An ENTIRE VINDICATION OF Dr. Sherlock, AGAINST HIS Numerous and Uncharitable ADVERSARIES, To his Late Book, called, The CASE of Allegiance, etc.  
Licenced, Decemb. 30. 1690.  
LONDON: Printed, and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor, near Stationers-Hall. 1691.   

To the READER.  
'TIS a ticklish Task I have undertaken, to write to justify the Man, and yet not entirely to espouse his Cause, to vindicate the oppressed, and yet at the same time not to maintain all his Proceed; I say, this may look seemingly a Contradiction to some Men, that carry not a due Charity in their Censures; but to him that follows the pure and ideal Feature of Virtue, it will look as rational and accountable, as the compleatest Vindication whatever.  
Nor am I ashamed on this, to entitle this Treatise, to the stile of an Entire Vindication of the Doctor; for what though the Doctor be not infallible, nor his Reasonings the unalterable Standard of Wisdom? that is not a Character he ever presumed at, nor that could ever be expected from him, the rational Vindication to be expected therefore, either of the Doctor, or any Man else, is, that he has kept in the tract of Virtue, and preserved his sincerity entire; and if that can be maintained, I presume, we may very well bear with a perfect Salvo to the Doctor's Reputation; nay, and Parts too, notwithstanding he is not infallible.  
And methinks it grieves me here, that I am forced as it were to go between the skin and the flesh, to seem to discountenance the Method of Mr. Per. and to vindicate a Doctrine I can by no means approve of; methinks, I say, this seems of great difficulty to me; for I always had too great an esteem for the English Liberties, to disrespect their true Patriots; and on the other hand, injured Innocence on the Doctor's side, has forced me to take his part against them.  
Therefore Reader, excuse me that I do this Office for the Doctor, nor be surprised, why I should do it, that am his Adversary in some things. Who was that, that dared the fury of the Priest's in the late Reign, in all their Controversies, was it no the Doctor? Who was it durst then assault Popery, not only with the vigorousest Reasons, but with his open Name to his Books, was it not Dr. Sherlock? indeed, who was more eminent in all those Controversies than he?  
When the Bishop of London, and Magdalen-Colledge, became Confessors to the late Tide of Romish Tyranny, and when Dr. Sharp was silenced, did he recant his Proceed, did he dread the imminent Dangers, or was he afraid of the threatened Oppression, or did he not rather like a stout Champion for the Church, stand unconcerned in the midst of these things? And must the Doctor then, now, become the only Object of our Contempt, must a little point of Casuism, make him too mean to live amongst us?  
Are we all Protestants, are we all resolved against the Common Enemy, the Romanists? If we are, I say, how can this method he accountable with our designs? not, I say, that therefore we should through respect of Persons, let the Doctor lead us blindfold; but as we should not, so we should not for our own sakes, let every little Controversy ruin the Reputation of such a Man.  
I cannot think the World fond to desire the Doctor to be an ill Man, that they might make that out in matter of fact, and truth, that some of his Enemies have too much already done in pretences; I say, I cannot be so uncharitable; but if they do not, let them for their own Credit treat him better for the future.  
To be short, as for the general unreasonableness of his Tenets in this matter, it is not the work of a Preface; however, thus much I shall say, that the Doctor has not undeservedly the Name of an eminent Reasoner; and if in some things his Notions are not exactly accountable to us, we have no reason to admire; for had any of us laid our Breasts so freely open in our Writings, as he has done, I may add, the best of us, 'tis not impossible, but that some of the World, had we as great a Post, would give us as hard a Censure as ever the Doctor had.   

A VINDICATION OF Dr. Sherlock, etc.  
WHEN a Man is unfairly Prosecuted and Libelled rather than Answered, and when the Crowd of Mobile-Writers break in upon him, as if they would crush and murder his Reputation with their Numbers, even his very Enemies, if they have any Generosity, aught to step in to support him; indeed, 'tis the common Cause of all Mankind not to see any man unjustly suffer, and therefore though in some things I differ from the Doctor in Judgement, yet I cannot but rescue him from those Aspersions that are so basely cast upon him.  
But as his Adversaries are now grown to such a number, and their Arguments for the most part a borrowed Tautology and Plagiarism from each other, that except some few they almost all write the same thing, so I shall neither give myself nor the Reader that trouble, as to trace out all their little crooked Paths, but examining the sum of all their Objections against the Doctor, at least of all those that are considerable, I shall briefly, and generally, as if they were all but one, show how little he deserves their ill treatment, and how eminent an Example he is of Innocence abused.  
Without therefore particularly regarding either the Vindications or Answers that the Doctor has had upon this Subject, for that were endless, and were too perplexed a Method to do him Justice by; I say therefore, without hinting at either Persons or Answers, I shall take the Liberty to make some few Reflections on the chief Points in Controversy, in favour of the Doctor, and if any of his Adversaries think themselves therein aggrieved, I'll promise them they shall not want a reasonable Satisfaction.  
But it may be objected, That under this Pretence perhaps I shall conceal or slur over those things that may be most considerable, and only Vindicate the Doctor in those that are obvious or trifling; I say as to that, the World will judge, and will see when they have read what I writ; but if at the entrance it can encourage them to know whether I am not conscious to my own defects in it or not, I assure them, I know nothing that is material that is objected against him, but is reconcileable to the Doctor as a Learned, Ingenious, and Sincere Man; and if his Adversaries can see any thing to the contrary, I shall leave them to show it.  
