THE CASE OF THE Irish Protestants: In Relation to RECOGNISING, OR Swearing ALLEGIANCE to, And PRAYING for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY, Stated and Resolved.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Clavel, and are to be Sold by John North, Bookseller in Dublin. M DC XC I.   

Advertisement.  
THE following Paper contains the Result of a certain Persons Thoughts, sometime since, when he, being cut off from the usual means of consulting with others, could only enter into a Consultation with himself, for resolving his own Conscience.  
It is no man's sin simply to doubt, but it is every man's business to endeavour his own Satisfaction: and 'tis some men's Duty to satisfy others besides themselves.  
Of this number, because the Author took himself to be, he communicated these his Thoughts to such for whom he was concerned: and 'tis at their Promotion if they now go further.  
In his Arguing he chose for Satisfaction to proceed rather on Foundations of Divinity, than Policy and Law: little meddling with those Grounds, on which, since the Writing hereof, he finds abler Heads most to build. He is very content to leave each Man to his own Province, and only desires he may not be censured, as too ignorant, for keeping so close within what he apprehends to be his. It is indeed herein he finds most solid Content, Resolution and Repose of Mind.  
God make all of us Sincere, Humble, Satisfied, and if not unanimous, yet at least Peaceable and Quiet.  
Octob. 27. 1690.   

THE CASE OF THE IRISH PROTESTANTS: In Relation to RECOGNISING King WILLIAM and Queen MARY, STATED and RESOLVED.  
I. FOR the due Stating, and so more satisfactory Resolving this our Case, it will be necessary to consider in the beginning, what Recognition of these Princes, or of their Sovereignty, is either expressly, or by consequence, required of us; and than what Barrs there lie in Conscience, to our making such Recognition.  
TWO, THERE can be no doubt, but it is intended, that we should receive and submit to King William and Queen Mary, as perfectly and entirely, as ever by Law we submitted to, or owned any of our late Sovereigns. And I must add, we Protestants, especially in Ireland, have all the Reason in the World, even from our own Interest to do it, with more Zeal, and Passion, than we did to either of their immediate Predecessors. But all the Recognition, which, as far as yet to me appears, is expressly required from any, is, only to take an Oath of Fidelity to them, and to pray for them as King and Queen, and perhaps as our Deliverers from Oppression. Now that Oath, as I am informed, is penned in a shorter, easier, and milder Form, than any of our Oaths of Allegiance in the Reigns of our former Kings. Thus it is said to run:  
I do swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.  
The very penning of this Oath shows the Tenderness, Moderation and Temper of these great Princes. For there is nothing therein Dogmatical, (if I may use that Term) of which Nature was the greater part, and most of the Paragraphs of the former Oath, but only a Sacred Promise of (what is needful) Faith and true Allegiance. Which though (I say) it be most certainly intended, it should be firm and plenary, (and according to the Intention of the Imposer must every Oath be understood by them that take it, else there is Fallacy and Equivocation therein) yet as to each Man's secret Sentiments there is by these indefinite Terms much left to the Judgement and Conscience of every individual Subject, what the particulars of that Faith and true Allegiance are. A Temper not observed in the penning the former Oaths of Allegiance or Supremacy.  
III. THE Barrs in Conscience, which any I think can pretend to against such Recognition are, Oaths formerly taken, and a Recognition made of James II. who is yet alive; and the Bond with which Holy Scriptures tie all Oaths upon our Consciences and Practice, yea, though somewhat unadvisedly and prejudicially made, even to our own Hurt and Damage. The Oaths, I think, which can stick upon any are chief Two, The Oath of Allegiance, and of Supremacy. Yet there is also, if I mistake not besides these, what some called the Short Oath, [Not to take up Arms against the King or any Commissioned by him,] imposed on the Members of most Corporations in this Kingdom, as I have been informed, of late days. However, there is a Declaration in these Words, subscribed and publicly read, or recognised, In Sacris, by all the Conforming Clergy of the three Kingdoms, in so solemn a manner, that it was even upon them equivalent to a most solemn Oath. The Recognition is that made in the late (pretended) Irish Parliament (May 7. 1689,) and past in form of an Act, penned, I confess, with all the Weight and Emphasis, which, I think, either proper or improper Language could put into it. Now that the Resolutions of all Doubts arising from any of these, may be as distinct, as the Brevity designed, will permit, we will consider each severally. And if in the end it appear, that in our present Circumstances there lies no Obligation upon us, to James II. from any of these Ties, than we may with safe Conscience perform what is required.  
IU. AND first, for the Oath of Allegiance. This Oath was lawful and wholesome enough, and in former Reigns, even to Protestants possible to be kept; and also Obligatory. But there are three things which wholly take off our being obliged by it to King James. First, he the said King James II. has made it to us unlawful. Secondly, God and King James have made it at present impossible. Thirdly, we in Ireland are formally released from it, perhaps by Law; I am sure in Reason and Equity. Now if any one of these three be true, the Obligation thereof to King James is discharged: much more, if all.  
V FIRST, I say, King James II. has made it to us who are Protestants, unlawful to pay him such Allegiance, as was due to his Predecessors, and would have been due to him, by virtue of that Oath, had he trod in his Predecessors Steps. His Predecessors, since the framing this Form of Oath, went not about to subject the Imperial Crown and Dignity of the three Kingdoms (as King James has done, especially that of Ireland, with a Witness) to the Power of any Foreign Prince or Potentate, no not of the Pope himself. Which for a Subject to do (for of Princes we will not speak) is unlawful, and Treason by our Laws. We cannot therefore with all our might assist and defend such a King, which yet in the Oath of Allegiance we seem to have sworn to do, because by this assistance we are guilty of contributing to the highest Breach of our Laws; we commit Treason against the Crown: And there being no Accessories in Treason, I will not say in what danger we should be in a Protestant Successors Reign.  
