ACcording to your Desire I am very wil­ling to give you not only my own Judgment upon Mr. Iohnson's late Book, but that of others, who are much more able than I am my self to pass a Judgment of it: You know I live in a Place where Men of his Prin­ciples have been almost universally cry'd down as Enemies to the English Monarchy, and consequent­ly to the Church of England, (though neither you nor I are very clear in that Consequence, if there were any Foundation of Truth in the Premises) and where every thing that bears his Name, or that of any other Person who is under the same Prejudice here, was like to find but cold Entertainment: and yet I can assure you, that this Book has made some Converts amongst us, such, I mean, who were not our Enemies out of pure Malice; has stagger'd others, who were less settled upon their Lees; and has hardned others in their Impenitency, whose Eyes the God of this World has blinded, that they can­not believe nor understand.

[Page 4]It is observed in the Acts of the Apostles, and in­serted into Holy Writ by the immediate Inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, as a most notorious Instance of the Prevalency of the everlasting Gospel of Christ, Cap. 6. Vers. 7. that a great Company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith: as if they, of all Men, were the most obdurate and hardest to be wrought upon.

For such is the Infirmity of Mankind, that we must have Men to instruct us in our Duty; and the Veneration we naturally have for a Deity, car­ries us sometimes insensibly and unawares into an implicite blindfold Awe and Respect for the Per­sons of those Men who officiate at his Altar, preach his Word to us, and instruct us out of it in our Du­ty to him and our Neighbours.

But since God has put this Treasure in earthen Ves­sels, as St. Paul informs us (though perhaps that Expression, if it were not in Holy Scripture, might seem needless, for daily Experience taught us before he was born, and will do to the End of the World, that so it is) these Dispensers of his holy Word and Sacraments being Men of like Passions with us, have been apt to take Advantage of the Credulity of Mankind, and to inculcate things into us in the Name of the Lord, which the Lord hath not said, nei­ther came they into his Heart.

[Page 5]And having once taught us, in the Name of the Lord, Doctrines, which really are, and which sometimes they themselves know to be but Traditions of Men, (for I cannot have that Charity for them all, as to believe that they believe themselves) they are then obliged for the maintaining of their Credit, and by a spiritual Pride, which is very incident to ear­then Vessels, not to retract those Doctrines, which indeed they cannot do, without giving God or themselves the Lie, and without betraying the In­terest to which they think those Doctrines subservi­ent. And hence it comes to pass that Clergy-men of all others are hardest to be reclaimed from any Errors that they have once imbarqued in. Their Interest for the most part lies at stake; their Repu­tation, as Men of Learning and Judgment; and above all, as Men intrusted with the Oracles of God.

Accordingly we find by History both Sacred and Profane, that in all Nations, and in all Ages, the Clergy, whether Pagan, Iewish, Mahometan, Popish or Protestant, have muster'd all their Force from time to time, to oppose any Innovations whatsoever, either in Doctrine or Discipline, that have had the least Colour of being Alterations for the better.

The Iewish Clergy crucified our Saviour, and per­secuted his Apostles and Disciples, where they had any part of the Civil Power in their own Hands; and where they had not, they stirred up the Pagan [Page 6] Magistrates to do their Drudgery, in persecuting the Christians, as appears by the Acts of the Apostles.

The Pagan Clergy opposed Christianity, because if our Saviour's Doctrine of One only God were re­ceived, their multiplicity of Gods, and consequent­ly their several Temples, Altars, Victims, Priest­hoods, Profits, Perquisites, Advantages and Emo­luments whatsoever, thereunto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, would become utterly void and of none effect, to all Intents and Purposes what­soever.

How the Popish Clergy opposed the Reformation, and with what weak Arguments, but under how potent Inducements of another kind, we all know who have looked but a hundred and fifty, or two hundred Years backward into the History of this part of Christendom.