To proceed therefore, I say then first, is it generous for Twenty men together to throng in their Answers to one Man? Indeed, is it not just as if they were afraid of having Replies, or at best, that thrusting thus into the Throng, they might escape the better for their being in the Multitude; and yet not I mean, that I believe that all those Gentlemen that have wrote against him have had so mean a Design neither; but I say in general, is it a Credit for any man to be caught among the Mobile, and giving an Eminent Divine an ill Name, when at the same time he has all Billingsgate upon his back?  
Methinks, I say, these Gentlemen, for as for the others they scarce deserve to be taken notice of; and therefore I say, methinks the choice and flower of the Doctor's Adversaries, had they been brave, might have waited till the Doctor had been in a capacity to Answer them, and not Assault him as they have done, where they could have no rational prospect for a return; I would only ask them one Question, when they so much as favour so dirty a proceeding in others, in Writing after them, do they not as good as half take their Gild upon them? Is this their doing Justice to their Cause? Indeed, is this their doing as they would be done unto?  
In short, gentlemans, supposing the Doctor in some measure to blame, and taking it for granted he deserved your Answers, yet when some for Malice, some through Mistake, and some for Gain, had thus meanly and disingenuously attempted to deface his Reputation in what he deserved not, would you after this pretend to any thing like Honour, and yet back them in their proceed? Surely Sirs, for the future, if Generosity cannot move you, yet Humanity, nay, your own Interest and Reputation ought to make you more wary; methinks in such case, rather than fail, you should Vindicate him yourselves, at worst you should leave such little Raylors alone to expose themselves upon him.  
In short, Sirs, if you have a mind for the Reputation of Common Wittists, Buffoons, and Mercenaries, writ on; but if you have not, ingenuously retract your Methods and Proceed, and cease to Triumph at trampled-on Innocence; and to vent your Spleens, where I am persuaded, had you better considered yourselves, and were you not rather Bruits than Men, you would turn your Assistance.  
Besides, Gentlemen, give me leave to tell you, I mean some of the best of you, I cannot accuse you all, for some of you have wrote as becomes Gentlemen, had you not thronged yourselves into the Crowd; but some of you, I am afraid too many, have wrote as if you had neither Charity nor Justice in your Censures; you have demeaned yourselves like Tyrants in your peremptory Decisions, and treated the Doctor no better than if he were the worst of Men.  
I shall not hint at any particular Answers in this matter, because I had rather smother than increase the flame; and though the Doctor's Adversaries have had but little Charity in sparing him, yet his Friends think to take another course, and as they apprehend would become him, are willing rather if possible to overcome evil with good, and to show them whatever rash Judgements they have been guilty of, they do not delight in Recriminations, tho' possibly they might make them even with Justice.  
However in general to point at some of your Guilts; and to show you I do not write without good Grounds, pray but reflect a little: Christianity bids us not think easily any evil of our Brother, but put the best sense and construction upon his words and actions: but you will outface us, he means ill, tho' he declares his sincerity; whilst you know after that, that none but God can censure him, that alone knows his Heart. Thus one tells him, his Wife sways him; another insinuates, that 'tis Preferments without his Wife; and a third, that his Pride has born him to this singularity.  
But, Sirs, whilst you did thus, I am afraid you forgot what might be said of yourselves, I mean justly of you that censure so; the Doctor may be in the right, as I am persuaded he is, but you as false Judges must be in the wrong; nay more, were the Doctor corrupt in his Protestations, which far be it from us to think, yet if there were but a possibility that he might be sincere, I am sure nothing can excuse you from the guilt of a mean, wilful, and uncharitable Slander.  
And I writ this the rather, on the supposition of the truth of the worst Character, that your conjectural thoughts can give the Doctor, because the least lurking-hole may not be left for your Apology; in plain terms, to show the World, that nothing but Brass, Impudence, and mere Jack-pudding Grin, can excuse some of the Doctor's Enemies, and a dishonourable and uncharitable Carelessness, most of the best of them in their proeeeding.  
Had they in general showed the Inconsistency of the Doctor's Reasoning, and the Danger of it to the State; and had they upon this exhorted him modestly to re-consider, and thereon to renounce his new and ill-grounded Opinion, they had acted something like Christians: but point blank, the first word, to accuse even a Father in the Church of Corruption and Design, before any proof to justify it, indeed before the offer of a Conviction by stronger Arguments; I say, to proceed thus peremptorily and rashly, and to anticipate all hopes of his vindicating himself in a Reply, through their unjust Sentence passed upon him, is to Execute him first, and Try him after; and a piece of Justice, that of itsself alone, with any Man either of Honour or Honesty, were enough to vindicate the Doctor.  
But for once, I shall pass by these two little faults in the Doctor's Adversaries; to wit, want of Generosity and Charity; for 'tis possible the Absurdities the Doctor has committed in his Vindication, has fired them to oversee themselves to this degree in their Answers: and therefore, because as the Doctor's Friend, who I am persuaded would not serve them so himself, I shall show them, I am willing to allow them all the fair Play imaginable, and therefore we will see what it is they have to say to his Cause.  
