A LETTER TO Mr. SAMUEL JOHNSON, Occasioned by a scurrilous Pamphlet, entitled, Animadversions on Mr. Johnson's Answer to Jovian, in three Letters to a Country-Friend. At the End of which is reprinted the Preface before the History of Edward and Richard the Second, to the end every thing may appear clearly to the Reader, how little of that Preface has been answered. Both written by the Honourable Sir ROBERT HOWARD. London, Printed for Thomas Fox, at the Angel in Westminster-Hall, 1692. A LETTER TO Mr. JOHNSON. SIR, THE cause of my writing this to you, arises from a Pamphlet lately come forth, called, Animadversions on your Answer to Jovian, in three Letters to a Country-Friend. There is a kind of a Preface before them, which almost wholly concerns me. The first Displeasure he is pleased to show towards me, is mingled with a pretended Sorrow, that I should so absolutely resign my Judgement to a fond Passion for you. None sure but a nameless Author, would have ventured to such a Liberty as he has taken, to allow me no use of Judgement, and to charge me with want of Morals and Religion; how justly, I shall make appear hereafter. And I hope the impartial Reader will believe that I use my Reason and Judgement, when I own the continuance of my great Esteem of your defending a Cause so ably, for which you suffered so barbarously. And of all Men that ever discovered himself by writing, this furiously-passionate and nameless Author, would have the least power to convert me from the esteem of any thing; for such false and foul Scandals as he liberally scatters, will rather give an esteem of what he dislikes, than persuade any one from what he valued before. I will not repeat his confident Harangue of seeing with other men's Eyes, and hearing with other men's Ears; I will only assure him, that what Errors are committed are all my own: And according to his random shooting, he says you made Collections for me, and with little Fidelity: And in another place says, I knew that Julian and its Defence, were both made by a Club, and that Mr. Hunt and Mr. Atwood were the Furnishers of the most considerable Reflections upon Jovian. I confess I never met with such an audacious Confidence: You know, Sir, I was never acquainted with you till some time after this Revolution, and could not give you the trouble of any Assistance, which if I had received, I should perhaps have appeared with more advantage: and for Mr. Hunt and Mr. Atwood, I was never acquainted with them, or any thing they did. But there is more of this confident Stuff, which I shall take notice of in their proper Places. The first particular Charge against me is, That I had not read Jovian thorough; and then (as it is printed) says, if I had, I would have failed to observe the vast difference between calling Laws which secure the Rights of the Crown, Imperial Laws, and ascribing to our King's Imperial Power. I believe it should have been printed, I would not have failed, etc. but this way is much more true and natural: for I believe there are very few but would have failed, had they read Jovian through, to be instructed by this nice piece of Nonsense: For after the distinction of Political and Imperial Laws, the Absurdities follow very thick; and to help the Distinction, it must be distinguished between the Essence of Imperial and Sovereign Power, or the Exercise and Emanation of it; As to the Being and Essence of it, it is in as full perfection in the Jovian, pag. 211. Limited as in the Arbitrary Sovereign, though the Law confines him in the Exercise thereof. I confess I could never make sense of these Distinctions, nor understand how Power arbitrary, and in full perfection, can be limited, when such a Power may choose whether it will be limited or no: but for this I refer it to your Answer to Jovian, pag. 183. But after this he proceeds more loftily, and says, I slain my Honour by that unjust Charge on Dr. Hicks, saying, That Imperial Power may make a lawless Attempt lawful. In my Preface I say, if Dr. Hicks' Distinction be brought in aid, (I mean then) that Imperial Power may make a lawless Attempt lawful, I do not charge the Doctor with meaning it, but his Distinction makes it appear so: for I confess in all those Distinctions and Niceties of Political and Imperial Laws, which are nowhere written or to be found, of Power absolute and full, and yet limited, I could never gather any meaning, and therefore had been unjust to pretend to charge the Doctor with any. Dr. Hicks says, The Laws of all Governments Jovian, p. 274. allow every Man to defend his Life against an illegal Assassin; but in the next Page says, But to resist Assassins' (an Army) sent by the King, is a Transgression of the Imperial Laws. Certainly if it be lawful to resist an illegal Assassin, and not lawful to resist Assassins' scent by the King, it appears then that they are not illegal, and consequently what they do, becomes lawful: for what can appear more ridiculous than to say there is a Law, that cannot make it lawful for those that act by it, and yet can make it lawful for those that resist them? I confess I never met with any thing like this Description of an Imperial Law, unless the Character that Lungs gives the Philosopher's Stone in the Alchemist, that 'tis a Stone, and not a Stone. I cannot now make a just return to the nameless Author, by charging him that he has stained his Honour or his Reason; for I do not find he has enough of either, to bear a Spot or Stain. His next Snap is at my Quotations of Protestant Writers which favour the Doctrine of Resistance; and concludes, That he knows not how such Collections make for their Majesty's Service, and the Honour of the Reformation, it's possible this Noble Author doth. In the first place, I will show how he has used me about Quotations: True, there are two Mistakes in the printing; one is Thomas for Christopher Goodman, the other is Calvin upon Daniel, chap. 6. which should be chap. 4. ver. 25. I will now set down without the help of Philanax Anglicus, (a Book I never saw) the two Quotations of Calvin and Zuinglius. Quid enim valet saepe in Regum & Calvin. in Dan. 4. 