I Was much surpriz'd to see an im­perfect Copy of this steal into Publick, far from my knowledg or intention: for I was sensible it wanted Consideration in point of Hi­story. There were many material Things which I intended to have ad­ded, and others to leave out as unne­cessary to my Design. Considering therefore that my best and most cor­rect Performances could hardly chal­lenge Merit, I thought it just to my self and others, to endeavour that they might need the least Pardon; and that my owning now the publi­shing of this, may rather be look'd [Page 34] upon as an effect of Necessity than Confidence.

The Scheme of this was digested in the Year 85, I being very much af­fected with the Consideration how the Errors of ill Administration pro­duc'd the same fatal Effects upon those unhappy Princes, Edward and Richard the Second, the weight of whose ill Conducts was heavy enough to sink the prosperous and lofty▪ Condition their two glorious Predecessors, Ed­ward the First, and Edward the Third, had left the Kingdom in.

Nor was their resembling Ruine more observable, than the Causes of it. Their Predecessors applied all their Glories and Successes, to give, as it were, Lustre and Power to the Laws: these two unfortunate Princes attempted only by mean Practices to subdue them, and their own People. Those great Princes, Edward the First, and Edward the Third, might fix their Favours and Kindness on the People, since they parted with no Power to Ministers and Favourites; 'tis that which ever did, and ever will breed a Distrust in the People, enough to [Page 35] shake all Confidence in their Prince; and 'tis but natural it should have so fatal an Operation, since the true In­terest of a King differs totally from theirs; his best and securest Happi­ness is founded on the Peoples Good; their Interest and Ambition must be supplied by their Oppression. This is the seldom-failing Cause that has made all Princes unkind to their Peo­ple, that invest Ministers with their Power and Affections: and I am con­fident there are but few Stories that have given an account of a Prince so resign'd to others, but have likewise told of his Misfortune involved in theirs. That Power and Interest which a King ought to have, is not useful to them; and rather than suf­fer him to tread in publick Paths, they perswade him to follow the misgui­ding Meteor of Arbitrary Power.

I also considered the Proceedings of the Government in the latter part of King Charles the Second's Reign, and the short Reign of King James the Second, and perceived how ex­actly they followed the steps of these two unfortunate Kings, and I then [Page 36] expected to see a Revolution resem­bling theirs.

When King Charles had prepared things ready for Popery and Slavery, he seemed no longer useful to those that eagerly waited to assume that Power that the Papists had guided him to make ready for them: and as his Actions were like those misguided Princes, I believe his Death as much resembled theirs, and was equally as violent.

There was not a particular Action of any note of these two late Kings, that did not seem copied from those two unfortunate Princes; the Inte­rest of England prostrated to that of France; the murdering of great and considerable Men; the violent seizing the Rights and Liberties of the City of London; the Quo Warranto's on Corporations, consequently on the Nation; Laws prostrated to the King's Will, Westminster-Hall fitted with proper Judges for that Design. And as in King Richard the Second's time, by resolving the Queries of the Earl of Suffolk, the Judges made the King the sole Judg, not only of Law, [Page 37] but whether there should be any Law or no, and the Offence against▪ his Will became the only Treason: so the apt Judges of the King's-Bench in the Case of Sir Edward Hales, resol­ved the same, though in another man­ner; but in a more seeming abstruse way, as if they endeavoured to shew Modesty in Nonsense. First they de­clar'd the Laws were the King's Laws, and in case of Necessity the King was to judg of those Laws; and then that the King was Judg of the Necessity. And lastly, (as my Lord Coke says) to bring the worst Oppression upon us, which is done by the colour of Justice, they did not only attempt to corrupt the Law by poison'd Judges, but by packing Parliaments, endea­vour'd to confirm the begun Slavery by Statute-Law.