Examples of our Protestant Clergy I forbear to mention, because I would not be invidious; and because we live in an Age, in which Wounds ought rather to be indeavoured to be healed, than to be ripp'd into, and made wider.

But this hint is sufficient to inform us, how great Prejudices the Clergy, of what kind soever, la­bour under, with Respect to the maintaining what they have once espoused and taught; and conse­quently how great a Credit accrues to any Truth, by conquering their Prejudices, and gaining [Page 7] them to a Reception and Entertainment of it.

Which that this Book of Mr. Iohnson's has done in a great Measure in this University, I can and do assure you; and I will give you an Account by what Methods their Conviction proceeded, before I give you my own or any Bodies Censure of the Work it self.

They had their Education under the Reign of the late King Charles the Second, in whose times all the several Maxims and Principles of Tyranny were set on foot, and improved to the uttermost; the Government of this Nation represented as an absolute Monarchy; and that sort of Government indeavoured to be proved the only Government, that had any Foundation in Nature or Scripture. Hence proceeded the several Branches of Slavery, viz. that the Legislature was vested in the Person of the Prince only; and the two Houses of Parlia­ment, that of the Commons especially, as in consi­derable, as they are represented in the Beginning of Mr. Iohnson's Preface; the unalterable Right of Succession; the Irresistibility of Princes; and their darling new-coin'd Doctrine of Passive Obedience, the Characteristical Mark of the Church of England, to use the Words of a late Prelate, when he was about to give up the Ghost.

These Principles were then so far countenanced at Court, that the asserting of them in the Pulpit [Page 8] and in the Press, was then the only way to Prefer­ment in the Church; and Interest striking in with Education, the poor Gentlemen were tied Hand and Foot. Their Education was such as had de­prived them of Opportunities to be rightly in­formed; and their Interest going hand in hand with their Ignorance, they did not seek after Infor­mation.

That which contributed to their Blindness of Mind, was, that some Men, not merely Specula­tive and Notional, as Clergy-men generally are, the subject Matter of whose Studies and Enquiries is for the most part wrapp'd up in the Clouds, were set at work by the Court to perswade the Nation, that what the Clergy taught us, as the Law of God, was really and truly the Law of this Realm like­wise.

Our Gentlemen here have not used to trouble their Heads much with humane Laws, which they are apt to look down upon with Contempt, and account of them as a Knack only by which one sort of Men amongst us pick Money out of other Mens Pockets: but they had heard at a Distance of Fun­damental Laws, and were very ready to believe such Men as Brady, Iohnson, Filmer, &c. who told them as from History, Records, and the utmost Antiquity, that our Government was the same by our Law, that it was or ought to be by their Divinity.

[Page 9]Thus they were lull'd asleep, till the Consequen­ces of their Principles came to stare them in the Face in King Iames his time: Slavery they could digest, for that was what they had professedly own'd, preach'd and printed. But they were not aware that Slavery would bring in Popery, or whatever the Soveraign had a mind to, till they saw by Ex­perience that a Slave is a Dog that must leap over a Stick, and back again, as his Master bids him.

Being thus at a stand, and having no Remedy left them but their Prayers and Tears, it pleased God to stir them up a Deliverer, whom indeed they accepted at first with open Arms, tho some of them thought afterward he delivered them more than he needed: however, neither the Providence of God, nor the Authority of the States of the Realm, nor the Vox Populi would be limited and restrained by the Dreams of our Men of Theory.

The Revolution being thorowly wrought, they were glad to find themselves in the Condition they were in; and as the Wit of Man is fruitful of In­ventions, they cast about how to come in to the In­terest of this present Government, without renoun­cing what they had formerly so openly avow'd to [Page 10] be the Law of God: and according to their several Judgments, Wits, Apprehensions, Fancies, Whim­sies, Fooleries, &c. one submits to Providence, another to an Usurper, another to a King de facto, another to a Conqueror: one says, King Iames left us; another, we turn'd him out; another, Gallio-like, cares for none of these things, but submits to the Powers that are. Now this Book of Mr. Iohn­son's has so effectually, even in their own Judg­ments, and by their own Acknowledgments, beat them out of all these weak Strong-holds, that they begin to be satisfied, that what all the rest of Man­kind believe, is true; to wit, that there is no safe Rule for Conscience in Civil Affairs, but the seve­ral Laws of Nations: and this makes them see the necessity of enquiring into our Laws, if they will be Dogmatical in Matters of this nature, or else of submitting their Judgments to the States of the Realm Assembled in Parliament.

