ONE might well have expected, That Mr. P. who was illegally expell'd the University of Oxford, and thereby depriv'd of his Fellowship in Lincoln College in the late Times, would, upon his restitution to the University, have been immediately invited to return to his College. Or, if 'twere too much to expect That, yet one might in reason have thought, that none of the College would have oppos'd his re­turning to it: especially considering, that even those, who for­merly were his Accusers, are now in their Opinions come over to him; or at least have acted by those very Principles, which they accus'd him of maintaining. Now methinks they should in reason do one of these two things; Either still reject his Prin­ciples, or receive Him. For not to admit him, when they have admitted his Principles, is as much against the Rules of good Logick, as 'tis, when they have granted the Premises, to deny the Conclusion. The Reverend Dr. Ironside, late Vice-Chancel­lor of Oxford, (now Lord Bishop of Bristol) restor'd him to the [Page 4]University above six Months ago; and why the Rector and Fel­lows of Lincoln College have not yet readmitted him to his Fel­lowship, I believe they can no more tell, than Dr. H. can, why he expell'd him the University. I'm sure he ought to be readmit­ted; and since the College cannot yet be brought to do him right, (though I doubt not but in time they will) I'll endeavour to do him what right I can by Printing his Case, and telling the World how he was wrong'd.

Mr. P. was a Master of Arts, and Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford: the Fellowship he had there, is limited to the County of Oxford; so that none, but an Oxfordshire Scholar, is capable of it. And there is this further to be observ'd concerning it, That the Bishop of Lincoln, for the time being, (who is Visitor of that College) has a peculiar right of nomination to it, whenever it is vacant. And accordingly he, being an Oxfordshire Scholar, was nominated to this Fellowship by Bishop Fuller, in the Year 1674. and admitted to it by the Rector and Fellows of the College.

There he liv'd comfortably for nine years; and being a Tutor, had for some years above twenty young Schloars (at a time) under his care; insomuch, that by his Fellowship, and advantage of Pu­pils, he had a yearly Income of 120 l. and there, it is thought, he might have liv'd to this day, had he not had so many Pupils. 'Twas the taking of Pupils that chiefly induc'd him to stay in that College so long, (the Fellowship alone being hardly sufficient to maintain him there;) and 'twas, perhaps, the taking of too ma­ny, that mov'd some of the Fellows to drive him from thence: (I say, some of the Fellows, for no more than four out of twelve were his Accusers:) This probably was his greatest fault; a fault, which he was never careful to mend, nor they willing to forgive.

But they pretended a more specious cause for their violent Pro­secution of him: they gave it out, That he was a disloyal Man, and disaffected to the Government: and indeed, if to have other, notions of the Government, than they had, were to be disloyal, it must be own'd Mr. P. was so: for he was willing to think and speak of the Government as the Lawyers taught him, who, he believ'd, best understood it; but they were so wise as to correct the Law by their Mistakes in Divinity. They thought the King was Absolute; he was of another opinion. They said, The Legis­lative [Page 5]Power was lodg'd solely in the King; he believ'd it was not: They were against the Bill of Exclusion, he was for it. They were for Dr. Hick's Passive Obedience, he was for Mr. Johnson's. Now a difference between him and them about such Points as these, one may easily guess, would cause frequent Disputations and Quarrels; and a little ill Nature prompts men to undo those whom they quarrel with, provided they have opportunity.

And Mr. P's Adversaries had as fair an opportunity for undoing of him; as their hearts could wish. For, mark the time when they began to complain of him: it was in the Year 1683, at that very time, when the Earl of Essex, Lord Russel, Collonel Sidney, and other Gentlemen of Eminent Note, were seiz'd on, and sens to the Tower for their zeal in opposing Popery, and Arbitrary Power: it was then, when the Nation was in a great ferment; when mens Passions were high, and made a great noise, so that Reason could not be heard. This was a lucky time for Infor­mers, and of this Mr. P's Adversaries took the advantage.

