he knew hated both him and his Soldiers, to knock his Soldiers on the head, if they pleased to say that they wronged them.

This Author, n. 25. of his Appendix, sets down such an Order as this, given by the Marquis d'Alb [...]ville, Prin­cipal Secretary of State to King James, January 2. 1689. directed to the Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer; where, among other Instructions, this is the seventh, viz. ‘That you order all Men to fall upon Publick Robbers, who have no regard of their Duty towards GOD, their King or Country, destitute of all sense of Humani­ty; and consider them but as Wild Beasts, who live upon Prey and Rapine.’

How justly our Author insers from such O [...]d [...]rs as these a Liberty to the Common People to fall upon the Army, or any Numbers of them they could Master, I [...] the Judgment of the Reader.

[Page 155]And yet I have heard many Irish Protestants, who live in the County of Down, and near it, say, That they have not heard of any Rapes upon the Protestant Women there, as this Author speaks, even by the Rapparees; for that Country being thick planted with Protestants, the Rapparees durst not be too bold. Which you will easily believe, when you find what Opposition they were able to give, even to the King's Army.

But to go on with the Story:

There was one Henry Hunter, a Servant to Sir George Atchison in the County of Ardmagh, in the North of Ireland, who was made a Captain by the Associators. Their Forces being beaten and dispersed at Drommore the 14th of March, 1688. this Hunter was taken Pri­soner near Antrim; from whence he made his Escape about the middle of April following, and came into the Barony of Ardes in the County of Down, where they had all taken Protections from King James, and lived Peaceably; there being but one Company quar­tered in that whole Barony, (which is almost whol­ly Scots Protestants) viz. Captain Con Mac-Gennis his Company.

Hunter coming thither, got a great Rabble of these poor People to follow him; and about the 15th of April, 1689. they had a Scuffle with this Company of Cap­tain Mac-Gennis, and what other Irish came to their As­sistance at Kinnin-Burne, two Miles from New-Town. Hunter's Rabble routed them, stript and wounded many, I know not if any kill'd; but he drove them out of that Barony.

This occasioned Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Talbot to march from Carrickfergus, with about an hundred Mus­queteers, the 15th of April to Belfast, and the 16th to Newtown; But finding the Matter over, and, some say, fearing the Scots, who were in great Numbers, and rolling about, he returned the 17th to Carrick­fergus.

[Page 156]This Commotion gave great Disturbance to the Coun­trey, People leaving their Ploughs, and flying to Arms, the Wiser sort dreading the Consequence of this wild Up­roar, after they had taken Protection from the King.

Sir Robert Maxwell then living in the Castle of Killi­leagh in the said County of Down, and near the Barony of Ardes, where this Insurrection began, sent one John Stuart, an Apothecary in the Town of Down, with a Letter to Captain Patrick Savage (a Captain in the Re­giment of the Lord Iveagh) to invite him to bring his Company to quarter in the Town of Killileagh, for their Security from the Rabble in this Confusion. According­ly Captain Savage came, and finding these People in­crease after Hunter, and fearing he might be surprized, quartering with his Men in the open Town, he desired Sir Robert to permit him to keep his Guard in the Gate­house, or Stables of the Castle. Sir Robert was not wil­ling, but took two days to consider of it; and in these two days he sent one Gawen Irwin twice to Hunter, to bring him thither; who accordingly came with his Rabble, seized Captain Savage and his Lieurenant in their Quar­ters, fell upon the Guard, killed three Men, and wounded six or seven. Captain Savage complained that Sir Ro­bert had betray'd him; and Mr. Clulo, Episcopal Mini­ster of the place, did resent the Barbarity of the Acti­on, and apprehending some further mischief to Cap­tain Savage, took him to his own House, where, though a Prisoner, he had greater Accommodation and Safe­ty. The Lord Iveagh wrote to Sir Robert Maxwell to send him his Captain and Lieutenant whom he kept Pri­soners. This Letter Hunter took upon him, and Sir Robert permitted him to answer; and the Answer was, That he would fight his Lordship; and accordingly marched out against my Lord, with what part of his Lordship's Regiment he had near Killileagh, and other Countrey-people of the Irish who joined him.

[Page 157]The Lord Iveagh retired; but endeavoured to make a Stand at Ceyle-bridge, near the Town of Down. Hunter forced his Passage, and drove my Lord and his Men over the Strand of Dun-Drum, into the upper and Mountainous parts of the County, for which his Lordship's Regiment was broke by King James. Hun­ter entred Down Triumphant, and used those Prete­testants who would not joyn with him, as ill as the Irish; committed great Disorders and Irregularities in that Countrey, and Governed Arbitrarily during his short Reign.

For now the Insurrection was come to that Head, that it was fit for the Government to take notice of it. Major-General Buchan (whom this Author calls Bohan) was commanded against Hunter; he took with him De­tachements out of the Duke of Tyrconnel's Regiment of Foot, the Earl of Antrim's Regiment of Foot, Colonel Cormock O Neil's Regiment of Foot, and a Troop of Horse of the Lord Galm [...]y's Regiment, and Colonel Cormock O Neil's Troop of Dragoons, which he had with his Re­giment of Foot, and Captain Fitz Gerald's Troop of Dra­goons. These Forces were then at Carrickfergus, Antrim, and Lisburn. The Major-General marched with the Horse and Dragoons, and left the Foot to follow with what Dispatch they could, who marched in one day, viz. the 30th of April 1689. from Lisburn to Killileagh, which is sixteen long Irish Miles; they joyned the General about Five at Night, who being then within two Miles of the Enemy, marched directly upon them.