This great Work Mr. Iohnson's Book has done with many here: it has convinced them that Law is Law; and that heretofore they did not understand the difference betwixt Law and no-Law. And this Conviction having put some of them upon bending their Studies towards an Enquiry into the Laws of this Government, we may hope to see fulfill'd [Page 11] what was said by the Prophet; The Priest's Lips should keep Knowledg, and they should seek the Law at his Mouth, for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts.

The two Positions which Mr. Iohnson lays down in the beginning of his short Book, at the end of his Preface, viz.

‘That the People of England did actually De­throne King Iames the Second for Misgovern­ment, and promoted the Prince of Orange in his stead:’ And,

‘That this Proceeding was according to the English Constitution, and prescribed by it;’ Have used to be traduced by our Clergy as Repub­lican Principles; and as such are branded by a Re­verend Prelate of our Church, in a Preface of his to three Treatises concerning the Iesuits Loyalty: Where, according to the Genius of the Court, as it then was, he expresseth himself thus; viz. ‘It is allowed by all Friends to our King and his Government, that the Commonwealth-Princi­ples are destructive to it; and that none who own them, can give any sufficient Security for their Allegiance.’ ‘All the mischievous Conse­quences of the Republican Principles, do fol­low upon the Pope's owning the Power of depo­sing Princes.’ ‘However, the Primitive Chri­stians [Page 12] thought it no Flattery to Princes, to de­rive their Power immediately from God, and to make them accountable to him alone, as be­ing superiour to all below him; yet after the Pope's Deposing Power came into Request, the Commonwealth-Principles did so too, and the Power of Princes was said to be of another O­riginal, and that therefore they were accounta­ble to the People.’ ‘These Principles and Pra­ctices we of the Church of England profess to detest and abhor.’ ‘The Power of the People, and the Deposing Power of the Pope, are two fundamental Principles of Rebellion.’ ‘The Commonwealth's-men, when they are asked, how the People, having once parted with their Power, come to resume it? presently run to an implicit CONTRACT betwixt the Prince and the People, by virtue whereof the People have a fundamental Power left in themselves, which they are not to exercise, but upon Princes Vio­lation of the Trust committed to them.’ ‘Who made Conditional Settlements of Civil Power upon Princes? Who keeps the ancient Deeds and Records of them? For in all the first Ages of the Christian Church, this Conditional Pow­er and Obedience was never heard of.’

[Page 13]Here we see the Foundation upon which this Government stands, and under which this Author has accepted Preferment; and all the Proceedings of the Lords and Commons, and of the People, towards the effecting the late Revolution, are branded as Republican Principles, destructive to the Go­vernment; such as none who own, can give sufficient Security for their Allegiance; such as the Church of Eng­land professeth to detest and abhor; a CONTRACT betwixt Prince and People, turn'd into Ridicule, and what not?

