A VINDICATION OF Addresses in general, And of the Middle-Temple Address and Proceed in particular. In Answer to the Impartial Account of Addresses, wherein the Popular pretences of some men are exposed. By a Barrister of the Middle-Temple.  
WHen Faction and Ambition has seized the Ignorant man, how troublesome he grows? his Magisterial Nonsense roars in every corner, fills every Press; and however nauseous and intolerable it proves to the Discerning, yet the Vulgar too often admire the man, because they understand him not, and are ready with him to cry out against the Government, for that He and such Great men are not advanced thereto: Till at last the braying Animal brings both himself and his miserable deluded crowd, to the hazard of both their Temporal and Spiritual Interest. On such men there was never greater cause of complaint, than now; and I wish to God the people would open their eyes, to see what these Incendiaries aim at. Has any man been Executed by public Authority illegally? Does not every man peaceably enjoy the Fruits of his own Vine? Are Liberties abridged in any one particular? or are any of these things like to be? Has not His Majesty given fresh promises for the continuity of all and every these particulars, in his late most gracious Declaration? that's true, but that stabs them to the heart. 'Tis not the preservation of the Lives, Liberties and Properties of the people, that these men seek; but they themselves would be disposers thereof. Wherefore their Choler boils mightily, that His Majesty should condescend to undeceive his people, but much more that a great part of the people should be undeceived, and give His Majesty thanks for that gracious condescension. This reduces them to their former sneaking Aspects, makes them stand as uneasy, change feet as often as an Elephant learning to dance upon hot Stones. At last (these disappointments are plaguy things) out creeps a Treasonable Answer to the King's Declaration, which has been by some Loyal Pen most ingeniously reflected on; After that, An Impartial Account (as 'tis titled) of the Nature and Tendency of the late Addresses; and this o' my word is performed after no ordinary rate, not by one, I dare say, that pretends to those little helps and tricks of Unriversity and Humane Learning: No, no, by one of the Saints of our times, who's above the vain thing called Learning, or the dull thing called Practical Divinity. Gratitude! What paid to the King too! This is in its nature the most devilish thing that ever was found out. But suppose the Commons do give His Majesty thanks for his gracious Speeches made to them in Parliament; this is one argument that they don't think Addressing or giving His Majesty thanks, a thing evil in its own nature: If not, the next Parliament no doubt will be for maintaining the Liberties of the Subject, and proceed against those as betrayers of our Liberties, who have declared Addresses to be evil in their nature. This we may well sup se from that late instance of preserving the Right of Petitioning; and Addressing being altogether as great a Right, it will no doubt receive as great favour and protection from the Parliament. Well, perhaps the nature of Gratitude is not truly so black as it does appear to our Author's Conscience; what then? 'Tis however a vain insignificant thing, and a thing of as damnable tendency as any thing about the Town: For confirmation of this, there's a huge bundle of Reasons, which had never never seen day had it not been for pure love and compassion (p. 4. §. 1.) to the King, whom he fears is not only industriously deluded, but woefully betrayed, by the Judgement which some about him pretend to make of the sense and inclination of the people from these Addresses. Ah love and compassion! how I reverence love and compassion! what condition were we tumbling into, till you Ah love and compassion raised this Moses to stand in the gap! till you made him in all humility let the Privy-Councel know they were Fools and Knaves, and in all humility let His Majesty know what an object of pity He was become, by his unreasonable credulity.  