Being come within sight of them, he sent a Trumpet to them, desiring their Leader, or some of the Chief of them, to speak with him; not doubting but upon the gracious Offers he was impowered by His Majesty to make to them, he would have been able to bring back these de­luded People to their Duty, without shedding of Blood on either side.

[Page 158]But they fired upon the Trumpeter, and refused all Parley; so they engaged. Hunter was beaten, and fled, and his Party dispersed.

I cannot learn the exact Number of Hunter's Army, or of the Slain. Some say he had three or four Thousand Men. Others not above four Hundred, which may be re­conciled, some computing the whole Rabble which fol­lowed him; others only those that charged in form a­gainst Buchan, but not those upon the Hills, and at grea­ter distance.

Some who pretend to have viewed the Field, and helped to bury the Dead, say there were but sixty One of Hun­ter's Men killed; and others say a great many more.

However, that makes nothing to our present Dispute. How many were killed in Battle is not the Question. But our Author says, That Major-General Buchan Massa­cred five or six Hundred, in cold Blood, for several Days together.

The contrary of which appears, from these two Mat­ters of Fact, known to all the Country.

• First, That the Major-General was very Merciful, even on the Day of Battle.
• Secondly, That he marched off his Men early next Morning, and so did not stay to Massacre, for several Days together.

As to the First. He stopped Execution as soon as the Enemy were broke, and out of Danger of Rallying: And tho' several Shot were made against him out of the Castle of Killileagh, as he was in pursuit of the Enemy, part of Colonel Mark Talbot's Wigg was shot off by a Bullet from the Castle. Yet when he reduced that Castle (which he did the same Night) he not only gave Quarters for their Lives, but would not suffer his Men to take any Plunder. There Major Colaghan shot one of his Men for putting his Hand to a Protestant, after Order given that they should neither be Killed, nor Plundered.

[Page 159]Nay farther, The Major-General was so careful, lest the Souldiers, so exasperated, should do prejudice to the Protestants in the Town, that, though the Foot had Marched sixteen Miles that Day, and fought in the Evening, with­out any time to refresh themselves, and many of them actually Fainting with the Toyl; yet he would not suffer them to come into the Town, but drew them up upon an adjacent Hill, where he kept them all Night; and early next Morning Marched them back to New Town (a Town belonging to Sir Robert Colvil) into which he would not suffer them to enter, for the same fear of their doing any prejudice to the Protestants (who wholly inhabit that Town.) He only took a Guard of Horse, and some Officers with himself into the Town to refresh themselves, where not one Protestant was hurt or toucht: There he dismist all the Prisoners he had taken at the Fight of Killileagh, requiring no other Conditions of them, but an OATH not to bear ARMS again in Opposi­tion to King James (which we know how well they kept, the first Opportunity they had to break it.) And tho' these Prisoners, as well as those that were killed, had then King James's Protections in their Pocket (of which King James did very justly Complain, though this Author Wonders at it;) yet the General did not require them to take out New Protections, but said the Old should be as Effectual to them as before their Insurrecti­on; and they were made good to them to the Day that Schomberg Landed.

The General here sent home the Foot to their Quar­ters; and went himself with some Horse to Port a Ferry in the Ardes, where he took one Thomas Hunter Prisoner. And having settled that Part of the Country returned.

As the Irish Forces Marched over Belfast Bridge, go­ing to their Quarters, their Officers stopped them, and searched to see if any of them had taken any Plunder in that Expedition: And what they found caused it to be delivered to Mr. Pottinger, then Sovereign of the Town, to be put up in the Town-House, in order to be re­stored [Page 160]to the Owners, as they should be known, which was accordingly done.

And the Officers would not permit the Souldiers to make the least halt in the Town, for fear of Disorders, but Marched them straight thro' to their Quarters at Carrick­fergus. In which they were so strict, that Major Colaghan broake a Souldiers Head for taking a Glass of Ale at a Door as he Marched by. Only the Regiment Quartered at Antrim, staid at Belfast that Night, not being able to march so fa [...], but committed not the least Disorder.

Had the Protestant Officers of King William's Army been as careful of their Fellow Protestants in that Country, Ire­land had not been that Wilderness and Desolation, which we see it this Day.

It is just and commendable to give our Enemies their due, and not to conceal or lessen what they do worthily, because they are our Enemies.

Many of the Irish Officers were kind to the Prote­stants, not only in making good their Protections to them, but even where they had not Protections, and were per­fectly at their Mercy.

I could give many Instances which I have heard from the Mouths of Protestant Gentlemen and Ladies, who remained in Ireland while King James was there, of the great Civility of several of the Irish Officers to them.

When the general Rout was given to the Protestants in the North of Ireland, at Drommore, upon the first De­scent of King James's Army, on the 14th of March, 1688. and all were flying to the Sea as fast as they could, several Protestants sell into the Enemies hand at Donaghadee, a Sea-Port in the County of Down, where they sought Opportunity of Shipping, to have fled out of the Kingdom.

Among these was Mrs. Hawkins, Wife to John Haw­kins Esq of Raffer-Island in the County of Down, one of the most zealous and active of any in the North for the Association; in which Cause he was a Colonel, and had his Commission from the Prince of Orange, (as all the rest had) before he was made a King. He was among the [Page 161]first Associators, and made himself Secretary to the Associa­tion, carried on at Moyrah by the Lord Blayney, Sir Arthur Rawden, &c.