Now this Gentleman took another Course in his Politicks, than Mr. Iohnson has done: A few Years after he wrote this Preface, he might per­haps enquire a little into our Antient Laws and Government; which it is to be presumed he was in a great measure in the dark concerning, when he let fly thus at random against Republican Prin­ciples of his own Christning. If he had consulted the Examples of our Forefathers, and the Provisi­ons made by them from time to time, even with the Concurrence and Assent, and by the Authori­ty of our Princes themselves, for the securing the Laws and Liberties of the People, and for a due and impartial Administration of Justice, according to settled and established Laws; he would hardly [Page 14] have traduced Positions, as new upstart Common­wealth-Principles, which have so deep a Root in the Legal Government of this Nation; and which whoever shall deny, does, as far as in him lies, set this present Government upon a rotten, sandy Foundation. He would then perhaps have learn'd to practise what he tells us the best Teachers of Christianity did, viz. ‘They never meddled with Crowns and Scepters, but left Mankind under those Forms and Rules of Civil Government, in which they found them.’ What greater and better Argument can be given against Church-mens introducing Religion or Christianity into the Forms and Rules of Civil Government, than what this Gentle­man acknowledges, viz. that our Saviour and his Apo­stles meddled not with it? They left the several Civil Governments to depend upon their own Laws, Po­licies, and Constitutions; and there, and no where else, are we to seek for a Rule and Guide to our Con­sciences in Matters relating to Allegiance and Pro­tection, the Power of the Prince, and the Duty of Subjects.

I am not here professedly taking upon me to maintain either of Mr. Iohnson's Positions, which no Man is better able to make good than himself; though there is no great need of his undertaking it [Page 15] neither, unless some or other should have the Im­pudence to contradict him.

But I must beg leave to observe that heretofore under the Reigns of Princes, whose Accession to the Throne was occasion'd by the Removal of their Predecessors; the Doctrine contain'd in Mr. Iohnson's second Position, was never look'd upon as dangerous to Princes, but countenanced and openly a vowed.

In the first Year of King Edward the Third, there are these observable Words in a Stature of that King, viz. ‘Whereas it was necessa­ry for our Soveraign Lord the King that now is, and the Queen his Mother, seeing the De­structions, Damage, Oppressions and Disheri­sons, which were notoriously done in the Realm of England, upon Holy Church, Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other Great Men, and the Com­minalty, by the said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmund Arundel, by the incroaching of such Royal Power to them, to take as good Counsel therein as they might. And seeing they might not remedy the same, unless they came into Eng­land with an Army of Men of War; and by the Grace of God, and with such Puissance, and with the Help of Great Men and Commons of the Realm, they have vanquished and destroyed [Page 16] the said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmund. Wherefore our Soveraign Lord the King that now is, at his Parliament holden at Westmin­ster, &c. hath provided, ordained and esta­blished, That no Great Man nor other, of what Estate, Dignity or Condition he be, that came with the said King that now is, & with the Queen his Mother into the Realm of England; nor none other then dwelling in England, that came with the said King that now is, and the Queen in Aid of them, to pursue their said Enemies, IN WHICH PURSUIT THE KING HIS FATHER WAS TAKEN AND PUT IN WARD, AND YET REMAIN­ETH IN WARD, shall not be impeached, mole­sted nor grieved in Person, nor in Goods, in the King's Court, nor other Court, FOR THE PUR­SUIT OF THE SAID KING, TAKING AND WITH­HOLDING OF HIS BODY, nor Pursuit of any other, nor taking of their Persons, Goods, &c.’

This same Parliament reversed the Attainders of several Persons who had assisted Thomas Duke of Lancaster, towards the Removal of the Spencers, Father and Son, from the Presence and Councils of King Edward the Second, and particularly the At­tainder of Thomas Duke of Lancaster himself, who, as Lord High Steward of England, had betaken him­self [Page 17] to Arms, to drive the Spencers out of the Realm­or to bring them to Justice, and had given the King Battel. And they not only reverse his At­tainder, but in a Letter to the Pope, give an Ac­count of his Worth, of the Justice of his Cause, that he died a Martyr, that Almighty God had been pleased to give a Testimony of his Innocence, &c. by permitting several Miracles to be wrought at his Tomb, which they desire the Pope to issue a Commission, to enquire whether they were real or not, and to canonize him for a Saint. The Re­versal of his Attainder, and this Letter, are yet ex­tant upon Record.

