The INTEREST OF The English Nation Under the Happy Government OF King William III. Once more Asserted: In ANSWER to the Challenge of a jacobite. WHEREIN IS PROVED That that Law which forbids taking up Arms against the King upon any Pretence whatsoever, is Consistent with the late Revolution.  
By Philo-Kalo-Basileos.  If we take the whole People as one Body and Mass, then as the Head is ordained for the Body, and not the Body for the Head; so must a Righteous King know himself ordained for his People, and not his People for him. King James I. his Speech to both Houses of Parliament, March 19 1603. 
London, Printed and are to be Sold by E. Whitlock, near Stationer's Hall, by Amen-Corner. 1696.   

The PREFACE.  
EVer since our Glorious Monarch King William came to the Crown, I have made it my Business upon all occasions to the utmost of my Power and Capacity, to Assert his Interest, and to set forth the Happiness of these Kingdoms, together with my own Unspeakable Satisfaction under his Government.— To this purpose I have written several Papers, some of which were lost in the Crowd, when they were by Learned Hands recommended to the Public, and others have been neglected, and thrown aside as inconsiderable; and yet for all that I am not discouraged: For I find so much Pleasure in the Cause I am Defending, and such Refreshment in diverting myself with Political Reflections in this Auspicious Reign, that however I may fail in the Management, I shall never be Deficient in my Zeal and Hearty Endeavours to Support and Maintain the present Government.  
Amongst the rest, the following Discourse, together with the Vindication thereof, was extorted from me by the insolent Prating, and undecent Scribbling of certain Jacobites, one of which would needs urge upon me the following Case, which he presumed to be such a Capping Question as no Body could Answer. I say it was extorted from me at that Time, being unwilling to engage in a Debate with my Neighbours; and having besides other things under Consideration. For though such Rencounters are a Pleasure and Diversion to me, at a proper Season, yet when other Business is before me, or when my Mind is Cloudy, I am willing enough to leave these Debates to better Hands; being sensible that what is mean at best, must be yet meaner under such Circumstances. Upon which account the Reader will not sinned here so even a Thread of Discourse, as might be Expected. But that I little value, not seeking my own Credit, but the Security of the Government.  
Had I begun to write about the Discovery of the Plot, it might perhaps have sharpened: he Dulness of my Pen, and inspired a Creeping Style with Life and Vigour; but I was not so happily Timed. And even now when the Snare is broken, it is a better Season for Rejoicing and Thanksgiving, than for satire and Invective: For the Jacobites have left us nothing to say; their Actions strike us Dumb; and their Bloody Designs cry so loud, that nothing can be heard. They have indeed been sufficiently exposed already, but this Plot has painted them more Black and Monstrous, more Loathsome and Abominable than any thing that has been said, or could be thought of heretofore. And if Oldham were alive again, he would be confounded with the Subject, and not know where to begin his satire. They are a Generation Proflig eaten and Absurd beyond the Examples of former Ages, and made up of such Heterogeneous Stuff, that they are perfectly unaccountable. but may they never succeed better in their Plotting, and we shall the better forgive them; especially since Vengeance is waiting for them, and Providence seems abhorrent of their Villainy. And since they have left the Church because a Protestant King is there Prayed for, it is but Decorum, that they should Reform their Devotions, and, to their Prayers for K. James, add this for themselves, 
Vos O mihi manes,  
Este boni, quoniam superis aversa Voluntas.   
After all, it is to be hoped, that the Jacobites will divide their Forces; and some that have not yet made Shipwreck of Shame and Modesty, may come over to our Party; others will be for making Apologies, endeavouring to shift the Odium of the Plot off from themselves; others may grow desperate, if they think fit, and rage like the Devil, when he has but a a short time to reign; and some will fret and fry in their own Grease, like a certain Brother of theirs, mentioned by the Poet, 
Qui Centum vinctus ahenis,  
Post tergum nodis, fremet horridus ore Cruento.   
But I now leave them, either to the Gallows, or at least the Discipline of their own wicked Minds, and the secret Lashes of an Evil Conscience.  Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum.  

THE Challenge of a Jacobite ANSWERED.  
Which was to show, How that Law which forbids taking Arms against the King upon any Pretence whatsoever, is Consistent with the late Revolution.  
IN the first place, I lay down this for a Foundation, That General Rules have, for the most part, some tacit Exceptition, which must of necessity be understood, tho' not expressed: And this is more especially so, when the nature of the thing is such, that the Exception ought not to be made, nor can be mentioned without great Inconvenience.  
Now two things I am obliged to do in this matter; first, I shall give several plain and undeniable Instances, to evince the Truth of what I have here laid down: And secondly, I shall give Reasons to show that it ought to be so in the Case before us.  
1. Yet forty days, and Niniveh shall be overthrown, Jonah 3.4. This is positive and absolute; yet here is to be understood, Except they Repent.  
2. Children obey your Parents in all things, Ephes. 6.1. Yet if they command sinful things, I must not obey them.  
3. Wives are commanded in Scripture to be subject to their Husbands in all things, without any Exception mentioned; yet still we must except sinful Commands.  
4. Marriage obliges the Parties to live together till Death part them; but Adultery may part them sooner, and that Legally too.  
5. Thou shalt not steal: This is spoken without any explicit Reservation; and yet Casuists tell us, That in Cases of extreme hunger, and peril of Starving, and being denied all manner of Relief, a Man may take where he can come to it, any thing to eat or drink, for the preservation of Life. But after the strictness of this Precept, even the plucking Ears of Corn and eating them, in another Man's Field, is plain Stealing.  
Now as on the one hand, both Scripture and Reason will justify these Exceptions; so on the other side, there is all the reason in the World why they should not be expressed: For if Jonah had preached to the Ninevites, That they should be destroyed in forty days, if they repent not; it's very like they would have delayed their Repentance: But the Terror of a Peremptory Doom wrought more effectually.  
If Children and Wives had been commanded Obedience with a Reserve, it would have implied that Husbands and Parents might prove so wicked as to command them sinful things, which ought not to be supposed: And then ill-disposed Children might disobey upon slight occasions, and fancy all such Commands to be unjust, as they had not a mind to observe.  
If Marriage did oblige the Parties to live together till Death or Adultery should make a Separation, and that it were so expressed in the Office; this would be an odious and shameful Insinuation, that one or both of them might prove so wicked, as to give occasion of Divorce.  