All the Declarations of this Association were Signed Per Order. John Hawkins. This was before the Establishment of the Council of Five, or more General Association in the County of Down, the Seventh of January, 1688. who sent an Address to the Prince of Orange, dated at Hilsborough the 19th of January, 1688. which his Highness answered by his Letter from St. James's, dated the Tenth of Fe­bruary, 1688. and sent by Captain Leighton, with his Com­missions to them for Colonels, Captains, and Subalterns.

But this is a Digression: It is only to shew you that no man was more obnoxious to the Irish, and to the Government, than this Mr. Hawkins; in so much that he was one of the Ten excepted from Pardon in the Proclamation before-mentioned, of the Seventh of March, 1688.

This Gentleman's Lady, being taken, among many others, making her Escape, at Donoghadee, instead of be­ing Plundered, was civilly treated, and suffered to go off to Sea, not only her self, but with all her Goods, Fur­niture, &c. and when she offered her Coach as a Pre­sent to Major Colaghon, he refused it, and did not take the Worth of a Penny from her.

I could give you many more Instances which I have heard. But we must not make too great Digressions: I am afraid of being tedious.

Let us Return to our Author's bloody Massacre of the Protestants in the County of Down, by Major-General Buchan, which was the Subject from whence we have been carried thus far.

It was one of this Author's unfortunate days, that he light upon Major-General Buchan to make the Masacrer in cold Blood, &c. For all that know that Gentleman, know him to be a Soldier, and incapable of any such Brutality. It is so far from it, that the common Voice of all the Irish Protestants does proclaim how much they owe to Lieutenant-General Hamilton, to this Major-Ge­neral [Page 162] Buchan, and to Major-General Maxwell, for their great Care, and even Generosity to the Protestants in Ulster; though what they did, (even that of Major-General Maxwel's preserving Belfast and all the Country, when Schomberg Landed) was, as themselves own, by King James's express Order.

But he must have no share of the Thanks, even by those Protestants, who extol his Officers for nothing but duly executing his Orders.

The Irish were as much offended on the other hand against these Three, Scots Generals, for their Partiality, as they called it, to their own Countrymen, tho' in Rebellion; because they restrained the Irish, by King James's parti­cular Order, from using any Violence towards the Pro­testants.

And the Protestants did loudly curse Hunter for the Mischief he had brought upon them; but laid no blame upon Major-General Buchan or his Army. On the con­trary they do to this day acknowledge, That they were dealt with much more favourably than they could have expected, considering the Provocations they had given.

It will be needless to make Application of all these Passages in the County of Down, to that Representation which this Author gives of them.

The thing shews it self; and I have resolved to for­bear all angry Words: Reason, not Passion, gives a true Conviction, and the severest Reproof to all Falshood and Insincerity.

Let the Reader judge from what has been said, whe­ther these Protestants in the County of Down proceeded no farther (as this Author confidently avers) than to complain to the Officers of King James's Army, and to demand Redress of their Grievances from them? And whether they were Massacred in cold Blood, without Re­sistance, suspecting no such matter, &c.

And let us go on to another Instance this Author pro­duces against King James.

[Page 161] Pag. 176. he Charges King James with breach of Articles, to the Gentlemen in the Fort of Culmore, who were disam'd, and strip'd, &c.

I have spoke with some Gentlemen, who were then in that Fort, upon its Surrender, who say; that this is ab­solutely false; for that they were used with Humanity by K. J. and that he preserv'd the Articles to that De­gree, as to give the Chief of them his Pass to go for England, when it was desired pursuant to the Arti­cles

So wicked, as well as ignorant, is that Assertion of this Authors, p. 178. That amongst all the Articles into which K. J. or his Officers entred, they never kept any to the Protestants.

How often have I heard the Irish Protestants here speak with Honour and Commendation of Sarsfield's punctual observation of his Articles, when he took Sligo? and several other instances. And I have heard the most Zea­lous among them for this Government complain much, that the Articles made with Carrickfergus by Schomberg, were not as punctually observ'd. But they laid the fault upon the Souldiers, who were their Conduct, who before they were a Mile from the Town, saw the Coun­try people plunder and strip them; and some say, the Souldiers too put to their hand: But however there were none punished for this. And the Irish do grievous­ly complain, That Major Mac-Swiney, and several other Officers of the Garrison of Carrick-fergus were kept prisoners contrary to the Capitulations sign'd by Mareshal Schomberg himself.

And that the sick and wounded Officers and Souldiers in Drogheda, who, upon its Surrender after the Boyn, were, by the Capitulations, to be taken care of, and sent with passes to their own Army, as they recovered their Health, were not only neglected, and might have starved, but for the Charity of some poor people of their own Na­tion, who sold their Beds and Cloaths to Relieve them, but were kept as prisoners after they Recovered, con­trary to the Capitulations.

[Page 162]And that upon the Surrender of Cork, the Irish Army, tho' Prisoners of War, were, by the Conditions, to be well used, notwithstanding of which, they say, that the General narrowly escaped being Murthered by the In­habitants, and had no Justice done him, nor any Satis­faction, upon his Complaint to the English General. That several of the Earl of Clankerty's Servants were forced from him, to serve Major General—

And that the Garrison, after laying down their Arms, were Stripped, and Marched to a Marshy wet ground, where they were kept with Guards four or five days, and not being Sustained, were forced through Hungar, to Eat dead Horses that lay about them, and several of them Dyed for Want.. That when they were Remo­ved thence, they were so crowded in Jails, Houses, and Churches, that they could not all lye down at once, and had nothing but the bare Floor to lye on, where, for want of Sustenance, and lying in their own Excre­ments, with dead Carcasses, lying whole Weeks in the same place with them, caused such infection, that they Dyed in great Numbers Daily.