There was only one sort of Mis­chief, and the greatest, that those two unfortunate Princes had no occa­sion to be equal in with our two late Kings, especially King James; for they being then of the same Religion with the People, could not endeavour the subverting of it, so that K. James [Page 38] had a peculiar Tyranny to exceed them in. This threatning Storm up­on the Souls of Men, was provident­ly foreseen by the Parliaments of Westminster and Oxford, who there­fore press'd the Point by a Bill of Ex­clusion, to secure themselves against a Popish Successor. I was a Member of both those Parliaments, wherein the Debates seem'd to me very clear, and almost unanimous, and they were too well justified by the Popish Suc­cessor when he came to the Crown; for he made good the Foundation of their Opinions and Apprehensions, that such a one could never defend a Faith that was contrary to his, or be a Father to those he believ'd no Sons of God; as if it were possible that his Concern should be for their Liber­ties, that his Opinion had delivered up to eternal Slavery.

The truth of this appearing by his Actions, has (by this time I hope) bred a repenting Consideration in such as strenuously supported that which was so near bringing a Ruin on us all: and had not this King brought us such a timely Redempti­on, [Page 39] we had practised Passive Obedi­ence against our Wills, and in our Souls and Bodies felt the Misery of that Doctrine, the Encouragement of Destruction.

But yet we see a History of this Doctrine of Passive Obedience, new put forth, which is no better than an Arraigning this present Government, and all those that contributed to this happy Change, which shews as if there were some that would rather see the violent Destruction of their own Religion, than disturb the quiet Settlement of Popery; as if it were more Religious to suffer God not to be worshipp'd, than to pull down an Idol set up by a King, as if we were to believe he had a divine Right to consecrate Idolatry: but I leave that zealous History under the Exe­cution it has receiv'd from the Excel­lent Mr. Johnson, in his short Refle­ctions upon it, which can receive no greater a Character, than to be like himself, and his other Writings, both which were victorious in the midst of all his barbarous Persecutions. And as the Nation receiv'd the benefit of [Page 40] his Writings and Example, I doubt not but he will share a Reward pro­portionably to the Assistance he gave to their Redemption.

It will not be improper therefore to consider the Cases of those two Princes, Edward and Richard the Se­cond, who were deposed by the Peo­ple in their Representatives, presu­ming they had a Right to re-assume that Power which was derived from them, when any Prince forfeited the Trust they had placed in him, and acted contrary to his Executive Of­fice; and they expresly declared to King Edward the Second, that if he did not freely consent to a Resignati­on, they would not elect his Son Ed­ward, but such a one as might be pro­per for the Good of the People, tho no Relation to his Blood: and the King returned his Thanks, That since they had taken such a Displeasure a­gainst him, that they would yet be so kind to his Son. Nor has this E­lecting of Kings been so unusual in England, since seldom any Govern­ment has had more broken Successi­ons.

[Page 41]But before I proceed to shew how this Right was, and continues in the People, I will take leave briefly to shew what a Prince is according to their Doctrines, that have with an unlimited Zeal asserted Passive Obedi­ence, and the Laws to be only the Properties of a King's Arbitrary Will.

I remember when Julian the Apo­state came out, many of the Clergy seem'd very much disturbed; and as I was informed, there was a Club that assisted the Answer to it, called Jovian: I mention this, that when from thence I set down the Positions of that Doctrine of Passive Obedience, they may be look'd upon as the shar­pest Arrows they could draw from all their Quivers; and then if any Weak­ness or Contradictions appear in them, methinks the War should be at an end, when the Joint Forces under a chosen Hector are defeated, and the Rout and Disorder comes from their own Opinions, that fall foul upon one another.

In many Places of Jovian, an unli­mited Passive Obedience is prescrib'd as a general Remedy in all Publick [Page 42] Diseases; that is, Destruction is the best Recipe against Destruction, and the Disease is to become the Cure. But the Author having heard of such a thing as Laws, and not knowing how to put them out of the way, to make room for this Doctrine, which makes a Destroyer lawful, he finds out a Diamond to cut a Diamond, and a Law never heard of, to destroy the known Laws, in these sublime Words.

The Political Laws are made to de­fend the Rights of the Subject; but in case the Soveraign will Tyrannically take away a Subject's Life, against the Poli­tical Laws, he is bound by the Common Laws of Soveraignty not to resist him, or defend his Life against him by force.

It is to be observ'd, that here are two sorts of Law, God's Law, and the Devil's Law: that which supports and defends Right, is God's Law; that which takes away Life unjustly, is the Devil's Law; for he was a Murderer from the beginning.