And if the Law had said, Thou shalt not steal, without extreme Necessity; this would have been taken for little less than a Licence tosteal, every one judging for himself of his own Necessity.  
Thus we may see how natural it is for General Words to carry along with them, a reserved Condition or Limitation, which yet ought by no means to be Mentioned or Expressed. And thus it is in the Case before us: For if the Law had Said, Thou shalt not take Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever, Except the King designs to Subvert the Government, This would have been a Disloyal Intimation, that the King might prove a Tyrant; and would have given Encouragement to the people to Suspect his Intentions; and many times, without any Cause, to Censure his Actions; Yet, that thus it must be Understood, will Appear by the Reasons Following.  
1. The first is this, That if it be Understood in the Utmost Force and Latitude that the words will bear, it makes Void all other Laws; nay even the Law of Godcannot stand in its way. If you take it by the wrong handle, it will be so ill Conditioned as to Suffer no Law but itself. The design of the Law is to secure to Every Man his Right. It is by Law that we attend our Callings, that we Eat and Sleep in quietness, that we Enjoy what we Call our Own, that we can serve God in Peace, and that our Churches are not turned into Idol-Temples. But now if we must upon no account whatsoever defend these Rights when they are Invaded, what benefit have we by the Law? Or to what End serves it? If we must upon no pretence whatsoever, even at the utmost Extremity, resist the Illegal Proceed of the Prince, then is the whole Law of England no more but Shame; and whatsoever we have, we enjoy it only at the King's discretion, and during his pleasure: Nay all the Societies of men in England, are no more but as so many Herds of cattle to Labour for the Use, and to be slaughtered at the pleasure of the King. So that either we must qualify that Article of the Law, or give up all the rest.  
2. There is a difference (as all men know) between the power of Making Laws, and the power of Executing the same; the latter rests entirely in the King, but not the former. Now with respect to the Executive power, we yield (if that will please our Adversaries) That the King is not to be resisted, upon any pretence whatsoever; Whilst he is Executing the Law, no man may say unto him What dost thou? Whatever colour there may be of maladministration, that can be no Just ground of Resistance, because the Law provides a remedy, and the Ministers must Answer for it. But then, this can never be Extended to the Legislative Power, unless you will suppose that the Parliament when they made that Law, intended not only to Cancel all the rest, but never to make any more. This had been a final Dissolution of all Parliaments, and of the Government itself: It had put all into the King's hands, and made him Arbitrary by a Law. As if they had Enacted, Let the King henceforward make Laws without a Parliament, Let him pull down the Church and set up an Idol, Let him Alienate his Kingdom, and sell his People for Slaves, or any thing else, what he pleases: Nay, if he be seized with a Frenzy, and Kill the People about him, he is not to be resisted, upon any pretence whatsoever. And if he should Attempt to kill himself, there is no means of prevention, no touching him, no laying hands upon him, tho' it be for his Safety: See what Extremity and Absurdity this Doctrine of our Adversaries leads to! But if they will admit of an Accommodation, we are Content to Divide the Truth, and let them take one half, but we will never yield the other. The King then in Executing the Laws made according to the Constitution of the Government, is not to be resisted on any Account whatsoever: But if they will have the King to make Laws by himself, and do what he pleases without Resistance, they talk without book, and will never be Convinced till they are going to the Gallows, or to a Stake.  
3. The King, being no more than a Man, cannot do much harm by his own proper strength; so that supposing him to be a Tyrant, I never can fear that he will come in Person and take away my Life or Estate: He must then act by Commissioners. Now these Commissioners must be duly qualified persons, and rightly Commissioned according to Law, to do some legal Act. Coming then under these Circumstances, they are God's Ministers to me for my Good; in resisting them, I resist the Ordinance of God, and must expect Damnation and Judgement, for so doing. And here again I suppose the Jacobites and I are perfectly Agreed. But what if these pretended Commissioners should happen to be Papists, French Dragoons, or Rapparees, and came without any legal Commission, to Robb me, by virtue of a Writing, which they call a Commission, under the King's Hand and Seal, what then? Why truly then I might happen to be Robbed or Murdered. And what say our Selfdenying Adversaries to this? They say I must patiently suffer and submit; for tho' these persons be not qualified according to Law, yet they Act according to the King's pleasure, and I must lie at their Feet; Yes, so I would, if I could not help it: But so would I do at the Feet of High-way-men, and from them I should find more Mercy. Thiefs and Robbers spoil some particular persons: But these are the Villains that destroy Government. Were it not for these, the King could do no harm: They are Devouring Beasts, and Savage Monsters broken lose; and aught to be treated accordingly.  
4. I shall add in the 4th place, That the King of England is King by Law, it is by Law that he wears a Crown, and is clothed with Royal Power: But if he Subverts the Foundation of the Government, he takes away the Foot he stands upon; he destroys his own Authority, and Ceases to be a King; He is then but like Robin-hood, an Outlaw: For a King without Law, Implies a Contradiction. The Matter then in short is this; The King Executing the Law is not to be resisted upon any pretence whatsoever; but if he lay aside the Law, and become Arbitrary, he divests himself of his Crown and Dignity, and is no longer a King.  
But because our Adversaries will storm heavily at this Saying, how Undeniable so ever it be, let us see if we can Strengthen it by Authority; And first, That of a Wise and Learned King, viz. James the First, who in a Speech before the Parliament, 1609. has these words. A King Governing in a Settled Kingdom, leaves to be a King, and Degenerates into a Tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws; and they that persuade them the Contrary, are Vipers and Pests, both against them and the Commonwealth. So that it seems a King may fall from his Power, and cease to be a King; and he actually does so, when he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws. Let us now see what the force of Truth has Extorted from a Learned Man of our Adversaries Party, a Mighty Asserter of Monarchical Power, the Famous Barclay. Two Cases, he says, there are, whereby a King, ipso facto, becomes no King, and loses all power and Regal Authority over his people, for he divests himself of his Royal Crown and Dignity, he returns to the state of a private Man, and the People become freeand Superior. All the words in the Dictionary cannot cut deeper than these, nor kill the Cause more Dead upon the Sport: to Add any thing, would be Substraction; and to offer at Illustration would be to darken. I shall only mention his two Cases, and leave it. The first is, If the King Endeavour to overturn the Government, and have a purpose and Design to ruin the Kingdom and Common wealth. The Second is, If he make himself the Dependant of another, and betray his people into the Power and Dominion of a foreign Nation. These two Cases are both so like ours of Late, that one would think this Author had written by Inspiration: And the best of all is, he is taken for an Enemy, which makes his Testimony on our sides the more Considerable.  