And that the Roman Catholick Inhabitants, tho' pro­mis'd Safty and Protection, had their Goods Seized, and themselves Stripped, and turned out of Town soon af­ter.

That in December 1690. one Captain Lawder, of Col­lonel Hales's Regiment, being ordered, with a Lieute­nant, Ensigne, and Fifty men to Guard about Two Hun­dred of the Cork Prisoners to Clonmell, as they fainted on the way, thro' the 'bovesaid bad Usage, Shot them, to the number of Sixteen, between Cork and Clonmell: That Major General Dorington, did demand Justice against this Officer, from General Ginckle: But that Lawder has a Pardon for the Murder, and is still continued in his Post.

That after being entire Masters of Athlone, they Killed, in cold Blood, an Hundred men in the Castle, and little Out-Work on the River.

And at Aghram, above Two Thousand who threw down their Arms, and asked Quarter, after the English were [Page 163]absolutely Masters of the Field: and that several, who had Quarters given them, were after Killed in cold Blood, in which Number were the Lord Galway, and Collonel Charles Moore. And this is no Secret, the Major of Monsieur Epingham's Dragoons owned to Major Ge­neral Dorington, That the Lord Galway was Killed after Quarter, and the Battle over. More Vouchers might be produced, if needful.

They say further, that those who surviv'd, found no Treatment like Prisoners of War, tho' General Ginckle engaged his Word and Honour for it, to Major Gene­ral Dorington, in the Presonce of the Prince de Werten­berg, Mounsieur Marquess de la Forest, and other general Officers: And own'd the good Usage their Prisoners had at Limerick, and other of King James's Garisons, and pro­mised that his Prisoners should be as well Treated by K. W. And these promises he reiterated three days af­ter one another, to Major General Dorington, after the Battle of Aghram.

The Breach of this publick Faith to the ordinary and meaner sort, these Irish say is Notorious to all that live in that Country, and will not be Denied by the Protestants themselves: But what is more extrarodina­ry, That these general Officers, and others, who are now in the Tower, are Metamorphos'd from Prisoners of War, to Prisoners of State, and Committed for High Treason; which they say, General Ginckle himself did acknowledge to the said Prisoners at the Tower, to be contrary to his Promise, and that he endeavou­red to do them all the Service he could, but not with the Success he desired. By which these Gentlemen say, they have Discovered what will be very New, and Sur­prizing to old Soldiers, and Men of Honour, viz. That Princes are not obliged to make good their Generals Promises, tho' such Promises do not Exceed the Customs of War, and (hitherto) Law of Nations.

Add to this the sending many Hundreds of these poor Irish Prisoners at a time into Lambay (a waste Desart Island in the Sea near Dublin) where their Allowance, they say, for four Days, might, without Excess, be Eat [Page 164]at a Meal, and being thus out of the reach of their Friends, who could not come at them, to give them any Charity, they Dyed there miserably in heaps. They Complain too, that a great many poor Men were for­ced from their Families, to swell up the Number of Prisoners, who were reported to be Sold to the Jew, who Furnished K. W.'s Army with Bread: But the vast Number of poor harmless Natives, who were daily Kill'd up and down the Fields, as they were following their Labour, or taken out of their Beds and Hanged, or Shot immediately for Rapparees; is a most Terrible Scan­del to the Government, which the Protestants themselves do Loudly Attest; and many of the Country Gentlemen, as likewise several Officers, even of K. W.'s Army, who had more Bowels or Justice than the rest, did Abhor to see what small Evidence, or even Presumption was thought sufficient to Condemn men for Rapparees, and what sport they made to Hang up poor Irish Pnople by Dozens, almost without pains to Examine them; they hardly thought them Humane Kind! And since the Peace, have first Robbed them, tho' under the Capitulations of Limerick, and then suffered them to Starve in Ditches, and Eat dead Horses in the High-way, which I have been told by many Protestant Gentlemen, who have seen it, and extreamly Lamented it, to see Men Divested of common Mercy or Compassion.

Lastly, The Irish do Complain of Breach of publick Faith to those who Submitted to the Government up­on K. W.'s repeated Declarations, notwithstanding of which, they are Out-law'd, and Prosecuted, (see the Resolution of the Judges at Dublin, Numb. 7. Appen­dix.)

And that by Disarming of Gentlemen, contrary to the Articles of Limerick, taking away their Fowling Guns, as well as Riding Arms, both Swords and pistols, with such Difficulties, and Conditions required to make their Right of being Included in the Capitulations appear, and their open grudging and repining, to make good one Article, saying openly, That they will have them Revers'd in Parliament: Besides, the Country Militia [Page 165]falling upon, and Robbing the poor Irish, who came out of Limerick, and the rest of K. James's Quarters, and by many other Indications they have made it known, what Security is to be expected from their Protections; and whether K. James's or K. William's Protections were best observ'd. The Truth is, there are none of the Protestants that belong to the North of Ireland, that I have met with, but do confess, That the Irish, while among them in Summer 89. kept their Protections bet­ter to the Protestants, than the Protestants have kept theirs to them since.

Nay, one, who was of considerable Post there at that time, told me in these words: The Truth is, said he, it was in the Power of their Gentlemen and Officers to make their Protections be observed; but that is not in our Power: For our Country Folks will not be restrained from falling upon the Irish. Doctor Gorges Letter in the Appendix vouches this.