But Contradictions are so frequent in that Discourse, that I do not won­der to see the zealous Author shew [Page 43] one in his own particular; and inco­gitantly perhaps, profess a violent Resolution to break his own sacred Rule of Passive Obedience: For, I suppose, if a Woman scolds, and gives hard Names, she is not Passive, for then Billingsgate is Passiveness incor­porated: And I shall desire the Rea­der to judg whether there be much difference in theirs, and our Author's active Tongue-Assault; for he loudly cries out with a very sharp Excursion, That he should rather think it his Duty, than the breach of it, to tell, not only a Popish Prince, but a Popish King to his Face, did he openly profess the Popish Religion, That he was an Idolater, a Bread-Worshipper, a Goddess-Worship­per, an Image-Worshipper, a Wafer-Worshipper, with an &c. as if he had more Names in store for him:

But I must do the Author right, to let the Reader know, that Jovian was written when King James the Second was Duke of York, and had not de­clar'd himself a Papist; and perhaps he thought he would never have done such a rash thing: but yet for fear of the worst, the Author retreats to his [Page 44] Doctrine of Passive Obedience, from this dangerous Sally he had made with an unadvised Boldness; and then tells us, 'tis reasonable to depend on the Conscience of a Popish King; and seemingly returns to a modest Repen­tance, that he had express'd such a Displeasure against one that worship­ped more Gods than one; for after this terrible muster of hard Names, he falls back as he was, and pays such a profound Devotion to Passive Obedi­ence, that now he seems to extend it even to Thoughts, as not to think ill of his own rail'd at Idolater: this, I suppose, may be called forward and backward, or to blow hot and cold in the same breath, to make the Contra­dictions appear plain enough.

This Opinion yet he sticks most to, if you will trust him as much as he advises you to trust the Idolater, and tries to give you a Reason for it; for he says, That Suffering, as in the Case of the Thebean Legion, can never hap­pen in Great Britain; we of these Kingdoms having such Security against Tyranny as no People ever had. I sup­pose he forgets his own Position, and [Page 45] means a Truth that he before destroy­ed; the Security he means, if he can mean any, after he has taken away all, must be the Political Power, that is, the Laws. Can any Man have the Charity to believe, that he could think he proposed any Security from Laws, that had set up an Imperial Power, or Soveraign Law, as he calls it, (which is the Will of a King) to take them all away, if he pleases? He might as well tell us of a Security by certain Deeds, to all which were fix'd Revocations, and yet would have us depend on such Arbitrary Settlements, without Right or Pow­er to oppose those Revocations: thus the continued Contradictions appear that mingle with such Notions. A Man that stutters much in his Speech, is hardly to be understood; but such an excessive Stammering in Writing, makes it much harder to guess what a Man means.

But in another place he gives us an additional Reason for trusting, and to deter us from examining a Tyrant's Actions, or opposing the Imperial, that is, Arbitrary Power; which is, [Page 46] That a King is accountable to none but God.

To make good this Opinion, he quotes some of the Church-of-Eng­land-Divines, and of the Reformed, Bochart a French-man, whose Autho­rity he often repeats. As to these of the Church of England, Mr. Johnson has fully answered that, and quoted Statutes enough, and Judgments of Convocations in Queen Elizabeth's Time, that assert and support a con­trary Doctrine to this unlimited Pas­sive Obedience; for they approved the Resistance of those in Scotland and France, who actively, and by force, attempted to defend their Religion and Liberties. I shall only add the Precedent of King Charles the First, reputed the Church of England's Martyr: He was of the same Judg­ment with the Church and State in Queen Elizabeth's time, witness that Business of Rochel, who took Arms upon the same account, and received Assistance from him, which approved an active Opposition against the Op­pression brought on their Religion and Liberties.