But there is more yet in the Case. It is unlawful by the Law of God, for a Protestant People to assist and defend in the Exercise and Possession of Regal Power such a King as James II. has made and carried himself: for they could not thereby but manifestly contribute, and put their Hands, not only to the destroying their own, but their Protestant Fellow Subjects Estates, Liberties and Lives, and what is more, their Common Religion too. 
* The proof of these Particulars by some Historical Instances, in the Treatment which the poor Irish Protestants found from those in Power under the late King, would cast such Odium on more perhaps than were guilty, that I cannot persuade myself to set it down: and possibly it is so notorious, that I need not. Enough has fallen from my Pen in the Sequel, through a kind of Impotency, or too tender Sense of what I have seen,  If it be said, the King promised to maintain us in the Profession of our Religion, and Possession of our Estates, Liberties, etc. He did indeed so promise, and I believe, of himself at first intended it: But he had put the Power of all into such men's hands, that he could not perform what he had promised. Were not our Rights, our Lands, our Goods, and our Churches themselves taken from us, contrary, not only to his Promises, but Proclamations? And which of any of these (especially our Churches) though upon his express Command, under his Hand and Seal, was ever restored? What can be expected from him, who first incapacitates himself to perform, and then makes fair Promises? Did not the Irish Act of Attainder debar the King of his Prerogative to pardon those which it made Criminals and Traitors (contrary to the Law of Nature, that common Test of Equity, so much appealed to by some in the late Irish House of Lords,) for flying merely to preserve their Lives, or securing themselves from Irish Mercy, that is, from— what I will not say. Nor will I insist upon, what I might add and aggravate: By the Constitution and Laws of the Religion he professes, he either had sworn to destroy (or aught to have sworn to destroy) both us and our Religion. And when Men first swear to do a thing, and then promise not to do it, and capacitate themselves to perform their Oaths, but incapacitate themselves to perform their Promises, which can be expected should take place, the Promise, or the Oath? I may safely avow in behalf of the Protestants of the three Kingdoms, there is not a conscientious Man amongst us, would ever have withdrawn from King James even our Active Obedience, could we have secured our Religion and good Conscience by active Adhesion to him. I will add also, because in my Conscience I believe it; had not the securing the Protestant Religion, more forcibly moved the Prince of Orange, than the Ambition of a Throne, he would never have attempted so speedy a Succession. In a Word, we did obey as far as God's Command goes; Gods Command is with Limitation. Obey in the Lord; we did so. We did obey as long, and as far, as was lawful, and that is as far as any Oath can bind us, for to an unlawful Act no Oath can bind. Herod's Oath did not bind him to cut off S. John Baptist's Head; nor can our Oaths oblige us to be Assistants, and aiding to the cutting off the Heads of innocent Protestant Peers, or hanging up such Commons; and to the disarming, and putting out of Power, all Protestants, and arming and advancing all Papists, and so destroying ourselves, Neighbours and Religion. This is unlawful by the Law of God.  
VI I might here, instead of saying King James has made the Allegiance due to him by this Oath unlawful for Protestants to pay, have said (perhaps with more Propriety of Speech) he has made the Oath as to him void and null. For all his Subjects, who took it, were supposed by Law to swear to a Legal King, that is, to a King who would govern according to Law, and protect his Subjects and their Rights, as by his Oath and Law bound. Such a King the Oath was designed to: and actually to such a King we swore Allegiance. But such, King James did not please to be. Wherefore by this Oath no Allegiance is due to him. But I thought, this notion might seem to some more subtle, and the proof of it might, as above suggested, have been more odious than the other. Each comes much to the same final issue: for according to either the Obligation ceaseth, as concluded; and the Reader may take in his Candour which he pleases. To proceed then.  
VII. GOD has made it to us the Irish Protestants, here at least, morally impossible to perform to King James the Duty which in the Oath of Allegiance we swore: Therefore the Obligation of that Oath ceaseth as to him, or which is the same, we are not bound to him by that Oath. I doubt not but that our Adversaries will say, defending the Person and Possession of a King by force of Arms, to be a point of Allegiance. I say we are here by God's Providence unable to defend King James by Arms in the Possession of the Crown. Not to mention, that it is not long since our Roman Catholic Adversaries, by King James' Orders (as they said) took away our Arms from us; (and surely we are not perjured for not being in Arms for a King, who would not suffer us to bear Arms) God has now put us under the Power of the Second William the Conqueror, whom I must affirm (besides his being, more ways than one, otherwise justly intitleed) to have a Right to our Allegiance by Conquest; that which gave the King of England the first (and still avowed) Title to Ireland. I do aver us in Ireland conquered, and with my Heart bless God for it. For besides our being thereby delivered (entirely and finally I hope) from Popery, we are delivered also, if we attend thereto, from all Scruple, which would stick in us touching the Will of God as to our Subjection to our new King: For we cannot doubt but that we ought to be subject to them, whom God has set over us. And when by his Providence, he so plainly pulls down one, and sets up another, we cannot doubt, who it is whom he has set over us. If still any will doubt, I demand of them, what should a vanquished Multitude, what should Men, Women and Children, brought under Subjection do? Must they all die Martyrs for the Title of a Prince, who would not preserve their Rights by Law and Peace, and through the hand of God has not been able to defend his own or theirs by War? Do not the Irish Roman Catholics, who blame us most, daily make Conditions for themselves, and shall it be unlawful for us to do the same? The great difference betwixt them and us, as to our present Circumstances, is, They were conquered with their Swords in their hands; We, as being their Prisoners, perhaps they may think Slaves and Properties, as it has been too plain to us they would have used us. But this is in our favour: For it appears hereby, those who were their Conquerors were our Deliverers; and if it be lawful in this case for the Irish to accept of Terms, 'tis our duty to be thankful to God that there are those now come, who can give Terms both to them and us.  