25. Principum titulis Dei gratia? Nempe ne agnoscant Superiorem quemadmodum dicunt; Interea Deum, cujus clypeo se protegunt, calcarent pedibus: tantum abest, ut serio reputent se habere ejus beneficio ut regnent. Merus igitur fucus est, quod jactant se Dei gratiâ pollere dominatione. Quando vero Reges perfidè & extra Zuinglius, Tom. 1. Art. 42. regulam Christi egerint, possunt cum Deo deponi. Quod deponi ab Officio possint, Saulis exemplum manifestè docet, quem abjecit Deus, tametsi primum in Regem designâsset, 1 Reg. 15, & 16. Quin dum flagitiosi Principes & Reges loco non moventur, totus Populus à Deo punitur. Mihi ergo compertum non est, unde hoc fit ut Regna per successiones, & quasi per manus tradantur, nisi hoc publico totius populi consensu fiat. Quùm verò consensu & suffragio totius, aut certè potioris partis multitudinis, Tyrannus tollitur, Deo fit Auspice. Non desunt viae per quas Tyrannus tollatur, sed deest publica Justitia. As to that of Peter Martyr's Opinion, he is pleased to tell me the words that induced me to say that Peter Martyr approved the Proceedings against Richard the 2d; but his Confidence misguides him in this as well as the rest: His Words are these. Qui Principem Reipublicae praeficiunt Pet. Mart. in Jud. c. 3. certis Legibus, iis profectò licet, si Princeps pactis & promissis non steterit, eum in ordinem cogere ac vi adigere ut conditiones ac pacta quae fuerat pollicitus complete, idque vel armis, cum aliter fieri non possit. Hoc pacto Romani Consulem interdum, quem ipsi creârunt, abdicare se cogerunt. Dani suum Regem nostrâ aetate dejecerunt, atque captivum diutius habuerunt. Polydorus Virgilius tradit Anglos aliquando suos Reges compulisse ad rationem reddendam pecuniae malè administratae. This Opinion of Peter Martyr's agreeing with the case of Richard the second, and at the same time quoting Polydore Virgil, who writ upon that unfortunate King, made me say that Peter Martyr approved the Proceedings against him. If now this nameless Author will give me leave to use Admiration as he has done, I think I may justly wonder how any Man could use such unnecessary Malice, grounded upon so little Truth! but 'tis his way to avoid Argument, and bite at every thing else, to do another prejudice, and his Cause no good. I have seen an angry Cur bite at the motion of a Wheel, and only hurt his own Teeth. Besides, had he been pleased to have observed any thing with Moderation, he would have seen in my Preface, that I did not quote them with any particular deference, or use to my Discourse, but only because Dr. Hicks so often quoted Bochart a Reformed Divine; and there I expressly say, that I depend not on telling Noses, and therefore only give them a place in the Margin, that they might not interrupt my Discourse: but when I paid a particular deference to a Quotation, as that of Mr. Hooker one of the most eminent Divines that ever flourished in the Church of England, I then inserted it into the Body of my Discourse, and used it as a Foundation to build on. But this Gentleman, liberal of Affirmatives, having said that the Quotations of Zuinglius and Calvin were borrowed from Philanax Anglicus a Jesuit, makes it proper for me to skip to another Passage resembling this, that I may bundle up some of his bold Untruths together: for a little after continuing his invective Fancy, how dangerous it was to trust other men's Collections, excuses me for having had some temptation to trust being obliged to an honest Sorbon Doctor Launoy, de variâ Aristot. in Academic. Paris. Fortuna, as he citys it, for a true account of the various Decrees for and against Aristotle in the University of Paris; which makes as handsome an appearance as any thing in my Book. This Account of the Progress of the Philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, is in the introductive part of the History, not in the Preface: and since he seemed to give that Discourse some faint Allowance, I could not but wonder why he leaped so far out of his way for a snap; the Words are these; When the Occasion was ready for it, the puzzling Parts of Aristotle's Philosophy were found useful; and among all his dark Subtleties, none more convenient than that of separated Essences, which were Being's where no Being was; and the only proper Notion to find out a Place for Purgatory, and seemed also very useful to support the hard Point of Transubstantiation, where there appears a Substance that must not be believed to be there, and another believed to be there that is not at all to be perceived. I confess I thought at first that the occasion of this Snarl had been only to make a discovery of the Author I had been beholden to, (as his usual peremptory venture is) but I considered he could not be so unreasonable as to think it would be a blemish to me to use an Author, especially an honest one, as he says this was; for sure 'tis not to be supposed that I could make that Discourse without the use of more Authors than one, though it seems unknown to this adventurous Author: But reading a little after, I found his