Having got so fair an opportunity for oppressing him, they first apply'd themselves to the Reverend Dr. Marshall, Rector of the College, and fill'd his Ears with Complaints against him. The Rector, who well knew that 'twas not any concern for the Go­vernment, but rather Ill-will, and Self-interest, which set them a­gainst him, endeavour'd to check their Heat, and bring them to some temper; but the more he labour'd to quiet them, the more outrageous they grew: They knew they had, what they call'd, the Government on their side; and that if the Rector would not receive their Complaints against one, whom they had every­where set out as a Whig, there were others that would. They made grievous Complaints of the Rector himself for refusing to do them justice (as they phras'd it;) and gave it out, That he deserv'd to be turn'd out of the College for favouring Mr. P.

The Rector hereupon thought fit to appoint a Meeting of the Society, about the end of July 1683, for the hearing of their Com­plaints against Mr. P. and gave him notice of it. It fell out un­luckily for him, that many of the Fellows, (and those too of best note) were then absent from the College, (as is usual in the Long Vacation) who, had they been there, it is likely would have ad­vis'd his Adversaries to let the matter fall, and to forbear prose­cuting one of their Fellow-members.

[Page 6]A Meeting then there was of the Society at the time appointed; and Mr. P's Adversaries having drawn up their Charge against him, were pleas'd to read it to him. He perceiving that some things laid to his Charge were not material, had they been true; that some were very false; and that others wanted only a fair In­terpretation to make them pass; desir'd a Copy of their Accusa­tion, and promis'd within a day or two to give them his Answer to it in writing. The Rector likewise requested the same in his behalf; but neither of them could prevail. The Rector per­ceiving that he could not gain any thing of them that was fair, and resolving not to comply with them in any thing that was soul, nor to pass an unjust censure upon him (which they press'd him to do) dissolv'd the Meeting.

Finding now that they could not work on the Rector, nor gain his concurrence for oppressing of Mr. P. they applied themselves to Dr. H. a Provice-Chancellor, and complain'd that Mr. P. had in their Company (some Months before) maintain'd several false and dangerous Propositions.

Hereupon the Doctor sent for him, August the 20th, and told him, That some of the Fellows of Lincoln College had made com­plaints against him. He desired to know who were his Accusers, and what they laid to his Charge, and to have a Copy of their Accusation, and promis'd his Answer to it. The Doctor said, 'Twas fit he should know his Accusers, and have a Copy of their Accusation, and promis'd him both. And it must be own'd, that this was fair dealing in the Doctor; but tho he was so fair as to make this promise, yet he was not so just as to keep it.

August the 24th, the Doctor sent for him again, and tho he would neither let him know who were his Accusers, nor what they laid to his Charge; yet he requir'd him forthwith to give Bail of 2000 l. for his good Behaviour, and Appearance at the next Assizes, which were to begin at Oxford on the 3d of Septem­ber following.

I will not here blame the Doctor for denying Mr. P. a Copy of his Accusation, nor yet for exacting so extravagant a Bail; be­cause how unreasonable soever these things may seem, yet they were agreeable to those times, and herein he did but write after the many ill Copies that were set him by others. But I can hard­ly [Page 7]forbear complaining of him for this one thing, (because here­in I think he followed no example) that, when Mr. P. had named for his Bail two Scholars, Mr. B. and Mr. K. both Masters of Arts, and Fellows of Colleges, and of as good note as any in the University, he refus'd them both, and yet would give no reason for his refusing of them. It seem'd somewhat hard to Mr. P. that two of his own Body, the University, should be re­fus'd, and that without any reason given; and that he should still be forced to name others. But this, how hard soever it was, he was forc'd to comply with, and to try again if he could hit the Doctor's humour in naming two others; which he had the good luck to do: For guessing, that no Scholars would pass with him, he nam'd two of the Town, Mr. P. and Mr. C. who were accepted for his Bail; and he was dismiss'd, having been kept Prisoner by the Doctor several hours, till his Sureties came to release him.