By this time I think it may appear, that Nonresistance is not to be taken in the rigid and inflexible Sense of our Adversaries; but so qualified as to let the English Frame and Constitution of Government stand where it is. But there is nothing, almost, which may not be Spoilt by overdoing: Nothing better in a well-settled Government than Obedience; but once misplaced, there's nothing worse. This is that which had it been Universal, had left nothing ere this day, but Grief and Lamentation, Chains and Slavery, Superstition and Idolatry, for which Posterity might have had cause to Curse the Servile Baseness of the present Generation, had not K. William, and many Noble Englishmen, stood in the Gap, to Save the Nation from Sudden Ruin, and from a Sad Character in after times.  
Now let our Adversaries stand still a little, and Consider whether they be not righteous overmuch Eccl. 7.16. And whether they do not make themselves over-wise. I would as soon pass my word for Wisdom and Righteousness, that they should not be Capable of Excess, as any thing Else that I can think off. And yet even in that Case the wisest of Kings thought a caution Necessary. And this is the Character of those men we have to deal with; they will be wiser than the Public Wisdom of the Nation; and more Righteous than the whole Church whereof they profess to be Members.  
I very well remember the time when these Men, above others, were Continually Charging the Dissenters with Pride and Self-Conceit, with wilful Obstinacy, with Faction and Disobedience; some could find nothing Else to Preach on, and others made it their common Discourse; and now, out of their own mouths they are Justly Condemned. Some Dissenters indeed have some needless Scruples about Cermonies; but These only scruple Deliverance; and to be Saved from Ruin and Misery, lies heavy upon their Conscience. They pay Faith and Allegiance to a Tyrant, or a Nonens: and they return Malice and Ignominy for Security and Protection.  
I shall conclude this matter with a Sentence taken from a very learned Pen, which also has been asserted by others; Namely, That when a Prince breaks in upon the Religion and Liberties of his People, they ought to stand up in their own Defence, and may also call in a Neighbour, or Foreigner to their Assistance. And this very thing has been Declared Lawful by Queen Elizabeth, by K. James the first, by K. Charles the first, with their Parliaments; and by Arch Bishop Laud into the Bargain, as may be further made Evident upon occasion.  
And here I thought to have made an End; But I find our Adversaries, when other reasons fail them, betake themselves to the Bible, wherein they think to find their Unlimited Power and passive Obedience. I cannot pretend to Remember all those passages of Scripture, which they have Pressed for this Service; but two or three of the more remarkable, I shall Endeavour at present to Release from the Unnatural force and Violence put upon them, and the rest as I meet with them.  
First Prov. 30.31. A King against whom there is no rising up. I grant it, in the Sense aforementioned: That is, So long as he remains a King, and Keeps the Laws, he is a Rebel that opposes him: But when he falls from that, he is a Rebel himself. I speak not this at Random, but I'll make it good. The first King of Israel was a Rebel, if you will believe the Prophet Samuel: For he plainly Charges him with Rebellion. Behold (says he) to obey is better than Sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of Rams: For Rebellion is as the Sin of Witchcraft etc. 1. Sam. 15.22.  
God had given a Command to Saul, that he should Smite Amaleck and Destroy utterly all that they had. This was the Law he was to observe: But he disobeyed it, and thereupon the Prophet not only gives him a severe Reprimand, but Saul left his Kingdom beside. After this, David was so far from Nonresistance, that he Armed himself in his own Defence, and about 600 Men. And he Seized upon Strong-holds at Engedi. 'tis true, David would not Kill him Cowardly, which was a Noble and brave Example, but had he met him fairly in the Field, no doubt but he would have Fought him. He gave him at one time such a Lecture as made him fall a weeping: At another time he preached to him from the top of an Hill, so long till Saul Prophesied David's Success, and the ruin of his own Kingdom. Thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt prevail. 1. Sam. 26.25. Now all this being done by David in a posture of Defence, and probably with Goliah's Sword in his hand, amounts sufficiently to a Rising up against Saul, and Consequently that these words are not to be taken Strictly, but in such a qualified sense as may comport with other parts of Scripture, as will further appear by considering another Text here following, Eccles. 8.4. Who may say unto a King what dost thou?  
With the former Scripture our Adversaries would bind our hands, and with this they would tie our tongues: The one must deprive us of Self Defence, and the other of the Liberty of Speech. It is not Enough to Suffer unjustly and to be destroyed, but it is a Crime to Complain, or to represent our Grievances. How unlike are some Earthly Gods to the God of Heaven, whose Authority they have, and whom they ought to Resemble! He invites, nay he Commands us to petition him for what we want. They Cannot bear to be petitioned at all, but call it Rebellion. He will not suffer us to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear: They will take our Fields and Vineyards, make us Slaves and Beggars, and we may not inquire the reason.  
En quo discordia Cives  
Perduxit miseros! En queis consevimus agros!  
Such was the Effect of Court Flattery, that none must look into the King's Measures, nor dare to ask a Question: None must admonish him of Danger, reprove him of Evil, nor advise him for Good; for who may say unto him, What dost thou? Counsellors and Chaplains (at this rate) must all take their leave, there's no occasion or business for them. This indeed was lately our Case, and thus our Adversaries would have it still.  
But by their Favour, as the Case is now (God be praised) happily altered, so neither is this the intent of the Text, it being only an Emphatical Expression to show the Greatness of a King's Power, and how insolent a thing it is, to question him in the just Exercise of his Regal Authority, whilst he is Executing the Laws of his Country, for the punishment of Evil Doers, and for the Praise of them that Do Well, why should any one oppose him? But if he be setting Fire to a City, subverting his Government, betraying his People, or destroying himself: One need not ask indeed what he is a doing, for the thing speaks itself; He is throwing off his Crown and Dignity, and Resistance is the only way to keep it on. This should be endeavoured with all the respect to a Crowned Head, that the matter will bear; but if Force be necessary, it must be used. They are good Subjects that prevent their King's falling down a Precipice tho' it be by violent Hands; but they are Traitors, who out of Respect and Reverence will let him break his Neck. And we have the Authority of King James the First, and of the Learned Barclay, That where a King has no Authority, there he ceases to be King, and returns to the state of a private Man. But call him King still, if you please, it is however the Duty of his Council, and those about him, who have opportunity, to admonish him of Danger, and prevent his Ruin as far as they can, before it be too late. And perhaps the mis-applying of this very Text, may have made some Men over-Cautious, and deprived Kings of that free and wholesome Advice which might have been eatly serviceable to them.  