Displeasure broke out in these Words. I cannot forbear smiling at these pleasant Gentlemen, who have so extravagant an Opinion of Mr. J's Performance and Merit; nor can I envy him such Applauses, as show some little Wit, but no Judgement. Those merry Gentlemen too much despise the dark Subtleties of Aristotle to be competent Judges of the Merit of this Cause: their Heads lie readier to take a Jest than an Argument. I did not expect so good a Jest from this angry Gentleman. The cause that he assigns for want of Judgement, is the despising (that is, not understanding) the dark Subtileties of Aristotle, without which none can be competent Judges of the Merit of this Cause: and I agree wholly with him, that Aristotle's dark Subtleties of a Being where no Being is, and the equal dark Subtlety of an Imperial Law where no Law is, are likely to be understood together. But I hope he is not angry that the same Gentlemen despise Transubstantiation for depending on the same dark Subtleties; nor will continue his Smiles at those that esteem that incomparable Performance of yours, The absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated: if he should, he would very much increase the reason he has given to be laughed at himself. As for his two Authors, Philanax Anglicus, and his honest Sorbon Doctor, I solemnly protest I never read, nor to my knowledge saw one of them. So to sum up this Scribler's bold Untruths, he says, I have not read Jovian thorough, which I have done; and says, I have read those two Authors, which I have not done: and I submit it to Judgement how little Truth there is in him. But at the latter end of the Paragraph, he wonders what reason I had to bring afresh on the Stage such Passages as those of Calvin, etc. and then pretends a public Concern, and says he knows not how such Collections make for their Majesty's Service, and the Honour of the Reformation; perhaps [says he] the noble Author doth. I gave an account before for what reason I quoted those Reformed Divines, only because in Jovian, Bochart was so often cited; but I made no use of them in my Discourse, but I did of Mr. Hooker, an eminent Divine of the Church of England: so that my nameless Author should have asked the question why I used those Passages of his. But I will state the matter fairly, and then his meaning runs thus, I know not how these Arguments against Nonresistance and Passive Obedience, can make for their Majesty's Service, and the Honour of the Reformation; it's possible the noble Author doth. I readily answer him, That I think I do, and shall endeavour to demonstrate it: But first give me leave to be a little surprised that Dr. Hicks or his Friend, (who 'tis likely are the same in Principle, if not in Person) should be concerned for their Majestic Service, or the Safety and Honour of a Government, which Dr. Hicks R●no●●ces: and though it seems he could not with a safe Conscience officiate in his Calling under an Unlawful Power, made so by virtue of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience; yet, he says, he understands not how the opposition to this Doctrine can be for the Service of the Government. This is a strange Riddle, that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience made Dr. Hicks against the Government, and yet he understands not how the Opposition of that Doctrine can be for the Service of it. But leaving these Contradictions, I will endeavour to show him, I do understand upon what Foundation this Government, and the Safety and Honour of it stands. Perhaps he hopes it cannot be made out; and than it would be great rejoicing for Men of those enslaving Principles to see, that though we were freed from Popery and Slavery, which that Betraying Doctrine prepared for us; yet were still in the Condition of Slaves by the Power of Conquest. This has been boldly asserted by some Pens; but I leave it to you, Sir, to give this Opinion its due Correction, as you have promised in two of the Observators: And I doubt not but all true Englishmen will fully perceive this horrible Attempt against their Honour and Freedom, to see Endeavours used to turn that into Slavery, that was the Means to free us from it. I shall now proceed to show what I promised, and shall readily confess that I do not think the Principles I assert are for the Safety of one of Dr. Hicks' complicated Tyrants, but they may be for a good Prince that opposes Tyranny. 'Twas against these Principles that the Nation implored and obtained Relief, and according to their Original Right, fixed the Crown on their Reliever's Head. In the Prince of Orange's Declaration 'tis declared, The King cannot suspend the Execution of Laws, unless it is pretended that he is clothed with a Despotic and Arbitrary Power, and that the Lives, Liberties, Honours and Estates of the Subjects depend wholly on his good Will and Pleasure. And towards the end expressly declares, That his Design was to prevent all those Miseries which must needs follow upon the Nation's being kept under Arbitrary Government and Slavery; and that all the Violences and Disorders which have overturned the whole Constitution of the English Government, may be fully redressed in a Free and Legal Parliament. His additional Declaration is only to show how clear he was in these Principles, by taking occasion from some Reports spread about, that he intended to conquer and enslave the Nation: He there declares again, the Design of his Undertaking was to procure a Settlement of the Religion, and the Liberties and Properties of the Subjects, upon so sure a Foundation, that there might be no danger of the Nation's relapsing into former Miseries; and that the Forces he brought with him, were utterly disproportioned to that wicked Design of conquering the Nation, if he were capable of intending it. Adding a little after, That it was not to be imagined that those that invited him, or those that were already come in to assist him, would join in a wicked Design of Conquest, to make void their own lawful Titles to their Honours, Estates and Interests. Thus, contrary to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, the Foundation was laid for the Honour and Safety of the Government, upon a Free Parliament, which is the People there represented. Accordingly when by the unanimous Assistance and Consent of the Nation, the Prince of Orange came to London, a Convention was called, which assembled Jan. 22. 