At the next Oxford Assizes, begun September the 3d. 1683. Mr. Philip Burton came to Oxford, and exhibited an Indictment against Mr. P. for maintaining the Propositions following (which I here present the Reader with, together with some remarks on each of them).

l. That 'tis lawful to exclude the next Heir to the Crown front his Right and Title to the Succession.

I suppose his Accusers mean, as he did, such an Exclusion, as had not long before been debated in Parliament, and had pass'd the Honourable House of Commons in two or three Parliaments successively. Now such an Exclusion as this, no doubt, Mr. P. held to be lawful, and, as I believe, two third parts of the Na­tion held it as well as he; tho' I never yet heard of any, besides him, that had the ill luck to be impeach'd for it. The Law, I'm sure, says, That the King, Lords and Commons, have right to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm, and the Descent, Inheritance, and Government thereof; as appears by the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, Cap. 1. by which Statute it was made Trea­son, during the life of that Queen, to hold, affirm, or maintain the contrary; and, after her decease, forfeiture of Goods and Chattels: And me thinks 'tis somewhat strange, that it, should be [Page 8]High Misdemeanour in Mr. P. to speak as the Law does. If Do­ctor H. knew nothing of this Law, one would think his Friend Mr. Burton should have instructed him in it.

2. That if a Prince did not perform his duty, the Subjects might be discharged of theirs.

Mr. P. denies, that lie ever affirm'd any such general Proposi­tion. And I can't but observe, that I have heard Dr. Marshall, who was then Rector of Lincoln College, more than once affirm, That at that Meeting held in the College about the end of July, (which I spake of before) and held on purpose for hearing of Complaints against Mr. P. there was not the least mention made of this Proposition. And Mr. P. dares affirm upon Oath, That he heard nothing of it at that Meeting; and therefore 'tis likely they had not thought of this to object against him at that time, it being not probable they would have concealed it, had they known arty thing of it. Nor is it a hard matter to guess how they came by it; for one may see it word for word, among the twenty-seven Propositions that the University of Oxford condem­ned on the 21st of July 1683. it being indeed a pare of the second Proposition in the Decree of that University. And 'tis likely, that Mr. P. had never been accus'd for maintaining this Proposi­tion, if that University had not first condemned it. I think, I am not bound to speak my thoughts concerning this Proposition; but however, out of meer love to Truth, I will say thus much, That in some Constitutions of Government, and in some Cases, I believe it is true, if the Prince not only does not perform his duty, but acts also exorbitantly to the contrary. And because Truth is then best, when 'tis rightly apply'd, I will venture to apply this to our present Case, and say, That the late King James having not done his duty, (but the contrary) the stiffest of the Jacobites (Mr. P.'s Accusers not excepted) may be discharged of theirs, and may honestly (without distinctions, or equivocations, or mental reservations) take the new Oath of Allegiance to our Gracious Sovereigns King William and Queen Mary.

3. That the King might be for ever laid aside, so that there should never more be a King of England for the future, by the Consent of King, Lords, and Commons.

[Page 9]One fault I'm sure there is in this proposition, That 'tis sillily worded: Now methinks 'tis somewhat hard to bring an informa­tion against Mr. P. for an uncouth expression, if he had been guilty of it. There is in the words, 1. Something suppos'd, and that is, a consent of the King, Lords, and Commons, That the King should be for ever laid aside, so that there should never more be a King of England for the future; which is a very wild supposition, it being not in the least probable that ever the thing supposed should happen. And 2. there is something affirm'd upon this unlikely supposition, and that is, That the King might be for ever laid aside, so that there should never more be a King of England for the future, in case there were such a consent. Now whether this be true, or no, let those judge who will; for my part I hardly think it worth my while to examine it.

