MR. Molyneux has, I think, demonstratively prov'd the Inde­pendence of the Kingdom of Ireland from the Kingdom, though not from the King of England, because he is also King of Ireland; as of Scotland, though without any Subjection of the Kingdom of Scotland to the Kingdom of England: I say, he has prov'd this, by undeniable Matter of Fact, through all the ancient Precedents, down to the Reign of K. Charles II.

But from the Time he produces Precedents of some Acts of Parlia­ment in England, which have bound Ireland. Against which he com­plains as Innovations: And which therefore ought not to destroy their Ancient Liberties and Freedoms. And he has besides Three Arguments, by which he wou'd avail the force of these late Precedents, from being any binding Law to Ireland, so as to dissolve their Original Indepen­dency upon England.

The first is, That there has been no occasion of Executing those Laws in Ireland; as he Instances, p. 103. upon occasion of the Tobacco Act, i. e. forbidding Tobacco to be Planted in Ireland; For there is none Planted there: And therefore there has no Case happen'd, to dispute the Vali­dity of that Act made in England; and consequently to know whether Ireland has Subjected it self to that Act?

Secondly, That Private Persons may obey an English Act which relates to Ireland, for their own Security, and to avail Trouble or Charge to themselves: But that this does not infer the Consent or Submission of the Kingdom of Ireland, whereby it may be bound by such Precedents.

This may be Pleaded in Relation to the English Act of Navigation, which obliges Irish Ships, Importing any Goods from our Foreign Plan­tations, to Touch first at England. And the English Acts Prohibiting the Exportation of Wool from Ireland, to any Country, except to England. These Mr. Molyneux mentions, p. 103, 104.

The Third Argument he has, is, That some Acts have been made in England, Relating to Ireland, in the Times of such Wars and Confusions in Ireland, that a Parliament could not be held there: And yet that it was thought Necessary, at least Beneficial, to provide for the Safety of the English Interest there, by Acts of Parliament in England, till such Time as Regular Parliaments could be had in Ireland. Upon this Head, he endeavours to salve some Acts of the English Parliament, made since this Revolution, which relate to Ireland. As the Act for the Prote­stant Irish Clergy, p. 107. And the Act for Security of the Protestants of Ireland, p. 109. Both made in the first Year of W. and M.

But p. 111. He comes to a very hard Case; which is, The Act of the English Parliament, Abrogating the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland, and Appointing other Oaths. 3 and 4 W. and M. c. 2. And, To this (says he) the Parliament Conven'd at Dublin, Anno 1692. under Lord Sydney; and that likewise Anno 1695. under Lord Capel, paid an intire Obedience. And by this (continues he) 'tis alledged, we have given up our Right, if any we had; and have for ever acknowledged our Subordination to the Par­liament of England. And believe it, it seems to be a very shrewd Alle­gation. For none of the former Salvos will serve in this Case. First, was not in time of Wars, and such Confusions, as to hinder a Parliament to be held in Ireland: For there was a Parliament held there the same Year, Anno 1692. Secondly, This was not the Compliance of Private Persons, but of Two succeeding Parliaments, Anno 1692. and 1695, in Ireland. Thirdly, It cannot be said, That there had been no Occasion of Executing these Laws in Ireland. For this Act has been Executed to the uttermost; By this all Roman Catholicks are Disabled to sit in either House of Parliament there. By this, all the Popish, and one Protestant Peer have been thrust out of their Seats in the House of Peers. And, by the same Rule, all the rest, and of the Commons too, who had not taken Care to qualifie themselves, pursuant to the English Act, had forfeited their Right to sit in Parliament; and consequently, left Ireland with­out the Possibility of any Parliamant at all. By this one Bishop, and others of the Inferior Clergy have been Deprived. By this Act several Penalties and Disabilities are impos'd upon Persons of all Ranks and Con­ditions; [Page 3]which has been exacted upon all the Non-Compliers to the said English Act.

Now, if a People can give up their own Rights (which according to Mr. Lock, &c. (from whom Mr. Molyneux takes it) upon Trust) is the Original and Foundation of all Government; what more Authentick Method can be taken, than to have them Surrendred by the Cession and Submission of the Representatives of the People in Parliament.

This is a Material Point which, if not cleared, makes an end at once, of all the Pretensions that can be set up in behalf of the Kingdom of Ireland, for its being Independant upon the Kingdom of England; and not bound by the Acts of Parliament in England, even without having any Representatives in the English Parliament. That is, That the English, as well as Irish, in Ireland, are in the Condition of Slaves; and to be disposed of, both as to their Lives and Fortunes, without any Consent of their own, by Themselves, or their Representatives. For such they have render'd themselves, by the intire Obedience which Two of their Parliaments Successively have paid to the English Act enjoining the Oaths there; and by Executing the same, even in the Qualifications for Members to serve in Parliament, which are prescribed in the said English Act.