Let us now look into the Scriptures, and see whether what has been said to Kings in former times, may not seem to counterbalance this Interrogative, What dost thou? Samuel told King Saul, he had done foolishly, and charges him with Disobedience, Stubbornness, and Rebellion. Elisah told King Ahab, That he had sold himself to do evil in the sight of the Lord, and that it was he and his father's House that troubled Israel. These are Reproofs to the purpose, and certainly of no less importance than to say, What dost thou? Now it is to be supposed that God would inspire his Prophets to speak such words to their Kings, as were not fit to be spoken by others upon the like Occasion? So that I conclude, this Text hinders not at all, but that a King pulling down the Church and the Law, and setting up Superstition, Idolatry, and Arbitrary Power, may be questioned and gainsaid by his Council, and resisted too, by the Majority of the Nation.  
Another Text, which is wont to be urged for the Power and Sacredness of Kings, is Prov. 8.15. By me King's reign, and Princes decree Justice: But I never hear them read the Context, by me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth: And good reason, for this would prove too much, and more than they would have, namely, that Judges are Jure Divino, as well as Kings; for by the same Logic that the one is inferred from the 15th Verse, the other will follow from the 16th Verse; I challenge any one to show me the difference. This would have been strange Doctrine in the late Reign, when Durante Beneplacito came into fashion, and Judges were turned out for doing Right.  
But I do not see how either of the two can be proved from this Scripture: For who is this Me, and this I, mentioned here in my Text? It is not Solomon, for vers. 23. I was set up from Everlasting. Nor is it God himself, for at Vers. 22. he says, The Lord possessed me in the beginning. But it is Wisdom which is here spoken of, and which Solomon personates all along, speaking in the first Person, from Verse the 12th to the end of the Chapter; and setting forth the Nature and Excellency, the Power and Advantages of Wisdom; I Wisdom dwell with Prudence, etc. and a little after, By me King's reign, etc. So then the plain meaning of the Text is this, That King's reign by Wisdom, and that Nobles and Judges, who have the Administration of Public Affairs, are qualified by Wisdom to manage the great Concerns and Business of a Kingdom; And tho' all Kings and Ministers of State are not thus qualified (which is the Cause of many short and unfortunate Reigns) yet here we are taught what it is that qualifies them for Government, and that Wisdom is to be sought by them more than fine Silver, and Knowledge rather than choice Gold. If this Lesson had been well learned by our late Kings, England had been a flourishing Nation at this day, and might perhaps have given Laws to the Christian World.  
By this time our Adversaries will be ready to demand, after their scoffing manner, When is it time for the People to Rebel? And who must judge between them and their King? To this I shall answer, after I have made an Observation about the word Rebel, or Rebellion.  
It has been oft observed by Learned Men, that the Scripture condescending to humane Capacity, uses such Forms of Speech as are common among Men, tho' the same are not to be taken in a strict and proper sense. Thus it is said God made two great Lights, the one to Rule the Day, the other to Rule the Night; whereas it is certain that the Moon has no more light in itself than a Stone-Wall; only it shines by reflecting to us that borrowed Light it receives from the Sun. So when a People Arm themselves against their King, it is very obvious to call it Rebellion, though their Cause be never so just: And it seems to me, that the Scripture in sundry places speaks after the same manner, calling that Rebellion, which strictly and properly is not so, or which at least is not Rebellion in a Criminal Sense.  
This perhaps may seem strange to some People; but let them impartially consider 1 Kings 12.19. where it is said, Israel rebelled against the House of David unto this Day: And to this Day they were never reproved for it; and good reason, For this thing is from Me, saith the Lord, by the Prophet Shemaiah, vers. 24. Nor can we call this a bare Permission, but it was Determined beforehand, and a Prophet sent to Jeroboam to give him Notice of it, Beheld I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give Ten Tribes to thee, 1 Kings 11.31. And why should God do this? Because, says he, they have forsaken me and worshipped Idols, etc. So that here is a peremptory Decree for this Defection, with the Reason annexed, and God ordered seeond Causes so as to bring it about. Learned Men may dispute, if they please, whether the Ten Tribes were free Agents in what they did; it is evident from the Text, That this Revolt of theirs was the Purpose and Design of God, and was approved by him, tho' it is called in Scripture Rebellion.  
Another Instance of this kind we have in 2 Kings 18.7. where it is said of Hezekiah, That he rebelled against the King of Assria. Was Hezekiah an Offender in this? No, for the Lord was with him. Whatever Promises or Covenants had passed between him and the King of Assyria, we know not: This is certain, That King Hezekiah did well in throwing off the Assyrian Yoke, tho' it hath the name of Rebellion; for he clavae to the Lord and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments. So that after him was none like him among all the Kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. Behold here a Sinless Rebellion, which was the thing I aimed at; and now let the Jacobites call us Rebels or what Else they please.  
I shall now proceed to give my Answer, when it is time to Rebel: having first declared when it is not time. It is not to fly to Arms for some few private Injuries done to particular persons, whilst Law has its due Course in the Main, and the Vital parts of Government remain safe. Indeed people are seldom forward to hazard their own Lives and Fortunes to Revenge private wrongs. Nor yet ought they to Embroil a Kingdom for some public Miscarriages of the King, when it may be reasonably supposed, that he hath Used his Prerogative for the good of his people, to the best of his Judgement, tho' in Effect it hath proved Contrary. What is well meant, and will afford a tolerable reason, should be forgiven, notwithstanding the ill Consequence, when it is not wilfully persisted in. There is a time for Prayers as well as for Self-defence, and that should be tried in the first place; and so long as any hope remains, it is a proper Season for Faith and Patience.  