I doubt few will believe that Mr. P. was indicted for these matters, unless I publish a Copy of the Indictment; and there­fore that, such as it is, here follows:

To this Indictment Mr. P. (as well he might) pleaded Not Guilty; and his Trial was put off till the following Assizes, that is, till the following Lent. And now he thought himself safe till Lent came, the Trial being put off till that time; and doubt­less safe he was by the Political Law; but on a sudden Dr. Hicks's Imperial Law laid hold on him, and condemn'd him before his Trial came: For the very day after he had pleaded Not Guilty, Dr. H. the Pro-Vice-Chancellor sent for him, and told him, He must expel him the University.

Mr. P. thought it somewhat strange, That the Doctor should first send him to the Assizes, to be Tried there; and then should on a sudden call him back, and Condemn him without so much as the formality of a Tryal. He said, That the matter was then under a Judicial examination, and he hop'd the Doctor would wait the issue of that, and not pass a more grievous judgment upon him, whil'st the matter stood indifferent, than in probability the judg­ment of the Law would be, in case he were found guilty upon the In­dictment. He further desir'd, That in case the Doctor were resolv'd to proceed immediately, He would himself first hear him.

The Doctor's Answer was, That he had Orders from above to expel him. To this Mr. P. replied, That surely he mistook his Or­ders; That possibly he might have Orders to Try, but not to Condemn him without a Tryal; or if he had receiv'd any such illegal Orders, he ought not to obey them; That he knew of no Orders that could turn him out of the University, and consequently out of his Fllowship; That his Fellowship was his Freehold, and none could turn him out of his freehold, but by Law. And therefore he desir'd the Pro-Vice-Chancellor [Page 11]Chancellor to say, by what Law he proceeded. 'Twas no easie matter to gain the Doctor's Answer to this untoward question: But at length he gave this, That he proceeded by the Laws or Sta­tutes of the University.

To this Mr. P. Replied, That these indeed were Laws which ob­lig'd him, and that he might have Proceeded against him by these Laws at first, if he had so pleased; but that now he fairly could not, having already bound him over to the Assizes, and begun a Prosecu­tion of him at Common Law.

Then Mr. P. desired him to say, by what particular Statute of the University he proceeded.

The Answer was. by the Statutes de Contumeliis compescendis, and de Perturbatoribus Pacis.

To this Mr. P. Replied, that surely it ought to be proved that he had utter'd contumelious words, and to be made out, that he had been a disturber of the peace; which had not yet been done: For he had not been so much as examin'd concerning any matters laid to his charge; he had not been heard; he had not had his Accusers face to face, nor any license to answer for himself concerning the Crimes laid against him: And 'twas not agreeable to any Law, whether Divine or Humane, whether Civilt, or Common, or Statute Law, to Condemn any one before he was heard.

But 'twas in vain to dispute with one who resolv'd to obey Or­ders; for the Doctor answer'd alt Mr. P's Arguments (and 'twas indeed the best answer he could give) by telling him, That he had Orders from above to expel him. And accordingly he did forthwith expel him the University in an arbitrary manner; ha­ving never heard him, nor so much as summon'd him to a hear­ing.

Dr. H. it seems thought it a point of Loyalty to obey Orders; but I can tell him of as Loyal persons as he is, who would not have thought so. What does he think of the Seven Bishops that were sent to the Tower? Were they for obeying Orders? What thinks he of the Lord Bishop of London's behaviour in Dr. Sharp's Case? Was not his Lordship bid to suspend that Reverend per­son? and did his L [...]ship do as be was bid? Did not hit Lord­ship chuse rather to be Suspended himself, than to Suspend a Dean of the Church in an illegal manner? True Loyalty al­ways [Page 12]ways keeps pace with Justice, but never outruns it; nor is it to be thought Loyalty to undo a Fellow-Subject at the command of ones Prince.

I cannot chuse but observe here these two things.

1. That this Expulsion was grounded upon an Allegation which was not true; namely, That Mr. P. was [...]victed of speaking reproachful Words against the Government, whereas indeed he was never tried, nor convicted.

[Page 13]2. That Dr. H. did not mention what those reproachful Words were.