1688/ 9 After many Debates in both Houses about the Abdication of the Government, and the Vacancy of the Throne, the Houses on the 12th of February fully agreed to a Declaration; in which having enumerated the Particulars whereby King James did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, whereby he had abdicated the Government; the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, do in the first place, (as their Ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare, etc. And then proceed to enumerate the Particulars in which they are comprehended, which they claim and demand as their undoubted Rights and Liberties. To which Demand of their Rights, they say, they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange; Having therefore an entire Confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance so far advanced by him, etc. The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons assembled at Westminster, do resolve, That William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared King and Queen of England, France and Ireland, and the Dominions thereunto belonging. On the 15th of February his Majesty spoke thus to both Houses. My Lords and Gentlemen; This is certainly the greatest Proof of the Trust you have in Us that can be given, which is the thing that maketh Us value it the more: And we thankfully accept what you have offered. And as I had no other Intention in coming hither, than to preserve your Religion, Laws and Liberties; so you may be sure that I shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur in any thing that shall be for the Good of the Kingdom, and to do all that is in my power to advance the Welfare and Glory of the Nation. And in his Answer, the fifth of March 1688/9, to the Address of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons assembled in Parliament, he uses these Expressions. I came hither for the Good of the Kingdom, and 'tis at your Desire that I am in this Station: I shall pursue the same Ends that brought me▪ I hope by this Account I have showed my nameless Adversary, that the Safety and Honour of this Government was procured and founded against his Principles of Passive Obedience, which had they been as sacredly observed as he would have them, our Redemption had never been effected, and perhaps he had been better pleased. However he pretends to be concerned for the Honour and Safety of a Government, which is founded and settled, contrary to his Imperial Principles, upon that sure and happy Consent, that the Laws, Liberties and Properties of the Nation were not to be violated by any pretence of Power: 'tis this true Understanding, and undivided Interest of the King and People, that must secure and preserve the Honour and Safety of the Government; and the shaking of both must always proceed from the temptation and apprehension that Passive Obedience and the Imperial Law must infuse into the King and People. The next Dirt he would throw upon me is by a Side wind, and performed with as little Dexterity as the rest of his random-Flings; his Words are these. I think he is as little obliged by a third Person, who eased him of the drudgery of turning the Bible for Scripture-Examples of the Original Contract: for had Sir R. H. used his own Eyes in the search, he would have seen that the Instances of David and Jehoiada are no proofs that they were Pacta conventa, etc. Here he still persists in his usual Confidence, to tell me I have not read what I have read; for I did use my own Eyes, and never the assistance of a third Person: but he is pleased to call turning the Bible (I suppose he means reading it) a Drudgery: he would not own, I believe, that he thinks reading or searching the Scripture a Drudgery; but I suppose (by his usual uncharitable Methods) he would have it believed that I do. If he means it of himself, I ask him pardon for being so charitable to him; if he would fix it on me, 'tis certainly one of the most uncharitable and groundless Scandals his Passion could have invented; and at the same time gives himself a Character more like a Member of the Inquisition, than of the Church of England, who endeavour without proof or reason to raise Scandal and Persecution; which Method this nameless Gentleman has practised with as much uncharitable Violence, as any of those fierce pretenders to Religion have usually done. But, without thinking it a Drudgery, I will use my own Eyes, and cite some Verses of Scripture: The first, when David had seasted Abner. Abner said unto David, I will arise 2 Sam. 3. 21. and go, and will gather all Israel unto my Lord the King, that they may make a League with thee, and thou mayest reign over all that thy Heart desireth. Here it seems a League was thought necessary, that the King might reign. According to this, all the Elders of 2 Sam. 5. 