Therefore, it will be worth the while, to see what the Ingenious Mr. Molyneux has to say, in order to Ward off so Fatal a Conclusion.

He says, p. 111. 112. That this Submission of the Irish Parliament is to be deem'd as purely Voluntary, and not at all proceeding from the Right which they conclude thereby in the Legislators. If a man (says he) who has no Jurisdiction over me, Command we to do a thing that is Pleasing to me, and I do it; it will not thence [...], that therefore he obtains an Au­thority over me, and [...] ever hereafter I must Obey him of Duty▪ If I Voluntarily give my Money to [...] Man when I Please, and think it Con­venient for me; this does [...]t Authorize him at any time to Command my Money from me when he Pleases. Thus he: [...]ut, under favour, this is a very Lame put off; and the Case is not stated aright. The Case is not of one who has no Jurisdiction over me; that is, who Claims none. For then, there is no Dispute: But the Case shou'd be put, of one who Claims a Jurisdiction over me; and then it ought to be consider'd, how far my Submission is to be Construed a Yielding up to him that Right over me, which he Claims. And such sort of Submission no doubt there is; and has been so Rul'd in all Ages and Cases. Therefore the present Enquiry is, Whether this Submission of the Parliament of Ireland be of this sort or not? And what shou'd hinder it? For here is a Submission and in­tire Obedience of Two Parliaments in Ireland, to a Right and Jurisdiction which the Parliament of England does Claim over the Kingdom of Ireland. And what can be an Owning of this Claim of the Parliament of England, if this be not? Here is no Caveat, or Reserve, put in by the Parliament of Ireland, to save this Jurisdiction now Claim'd, and put in Practice by [Page 4]the Parliament of England, from being a Precedent for the Time to come: But (as Mr. Molyneux Words it) an intire Obedience paid to the Juris­diction of the Parliament of England.

Suppose a Man Claims a Paramount Right to my House and Estate; and Pretends, That I am but his Steward or Baily, and hold only at his Plea­sure: And, in pursuance of their pretended Right, shall issue his Orders to me, Limiting me what Servants I shall keep, and Admit such and such for Tenants, and no other. And if I pay intire Obedience to these Orders, without the least Interposition in behalf of my own Right; and shou'd Execute these Orders, as his Orders, and not at all as my own, or as deriving any Authority from me; will it serve to say afterwards, That this was purely Voluntary in me; and that I only did what I had a mind to do my self? Wou'd such an Excuse pass? Wou'd it not appear ex­treamly Ridiculous: But especially, if I durst not make any such Excuse for my self; only another pretended this for me. The Parliament of Ireland has not Adventur'd to say any Thing of this, in their own Be­half; to enter the least Protest, or Salvo for their own Rights and Inde­pendency upon the Parliament of England. Therefore what is said on their Behalf by others, not any way Authoriz'd by them, cannot be taken as a keeping up of their Claim. It is none of their Act; and as they are not Answerable for it, neither can they keep any Advantage by it.

The next Thing Mr. Molyneux Advances, in Behalf of the People of Ireland, to save their Rights from the Consequences of this Act, is Page 113. Where he says, That the Right of being Subject only to such Laws to which Men give their own Consent, is so inherent to all Mankind, and Founded on such Immutable Laws of Nature and Reason, that 'tis not to be Alien'd or Given up, by any Body of Men whatsoever.

This strikes at the Power of the Irish Parliament, to Give up the Rights of the People of Ireland, as they have done, by their intire Obe­dience to this Act of the English Parliament. And this, upon two Con­siderations. First, As supposing that the People never meant to Give up their Rights so intirely to their Representatives in Parliament, as to Im­power them to Betray them, and Deliver them up to whom they thought [...]it: And therefore, That any such Act or Concession of the Parliament is Void, and not to be Own'd by the People. Secondly, That supposing the People had Granted their Representatives such a Power, yet that the Grant was Void; because that it was not in the Peoples Power to make such a Grant, as being against the Immutable Laws of Nature and Reason. I will not enter upon the Disquisition of these Topicks, as being equally against the Power of all Parliaments, as well in England as in Ireland. And the Recurring to the Original Rights of Mankind, antecedent to all Constitutions and Frames of Government, carrys with it such long Consequences, as I am not willing to meddle with at present: But shall [Page 5]content my self with this, which seems to be granted by this Argu­ment, That as far as it is in the Power of a Parliament to Give up the Rights of a People, so far has the present Parliament of Ireland Given up the Rights of that People, to the Parliament of England, by their in­tire Obedience to this Act. And what Other or Better way there is for a People to Give up their Rights, than by their Representatives in Parliament, I leave it to the Learned to Dispute.