Nor could I ever meet in any of our Histories or Monuments, that give any Account of that Re­volution, that King Edward the Third claimed the Crown, either by Conquest, though he came from beyond Sea with a Force too, and routed and dispersed those evil Counsellors who had got the King into their Interest; or by Right of Inheri­tance, though he was indeed the next Heir, but could have no Title by Descent, as long as his Fa­ther was alive; or that any other Hypothesis was in­vented to colour his Accession to the Crown, than what was really true in Fact, which was no other than his being set up by the States of the Realm, [Page 18] who had deposed his Father for his Misgovern­ment, upon formal Articles of Impeachment, which are yet to be seen in Adam Orleton's Apology, at the end of Henry Knighton's Chronicle: Much less would that King have endured such as should charge him to his Face with Usurpation, and that he was a King de facto only, but not de jure.

We know how his Successor, King Henry the 4th, treated a couple of Prelates that opposed his Ti­tle, which was the same with that of his Grand­father, the Victorious King Edward the Third. The Bishop of Carlisle was proceeded against in Parlia­ment, and sentenced to Death, though the King was pleased to remit that. But for the Archbishop of York, the more virulent and bitter Adversary of the two, he made no more ado, but chopp'd his Head off.

Queen Elizabeth's Title to the Crown was by virtue of a Remainder settled upon her by Act of Parliament; other she had none, nor ever pretend­ed to any, for she stood Illegitimated by an Eccle­siastical Sentence confirmed by Act of Parliament: And so sure a Title she took this to be, and was so little ashamed to own it, that it was made Higk-Treason, during her Reign, to deny that the Suc­cession [Page 19] of the Crown might be altered by Act of Parliament, and a Praemunire for ever.

I mention these things, because we hear, to our Astonishment, that Mr. Iohnson's Book is not well receiv'd at Court; where, of all other places, in our poor Opinions, it ought to meet with the kind­est Entertainment, because it justifies his Majesty's Proceedings, which were previous to the Revolu­tion; and represents him, as the Truth is, to be a King, who has a Just and a Legal Right to the Crown by the Laws of this Realm.

By what Logick it can be made ill Doctrine, to assert the Lawfulness of removing bad Princes under the Government of good Ones, and those such, as upon a supposition of the Unlawfulness of removing bad Ones, can have no good Title to the Crown themselves, is what we cannot easily comprehend. But I have ever thought that Cour­tiers see farther into a Mill-stone than other Men, and that their way of Reasoning differs from that of the rest of Mankind, since I saw King Charles the Second heal: I took notice, that when the King put the Gold about their Necks that came to be Touch'd; the Bishop repeated over and over these Words out of St. Iohn's Gospel, viz. This is [Page 20] the true Light, which enlightneth euery Man that cometh into the World. I asked a Courtier what relation the meaning of those Words could have to such an Occasion? And he told me, that I interpreted Scri­pture like a Peasant, and did not understand the Court-Interpretation of Scripture.

But this Court, we think, would do well to consult their Master's Honour and Safety more, than to sacrifice both to the Interest, or indeed but the supposed Interest of a Party of Men, who in their Principles are his avowed Enemies, and con­sequently are obliged to be so in their Practice, if an Opportunity ever present it self; and who of all Mankind are seldomest in the right.

By discountenancing Mr. Iohnson's Discourse, they wound their Master's Honour in a double Re­spect; both his own personal Honour, and that of his Family.

His personal Honour, by contradicting him in his Declarations, and blemishing the Concurrence of others with him, to promote the Ends of his Expedition.

The Honour of his Family, by casting Dirt up­on a Principle, which raised it to so great an Emi­nency in the Low-Countries, as that both his Ma­jesty's [Page 21] Father and himself married into a Royal Family; by which his Majesty had an Opportu­nity, and has happily laid hold of it, to rescue a Distressed Nation from Tyranny and Oppression, and thereby to make so Illustrious a Figure as he does at present in this part of the World.