And now woe to the poor Addressers, for out comes our Author's Reasons: the first is to be found in p. 4. No applications of this nature to the Regnant person, are to be esteemed of any great weight and significancy, if you do but consider the result of the many Addresses 23 years ago to Richard Cromwell, and how they only served to render him secure, till he was undermined and supplanted; for of all that vowed to live and die by him, not so much as one man drew a Sword in his favour, when he came to be laid aside. That is as much as to say, May it please your Majesty, I as in tender love and compassion bound, do in all humility let your Majesty know, that your Majesty is a poor deluded wretch, and cannot see so far into a Millstone as another, else you would never esteem those ill-looked things called Addresses. Alas! every Regnant person is to believe all his Subjects deceitful and lying Rogues, he is to give credit to nothing they vow and protest; because the Whigs proved Liars to Richard Cromwell, and notwithstanding their Addresses, when they saw the rightful person would prevail, they left poor Dick in the lurch. In short, the Argument is this; If the Whigs are Liars and not to be trusted, all the men in the World are Liars and not to be trusted: But the Whigs are Liars and not to be trusted, etc. The Assumption is proved, and it's no great matter for proving the Major; besides he's just now when he should go about it, p. 5. frighted into the most astonishing, surprising, amazing fit, that ever poor creature was. Strange! what will this Age come to, when well-meaning men are thus scared out of their senses? The reason of this wondering fit is to be seen at large in p. 5. viz. That His Majesty should more discountenance one who comes to reprehend and instruct him in his managements in State-affairs, than one who is well pleased with His Majesty's managements, and for that reason comes to make his humble and grateful acknowledgements. If this is not cause of wonder, what is? especially when we consider too, as 'tis in the said. p. That Petitioners know what they want, but Addressers do not know what's promised to them, or what they have received. Moreover and above, Addresses will not, p. 8. in the event prove so useful either to a Popish or Arbitrary design, as some do apprehend: No, I think verily that is very needlessly apprehended; Not that any think the King knows of such a design promoted by them, but there are those who may have ends in this, which His Majesty is not ware of. What a happy Nation should we be, had His Majesty but this man's Head-piece! then there would be some hopes that he would love and embrace those mightily that always shown an uneasiness under his Government, and as much discountenance those who came to give him thanks for, and were well pleased with what He did. I, than the King would see, that for his Subjects to be well pleased with his actions, was always a Popish and Arbitrary design; but 'twas They were his Friends, who were always rendering both his person and actions contemptible and ridiculous. He would then see, §. 4. that Addresses tend only to divide the Nation into Faction and Parties: but that Petitions had no such tendency. 'Tis true, the Petitioners began before the Addressers, and had given the stamp of Papist, and Popishly affected, upon all Non Petitioners: What they call that, I can't tell, but 'twas not dividing, for that was for Petitions; and would any man think that Petitioning would divide the Nation, therefore 'twas not dividing, but for Addressing, any man may see that divides the Nation, therefore that is dividing. To proceed, His Majesty would then see that, §. 7. the number of Addressers are very few, all of them put together makes not so great number as we have seen not long since to one Petition. Well said Whig, this is a Swinger! let the Reader take notice, this is a second proof that Whigs will lie: If this be true, where was the need of our Author's tender care and compassion towards His Majesty, in rectifying the apprehension of Him and his Privy-Councel concerning the sense of the Nation, etc. for they have the numbers before them both of Addressers and Petitioners, and they could not therefore be deceived which was greatest. Our Author seems to mistrust this will not be swallowed, therefore adds, p. 10. If it be allowed, as in justice as well as modesty it ought, that whoever have either avoided or refused subscribing; are as truly to be judged against them, as they who have positively withstood, or directly opposed them, than the tale of the Addressers will make but a very small show and appearance in the Musterroll of the Nation. Smartly said, I protest! Must it not as well follow that they who avoided or refused subscribing Petitions, are as truly to be judged against them, as they who have positively withstood, or directly opposed them? And then what a show they will make in the Musterroll of the Nation. And now the Gentleman is fallen into a fit of railing for two or three pages together; That the Addressers are the scum of the people; Those which are Popishly inclined, etc. All which I deny, so there wants only proof on his part: And thus he concludes his natural thoughts, as to the general; and I begin mine as follows: That to give His Majesty Thanks for His late most Gracious Declaration, is very avowable; for my first reason, I shall lay down these two Propositions, That grateful acknowledgements for favours received, are a Christians Duty; That for every man to be judge when he has received a favour, is an English man's Liberty. One would think neither of these two Propositions need any manner of proof; But because those who would be thought the Preservers of our Liberties are for betraying them; in this, or any other particular, where they run counter to their Damnable Designs, (of which, no doubt, the next Parliament will take notice) I shall prove the second Proposition from their own practices, I mean Petitioning; for if I have not a liberty of judging what is a Favour when received, à fortiori, I have no liberty of judging what will be a Favour when it shall be received, being then at a greater distance; therefore less capable of judging; So that by consequence if they do except to what I have laid down a fortiori, they must exclude themselves the Right of Petitioning: Wherefore I may conclude, if I do not dislike the King's Declaration, because 'tis the Kings, or because 'twas given with an intent to satisfy the Minds of His Subjects, but really do esteem it as a Gracious Favour, (notwithstanding these and such like weighty reasons) I may, nay I am bound, as appears by my first Proposition to render His Majesty all Humble Thanks. Wherefore in so doing, I am so far from breaking, that I keep the Law.  