3. Israel came to the King in Hebron; and King David made a League with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David King over Israel. And in another place, Therefore 1 Chron. 11. 3. came all the Elders of Israel to the King to Hebron, and David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David King over Israel, etc. And Jehoiada made a Covenant between 2 Chron. 23. 12. him, and between all the People, and between the King, that they should be the Lord's People. And 'tis yet more distinctly set down in another Place. And Jehoiada made a Covenant between 2 Kings 11. 17. the Lord and the King and the People, that they should be the Lord's People; between the King also and the People. I hope now my angry Enemy will give me leave to say I have used my own Eyes, and find his very dim, or else will not see the plainest Words, if against his Humour. But to invalidate these Proofs, he objects, That we read of no Covenant made with the Men of Judah, who anointed him King immediately on Saul's Death. And the Men of Judah came to Hebron, ● Sam. 2. 4. and there they anointed David King over the House of Judah. I know not how he would use this, unless he means that because a Covenant was not expressed here, therefore there was none spoke of any where else: it may rather imply that there was such a thing, because the People assembled, as they used to do at other times, when a Covenant was made. But I trouble myself needlessly with such a frivolous show of an Argument, and with his ridiculous Attempt, by his own notional Commentaries, to try to puzzle the clear Instances of David and Jehoiada, telling us that David's Covenant with the Elders was a plain Treaty of Peace, and that Joash was under Age, and therefore uncapable of contracting for himself, though the Scripture does say directly that a Covenant was made between the King and the People. But all that can be said is, that the Scripture differs from his Opinion; but 'tis enough that here 'tis expressly showed, that the People were made Parties. But this nameless Author might have spared these weak Endeavours, and used the Distinction (that helps at all needs) of Political and Imperial Law, and then he needs not fear to allow these to be Covenants according to the Political Law, since by the Imperial Law, the King may choose whether they shall be valid or useful; and so there needs no dispute whether a Covenant be a Covenant or no, which indeed was all the Question here. His next Assault proceeds in the method of an Inquisitor, in these Words. I might observe to you how little Reverence Sir R. discovers for Christian Religion; and amidst all his Zeal for it, takes the liberty to make sport with the Baptismal Vow, and calls the dreadful Judgement, which must pass on Kings as well as their meanest Subjects, a pretended Account to be made up only with God. The nameless Author has pulled these two Places together, to make an accumulative Charge; but that of the pretended Account is at the latter end of my Preface, and I shall give a separate account of it. But first give me leave to observe to you, how maliciously he endeavours to gain a belief of his own Truth and Ability, that he could make appear how little Reverence I discover for Christian Religion. I appeal to any that has perused how this Gentleman (if he be one) has treated me, whether they can believe that he would admit any thing that might fix the deepest Scandal upon me; and if he could have made evident what he would have others believe he could, he would certainly have changed his Style, and instead of I might, he would have said, I will now observe to you how little Reverence Sir R. discovers for Christian Religion, etc. But this is suitable to his Method of showing that his Malice exceeds his Understanding. But to make this appear yet more clearly, I will set down this Passage in my Preface, in which he pretends he might find out that I make sport with the Baptismal Vow. In that Place taking notice how Dr. Hicks having mustered up many Tyrants to mould into one King, yet affirms that such an Idolater and complicated Tyrant is not capable to do so much Mischief, as opposing him will cause: upon which I made this Reflection. 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 would have taught us 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 would be the cause of more Mischief to oppose the Devil, than to submit to him. I cannot imagine how this Gentleman out of these Words could pretend to find the least cause for his rancorous Insinuation, that I should make sport with that Baptismal Vow, which with a serious Reverence I make the Obligation of a just and equal Opposition against the Idolater, and such a complicated Tyrant, and the Devil; believing the Argument all one to say, that to oppose such an Idolater and complicated Tyrant, may be of greater Mischief than to submit to him, as to say, that to oppose the Devil by Prayers, may provoke him to more Mischief than he intended: and I see little difference in opposing the Devil, and such a complicated Tyrant, that acts according to his Instigation: the Just may depend on their Mercy alike, and the Bad shall be sure of their equal Favour. The Paragraph which mentions a pretended Account, in the latter end of the Preface, runs thus. By this Religious Duty of Passive Obedience equally paid to just and unjust, legal and illegal Power, the Sacrifices offered to God, are the persuasion 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. I submit this also to any reasonable Man