This Plea sufficiently justifies us Irish Protestant's against any possible Imputation to us from our Irish Adversaries in this behalf. And as to our English Friends, we will suppose them more sensible of our Condition, than that before them we ought to make Apologies, when in our Consciences we want none.  
But as to the Irish, let me tell them farther, no imaginary freedom of theirs can now in Conscience exempt them from this Subjection. The People of the Jews, the Seed of Abraham, were never in bondage to any (as free born a People certainly as Irish Men can be) yet when God put them under the Yoke of Nebuchadnazzar, his command by the Prophet (encouraged too by a blessing annexed) is serve the King of Babylon and Live. The same which God speaks now by the Voice of his Providence to the Natives of this Kingdom, in as much as he has left nothing else possible to them: They must therefore be subject not only for Wrath, but Conscience sake, and for Men to swear to do what is their duty to do, cannot certainly be unlawful.  
VIII. FURTHER, not only God, but even King James II. has made it impossible to his Protestant Subjects to keep the Oath of Allegiance to him. For that Oath expressly (as well as another ordinarily taken by many of us, (I mean the Oath of Supremacy) obliges all who have taken it, not only to defend to the uttermost of their power His Majesty's Person, Heirs and Successors, but both His and Their Crown and Dignity. Which Crown and Dignity signify (as the Oath of Supremacy, and so the Law interprets those Terms) all Jurisdictions, Preeminences and Authorities, granted or belonging to the King's Highness, his Heirs or Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is of England. The Crown of England saith our Law is Imperial, and subject to no Prince on Earth; but only unto God: If therefore a Prince will subject his Crown, and so his People, to a Foreign Power, and especially to that Power, which has now these several Ages incessantly and indefatigably, by all means within its Sphere, studied and endeavoured the Ruin of them, and the Extirpation of their Religion, I mean to the Pope of Rome, it becomes impossible for the Subjects of such a King, at once (or together) to the uttermost of their power to defend His Person, and His Heirs and Successors, His and Their Crown and Dignity. The Kingdom of England (of which by Law and Prescription Ireland is a Branch and dependent) has ever been avowed, and to this day is, a Free Kingdom: But how Tributary and enslaved it would become, by being again subjected to the Papacy, I list not to aggravate; yet cannot but in short take notice that the Heir, by the Subjects defending and maintaining such a King Possessor, loseth of his Power and Rights: and so doth the Crown of its Dignity, Preeminence and Authority. In such case therefore a Man can no more keep this Oath, than he can reconcile Contradictions; which even the Roman Catholic Divines ordinarily Teach, is not in the power of Omnipotence. And such is the Case between James II. and all the Protestants of these Three Kingdoms.  
But it was worse with the Poor Irish Protestants, than with the rest of the People of any of his Majesty's Dominions. We, though most of us Englishmen, were not only subjected to Roman Catholics, but to the most inveterate of them, Irish Roman Catholics, (Enemies to us on other scores besides our Religion) contrary to the express Laws of both Kingdoms in this behalf, contrary to the manifest Interest of the Heir, contrary to the Honour and Dignity of the Crown of England; from which as far as an Act of an Irish Parliament could do the feat, this Kingdom of Ireland was by Statute (solemnly passed in that their Parliament above mentioned) in effect actually separated and disunited. The Crown of England was hereby to lose the Kingdom of Ireland, a very considerable Emolument certainly as well as Honour and Jurisdiction. These things are notorious matter of Fact, and so publicly manifest, that they cannot be denied.  
I speak not of being subjected to a French Government, and Governors; of our being enforced to supplicate many times for our Liberties and Lives, (I am sure for the supports of our Lives, the eating the Bread, and wearing the poor Clothes, which of our own were left us; and some of us directly for our Lives, even in Cases wherein we were Offenders against no Law of God or of Man, Military or Civil) I speak not I say of our being necessitated thus to supplicate to Governors of a Foreign Nation and Language, who could not understand us when addressing to them in our own Speech, and would not understand our Interpreters in theirs. I speak not of Pacts and Sales, (of which great Evidence, as to this Kingdom of Ireland, or a great part of it, might be given) nor of other like or more odious things; as designedly avoiding all that might exasperate some Men, or together immoderately aggravate others Gild as well as our Oppressions. But it is hereby as clear as the Sun, that if there could be degrees in natural Impossibilities, there lay the highest natural Impossibility on all (but especially the Irish) Protestant's, in the Circumstances they were in, to keep this Oath: and that not by any fault of their own; for they were cast into this impossibility by the Prince, to whom, by that Oath, Allegiance was, or was to have been due. Now forasmuch as no one can be bound to that which is impossible, of all Men, the Irish Protestants stand not, by the Oath of Allegiance, bound to defend the Person of James II. in his or their present Circumstances.  
IX. IF it should be said by any, These Pleas can only discharge Subjects of so much Allegiance as can be proved unlawful or impossible, but they shall still stand obliged to what is lawful and possible, I allow it for truth: and together Avow, that notwithstanding our Performance of what either or both the  Branches of Recognition by the present King and Queen required of us do contain, We both may, and I doubt not all considerative conscientious Persons within these Kingdoms Do, bear and pay all lawful parts, or Instances of Duty to our late King. And principally what the Article of King John's Magna Charta in such Case as this exacts: The Safety of the Persons of the King and Queen, and of their Children, we look upon as most religiously inviolable. None of us would attempt, or consent to any attempt, upon their Sacred Persons.  