But I need not take this advantage, that because I think the King's Declaration exacts Thanks, therefore I may justify paying them; For I may well stand the Trial, whether right reason does not call upon us to perform that respect as a duty; and in order thereto, I shall reduce the King's Declaration to these three Heads. 1st. His Reasons for His dissolving two Parliaments, 2dly. His promises to govern according to Law. 3dly. His promises to call frequent Parliaments. First, His Reasons for dissolving two Parliaments! The very naming of this Head is sufficient to baffle that blundring mistake of those that affirm, that when we give His Majesty Thanks in general for His Declaration, we give him Thanks for dissolving two Parliaments; As if there was no difference between dissolving, and giving reasons for dissolving: Those Dissolutions were unquestionably justifiable by Law: Afterwards, the King condescends to give us reasons; For what? for doing a thing which by Law he might do. This was certainly more than His Greatness need to have condescended to, and therefore commands our grateful returns: especially if we consider the end for what 'twas done, which does fully appear to be only for the quiet and satisfaction of his Subjects minds, at such a time, when Malcontents were endeavouring to possess the people with a needless Fear and Jealousy, that these Dissolutions were in order to their utter Ruin and Destruction. 2dly. Our Thanks are due, for His Majesty's gracious promise, That he will govern according to Law. This grave Mr. Thompson (glad, no doubt, of the opportunity) explodes, in a formal Speech before the Bench of the Middle-Temple, upon the account of the Address carrying on in that Society; says that Gentleman, (a weighty reason truly) The King is bound by his Coronation-Oath to govern according to the Laws of the Land, therefore in so doing he does but his duty, and 'tis absurd to thank any man for barely doing his duty. I can't say these are the words, but I am misinformed if this be not the substance of Mr. Thompson's Argument; which in form is thus: Whenever a man does but his bare duty, 'tis absurd to pay him Thanks for so doing: But the King has done but his duty, etc. He had done well, had he proved the major Proposition. 'Tis but the bare duty of every rich man, to relieve one whom he knows to be necessitous; 'Tis but the bare duty of every Christian, when he sees another almost suffocated in a Pit, to ●end the utmost assistance to his relief; 'Tis but the bare duty of a Father, (which is just the case) to provide for, and comfort his Children; But none can be so hardy to deny Thanks to be due in all these cases; wherefore that Argument is grossly Illogical. And further, let me ask, why the City, and some countries', gave Thanks to their Members that served in Parliament, for preserving their right of Petitioning, & c? Did these Members more than barely execute their Trust, or more than what was barely their Duty? When men catch hold of straws, 'tis sign they're sinking. Our Author (§ 12.) insists upon the same reason, but goes somewhat further; For, (says he) It does unbecome English Subjects to thank their Prince for promising to govern according to Law, seeing, as he never did, so cannot do otherwise. Let it be admitted; But then, why all this roaring against his Royal Highness? By what means can He take our Lives, Liberties, and Properties? By what means can He introduce Arbitrary Power, if a King cannot do otherwise than govern according to Law? This is downright confessing they scare the people, when there's no need for't 3dly. Beyond all contradiction, His Majesty may justly expect our Thanks, for his promise of frequent Parliaments; why else was there such a stir made in petitioning for them? It may well be presumed, those men were not in earnest, when they seemed hotly and zealously to desire, and now they have a gracious promise, that their desires shall be fulfilled, think that promise not worth their acknowledgements. From what has been said, 'tis manifest, 1st. That, admit His Majesty's Declaration does not reasonably exact Thanks, yet, if any man thinks it does, he (being thereof proper Judge) is obliged to pay them. 2dly. That there is not one particular in that Declaration, but what, according to right reason, exacts our most grateful returns. As for the particular forms of Addresses, which our Author quotes, I am not obliged to justify, not only because I have them not by me, and therefore cannot know whether He prevaricates, but also because several passages in these forms are inserted upon reasons most obvious to the Inhabitants of that place from whence they came: For in one place the Republican-spirits take one way in another, another way according as they and the Jesuits together think most conducing to their ends; Wherefore each company of Loyal Addressers assure His Majesty to stand by him, in opposition to those undutiful Managements, etc. which they more particularly see carried on. I shall therefore say nothing to any particular form, except that of the Middle-Temple, to which I was a Subscriber. And before I speak to the exception against the Address itself, because there has been a great noise made, as if our Proceed in the carrying it on were abominably irregular, I shall acquaint the world with the truth of the fact, as follows: At the first proposing of an