But to come to an end of this Head, of this Authors manner of Representing K. J. he sayes, cap. 3. §. 18. n. 11. p. 213. That K. J. appeared most zealous to have the Church of Wexford, (which had been seized by the Popish Clergy) Restored to the Protestants, and expressed himself with more passion than was usual, that he would be obey'd, and turned out the Major of Wexford for not Restoring the Church when commanded: Notwithstanding, our Author tells, that the Clergy would not obey him. Here the King has wic­ked Ministers, but Himself is Good and Kind to the Protestants.

But cap. 3. §. 6. n. 1. p. 82. he is so mad against them, That for the Advancement of Popery, He design'd the Ruine of Trade in all his Kingdoms. But p. 83. n. 2. Whatever be said of the general Design, it is certain (sayes the Author) K. James Rained the Trade of Ireland in prosecution of his purpose of Destroying the Protestants there.

Now comes a Mystery, for p. 87. n. 8. he sayes, That K. James went a great way in destroying the Trade of the Roman-Catholicks also; and left the most conside­rable Roman-Catholick Traders in Ireland, without Estates [Page 166]or Credit to follow their Trade, or Answer their Corres­pondents abroad.

Why? What is the matter now? These were the Ci­tizens chiefly of Gallway, who had purchased Estates under the Acts of Settlement.

This seems as if he had gone upon a principle of Justice, to Ruine their own most Considerable Traders, where-ever they thought their Title unjust.

But if they made not Justice their Rule, which our Author supposes, then, Why might they not have Ex­cepted their own Merchants, and Purchasers by particu­lar Proviso's, or given them Reprizals out of the Pro­testant Forfeited Estates?

But I stay not with this. K James, sayes our Author,Of K. James letting the English Fleet Decay. p. 82. purposely let the Ships of England Decay and Rot, that the French might grow great at Sea, and Destroy the Trade of the English. Here is a piece of politicks of our Authors Refining: What was the Design of this? To humble his Subjects! sayes the Author. This was a deep plot! But would not this Humble himself too? Yes, as I told you before, our Author sayes, p. 45. It was manifest that he was content to be a Vassal to France.

A delicate Receit to make himself Great and Arbitrary! If we consider the Condition, sayes the Au-p. 82. in which their present Majesties found the English Fleet, the thing will not want probability. This was a perilous Argument. Suppose many Ships had been Lost and Decayed, might it not be by misfortunes or ne­glect? There came a Lift to the Parliament last year, of above Thirty Men of War, Lost, and Eight disabled, by several misfortunes, since the present Revolution, annexed, n. 12. Appendix; will any say this was done on purpose to let the Dutch, for example, grow great at Sea, And destroy the Trade of the English? What would such a Malicious Observator deserve? And a­bove One Thousand Merchant Men have been taken by the French, the Loss several Millions, during the pre­sent War: As appears in the Petition of some of the Merchants of London, presented to Queen Mary [Page 167]her self, and after to her in Council by some of the said Merchants last October, 92. with several other Grie­vances, and Impositions upon them by the Government, to the Ruine of their Trade, as Pressing their Seamen out of their Ships, obliging them to give Bonds, to go to such Ports, and no other, Embargo's, &c.

Since the Fleet have come in this Winter 92. there were printed Lists, which were sent to the Admiralty-Office, and to the several Captains, with the Names of the Men who have Deserted their Majesties Service (as the Lists speak) out of the several Men of War which came in. That printed Sheet which I saw, was fill'd with the Deserters of two Ships only, viz. The Royal William, and the St. Andrew. I took the pains to Rec­kon over the Mens Names, and there were Deserters from the Royal William, two hundred ninety one, and from the St. Andrew, three hundred forty nine men; both make six hundred and forty.

Now our Authors Logick would infer, First, What Numbers may we suppose have Deserted, and how ma­ny would Desert, if they had opportunity, out of the whole Fleet? Secondly, That these men are not paid, are very ill used, or otherwise Disaffected to the Go­vernment. Thirdly, That K. W. did this on purpose, for the abovesaid Reason, &c. What Stop can there be to Malice and Invention? This Author has not pro­duced so plausible Reasons even as these for K. J.'s Design to Destroy the English Fleet; yet he Avers it positively, and Builds upon it.

But after all, Does our Author know very well, how K. J. left the Fleet? or how he minded the Trade of the Nation? we live here where we have reason to know better than this Author in Ireland. And we know, that among all K. J.'s Faults, this was never reckoned one. No King of England ever minded the Affairs of the Fleet, and the Encouragement of Trade, so much as King James; witness the noble Store-Houses he built at Chattam, and other Ports, such as England never saw the like: Nor were the Magazines and Stores ever bet­ter provided, than when K. James left them, for which [Page 168]I refer you and this Author to the Worthy Mr. Pepy's, Secretary to the Admiralty, his Momoires touching the Royal Navy, printed here in the Year 1690. Of which I have put a short Abstract in the Appendix, n. 11. for their benefit who have not his book: As likewise Sir Peter Petts Speech, and the Seamens Address to King J. By all which it will appear how perfectly groundless this Accusation of our Authors is against King James. I remem­ber it was stuffed into some News Letters, about that time, (for a certain Reason) and our Author sends it over to us, now as a great Discovery. He sayes, some body told him so, but he tells not who they were: But he has eased his Spleen, and Discovered his poor Intelligence, That his Reader may duely Weigh and Consider, upon what so­lid and sure Grounds he sets down all his Matters of Fact, and Consequently what Regard is to be paid to them.