In the Doctor's 'Cause, than I say there are two things principally which they are offended at; the First, That it is very disagreeable to the State. And the Second, That it is unreasonable. Now as to both these, I shall give them brief and solid Answers; and tho', as I have said, I am not altogether of the Doctor's Mind; yet 'tis because I think he has not a sufficient ground in Revelation, and not in Reason, as his Adversaries charge him; and therefore I do not doubt, I say, from their Principles, to show them, that they have but little reason to be so offended with him.  
As to the first of these two Objections, to wit, The disagreeableness of the Doctor's Principles to the State, I shall return two Answers; the first, That his Adversaries have abused him, and put a worse sense upon his words, when they were very well capable of a better. And Secondly, That even in the very sense they have taken them, they state an Hypothesis as agreeable to the State as any of them, I may say the very best of them have proposed.  
First then, I say, when the Doctor laid it down as a Principle, That whoever was settled in a Government, I mean peaceably, and by consent, had God's Authority, tho' he at first attained it by force; I say, when the Doctor laid down these Propositions, what did he do, but as it were declare, that a King by Conquest and Consent after it was a good King, and whether he were an Usurper before or not, I challenge all his Adversaries to disprove his Title.  
Now I say, when the Doctor's Principles can so justly resolve themselves into a Conquest, and tho' not of the People, yet of the King, by, and through the Consent of the People; I say, when the Doctor by this prudently chose a middle way, to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of Passive-Obedience and Resistance, methinks his Adversaries might have been so ingenious, as to have understood him so, and not to have pressed him to a nice decision, which be it pursued home of either side, must needs offend the State.  
Now whether what the Doctor in this Case has laid down, will amount to a Right of Conquest or not, shall be made to appear more plainly by and by; but if it does, as I do not question but I shall be able to make out, 'tis plain, how disingenuously his Adversaries have dealt with him. Let him call it a Divine Right, and let them expect him to call it a Legal Right; yet as what he has wrote, has evidently amounted to a Right by Conquest, as good a Right as Mortal need desire to possess in a just Cause; I say, as it amounts to that, and as that is evidently the drift of the Doctor's Reasonings, methinks they needed not to have distorted him from it.  
But Secondly, even in their own way, in their tacking this Principle to Passive-Obedience, and so endeavouring to expose it, with all the absurd Consequences they can draw from both together; I say, even in that dress, it appears more likely to be agreeable to the State, than any thing his Adversaries have set up; in plain terms, the State has as much reason to be disobliged at their Title, with its Consequences, from Resistance, and from the Doctor's Title, and Consequences from Passive-Obedience.  
The Doctor sets up Force and the Consent of the People, to transfer God's Authority; and his Adversaries say, The Choice of the People gives a Legal Right. Thus the Doctor seems to disoblige the Prince, by denying him verbally a Legal Right: but his Adversaries do as bad, when they show him by Example, that he is to bear Rule only Durante Beneplacito, of the giddy Mobb. But what? you say his Adversaries Compliment him with a Legal Right; 'tis true, they do: but as their fickle Case stands, I don't know whether Dr. Sherlock's Divine Right, and Passive-Obedience, may not be more acceptable to them.  
And what then, is the Case come to this? The King than has surely great reason to be beholding to these his Durante Beneplacito Men, and to be aggrieved at the Doctor's Methods; they honour him with a Legal Right indeed: but they tack it so to Abdications and Forfeitures, that a Man had better be Tenant at Will to a good Landlord, than Absolute Monarch on such Terms, and to depend so much upon every giddy relish of a factious Populace.  
I say then, is this be the Case, as it manifestly is, with those that give the King a Legal Right, from the Deposing the late King James, and the choosing Their Present Majesties; I say, if this be the Case, I am sure the Doctor's Principles are not half so likely to be offensive to the Government, as his Adversaries, and therefore on their own supposition, they have brought in this as a Motive for their Writing, against all the sense and reason in the World.  
In short, can his Adversaries have the Face to say, that when a Man has acknowledged a King invested with God's Authority, without the words of Legal Right, that he can half so much disoblige the Government, as he that lays down Principles (or at least implies them) of Abdication and Forfeiture, Principles that like the Arcana Imperii, at best aught to be kept secret, and not preached abroad, if allowed, and that like Swords in children's and Madman's hands, ought not too freely to be trusted in the hands of a giddy Populace.  
Indeed, had his Adversaries but modestly urged, that he had better have concealed his Reasons to himself, than so have urged them to offend the State, I had agreed with them, had it been only on the probability, that what he has wrote might have afforded offence; and yet not, I say, but that methinks too, if he has given offence, by not granting a Legal Right, he has made it up again by his Divine Right; and if what he has wrote may be taken in an evil sense, it may also receive a better.  
So that in truth, the suggestions of the Doctor's Answerers are to be blamed, and not the Doctor; and indeed, whatever they pretend, the Government is as much obliged to them, as a Man on Horseback to a Stander-by, that tickles his Horse, when he knows he is used upon it to throw his Rider; and whether like cunning Statesmen, in imitation of Watermens, they oppose the Doctor seemingly for the Government; but really as they are against it; whether they Look one way, and Row another, or not, I dare not be so uncharitable as to censure; but as I dare not, yet this is manifest, and may be averred, this seems the natural effect and tendency of their proceed.  