Address, 'twas thought fit to appoint a meeting at a Tavern, that they might consider whether their Party were the Majority, before they would publicly propose it in the Hall: Upon this score they met two or three times, which begot a Jealousy in the Adverse party (who also met, and I suppose too, 'twas to try their own strength,) that we would huddle up an Address, and privately get Hands, without proposing the matter fairly and publicly in the Hall. To this effect I have heard our Party upbraided, who still replied they designed no such thing, nor indeed did they: But a day was appointed, and the fullest Hall that has been seen appeared. We made a noise for one Speaker, they for another; we with all the earnestness imaginable pressed a Poll; twice or oftener we drew out from them in order thereto, yet could not obtain it. When they would by no means come to a Poll, we took it for granted they yielded us the Majority (and indeed we were so) we set our Speaker in the Chair, who put the Question, and all that Voted him Speaker, Voted for the Address. After this was all over, and a great many of us gone, some of the other party very Gravely demanded a Poll. No sooner were we all gone, than they chose themselves a Speaker, Voted our Proceeding Irregular etc. For that we had no power to call a Parliament in Term time, the Benchers having then the sole Government of the House: They clamoured likewise that we had appointed three of the Clock, but met at two, so that their party was surprised, etc. Thus truly stands the Fact; I defy any of them to prove me mistaken in any one particular. And now I shall beg leave to make some brief Observations thereon.  
First, That they were surprised by our appointing Three of the Clock, and our meeting at Two, is totally false; for they knew the time of meeting as well as we ourselves, and they had public notice thereof by the Blowing of the Horn: There was divers of their party present (I knew none Absent) at the very time of our Meeting, which had not been in Commons within twelve Months at least; abundance that had not been in Commons that Term, and how was it possible for those to be there, had they not had fair notice? Nor was this Shame ever mentioned, till they found themselves the fewer number. 2dly. 'Tis very observable that they should upbraid us for not meeting publicly in the Hall, (which I will Depose I heard,) and then because we did meet publicly in the Hall, that they should Vote our Proceed Irregular. Which way shall one take to please such men? There was no noise of Irregular proceed in the Inner House when 'twas, carried (though in Term time) against the Address: Nay, to my own knowledge, not long since: These very men who now Vote our Proceed Irregular, because the Bench are the governing part in Term; these very men, I mean all the Leading men were the most busy Actors in our Parliaments convened in Termtime, even in opposition to the Bench: In answer to these instances they tell us; those Parliaments began in Vacation, and therefore they might continue them in Term: What a miserable shift those Gentlemen are put to, to vent such Nonsense for their excuses? As if our calling a Parliament in Vacation, took away the Bencher's power in Term. Had they not much better deal plainly and say, that Parliaments which meet in Term in opposition to the Bench are well enough, because they favour something like Rebellion: But Parliaments that meet to carry on Addresses, those, fie upon'm irregular things! They are never to be justified, for they look something like Loyalty: To come yet harder upon these Gentlemen; If because the Government is in the Bench, we have no power to act Parliamentary: First, why did they Nominate and Vote for a Speaker, if 'twas an Irregular meeting, why did they not oppose all Speakers? No, if their party had been strong enough to have carried it, all had been extremely Regular. But 2dly. By what Authority did they themselves act Parliamentary when we were gone out of the Hall? By what Authority I say, did they choose a Speaker, Vote our Proceed Irregular, etc. This was one of Neatest composed Blunders that I ever met with: I have heard of one that would Swear bloodily all Swearers were damned; I have heard of a Jesuit in a Conventicle bitterly railing against the Whore of Babylon: But now these instances cease to be Comical, they are far outdone: 'Tis a sign the Well-meaning Party had all the understanding men (as they boasted) of their side, for none but profound Considering men could be hotly condemning, what at the same time they were hotly practising: Upon the whole, I think it may be concluded that our proceed are fully justified by even the Practices of our Opposers. There remains nothing therefore now, but to remove the Objection against the Address itself, which lies p. 33. against these words, That we will Serve His Majesty, etc. against those who under specious pretences, and by possessing the people with groundless Fears and Jealousies, would bring us back into Anarchy and Confusion. Surely, says my Author, had these persons who presume to suggest this unto His Majesty, known any Republicans or fanatics who did do this, they ought by their Allegiance to have deposed against them, and given in their Names that they might be Prosecuted. Deposed against a Fanatic! any thing good Sir, any thing but that, there's a Notion indeed at this