Now this Expulsion of Mr. P. from the University, implying an Expulsion from his College, drew on him two very great Losses, the loss of his Fellowship, and the loss of his Pupils in Lincoln Col­lege, to the value of 120 l. per ann. (which Losses he has suffer'd these six years.)

And now one would have thought, That Dr. H. having expell'd him the University, would however have suffer'd him to breathe quietly in some other Air; and having forbidden him to come within five miles of Oxford, would have disturb'd him no more, provided he had kept his due distance from the forbidden Place. But the Doctor did not think fit to do his work by halves. And therefore having unjustly expell'd Mr. P. the University, and stripe him of all that he bad, and made him poor, and bare, and na­ked, he took effectual care to keep him so; he still kept him un­der the lash of the Indictment, and forc'd him to attend several Assizes at Oxford; not that he ever intended that Mr. P. should be brought to his Trial; (for he well knew, that the trying of one at the Assizes, whom he had condemn'd without a Trial, would not be much for his Credit) but this he did partly to expose him more and more, and shew him as a Criminal to his Coun­try every half year; partly to put him to great Expence and Charges, that thereby he might the sooner consume that little Treasure he had laid up; but chiefly to hinder him from getting any other Preferment; rightly concluding, That none would venture to prefer one who was under an Indictment for High Mis­demeanor.

And after all this, when the Doctor was even ashamed to give him any more trouble, and put him to any further Charge in at­tending the Assizes at Oxford; Matters were so manag'd (whether by Dr. H. or by Mr. Burton, I will not say) that the Indictment was remov'd by Certiorari to the King's-Bench. And there Mr. P. appear'd before Chief Justice Jefferies, who having treated him as he us'd to do others, and pass'd on him those usual Comple­ments that were wont to flow from his foul Tongue, turn'd him over to Mr. Burton, with whom Mr. P. was to make his peace as well as he could. But though he could easily guess at what rate [Page 14]he might purchase his quiet, yet he did not think sit to come up to the price; and so the Prosecution still contin [...]ed depending till April 168 [...], at which time a Cessat Process [...]rs was easily granted.

I can't but think that all Scholars of that famous University of Oxford, and especially all Fellows of Colleges, will be Mr. P's Ad­vocates, and plead his Cause against Dr. H. For if a Pro-Vice­chancellor might expel him without so much as hearing him, it may concern them to consider, that any Vicechancellor may in like manner turn out any of them, whenever the Expelling Hu­mour shall take him; and what has been Mr. P's Case, may be their own.

The Question now is (and one would indeed wonder it should be a question) Whether Mr. P. who is already restor'd to the Uni­versity, ought to be restor'd to his Fellowip in Lincoln College? He thinks that he ought; those of the College think otherwise: (which I confess is not very strange, if one considers, that some of them were his Accusers, and that one of them is in his Place.) Now there being this Controversie between Him and Them, he apply'd himself (as the College-Statutes direct in such Cases) to the Lord Bishop of Lincoln; and having stated his Case, presented it, May the 6th, to his Lordship then in London. He represented to his Lordship, That he was one of the Fellows of Lincoln College, nominated to a Fellowship there in 1674, by his Lordship's immediate Predecessor, Bishop Fuller; That in 1683, he was Illegally and Ar­bitrarily expell'd the University by Dr. H. Pro-Vicechancellor; That the Rector and Fellows (taking it for granted, that an Expulsion from the University, whether just or unjust, imply'd an Expulsion from the College,) signify'd to his Lordship the vacancy of his Place: and that thereupon his Lordship (who has the right of nominating one to this Place, when vacant) forthwith nominated one Mr. Cornish to it, who enjoy'd it till he died; and, after his decease, one Mr. Bartho­lomew, who enjoys it to this day. He did further set forth, That the Reverend Dr. Ironside (late Vicechancellor of Oxford (now Lord Bishop of Bristol) had restor'd him to the Univirsity. And he humbly, conceiv'd, that thereupon he ought to be restor'd to his College, and to his Fellowship in it. For there never was (he said) any other reason alledg'd to deprive him of the Profits of his Felloship in Lincoln Col­lege, but only this, That being expelled the University, he was judg'd [Page 15]uncapable of staying in his College, and enjoying the Profits of his Fel­lowship there; and that Reason now ceas'd; and therefore he hop'd, there being no Reason to keep him out of his Fellowship any longer, he should forthwith be restor'd to it. He therefore humbly begg'd his Lord­ship, who had nominated another to his Place, to make void that his Nomination, or rather to declare it void, (it being really void and null in the Construction of the Law;) and thereby to make way for his return to his Fellowship in Lincoln College.