There is indeed a Child in Controversy, touching which it must at least be confessed what a most zealous and constant adherent of King James' (the same too if I mistake not, more than once in great Power and Trust under him) has not doubted to publish to the World. The business of the Prince of Wales has been so carried, as if those, whom it most concerns that it should be true, had not had a mind it should be believed, [or words to that effect, for I have not the Paper by me: 'tis entitled England's Crisis.] It is to me an ungrateful task to give such Descant, or Illustration, to this ingenuous Acknowledgement, as the Case requires: but instead thereof I must be so faithful to my own sense as to add, That the Persons most concerned for the Legitimacy of that Child, have now so farther managed the matter, that I see not how its Legitimacy is possible ever to be made out to the Public Satisfaction of these Nations. Wherefore, in my Apprehension, it must remain a doubt till the day shall come, that shall open all things. In the mean time, being there is the same Reason of things not in being, and of things not apparent, no Man can forfeit his Allegiance, for not being solicitous for the preservation of this Child: especially now it is removed out of the Sphere of our Defence, as well as Knowledge.  
As to any other part of Allegiance imaginable, in the present Juncture, lawful or possible, it would be considered in special what the Particulars are. Our Counsel would never be taken, and we have been declared again and again not to be trusted; yea and (notwithstanding the utmost fidelity of many of us) reviled and treated as such. As to our Prayers, what it is not lawful for us to endeavour, it is not lawful for us to pray for. But it has been shown King James has made it unlawful for us to defend him in his Possession and Exercise of his Regal Power: And to bring him back thereto, as far as human Prudence (I think) can see, were but to bring our Religion and its Professors under the same Yoke, Opressions and danger of Extinction, under which we so lately groaned: therefore this it is unlawful to pray for. As far as we may lawfully pray for him, we own we do: nor is it inconsistent with the Prayers required of us for King William and Queen Mary. Amongst those who Err and are Deceived, amongst Our Enemies, Persecutors, and Slanderers, whom we beseech God to have mercy on, to forgive them and turn their Hearts, by way of Eminency, we tacitly comprise our late King. In secret also, perhaps by name, we further pray, That God would take from him all Ignorance, hardness of Heart and contempt of his Word, and to bring him home to Christ's Flock, that he may be saved amongst the remnant of the true Israelites. To do this for him by Name in public, would be looked upon as Affront and public Reproach: To do it in secret, as it is Prudent Charity, so it is a Loyalty we disown not. Thus Samuel mourned for Saul, even when God had rejected him, and it repent the Lord that he had made him King. And beyond what I have thus openly and freely specified, I acknowledge I see not any part of Loyalty and Devotion left lawful or possible to us Irish Protestant's in behalf of King James II. except any would have added a sublime degree of Civil Honour, (the saluting or serving him upon the Knee, or such like) of which together with a Revenue ample enough to maintain a Court, I think there aught to be no dispute; but none of these interfere with the Recognition required.  
X. Now to return from Objections, and to proceed with what was above propounded. Lastly, it is to be said for the Protestants, who now are (at lest who all along these Troubles remained) in Ireland, they are as fully and directly Released from this Oath, at least from that part of Allegiance, Defending King James by force of Arms, as Reason, Equity, or even Express Law can be well conceived to release them. In all Civil Othas, if the Power imposing the Oath, and to whom the Oath is made, shall release the Obligees, such Obligees are discharged of their Oath, and reduced to their first Liberty. Now I say we (the People before specified) were three ways released, either from the whole Oath, or at least from this part of it, which some expect we should own ourselves bound to, of fight for King James II.  
First, the whole Oath of Allegiance, Summer was twelvemonth, by King and Parliament, (a Parliament at least whose Authority and Legitimacy our Adversaries will not impeach) was in this Kingdom by express Statute repealed; under the Name (if my memory fail not) of the New Oath of Allegiance. And whereas some Peers (upon Reasons which are not needful here to be inserted) stood against the Repeal of it, and one excepted against that style, The New Oath of Allegiance, the Answer was returned by them who ruled, assigning the Reign, in which that Oath of Allegiance was made; a point wherein the Objector was not at all ignorant, as I take it, but I am sure was born some Ages, at least, a long Age, and upwards, since that Reign, and so never took any elder, and (I am as confident) never any Newer or Later Oath of Allegiance to King James. Wherefore being by this Repeal released from that Oath of Allegiance, and having never taken any other, such Irish Protestants as I speak of, are under no Oath of Allegiance to King James the Second, and that through his own and his Dear Roman Catholic Parliaments Act. Which being, I think, the only Service they did us, we ought not, but with thanks, to acknowledge, and record it to Posterity: though what Service thereby they did THEIR King (as appropriating him to themselves they used to call him) we must leave him and them together at their leisure to consider.  
Again we Irish Protestant's were not only disarmed, as abovesaid, but by iterated Proclamations interdicted, to have any kind of Arms in our Houses, though merely for the Defence of them from Thiefs and Robbers: and that under divers Forfeitures, which in each later Proclamation were still made severer, and in the end, as I remember, the Penalty was no less, than being proceeded against as Traitors. How far these Proclamations were executed upon many innocent persons, in City, and in Country, by such, who, coming into our Houses to search for Arms, could easily find what themselves had hid, I have no mind to speak: But certainly King James' forbidding us so strictly, to wear or have Arms, was on his part a Discharge to us from the use of them, though in his Defence. For what it was Treason for us to Have, how could it be Allegiance or Duty for us to Use?  