And indeed, this brings it to my mind, that the Doctor has Jacobite Enemies as well as others, and may be could one see the bottom, one would find, that 'tis from them that the greatest part of this Fire is kindled; and in truth, as manifest as it is, methinks his other Adversaries should be ashamed to persecute him as they do. St. Paul could rejoice, that Christ was preached, tho' even in Contention, and really, did the most Loyal of the Doctor's Adversaries, rather seek the good of the Government, than the mere resentments of their Spleens and Factions, they would be glad, that the Doctor had brought in this New Principle of Allegiance, were it only to bring over, if possible, those Members that dissented from the Government for Passive-Obedience, and not quarrel with him for the novelty of it.  
And really when I consider this, methinks I cannot but admire to see, how much Men are blinded by the fondness of Opinion, that they can rather bear to sacrifice their Interest, than to allow the least latitude in their Casuistical Decisions, that they will rather fright every body that is coming into the Government, than embrace them, if not exactly of their Sentiments; in short, an arrogant Tyranny, and as Enthusiastic, and as much against all the natural Principles of Self-defence, as ever can be pretended of Passive-Obedience, at the worst of it.  
But to turn my Argument to those Jacobites, that under the pretext and colour of Passive-Obedience, would fain destroy our present Settlement and Allegiance; I say, as to them, methinks the Doctor's Argument is as full and convincing, as either they can expect, or the nature of the thing can bear; and 'tis well for those, that the Doctor has so many Enemies to keep them in countenance, that they might be the better able to withstand his Reasonings.  
I say therefore, if the Doctor's Adversaries Arguments from the Right of Resistance cannot move them; yet the Doctor's from the Right of Conquest must do it; or else there is no Prince may be in the World, at least very few, have any Rights, at best, originally to their Thrones. In truth, the Doctor's Right by Conquest is as well the most comprehensive, as the most justifiable Title. And indeed, the Doctor's King, settled quietly, and entirely by the Consent of the People in possession, is the Resistances' Man King by a new Election; and were the Quarrels about Words taken away, they would amount to just the same thing.  
No, but you say, 'tis the Election gives the Title, and not the Consent to possession; I say, 'tis false: the Consent to Possession argues an Election, tho' not a Formal one; and 'tis such an Election, that no Christian, I am sure, can evade with a safe Conscience; indeed, without Men will be treacherous, and that barbarously too, they own Allegiance where they receive Protection, and he must neither pretend to Generosity, Honour, or Conscience, that will not pay it.  
A Generous Enemy will scorn to stoop to so mean a Dissimulation, a Man of Honour would take the Field against such an Usurper, and a Man of the least Conscience, would sooner die than he would play the Viper in the Fable, sting him to Death that gave him warmth and life, or at the best pretence, do Evil that Good might come, and ungratefully receive the Courtesies of a Friend, the more basely to do the viler, I should say Offices unworthy of an Enemy.  
Indeed Popery, as it has corrupted our Religion, so it has our Morals also, and has made even Christians to do those things, that the honester Heathens would blush at; but as they have, I hope we will not corrupt with them, and think to conquer them by out-villaning of them; but rather bravely, at least ourselves, be good and honest, and deter them from their black and devilish Practices, by a Vengeance and Resentment suitable to their Demerits.  
In short, if there be either Laws or Rights of War and Peace, a Government by Consent is as just as by Election, and as secure a bottom to found it 〈◊〉; and if Men are resolved to cavil, they may justlier do it at a Right through Election, than Possession: for instance, When a Government is dissolved, (pardon the expression) why am I bound to stand to any Man, or Councils Election for me, why shall some Vills, and yet not some whole Cities, send Members to Conventions? Indeed, were I not by the Laws of God, bound to study and follow the best Methods of Peace, where were otherwise my Obligation to these things?  
And therefore I say, the Doctor's Argument, that as God manifestly allows, indeed requires Changes in State, so he confirms the New Model, by its entire Settlement, is irrefragable, against all the Attacks either of Passive-Obedience, or Resistance-Men in the World, and the Objection about Usurpers against it, is as idle as weak; in plain terms, we exclaim in Compliment to New and Rightful Princes, at the removal of Usurpers; but in truth, whoever by Force, or otherwise, has once secured to himself peaceably, the possession and enjoyment of a Throne, is at least to his Subjects as good a King, as either the Right of Conquest or Election can make him.  
Has the Usurper no Right, why do you transmit it then to him by a pusillanimous submission; and why do you not at the first approach of the wrong, fly to Arms and Counsels to resist the Injustice, and to support the injured Prince? But if basely you once sacrifice your Loyalty, and his Right, by at least an implicit Contract of Allegiance; think you like a Coward and an Arch-traitor, afterwards to reassume that Right you have resigned, and meanly to take advantages from your own Villainy.  
Nay more, to push this Argument home further, such a Title through Possession exceeds all the Elections in the World, a quiet Possession shows a complete Election, whilst a formal one, by a Convention, or otherwise, may be corrupt and packed, and more unjust and illegal than the Tyrant and Usurper himself; in plain terms, were any Convention or Parliament so packed, and can you think any honest Subject thereupon bound to leave his Lawful Sovereign against his Consent and Conscience? which 'tis evident, when either by inadvertency or Treachery he has suffered an Usurper, even for but a Month to enjoy quiet possession he is bound to do.  