But when the King's Illegal Proceed have Extended one way or other to the Majority of the People, and from particular injuries have advanced to an invasion upon all men's Liberties; When the Violence that has affected many, is of such a Nature and Consequence as to threaten All; When High-Commission-Courts are set up to disseiz Men of their Free-holds, and Charters called in for packing of Parliaments; When honest Magistrates are every where turned out, and sworn Enemies to the Established Government fill their places; When we are threatened, like the Israelites, to be chastised with Scorpions, and Foreign Cutthroats like to be let in among us; When Religion and Property, Life and Posterity, are almost within the Jaws of a Gaping Monster; When all the Foundations, and the whole Frame of Government are so shaken, that Dissolution must ensue; When there is no hope left, nor any Counsel can be heard but Jesuits and bigoted Papists; And to complete all, when all Men are sensible, and three quarters at least of the Nation are persuaded in their Consciences that all this is really so: If ever Men will stand up for Self-Defence, and to save Posterity, This is the Time. When Matters are brought to this pass, to talk of Passive Obedience, is the greatest Nonsense in the World; and to tell the People of being subject to Authority, when there is no Authority, but Illegal Force, and all the Rules and Measures of Government broken, is to talk to the Wind, and persuade Men to be tamely Murdered in Obedience to Illegal Violence. Rebellion in this Case (as they please to call it) becomes a Duty; and to be Passive, is to Betray the Nation. And then for the other part of the Question about a Judge, there is none upon Earth to determine this Matter, but the Sword. Every Man will Judge for himself, and Consult as he can for his own Safety: But there lies no Appeal, but only to the Court of Heaven for the Success of the Cause; and that Court (God be praised) has determined the Matter, by sending us a King that Maintains our Laws and Ancient Government.   

PART II. A DEFENCE OF THE Foregoing DISCOURSE AGAINST Certain Exceptions Communicated in Writing.  
SIR,  
I Received your Paper of Exceptions against what I have been saying hitherto, in behalf of the present Government, and in Defence of the late Happy Revolution: But I am sorry you should trouble yourself and me with so many trite and common things, which have had full and sufficient Answers usque ad Nauseam: However since you seem to expect it, I shall go through them all, and doubt not to satisfy any indifferent Person. But such as are, or seem to be under Judicial Blindness and Infatuation, may seek for Conviction by Miracle, if they please; and 'tis a question whether that would do it: For they do not appear to be capable of any Satisfaction, till they find it in the smart of the Misery and Slavery, which they have long been Courting and Admiring, and are now grown Impatient of Delay. But of you I hoped better things, and shall be sorry to find myself mistaken.  
The first thing I meet with is this; But what, I pray, if Kings misdemean themselves in their Government, must they presently cease to be Kings?  
You put this Question, as if you had not read what you are pretending to Answer, without taking any notice of what I quoted you from K. James and Mr. Barclay, and so you go on as if nothing at all had been said in this Matter.  
Therefore I proceed to  
The next thing; God Almighty made them Kings, and how can less Authority Dethrone them?  
This is no better than pure Sophistry, as if Kings were not of Hunane Race, but made in Heaven, and sent down upon Earth to devour Mortals, like so many Frogs to be eaten up by a Stork without any hopes of Deliverance. What would you think if I should advance this for an Argument, God makes Merchants and Lawyers; therefore Merchants cannot break, nor Lawyers prevaricate. I am sure Kings are not made without Means no more than other Conditions of Men: All is Providence, from the Throne to the Dunghill; and we find in Scripture Kings made by the People. Nay even Hereditary Kings are made by the People as well as Elective: For Crowns, at this day, are not Entailed by Messages from Heaven, but by Laws made upon Earth; and I pray who made these Laws? Had the People no Hand in them? Historians tell us, That the Right Descent of English Kings has been broken now Nine times since K. William the First. And the Scriptures tell us, That the Lineas Succession of the Kings of Israel and Judah have been Interrupted and cut off, sometimes by express Nomination from God by a Prophet, and sometimes also Providentially. Jehu, a Subject, was Anointed King by a Prophet, Baasha show Nadab and Succeeded in the Kingdom, and Omri was made King by the People without any Divine Appointment. So that here is Jus Divinum, the Sword, and the People, each of them setting up their several King. And in a word, all Kings are made and unmade by Divine Providence, which outs down one and sets up another; and we quarrel at this, and think much that God should Rule the World, unless he give us a particular Account of his Ways.  
But suppose they do really design the Subversion of the Government, who shall or aught to punish them?  
Barclay says, in that Case, the King returns to the state of a private Man, and the People become Free and Superior. This is so cutting a thing, especially from one of your own Party, that I suppose you durst not so much as touch it. But I Answer; None ought to punish the King, nor to hurt his Person, tho' he be fallen from his Power: But I say, that when a Government is breaking up, and all things at the brink of Ruin and Confusion, every Man ought to stand for his Life, and to Defend his Family and Posterity, the best he can, from future Misery; other wise they are guilty of Self-Murder, and of Betraying their Country, provided they be in a Condition to appear in the Field, as many Brave Englishmen did at York, and in Cheshire, and other places of this Kingdom, in Nou. 1688. In the mean time, the King is to be Counselled to keep within the Sanctuary of the Law, or at least to keep his Person out of Danger, and not to Head his Party. But if he will, against all Justice, Prudence, and Persuasions, Join with Wicked Men, and Expose himself to Blind Bullets, and fall in the Field, it is to be looked upon as an Accidental thing, and none can help it. God forbidden that any one should think of hurting him on purpose; and Charge should be given to all to beware as much as possible of so doing. For this, see further that Nameless, but very Learned Book, which yourself put into my Hands.  
You come next to your Boys Play, Give a thing and take a thing; where from a certain Maxim of your Learned Politician, you infer, that the People have wholly and entirely divested themselves of all their Power and Right, without any Limitation whatsoever, and therefore they can by no means call for it back again.  
I cannot deny at this time of Day, that a Free People may make themselves Slaves by Consent: There are those among us, who not only seem forward to do it, but take it ill that the whole Kingdom will not do the like. Hitherto I have thought it impossible that any Wise Man should do an Act without having some end in it; or should give up his whole Right to the Will of another, without any respect back again upon himself. But the Jacobites, whose Principles are Unaccountable, have given us a Demonstration of it, and to them only are we Indebted for so Noble a Discovery. I could wish they would try the Experiment in France, and not trouble us here in England, who are under better Circumstances. Indeed those that have made an ill Bargain, must be content to stand by it, till they can be released: But we have made a good one, and will stand for it, not doubting the performance on either part. We have Sworn Allegiance to the King, and he has Sworn to Rule by Law; Allegiance and Protection are Correlatives, and will be so while this Kingdom stands: Take away the one, and the other falls to the Ground. But no Scheme of Politics will please you, but that of Holbs, or Filmer, which teacheth Kings to break through the most Sacred and Solemn Obligations, and to Act Leviathan without Control.  