Lastly, it must not be omitted here, what is with the greatest Assurance reported by Multitudes, even of our Adversaries, that upon the late Defeat at the Boyn, King James himself told his Irish Commanders, then about him: He saw their Men would not stand, and they had nothing to do to think of contesting with such an Army, as was against them; commanded too by such a Prince for their General. He therefore advised them to shift for themselves, as, he said, he would do [and indeed did] and to make the best Terms they could for themselves. The same in effect, as is testified by many, he afterwards repeated at his passage through Dublin; and 'tis plain he confirmed these his Sentiments by his practice. Now what was said to them, we cannot but take as (implicitly at least) reaching and extending itself to all his People in Ireland, then in subjection to him; as I am sure were we, touching whom the present Consultation proceeds: Wherefore we were then released amongst others, and left to ourselves, to make Terms; and the Conqueror allowing us no other Terms but these, we are therefore by this Release (if we had not been so before) at liberty to embrace and accept them.  
We have then thus done with the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, together with the Obligation of them both, as to King James the Second.  
XI. IT follows we proceed to the Oath or Declaration of Not taking up Arms against the King, or any Persons commissionated by him, extant in the Act of Uniformity (Anno Dom. 1662.) and either taken or subscribed and avowed publicly by very many of us. Touching this, I will not say what I have heard some Learned in our Laws have said, that this Declaration is not to be found in the Original record of that statute IN TERMINIS as in our Books, but has been corruptly and surreptitiously inserted (as it stands) into the Printed Copy. If this be true, it was an abominable Wrong and Imposition on the Subject; and upon whom to be charged I will not speak, nor so much as suffer myself to guests. But certainly it would in such case much take off from the Obligation of that Oath or Declaration, that it should be so fraudulently and illegally imposed. My Answer then is; I conceive Most, I might have said all Irish Protestants have little to do with this Oath in the present juncture. For either we are already in Arms, or Not. Those of us who are already in Arms, cannot but be presumed to be satisfied, touching the lawfulness of that War, wherein we now are engaged, and are not after Vows to make Enquiry. To me truly the satisfaction seems easy: For a Commission contrary to Law (as are all Commissions of late years granted, or in present being to R. Catholics) is by Law no Commission, and consequently the Persons who bear it not commissionated but private men, or rather while they Act pursuant to such Commissions, Public Robbers; which point justified all that rose against Tyrconnell, or any other R. Catholics in this Kingdom pretending to Commissions from K. James. And if K. James would put himself at the head of such a body to countenance, and abet them, I do not see how his presence (even if he had been in full possession of his Crown) could give them more Authority; Since he could only thereby make himself less a Legal King, not them more Legal Officers. And the same thing (if there were no more) still justifies those who now fight against them that act in his name: Not to speak that K. James has otherwise here Vn Kinged himself; for certainly a King, which releases his Subjects of their Allegiance, as we have shown him to have done, is no longer their King.  
Those who are not yet in Arms, if they have any scruple, for which I profess I see no reason, may forbear taking Arms in that Cause, wherein they are not satisfied. I do not see any compulsory means used to bring them into Arms. It is not required of us all to fight, but all of us are to promise to be quiet and to pray for our Protectors, which certainly all may do without touching on any thing in that (whether) Oath or Declaration. Wherefore in our present condition these also are out of Doors.  
XII. WE are in the next place to consider the Recognition, which was made personally of James the Second in the late (pretended) Parliament of Ireland. As to which parliamentary Act (be it what it can be) it must be said, No Irish Protestant, even of those few that were present in either House, are accountable for the very Body and Frame of it, much less for every particular Expression or even Clause therein. It was the first Act that was past, and truly precipitated. It was not admitted to any due debate (at least in the Lord's house) and some who in the end earnestly desired the alteration but of one Expression, which was apprehended to be improper Language, could not speed therein. Now those who would not at our importunity, altar their style, would not for our sakes have waved any of their fundamental materials, of which they were much more fond. What Perpetual dread and Moral Force, all the protestant members were under, I am very unwilling, if not unable, to speak. It sufficiently speaks for them, that as many of them as by their quality were capacitated to protest, did protest against all the more Momentous Acts that passed, this haply being excepted, against which they had no time well to think, much less to form a Protest: the Act being first brought in to the House of Lords, there read hastily three times (for Forms sake rather than otherwise) and, to the best of my memory, immediately sent down to the Commons, and never by the Protestant Lords heard of again, till brought in for the Royal Assent. Besides this, having been all along kept in the dark, the Protestants there knew not on what bottom, or in what posture, things stood in England, (a Regency and many such Expedients were whispered up and down.) Nor had they had experience, how a Royal Catholic would keep his renewed Promises with Heretics. (Possibly they thought his own Misfortunes might have taught him, if not better Faith, yet more of Government.) And finally, none could either with safety of their Liberties, or even Lives, have protested. To have spoken against this Act, had been to have struck at the Foundation of the Authority, not only of that (whatsoever it was of a) Parliament, jealous and tender enough be sure of its own Power, but even of the whole Government of the Kingdom in all its Branches, And it was as clear as the Sun, such person would have been either, ipso facto, by Vote of both Houses executed for Treason; or if he had got out of the Protection of either House, been forthwith De Witted, and torn in pieces by the Multitude.  
In a word, let this Recognition be of all the force and exactness imaginable to oblige us, it was extorted from us Vi et Dolo malo. And how far then it can oblige being satisfied in our own consciences, we will leave to any, who will be so just as to suppose themselves to have been in our case, and to judge of us by their own sense of themselves, to pass sentence. We are sure no Casuists, or Persons learned in the Laws of God or Man, scarce any man of Reason or Consideration, can condemn us.  
