WHEN a Man is unfairly Prosecuted and Libell'd rather than Answer'd, and when the Croud of Mobile-Writers break in upon him, as if they would crush and murder his Reputation with their Numbers, even his very Ene­mies, if they have any Generosity, ought to step in to support him; indeed, 'tis the common Cause of all Mankind not to see any man unjustly suffer, and therefore though in some things I differ from the Doctor in Judgment, yet I cannot but rescue him from those Aspersions that are so basely cast upon him.

But as his Adversaries are now grown to such a number, and their Arguments for the most part a borrow'd Tautology and Plagiarism from each other, that except some few they almost all write the same thing, so I shall neither give my self nor the Reader [Page 2]that trouble, as to trace out all their little crooked Paths, but examining the sum of all their Objecti­ons against the Doctor, at least of all those that are considerable, I shall briefly, and generally, as if they were all but one, shew how little he deserves their ill treatment, and how eminent an Example he is of Innocence abus'd.

Without therefore particularly regarding either the Vindications or Answers that the Doctor has had upon this Subject, for that were endless, and were too perplex'd a Method to do him Justice by; I say therefore, without hinting at either Persons or An­swers, I shall take the Liberty to make some few Reflections on the chief Points in Controversie, in favour of the Doctor, and if any of his Adversaries think themselves therein aggriev'd, I'le promise them they shall not want a reasonable Satisfa­ction.

But it may be objected, That under this Pretence perhaps I shall conceal or slur over those things that may be most considerable, and only Vindicate the Doctor in those that are obvious or trifling; I say as to that, the World will judge, and will see when they have read what I write; but if at the entrance it can encourage them to know whether I am not conscious to my own defects in it or not, I assure them, I know nothing that is material that is objected against him, but is reconcileable to the Doctor as a Learned, Ingenious, and Sincere Man; and if his Adversaries can see any thing to the con­trary, I shall leave them to shew it.

To proceed therefore, I say then first, is it ge­nerous for Twenty men together to throng in their [Page 3]Answers to one Man? Indeed, is it not just as if they were afraid of having Replies, or at best, that thrusting thus into the Throng, they might escape the better for their being in the Multitude; and yet not I mean, that I believe that all those Gentlemen that have wrote against him have had so mean a Design neither; but I say in general, is it a Credit for any man to be caught among the Mobile, and giving an Eminent Divine an ill Name, when at the same time he has all Billingsgate upon his back?

Methinks, I say, these Gentlemen, for as for the others they scarce deserve to be taken notice of; and therefore I say, methinks the choice and flower of the Doctor's Adversaries, had they been brave, might have waited till the Doctor had been in a ca­pacity to Answer them, and not Assault him as they have done, where they could have no ratio­nal prospect for a return; I would only ask them one Question, when they so much as favour so dir­ty a proceeding in others, in Writing after them, do they not as good as half take their Guilt upon them? Is this their doing Justice to their Cause? Indeed, is this their doing as they would be done unto?

In short, Gentlemen, supposing the Doctor in some measure to blame, and taking it for granted he deserv'd your Answers, yet when some for Ma­lice, some through Mistake, and some for Gain, had thus meanly and disingenuously attempted to deface his Reputation in what he deserved not, would you after this pretend to any thing like Honour, and yet back them in their proceedings? Surely Sirs, for the future, if Generosity cannot move you, [Page 4]yet Humanity, nay, your own Interest and Repu­tation ought to make you more wary; methinks in such case, rather than fail, you should Vindicate him your selves, at worst you should leave such little Raylors alone to expose themselves upon him.

In short, Sirs, if you have a mind for the Repu­tation of Common Wittists, Buffoons, and Merce­naries, write on; but if you have not, ingenuously retract your Methods and Proceedings, and cease to Triumph at trampled-on Innocence; and to vent your Spleens, where I am perswaded, had you bet­ter consider'd your selves, and were you not rather Bruits than Men, you would turn your Assist­ance.

Besides, Gentlemen, give me leave to tell you, I mean some of the best of you, I cannot accuse you all, for some of you have wrote as becomes Gentlemen, had you not throng'd your selves into the Croud; but some of you, I am afraid too ma­ny, have wrote as if you had neither Charity nor Justice in your Censures; you have demeaned your selves like Tyrants in your peremptory Decisions, and treated the Doctor no better than if he were the worst of Men.

I shall not hint at any particular Answers in this matter, because I had rather smother than increase the flame; and though the Doctor's Adversaries have had but little Charity in sparing him, yet his Friends think to take another course, and as they apprehend would become him, are willing rather if possible to overcome evil with good, and to shew them whatever rash Judgments they have been [Page 5]guilty of, they do not delight in Recriminations, tho' possibly they might make them even with Ju­stice.

However in general to point at some of your Guilts; and to shew you I do not write without good Grounds, pray but reflect a little: Christia­nity bids us not think easily any evil of our Bro­ther, but put the best sence and construction upon his words and actions: but you will out-face us, he means ill, tho' he declares his sincerity; whilst you know after that, that none but God can censure him, that alone knows his Heart. Thus one tells him, his Wife sways him; another insinuates, that 'tis Preferments without his Wife; and a third, that his Pride has born him to this singula­rity.