time a day; when there must be more Witnesses to satisfy even a Grand-Jury when the Bill is against one of them, than is required at Rome to Convict a Cardinal: Now, 'tis but Herding with the Godly Conscientious party, and you may commence Rogue with safety; for you must know they are our Jurymen, and 'tis beneath those Saints to be guided by the old Fusty Rules of doing as you would be done unto; of doing Justice equally, without Favour or Affection. Alas! there are Crutches fit only for weak Brethren to bear on, fit for those only who have not arrived to their pitch of Godliness. There's nothing guides them but their Consciences, and their Consciences can, (notwithstanding their Oaths to the contrary,) find one Guilty without Evidence, another Innocent, though there be many Credible Witnesses to the contrary. Verily, verily, these men were i'th' right on't when they only asked Liberty of Conscience; had they but Liberty of Conscience, the Devil were an Ass if he put them upon ask more: Did we therefore know how 'twould be in vain to Depose against the Sanctified Crew: But it does not follow (by the Gentleman's leave) that I cannot have a Moral certainty that Discord and Rebellion are the ends of these men's Actions, and yet not be able to bring them under a lash by Deposing. For first, this may be done by Mediums, which come under no Law, yet as they are circumstantiated, do manifestly tend to, or at least are aimed at no other ends: 2dly. If their Medium do come under a Law, as by Treasonable Pamphlets, etc. they are pleased to let us have them without Names, so that it would be very difficult, without the help of one of our late Grand-Jury men's Consciences to Depose positively against any particular person: I say this may be done first by Mediums which come under no Law, yet as they are circumstantiated, do manifestly tend to, or at least are arrived at no other end. And these are principally three. 1st. Petitioning for Parliaments. 2dly. Their desires of a Bill of Exclusion. 3dly. Their Fears of the Popish-plot: They themselves done't think that any one of these three things come under any Law; therefore whether they do or not, I need not inquire, but demonstrate, that every one of these particulars as managed by them, I say, as managed by them, are designed means to raise groundless Fears and Jealousies among the people; and then as I before observed, what signifies Deposing in such Cases: To begin with the first Petitioning for Parliaments, His Majesty was made sensible what they would Petition for, and shown His dislike thereto by public Proclamation, yet still did they obtrude Petitions for the same things: And what could be the meaning of such Rudeness and ill Manners? No hopes of Success, those were all Anticipated by the Proclamation: But this vehement repeated Petitioning would serve to breed groundless Fears, that Ruin hung over the people's Heads, and His Majesty would not see it, that He was wholly regardless of His People's Welfare and Safety; whereas the people cannot be either Injured or Ruined, but the King must be so too. If this undoubted Truth were well considered, 'twould be enough to dissipate all Jealousies of His Majesty's Managements. But to return, why all this Fondness for Parliaments? What evil have they done that these men satire them with their good words? Does none Reverence Parliaments but fanatics? If Reverence be best seen by Obedience to Acts of Parliament, I am certain there are those that pay greater respects than Dissenters, though with less noise. Can an Act of Parliament keep them from Conventicles? Can an Act bring them to Church? Can an Act keep them any distance from Corporations? Can an Act hinder them from Scribbling Treason and Rebellious Principles? No, all Acts are but Cobwebs when they in the least competize with the Interests or Inclinations of their party: And therefore, which brings me to the second plausible pretence, a Bill of Exclusion according to their own Tenants cannot be an Expedient for the Kingdom's Safety; for how can they, who barely for the sake of unreasonable Whimsies trample upon Acts of Parliament, believe the Duke would be concluded by an Act in so great and weighty a matter, They will not object surely; That his Royal Highness is a better Subject than themselves; one more conformable to Laws; No, they proclaim him a rigid Papist, and that no Laws can bind a Papist, when they come in Competition with the good of the Church. Upon this very reason they seem to press a Bill of Exclusion. No Laws, say they, can bind a Popish Successor, That (says the Character of a Popish Successor) is hedging in the Cuckoo. Well then, a Bill of Exclusion would come in Competition with the good of his Church, or not; If not, than his Royal Highness being upon the Throne would be no advantage to his Church; then where's the fear of Popery? If it would, according to themselves, his Royal Highness would not deem such a Law obligatory; and then they cannot believe the Peace and Quiet of the Nation would be the consequence of such a Bill, but rather War and Confusion; And 'tis that they would have; they care not which way they obtain it, whether by passing that Law, or whether by sowing Sedition, rendering the King His Subjects dreadful Enemy, for not passing such a Law. One second hit for the Bishop's fair Possessions would mightily revive the hungry Saints.  