But give it what it had not, the Essence and Form of an Oath, aye, and suppose it not extorted: After all the same Procedure, as above, changing only the Term Oath of Allegiance into that of Recognition, dissolves the Obligation of this as of the Other; for the Arguments are equally valid against both. Wherefore neither from this Recognition does there lie any Obligation upon us to James II.  
XIII. Now lastly, as to the Sacred Tie with which Holy Scripture binds all Oaths upon the Consciences of Christian people, that they are not to Inhabit the Holy Hill, or may not expect to go to Heaven, except when they swear even to their own hurt, they change not, were it our own Temporal, Personal or Private Hurt that were concerned, there had been some colour of Reason for us to have abode both by the Oaths and by the Recognition. We might, and perhaps most of us would have ventured the loss of our Estates, Liberties and even Lives in a Passive Obedience (as in deed we have done, and actually sustained the loss, for no small time, at least of two of the three) had either we ourselves, in our single Persons, been likely to have proved the sole sufferers, or had we been to have suffered only in our Outward Man. In a word, would self-Denial and taking up our Cross have solved the Difficulty, we had esteemed such practice our Duty: And we can say without Vanity, we did really proceed therein, many times with cheerfulness, in Imitation of, as well as Obedience to, our Blessed Lord; suffering patiently for well doing, as far as we could judge patiented suffering lawful for us. But he who commanded us to Deny ourselves, and take up our Cross, did not command us to destroy our fellow Christians and ruin our Posterity; nor to crucify with the corrupt, all natural affections. A man may indeed be conceived to have a right to dispose of his Estate or Liberty, and in some cases, or in some measure, of his Life by Honourable venturing of it: But however lawful it may be for a man to impoverish, enslave, or cast away himself, no man simply has right to dispose of the Estates, Lives and Liberties of others: And thus stood affairs with us. It was not to our own or a single man's hurt or two, that this Oath was wrested and abused, but to the destruction of the whole body of the English Reformation.  
Again in the duty of self-denial, 'tis only the outward man or Temporal concerns that come within the verge of the precept; no wise our souls and everlasting welfare. I am not commanded to damn my soul, through fidelity to any Oath; but I am rather to esteem such Oath a snare. Now it has been above made out, the Loyalty by this Oath claimed from us, was not consistent with the common means of our Salvation; namely, not with the Enjoyment and Exercise of true Religion. But without the Public Exercise of true Religion, People cannot ordinarily and generally attain unto Salvation. Except therefore Men can be conceived bound to keep an Oath to the casting away their own Souls, and the Souls of the generality of People, this Rule cannot be urged in the present Case. Now this is so unreasonable a thing to bind men to, as none but Madmen would expect it from any. Who would hear a Man exhorting at this rate; be constant to your Oath of Allegiance to your King, even to the abandoning the means of Salvation, and to virtual renouncing your God and Christian Faith. Break your Dutiful Vow, which you have some hundred times iterated at the Communion, to keep an Oath once or twice sworn to a purpose, and in a sense, clear different to what it is now urged for. Perjure yourselves to God, to be Loyal to your Perverted Sovereign. Damn your Souls to preserve a Prince in the Abuse of his Power. God deliver us from such Arguing, and such frantic Misapplication of Scripture-Rules, as leads thereto.  
XIV. I should here conclude upon the whole, but that I have frequently heard it, not without Insolence and Scorn, demanded by more than a few, Where is now the Doctrine of Non resistance and Passive Obedience? I answer, where it ever was: In our Bible's and in our Hearts; and I will add too, (not without Defiance to all who reproach us on this account) in our Practice also.  
But this being a Gird from two sorts of Men, some who upon the main are our Friends, and others altogether our professed Enemies, it must have an Answer distinctly accommodated to each.  
XV. FIRST, to those who though upon the main our Friends, yet seem to reject this Doctrine, upbraiding it of Novelty, and them, who taught it, of Court-Flattery, Compliance, Cowardice, or some such commendable Qualities, it is to be said; though some Men understand not this Duty, or have possibly misstated the Doctrinal part of it, and others who have no mind to practise it, will not understand it to be their Duty, but perhaps ridicule it, yet in due Circumstances a Christian Duty it is, and must be acknowledged such, till the Gospels, (or words of Christ Jesus) till the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, as well as other Canonical Books, be torn out of our Bibles, or denied to be the Rule of Christian Morals. And I must add, as to our Case in particular; Had not the alwise Providence, and special Grace of our Heavenly Father, guided and governed the Hearts of some in this Kingdom to preach, and of many to practise this Duty, during these our two sad last years, in which some of our Friends fled for their own safety, others perhaps were ignorant of our Condition, or much unable to help us (who (by the way) dearly earned their help, in staying upon the spot to keep Possession) there had scarce been a Protestant left in one half, I had almost said in three parts of four, of the Kingdom.  