[Page 47]But I find not only our Author, but he that writ the History of Passive Obedience, is a great Admirer of Bo­chart, calling him the Glory of the Reformed: and having quoted many of the Church-of-England-Divines, he then, as well as Bochart's Letters to Dr. Morley, quotes some other of the Reformed Divines. But though I do not think this Cause depends, as Mr. Johnson says, upon telling No­ses; yet I will set down in the Mar­gent, that I may not interrupt my Discourse, the several Opinions of e­minent Reformed Divines, which the Author of the History of Passive Obedience, being so industrious to search Opinions, must probably omit, as not being usefulZuinglius, Tom. 1. Art. 42. When Kings reign perfidious­ly, and against the Rules of Christ, they may according to the Word of God be deposed. I know not how it comes to pass, that Kings reign by Succes­sion, unless it be with consent of the People. When by consent of the whole People, or the better part of them, a Tyrant is deposed, or put to Death, God is the chief Leader in that Action. for his business: and indeed there are ve­ry few Arguments that may not be sup­ported with Opini­ons; for Flattery, Design, or present Interest, has caused more Opinions than the true & just Rea­son [Page 48] of the subjectCal [...]in on Daniel, ch. 4. v. 25. In these Days Monarchs pre­tend always in their Titles, to be Kings by the Grace of God, which they pretend, that they might reign without Contract; for to what purpose is the Grace of God mentioned in the Title of Kings, but that they may acknowledg no Superiour? So it is therefore a mere Cheat, when they boast to reign by the Grace of God. Abdicant se terreni Principes, &c. Earthly Princes depose them­selves, while they rise against God. Matter could ever allow.

But if we should build a Confidence on this Foundation, and the Prince be such a one, as either does not believe, or consider there is such an Account to be made up, we should be miserably decei­ved. Bucer on Matth. If a Soveraign Prince endea­vours by Arms to defend Trans­gressors, to subvert those Things which are taught in the Word of God, and bears himself not as a Prince, but as an Enemy, and seeks to violate Priviledges and Rights, granted to Inferiour Ma­gistrates, or Commonalties, &c. they ought to defend the People of God, and maintain those things which are good and just: For to have Supream Power, lessens not the Evil committed by that Pow­er, but makes it the less tolera­ble, by how much the more ge­nerally hurtful. And it hath not been frequently known, that a Prince has liv'd as if he ever apprehended any Ac­count in the other World, to be given of his Actions in this: all these Doctrines are but insinuating Flatteries to make Princes forget Men; for the Service of God can hardly bePeter Martyr on Judges, c. 3. Approves the Proceedings of the Parliament against Richard the Second. performed by the Neglect of Men.

[Page 49]But if the AuthorPar [...]us on the Romans. They whose part it is to set up Magistrates, may restrain them from outragious Deeds, or pull them down; but all Magistrates are set up either by Parliament, or by Electors, or other Magi­strates; they therefore that exal­ted them, may lawfully degrade and punish them. would have us be­lieve that a King is accountable to none but God, he ought to explain himself to us in the particular of K. James the Second,Fenner Theo. They who have Power, that is, a Parliament, may either by fair means, or force, depose a Tyrant. a profest Papist, and tell us to which of all his Gods he is to be accountable forGuilby de Obe. Kings have their Authority of the People, who may upon occa­sion reassume it. our Good, whether to a piece of Bread, a Wafer, an Image, aGoodman on the same Subject. If Princes do right, and keep promise wich you, then do you them all humble Obedience; if not, you are discharg'd, and your Study ought to be in this case, how you may depose and punish according to the Law, such Re­bels against God, and Oppressors of their Country. Goddess, or to all. I could not have been so ingenious, as to make his own Positi­on so ridiculous, as he himself has con­trived to do it; but in it self it appearsChrist. Goodman and Fenner, were two that fled from the bloody Persecution in Q. Mary's Days, and this Goodman had preach'd many times upon the Doctrine concer­ning Obedience to Magistrates, which he was desired to publish in a Treatise; as is testified by Whittingham in the Preface. a very strange Do­ctrine, to trust to the Account a Popish King is to make with his God, for those he be­lieves his God will [Page 50] damn. 'T would seem as rational for a Man to take an Estate to hold by the Life of a Man, that he believed was to be certainly executed.

There is another as rational a Pro­position to incline us to believe and depend on this Doctrine of Passive Obedience, That Subjects to have a right to judg when they may resist or withstand their Soveraign, is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Society, than patiently sub­mitting to the abuse of Soveraign Pow­er.

And in another place confirms this with a Notion of a very high strain, telling us, that a Popish Successor, or give him what Character you please, nay, let him be a complicated Tyrant, a Pharaoh, Achab, Hieroboam, Ne­buchadnezzar, all in one; nay, let the Spirit of Galerius, Maximin, and Max­entius come upon him; yet, he is sure, it will cost fewer Lives and Desolation, to let him alone, than to resist him.