I am sure it is a more Authentick way, than what Mr. Molyneux does next lay the Stress upon, p. 114. viz. The general Application of the Chief part of the Irish Protestants, that were at that time in London, to the Parliament at Westminster, for obtaining these Laws: Which he wou'd improve to infer a Consent of the People of Ireland: But this can ne­ver do.

For, First, This can, in no Sense, be Constru'd so Regular and Au­thorized a Representation of the People of Ireland, as a Parliament freely Chosen, and sitting in Ireland. Secondly, The Application of these Irish Protestants in London to the Parliament at Westminster, for obtaining of these Laws, was a Giving up of the Cause, and Acknowledging this Con­tested Right of the Parliament of England over Ireland; as much as was in these Irish Protestants Power to do it. And I am sure some of them were minded of it, at the same time. And withal told, That it was to no manner of Purpose: For that, if K. James (of whom they were afraid) should Return; and should think fit to Assert the Laws made in in that Parliament he held in Ireland, the Repeal of them by a Parlia­ment in England, which he did not Acknowledge, would signify nothing. And till he did not Return, they were in no Danger of those Laws made to their Prejudice, in his Parliament. But they have Verify'd the Pro­verb, Too Fast, too Loose. And would not Rest, till they had Given this Precedent against Themselves.

The rest that Mr. Molineux says, to save this Act Appointing the New Oaths, from being a Surrender of the Rights and Liberties of Ireland, is only by way of Complaint. P. 114, 115. That if some such Considerations as these, (before-mentioned) may not Plead for Ʋs, (says he) we are of all his Majesty's Subjects the most Ʋnfortunate. Then he Appeals to the King's Justice, to Protect the Rights and Liberties of Ireland, and of their Parlia­ments, as of England and Scotland, &c. But he may be told, That Justice does not Relieve any but Infants, and Idiots, against their own Act and Deed. And that the Question is not now, What Rights the Parliaments of Ireland had Formerly, (which Mr. Molineux has made appear Plain enough) but whether they have not Surrendred them? Particularly, by their in­tire Obedience to this Act of the English Parliament Appointing the New Oaths, and Abrogating the Old, Enacted by Acts of Parliament in Ireland.

Let me here take Notice of the Difference betwixt the Two English Acts; the one for Imposing the Oaths in England, and the other for Imposing them in Ireland. This Latter has set such Prodigious Penalties more than the Former, as plainly shew the Difference they make twixt [Page 6]the Condition of Subjects, and of Slaves. In the Act for Ireland, it is Enacted, That if any Member of Parliament there, whether of the Lords or Commons, shall presume to Sit or Vote in Parliament, without first Qualifying himself, as Prescrib'd in that Act, or any other, shall Offend against the said Act, they shall be thereby Incapable of any Office, Place, or Trust, Ecclesiastical, Civil, or Military, in Ireland, as well as England. And shall be Disabled from thenceforth to Sit or Vote in either House of Parlia­ment, of the said Realm of Ireland, or make a Proxy in the House of Peers there; or to Sue or Ʋse any Action, Bill, Plaint, or Information in Courts of Law, or to Prosecute any Suit in any Court of Equity; or to be Guardian of any Child; or Executor or Administrator of any Person; or Capable of any Legacy, or Deed of Gift; and shall sorfeit for every wilful Offence against this Act, the Sum of Five hundred Pounds, to be Recovered and Received by him, her, or them, that will Sue for the same — in any of their Majesties Courts of Record at Dublin, &c. Here the Courts of Law in Ireland are Commanded to Exe­cute this English Act, as the Law of Ireland. This Act, which Abrogates former Acts of Parliament in Ireland, and makes New for them, without Asking their Consent! But it may be said, That it is now too Late. That the Fault is committed. The Surrender is made of all the Liberties of Ireland, by the Submission of Two succeeding Parliaments: And therefore not Now to be Recall'd.