Besides, we must be so free as to tell our Friends, it is to be considered not only what ought, but what could be done by us. We were scattered throughout the Kingdom without a Head, and (otherwise alas!) disunited amongst ourselves; in most places, none of us could make so much as a fair Pretence to command one another, and in others, People would not obey such as were fit or might claim some kind of right or colour to command. We were obnoxious to, (what we felt) the frequent Invasions of the French, and the hourly Incursions and Depredations of the Natives: 'tis uncertain which of the two more merciless: Furthermore, cut off from all Succours (which good God how long with wearied and failing Eyes, with sinking Hearts did we look and groan for!) We can say, whatever Conspiracy, Union or juncture of Circumstances, may be conceived to make the duty of Nonresistance more opportune, seasonable, and so more obligatory at one time than another, did occur in our the poor Irish Protestant's Condition, who were under the power of the Roman Catholics. We had nothing left us to do, but what we did; first, to commit our Souls to God, and then yield our outward man and concerns, to what should betid us, without fruitless (and to us certainly destructive) Struggle, and Exasperations of our Enemies. We could thus heap Coals of Fire upon our Persecutors Heads; that is perhaps melt their otherwise relentless Hearts, soften their Temper, or exhaust the impetus of their Cruelty. This way too, there was possibility of escaping; the other none. And this course taken, was next to the Divine Protection, our great Preservative, and in our Condition, as far as we can yet see, the only one imaginable: I am sure it was the only inducement or reasonable Topic, which some of us, upon the utmost Consideration, could find out to urge to our hard Masters with hopes of success for mercy. In a word, we by this Practice made up a Temper, and mixed (what our Saviour taught us in time of Persecution to do) Wisdom with Innocence; and if some think us herein to have been imprudent, and others too credulous, we crave leave still modestly and peaceably to descent: it is a very small thing to us that we are judged of men: Touching our Honesty, Sincerity, and through all our Sufferings, Constancy to God, to our common Religion and true Interest, (and I may add touching our Charity and upright Intentions to Mankind) we appeal to the Judgement of him who searcheth and seethe Hearts. I will, I need say no more to these our Friends.  
XVI. AS to the other sort, who perhaps with us acknowledge [at least, in Hypothesi,] Passive Obedience to be a Duty, but accuse us, not only of the neglect of it, but of Presumptions and wilful casting it off, we avow, and stand to our avowry, we have practised it all along in its due latitude, and we adhere to the practice of it at present. We have been and are constant to ourselves, constant to our Faith and Duty. We never were, nor are we, of the number of those, who cry up Absolute Power, under a Roman Catholic King, and exclaim against the Exercise of legal and qualified Power under Protestant Princes: who therefore show, it is not any more true Loyalty, than true Religion (or Conscience) that acts them, but Interest and blind Obedience dictate to them their Opinions, and then Faction or Bigotry governs their Practice; and that so slavishly, as not to suffer them to be impartial, in what yet for the general they approve. As to us, the Holy Word of God is our Rule, and Primitive Catholic Saints our Patterns and Examples: And from these we allow not ourselves to swerve. Of Active Obedience, as far and as long, as with good Conscience we could, we declined no part, as above professed: When we could go no farther, or through the Suggestions of our Enemies, might not be trusted we quietly submitted, even to the enduring Oppression itself, in its very extremity. In both regards, thus rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. We could not serve in a War for the Destruction of the Protestant Religion: No more did the ancient Christians against their fellow Christians; and they are reputed Saints for it to this day, even in the Roman Church: Witness the famous Case of St. Martin. There have been perhaps scarce in any days more illustrious Spectacles of Passive Obedience (The Thebaean Legion being excepted) than some parts of Ireland have shown within these fourteen or fifteen months' last passed. Many hundreds of able, lusty, and well spirited Men, have rendered themselves up in a body, at the cry of a Bell-Man, or some such mean Summons, to a few People then in Power, whose Persons they would have scorned, had they not worn the most plausible Character or Pretence (there was at that time in that part of the Kingdom) of legal and ordinary Authority. We can say, it was only through want of Commission, that is, through mere Conscience of want of due Authority on our sides (which we now own ourselves to have) that we suffered ourselves (while we were sensible of our real Strength) to be driven in flocks to remote Prisons, (we knew not but) as Sheep to the slaughter; for not a few perished by or in Prison. Mean while some poor Protestant Women, with their Sucking Children in their Arms, and at their Breasts, have been knocked down, with the Butt ends of Muskets, for giving their hungry Husbands a bit of Bread in their Hands, as they passed by driven to Prison. And I myself, when complaining of this, have been told, This usage was too good for us, etc. These Instances and Vicissitudes of Imprisonment and Oppression, we Irish Protestant's have suffered oftener than my Memory now or perhaps knowledge from the first serves to report. And these are ample Demonstrations of our due regard to the Christian Laws in this behalf.  
XVII. BUT some of these Gentlemen, whom we are now answering, may possibly further urge. However the quiet part of the Protestants in Ireland may not formerly have had so great a share in Rebellion, as their Brethren in England, yet must they acknowledge those their Brethren to have in the present Revolution utterly cast off the aforesaid Doctrine and Practice: and themselves now joining with them, must needs become, if not equal, yet Partisans in their Gild, and consequently be Rebels and Apostates from their own avowed Principles.  