to judge, what cause was given him by these Words for a Reflection of so high a nature. But he says, he hopes this last was rather the Infelicity of my Pen, than any bad Meaning. I wonder he should pretend to excuse me from any bad Meaning, after he had charged me with making sport with the Baptismal Vow. But if I should apply what he says to any sort of Infelicity in him, it must be to that violent and persecuting Humour that has governed too much in our late unhappy Times. The Words themselves I hope need no Explanation; for they speak only of an Account to be made up by wicked Men and Tyrants, which certainly can deserve no other Name than a pretended Account: some of them may perhaps be such Fools as to say in their Hearts, There is no God, and their Account can only be pretended: but for others, that may perhaps believe there is a God, and yet act contrary to his Laws, and the Duty they owe to that allseeing Power, 'tis certain they can never believe that they are able to make up an Account with him, though they may pretend to make one. But to put it more familiarly; Suppose the present French King (according to this useful Doctrine for him) should declare that his unlimited Tyranny in this World was not to be resisted, and give the Reason for it, That he was to make up an Account only with God; Sure there is none would believe, that he could make up an Account where Blood and Mischief had made the Balance so heavy on the Debtor's side: Can it therefore deserve any better Name than a pretended Account? These unworthy Attempts, to cast such groundless Scandals of so high a Nature, had merited another sort of Answer, if the Author's Name had been fixed to his Malice: and seeing how little cause has been given for it, I cannot but say, that in all other Writers I have seen some Endeavours to carry on their Discourse by a Stream of Reason; but this nameless Author only pours forth a Kennel, which I am weary of raking into. And he seasonably relieves me: for in this Place, in his full Career, he makes a sudden stop, and says, But I must remember that I am answering your Letter, and not Sir R's Preface. I shall only observe, that he that has snarled with so little cause, and showed such venomous Teeth, would probably have bit if he could; and he that has so passionately tried to wound in other things, would certainly have attempted, if he had Forces enough, to have obtained a Victory, where the whole Cause was concerned Sir, You had received this sooner, but my Indisposition has been so great, and my Aversion to Quarrels of this Nature, where Passion and Animosity, instead of Reason and Justice, guide the Argument, are Causes sufficient to excuse this Delay: And I believe the Gentleman's Arguments will as little prevail upon the World, as they have done upon me, to be less than I was, SIR, Your assured Friend, and humble Servant, Ro. Howard. Sir Robert Howard's PREFACE To his HISTORY of K. Edw. 2. and Rich. 2. I Was much surprised to see an imperfect Copy of this steal into Public, far from my knowledge 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 myself and others, to endeavour that they might need the least Pardon; and that my owning now the publishing of this, may rather be looked 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 produced 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 Ruin 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 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 People's 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 resigned 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 public Paths, they persuade 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 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 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 Warrantoes 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 time, by resolving the Queries of the Earl of Suffolk, the Judges made the King the sole Judge, not only of Law, 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 show Modesty in Nonsense. First they declared the Laws were the King's Laws, and in case of Necessity the King was to judge of those Laws; and than that the King was Judge 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 poisoned Judges, but by packing Parliaments, endeavoured 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 had a peculiar Tyranny to exceed them in. This threatening Storm upon the Souls of Men, was providently foreseen by the Parliaments of Westminster and Oxford, who therefore pressed 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 seemed 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 believed 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, 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 shows 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 worshipped, 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 received 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 received the benefit of 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 reassume 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 expressly 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, though 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. But before I proceed to show how this Right was, and continues in the People, I will take leave briefly to show 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 seemed 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 looked upon as the sharpest Arrows they could draw from all their Quivers; and than 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 prescribed