And afterwards, July the 16th, he wrote a Letter to his Lord­ship; then at Buckden; part of which I here present the Reader with, and that in his words.

I humbly conceive, That your Lordship, as Visitor of the College, may null or make void your nomination of another to my Place, upon good Information, That it was not well grounded at first; as, I believe, it now plainly appears to your Lordship that it was not. For your Lord­ship's nomination of another to succeed me in my Fellowship, was ground­ed upon Dr. H's Expulsion of me, and a supposed vacancy arising from thence; and therefore your Lordship's nomination of another could be no more just, than Dr. H's Expulsion of me was; nor could give ano­ther any more right to my Place, than the Expulsion took from me: And I desire no easier Thik than to prove, that the Expulsion was un­just, and being such, could not deprive me of the just Right I had to my Place in Lincoln College; (for no man shall lose a just Right by the unjust Act of another:) and if it could not deprive me of my Right to my Fellowship in Lincoln College, then still I have a right to it, not­withstanding Dr. H's Expulsion of me; and he, who is at present in it, can have no right to it, notwithstanding your Lordship's Nomination. And therefore I appeal to your Lordship as Visitor of Lincoln College, and beseech your Lordship to do me right. I leave it to your Lordship's Wisdom, to take what method your Lordship shall think fit for the relieving of me: and if your Lordship thinks nothing less than a Visita­tion will no, I humbly desire your Lordship to proceed to a Visitation.

I cannot say that these two Papers of Mr. P. did operate nothing on my Lord Bishop; (for his Lordship declar'd himself to be clearly of opinion, That Mr. P. had hard measure, that he had been very unjustly treated, and that Dr. H. and those of the Col­lege, who had done him wrong, ought to make him satisfaction.) Yet this I must say, That though his Lordship receiv'd his Ap­peal, [Page 16]yet (for what Reasons I cannot tell) he has not yet thought fit to judge between the College and Him.

It must be own'd by me, that the Rector and Fellows of Lincoln College have made some Objections against Mr. P's restitution to his Fellowship: and it can't be deny'd by them, but every one of their Objections has had an Answer from him, though in my judg­ment some of them needed not any. They may print their Ob­jections, if they list, and his Answers too, if they believe them such as will serve to ser [...]ff their Objections with advantage; but I have no room for Objections and Answers in this Paper. How­ever, to give the Reader a taste of their Objections, I will men­tion one of them, and 'tis their great Objection in the Opinion of the Visitor, that is, 'tis their greatest they have. The great Obje­ction (says his Lordship in a Letter directed to a Gentleman in London) that they have against Mr. P's Restitution, is, That he neither had, nor ever asked leave to be absent from College, which is Expulsion by their Statutes. And then his Lordship says how he had answer'd it: To this I told the Rector in a Letter, That Mr. P. was expell'd from the University, and not to come within five miles of it; and therefore could not come to the College to ask leave to be absent. One would think that an expelled man should rather have asked leave to stay in the College, than have begg'd leave to go away. Sure they were very hard put to it for Objections against Mr. P's Re­stitution, when such as these were sent from Oxford to Buckden.

Thus have I given a short and true Account of Mr. P's Case; my next Task is to vindicate him from the false Aspersions that a late Author has cast on him in his History of Passive Obedience.