Having therefore I hope sufficiently cleared the Doctor hitherto, I shall try to descend a little further, to free him from those Calumnies that are cast against him from the Topics of Passive-Obedience, etc. not but that his Adversaries, as I have observed have dealt very unfairly with him in this thing; for when his Argument, as I have shown, might justly have been maintained without the least thought of Passive-Obedience, or affronting the Government; I say, what needed his Adversaries to bring in those things upon it; indeed does it not seem merely as it were to calumniate him, as if they would insinuate all that the Doctor has wrote is wrong, because we have already prejudicated him in that one Error of Passive-Obedience?  
I say therefore, as I am by all Circumstances hitherto convinced of the Doctor's Integrity, and as this prejudice of Passive-Obedience is reflected upon him, whether besides the purpose or not, at present I shall not regard; but as I am resolved to vindicate him thoroughly, and as the prospect of his Cause doth not afford me any thing to discourage me, so I do not doubt but to show his Adversaries, that for all what they have wrote against Passive-Obedience, it is not so contemptible a Doctrine, that a Man should be hooted out of the World for it, or that the Doctor should lose his Reputation through professing it.  
And I venture to write this, as I have said, tho' I do not believe the Doctrine myself, for as the Arguments the Doctor's Adversaries insist upon against it are Irrationalness and Enthusiasm, and as mine is from quite another Topick, the want of clear Revelation for it, I say as we reason quite from different grounds, and as I apprehend his Adversaries grounds very insufficient, I think I may justly vindicate the Doctrine as to them, tho' I neither believe it, no● desire to set it up myself; and this I conceive will be a sufficient Vindication of the Doctor in the Case, that tho' he may be in an Error▪ 'tis not so gross as they would suggest, nor indeed in any particular like unto any that they have alleged against him.  
Nor shall I in this Case make any Apology for the Doctor, that we might justly bear with him in this prejudice, when a University, indeed a whole Kingdom near once gave him its encouragement in it; and yet this methinks, I might justly say to his Adversaries, surely, had their Zeal been so great merely against the Doctrine of Passive-Obedience, they might have vented it, without flinging all the Dirt of it upon one Man; indeed, to prevent them from the Uncharitableness of particular Reflections, they would have done more honourably to have fell upon the University itsself, that many Years since, burned all the Propositions in contradiction to it.  
And as I shall not insist upon this prejudice, so I shall not upon another, may I say, full as considerable, to wit, with what deliberation and thought, Men of true Piety alter their Opinions; I say, I shall not insist on these things, tho' yet I take the liberty to hint at them, be it only to show the Doctor's Adversaries, that even these very prejudices, how trifling soever they may appear, yet they might justly have moved them to a greater Moderation and Charity in their Censures; but as I have said, I shall not insist on these things, but arguing for the Cause itsself (for all the Objections that have been made against it) I shall show, that 'tis neither so scandalous, nor so senseless as has been imagined.  
Now the better to do this, I shall state the Objections against this Doctrine of Passive-Obedience, under two heads, viz. the first, The general Unreasonableness of it. And the second, Its Enthusiasm. As for the Scripture-proof of it, as I have said, I shall not so much concern myself about it, because it has not been any ways made use of as the Foundational Argument, and therefore, I say, I shall leave that to what the Doctor hath already wrote upon it.  
First therefore, as to the general Unreasonableness of it: I would fain ask the Doctor's Adversaries, what it is they think more reasonable. What, Resistance? I say, it must be that, if any thing, for there is no mean; and this is manifest, 'tis the Duty of the Clergy to acquaint their Flock of one or other, when they consult them Casuistically; I say, therefore let us suppose these two set together in comparison, and let us see which is the most reasonable of them.  
Passive-Obedience leaves all to the Fury of a Tyrant; Resistance to the Rage of the Rabble: but you say, the Rabble may be restrained of such their Right of Resistance, by (at least unjust) Laws (for so you must call them in such case); and so I say, the Prince will be restrained from his Tyranny, by means of Passive-Obedience, through the fear of an unlawful Resistance in his Subjects.  
In short, you object the mischiefs that have ensued upon Passive-Obedience; and I tell you, as great have followed the giddiness of Resistance; or if you cannot believe what I writ in this matter, on my bare asseveration, and want an example, pray examine Matchiavel's History of Florence, and there you will find it set out effectually; indeed, we do not see so many Examples of the Tyranny and Mischiefs of Resistance in the People, as of the Arbitrariness of Nero's; but the reason is, because that few States have been framed so, as to tolerate such free Resistances, and which indeed is a plain and experimental Argument, that one Tyrant is more tolerable and easy than many.  
So that in plain terms, both ways are extremes, and equally unreasonable, and if either be supportable, 'tis Passive-Obedience, which seems an Error on the right hand, and in favour of Government; and yet for all that, in truth, the Controversy is as dangerously touched on the one side, as the other, and the Error of both sides is, that Men would vainly endeavour to bring the Actions of Man to a steady Rule; when alas, he is too giddy a Creature, to bear it.  
In plain terms, a Free State should neither suffer any Man to preach up Passive-Obedience, nor Resistance; neither Passive-Obedience, I say, for fear of slaving it, nor Resistance for fear of embroiling it; and indeed, if Men have honest and peaceable Intentions, they may very well be content to preach up Obedience to Governors, without touching at the nice Casuisme of it, of either side.  