His Majesty accepted kindly that Learned and Ingenious Gentleman's Compliment to him, upon the singular and transcendent Honour, bereditary to his Family, of being the Champions of Almighty God, sent forrh in several Ages to vindicate his own Cause from the greatest Oppressions. Which he and they have no o­therwise done, than by espousing the Cause of Laws in opposition to the Exorbitancy of Princes, who obstinately declined to make them the Rule of their Government.

How far they endanger their Master's Safety, I pray God, neither his Majesty nor we may learn by woful Experience.

In short, either let them give his Majesty (say we) a legal Title to the Crown, which he cannot have but by the Laws of the Realm, which are the Foundation upon which every Government is built, that is not a Tyranny; or let them speak out round­ly, [Page 22] and say in plain Terms, that he is an Usurper, Plain Dealing's a Iewel.

One Consideration more I will add before I leave this Head; and that is, that Trajan the Em­perour, one of the greatest beyond dispute, and perhaps one of the worthiest and most excellent Princes that ever sway'd a Scepter, was so little concern'd whether his Subjects thought themselves obliged to yield Obedience to Tyrants or not, that one of his chief Favourites, and who knew his Mind very well, scrupled not to vent these bold and generous Truths in a Panegyrick made in his own Audience; viz.

Tuam Statuam in Vestibulo Iovis Optimi Maximi, unam alteramve & hanc aeream, cernimus. At paulò ante aditus omnes, omnes gradus, totaque area hinc auro, hinc argento relucebat, seu potius polluebatur; quum in­cesti Principis statuis permixta Deorum simulachra sorde­rent. Ergo istae quidem aereae & paucae manent, manebunt (que) quamdiu Templum ipsum; illae autem aureae & innumera­biles strage & ruina publico gaudio litaverunt. Iuva­bat illidere solo superbissimos vultus, instare ferro, sae­vire securibus, acsi singulos ictus sanguis dolorque seque­retur, (here the Author in the hearing of an excel­lent Prince, describes the Multitude tearing a Ty­rant [Page 23] to pieces in Imagination, and does it with Joy and Triumph:) [...] tam tem [...]erians gaudii seraeque L [...]titiae, quin instar ulti [...]nis videretur, cernere laceros artus, truncatamembra; postremo truces, horrendusque imaginis abjectas, excoctasque flammis, ut ex illo terrore & minis in usum hominum & voluptates mutarentur.

And a little after, Quùm de malo Principe posteri tacent, manifestum esteadem facere praesentem.

Then he puts Trajan into the same Class with Brutus, who was instrumental in delivering Rome f [...]om the Tyranny of the Tarquins, and him that help'd to kill Iulius Cesar in the Senate: Visuntur eâ­dem ex materiâ Caesaris Statuae, qua Brutorum, qua Ca­millorum. Nec discrepat causa. Illi enim Reges Ho­stemque Victorem moenibus depulerunt: hic Regnum ip­sum, quaeque alia captivitas gignit, arcet ac submovet; sedemque obtinet Principis ne sit Domino locus.

And whereas the Author of the Preface to the three Treatises, makes a Jest of Conditional Set­tlements of Power, Pliny tells us, that the publick Prayers for this Emperour were conceiv'd conditio­nally, viz. Si benè Rempublicam & ex utilitate om­nium rexerit.

[Page 24]He applauds him for countenancing and Tre [...] ­ring the Posterity of such as had signaliz'd them­selves in asserting the Laws and Liberties of their Country. An aliud a te quam senatus reverentia obti­nuit, ut juvenibus clarissimae gentis, debitum generi ho­norem, sed antequam deberetur, offerres? Tandem ergo Nobilitas non obscuratur, sed illustratur a Principe; tan­dem illos ingentium Virorum nepotes, illos posteros Li­bertatis, nec terret Caesar, nec pavet; quinimò festinatis bonoribus amplificat atque auget, & majoribus suis reddit.