The 3d. plausible pretence is, fears of a Popish-Plot; which was a Plot against His Majesty's Sacred Person, the present Government, and the Protestant Religion: We shall properly therefore inquire into these three things: First, Whether fanatics desire His Majesty's Life more hearty than all the rest of His more Loyal Subjects; or indeed, more than His Majesty Himself? 2dly. Whether they are the chief persons aimed at by the Romanists, when their Plots are laid against the Protestant Religion? 3dly. Whether They are the only persons who would protect and preserve the present Government? First, That fanatics desire His Majesty's life, more than He does Himself, is wonderfully credible; or that they value it more than the Loyal Party, is almost as credible; for the Question is no more than this: Whether those who have Martyred the late King, and used their utmost endeavour to Martyr This, be more zealous for the Preservation of His Majesty's Life, than those who to their utmost have assisted His late Majesty and this present King, in all times of dreadful Trials and Adversities? The decision of this Question I leave to any just man; and if it does appear that 'tis in reason to be supposed that the King is as willing to preserve His own Life, as the fanatics are to Preserve it; If 'tis in reason to be supposed that those who have ventured upon all occasions their own Lives and Fortunes for the preservation of the King, covet preservation of His Majesty's Life, as much as those who have hazarded their Lives and Fortunes to Deprive HIs Majesty of His Life and Government; than it as reasonably follows, that their over Fear and Care of His Majesty's Life, which exceeds greatly in appearance, both the King and his Loyal Subjects are but Pretence and Sham. 2dly. Whether fanatics are the chief persons aimed at by the Romanists, when their Plots are laid against the Protestant Religion? One would believe by these men's over-bustling and noise, that they were the only Defenders of the Protestant Faith; That 'twas only the Ruin of Them the Papists levelled at, as a certain means to eradicate the Protestant Religion; Whereas Rome well knows, these men are a Goad in our Church's side, and therefore its Emissaries were careful to make and increase them: That the Papists made them out of mere envy to our incomparable Church, is evident from the Examinations of some Popish-Priests in Queen Elizabeth's time; The first was one Faithful Commin a Friar of the order of St Dominick: he made the first breach in our Church's walls, by railing against Forms of Prayer, calling the English-Prayers English-Mass, persuading people to pray Spiritually and Extempore; to whom the Pope gave a reward for his considerable Service. Two years after, one Thomas Heath a Jesuit was taken acting the same part; which stories see at large in Foxes and Firebrands, Printed 1680. and in the Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to the unreasonableness of Separation. But the Papists were not only careful to make, but ever since constantly to increase Votaries to the Fanatic Party; to this end the Jesuits have constantly preach among the Conventiclers, to the Truth of this many can witness. And Dr. Oates has deposed, nay when we press fanatics with their actions of 41. they tell us for Excuse, they were deluded by the Papists: from which it fully appears, that 'tis against the Church of England all their Plots and Conspiracies are planted; So far from being aimed primarily at Dissenters, that the Papists do with all their Art endeavour to preserve them as Instruments and Tools to afflict and overthrow us. From these Premises I shall draw not unnaturally two Conclusions. First, That those declamatory Revile the fanatics throw upon the Members of our Church, as being Popishly affected, are but barefaced Lies and Calumnies; for 'tis incredible the Papists would vent all their malice agaisnt their Friends, and do what in them lies to cherish and increase their only Enemies, as the Nonconformists would have the World believe they are. Is it not the Protestant Religion Papists would extirpate? And can that be supposed a way which increases the preservers thereof. Whatever these Dissenters pretend, they cannot but know that this is too too absurd; They cannot but know the Papists believe them the scandal and affliction to the true Professors of the Protestant Religion, that they deserve not the name of Protestant, for by Protestant is meant one who protests against the Errors only, not the Truths too of the Church of Rome, if other wise, a Turk may be called a Protestant: Is it not them the Papists upbraid us with in all our Disputations? Is it not amongst them they shroud in all their Hellish practices; nor had the Papists had any thing to say or do against the Protestant Religion, had it not been for the unhappy assistance given them by these foolish and wicked Dissenters. A second Conclusion is, That whatsoever reasonable fear there is of execution of a Popish plot, it ought to be lodged in the breasts of the Members of the Church of England, they being only the marks and Butts of all the malicious stratagems of the Papists. Wherefore when we see those who have least to lose, Those whom the Plot is least aimed at, the