Nor is it enough in such Case to say, that you can define the exact Rule of Resistance, where, and in what Case it ought to be used; for the same may be alleged for the Doctrine of Passive-Obedience; for even the Teachers of that Doctrine have declared and limited the Authority of Princes also, that they might not abuse their Power; I say, these defining and casuistical Decisions of Resistance and Command, will do no more good on the one side, than the other; for put the Sword either into the hands of the Prince or Rabble, there's equal danger that either of them may abuse it.  
I think therefore the Doctor's Adversaries have had but little reason to charge him with the Unreasonableness of Passive-Obedience, when they set up Resistance themselves; indeed, had they barely rejected Passive-Obedience as unscriptural, and not endeavoured by Reasoning to undermine it with a Doctrine raised from Topics of a far worse consequence. I mean, had they insinuated to him, that he had done better, had he relied merely on the Right of Conquest, without hinting at Passive-Obedience; then, I say, they would have had the Justice of the Cause of their side, and their Demands had been modest and reasonable, and possibly what the Doctor would never have denied them, for the very drift of his Reasoning tends the same way; but the Unreasonableness taxed on his Principles from their Grounds and Reasonings, has not the least manner of colour for it.  
The Second Objection that I am to answer against Passive-Obedience, is the Enthusiasm of it; a Charge as I find fling upon it, because out of its abundant Confidence in God, it flings a Man up into the very Jaws of Danger, without so much as the very thought of Self-defence; I say, this seems a very formidable Objection against Passive-Obedience; but when we come to handle it, it moulders away to nothing.  
Previously therefore to this matter, and to clear the Controversy about it, I shall define what is properly Enthusiasm, and what not. I say, then to offer at a private Revelation, or any private Rule of Faith from unwarranted Conceit, is Enthusiasm; but only to trust the known Revelation, was never called Enthusiasm properly, and by any Man of Sense that ever I knew yet.  
I say therefore, the Doctor in following sincerely the Scriptures, tho' in a mistake, is no more guilty of Enthusiasm, than his Adversaries are of Innocence in slandering him with it. This may be indeed, the Doctor may be in an Error in interpreting Scriptures, as I believe he is: and if he is, they would have done well to undeceive him; but then, if they would, they should have studied to have done it with that sincerity and candour, that their Methods might not prejudice him faster, than their Arguments convince him; or else they would have but little right left to the claim of Charity, and good Intention in the case.  
But methinks I hear it objected, That this Answer is not sufficient, that the trusting in God, and omitting Self-defence still remains, and 'tis that is the Enthusiasm; I say it is not, but it is Faith, and possibly not so unaccountable a one as some Men imagine neither; indeed is there not an Example in the Jews where a whole Nation thus trusted in God for their Deliverance, nay, and that more than once too, and was delivered accordingly.  
Nor is it an argument in such case, that because we have not seen any example of such Deliverance of late, that therefore we may not expect it, if the World be generally so vile as not to deserve such a Protection from God, shall we therefore be wicked in despair of it, in short, because the coldness of men's faith has now reduced it to be perfectly without efficacy, shall we therefore fling Faith itself aside.  
But to illustrate this by Example: The Martyrs in Queen Mary's days they trusted in God, and quitted their Self defence, nay, and that to a great number together; yes, and more after that Queen Mary both corruptly, and contrary to the most solemn Engagments, had violated the Laws, and persecuted them, I say, after all this, yet they through their trust in God, quitted their Self-defence and Right of Resistance, and yet no one that ever I knew, called them Enthusiasts.  
Indeed by the Principles of Resistance they might have concluded the whole State, King, Queen, Lords, and Commons void, if not for their unjust Law of destroying for Religion, mere Religion I mean, yet at least as the first had broken their Trusts, and the latter were rather packed then legally called to their Assembly, I say, by the Principles of Resistance they might justly have concluded thus; but as they did not, and did not fly to resolve themselves to their first Elements the Sovereign Lords the People, I say, though they did not, yet I hope we may justly give them the Titles of Martyrs through Faith, without branding them with Enthusiasm.  
In plain terms, at this rate at last we shall drive Martyrdom out of the World, and he will be reputed equally Fool and Coward that does not die with his Sword in his hand: Is Martyrdom in a great many private Men a Duty, I may say to half the People, as has lately near happened in France; I say, why is it not in Kingdoms also, doth Enthusiasm recipere magis & minus, or is it to hold in all cases alike; indeed why must we be Enthusiasts in part through a Revelation, and not throughout; so that 'tis plain these Men must either quite reject Martyrdom with Passive Obedience, or else ingeniously acknowledge, that laying aside all the Absurdities of reasoning in it, they will with me wholly rely on the Authority of the Scriptures for it.  
So that the reasoning of the matter will be resolved thus: All People that have trusted in God through Passive Obedience, have not been delivered with the Israelites; no more have not all Martyrs like Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego, been delivered from the power of Flames and Tortures; I say, therefore as we are not to expect always our Faith to succeed in the latter case of Martydom, shall we be so unreasonable as to murmur and repine that Sufferings are likely to befall us in the other, and for that reason only to conclude it cannot be a Duty upon us?  