But, Sirs, whilst you did thus, I am afraid you forgot what might be said of your selves, I mean justly of you that censure so; the Doctor may be in the right, as I am perswaded he is, but you as false Judges must be in the wrong; nay more, were the Doctor corrupt in his Protestations, which far be it from us to think, yet if there were but a possibility that he might be sincere, I am sure nothing can excuse you from the guilt of a mean, wilful, and uncharitable Slander.

And I write this the rather, on the supposition of the truth of the worst Character, that your con­jectural thoughts can give the Doctor, because the least lurking-hole may not be left for your Apology; in plain terms, to shew the World, that nothing but Brass, Impudence, and meer Jack-pudding Grin, can excuse some of the Doctor's Enemies, and a [Page 6]dishonourable and uncharitable Carelesness, most of the best of them in their proeeedings.

Had they in general shew'd the Inconsistency of the Doctor's Reasoning, and the Danger of it to the State; and had they upon this exhorted him modestly to re-consider, and thereon to renounce his new and ill-grounded Opinion, they had acted something like Christians: but point blank, the first word, to accuse even a Father in the Church of Corruption and Design, before any proof to justifie it, indeed before the offer of a Conviction by stron­ger Arguments; I say, to proceed thus perempto­rily and rashly, and to anticipate all hopes of his vindicating himself in a Reply, thro' their unjust Sentence past upon him, is to Execute him first, and Try him after; and a piece of Justice, that of itsself alone, with any Man either of Honour or Honesty, were enough to vindicate the Do­ctor.

But for once, I shall pass by these two little faults in the Doctor's Adversaries; to wit, want of Ge­nerosity and Charity; for 'tis possible the Absurdi­ties the Doctor has committed in his Vindication, has fir'd them to over-see themselves to this degree in their Answers: and therefore, because as the Doctor's Friend, who I am perswaded would not serve them so himself, I shall shew them, I am wil­ling to allow them all the fair Play imaginable, and therefore we will see what it is they have to say to his Cause.

In the Doctor's Cause, then I say there are two things principally which they are offended at; the First, That it is very disagreeable to the State. And [Page 7]the Second, That it is unreasonable. Now as to both these, I shall give them brief and solid An­swers; and tho', as I have said, I am not altoge­ther of the Doctor's Mind; yet 'tis because I think he has not a sufficient ground in Revelation, and not in Reason, as his Adversaries charge him; and therefore I do not doubt, I say, from their Princi­ples, to shew them, that they have but little reason to be so offended with him.

As to the first of these two Objections, to wit, The disagreeableness of the Doctor's Principles to the State, I shall return two Answers; the first, That his Adversaries have abus'd him, and put a worse sence upon his words, when they were very well capable of a better. And Secondly, That even in the very sence they have taken them, they state an Hypothesis as agreeable to the State as any of them, I may say the very best of them have pro­pos'd.

First then, I say, when the Doctor laid it down as a Principle, That whoever was setled in a Go­vernment, I mean peaceably, and by consent, had God's Authority, tho' he at first attain'd it by force; I say, when the Doctor laid down these Propositions, what did he do, but as it were declare, that a King by Conquest and Consent after it was a good King, and whether he were an Usurper before or not, I challenge all his Adversaries to disprove his Title.

Now I say, when the Doctor's Principles can so justly resolve themselves into a Conquest, and tho' not of the People, yet of the King, by, and through the Consent of the People; I say, when the Doctor [Page 8]by this prudently chose a middle way, to avoid the Scilla and Caribdis of Passive-Obedience and Resistance, methinks his Adversaries might have been so inge­nious, as to have understood him so, and not to have prest him to a nice decision, which be it pur­sued home of either side, must needs offend the State.

Now whether what the Doctor in this Case has laid down, will amount to a Right of Conquest or not, shall be made to appear more plainly by and by; but if it does, as I do not question but I shall be able to make out, 'tis plain, how disingenuously his Adversaries have dealt with him. Let him call it a Divine Right, and let them expect him to call it a Legal Right; yet as what he has wrote, has evi­dently amounted to a Right by Conquest, as good a Right as Mortal need desire to possess in a just Cause; I say, as it amounts to that, and as that is evidently the drift of the Doctor's Reasonings, me­thinks they needed not to have distorted him from it.

But Secondly, even in their own way, in their tacking this Principle to Passive-Obedience, and so endeavouring to expose it, with all the absurd Consequences they can draw from both together; I say, even in that dress, it appears more likely to be agreeable to the State, than any thing his Adver­saries have set up; in plain terms, the State has as much reason to be disobliged at their Title, with its Consequences, from Resistance, and from the Doctor's Title, and Consequences from Passive-Obedience.