I Answer: That there is a Great Difference betwixt a Free and Formal Surrender, upon valuable Considerations; and that Surrender which is only so Constructively, or by Consequence. The First, if made Validly, operates Immediately; is a Transferring of Right; and Bars all after Claim. But the other Case is Disputable: And Allowances must be made, for Inad­vertencies, for Force, or Craft, or any sinister Dealing. And if Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi, the same Reason will hold as to a Parliament; be­cause they Act for Others, in a Publick and General Capacity. Mr. Moly­neux, p. 152. quotes out of Mr. Hooker this Maxim, viz. To be Comman­ded we do Consent, when that Society whereof we are Part, hath at any time before Consented; without Revoking the same after, by the like Ʋniversal A­greement. To this Power of Revocation, he Limits no Time. I will not take upon me to Determine the Punctum, when a Prescription does Com­mence: Or what Force it has; especially in Matters of Government; we know Great Use is made of it: And in no one thing more than in the Privileges of Parliament, for which Prescription is the Chief Rule to which they Appeal, in their daily searching for Precedents, when any Dispute happens concerning their Rights and Powers.

But this Late Act concerning Ireland, has not yet Age enough for a Prescription: And therefore there is yet Time for the Irish Parliaments to Assert their Right, if any they pretend to have. They may, if they so think fit, Disown that English Act, which Abrogates Oaths Enjoyn'd by former Parliaments of Ireland, and Requires New Oaths. And they may Restore those who have been Forfeited by it. This, by Mr. Hooker's and Mr. Molyneux's Rule before-quoted, the Irish Parliament may yet do. But, [Page 7]by the same Rule, till they do it, they are Concluded. And they cannot make any Pretence of Claim for their Independency from the Parliaments of England, while they Continue to Pay Obedience to this Act. And such Obe­dience they do Pay, while they Continue any under Forfeitures Incurr'd by that Act. For that is Executing of the Act: And that is the most Authentick Manner of Owning it. And if they continue such, under these Forfeitures till they Die, I cannot tell but the Occasion will be Lost. However, I am sure the Longer that Irish Parliaments continue to Pay Obedience to this English Act, the Precedent grows the stronger, and works still more towards a Prescription. The Prospect of this made Mr. Molineux thus Passionately Expostulate, P. 169. If the Religion, (says he) Lives, Liberties, Fortunes, and Estates of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry of Ireland, may be Disposed of, without their Privity and Consent, What Be­nefit have they of any Laws, Liberties, or Privileges granted unto them by the Crown of England? I am loath to give their Condition a Hard Name; but I have no other Notion of Slavery, but being Bound by a Law to which I do not Consent.

May it not now be worth Enquiring, How this Single Act, this only, of Imposing the New Oaths, shou'd Prove such a Mill-Stone to the Kingdom of Ireland, as to Carry with it All the Rights and Freedom of that Country into the Bottom of the Sea! Shall we say, That this is only by Chance? Some Men Refer All to that. But I think there is a much more serious and substantial Reflection which this will Afford Us; And, if it be not yet Quite out of Fashion to use that Word, a Christian Consideration.

By this Act, and by this Only, one Bishop, and several Clergy-men of Ireland, are Depriv'd.

Now if it be Sacrilege to Rob God's Church, how much more His Priests? There is nothing Good or Holy but God. But there is a Relative Holiness, as things belong more Peculiarly to Him. Thus Israel was call'd an Holy (tho' otherwise a very wicked) Nation; that is, in Comparison of other Nations, who were not in Federal League or Covenant with God. And Jerusalem was call'd the Holy City, more than All the other Cities of Israel: The Temple was more Holy than Jerusalem: And that Part of it within the Veil, more Holy than the Rest of the Temple; therefore call'd, The Holy of Holies. Not that Stones or Lime are in themselves Holy, or one Holier than Another; But only as they Re­lated more nearly to the Service of God. Thus Israel was more Holy than other Nations: The Levites more Holy than the People of Israel: The Priests more Holy than the Le­vites: And the H. Priest more Holy than the other Priests. Not that the H. Priest must necessarily be a more Holy Man in himself than All or Any of the other Priests; That the Priests must be more Holy than the Levites; or Every Levite, than All the Rest of the People of Israel: But this was in regard to their Office, and more near Designation so the Service and Worship of God.

Now Sacrilege is not the Robbing of God in His Person, for that is Impossible: But in those Things that Relate unto Him. And the Sacrilege Rises Higher, as it comes Nearer to what is Near unto Him▪ Therefore, as the Holiness of Inanimate Things; as of Temples, &c. is not so Great as the Holiness (tho' Relative) of Persons: So the Sacrilege is Greater of Robbing Holy Persons, than Holy Things. It had been Greater Sacrilege to have Robb'd Aaron of his Holy Vesements, than the Temple of its Ʋtensils: And Greater Sacri­lege (as of Korah, &c) to have Robb'd Aaron of his Power and Authority, than of his Vestments.