Your last Argument was Argumentum Puerile, taken from Boys Play; the next is Argumentum Pestiferum, taken from the Common Pests of the Nation, as you are pleased to style the poor Bailiffs; and thus you express it.  
As to the Power in not being resisted in the Execution of the Laws, which you are pleased to allow to Kings, if that be all they are Kings for; truly I think they are in a far worse state and condition than the Common Pests of the Nation, the Rogue Bailiffs.  
But by your Favour, I did not say, that is all they are Kings for, but I said the King in Executing the Law is not to be Resisted, not denying him his proper share in the Legislative Power, in which none will oppose him: But if he should assume the whole Legislative Power, as some in Effect have done, that would mightily alter the Case. But besides all this, the King of England has a Royal Prerogative, which is not a Dispensing Power, or a Power above the Law to do what he pleases; but it is a Power Residing in the King, partly defined and limited by the Law itself, and partly left to the King's Wisdom and Clemency, to be exerted for the Benefit of the Subject, where the edge of the Law is too sharp, which often happens by Casualty or Humane Infirmity. For the Law is an Excellent Rule, but in many Cases it may be defeated; nor can it provide for all future Accidents. Infirmity or Knavery in Witnesses may occasion a wrong Sentence: And Laws can never be made so complete, but that Summum Jus may happen to be Summa Injuria. So that the King's Prerogative is to Relieve the Subject in Extraordinary Cases, and being used with Prudence and good Advice, is a Glorious Jewel of the Crown.  
Let us now pursue the Comparison between an English Monarch and a Bailiff: The one let us View upon a Throne, Clothed with Power and Excellent Majesty, Vested with a Noble Prerogative, and giving his Royal Assent to Laws made for the Punishment of Evil-doers, and for the Praise of them that do well: Or let us consider him in the Field giving Laws to Princes, Commanding many Thousands, Protecting the Innocent, Defending the Faith, Astonishing his Enemies, and for several Years together Defying the Philistine, and Desiring Nothing more than to meet him fairly in the Field. Now what is there in a Bailiff, to bear up the Credit of such a Comparison? He is indeed a Lawful and Necessary Officer, but I know not how it comes to pass that he should not only be a Rogue, but the Common Pest of the Nation. If this be a mean Character of a Bailiff (as I think it is) what must it be of the King of England, who (because he is not Arbitrary) is in a far worse State and Condition? This is a vile Reflection upon the English Frame of Government, which many Wise Men think is the best Constitution in the World.  
But here comes the Old Killing Question, as briskly as if it had never yet been Answered; Who must be Judge when the King has a Design to Subvert the Government? And 'tis brought in with these Triumphant words; You see, Sir, what a goodly thing you have made of your so much boasted Cause and Demonstration of Nothing.  
To this I Answer, First, That some People through Blindness, and others through Prejudice, are not capable of a Demonstration. Secondly, I will venture my Paper and yours before any Learned Men, even tho' he be a Jacobite, and will for once be Judged by him, whether your Cause or mine is better Managed. Thirdly, You have in my Paper a full Answer to this very Question; but you do so abound in your own Sense, that you could not see it; or perhaps indeed you have not read it, for haste to get my Paper Answered, I shall therefore Answer it once more with some small Improvement. I say then, these very Three Parties you mention, namely, the King, the People, and a Foreigner, are all of them Comperent Judges in this Matter.  
For First, Cannot the King easily tell what he himself Designs to do? Certainly he is a Competent Judge of his own Mind and Intention, whether he declare it or not. K. James said in his First Council, he would Maintain the Church of England, and many well-meaning People were so simple as to believe him: Yet not long after it was declared in a private Letter (said to be his) That he would Reduce the Kingdom to the Catholic Religion, or Die a Martyr. But whether this be true or no, every Man certainly is a proper Judge of his own Intention, but he is not like to discover the same, when such Discovery may be a Means to prevent his Design.  
Secondly, The People too are Judges in this Case: For cannot every Man tell what he feels, and what he fears? When a Man's Head is broken, or his Goods taken from him, he has reason to know that it is so; and his Neighbour that is a Spectator to Day, may be a Sufferer to Morrow. Jam proximus ardet, is Scarborough Warning. If a Charter be taken from a Corporation, are the People no Judges as to Matter of Fact? If the Master and Fellows of the College are turned out of their Freehold, must some body else Judge for them, and inform them that they want Lodgings? If a Protestant Justice of Peace be turned out of Commission, and a Papist put in his room, he certainly knows that he is not on the Bench, and is capable of making a Rational Judgement, not only of the Matter of Fact, but of the Consequence. If I see a Cutthroat Murdering my Neighbour, and then making towards me with his long Knife, you would have me to stay till my Throat be cut, before I must judge what his meaning is. In short, your whole drift is to make the King an Idol, and the People Sots.  
And then Thirdly, As to a Foreigner, or Neighbouring Prince, 'tis very possible, that he may make as true a Judgement as any other: A By slander sees how the Game goes better sometimes than he that plays it. And it is well that it was so in our Case of late, else you and I might have been Disputing in a Dungeon, or a worse place; for which all Protestant and true Englishmen ought to give Thanks to God, and next to Him, to our Gracious Deliverer, K. William. Thus you may see, if Prejudice will permit, that after all your flourishing, each of the three Parties you except against, are, or at least may be; proper Judges in the Case before us.  
But indeed I thought at first your Question had been this, When a difference breaks out between the King and his People, who is a proper Judge to determine the matter between them? For it is one thing to judge Rationally, and almost infallibly, when ill Designs are on foot; and another thing to judge between the Parties at odds, and to determine the Difference. As to the former, I believe that even yourself did once judge that we were in an evil Case, and so, I am sure, did most of the Jacobites; and now you long to be so again, or in a worse: But in the latter Case there is no Judge upon Earth; and this I also told you before. There lies no Appeal but to the Court of Heaven, nor any way to plead the Cause, but with the Sword; and the God of Battle, that gives Victory, must Judge and Determine the Controversy. But this is always to be understood when all other means have been tried. For if the Case will admit of Entreaties, sober Counsels, or Legal Appeals, they are to be used: But if there be no room for these, or if they take no place, but illegal force be used; that force may, nay must be resisted, or Evil is consented to: For he that will not serve the Public by that means, when there is no other, does actually consent to the ruin of it, and is a Betrayer of his Country. They are Rebels (says a Learned Author) who Arm against the Government, and not they who Arm to defend it.  