The Doctor sets up Force and the Consent of the People, to transfer God's Authority; and his Adversaries say, The Choice of the People gives a Legal Right. Thus the Doctor seems to dis­oblige the Prince, by denying him verbally a Le­gal Right: but his Adversaries do as bad, when they shew him by Example, that he is to bear Rule only Durante Beneplacito, of the giddy Mobb. But what? you say his Adversaries Complement him with a Legal Right; 'tis true, they do: but as their fickle Case stands, I don't know whether Dr. Sherlock's Divine Right, and Passive-Obedience, may not be more acceptable to them.

And what then, is the Case come to this? The King then has surely great reason to be beholding to these his Durante Beneplacito Men, and to be aggriev'd at the Doctor's Methods; they honour him with a Legal Right indeed: but they tack it so to Abdications and Forfeitures, that a Man had better be Tenant at Will to a good Land­lord, than Absolute Monarch on such Terms, and to depend so much upon every giddy relish of a factious Populace.

I say then, is this be the Case, as it manifestly is, with those that give the King a Legal Right, from the Deposing the late King James, and the choosing Their Present Majesties; I say, if this be the Case, I am sure the Doctor's Principles are not half so likely to be offensive to the Government, as his Adversaries, and therefore on their own sup­position, they have brought in this as a Motive for their Writing, against all the sence and reason in the World.

In short, can his Adversaries have the Face to say, that when a Man has acknowledg'd a King invested with God's Authority, without the words of Legal Right, that he can half so much disoblige the Government, as he that lays down Principles (or at least implies them) of Abdication and For­feiture, Principles that like the Arcana Imperii, at best ought to be kept secret, and not preach'd a­broad, if allow'd, and that like Swords in Chil­drens and Mad-mens hands, ought not too free­ly to be trusted in the hands of a giddy Popu­lace.

Indeed, had his Adversaries but modestly urg'd, that he had better have concealed his Reasons to himself, than so have urg'd them to offend the State, I had agreed with them, had it been only on the probability, that what he has wrote might have af­forded offence; and yet not, I say, but that me-thinks too, if he has given offence, by not granting a Legal Right, he has made it up again by his Di­vine Right; and if what he has wrote may be taken in an evil sence, it may also receive a bet­ter.

So that in truth, the suggestions of the Doctor's Answerers are to be blam'd, and not the Doctor; and indeed, whatever they pretend, the Govern­ment is as much obliged to them, as a Man on Horseback to a Stander-by, that tickles his Horse, when he knows he is us'd upon it to throw his Ri­der; and whether like cunning States-men, in imi­tation of Water-men, they oppose the Doctor seem­ingly for the Government; but really as they are against it; whether they Look one way, and Row [Page 11]another, or not, I dare not be so uncharitable as to censure; but as I dare not, yet this is manifest, and may be averr'd, this seems the natural effect and tendency of their proceedings.

And indeed, this brings it to my mind, that the Doctor has Jacobite Enemies as well as others, and may be could one see the bottom, one would find, that 'tis from them that the greatest part of this Fire is kindled; and in truth, as manifest as it is, methinks his other Adversaries should be asham'd to persecute him as they do. St. Paul could rejoyce, that Christ was preach'd, tho' even in Contention, and really, did the most Loyal of the Doctor's Ad­versaries, rather seek the good of the Government, than the meer resentments of their Spleens and Fa­ctions, they would be glad, that the Doctor had brought in this New Principle of Allegiance, were it only to bring over, if possible, those Members that dissented from the Government for Passive-Obedience, and not quarrel with him for the no­velty of it.

And really when I consider this, methinks I can­not but admire to see, how much Men are blinded by the fondness of Opinion, that they can rather bear to sacrifice their Interest, than to allow the least latitude in their Casuistical Decisions, that they will rather fright every body that is coming into the Government, than embrace them, if not exact­ly of their Sentiments; in short, an arrogant Ty­ranny, and as Enthusiastick, and as much against all the natural Principles of Self-defence, as ever can be pretended of Passive-Obedience, at the worst of it.

But to turn my Argument to those Jacobites, that under the pretext and colour of Passive-Obedi­ence, would fain destroy our present Settlement and Allegiance; I say, as to them, methinks the Doctor's Argument is as full and convincing, as either they can expect, or the nature of the thing can bear; and 'tis well for those, that the Doctor has so many Enemies to keep them in countenance, that they might be the better able to withstand his Reasonings.

I say therefore, if the Doctor's Adversaries Argu­ments from the Right of Resistance cannot move them; yet the Doctor's from the Right of Con­quest must do it; or else there is no Prince may be in the World, at least very few, have any Rights, at best, originally to their Thrones. In truth, the Doctor's Right by Conquest is as well the most com­prehensive, as the most justifiable Title. And in­deed, the Doctor's King, setled quietly, and entire­ly by the Consent of the People in possession, is the Resistances's Man King by a new Election; and were the Quarrels about Words taken away, they would amount to just the same thing.