In Answer hereto, these great Patriots of Christianity in Dispute, but Enemies and Oppressors of it in Practice, must suffer us to tell them, (for it is no great presumption to suspect most of them, either through Infirmity, Wilfulness or Devotedness to a Party, ignorant) that Passive Obedience or Nonresistance, as well as other Christian Duties, has its Bounds, and Seasons of Practice; and though it be an undoubted Duty, obligatory to private persons, and perhaps to some small subordinate Societies of Men, yet does it not either concern all sorts of Men, or all Bodies of People; much less whole Nations. It is not the Business of this Paper, to ascertain all its Measures. But in short: Who can imagine not resisting Evil, turning the other Cheek, giving the Cloak also, are Duties to be Preached to, or required of a Parliament? Can any be so absurd, as to put no difference betwixt the private Rules of holy Living, and the public Laws of Civil Government; betwixt means intended to bring penitent Men to Heaven, and those designed to curb or restrain obstinate wilful Sons of Violence, that they destroy not the innocent and one another? For the attaining of one end, the great Measure to be observed, is Self-denial, and abundance of Charity; for the other, strict Justice, and insisting upon particular Rights. On the one hand, in fit Circumstances, Non Resistance takes place as necessary; on the other, Resistance, where other Means will not do, is no less necessary and lawful: So that what we ought, ordinarily, to teach a private handful of People to save their Souls, we must not dictate to the three Estates, to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, together with the whole Commons assembled in Parliament (a Body of near eight hundred Persons, all of highest Quality, in their respective Ranks and Orders, in the Kingdom) as a Standard, by which they are to regulate the State. What Sense would it be to exhort them in Authority (and great is the Authority of the three Estates; when the King leaves the Nation, the greatest certainly in the Nation) what Sense would it be, I say, to preach to them in Authority, or to the higher Powers, to be subject to, and not resist themselves? But it is Sense, and the Duty of the Clergy to dissuade their People from Revenge, from multiplying Suits at Law, from Sedition, Tumults and rebellious Projects; and for this purpose to lay before them the Commands of the Gospel, which require of them Peaceableness, Meekness, and rather to suffer Wrong, Damage, nay, even Oppression itself in some measure, than involve all in War and Blood, which is a far greater Oppression: And this is all the Nonresistance we preach or hold. But whereas we are now involved in War, whose Fault is it? Theirs sure who begun it, who first raised, and then maintained an Army contrary to Law, etc. In a word, and to speak roundly, The King of England is King of three Kingdoms; by Law Protestants, not Slaves. It is impossible for three Kingdoms to have all their Eyes put out. They must therefore see themselves ruining, before ruined. And it is as unreasonable, as impossible, to persuade three Kingdoms to give all their Throats to be cut. No Law of God, or Man, can be thought to oblige them hereto. For any therefore to think, that as the three Kingdoms see, so they should not withstand their own Ruin, or which is much the same, that the Duty of Non Resistance should take place in such a Case as this, is for him to forfeit all Sense and Reason, or to become really mad, that he may seem to be Religious. Wherefore when things have their true Names, either English or Irish Protestants taking Protection under a Protestant Prince, whose just Assertion of his own Rights necessarily involved also their Defence (and this at a time when their own King had cast them off from Protection) must be acknowledged no Rebellion: I avow them who thus fly for, seek, or accept, Protection to be as Passive as any where the Gospel requires them.  
XVIII. BUT it will be said, in respect of the Invaders, there must at least be acknowledged an Offensive War. Be it so, yet was it a most just one. For the Prince of Orange was no Subject, and therefore could not be a Rebel; and the Causes which he had to enter England, when he did, and in the manner in which he did, with armed Force, were both more in number, and for Weight and Justice far greater, than it can be expected should be represented in this Paper. Nor was his Advancement to the Throne less just and equitable. I do not find that they, who have impartially considered all, can assign any thing that could be done, more reasonable, and as far as Man can see, more wholesome to the Interest of Religion and Peace, whether in the three Kingdoms, or even in Christendom itself. But these things have been undoubtedly deduced by abler Hands; nor is it needful to our present purpose any more than to point at them. We here have had a long and very dark night, and have been often abused with false Lights; so that perhaps we know not yet the true State of many Transactions, nor are capable therefore to discourse of them, as were requisite. Some persons possibly there are, all whose Conduct I cannot excuse: but the Swearing Faith to, or Praying for, King William or Queen Marry, does no wise involve any in a necessity of such men's Vindication.  
XIX. THE Conclusion then of all shall be; Out of the Power of a King, which would not be persuaded to preserve himself, and neither could nor would protect his Protestant Subjects; Out of the Hands of merciless and barbarous Fellow-Subjects, who were bend to have destroyed both themselves and their Country, and all in it with themselves; and finally from the Lashes of the Scourge of Christendom, God has brought us poor oppressed Protestants under a Protestant Prince. The Case now in short is, whether we will accept Protection or no? The Conditions indeed (say our Adversaries) are very hard: Yes, they are no less than what God has made our Duty, if not our Necessity, to Swear to bear Faith, and true Allegiance to, and to Pray for our Deliverers, and their Conquerors, in that Quality wherein we find them, and wherein they have Delivered us, and Conquered them. That is to promise sacredly to Man such Subjection, and to make to God such Prayers, which in our present Condition, even without such Promise, it were sin not to do. In the whole Revolution God has not vouchsafed to us such Irish Protestants (who are mainly concerned in this Paper) any active part in advancing these Princes to their Power: He has thought fit to assign us still only a Passive Lot. We must acknowledge it is not, it has not been our Business to set up Powers: but yet we must own it is our Duty to obey them. And no less (certainly) to be thankful to God and them, if we may be protected by them. The Scripture is express, Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers. Such certainly the Conquerors are. And, I exhort, that first of all Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of Thanks be made for all Men, for Kings, and all that are put in Authority; [even for the person of a Nero therefore at that time:] and if for the froward, much more for the good and gentle.  
Let us cheerfully then comply in both points, and lay down not our Conquered Arms (for Arms we Protestant's have not been now a long time suffered to wear,) but our captivated Hearts, at the Feet of King WILLIAM and Queen MARY, whom God long preserve.  
AND, O thou who hast hitherto delivered us from our Enemies, Deliver us now from ourselves. Let there be no Shimei or Sheba in our Israel: But bow thou the Hearts of all the Tribes as one Man, that they may establish the Kingdom in their Majesties, whom thy Hand and out stretched Arm has now set over us. Do thou, O King of Kings, defend these the true Defenders of the Faith, and make their Arms by Land and Sea Victorious, for the Reformation (if it might be thy Will) at least for the Pacification of Christendom; that we whom thou hast saved from the Hands of our Enemies, may serve thee without fear, in Holiness and Righteousness before thee all the Days of our Life; and these Kingdoms may flourish, in Truth and Sanctity, in Peace and Plenty, to the Glory of thy Name, and of the Blessed Memory of our Deliverers to all Posterity: Amen.  
FINIS.