the throne, the Anglican
church would have been destroyed. Rebellions can never be lawful; but
revolutions, similar to that in 1688, are perfectly just. Such men can
never read the Service appointed for the _Fifth of November_; at all
events, they cannot read the following passages:--"Accept also, most
gracious God, of our unfeigned thanks, for filling our hearts again with
joy and gladness, after the time that thou hadst afflicted us, and
putting a new song into our mouths, by bringing his majesty King
_William_, upon this day, for the deliverance of our church and nation
from popish tyranny and arbitrary power." And again, "And didst likewise
upon this day, wonderfully conduct thy servant King _William_, and bring
him safely into _England_, to preserve us from the attempts of our
enemies to bereave us of our religion and laws." And the following, "We
bless thee for giving his late majesty King _William_ a safe arrival
here, and for making all opposition fall before him, till he became our
king and governor." It is not possible that the men, who can call the
revolution a rebellion, should concur in those prayers. Had these
individuals lived at the time, they would have quitted the church with
the nonjurors; and with such views, respecting the revolution
settlement, I cannot conceive how they can conscientiously remain in a
church connected with, and supported by a government which owes its very
existence to that event, which they designate a rebellion. Is it not
high time for such men to quit the pale of the Anglican church?

The dangers which threatened the country during the reign of James II.
were very great; and their removal can only be ascribed to Him, in whose
hands are the issues of life. James was determined to reduce the country
into subjection to the papal see, or lose all in the attempt. William
III. was the destined instrument under God, to secure the liberties,
which James laboured with all his might to destroy. The revolution of
1688 was a bloodless one; yet it was complete. It is always dangerous to
alter the succession to the crown; it is a expedient never to be
resorted to except in extreme danger. In 1688, the departure from the
direct line was an act of necessity; for unless such a course had been
adopted, the liberties of England, both temporal and spiritual, would
have been sacrificed. Nor can any one say how long the country would
have been in recovering them from the grasp of the papacy. In such