No, but you say, 'tis the Election gives the Title, and not the Consent to possession; I say, 'tis false: the Consent to Possession argues an Election, tho' not a Formal one; and 'tis such an Election, that no Christian, I am sure, can evade with a safe Con­science; indeed, without Men will be treacherous, and that barbarously too, they owe Allegiance where they receive Protection, and he must neither pre­tend to Generosity, Honour, or Conscience, that will not pay it.

A Generous Enemy will scorn to stoop to so mean a Dissimulation, a Man of Honour would take the Field against such an Usurper, and a Man of the least Conscience, would sooner die than he would play the Viper in the Fable, sting him to Death that gave him warmth and life, or at the best pretence, do Evil that Good might come, and ungratefully receive the Courtesies of a Friend, the more basely to do the viler, I should say Offices unworthy of an Enemy.

Indeed Popery, as it has corrupted our Religion, so it has our Morals also, and has made even Chri­stians to do those things, that the honester Heathens would blush at; but as they have, I hope we will not corrupt with them, and think to conquer them by out-villaning of them; but rather bravely, at least our selves, be good and honest, and deter them from their black and devilish Practices, by a Vengeance and Resentment suitable to their Deme­rits.

In short, if there be either Laws or Rights of War and Peace, a Government by Consent is as just as by Election, and as secure a bottom to found it [...]; and if Men are resolv'd to cavil, they may justlier do it at a Right thro' Election, than Posses­sion: for instance, When a Government is dissolv'd, (pardon the expression) why am I bound to stand to any Man, or Councils Election for me, why shall some Vills, and yet not some whole Cities, send Members to Conventions? Indeed, were I not by the Laws of God, bound to study and follow the best Methods of Peace, where were otherwise my Obli­gation to these things?

And therefore I say, the Doctor's Argument, that as God manifestly allows, indeed requires Changes in State, so he confirms the New Model, by its entire Settlement, is irrefragable, against all the Attacks either of Passive-Obedience, or Resistance-Men in the World, and the Objection about Usur­pers against it, is as idle as weak; in plain terms, we exclaim in Complement to New and Rightful Princes, at the removal of Usurpers; but in truth, whoever by Force, or otherwise, has once secur'd to himself peaceably, the possession and enjoyment of a Throne, is at least to his Subjects as good a King, as either the Right of Conquest or Election can make him.

Has the Usurper no Right, why do you transmit it then to him by a pusillanimous submission; and why do you not at the first approach of the wrong, fly to Arms and Councels to resist the Injustice, and to support the injur'd Prince? But if basely you once sacrifice your Loyalty, and his Right, by at least an implicite Contract of Allegiance; think you like a Coward and an Arch-Traytor, after­wards to re-assume that Right you have resign'd, and meanly to take advantages from your own Villany.

Nay more, to push this Argument home further, such a Title thro' Possession exceeds all the Elections in the World, a quiet Possession shews a compleat Election, whilst a formal one, by a Convention, or otherwise, may be corrupt and packt, and more unjust and illegal than the Tyrant and Usurper him­self; in plain terms, were any Convention or Par­liament so packt, and can you think any honest Sub­ject [Page 15]thereupon bound to leave his Lawful Soveraign against his Consent and Conscience? which 'tis evi­dent, when either by inadvertency or Treachery he has suffer'd an Usurper, even for but a Month to enjoy quiet possession he is bound to do.

Having therefore I hope sufficiently clear'd the Doctor hitherto, I shall try to descend a little fur­ther, to free him from those Calumnies that are cast against him from the Topicks of Passive-Obedience, &c. not but that his Adversaries, as I have observ'd have dealt very unfairly with him in this thing; for when his Argument, as I have shewn, might justly have been maintain'd without the least thought of Passive-Obedience, or affronting the Go­vernment; I say, what needed his Adversaries to bring in those things upon it; indeed does it not seem meerly as it were to calumniate him, as if they would insinuate all that the Doctor has wrote is wrong, because we have already prejudicated him in that one Error of Passive-Obedience?

I say therefore, as I am by all Circumstances hi­therto convinc'd of the Doctor's Integrity, and as this prejudice of Passive-Obedience is reflected upon him, whether besides the purpose or not, at present I shall not regard; but as I am resolv'd to vindicate him thoroughly, and as the prospect of his Cause doth not afford me any thing to discourage me, so I do not doubt but to shew his Adversaries, that for all what they have wrote against Passive-Obedience, it is not so contemptible a Doctrine, that a Man should be hooted out of the World for it, or that the Doctor should lose his Reputation thro' professing it.

And I venture to write this, as I have said, tho' I do not believe the Doctrine myself, for as the Ar­guments the Doctors Adversaries insist upon against it are Irrationalness and Enthusiasm, and as mine is from quite another Topick, the want of clear Reve­lation for it, I say as we reason quite from different grounds, and as I apprehend his Adversaries grounds very insufficient, I think I may justly vindicate the Doctrine as to them, tho' I neither believe it, no [...] desire to set it up myself; and this I conceive will be a sufficient Vindication of the Doctor in the Case, that tho' he may be in an Errour▪ 'tis not so gross as they would suggest, nor indeed in any par­ticular like unto any that they have alledg'd against him.