This Author was pleas'd to say in his Preface, That he only did the Office of an Historian; but I'm sure he has done it very ill in this particular that concerns Mr. P. however he has done it in o­thers; which I do not intend to examine. The Office of an Histo­rian I always thought had been to relate, and not to invent; but this Author has given too great a liberty to his Invention, there being not one jot of truth in his whole Story of Mr. P.

I can't but observe, that he ushers in his false Tale of Mr. P. with another that is also false, and concerns a whole Convocation of Doctors and Masters as well as him; for speaking of the De­cree of the University of Oxford past in their Convocation, July [Page 17]the 21st, 1683. he says, That it-was subscrib'd by the Vice-Chan­cellor, other Professors, and the whole Convocation. What the Vice-Chancellor and other Professors did, I cannot tell; but I'm sure, so far is it from being true, that it was subscrib'd by the whole Convocation, that it was never so much as offer'd to the whole Convocation for their subscription. But the Case was plainly this; The D. of Glocester, as this Author says, (and who else, or whether any else, I know not) drew up a Decree, in which several Pro­positions were condemned as false, seditious, and impious; and several Bocks quoted, in which it was said the Propositions condemned were contain'd: but none of the Convocation besides the Person or Persons concern'd in drawing up the Decree, had any time given to examine the truth either of the Propositions, or of the Quotations. But the Pa­per drawn up was read in the Convocation house, and 'twas imme­diately put to the Vote, whether it should pass, or no; the Zealous Men cry'd out, Placet; and others thought not fit to make opposition: and so out they came from the Convocation, and presently a fire being kindled in the Court of the Schools, the naughty Books were burnt by the hand of the Marshall.

And now having abus'd a Convocation of Doctors, and Ma­sters, he singles out Mr. P. and falls foul upon him. And pur­suant to this Decree, Parkinson, a Fellow of Lincoln College, for main­taining, That the right and foundation of all Power was in the Peo­ple; That Kings are accountable for their Male-administrati [...]n, &c. And particularly, That King Charles the First was justly put to dea [...]h for making war upon his Subjects; was, Ann. 1684. expell'd the Uni­versity.

In the first place, He is mistaken as to the time of Mr. P's Ex­pulsion (which is not seemly in one that pretends to do the Office of an Historian) for he was not expell'd in 1684. (as this Author says) but in 1683. But this Mistake I easily forgive, because, I belleve it was against his will; and will only desire the Reader from hence to observe, how little this Historian understood [...]'s Case, and how unfit he was to represent it.

But he is guilty of a far worse Mistake, in assigning the Cause of the Expulsion; and this▪ I doubt, was a wil [...]ul Mistake, and therefore justly deserves blame. He mentions Three Propo­sitions.

[Page 18]1. That the right and foundation of all Power is in the Poeple.

2. That Kings are accountable for their Male-administration, &c.

3. And particularly, That King Charles the First, &c. And says that P. was expelled the University for maintaining of these Three, with an &c. which he was pleas'd to add to the tail of the Second Pro­position, and by which he would have his Reader understand a great many more Propositions than he was willing to express. As for his Et coetera's, I have nothing to say to 'em; for I know not what, nor how many they are, any more than he does. But as for the Three Propositions that he has mention'd, I do aver it is so far from being true, that P. was Expell'd for all, or any of them, that it was never so much as objected, or laid to his Charge, That he had maintain'd any one of them: And I challenge this Au­thor, whoever he is, to produce any Authority for what he has with so much confidence asserted. The Indictment (as is plain to any one that reads it) will not help him out; for though therein mention be made of Three Propositions, yet not one of those Three in the Indictment is the same with any one of these mention'd in the History of Passive Obedience. A Copy of the Ban­nimus, or Expulsion, will stand him in as little stead; for though that mentions that P. was expelled for uttering reproachful Words against King Charles the Second, yet it does not express in particular what they were. I am resolv'd to be civil to this Author, and therefore I'll give him leave to go to Dr. H. the Ex­peller, and ask him, what he expell'd P. for. I know well enough what Answer he will give: He will say, That an Indict­ment was exhibited against P. That the Grand-Jury had found the Bill; That he from thence concluded that P. was guilty; That thereupon, without any more ado, he proceeded to expel him; it being needless to try one, whom he believed to be guil­ty. And if you object any thing against this way of proceeding, as not agreeable to Law, then presently out he pulls his Orders from above, and this answers all Objections. This he formerly said, and this I'm apt to think he will still say; and if he does, 'tis plain that he charges P. with nothing but what was in the Indict­ment, and consequently not with any of these Three Proposi­tions, that are mentioned in the History of Passive Obedience.