This Author had shewn himself a better Politician, and Historian, if he had Turn'd this Charge against King James, as I have heard several, and in good ear­nest, urge it as a thing of the most dangerous Conse­quence to the Liberties of England, and was with some men not the least Objection against King James's Reign, viz. That he was so good a Husband of his money, that he was able to spare such vast summs to the Navy, and many other Works for the publick; yet not Impose or Demand any Supply from his Subjects, who grew Rich in Trade, beyond the Example of former Reigns: And they saw it visibly proceed from his great Care and Ap­plication to Maritine Affairs, beyond any of his Prede­cessors. This, say these Politicians, would have made him over popular; and put him out of the power of Par­liaments, for he would have wanted no money; and by shewing his people, that his Greatness made them Live without Taxes (which their many years Experience had told them alwayes did attend the Return of Parliaments) It would have been a Dangerous Temptation to them to have wisht him Absolute, while it kept them Rich, and Free from Taxes. And, had not Popery been in the case, he might have bid fairer for Arbitrariness in this me­thod, [Page 169]than by that this Author has found out, of letting the English Fleet decay, on purpose that he might be­come a Vassal to France.

Since I wrote this, I met, in the Third Edition of this Authors Book, c. 3. §. 6. n. 1. p. 93 a Nota Bene in the Margent, in these words, viz. N. B. The Author living in another Kingdom, and not knowing how much had been expended on the English Navy, towards the end of King James's Reign, was led into this Inference by hear­ing that the then Prince of Orange found no Opposition at Sea, when he came for England. But the preceding Dis­courses of King James, and his Friends in Ireland are ex­actly Related, and might purposely be Design'd, to encourage the Irish Nation into the Facility of Invading England, nothing being, at that time, more universally talk'd of, or resolved by them.

Thus the N. B. And let us Mark it well: It is a Recantation of what he had said of K. James's letting the English Fleet Decay, &c.

By this he would induce his Reader to Believe, That this was the only Erratum of his whole Book, and that he was ready to own it, as soon as Convinc'd: Where­by he settles a good Opinion of his own Integrity, and Ingenuity: And at the same time, Confirms the Truth of all the other Matters of Fact, in his Book; because it is to be suppos'd, That if he could have found any other Mistakes in his Book, he would have Rectified them, as well as this.

Which if it be true, we must have more N. B.'s in his next Edition, after his seeing this Answer, or other­wise he must Confute the Matters of Fact I have set down; upon which I do promise to Confess and Amend my Errors, as freely as I expect the like from him.

He gives, for his Excuse, his Living in another King­dom. This, Good Sir, will invalidat, not only Great Part, and the most Beauish of your Book, but of your Famous Thanksgiving Sermon, before-mentioned, where you play your Politicks upon the most private Intrigues of most of the States and Princes in Europe, and tell [Page 170]which Prince is to be Wheedled, which Frighted, which brought under Pupillage, what Queen to be made Bur­ren, what Country to be Bomb'd, what Bought, what Sold, and what Drown'd! And you were farther from all these than from England, and these Designs were harder to be known, than the publick Condition of our own Fleet, which any one may know that pleases, the Lists of them being commonly Printed.

In the next place, Since, as you now Confess, you did not know the State of the Navy, when K. James left it; How come you to be so positive in it in your Book? Must not we believe, by this instance, That you are capable of Asserting very positively, what you know very little of?

But this being a Falshood so notoriously known in England, you thought, by Confessing that, to Lull them Asleep to inquire no farther into what was done in Ireland.

Your very Confession argues your Guilt, and shews it came not from a clear Conversion of your Conscience: For you do it by halves, and unwillingly. You are loath to Allow K. James any Credit, or as little as you can, in his Care of the Navy. First, You do not call it his Act, only you say, that you knew not Of the Mo­ney had been expended on the English Navy, towards the end of K. James's Reign. This might have been 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 Mill [...]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, [Page 171]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 R [...]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 [Page 172] 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?

[Page 173]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 [Page 174]Circumstances, whilst an Enemy is in the Kingdom? There are but a very few Words more in that Answer, which are these. And can 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, [Page 175]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. No­vis (que) 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 [Page 176]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 l [...]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 Red [...]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 [Page 177]his Power Betraying him all they could, a [...]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 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 C [...]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. [Page 178]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 [Page 179]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.

[Page 180]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 Absentees, out of all places under their Majesties Obedience, upon pain of be­ing treated as Spys and Enemies; And all Sheriffs, Ju­stices of the Peace, &c. and all the Militia were Com­manded to search for them, and Seize them; and they were to be Transmitted from Sherriff to Sherriff, which was Executed accordingly, and Great Multi­tudes, especially of Women and Children, were by this means sent into the Enemies Quarters, which hastned that Famine was afterwards among them.

Another of these Proclamations Banish'd all Papists whatsoever, Ten Miles from the River Shannon, or any of their Majesties Frontier Garrisons, on the same penalty.

The Third forbids Sheltring, or Entertaining any Irish Papist whatsoever, but such as they know to be under their Majesties: Obedience, or of Corresponding with them, upon pain of High-Treason.

And I have been told that there were many Procla­mations of this Sort in that Kingdom, some forbiding [Page 181]them coming within so many Miles of any of Their Majesties Garrisons, which were then very many; others Confining them to their Parishes and Citys; and not to stir above five Miles from their Dwelling Houses, &c.

There were two Proclamations issued by K. W. and Q. Mary of the 17. June 90. Commanding all Papists, and Reputed Papists, forthwith to Depart from the Ci­ties of London and Westminster, and from within ten Miles of the same. The second, for the Confinement of Popish Recusants, within five Miles of their Respective Dwellings. I will not trouble you with the Transcri­bing of these, for you have them in the London Gazzet, Numb. 2568.