as a general Remedy in all Public 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 Sovereign will Tyrannically take away a Subject's Life, against the Political Laws, he is bound by the Common Laws of Sovereignty not to resist him, or defend his Life against him by force. It is to be observed, 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 show 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 judge 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 declared 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 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 expressed 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 railed 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 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 Sovereign 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 fixed 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 guests 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, That a King is accountable to none but God. To make good this Opinion, he quotes some of the Churchof- England-Divines, and of the Reformed, Bochart a Frenchman, whose Authority he often repeats. As to these of the Church of England, Mr. Johnson has fully answered that, and quoted Statutes enough, and Judgements 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 Judgement 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. 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 Churchof- 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 Margin, 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 useful Zuinglius, 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 King's 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 of the subject Cal●in on Daniel, ch. 4. v. 25. In these Days Monarches 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 acknowledge no Superior? So it is therefore a mere Cheat, when they boast to reign by the Grace of God. Abdicant se terreni Principes, etc. 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 Sovereign Prince endeavours by Arms to defend Transgressor's, 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 Privileges and Rights, granted to Inferior Magistrates, or Commonalties, etc. they ought to defend the People of God, and maintain those things which are good and just: For to have Supreme 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 lived 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 be Peter Martyr on Judges, c. 3. Approves the Proceedings of the Parliament against Richard the Second. performed by the Neglect of Men. But if the Author Par●us on the Romans. They whose part it is to set up Magistrates, may restrain them from outrageous 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 professed Papist, and tell us to which of all his Gods he is to be accountable for Guilby de Obe. King's have their Authority of the People, who may upon occasion reassume it. our Good, whether to a piece of Bread, a Wafer, an Image, a Goodman on the same Subject. If Princes do right, and keep promise which you, then do you them all humble Obedience; if not, you are discharged, 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 itself it appears Christ. Goodman and Fenner, were two that fled from the bloody Persecution in Q. Mary's Days, and this Goodman had preached 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 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 judge when they may resist or withstand their Sovereign, is a thousand times more inconvenient and pernicious to Humane Society, than patiently submitting to the abuse of Sovereign 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, Nabuchadnezzar, 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 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 Nonresistance 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. 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 Ruin 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: 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 Ruin on his own and other Kingdoms, than he would ever attempt to have done, had he been opposed; and the Passive Obedience that was showed 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 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 Assassin (by which he shows 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 cleared; for an illegal Assassin, 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' Distinction be brought in aid, That the Imperial Power may make a lawless Attempt or Prosecution lawful, than his illegal Assassin 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 Judge, and cannot properly be judged by another. Now how these are to be reconciled, 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 Right to Self-preservation in one Condition as well as another: For we are told expressly, That in case the Sovereign will Tyrannically take away the Subject's Life, he is bound by the Common Laws of Sovereignty not to resist, or defend his Life against him by force. Now in the state of Nature, there is no Subject nor Sovereign; 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 ourselves by force, as in a Condition where we are free and naturally obliged to do it? But in this, as in other intoxicated Conditions, where Men have imbibed 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 set down the Doctrine asserted in our Days, when the hazard of Religion itself, did not seem to prevail above Flattery and Design; I will briefly show also the Opinions of our Ancient and most Authentic 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, etc. According to which seems grounded the Opinion, That a King is not a King, where Bracton. his Will governs, and not the Law. For if a King's Power were only Fortescue. Royal, than he might change the Laws, and charge the Subject with Callage, and other Burdens, without their Consent. But the King has a Superior Bracton. God, also the Law, by which he is made King. For a King is constituted, that he K. 