Nor shall I in this Case make any Apology for the Doctor, that we might justly bear with him in this prejudice, when a University, indeed a whole Kingdom near once gave him its encouragement in it; and yet this methinks, I might justly say to his Adversaries, surely, had their Zeal been so great meerly against the Doctrine of Passive-Obedience, they might have vented it, without flinging all the Dirt of it upon one Man; indeed, to prevent them from the Uncharitableness of particular Reflections, they would have done more honourably to have fell upon the University itsself, that many Years since, burnt all the Propositions in contradiction to it.

And as I shall not insist upon this prejudice, so I shall not upon another, may I say, full as considera­ble, to wit, with what deliberation and thought, Men of true Piety alter their Opinions; I say, I shall not insist on these things, tho' yet I take the [Page 17]liberty to hint at them, be it only to shew the Do­ctor's Adversaries, that even these very prejudices, how trifling soever they may appear, yet they might justly have mov'd them to a greater Mo­deration and Charity in their Censures; but as I have said, I shall not insist on these things, but ar­guing for the Cause itsself (for all the Objections that have been made against it) I shall shew, that 'tis neither so scandalous, nor so senceless as has been imagin'd.

Now the better to do this, I shall state the Ob­jections against this Doctrine of Passive-Obedience, under two heads, viz. the first, The general Un­reasonableness of it. And the second, Its Enthu­siasm. As for the Scripture-proof of it, as I have said, I shall not so much concern myself about it, because it has not been any ways made use of as the Foundational Argument, and therefore, I say, I shall leave that to what the Doctor hath already wrote upon it.

First therefore, as to the general Unreasonable­ness of it: I would fain ask the Doctor's Adversa­ries, what it is they think more reasonable. What, Resistance? I say, it must be that, if any thing, for there is no mean; and this is manifest, 'tis the Duty of the Clergy to acquaint their Flock of one or other, when they consult them Casuistically; I say, therefore let us suppose these two set together in comparison, and let us see which is the most rea­sonable of them.

Passive-Obedience leaves all to the Fury of a Ty­rant; Resistance to the Rage of the Rabble: but you say, the Rabble may be restrain'd of such their [Page 18]Right of Resistance, by (at least unjust) Laws (for so you must call them in such case); and so I say, the Prince will be restrain'd from his Tyranny, by means of Passive-Obedience, thro' the fear of an un­lawful Resistance in his Subjects.

In short, you object the mischiefs that have ensu­ed upon Passive-Obedience; and I tell you, as great have follow'd the giddiness of Resistance; or if you cannot believe what I write in this matter, on my bare asseveration, and want an example, pray examine Matchiavel's History of Florence, and there you will find it set out effectually; indeed, we do not see so many Examples of the Tyranny and Mischiefs of Resistance in the Peo­ple, as of the Arbitrariness of Nero's; but the reason is, because that few States have been fram'd so, as to tolerate such free Resistances, and which indeed is a plain and experimental Argument, that one Tyrant is more tolerable and easie than many.

So that in plain terms, both ways are extreams, and equally unreasonable, and if either be support­able, 'tis Passive-Obedience, which seems an Error on the right hand, and in favour of Government; and yet for all that, in truth, the Controversie is as dangerously touch'd on the one side, as the o­ther, and the Error of both sides is, that Men would vainly endeavour to bring the Actions of Man to a steady Rule; when alas, he is too giddy a Creature, to bear it.

In plain terms, a Free State should neither suffer any Man to preach up Passive-Obedience, nor Resistance; neither Passive-Obedience, I say, for [Page 19]fear of slaving it, nor Resistance for fear of em­broiling it; and indeed, if Men have honest and peaceable Intentions, they may very well be content to preach up Obedience to Governours, without touching at the nice Casuisme of it, of either side.

Nor is it enough in such Case to say, that you can define the exact Rule of Resistance, where, and in what Case it ought to be us'd; for the same may be alledg'd for the Doctrine of Pas­sive-Obedience; for even the Teachers of that Doctrine have declared and limited the Authority of Princes also, that they might not abuse their Power; I say, these defining and casuistical Decisi­ons of Resistance and Command, will do no more good on the one side, than the other; for put the Sword either into the hands of the Prince or Rab­ble, there's equal danger that either of them may a­buse it.

I think therefore the Doctor's Adversaries have had but little reason to charge him with the Unrea­sonableness of Passive-Obedience, when they set up Resistance themselves; indeed, had they bare­ly rejected Passive-Obedience as unscriptural, and not endeavoured by Reasoning to undermine it with a Doctrine rais'd from Topicks of a far worse consequence. I mean, had they insinuated to him, that he had done better, had he relied meerly on the Right of Conquest, without hinting at Passive-Obedience; then, I say, they would have had the Justice of the Cause of their side, and their Demands had been modest and reasonable, and possibly what the Doctor would never have denied [Page 20]them, for the very drift of his Reasoning tends the same way; but the Unreasonableness tax'd on his Principles from their Grounds and Reasonings, has not the least manner of colour for it.