But I'll give Dr. H. leave to give what Answer he pleases; [Page 19](though, I believe, he had much rather I would give him leave to hold his Tongue) I'll give him leave to say what this Author would have him, That he expell'd P. for maintaining these very Propositions that are mention'd in the History of Passive Obedience. But then I expect, that he should be so civil as to answer the fol­lowing Queries: Why did he not mention these Propositions in the Indictment? Why not in the Bannimus? Why did he not at least particularly mention that Third Proposition, which this Au­thor has mention'd in so particular a manner? Why did he not take care to publish this to the World, and that too with the highest aggravations, out of mere regard to his own Credit, and for vindicating the Severity of his own Proceedings, which most men thought were unjust? One would think it was very nigh as bad to affirm, That King Charles the First was justly put to death, as 'twas to hold, That his Son the Duke might be excluded: and why then was this latter mention'd in the Indictment, and not the former? To conclude, If Dr. H. knew any thing, six years ago, of P's maintaining these Three Propositions, why did he then conceal it? And if he knew nothing of it, how could he ex­pel him for it?

I have, I hope, sufficiently vindicated P. from the misrepresenta­tions of this Author; and I think I need say no more about it; but I have not yet done with the Author himself: I find him a peevish Man, and I'm unwilling to leave him as I find him, and therefore I'll try, if I can, to put him into good humour. And because there's no­thing he seems to like more than his Passive-Obedience, or Non-resistance (tho I am apt to think, he likes it somewhat less in this, than he did in the former Reign) I will, to please him, give it under my hand, That if he will still be for his Passive-Obedience in the present Reign, I will not oppose him; (and it may be I may get Mr. Johnson to subscribe the same) not that I think it a true Doctine any more now, than 'twas in the two late Reigns, but because I am persuaded that 'tis now be­come innocent, and will do no harm; for a Doctrine can do no harm when 'tis not believed: and neither King nor people will believe this Doctrine any longer. The late King James had sufficient experience of this Principle of Passive Obedience to his cost; and our present King is more Wise, and more Just, [Page 20]than to make tryal of it: And the people, I tro, will never more be fond of a Doctrine that renders their beings uncom­fortable in this World, since their Spi [...]itual Pastors are now of opinion, that they may get to Heaven without it. And, God be thanked, we are like to hear this Doctrine from the Pulpits no more; for they that have sworn Allegiance to King William, can't with any Grace Preach up a Doctrine that directly tends to dethrone him, by condemning all those that invited him hi­ther, and assisted him here, and set the Crown on his head: And they who have not sworn, and will not swear Allegiance to him, are never like to have any Pulpits to Preach in; unless the King and Parliament should, by an Act of Grace, think fit to indulge those, who declare themselves enemies to the present Constitution. So that, as far as I can see, this Doctrine of Passive-Obedience, and Non-resistance, must take shelter in Conventicles; (I mean new and upstart Conventicles; for the old ones, I believe, will not receive it, unless one can imagine that they like it any whit the better, because it now brings a testi­monial from a late dying Bishop): This Doctrine, I say, how­ever it be thought by some to be the Characteristick of the Church of England, must creep into private Meetings, and be Preach'd up in a Tub; And I hope that both Preachers and Hearers of this Doctrine will be few, and (a temper being speedi­ly found out to reconcile the Dissenters to our Church) the only Conventiclers in the Nation.