This Author is very apt to be fierce and lofty in his Expressions; as if Noise would be more prevalent than Reason. Before, he mustered up [Page 51] False Gods that a King worshipped; and now musters up as many Tyrants to mould into one King: And yet such an Idolater and complicated Ty­rant, is not capable to do as much Mischief, as opposing him will cause. He could have invented but one strain higher for the Cause of Passive Obedi­ence, by adding the Devil to the Ido­later and complicated Tyrant, and then our Passive Obedience had been to submit, to what in Baptism we pro­mised to fight against, the World, the Flesh, and the Devil: And the Posi­tion holds as true in relation to him, as such a Prince, that it were the cause of more Mischief to oppose the Devil, than to submit to him.

Dr. Sherlock expresses this more modestly, That Non-Resistance is the best way to secure the Peace and Tran­quillity, and the best way for every Man's private Defence; for Self-defence may involve many others in Blood, and be­sides, exposes a Man's self. And in another place tells us, 'Tis the best way to prevent the change of a Limited into an Absolute Monarchy.

[Page 52]This is not to prove the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, but the Benefit of it; and in some measure it may possibly be true, that weak and par­ticular Defences or Oppositions, may rather bring Destruction upon some, than save all; but a Nation cannot fall under that Danger, that unitedly defends its own Religion and Laws. On the other side, the passive Sub­mission to such a complicated Tyran­ny, must more probably hazard the Subversion of Religion and Laws, and consequently Freedom and Pro­perty. And indeed 'tis a strange As­sertion, that all these Qualities joined in one Man, cannot do as much Mis­chief, as a Nation's opposing the Ru­ine that he would bring upon them: which resolves into this Absurdity, that if they have a Right to relieve themselves, yet 'tis unwise to attempt it, for fear of causing that which would certainly be done without it.

But these Positions have been suffi­ciently confuted by several Tyrants, who have destroyed as much as they could have done, had they been en­raged by any unsuccessful Oppositi­on: [Page 53] And at this very instant, the King of France may convince any one, that there was hardly more Cru­elty to be committed, than has been acted by him. He had corrupted most of Christendom to this prudent Passiveness, by which he was capable to bring more Ruine on his own and other Kingdoms, than he would ever attempt to have done, had he been opposed; and the Passive Obedience that was shewed at first to his grow­ing Tyranny, did not prevent, but cause the change of a Limited into an Absolute Monarchy: so that on the contrary, the Doctrine of Passive Obedience seems calculated for the Me­ridian of Tyranny.

I hope this Argument will be yet more confuted by the Benefit Chri­stendom will receive by the opposing that Tyrant, whose Persecution of Christians, and burning Countries, does not yet seem to the Asserters of Passive Obedience, to be Mischief e­nough, to allow that an unresisted Tyrant cannot do as much, as will probably happen by opposing him. Certainly if the Destruction the King [Page 54] of France has made, do not convince them, 'tis only that Mischief is not Mischief, if done by a King.

But Dr. Hicks says, That the Laws of all Governments allow every Man to defend his Life against an Assassine (by which he shews his Imperial Law is no Law of Government.) And Dr. Sherlock tells us, No Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him that has no Authority to take it a­way.

By this confession of the two Lear­ned Doctors, the Point seems to be clear'd; for an illegal Assassine, and one that has no lawful Authority to kill, is, I suppose, all one; and what­ever is acted or done in such a nature against Law, is Murder; so that all that is done against Law, may be rightfully opposed. For surely they cannot mean (though they speak in the singular Number) that it is law­ful to oppose one Man that acts against Law, and not many; that is to say, a lawless Prosecution, if by many, is not a lawless Prosecution: and if Dr. Hicks's Distinction be brought in aid, That the Imperial Power may make a [Page 55] lawless Attempt or Prosecution lawful, then his illegal Assassine may be a lawful Executioner: so that 'tis re­duced to this Demonstration, That their Position is either Nonsense, or a direct Confutation of their own Do­ctrine.

I will only add one Confutation more, that Dr. Sherlock gives to this Doctrine, which is in his own words; That every Man has the right of Self-preservation as entire under a Civil Go­vernment, as he had in the state of Na­ture.