The Second Objection that I am to answer a­gainst Passive-Obedience, is the Enthusiasm of it; a Charge as I find flung upon it, because out of its abundant Confidence in God, it flings a Man up into the very Jaws of Danger, without so much as the very thought of Self-defence; I say, this seems a very formidable Objection against Passive-Obedience; but when we come to handle it, it moul­ders away to nothing.

Previously therefore to this matter, and to clear the Controversie about it, I shall define what is pro­perly Enthusiasm, and what not. I say, then to offer at a private Revelation, or any private Rule of Faith from unwarranted Conceit, is Enthusiasm; but only to trust the known Revelation, was never called Enthusiasm properly, and by any Man of Sence that ever I knew yet.

I say therefore, the Doctor in following sincere­ly the Scriptures, tho' in a mistake, is no more guilty of Enthusiasm, than his Adversaries are of Innocence in slandering him with it. This may be indeed, the Doctor may be in an Error in interpre­ting Scriptures, as I believe he is: and if he is, they would have done well to undeceive him; but then, if they would, they should have studied to have done it with that sincerity and candour, that their Methods might not prejudice him faster, then their Arguments convince him; or else they would have but little right left to the claim of Charity, and good Intention in the case.

But methinks I hear it objected, That this An­swer is not sufficient, that the trusting in God, and omitting Self-defence still remains, and 'tis that is the Enthusiasm; I say it is not, but it is Faith, and possibly not so unaccountable a one as some Men imagine neither; indeed is there not an Example in the Jews where a whole Nation thus trusted in God for their Deliverance, nay, and that more then once too, and was deliver'd accordingly.

Nor is it an argument in such case, that because we have not seen any example of such Deliverance of late, that therefore we may not expect it, if the World be generally so vile as not to deserve such a Protection from God, shall we therefore be wicked in despair of it, in short, because the cold­ness of Mens faith has now reduc'd it to be perfect­ly without efficacy, shall we therefore fling Faith itself aside.

But to illustrate this by Example: The Martyrs in Queen Mary's days they trusted in God, and quitted their Self defence, nay, and that to a great number together; yes, and more after that Queen Mary both corruptly, and contrary to the most solemn Engagments, had violated the Laws, and persecuted them, I say, after all this, yet they through their trust in God, quitted their Self-de­fence and Right of Resistance, and yet no one that ever I knew, called them Enthusiasts.

Indeed by the Principles of Resistance they might have concluded the whole State, King, Queen, Lords, and Commons void, if not for their unjust Law of destroying for Religion, meer Religion I mean, yet at least as the first had broken their [Page 22]Trusts, and the latter were rather packed then le­gally call'd to their Assembly, I say, by the Prin­ciples of Resistance they might justly have con­cluded thus; but as they did not, and did not fly to resolve themselves to their first Elements the So­veraign Lords the People, I say, though they did not, yet I hope we may justly give them the Titles of Martyrs through Faith, without branding them with Enthusiasm.

In plain terms, at this rate at last we shall drive Martyrdom out of the World, and he will be re­puted equally Fool and Coward that does not dye with his Sword in his hand: Is Martyrdom in a great many private Men a Duty, I may say to half the People, as has lately near happen'd in France; I say, why is it not in Kingdoms also, doth Enthu­siasm recipere magis & minus, or is it to hold in all cases alike; indeed why must we be Enthusiasts in part through a Revelation, and not throughout; so that 'tis plain these Men must either quite reject Martyrdom with Passive Obedience, or else ingeni­ously acknowledge, that laying aside all the Absur­dities of reasoning in it, they will with me whol­ly rely on the Authority of the Scriptures for it.

So that the reasoning of the matter will be re­solved thus: All People that have trusted in God through Passive Obedience, have not been deliver'd with the Israelites; no more have not all Martyrs like Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego, been deliver'd from the power of Flames and Tortures; I say, therefore as we are not to expect always our Faith to succeed in the latter case of Martydom, shall we [Page 23]be so unreasonable as to murmur and repine that Sufferings are likely to befal us in the other, and for that reason only to conclude it cannot be a Du­ty upon us?

In short, I know no other way that the Doctor's Enthusiastical Adversaries have to evade the force of this reasoning, unless by pretending that 'tis one thing to resist the King that has only the Execu­tive Power, and another to resist the Fountain or Legislative Power; and as I have shew'd that can­not help them, for under the pretence even of the Parliament's being pack'd, or Pensioners, the Re­sistance Men will allow themselves to oppose the Legislative Power also; so that we may well con­clude this Principle of Resistance can scarce ratio­nally admit a Man in such circumstances as to be a Martyr, and if it does not by that trespass as much on the side of Infidelity and Diffidence in God, as Passive Obedience does on Enthusiasm, I am very much mistaken.

Nor indeed is this the only paralel Case to justi­fie this sort of Enthusiasm, wherein a Man so trusts in God as to give up himself, for if all such courses must imply a ridiculous Enthusiasm, Faith it self must be ridiculous also: Thus Abraham must be an Enthusiast for leaving his Father's Country: And the Christian that bestows a Charity is an Enthu­siast for parting with that present supply, that by possibility he may stand in need of.