In the next place, you say, That if a King do give Authority to Rogues, and that too under his Broad Seal, to cut any of his Subjects Throats, be they more or fewer, such Persons may resist such illegal force, in defence of their Lives, and kill their Assailants too, if they be able, and justify the same by the Established Laws of the Nation.  
Admirably well! Right every Word. See here the force of Truth, that cannot be stifled under the greatest prejudice. This is all the Resistance I contend for. Did ever any one plead for the Resistance of Lawful Authority? No sure: It is only the King's Unlawful Commands that may be resisted, not his Lawful Ones. Yet you conclude this Point with the most Comical Fancy in the world; you say, I have brought my Hogs to a fair Market; when on the contrary you do here justify all that I have said, or can say upon this Argument, and you have given up your Cause to all intents. Since I was born, did I never see such a Conclusion from such Premises.  
You seem to take exception that I should say, The King is King by Law, but you do not well explain yourself, nor tell me where your Exception lies. Yet you urge that Maxim of the Law, That the King can do no wrong, as if it were on your side, which makes altogether as much against you; for these two Expressions are of the same importance, it being all one in effect, to say he is King by Law, and to say, He can do no wrong. For what's the reason that the King, being but a Man, can do no wrong? It is not because he does not do amiss in granting illegal Commissions; for no doubt he sins in it, and does that which is Morally Evil: But the reason is, because he can act nothing, qua Rex, but by or according to Law; So that unless the Law be wrong, the King can do none. From whence it naturally follows, that whatsoever the King does beside or Contrary to the Law, is not the Act of a King but of a private person.  
Suppose, for Example, a King at one time Corrects a Servant moderately for a real Fault, at another time he beats him severely without a Cause, and the third time he kills him without any provocation: These are none of them Regal Acts; for the First he does as Master of a Family; the Second, as a Man in Passion; the Third, as a Tyrant. Yet I do not say that this Tyrannical Act Un-kings him: For one Act makes not a Habit, and 'tis possible he may repent of it, and lay it so to heart, as to become a better Man and a better King ever after. But this I do say, That a constant Course of Arbitrary Proceeding, so far as to lay aside the Laws, and actually Change the Government, does Vnking him; and the reason is, because he destroys that by which he has his being: It is the Law makes him a King, which being removed and laid aside, he has no Foundation to stand upon. This I said before, and by your Favour it is not Gratis Dictum, as you are pleased to say, but you have Answered my paper without reading it, or at least without regarding what you Read.  
Nor is this a Parallel Case with that which you put, of whipping your Boy too Severely, and thereupon ceasing to be his Father: There is a wide difference between the Dissolution of a Government and the Correction of a Child, the one is Destroyed and the other Improved; But if you destroy your Child, that is, kill him by Correcting him, this will bring the Comparison nearer home. For as a King Ceases to be a King when he has destroyed his Kingdom: So a Father ceases to be a Father when he has no Child. So that your own Comparison with a little improvement makes altogether against you. Besides there is a manifest difference between a Natural and a Political Relation: The one can never be dissolved while the parties are in being, but the other may. A good King may happen to lose his Kingdom and remain in Exile, that I know you'll readily grant: But he that Succeeds him in the Administration of Sovereign power is King, at least the Facto, and the Law requires Allegiance to be paid him, so that the former relation Ceases. But this puts me in mind to recommend to you Sr. Ro. filmer's, Political Babel, whereof this is the Corner Stone, that we are all born Slaves, and that a Son, a Subject, a Servant and a Slave, are all one, without any Difference. If you are not yet acquainted with that worthy Author, its great pity you should not, for I believe you would greatly admire him.  
You tell me next, To bring the Authority of K. James the First is all over Jargon, with a great deal more to the same purpose; where you make Reflections upon that Learned King, so shameful, and so false, that it will be a kindness to you to suppress them, I shall only hint at Two Things, and pass on. First, You suppose, that these imprudent Say, (as you imprudently call them) were spoken to Court the People at his coming to the Crown, and you will find them in the Ninth Year of his Reign. Secondly, This is the first time that I have heard the Cause of our Civil Wars, and the Crime of K. Charles' Munder, laid at his Door. I rather think with submission to better Judgements, that if his Cautions had been observed, it might have been a means to prevent the Evils following.  
You approve, it seems, of those Determinations made in Parliament at several times, namely, under Q. Elizabeth, K. James the First, and K. Charles the First, with the Judgement of Archbishop Laud, according as I set it down before, for you say you cannot but grant it very Lawful. And I tell you once more, you have entirely given up your Cause; for I cannot understand how any thing can go higher in Defence of the Late Revolution. But you go on with the greatest Confidence in the World, saying. It was to suppress a Rebellion begun by the Subjects; Cujus contrarium verum est, it was to stop the Encroachments of Princes upon their Subjects. But this it is to write before you read; the words are these, When a Prince breaks in upon the Religion and Liberties of his People, they ought to stand up in their own Defence, and may also Call in a Neighbour to their Assistance. This you may find upon Record, and taken notice of by several Learned Men of late. See especially the Protestant Mask, supposed to be written by Dr. C.  
In the next place you falsify my words, to make me speak what I was not thinking of; and you jumble together a deal of Nonsense, and would have me to own it; concluding with your usual Confidence, This you'll say yourself (I suppose) needs no Confutation. So indeed I do, and with very good Reason, for 'tis your own Stuff, and none of mine. And thus it follows;  
You cannot but Wonder that a Man of my parts, etc. Should make no Difference betwine a people Rebelling against their Lawful King, and a people Rebelling against God, when there is no such passage to be found, nor any thing like it. My words are these, So long as a King remains a King, and Maintains the Laws, he is a Rebel that opposes him: But when he falls from that, he is a Rebel himself. For this I quoted the place (as may be seen) 1 Sam. 15.32. where Samuel Charges Saul, with Rebellion. And I now add, that a King of England is as much obliged to Govern by Law, as the King of Isfrael was to observe God's Commands. As for the Story of An●●●eck, It is only touched upon to bring in Samuel's severe Reproof and David's taking Arms against him.  
But say you, Saul was at that Instant rejected from his Kingdom. What trifling is this! He was King so long as he lived, and David was his Subject, never pretending to the Crown in his lise time, yet he took Arms to defend himself: And his behaviour towards Saul is a good Example both ways; Namely, of Dutiful respect towards the King, in sparing his Person and giving him Honour and Reverence. And at the same time in taking care of his own Life and Security.  