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 from Fortescue. 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 their Bracton. 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 entered 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 oppressed 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 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 joined 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. Presuming Man to be, in regard of his depraved Mind, little better than a wild Beast, they do accordingly provide notwithstanding, so to frame his outward Actions, that they be no hindrance to the Common Good, for which Societies are instituted; unless they do this, they are not perfect: it resteth therefore, that we consider how Nature find out such Laws of Government, as serve to direct even Nature depraved, to a right End. To take away all such natural Grievances, Injuries and Wrongs, there was no way but growing into a Composition and Agreement among themselves, by ordaining some kind of Government Public, and by yielding themselves subject thereunto, that unto whom they granted Authority to rule and govern, by them the Peace, Tranquillity, and happy Estate of the rest may be preserved. Men always knew, that when Force and Injury was offered, they might be Defenders of themselves; they knew that however Men may seek their own Commodity, yet if this were done with Injury to others, it was not to be suffered, but by all good Men, and by all good Means to be withstood. Impossible it is that any should have complete Lawful Power, but by Consent of Men, or immediate Appointment of God; because not having the natural Superiority of Fathers, their Power must needs be either usurped, and then unlawful; or if lawful, then consented unto by them, over whom they exercise the same: They saw that to live by one Man's Will, became the cause of all men's Miseries; this constrained them to come into Laws. The Lawful Power of making Laws to command whole Politic Societies of Men, belongeth so properly unto the same entire Societies, that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind soever upon Earth, to exercise the same himself, and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God, or else by Authority derived at the first from their Consent, upon whose Persons they impose Laws, is no better than mere Tyranny. Laws they are not, therefore, which Politic Approbation hath not made so; but Approbation not only they give, who personally declare their Assent, by Voice, Sign or Act, but also when others do it in their Names, by Right originally derived from them, as in Parliament, etc. 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 Governor 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; 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 Virtue 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 changed, 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 pleased: 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 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 Commonwealths, 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 favoured of God, than any other Government; and that a King was in a special manner (not found among Men, but) dropped 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 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 acknowledge 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 Judgement; and persuaded 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 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 urged, 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, though Tyrants, for they, it seems, have a Divine Right to be wicked, and oppress or destroy a Nation by Arbitrary Power. As to the Point of Divine Right, certainly it must be fixed, 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 affixed 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 annexed 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 Nonresistance 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 Judgements frequently in Scripture against 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 expressed 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: — Victima haud ulla amplior Potest, magisque Opima mactari Jovi Quam Rex iniquus— In the History of Passive Obedience, 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 show 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 governed 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 expressly, That such a Man should govern them by his Unquestionable and Arbitrary Will, without any Obligation; or that he should govern them by Contract expressed 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 men's 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 Right to the present possession of the Place where he was when he agreed and sealed 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 persuasion 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 showed 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 expense of Blood, than Submission would have suffered to be spilt; and Arbitrary Tyranny changed into a Limited Monarchy. FINIS.