So that I hope I may now very well conclude, I have acquitted the Doctor from all pretence of Enthusiasm, when the very same Argument that his Adversaries have brought to accuse him with, as I [Page 24]have manifestly shewn, will not only, if not softned, ruine Passive Obedience, but even Christianity, and all manner of Faith and Religion whatever also.

And I think I may now draw to a Conclusion, and I hope to the general satisfaction also, for if I am not as much mistaken as ever I was in my life, I have given the Doctor an effectual Vindication, I mean such an one as is not only able to return the Dirt cast upon him back upon his Adversaries, but with all good Men to restore him to his former Re­putation and Esteem.

I think I have sufficiently shewn to the World, that his Adversaries are not generous, that they can assault him thus in Crouds; that they are not cha­ritable, that they can attribute Scandals to him a­gainst all the Rules of Sincerity and Honour; I have shewn moreover, that what he hath wrote may receive effectually a good sence, and that with­out Scandal to the Government too, without Men are resolv'd to force his Words to the worst; and as I have shewn this, so I might have staid here, and said this is enough, had I thought fit only just to Vindicate his Cause.

But for the satisfaction of his Enemies I have gone on further, I have shewn them his Doctrine of Passive Obedience is not so absurd neither as they would insinuate; in short, I have shewn them it is as good as Resistance, and let them make the worst or it; and to this I have added, that the A­spersion of Enthusiasm on the Doctor, is manifestly an Injustice and a Reproach.

To this I might add his Praying for King Wil­liam, when he wished King James the Success, his [Page 25]Protesting against his promoting Non-swearing, when at the same time when ask'd he gave his O­pinion, and his Inconstancy in changing his Prin­ciples, and many other such trifling Objections, that a good Man would be ashamed to bring them; however his Adversaries have alleadg'd them, and as those three I have nam'd seem the most consider­able of them, I have resolv'd to give them the sa­tisfaction that their Objections are not Unanswer­able, and then I hope they will be content to dis­miss me.

I say then the Doctor prayed for King William, he did so, and 'tis the Command of Christ to Pray for our Enemies, as I presume the Doctor's Loyal­ty then to K. James could not make him otherwise; I say then if he did this, and has Christ's Com­mand to justifie him, what hurt is there in it? in­deed if the Doctor had us'd particular and inconsi­derate Expressions in his Prayer, he had been to blame, but as long as he deliver'd himself in gene­ral Terms, who shall accuse him for it.

When Christ bid us pray for our Enemies, did he command us to imply in such our Prayers, that God would prosper them so as to confound and destroy us, or not rather that God would direct their hearts to save them, and move them to right us where they injur'd us? Surely I say the latter; and if that were so necessarily implied in the general Command of Christ to pray for our Enemies, shall we deny the Doctor that priviledge in the particular application of it.

But you will say he nam'd him King when he did so; and what then, was it not then rationally a doubt in his thoughts, whether he were a King [Page 26]or no? and if it was, might not he justly use the common Stile and Name he then went by, with­out either Hypocrisie or Cowardize, when at the same time by his refusing the Oaths he put the World out of all doubt of his Dissimulation, I say, might he not honourably, as well as concientiously in such a case Complement the King on his Doubt, at least with the name of King.

Indeed if he had had no Doubt upon him, but was convinc'd that he ought immediately to have help'd his distressed Prince, I say, then either he or any Man else under such a Conviction, though they ought from the Command of Christ to pray for the new Prince, yet withal they ought to re­fuse to Complement him so far as to call him King, but, I say, when the Doctor was without any man­ner of such Conviction, and was at least satisfied that he was quit of his Assistance if not of his Al­legiance to his former Prince: Surely, I say, in such case for his very Doubt's sake the Doctor might Complement his new Prince with the name of King, especially when setled by the Choice of the Nation in the Throne; and methinks no Casuist in the World should deny him that liberty.

And in truth the Doctor's Enemies who pretend thus to refuse to pray for the King, ought withal to remember, that they ought to act accordingly; they ought, as I have said before, to declare them­selves in Hostile manner, and flie from his Prote­ction, for if they once basely or lazily submit to him, as I have before observed, they transfer their Al­legiance, and as long as the new King is in Possession, they cannot retract without Treachery; and con­sequently, [Page 27]they ought to pray for him as King also, if the Title they suffer him to usurp be such.

And I might add to this also, that those Men that are guilty of such a mean and clandestine Treachery against the State, have the more reason in gratitude to her Mercy, to acknowledge her for the future; for however they harbour themselves under the scruple of Passive-Obedience, or other­wise, they ought to remember withal, that 'tis a singular Charity, may I say a greater, than ever they shew'd to the Doctor, that the State shews to them, in not treating them as Enemies; when in­deed, without under a Prince of such an unpara­lell'd Clemency, I don't know what they would well expect otherwise.