Now this Act of Deprivation Robbs the Bishops and Clergy of their SPIRITƲAL Pow­er and Authority: And therefore is a Greater Sacrilege than the Robbing of Churches, or Altars.

And is it not worth our serious Reflection. That this is the Act which Deprives Ireland of All their Civi [...] Rights, as a People, past all Help of those Excuses, by which they avoid the Precedents of other English Acts, that seem to Bear hard upon them? And, by this, [Page 8]if Ireland will stick to that Sacrilege, which has been Imposed upon them by the Parlia­ment of England, they must Accept of Slavery into the Bargain. But if they had rather be Slaves to their Neighbours, than Servants to God; If they will Chuse to Forfeit all Right and Title to their Estates, Lives, and Liberty (not to speak of their Religion) and to hold them Precariously, at the Will and Pleasure of those▪ who have a different Interest from them, and are already Grown Jealous of them, and Declare they must find Ways to Humble them; and not suffer them to enjoy the Common Benefit; and (by the Rules of Liberty) the Right of Mankind, which is, To make the Best Ʋse of their Labours—If they will Chuse this, Rather than do Justice (as I may so say) to God, by Restoring what they have Robb'd from Him; or so much as Acknowledging that they have done Amiss therein; This Liberty they have still left to them: And they may Go on, and Try, whe­ther They or God are the strongest.

If they say, That it is no Sacrilege for Lay-Men to take upon them to Divest the Priests of God of their Purely Spiritual Authority: And that too upon Purely Secular Accounts. I Refer them to what has been already wrote upon that Subject: And which has yet Re­ceiv'd no Answer.

But take it as they will, if they still remain Insensible as to the Point of Conscience: Yet if they will not Rivet their Slavery, by their own Consent, they must Disown that English Act Appointing the New Oaths; which (as said before) they cannot do, without Restoring those who suffer Forfeitures by it.

If they will not do this; Then let them Remember, at least, Others will, That their Sla­very Commences with their Sacrilege. And it will not be thought Superstition hereafter to observe, That the Providence of God has so order'd it, as that this very Act which In­volves them in Sacrilege, Proves the Only Act which Ʋnanswerably Destroys their Free­dom and Civil Rights.

If we Believe not that there is a Providence, we cannot be Christians, no, nor good Deists: And if there be an All-seeing Providence, Nothing can Escape its Ga [...]e, or Get out of its Reach. In short, if there be such a thing as Providence in God, there can be no such thing as Chance; for the one does necessarily Destroy the other: We only call that Chance where we know not the Cause.

Since therefore we are Oblig'd to Confess, That there is a Providence, without which a Sparrow does not fall to the Ground; surely it may be Permitted, nay, it must become our Duty seriously to contemplate so very Legible a Character of Divine Providence, in the Falling down of a whole Nation from Freedom to Slavery: And that in such a Remar­kable Manner as in the Present Case; That their Liberties and Freedom went out, and Slavery came in at the same Door, which they Open'd to let in Sacrilege; at least, which they Durst not Shut against it. They are not barely Passive herein, as in relation to the Act of Navigation, &c. before mention'd, wherein England bears Hard upon them: But their own Hands and Tongues have made them to Fall; insomuch that whoso seeth them, shall Laugh them to scorn: And all Men that see it, shall say, This hath God done; for they shall Perceive that it is his Work. These Words are in one of the Psalms, for the Day of the Month on which the Deprivation of the Irish Protestant Cler­gy then in England did Commence, by that English Act we have been speaking of, which was the 12th Day of Feb. 1691/2 Which as oft as it has Occurr'd, afforded me Matter of Me­ditation, and Adoring the Divine Providence, in so Remarkable an Instance of it, as was shewn That Day: And I have Adventur'd to let others Partake of my Thoughts herein. What Use they will make of it, is in the Hands of God to Dispose. But if this Prompt them not to Consider their Case, in Relation both to God and Man, it will stand as a Witness a­gainst them, of their having Robb'd God: And in the same Act Betray'd the Rights and Liberties of their Country, who Intrusted them as their Representatives: And Deli­ver'd up Themselves, and their Posterities, as Absolute S [...]aves, by the Methods they have taken to Assert their Freedom; contrary to their own Laws, as well as the Laws of God. But God will be Magnify'd, if we will not suffer it in His Mercies and Protection upon our Obedience, yet by His Judgments for our Rebellion against Him.

Dec. 26. 1698.