He tells him that no Prince can be acceptable to God, who has not the Love of the People, and that therefore Trajan had concluded his Vota public [...] nuncupata, ut ita precibus suis Dii annuerent, si Iudicium Populi mereri perseverasset. Adeò (says Pliny) nihil tibi amore civium antiquius, ut ante a nobis, deinde a Diis, atque ita ab illis amari velis, si a nobis ameris. Et sanè priorum Principum exitus docuit, ne a Diis qui­dem amari, nisi quod homines ament.

And at the end of his Panegyrick the Author prays to Iupiter Capitolinus to preserve the Emperour to them and their Posterity, upon the same Con­dition; Si bene Rempublicam, si ex utilitate omnium rexerit.

[Page 25]And all these Principles were good Doctrine un­der the Reign of a good Prince; one, who when he delivered the Sword to the Commander in chief of the Pretorian Cohorts, gave it him with this Charge, viz. to use for him, if he deserv'd it: if not, to use it against him.

As Mr. Iohnson tells us truly, that Passive Obedience is calculated for Tyranny, so are the opposite Principles calculated for Liberty under a Free Government. Nor can any Prince be afraid of them, who is not conscious to himself that his Government is such, as deserves to have the Effects of them brought home to his door: and therefore whoever assert them under the Reign of a Just Prince, put the greatest Affront upon him imaginable, for conse­quentially they call him a Tyrant to his face.

I have argued with some of our Iure-Divino-Men upon this Topick, viz. That Passive Obedience is directly against the Law of the Nation, by which all Persons whatsoever, who act by virtue of any Authority derived from the Prince, must act at their Peril; for that if such Authority, Writ, Com­mission, or whatever it is, be not warranted by Law, the Persons who put it in execution, are Trespassers, and if they meet with Opposition, [Page 26] and kill the Opponents, are Murderers, because they acted without any Authority at all? for an illegal Commission is a void Commission, and a void Commission is no Commission. Whereas, according to our Passive-Obedience-Gentlemen, a void Commission, which our Law says ought not to be obey'd, does yet command our Obedience, equally with a Commission warranted by Law, be­cause it proceeds, forsooth, from the Authority of the Soveraign.

They have not been able to deny, being thus pressed, that Passive Obedience has no Foundation in the ancient Laws of this Realm; and have betaken themselves to a few Clauses in an Act or two of Parliament made since the Restauration of King Charles the Second: The one is the Corporation-Oath, whereby is renounced ‘the Traiterous Position of taking up Arms by the King's Authority a­gainst his Person, OR AGAINST THOSE THAT ARE COMMISSIONED BY HIM.’

Besides that this Oath is now taken away by an Act of Parliament in the first Year of their present Majesties Reign, they would do well to remem­ber what passed in the House of Lords in the Year 1675, when great Endeavours were used to have this Oath imposed as a Test upon the whole Nati­on; [Page 27] what was then alledged against it; and that the Bill was thereupon thrown out of the House. But the chief thing that I now think fit to mention, is, that in the very sense of the Parliament which passed it, Persons Legally Commissioned were under­stood, and no others: for it met with main Op­position in the House of Commons; and in parti­cular Sir Edward Vaughan, who was afterwards Lord Chief Iustice of the Court of Common-Pleas, made a long Speech, in which he shewed that by the Law the People of England not only might, but in some Cases were bound to take up Arms against Persons Commissioned by the King; and that Sheriffs of Counties were bound, if it could be done no other­wise, to raise the Posse Comitatus to oppose and sup­press all such as should put any such illegal Com­missions in Execution, if they proceeded so far as to compel Obedience to them; for then they be­came Rioters, and subject to the several Acts of Parliament made for the suppressing of such Offen­ders. To which Sir Heneage Finch, then Sollicitor General, and afterwards Earl of Nottingham, and Lord Chancellor of England, who was a great promoter of the Bill, made no other Answer but this, viz. That the word Legally needed not be inserted, for that it must of necessity be understood to be implied, be­cause Persons not Legally Commissioned, were not [Page 28] Commissioned at all. Upon which the Bill pas­sed. And for the truth of this I appeal to the Me­mories of some who are yet alive, and were Mem­bers of that Parliament, and present in the House at this Debate.