The second Charge against the Doctor, is, That he has chang'd his Opinion: right, and suppose he has, What have not others done it before him? or must it be an offence in the Doctor, only to be con­verted from a mistake; but you say, he did it with deliberation: and it may be so; but what then, that shews him the more likely to be a Master of the greater Integrity in it, and not that he is cor­rupt; in plain terms, these Exceptions are rather Cavils than Reasonings.

When a Man ties himself to Principles by the Catalogue, I must confess he may be more constant than the Doctor; but when a Man allows himself free liberty of thinking, and sicerity, he's a confi­dent and ignorant Pretender, that dares say, he shall not change his Opinion.

Nor is it difficult in such Case to say, why some are longer in their change than others; for Gentle­men that give their Reason free reigns, pursue her at first sight: corrupt Men act without Examining; but Divines that walk by a double sight, Reason and Revelation; nay, sometimes cast in Tradition to them, may be fairly allow'd a longer time to de­liberate; and yet who shall say to a sincere Man, just so long.

The mischief on't is, honest Men change their Minds out of Conviction, and Knaves out of De­sign; now the uncharitable World in this case, tho' it knows it cannot discern between these two, and therefore ought in all Cases to put the best face on things; streight without more ado, upon every little peck or passion censures Men, just as if they had got the sole Prerogative of God in searching Mens Hearts.

Nor is it enough in such case to say, that such a Man is Learned, and cannot but know better; for Men that say such things, do but blindly discover their own presumptuous Ignorance. Alas, there is no Casuist can answer all Objections, even in the plainest Cases; perfect Wisdom is the Prerogative of God: and besides, if they could, we should con­sider how much such Men as the Doctor are divert­ed by the Publick, by his Sermons, by his writing necessary particular Tracts and Controversies, &c.

The last thing I propos'd to speak to, is, that they find fault with the Doctor, for giving his Opi­nion, when he would pretend himself free from di­spersing his Doctrine of Non-Swearing formerly. Now as to this, I say, it is a meer Calumny; and [Page 29]indeed, its own disingeniousness speaks it so. To give our Opinion, when ask'd, of a thing, where good or evil, is a Duty that no Man can dispense with in himself; and therefore, when the Doctor declared he was not for spreading his Doctrine, who would lay that upon him, that he could not avoid.

Had he wrote Books to convince others upon it, or had he but wrote Letters to that purpose; nay, had he but sought to promote the Subject and Con­troversie in discourse, where he was not directed by a Letter for satisfaction, or a Friend, in a Casuistick Question; I say, had the Doctor's Adversaries prov'd this, they might have shew'd this expression of his inconsistency, and prov'd him guilty from his own words, of what he would insinuate himself to be innocent; but to do as they have done, is to shew only that they would be glad of the occasion for such a false Judgment.

All things therefore considered, I hope his Ad­versaries will repent what they have been guilty of, and endeavour to repair that Reputation they have so unjustly injur'd. I am sensible what I can write in his defence, is not likely in all particulars to be so strong, as what he himself might alledge; but as indeed the Cause is too nasty for the Doctor himself to meddle with, and as the apparent Merits of it on his part want little help to illustrate them, so I thought it better that a Stranger, I might say an Enemy, like myself, to the Doctor, should undertake it, than he.

I might add, that I could wish that the Task had fallen into a better hand; but since it is where it is, as I can solemnly before God satisfie myself of my [Page 30]proceedings in this matter, so I shall endeavour to make them good; and if the Doctor's Enemies are resolv'd on no Peace with him, I am resolv'd on his behalf, to see how powerful they will prove in the Polemicks.

All therefore that I shall desire of his Enemies, for now if they persist they are mine also is, but that they answer me with candour and ingenuity, with brevity and perspicuity, and with solid sence and integrity; and if so, they endeavour to refute what I have said for the Doctor, I'll promise them, they shall not want as fair a Reply as they can wish for.

But if notwithstanding all has been said, they will still continue to Libel a Member formerly of the greatest Reputation in the Church, and to whose Controversies all Protestancy is oblig'd; I say, if such Elders who as St. Paul advises, must be treated with the greatest respect, cannot have common Charity allow'd them; I say, if this be the temper of his Adversaries, let it suffice the World, at least the worthier part of it, that they revile him with­out reason, that they have had a tender of a fair satisfaction, and have refus'd it, whereupon all Man­kind must acquit the Doctor, and restore him to their former esteem, whilst they wholly lay the blame and guilt upon his Enemies.

But methinks I have a prospect of better hope, of his Enemies, at best of the more considerable of them. It cannot be, that they should persist to do as they have done; nay, I am perswaded they won't; for however they may charge Passive-Obe­dience [Page 31]honourably with its Mischiefs in their Zeal, yet they will not surely thus force an occasion for it, they will no longer keep Men in fear from join­ing with the Government for being of that Principle, nor encourage the continuance of so unjust a slan­der; methinks, I say, for their own, nay, the Pub­lick, and Piety's sake, they will cease to persist in this course longer. I end with the Command­ment: