2 all the religious affairs of that kingdom." And Dr. King confeffes, "that when he was there in perfon, he turned out the popifh mayor of Wexford, for not restoring a church of which the proteftants of that city had been difpoffeffed; and that he expreffed himself with more paffion on that occafion than was usual to him." This was a fact so notoriously true, that the doctor was ashamed to deny or conceal it; but he was not ashamed to affirm and publifh what was as notoriously untrue, viz. that in the diocese of Dublin alone, twenty-six churches and chapels were by him taken from the protestants; and that his majesty could not, or rather would not, prevent the demolishing, defacing, or feizing of nine churches out of ten." King James had published a proclamation, December 13th, 1689, against meddling with any of the proteftant churches in Ireland, as a violation of the act of liberty of conscience. But "his promises to protect the protestants of that kingdom," fays Dr. King, "were meer pretences; the popifh priefts having taken poffeffion of moft of the churches there, by his private permiffion." 2 Ubi fupra. 3 State of the Proteft. &c. p. 177. C Mr. King James was hardly ever noted for duplicity of conduct; this cannot be faid of his competitor for the crown. The Prince of Orange in a letter to the emperor, acquainting him with his intended expedition into England, fays, "I affure your imperial majefty, by this letter, that whatever reports may have been fpread, and notwithstanding those which may be spread for the future, I have not the leaft intention to do any hurt to his Britannic majesty, or to those who have a right to pretend to the fucceffion of his kingdoms, and still less to make an attempt upon the crown." And a little after; "I ought to intreat your imperial majesty to be affured, that, I will employ all my credit to provide, that the Roman catholics of that country may enjoy liberty of confcience, and be put out of fear of being perfecuted on account of their religion." Sir John Dalrymp. Mem. vol. iii. p. 170. See Append. Not only the emperor, but the pope himself, was cajoled by thefe deceitful affurances. And yet Dr. King, at the fame time, confeffes," that the proteftants, in their application to government for the recovery of 5 Mr. Lefley treats this whole accusation, as a notorious untruth and calumny; he calls upon Dr. King to shew even one proteftant church in Ireland, that was taken away, either by King James's order or connivance. He affirms that his majefty was fo very careful of the proteftants, in that point, that even at Dublin, where he kept his court, neither the cathedral, nor any parish church in the whole city was taken from the protestants; he owns that he took Chrift-church for his own use, because it was always reputed the king's chapel.d But Dr. King himself," adds he," and others then preached paffive obedience in their own pulpits in Dublin; and that to fuch a degree, as to give offence to fome of their proteftant hearers, who thought they ftretched even to flattery." e These pofitive affertions, publicly and grievously impeaching Dr. King's veracity, having never fince been contradicted, or even queftioned by him or his friends, afford the strongest presumption, that they were, at that time, generally known and acknowledged to be undeni ably true. CH A P. 5 Anfw. to King. of fome churches, had the luck to gain feveral of the popish nobility to favour their fuits." Ubi fupra, p. 176. "King James, fays Macpherson, was peculiarly unfortunate; he was charged by the proteftants of violence in favour of the papifts; he was accufed by the papifts of too much lenity to the proteftants." Hift. of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 564. d Yet fome adverse writers have taken the liberty to charge K. James with violating his coronation oath. Was it for protecting the proteftants, or allowing the catholics the free exercife of their religion, they forged this calumny? For King James's Coronation Oath, fee the Append. ad finem. e "Dr. King then used to say, that perfecution never hurted religion, but that rebellion destroyed it; and that it would be a glorious fight to fee a cartful of clergymen going to the stake for afferting the principles of religion, with regard to paffive obedience." Lefley, Anfw. Pref. CHA P. XIV. King William's treatment of the epifcopal clergy in Scotland, compared with King James's behaviour towards the proteftant clergy in Ireland. MR. Lesley has drawn a parallel between King Wil liam's behaviour to the epifcopal clergy of Scotland, and King James's to thofe of the established church of Ireland, at the fame time, viz. in the year 1689; by which it appears, that the former did actually effect in Scotland, what the latter was only fufpected to have defigned in Ireland. 1 "When," fays he, "the ftates of Scotland were convened by King William's circular letter of March 1689, the oaths required by the law to be taken by all members of parliament, or any judicature, before they can fit and vote there, being laid afide, the antimonarchical and fanatical party were admitted into the house; and thereby, becoming the greater number (when the major part of Scotland, and much the greater part of the nobility and gentry, were epifcopal) did afterwards frame an act of grace, pardoning and acquitting all thofe that had been concerned in the open and public rebellions of Pentland-hills and Bothwell-bridge; and thus these furies incarnate, the affaffinates of the Lord Archbishop of St. Andrew's, as many of them as were then a Preface to his Anfwer to King. a "On the 3d of May, 1670, Dr. Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrew's, on his way to that city, was attacked by a party of thefe furious zealots. The most of his fervants were abfent; his daughter only accompanied him in his coach. Having fired on him in vain with their carabines, they difpatched him with their fwords. His murder was accompanied with circumftances of the utmost barbarity: when he ftretched forth his hand for mercy to one of the affaffins whom he seemed to know, the inhuman villain almoft cut it off with a ftroke of his fword. His daughter was wounded in feveral places, endeavouring to cover her then alive, were enabled to become members of parliament. The fanatical mob, that had rabbled the epifcopal clergy, were armed, and made the guard of this meeting of the eftates, and refolved to facrifice any who durft oppofe their defigns. They attacked the Archbishop of Glasgow in the streets of Edinburgh where the convention fate.' "On the 31st of May 1689, King William fent inftructions to Duke Hamilton, commiffioner, in these words: "You are to pass an act, turning the meeting of the estates into a parliament, and the three estates are to confist of the noblemen, barons and burgeffes." Accordingly, the meeting, where the bishops formerly fate, was on the 5th of June, 1689, turned into a parliament, the bishops being firft excluded. Two days after, that parliament paffed an act fettling prefbyterian church-government, and on the 22d of July following abolished epifcopacy. This was done in confequence of new inftructions fent to Duke Hamilton in these words you are to touch the act abolishing episcopacy, as foon as you can; and to refcind all acts inconfiftent therewith." These inftructions were figned by the King, at Whitehall, July 17th, 1689, and the act was touched at Edinburgh, on the 22d of the fame month; and thus fell epifcopacy in Scotland, two months and eleven days after King William and Mary 66 took her aged father from the murderers; they even mangled the dead body; they at length left the torn carcafe with every mark of indignity on the high way. Men were fhocked at an enthusiasm that gave the name of a religious action to the worst of crimes. An univerfal joy followed the murder of Sharp among the adherents of the covenant, the pulpits thundered forth the applause of the affaffins, and even fome, who approved not of the manner of the deed, expreffed their gladness at the removal of the arch enemy of their forms." Macphers. Hift. of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 272. The blow (fays Macpherson) which the royal prerogative received in Scotland, in the memorable 1688, established licenciousness, instead of freedom in that kingdom. The parliament was placed in a fituation to make the most for themselves, at the hands of the king, while the people felt nothing from the alteration in government, but a change of tyrants." Hift. of Great Britain, vol. ii. p. 332. took upon them the crown of that kingdom, which was the 11th of May, 1689." С НА Р. XV. The true caufe of the decline of the proteftant religion in Ireland in the reign of king James II. THE decline of the proteftant religion in Ireland, in the reign of king James, was not owing, as Dr. King fuppofes, either to the violence of his government, or the artifice, or industry of his priests; but to the negligence at firft, and afterwards to the felfinterestedness and tergiverfation of its own clergy. Of their negligence,' Lord Clarendon himself frequently complained, a * State Lett. vol. i. p. 215. "They were printed at London, by order of King William, ann. 1689; and the Scots acts of convention and parliament, above quoted, are collected and extracted from the registers and records of the meeting of estates and parliament there by the commiffioner, then exercifing the office of clerk-regifter, and printed Cum Privilegio at Edinburgh, ann. 1690." Lesley, ib. "By an act made in Scotland in 1695, epifcopal ministers were prohibited to baptize or folemnize matrimony, in pain of perpetual imprisonment, but repealed 10th of Queen Anne, and no perfon to incur any penalty for reforting to epifcopal meetings, nor their paftors for preaching, adminiftering the facraments or marrying." Summary of penal Laws, p. 79. "I did not find (fays Marshal Schomberg, in a letter to King William, from Lifburn, December, 1689), that the minifters apply themselves enough to their duty; whilft the Romish priests are paffionate to exhort the people to die for the church of Rome, and in putting themselves at their head." Dalrymp. Mem. vol. iii. p. 59. that very few In one of these letters, he tells his grace,. of the clergy refided in their cures; but employed pitiful curates, which neceffitated the people to look after a Romish priest, or a non-conformift preacher, of both which there was plenty. That he found it an ordinary thing in Ireland for a minister to have five or fix, or more cures, and to get them fupplied by those who |