of his predecessor
Decius, who had slain his predecessor Philip, who had slain his
predecessor Gordian. Was it possible to believe that a saint, who had,
in the short space of thirteen or fourteen years, borne true allegiance
to this series of rebels and regicides, would have made a schism in the
Christian body rather than acknowledge King William and Queen Mary? A
hundred times those Anglican divines who had taken the oaths challenged
their more scrupulous brethren to cite a single instance in which the
primitive Church had refused obedience to a successful usurper; and a
hundred times the challenge was evaded. The nonjurors had little to say
on this head, except that precedents were of no force when opposed to
principles, a proposition which came with but a bad grace from a school
which had always professed an almost superstitious reverence for the
authority of the Fathers, [457]

To precedents drawn from later and more corrupt times little respect
was due. But, even in the history of later and more corrupt times, the
nonjurors could not easily find any precedent that would serve their
purpose. In our own country many Kings, who had not the hereditary
right, had filled the throne but it had never been thought inconsistent
with the duty of a Christian to be a true liegeman to such Kings. The
usurpation of Henry the Fourth, the more odious usurpation of Richard
the Third, had produced no schism in the Church. As soon as the usurper
was firm in his seat, Bishops had done homage to him for their domains:
Convocations had presented addresses to him, and granted him supplies;
nor had any casuist ever pronounced that such submission to a prince in
possession was deadly sin, [458]

With the practice of the whole Christian world the authoritative
teaching of the Church of England appeared to be in strict harmony. The
Homily on Wilful Rebellion, a discourse which inculcates, in unmeasured
terms, the duty of obeying rulers, speaks of none but actual rulers.
Nay, the people are distinctly told in that Homily that they are bound
to obey, not only their legitimate prince, but any usurper whom God
shall in anger set over them for their sins. And surely it would be
the height of absurdity to say that we must accept submissively such
usurpers as God sends in anger, but must pertinaciously withhold our
obedience from usurpers whom He sends in mercy. Grant that it was a
crime to invite the Prince of Orange over, a crime to join him, a