This is a great Truth; but if it be so, their Doctrine must be false; for in the state of Nature, no Man owes a submission to another; for being under no Covenants or Obligations, he remains free from Subjection, and is his own Judg, and cannot properly be judged by another. Now how these are to be reconcil'd, seems very difficult, I think I may say impossi­ble; that a Man under Government should pay Passive Obedience to every thing, and a Man in the state of Na­ture not obliged to pay Obedience to any thing, and yet to have as equal a [Page 56] Right to Self-preservation in one Con­dition as well as another: For we are told expresly, That in case the Sove­raign will Tyrannically take away the Subject's Life, he is bound by the Com­mon Laws of Soveraignty not to resist, or defend his Life against him by force. Now in the state of Nature, there is no Subject nor Soveraign; and there­fore by the contrary, a Man may de­fend his Life against Violence. And what can be meant then, by having as much Right of Self-preservation under a Civil Government, where we are told we must not preserve our selves by force, as in a Condition where we are free and naturally ob­lig'd to do it? But in this, as in o­ther intoxicated Conditions, where Men have imbib'd something too strong for them, in the midst of their disorderly Expressions, Truth will sometimes break out, contrary to their Interest, and (perhaps) intem­perate Designs.

But though I do not believe that the Reason of any thing is to be sub­mitted, because such or such are of this or that Opinion; yet since I have [Page 57] set down the Doctrine asserted in our Days, when the hazard of Religion it self, did not seem to prevail above Flattery and Design; I will briefly shew also the Opinions of our Anci­ent and most Authentick Authors, which have been often quoted; and therefore I will be very short in it.

I will begin with an Original A­greement in Magna Charta, printed by the present Bishop of Salisbury; which declares, That if the King should Uiolate any Part of the Char­ter, and refuse to rectify what was done amiss, it should be lawful for the Barons and People of England, to distress him by all the ways they can think of, as Seizing his Castles, Pos­sessions, &c.

According to which seems groun­ded the Opinion,

That a King is not a King, whereBracton.his Will governs, and not the Law.

For if a King's Power were onlyFortescue.Royal, then he might change the Laws, and charge the Subject with Callage, and other Burdens, without their Consent.

[Page 58] But the King has a SuperiourBracton.God, also the Law, by which he is made King.

For a King is constituted, that heK. Edw's Laws.should govern the People of God, and defend them from Injuries, which un­less he performs, he loses the very Name of a King.

From that Power which flows fromFortescue.the People, it is not lawful for him to Lord it over them by any other Power, that is, a Political, not a Regal Power.

Let Kings therefore temper theirBracton.Power by the Law, which is the Bri­dle of Power.

So that the right understanding of Grotius de Jur. Bell. ac Pac. this Law of Resisting, or not Resisting, in Cases of Necessity, seems to depend on the Intention of those that first entred into Civil Society, from whom the Right of Government is devolved on the Per­sons governing.

Certainly no Civil Society ever made a Contract with intention to be oppress'd or destroyed; and he there observes, that Men did not at first unite themselves in Civil Society by any speci­al Command from God, but for their [Page 59] own Safety, to withstand Force and Vio­lence; and from this the Civil Power took its rise.

I will now proceed to a more pro­per way of Argument than Quotati­ons; and briefly consider the Reason of Government, and the necessary Consequences, in respect of the Con­ditions of the Governing, and the Go­verned; and as a Builder that designs to build strongly, I will use a Founda­tion laid by that excellent Architect Mr. Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity.

I will faithfully transcribe his Words; and though not join'd toge­ther in his Discourse, yet the Reason is so strong that guides an Argument of this nature, that it has naturally its own Cement and Connexion, which will appear in these following Words.