In short, I know no other way that the Doctor's Enthusiastical Adversaries have to evade the force of this reasoning, unless by pretending that 'tis one thing to resist the King that has only the Executive Power, and another to resist the Fountain or Legislative Power; and as I have showed that cannot help them, for under the pretence even of the Parliament's being packed, or Pensioners, the Resistance Men will allow themselves to oppose the Legislative Power also; so that we may well conclude this Principle of Resistance can scarce rationally admit a Man in such circumstances as to be a Martyr, and if it does not by that trespass as much on the side of Infidelity and Diffidence in God, as Passive Obedience does on Enthusiasm, I am very much mistaken.  
Nor indeed is this the only parallel Case to justify this sort of Enthusiasm, wherein a Man so trusts in God as to give up himself, for if all such courses must imply a ridiculous Enthusiasm, Faith itself must be ridiculous also: Thus Abraham must be an Enthusiast for leaving his Father's Country: And the Christian that bestows a Charity is an Enthusiast for parting with that present supply, that by possibility he may stand in need of.  
So that I hope I may now very well conclude, I have acquitted the Doctor from all pretence of Enthusiasm, when the very same Argument that his Adversaries have brought to accuse him with, as I have manifestly shown, will not only, if not softened, ruin Passive Obedience, but even Christianity, and all manner of Faith and Religion whatever also.  
And I think I may now draw to a Conclusion, and I hope to the general satisfaction also, for if I am not as much mistaken as ever I was in my life, I have given the Doctor an effectual Vindication, I mean such an one as is not only able to return the Dirt cast upon him back upon his Adversaries, but with all good Men to restore him to his former Reputation and Esteem.  
I think I have sufficiently shown to the World, that his Adversaries are not generous, that they can assault him thus in Crowds; that they are not charitable, that they can attribute Scandals to him against all the Rules of Sincerity and Honour; I have shown moreover, that what he hath wrote may receive effectually a good sense, and that without Scandal to the Government too, without Men are resolved to force his Words to the worst; and as I have shown this, so I might have stayed here, and said this is enough, had I thought fit only just to Vindicate his Cause.  
But for the satisfaction of his Enemies I have gone on further, I have shown them his Doctrine of Passive Obedience is not so absurd neither as they would insinuate; in short, I have shown them it is as good as Resistance, and let them make the worst or it; and to this I have added, that the Aspersion of Enthusiasm on the Doctor, is manifestly an Injustice and a Reproach.  
To this I might add his Praying for King William, when he wished King James the Success, his Protesting against his promoting Nonswearing, when at the same time when asked he gave his Opinion, and his Inconstancy in changing his Principles, and many other such trifling Objections, that a good Man would be ashamed to bring them; however his Adversaries have alleged them, and as those three I have named seem the most considerable of them, I have resolved to give them the satisfaction that their Objections are not Unanswerable, and then I hope they will be content to dismiss me.  
I say then the Doctor prayed for King William, he did so, and 'tis the Command of Christ to Pray for our Enemies, as I presume the Doctor's Loyalty then to K. James could not make him otherwise; I say then if he did this, and has Christ's Command to justify him, what hurt is there in it? indeed if the Doctor had used particular and inconsiderate Expressions in his Prayer, he had been to blame, but as long as he delivered himself in general Terms, who shall accuse him for it.  
When Christ bid us pray for our Enemies, did he command us to imply in such our Prayers, that God would prosper them so as to confound and destroy us, or not rather that God would direct their hearts to save them, and move them to right us where they injured us? Surely I say the latter; and if that were so necessarily implied in the general Command of Christ to pray for our Enemies, shall we deny the Doctor that privilege in the particular application of it.  
But you will say he named him King when he did so; and what then, was it not then rationally a doubt in his thoughts, whether he were a King or no? and if it was, might not he justly use the common Style and Name he then went by, without either Hypocrisy or Cowardice, when at the same time by his refusing the Oaths he put the World out of all doubt of his Dissimulation, I say, might he not honourably, as well as concientiously in such a case Compliment the King on his Doubt, at least with the name of King.  
Indeed if he had had no Doubt upon him, but was convinced that he ought immediately to have helped his distressed Prince, I say, then either he or any Man else under such a Conviction, though they ought from the Command of Christ to pray for the new Prince, yet withal they ought to refuse to Compliment him so far as to call him King, but, I say, when the Doctor was without any manner of such Conviction, and was at least satisfied that he was quit of his Assistance if not of his Allegiance to his former Prince: Surely, I say, in such case for his very Doubts sake the Doctor might Compliment his new Prince with the name of King, especially when settled by the Choice of the Nation in the Throne; and methinks no Casuist in the World should deny him that liberty.  
And in truth the Doctor's Enemies who pretend thus to refuse to pray for the King, ought withal to remember, that they ought to act accordingly; they ought, as I have said before, to declare themselves in Hostile manner, and fly from his Protection, for if they once basely or lazily submit to him, as I have before observed, they transfer their Allegiance, and as long as the new King is in Possession, they cannot retract without Treachery; and consequently, they ought to pray for him as King also, if the Title they suffer him to usurp be such.  
And I might add to this also, that those Men that are guilty of such a mean and clandestine Treachery against the State, have the more reason in gratitude to her Mercy, to acknowledge her for the future; for however they harbour themselves under the scruple of Passive-Obedience, or otherwise, they ought to remember withal, that 'tis a singular Charity, may I say a greater, than ever they showed to the Doctor, that the State shows to them, in not treating them as Enemies; when indeed, without under a Prince of such an unparalleled Clemency, I don't know what they would well expect otherwise.  