The same Oath, with very little Alteration in Words, is in the Act for ordering the Forces in the seve­ral Counties of this Kingdom, commonly called the Militia-Act: The Alteration is this, OR AGAINST THOSE THAT ARE COMMISSIONED BY HIM, IN PUR­SUANCE OF SUCH MILITARY COMMISSIONS Those Military Commissions are Commissions of the Lieutenancy, which we know to be settled and re­gulated by a Law; and therefore to swear not to oppose them, is no more than to swear not to fight against an Act of Parliament.

The rest are cursory Expressions in the Preambles of an Act or two, which we know do not make a Law.

But I fear the Fountain of the Errors that our Clergy have run into upon this Subject, is their fra­ming to themselves an Idol of their own invention, instead of a Legal English King. This Cheat was discovered early in the 7 th Year of the Reign of K. Iames the First, and complain'd of in an Apology of the House of Commons in those Days; viz. That instead of enquiring into what Power, Authority [Page 29] and Prerogatives the Kings of England enjoy by the Laws of this Nation, our Men of speculative Heads had framed to themselves a general Notion of the word King, as a Genus; had given it a Definition, and brought all Kings, and other single supreme Magistrates as Individuals, under that Definition.

By which Means the Laws and Constitutions of Nations were silenc'd; and whatever Government had a single Person at the Head of it, was equally subject to that single Person, however their several Laws and Constitutions respectively might limit and restrain his Power.

This pernicious as well as senseless Hypothesis strikes at the Root of whatever the Church is pos­sessed of in Temporals, as well as at the Liberty and Property of Lay-Subjects: for the Clergy have no Privileges, Jurisdictions, Endowments, &c. but what are conferred upon them, and secured to them by Law; which Law if they subject to the Personal Power of the Prince, their Injoyment of them is precarious, and they have nothing but his good Nature to depend upon.

Not to mention the Ingratitude they show, in having received so ample Endowments from the Charity of our Ancestors, who thought themselves Proprietors of their Estates, out of which they pro­vided [Page 30] so liberally for them, and yet indeavouring to inslave their Masters, and render their Liberty and Property precarious.

But St. Paul's Words to Timothy are verified in these Men, viz. Desiring to be Teachers of the Law, they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

We could wish that Mr. Iohnson had inlarged his Book with what he does but hint at, and barely mention, I mean the Doctrine of the Mirrour, the Confessor's Laws, the Curtana Sword, and the Power of the Lord High Steward, and other great Officers of the Kingdom: but particularly that he had gi­ven us an Account of the Authority of the Lord High Steward, concerning which Great Officer we find but some few Scraps here and there in any printed Book; but they are such as give us good Cause to believe that he was farther intrusted and impowred to redress Misgovernment in the State, than our Clergy are generally aware of; and tho there be no such standing Officer at this Day, yet there having been such an one, it would do well if we were informed both wherein his Office did par­ticularly consist, and how it came to be disused.

The Stile of Mr. Iohnson's Preface offends some amongst us, as too light and wanton for the Gra­vity [Page 31] of the Subject; others, as making too bold with his Superiours by personal Reflections. To the former, we who are his Friends, give this An­swer, That it is a very hard Matter for an Author to keep his Gravity, when he thinks he has nothing but Nonsense to encounter with. To the second, That his Sufferings having been so considerable, and perhaps his Disappointment so too, he may the better be allowed a Freedom of his Pen, in treating those, whom perhaps he may look upon either per­sonally, or in their Principles, to have been instru­mental in either.

Where we find so much Truth, so much Inte­grity, and such Strength of Reason, as appears in every Page of his Discourse, we can easily dispense with humane Infirmities, if more had really interve­ned, than what we hear are objected against him.