Thus strengthened by this great Man, to whom the Church of Eng­land has justly paid a particular Ve­neration, I shall with the more confi­dence proceed to do the Nation Ju­stice, and begin with those granted and undeniable Principles, That the Authority, Power and Right of Self-Defence and Preservation, was natu­rally and originally in every indivi­dual Person, and consequently united in them all, for Ease, Preservation and Order; but every one could not be a Governour and Governed: and without Agreement where to fix a useful Power, to execute such conve­nient Agreements or Laws, as should be consented to for their own Good and Benefit, they could not be safe against one another; for if Interest and Appetite were the free Guides, without the check of any Law or Pu­nishment, Mankind must be in a state of War, and destroying one another, the certain Consequence of that Con­dition; [Page 63] for Faith and Justice in all, could not be depended upon to be suf­ficiently binding, unless Men had no depraved Natures, but had been en­dued with such Original Vertue and Justice, that they were as sure and careful of their mutual Preservations, as Laws, or the fear of Punishment could oblige them.

For this reason were Laws invent­ed, and consented unto; and 'twere a fatal Absurdity, if the Cause was for Preservation by the Power of such Laws, that those Laws should have no Power to limit or confine the Au­thority of Him or Them that were chosen to govern by the Conditions contained in them; for otherways the Mischief was but chang'd, and they that out of a reasonable appre­hension had bound themselves from oppressing one another, should give unlimited Power to others to do it, if they pleas'd: so that unless this ridi­culous Supposition could be granted, it must be acknowledged of conse­quence, that though the Magistrate was set above the People, yet the Law was set above the Magistrate: For [Page 64] where any thing is to be observed and obeyed, there a perfect Superiority is acknowledged.

Whoever therefore is set up to go­vern by these Rules and Covenants, must of consequence have only an Ex­ecutive Power committed to him by the People. It has ever been acknow­ledged by all Common-wealths, that their Power is derived from the Peo­ple: And why should it not be ac­knowledged, that a King has the same derivative Power? They that would argue against this, should be well furnished with plain Texts of Scrip­ture, to prove that the Government by Kings was more favour'd of God, than any other Government; and that a King was in a special manner (not found among Men, but) dropp'd down from Heaven to govern a Peo­ple intentionally created for him, and he therefore accountable to none but GOD.

But this, I suppose, will be very hard for the most willing Flatterers to find out; but the contrary appears frequently in Scripture: David first made a Covenant with the Elders of [Page 65] Israel. And when Jehoash was made King, Jehoiada the Priest made a Co­venant between him and the People: but some of our passive Zealots would have such Covenants to be void in themselves, and yet acknowledg it an Offence not to observe them; but the Offence must be answerable to God, not to Man: which is only Doctrine for encouragement of Sin, to invite good Princes to grow bad, and make a Religious Duty the secu­rity of Tyrants.

Power seldom permits Religious Thoughts to prevail, or the unplea­sant remembrance of what's to come after this Life: And if a King either forgets, or does not believe a Future Judgment; and perswaded by such flattering Doctrines to be so like a God, as to be Unquestionable here, he must look upon his Subjects as his Slaves, and their Goods his Chattels, and their Inheritances his Estate: so that Laws are unnecessary for Preservation or Punishment, since his unquestioned Will may save or destroy. For if Laws and Compacts were of force, 'twere equally just and legal, that if [Page 66] for Offences against them, the Subject should forfeit for himself, that the King for the violation of the same Laws should forfeit as well.

If it should be urg'd, that an Oath is taken as the only Security, that is begging the Question, it may be as a farther Security; but the Original and never-to-be-separated Rights of those from whence Power was deri­ved, must be the surest: for there is no danger but from the Bad, and they are more apprehensive of Punishment in this World, than the remote Ter­rors of the other. And if an Oath were sufficient Security, why are not all Magistrates sufficiently obli­ged, and we secured by such Obliga­tions, and ought not as well to be li­able to any Account or Punishment in this World? But this they will al­low to be ridiculous, for Magistrates may be wicked and corrupt, and their Oaths no Security against the Oppres­sion or Destruction of many: but this just Reason must not extend to Kings, tho Tyrants, for they, it seems, have a Divine Right to be wicked, and op­press or destroy a Nation by Arbitra­ry Power.

