place to the end. And, therefore, as a good prince in the faithful execution of his office, is an inftrument of the greatest good to fociety, and thereby is entitled to his people's affection and allegiance, and to all thofe greater honours and advantages, which fuch a discharge of his truft juftly merits: fo, on the other fide, if the prince abufes the truft repofed in him, by attempting and endeavouring to enflave and make miferable the people committed to his care; then, and in fuch a cafe, it is the bufinefs and duty of the fociety, to ufe all proper means to preserve and fecure the common happiness. And, if the cafe fhould come to fuch a defperate iffue, as that the fafety of fuch a prince, and the fafety of the society, come in competition, fo as of neceffity one of these must give place to the other; then, in reafon, the fafety of fuch a prince, ought to give place, to that of the fociety, as the means ought in reason to give place to the end. And, to suppose, that the fafety of fuch a prince, ought to be prefer'd to the fecurity of the fociety, is prodigiously unreasonable and abfurd: because it fuppofes, that the means is preferable to, and more valuable than its end; which is a manifeft abfurdity. And, it is upon this principle, viz. that the publick good is always to be prefer'd, (and I think upon this only,) that our governours can in

reafon

reafon be justified, in appointing the two anniversaries before mentioned. For,

First, when a prince faithfully executes the truft repofed in him, by guarding and fecuring the characters, the properties, the liberties, the perfons and lives, and thereby the happiness of his people, and makes the common good the rule and measure of his government; then, and in such a cafe, the perfon and life of the prince are facred and inviolable. And, as he is entitled to the highest honours and rewards, which the fociety can confer upon him, seeing he is an inftrument of the greatest good to them: fo, all attempts upon the perfon and life of fuch a prince, are crimes of the deepest dye; becaufe, they are not fo much committed against the person and life of the prince, as against the fociety, whofe faithful guardian he is, and from which, thofe crimes receive their highest aggravations. Whoever therefore, is an enemy to, and opposes fuch a prince, is an enemy to, and opposes the common good. And, whoever takes away the life of fuch a prince, does what in him lies, to destroy the common happiness; which furely, is the greatest of crimes. And,

Such a prince, our publick office of divine Service appointed for the 30th of January, fuppofes King Charles the First to have been. In it, he is called a blessed martyr; his caufe,

is confidered as a righteous cause; and his blood, is called innocent and righteous blood. By which furely, nothing lefs can be intended, than that he was innocent of the crimes charged upon him; that the cause he undertook was the good of the publick; and that he dyed a martyr to that caufe; and confequently, that he was such a good prince, as I have before defcribed. Now, admitting this to be the cafe; then, and under that confideration, the perfon and life of King Charles were facred and inviolable, and all attempts made against him were crimes of the deepest dye, and confequently, a deluge of horrible fin and wickedness muft, at that time, have broken in and overflowed this nation. And as, our publick form of divine fervice fuppofes this to have been the cafe: fo, this is the only rational ground, for keeping the 30th of January as a day of fasting; that is, a day for the grave, folemn, and publick remembrance of the wicked and bad actions of our ancestors; which remembrance, when rightly applyed, minifters wholefom leffons of counfel and instruction to us. What thofe leffons are, I thall fhew hereafter.

It is not my bufinefs to enquire, whether King Charles was that good prince, or not, which I have defcribed above: all that is neceffary for me to obferve is, that our publick form of divine fervice fuppofes him to

have been fuch; and that this fuppofition is the only rational ground, for keeping that anniversary. For, if we view the cafe in the other light, and fuppofe King Charles to have been guilty of what his accufers at the time of the civil war charged upon him; that is, if he attempted and endeavoured to undermine and deftroy the common good, by fetting up and exercifing an arbitrary and defpotick power over the people of this nation; or in other words, if he attempted and endeavoured to fubvert and make void the laws and conflitutions of this kingdom, by which the liberties and properties of the people, and thereby, the common happiness is fecured, (which fome have thought to be the truth of the cafe, but whether it were fo, or not, I think, muft be collected from the best and most impartial hiftories and memoirs, that we have of thofe times;) I fay, if this was the truth of the cafe, then, the oppofition which was made to thofe attempts, was like that at our late happy revolution, not only justifiable, but commendable and praife-worthy, as it was abfolutely neceffary, to the guarding and fecuring the common good, which in reafon ought always to be preferred. Then, that is, upon the prefent fuppofition, the keeping fuch a day of fasting would be very abfurd; because then, the thing chiefly and principally to be remembred would be, not the misfortunes and fuf

ferings

ferings of the prince, which in this view of the cafe, he must have brought upon himself, these being the confequences of his bad government, as that introduced and brought upon him, all the troubles, diftreffes, and fufferings which he afterwards fell into; (tho', on the other fide, this may not by any means excuse or justify all that was done against him ;) I fay, in this view of the cafe, the thing chiefly and principally to be remembred would be, not the misfortunes and fufferings of the prince, but, the happy deliverance of the people; which deliverance, the keeping a day of fafting, would be very unfuitable and improper to preferve the memory of. This cafe would then, be like that of the revolution, with refpect to which, we do not remember the misfortunes which King James brought upon himself; but only, the happy deliverance of our church and nation, from popery and flavery; and the means, by which that deliverance was brought about. And then, that is, in this view of the cafe, our publick form of divine fervice would be a mockery: becaufe then, King Charles's blood would not have been innocent blood; his caufe would not have been a righteous caufe; neither would he have dyed a martyr for the good of his country, but the contrary. However, our publick form of divine fervice, fuppofes this, not to have

been the case.

I