The second Charge against the Doctor, is, That he has changed his Opinion: right, and suppose he has, What have not others done it before him? or must it be an offence in the Doctor, only to be converted from a mistake; but you say, he did it with deliberation: and it may be so; but what then, that shows him the more likely to be a Master of the greater Integrity in it, and not that he is corrupt; in plain terms, these Exceptions are rather Cavils than Reasonings.  
When a Man ties himself to Principles by the Catalogue, I must confess he may be more constant than the Doctor; but when a Man allows himself free liberty of thinking, and sicerity, he's a confident and ignorant Pretender, that dares say, he shall not change his Opinion.  
Nor is it difficult in such Case to say, why some are longer in their change than others; for Gentlemen that give their Reason free reigns, pursue her at first sight: corrupt Men act without Examining; but Divines that walk by a double sight, Reason and Revelation; nay, sometimes cast in Tradition to them, may be fairly allowed a longer time to deliberate; and yet who shall say to a sincere Man, just so long.  
The mischief on't is, honest Men change their Minds out of Conviction, and Knaves out of Design; now the uncharitable World in this case, tho' it knows it cannot discern between these two, and therefore ought in all Cases to put the best face on things; straight without more ado, upon every little peck or passion censures Men, just as if they had got the sole Prerogative of God in searching men's Hearts.  
Nor is it enough in such case to say, that such a Man is Learned, and cannot but know better; for Men that say such things, do but blindly discover their own presumptuous Ignorance. Alas, there is no Casuist can answer all Objections, even in the plainest Cases; perfect Wisdom is the Prerogative of God: and besides, if they could, we should consider how much such Men as the Doctor are diverted by the Public, by his Sermons, by his writing necessary particular Tracts and Controversies, etc.  
The last thing I proposed to speak to, is, that they find fault with the Doctor, for giving his Opinion, when he would pretend himself free from dispersing his Doctrine of Nonswearing formerly. Now as to this, I say, it is a mere Calumny; and indeed, it's own disingeniousness speaks it so. To give our Opinion, when asked, of a thing, where good or evil, is a Duty that no Man can dispense with in himself; and therefore, when the Doctor declared he was not for spreading his Doctrine, who would lay that upon him, that he could not avoid.  
Had he wrote Books to convince others upon it, or had he but wrote Letters to that purpose; nay, had he but sought to promote the Subject and Controversy in discourse, where he was not directed by a Letter for satisfaction, or a Friend, in a Casuistick Question; I say, had the Doctor's Adversaries proved this, they might have showed this expression of his inconsistency, and proved him guilty from his own words, of what he would insinuate himself to be innocent; but to do as they have done, is to show only that they would be glad of the occasion for such a false Judgement.  
All things therefore considered, I hope his Adversaries will repent what they have been guilty of, and endeavour to repair that Reputation they have so unjustly injured. I am sensible what I can write in his defence, is not likely in all particulars to be so strong, as what he himself might allege; but as indeed the Cause is too nasty for the Doctor himself to meddle with, and as the apparent Merits of it on his part want little help to illustrate them, so I thought it better that a Stranger, I might say an Enemy, like myself, to the Doctor, should undertake it, than he.  
I might add, that I could wish that the Task had fallen into a better hand; but since it is where it is, as I can solemnly before God satisfy myself of my proceed in this matter, so I shall endeavour to make them good; and if the Doctor's Enemies are resolved on no Peace with him, I am resolved on his behalf, to see how powerful they will prove in the polemics.  
All therefore that I shall desire of his Enemies, for now if they persist they are mine also is, but that they answer me with candour and ingenuity, with brevity and perspicuity, and with solid sense and integrity; and if so, they endeavour to refute what I have said for the Doctor, I'll promise them, they shall not want as fair a Reply as they can wish for.  
But if notwithstanding all has been said, they will still continue to Libel a Member formerly of the greatest Reputation in the Church, and to whose Controversies all Protestancy is obliged; I say, if such Elders who as St. Paul advises, must be treated with the greatest respect, cannot have common Charity allowed them; I say, if this be the temper of his Adversaries, let it suffice the World, at least the worthier part of it, that they revile him without reason, that they have had a tender of a fair satisfaction, and have refused it, whereupon all Mankind must acquit the Doctor, and restore him to their former esteem, whilst they wholly lay the blame and guilt upon his Enemies.  
But methinks I have a prospect of better hope, of his Enemies, at best of the more considerable of them. It cannot be, that they should persist to do as they have done; nay, I am persuaded they won't; for however they may charge Passive-Obedience honourably with its Mischiefs in their Zeal, yet they will not surely thus force an occasion for it, they will no longer keep Men in fear from joining with the Government for being of that Principle, nor encourage the continuance of so unjust a slander; methinks, I say, for their own, nay, the Public, and Piety's sake, they will cease to persist in this course longer. I end with the Commandment:  Thou shalt not bear False Witness against thy Neighbour. 
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PReface, p. 1. l. 23. Mr. Per. read Mr. Parkinson; and in the last line was it no the Doctor, read was it not the Doctor. p. 8. l. 30. and from the Doctor's Title, read as from the Doctor's Title.