And such things are necessary in times of War. But our Author takes upon him to Condemn all this as a Breach of the Liberty of the Subjects, &c. p. 95. where he inveighs against a Proclamation of K. J.'s, Dated 26. July 89. which Confin'd all Protestants to their Parishes and Citys, as a very great Encroachment upon their Liberty, and a mighty inconvenience to their Affairs. [That was wisely Observ'd]! And this is one of his Articles against K. J. which will ly equally against every King in the World, in time of War.

Of the like sort is that p. 121. n. 6. That the Irish took Free Quarters p. 132. n. 3. ‘Assessing the Pro­testants for maintaining their Militia, p. 178. n. 5. making the penalty of their Proclamations for bringing in Arms, &c. to be Death, p. 209. turning the Pro­testant Churches into Lodging places; defacing and burn­ing what ever was Combustible in them, p. 162. when the Souldiers got into Houses, under pretence of Gar­risoning them, they sometimes burnt them, and al­ways spoyl'd the Improvements.’ In every of which particulars, the Protestant Army, by many Degrees, out-did that of K. J. if any Credit is to be given to the Irish Protestants themselves. And K. William, by his Pro­clamation, Dated at Chapelisard, 31. July 90. for the Pa­pists to bring in their Arms, makes the penalty, To be treated As Traytors and Rebels, and aband [...]n'd to the [Page 182]discretion of his Souldiers, which you may see at large, n. 6. Appendix.

I do not Argue against this as too severe: There may be reason for severe threatning; for after all, the King may extend his Mercy as he thinks fit.

And this Author does not Alledge, that any Prote­stant in Ireland was put to Death by K. James for nor bringing in his Arms: Nor will he say, that they did all bring in their Arms: But confesses, as you have heard above, that they kept so many as were sufficient to have fought the Irish, and to have beat them too. And sure some of these might have been found out if K. James had sought that Occasion to take away their lives. And this Author's Naming none of the Protestants, who were put to Death upon this Account, is first a Demonstration that there was none so put to Death▪ for this Author would have heard of it, and would not have mist telling it. And secondly, it is a great Vindication of K. James's Clemency, that he did not take this Advantage against them.

But the use I have to make of it, upon the Head I am now treating, is, that this Author Wounds the present Government in the Person of K. James; For how could he more effectually Expose, and Arraign K. Williams's Proclamation, making the Penalty of not bringing in Arms to be Death; than by making it one of the Instances of K. James's Tyranny and Illegal Op­pression, that he Issu'd a Proclamation, making the Pe­nalty of not bringing in Arms to be Death? How could this Author have Expos'd K. William more? Or shewn his own partiality in this History of his, while he Condemns that in one, which he Justifys in another? Was there no Favour or Affection to a Party in this? He takes GOD to Witness there was not, of which we shall come to Discourse presently. But now we go on with the Subject in hand, viz. The Reflections this Author Casts upon the present Government, in his manner of Representing the Carriage of K. James to­wards the Protestants in Ireland. What he says, p. 130. n. 4. of the Protestants being forced to take out Pro­tections, [Page 183]and pay for them, and then having them re­call'd, and paying for new ones in some other Method, looks perfectly like Lampooning the present Govern­ment in Ireland, Who have forced all the Irish to take Protections, and pay so much for them, and then Recall them, and put it into other Hands to Grant new Protections, over and over again: In March 1690/1. All Protections were Recall'd, except those Granted by the General, and all required to take new Protections from the going Judges of Assize, at [...]2 Pence a piece; and I have heard that in one County viz. of Meath there were ten or twelve Thousand Protections given by the Judges. So that this was a Comfortable Circuit!

The reason for the often altering these Protections was given because they said that many Irish were kill'd with these Protections in their pockets, which argued the greatest Treachery in them, and that they took these Protections only to impose upon the Government.

But nor Author vindicates them in all this, at least clears them from our Objecting it to them, while he tells us, p. 172. ‘That K. J. rail'd, on this occasion, against Protestants in general, representing them as false and perfidious; For, said he, many were kill'd with my Protections in their pockets; not Conside­ring (O [...]r Author gots on) the Reflection was on his own Party, against whom his Protection, as appear'd by his own Confession, was no Security. And when Men were thus Slaughter'd with his Approbation, not­withstanding his Protections in their pockets, it was but reasonable for such as surviv'd to think of some other way of Protecting their Lives.’

Thus our Author, and infers that they were kill'd with the King's Approbation, who were kill'd with h [...]s Protections in their pockets. This I have spoke to al­ready. And the Consequence he draws from it, would Justify the Irish, who Survive to seek some other way of Protecting their Lives, than the present Govern­ment. Thus excellently does our Author argue!

[Page 184]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, [...]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 [Page 185]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 [Page 186]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 [Page 187]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. And therefore to be Lov'd by the People, and kept Great, and Inviolable, as their Greatest Security and Glory.

The Author's Conclusion & Protestation of his Sincerity.It is now time to come to a Conclusion. If I have not tyred you, I am sure I have my self. I will there­fore Close this Discourse with a small Reflection upon this Authors Conclusion. p. 239. Wherein he protests before God, That he has not Aggravated, or Mis-re­presented the Proceedings against us, out of Favour or Affection to a Party, &c.

By this he would seem as equal to the Irish, as to the English, to the Papist, as to the Protestant. For which I must Refer you to what has been already said.