[Page 67]As to the Point of Divine Right, certainly it must be fix'd, and arise from something. Naturally every Man has alike a Divine Right to his Life, Freedom and Estate; but these, by the Pact he has made, may be for­feited by offending against those Laws he had covenanted to obey; and by reason of that Pact, a King has a Di­vine Right, which is affix'd to all Contracts. Now if there were no Contract, nor Office in a King, in what can he have a Divine Right? If it be annex'd to Name or Power abstractedly, without those Conside­rations, then Force or Violence gain­ing Power and Name, is attended presently by Divine Right; and the destruction of our Religion and Laws, Murder and Rapine, may be conse­crated by Divine Right, inseparable from Power, whether just or unjust: and if Passive Obedience and Non-Re­sistance be sacredly to be paid to all this, that Divine Right we have to our Lives and Properties, may be ta­ken away by this Divine Right.

But God has pronounced temporal Judgments frequently in Scripture a­gainst [Page 68] Tyrants and wicked Kings, for oppressing and destroying the People. Ahab by colour of Law (the worst sort of Tyranny) found out two false Witnesses to swear Blasphemy against Naboth, that he might forfeit his de­sired Inheritance; for which Ahab forfeited also his Succession: and the Reason is plainly exprest by the Pro­phet Elijah to him, Thou hast killed, and taken possession. And how does it appear that God has altered such De­terminations, and now by a Right from him, made all Wrong unquesti­onable in this World? Samuel slew a King, and gave Tyranny for the Rea­son, Because he had made Women child­less; and did not respite his Punish­ment, till he had made his Account with God. He seemed of the Opini­on that Seneca the Tragedian makes Hercules declare:

In the History of Passive Obedience, [Page 69] there is a very learned Man quoted, that calls the Contract between King and People, an Implicit Contract; but he might have been pleased to call this Doctrine of Passive Obedience, more properly an Implicit Doctrine, since 'tis grounded more upon their own Imagination, than Reason or Scripture; and the Texts need be ve­ry plain, to shew that Divine Right in the Person of any Man, from whence they derive the Passive Duty, Religiously to suffer the Destruction of Religion, and justly to obey Vio­lence and Injustice, to encourage Ty­ranny, and zealously promote Slavery.

In that Author I find also a Questi­on, which they presume very weigh­ty; How the People having once par­ted with their Power, came to resume it?

In my Opinion, any one that were govern'd by Reason, not so disturbed as theirs, would wonder at such a Que­stion; as if it were the same thing for a Man to grant Estates absolutely, as under Conditions and Revocations: And so for the People to make a Con­tract expresly, That such a Man [Page 70] should govern them by his Unquesti­onable and Arbitrary Will, without any Obligation; or that he should govern them by Contract exprest in Laws. And the Question then more naturally arises on the other side, If People have never parted with any Power but Conditionally, how came they to lose it Absolutely?

There are few that will not allow Resistance to be lawful against a Fo­reign Prince that invades us to make us Slaves, or against an usurping Ty­rant, that gets forcibly into Power; and yet another that is in the right possession of Power, may turn a Ty­rant, and we must passively submit to the Mischiefs he is pleased to bring on Mens Lives and Properties; as if a lawful Accession to a Crown, can better justify the Violation of Right, than an Usurping Power: For by that reason there is a Title of doing wrong, derived from the Right to a Power that was to protect from Wrong. If a Man should seal Bonds in a House where he had a rightful Possession, is he therefore less liable to pay or per­form Covenants, because he had a [Page 71] Right to the present possession of the Place where he was when he agreed and seal'd the Security? And by the same reason it appears, that the King of France has as much Right to go­vern us, as a King of England to go­vern us; for every Prince has equal Right to Slaves: for Power is all the pretended Right to Slavery. And if the Contract between King and Peo­ple be implicit, there is certainly but an implicit Difference between Slaves and Subjects.

By this Religious Duty of Passive Obedience, equally paid to just and unjust, to legal and illegal Power, the Sacrifices offered to God are the per­swasion to Tyranny, the security of Mischief, the encouragement of Sin, the destruction of good Men, and the preservation of the Bad; Lastly, the justifying of Wrong by Divine Right, and a pretended Account to be made up only with God, to defraud his People of their just Rights here.

But I hope this late Happy Revo­lution has satisfied every undesigning Heart beyond all Arguments, and [Page 72] shewed the Falseness of their Reasons, as well as prevented the Mischiefs of their Doctrine; since, contrary to their Assertions, we have seen Oppo­sition with much less expence of Blood, than Submission would have suffered to be spilt; and Arbitrary Tyranny changed into a Limited Monarchy.