has not drawn up a high charge against the makers and continuers of this law.
Notwithstanding my resentment, which to be sure he does not value, I would be sorry he should bring upon himself the resentment of those he has been so free with. Is not this author justly to be reputed a defamer,till he produces instances wherein the conforming nobihty and gentry of Ireland have shown their disaffection to the succession of the illustrious house of Hanover?
Did they ever refuse the oath of abjuration, or support any conforming nonjuring teachers in their congregations? did ever any conforming gentleman, or common people, refuse to be arrayed, when the militia was raised upon the invasion of the pretender? did any of them ever show the least reluctance, or make any exception against their officers, whether they were dissenters or churchmen?
It may be said, that, from these insinuations, I would have it understood, that the dissenters encouraged some of their teachers who refused the oath of abjuration; and that, even in the article of danger, when the pretender made an attempt in Scotland, our northern presbyterians showed great reluctance in taking arms upon the array of the militia.
I freely own, it is my intention; and I must affirm both facts to be true, however they have the assurance to deny it.
What can be more notorious, than the protection, countenance, and support, which was continued to Riddall, McBride, and McCrackan, who absolutely refused the oath of abjuration; and yet were continued
to