only men who seem to be scared and frighted out of their Senses, the only men who roar out Murder, as if the knife were already at their throats, and that though the Plot be defeated, it nothing at all abates their unreasonable noise; what can a man conclude, but that this excessive Feat & Zeal they pretend, is only to heighten Jealousies among his Majesty's Subjects beyond all Prudence and Reason. It Non-conformists were in earnest, why do they not run into the Arms of our Church which has been always open and ready to embrace them? for that's the only means to make Protestant Strength more Formidable. By this means we should be able to oppose the Pope, and the Gates of Hell too: If they did this, there might be some credit given to their zeal: But can a considering man believe that they can possibly fancy Popery such a dreadful thing and so unavoidably almost tumbling upon us; That they have so great a fondness for the Protestant Interest, & that now they deem it in extremity of Danger, and yet will not make this one easy and certain step to dissipate that Threatening Cloud, and to increase the Strength, Interest and Reputation of the Protestant Cause: Surely these prodigious Fears they express, are feigned, or they had rather Popery shound come in than they themselves should conform to our present Churches; which ever of these it be the Government had need look warily to them. Our third Inquity is, Whether fanatics are the only Persons that are truly zealous for protection of the present Government. The Romish Priests did not make, nor does increase them for that purpose. And we have found them continually owning and practisiing Principles destructive to our envied Government. So then in King James his time writing to the Lord Hamilton to invite him to be their General; they told him the People were animated by the Word and Motion of God's Spirit to go to Arms: See them in Charles the first's time, making the whole Kingdom a Bloody Theatre, and to groan under all the heaviest calamitous pressures that the most miserable distressed Nation could possibly be subject to: All backwardness in Murders, Rebellion and Robberies was then branded with Lukewarmness in the Cause of God: And Curse ye Meroz &c. Was thundered out against lots for God. Then the blessed Covenant was entered into: That we shall endeavour the extirpation of Prelates, etc. and shall not suffer ourselves directly or indirectly by whatsoever Combination, Persuasion or Terror to be divided and withdrawn from the blessed Union and Conjunction, whether to make defection on the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable Indifferency or Neutrality in the Cause, & c But shall all the days of our Lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same according to our Power against all Lets and Impediments whatsoever. And what Signs? what Indication have they given of Repentance for the Commission of these hellish Tragedies? or that they do not believe this Covenant, this blessed Union as they term it, Obligatory. No other than that they have drawn the Sword in Scotland, than that they have brought us, even us, who have so lately, so severely smarted into a Relapse of Faction, Parties and Confusion, than that they live in perpetual contempt and nonconformity to what they have Covenanted against. Certainly therefore their hot pretended care for the present Government is but to terrify the People with a greater danger than really there is. Thus I have demonstrated that fanatics are in earnest for nothing but Rebellion even by their most specious and popular pretences, I need not therefore trouble myself to show their more open impudence tends thereto; Such as Treasonable Pamphlets against the King, Such as Libelling of the Government, Such as vilifying of the Clergy which was the second way I observed they daily take to alienate the Affections of His Majesty's People and stir them up to Rebellion, and yet in such Cases 'tis difficult to depose against particular Persons. I shall present you with one smart Example only and conclude; Who the Author of the Character of the Popish Successor is I know not, therefore cannot depose against him; But this I know, He deserves severe punishment for the great pains he has taken to propagate Rebellious Principles. This man is the Darling of the fanatics, and he speaks downright in terms for Rebellion, for which Reason I quote him rather than another, tho' at the very naming of him I begin to be in a sweat; for you must know Reader, it is a Plaguy thing this hot Wether to be tumbling over a huge Company of great rumbling words without one dram of Sense for ones refreshment. Therefore take it kindly that I show you this thundering Fellow; And stand clear here how be comes. p. 8. The Judges, Sheriffs, Justices of Peace, and all the Judicious Officers are of the King's Creation: But if the Public Ministers of Justice betray the Liberties of the Subject, the Subject may petition for a Parliament to Punish them for't. But what if he will neither hear one, nor call the other? Who shall compel him? Good God Here's a Rogue thinks I to myself; He has taught the King to make us all Slaves whether we will or no; S'bud we must all doff our Doublets, and away to making of Bricks without