But if this had been his Principle, why would he lay such Loads upon a Popish King, for choosing to trust Papists in his Army, and even to prefer them to the Pro­testants? Is it not the same reason, as for a Protestant Prince to desire a Protestant Army? And if, in such a Case, you could not sind persons so Qualify'd as you desire, would you not take the best you could get, and give them time and opportunities farther to Accomplish them­selves? This Author knows very well, this was King James's Case with the Irish. That there was not a Gen­tleman among them, but was employ'd. My Lord Chief Justice Keating, in his Letter to Sir John Temple, 29. Decemb. 88. sayes. The Roman Catholick Nob [...]y and [Page 188] Gentry of the Kingdom, are Ʋniversally concerned in the present Army, and in that which is to be rais'd, p. 351. of this Authors Book. But he (King James) was forc'd to take in the Scum likewise, to make up an Army. Yet this Author makes it one of the Heads of his Dis­course, p. 25. The insufficiency of the persons Employ'd by King James: And Improves that to an Argumnnt for his Abdication.

I am very sensible of the many ill Steps were made in K. James's Government, and above all, of the Mis­chievous Consequence of the Lord Tyrconnel's Admini­stration; which, the most of any one thing, brought on the Misfortunes of his Master.

But when, by what means soever, things were brought to that pass, that K. James was deserted by England, and the Protestants in Ireland, no Man, in his Senses, can blame him, for making use of the Irish, nor my Lord Tyrconnel for Arming, Inlisting, Arraying them &c. In doing whereof (considering the great Trust reposed in him) no man of Honour, or Moral Honesty can truly blame him. Says my Lord Chief Justice Keating, as inserted by this Author. p. 349. And this Author knows very well that Lord Chief Justice Keating, was a firm Pro­testant, and a Man of Sense.

And this Author does Confess. p. 101. n. 5. That these new made [...] were set on Foot, partly on the first Noise of the P. of Orange's descent, and part­ly in the beginning of Decem. 88.

Now at this time to hinder K. James to raise an Army of Irish to assist him is the Argument our Au­thor had undertaken, and for which he blackens K. James to the utmost. He says, p. 166. ‘That with­out any Necessity at all, he (K. James) threw himself upon these People, he Encourag'd them, he Armed them, gave Commissions, even to those that had been Torys, &c.’ Some such perhaps he might Employ, (I have known a High-way-Man an Officer in the Ar­my in K. Charles II. time, and no Notice taken of it) but it was because he could get no better, as is said above. But to say he had no Necessity at all to raise [Page 189]these Men, cannot have common Sence in it, unless this Author thinks, that at that time the Protestants of Ire­land, would have Fought for K. James against the P. of Orange, and so that he had no need of the Irish. If that be our Authors meaning, I hope he will Explain himself. And likewise, whether he does not a little Aggravate the Case (which he protest before GOD he does not) when he assures us. p. 15. That K. James did Prosecute the same, if not worse Methods towards the Protestants in Ireland, than the K. of France did with the Hugonots in his Dominions.

Why? Was there any Dragooning in Ireland, such as we have heard of in France? Yes: Our Author tells us. C. 3. §. 8. n. 15. p. 112. This was perfect Dra­gooning to the Protestants — Terrible Dragooning! Pray what was this? It must raise a Dismal Appre­hension in the Reader, some Exquisit Torture! Prote­stant Bridles! or some-thing like Amboina! Parturiunt Montes. — The whole matter was Disarming the Protestants in Dublin. 24. Feb. 88. But what Occasi­on was there for this Disarming? What Reason had the Government to be Apprehensive of these Prote­stants? All the Protestants Generally in Ʋlster, Con­noght, and Munster, in all Ireland (except Dublin, and other Parts of Linster, whom the. Lord Deputy kept in Awe, with what Forces he had) were then actually in Armes in Opposition to the Government, and had enter'd into Associations to carry on their War.

But may be these Protestants in Dublin were more Loyal than the other Protestants of Ireland. What Reason had the Lord Deputy to Suppose that?

But this Author tells us in the same Section. p. 97. That they had a Plot to Seize my Lord Deputy himself, and the Castle of Dublin, with the Stores, Ammunition, &c.

But when was this? It was, says the Author, when the News came that K. James had sent Commissioners to Treat with the P. of Orange. This was very early. And what if the [...]r [...]nce had A [...]cep [...]d of a Treaty? [Page 190]How did they know but the King and Prince might have Agreed? But they were resolv'd to Anticipate all this: And not to wait even the Princes Com­mands. They were for Supererogation, and to shew Zeal Extraordinary.

But after all, if their Numbers were not Considera­ble in Proportion to the Kings Army, or if they were not well Arm'd, the Government might have over look'd their Rashness, and let them alone. In Answer to this, our Author tells in the same Place; That they (K. Jame's Army) were but a Handful to the Protestants, there being Men and Arms Enough in Dublin alone, to have dealt with them. And p. 111. That they (the Pro­testants) had Arms enough to make the Papists Afraid, and to beat them too, if they had had a little Assistance and Encouragement of Authority to Attempt it. And they knew how to Supply the want of Authority another way.

Now let any one Judge in the point of Reason. Is there a Man in his Senses, that had to do with these People, in the Circumstances they, and the rest of the Protestants of Ireland stood, but would have Disarm'd them if he could?

And for our Author to Equal this to the French Dra­gooning, is betraying of his Cause: It is rendring the whole Suspected. To Aggravate things beyond the Truth, does not make them more, but nothing at all. What Notion does this give us of the French Persecu­tion? Had that King as much to say against the Hu­gonots as K. James had against 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, [Page 191]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 [Page 192]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 —