The nonjurors affirmed that Christianity was a doctrine of the cross; that no pretence whatever could justify an insurrection against the sovereign; that the primitive christians thought it their indispensable duty to be passive under every invasion of their rights; and that non-resistance was the doctrine of the English church, confirmed by all the sanctions that could be derived from the laws of God and man.
The other party not only supported the natural rights of mankind, and explained the use that might be made of the doctrine of non-resistance in exciting fresh commotions, but they also argued that if passive obedience was right in any instance, it was conclusively so with regard to the present government; for the obedience required by scripture was indiscriminate.

"The powers that be are ordained of God--let every soul be subject to the higher powers." From these texts they inferred that the new oaths ought to be taken without scruple, and that those who refused them concealed party under the cloak of conscience.

On the other hand, the fallacy and treachery of this argument were demonstrated.

They said, it levelled all distinctions of justice and duty; that those who taught such doctrines attached themselves solely to possession, however unjustly acquired; that if twenty different usurpers should succeed one another, they would recognize the last, notwithstanding the allegiance they had so solemnly sworn to his predecessor, like the fawning spaniel that followed the thief who mounted his master's horse after having murdered the right owner.

They also denied the justice of a lay-deprivation, and with respect to church government started tire same distinctions "_De jure and de facto_" which they had formerly made in the civil administration.