I agree with you, that all possible Respect should be paid to the Persons of Kings: But I would not have them flattered, nor taught to be Arbitrary. I would not have them told that Subjects have nothing of their own, not so much as their Souls; that they are only the King's Vassals and Slaves, and that he may take their Lives and seize their Fortunes at his pleasure; that God made Kings, and no body can unmake them, nor aught to oppose them, whatever they do: such Flattery and Sycophantry makes King's first aspire, and then tumble.  
I come now to a Greek Word, which is here employed to no purpose, but only to show that you are a Learned Man, which I knew before: And here you affront the plain Letter of the Scripture, being in such haste that you could not turn to the place I quoted. I shall wonder no more at your insulting over me, when the Word of God can not be quiet for you.  
The business was this: Whereas the Jacobites love to call us Rebels, I undertook to show that there was a sinless Rebellion, and that the word was not always taken in an ill sense; for this I quoted 2 Kings. 18.7. where it was said the Lord was with him, (viz. Hezekiah) and he Rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not; and you say it was not certainly Rebellion: Now whether must Your Authority, or the Scripture, carry it? If you had said this is not to be taken strictly, than you had come to an Agreement with me, as to that matter, and there needed no words about it; but that you cannot endure; I am to be run down at any rate, and that with Triumph, when you have not said one word to refute me. And all along I observe, that when you have the least to say, you are the most confident: I conclude this in the Style which you except against; So the People of England Rebelled against K. James, for God was with them.  
I now draw near to the Conclusion of your Paper, where after many Wind and Doubles, like a Hare run almost to Death, I had you where we started, namely, at the Act forbidding to Arm against the King, upon any pretence whatsoever. I gave you four Reasons at large to show that these words could not possibly be understood without a tacit Reservation: Nor have you offered aught that looks like an Answer to any of them.  
The First you have quite omitted. To the Second, you have only brought a Comparison between an English Monarch and a Bailiff, showing that the King is by great odds the worse Man of the two. The Third you have fairly yielded, and therein given up your Cause. To the Fourth, you take Exception that I should say, The King is King by Law; and yet you own the Maxim, That the King can do no Wrong. And now after all (suspecting perhaps your Weakness and Inconsistence hitherto) you come to offer something that looks at first sight like a Dilemma, but unfortunately it wants one of its Members, which it seems you have dropped in great precipitation.  
The substance of the matter is this: Either the Parliament did consider the Consequence of making such a Law, or they did not: If not, (say you) they were a Club of Blockheads and mere Loggerheads. Very good! Here's the Consequence of that. But what if the Parliament did consider, what then? Why then (you say) you have in a few words run through all I have said in this Cause: An admirable Consequence, and a rare Dilemma! The one is lame of a side, and the other is false, unless you have run through my Papers with some small Needle, which I cannot perceive.  
But let us Come once more to the Merits of the Cause; I grant the Parliament might, and I believe they did consider the Consequences of both sides, that is, with respect to the King and the People. And tho' 'tis possible they might compute amiss, yet I rather incline to think they did not: For Either they must Speak in General terms, or else they must make some Limitation or Exception. Now there is no Exception to be made, but only this, In case the King should become a Tyrant, and Endeavour to Subvert the Government: But how shameful and dangerous a thing must it have been to mention such a thing in an Act of Parliament! It might have provoked the King to Dissolve them, or it might have prepared the people for a new Rebellion. So that supposing it necessary to pass such an Act, it must of Necessity pass in general Terms, tho' it may seem hard upon the people. But it is not hard upon them at all, being understood in such a Sense as to be Consistent with other Laws: And either it must be so understood or it does Actually change the Government, and gives the King a despotic Power, which that the Parliament did ever design, is Nonsense to Imagine.  
I am now at the foot of the Account, and you think you have given me a full Answer, desiring me to look once more over my Papers, and tell you, if you are not Mistaken in your Answers. I have told you already, and now I tell you again, that you are mightily mistaken, and I shall never be made to think otherwise. I have looks over my Papers, and yours too, several times, which you I believe, have not done once, or if at all, I am sure without due Consideration. But you were so Ambitious to answer my Papers all at one Sitting, that you had far better have let it alone. Many things you have left Untouched, and those you have, are no worse for your handling. Amongst the rest, I wonder you have taken no Notice of what I quoted you out of the famous Barclay, so great an Asserter of Monarchy, that he is Reckoned the head of your party: And yet no writing that I have seen has determined this point more directly against you. You have Ruffled the Memory of his Royal Master with a witness, and 'tis strange that he also should not come in for a Cast of your Office.  
To conclude, Sir, If I were worthy to advise you, I should desire that you would forbear idle company, and not spend your Money on those that poison and corrupt you; that you would think more, and talk less, and read with consideration such Books as are written on this subject by Men of the greatest Learning and Piety, and particularly that which you lent me; that you would scribble no more in this manner quicquid in Buccam venerit, and think with yourself whether you be fit to cope with the greatest Men in England: For I have said nothing here, but what such have said before me, though not in the same words, yet in far better. However, being Challenged at first, and now again Urged with so much Confidence and Triumph, I would not wholly decline the Argument, and doubt not to defend it against the best of your Party. I call it your Party, but I hope I shall have occasion to retract that expression; for I remember the time you were of another Opinion, and do expect to find you so again: For I am persuaded it is not of your own proper Genius that you are what you are, or what you seem to be at present; but by having sometimes your Conversation amongst Men of Slavish, Debauched and Pernicious Principles: And this is the Case of a great many more, that were once well-affected to the present Government. But you have had the Advantage of a Generous Education, and your Learning is beyond many of your Profession, which also is one of the most Honourable and most Loyal: For, but few of your Brethren Comparatively are Jacobites. Be not you (I beseech you) tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, nor led away with the prating Confidence of Pragmatic Fellows. Consider what a parcel of Atheists and Profligates weigh, being laid in the Balance against the Church of England, and other Reformed Churches, together with that vast Body of Nobility, Gentry, Lawyers, and Substantial Commoners of the Kingdom. They are but like the Vermin in the Fable that would needs swell to the bigness of an OX. And they may burst themselves with their own Poison if they please, the Government does not care a Straw for 'em, nor do I fear that ever they will be able to hurt it. And so Far you well.  
FINIS.