allowance of Straw: But Mr. Charactarizer, since you are so good at invention, can you find out no trick to prevent this Devilish thing? No; there's no way but a Parliament? and what if he won't call one, who shall compel him? That's true, no body can compel him as I know on: but hang't I shall fair as well as the rest: Getting a little life at this thought (though it did stick confoundedly in my Maw that the Fool did not keep private to himself this easy way of making Kings of England Arbitrary) on I went with my reading, but found a tormenting deal of Rubbish in my way, sometimes as I was telling you over head and ears popped I amongst a great heap of empty words, sometimes fast stuck between contradictions; at last puffing and blowing I came to p. 20. where I met with this crumb of Comfort: There's scarce a Precedent in the oldest Historical part of the Bible, that shall not by an extorted application be appropriated even to the duty and necessity of all ages, places and constitutions of the World, for example they'll tell you the Prophet Samuel makes the answer to the Jews that desired a King, that he would make their Sons, etc. and you shall cry out in that day, because of your King that ye have chosen; which was as much as if the Prophet had said; If a King shall (as he may do this) you have no redress but to your Prayers for his conversion. He does not tell them they might Revolt or Rebel to Redress themselves: No, Heaven forbidden he should; for their King was absolute, etc. Here indeed a passive Obedience is due; But what's this to a King of England? Say you so quot high? then given me my Whinyard, I'm resolved to have a brush for it before I come to the making Bricks; for it seems if we think a King of England intrenches upon our Liberties and Properties, we may Revolt and Rebel, to Redress ourselves: All places in Scripture which teach obedience to Princes in such cases are appropriated to us by extorted applications. Now, Reader, if you should object, as it is very likely you may. First, How it comes to pass that no body could Rebel? In p. 8. But that every Body may Rebel in p. 20. That there was no Redress in p. 8. but Prayers for a Parliament: and if the King would not call one, no body could compel him: But that in p. 20. Prayers for Redress are proper only for Subjects of absolute Princes, But all that's nothing, to a King of England; we need not pray for the turning of his heart, but turn all the Kings of England as Charles the first was turned. My solution to this objection is in p. 8. The People's conditions were to be made inevitably miserable, they must not be allowed the least hopes of Redress, that the Remedy of Rebellion, when't was offered, might be the sweeter and more greedily received. Secondly, If you should object how this doctrine of taking up Arms is reconcilable to the Statute of the 14. of this King, Chap. 3. which saith, For as much as within all his Majesty's Realms and Dominions the sole and Supreme Power, Government, Command and Disposition of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea and Land, and of all Forts and Places of Strength is, and by the Laws of England, ever was the undoubted Right of His Majesty etc. and that both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot, nor aught to pretend to the same nor can, nor lawfully may raise, or levy any War, Offensive or Defenssive against His Majesty His Heirs, etc. I have no other solution than as Ben Johnson told us there were three sort of Lights; So I tell you there are three sorts of Wars, 1st. War Offensive. 2. War Defensive. 3. No War at all. Now tho' the two first Wars are mentioned in the Act, you know the Last is not, Ergo: So far I have managed well enough, but the next page does wonderfully gravel me. And if now at last Popery must and shall come in (as by Law it cannot) it must be restored by Arbitrary Power: if a new Monarchy, than a new Conquest. and if a Conquest, Heaven forbidden we should be subdued like less than English- mwn, or be debarred the common Right of all Nations, which is to Resist or Repel an Invader, if we can, This justifies all the Plots, Conspiracies and Rebellions of the Papists, for if Protestanism could not be brought-in by Law (as it could not, for the same reason Popery cannot) consequently by Arbitrary Power: If a new Monarchy, than a new Conquest; and if a Conquest, Heaven forbidden they should be subdued like less than English men; or be debarred the Common Right of all Nations, which is to Resist or Repel an Invader if they can: To be serious can there be greater impudence for a Fellow whoseignorance fits him for a Schoolmasters Lash, with the help only of a hard Forehead and a few words borrowed out of some bombast Heroic Poem to dare to lay down Principles that justify all Popish Plots and Conspiracies; Principles of Rebellion which run exactly Counter to an Act of Parliament: And yet all this is humbly offered to the Parliaments consideration! Als! These men can't write against an Act of Parliament, They don't design Rebellion; for shame for shame let us see our Temporal as well Spiritual Interest loudly, and hastily call us to be quiet and united, to be good Christians and Loyal Subjects.   

LONDON, Printed by N. Thompson. 1681.