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 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 I submit this also to any reasonable Man to judg 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 all-seeing Power 't is 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 Ballance 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 fix'd 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 shewed such venemous 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 concern'd 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 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 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 't is that which ever did and ever will breed a Distrust in the People enough to shake all Confidence in their Prince and 't is 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
A LETTER TO Mr. SAMUEL JOHNSON Occasioned by a scurrilous Pamphlet intituled 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 shew towards me is mingled with a pretended Sorrow that I should so absolutely resign my Judgment to a fond Passion for you None sure but a nameless Author would have ventur'd to such a Liberty as he has taken to allow me no use of Judgment 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 Judgment 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 perswade any one from what he valued before I will not repeat his confident Harangue of seeing with other Mens Eyes and hearing with other Mens 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 thorow 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 Kings Imperial Power I believe it should have been printed I would not have failed c. 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 Non-sense For after the distinction of Political and Imperial Laws the Absurdities follow very thick and to help the Distinction it must be distinguish'd between the Essence of Imperial and Soveraign Power or the Exercise and Emanation of it As to the Being and Essence of it it is in as full perfection in the Limited as in the Arbitrary Soveraign 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 stain 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's 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 no-where 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 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 sent 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 Philosophers Stone in the Alchymist that 't is a Stone and not a Stone I cannot now make a just return to the nameless Author by charging him that he has stain'd 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 Majesties Service and the Honour of the Reformation it 's possible this Noble Author doth In the first place I will shew 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 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 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 Ã
not to be violated by any pretence of Power 't is 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 c. 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 believ'd 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 't is 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 practis'd 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 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 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 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 c. And Jehoiada made a Covenant between him and between all the People and between the King that they should be the Lord's People And 't is yet more distinctly set down in another Place And Jehoiada made a Covenant between 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 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 express'd 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 us'd to do at other times when a Covenant was made But I trouble my self needlesly with such a frivolous shew 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 't is enough that here 't is expresly shewed 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 Judgment 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 pull'd 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 Stile and instead of I might he would have said I will now observe to you how little Reverence Sir R. discovers for Christian Religion c. But this is suitable to his Method of shewing 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 muster'd 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
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 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 'T is 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 't is 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 't is 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 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 of France has made do not convince them 't is 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 lawless Attempt or Prosecution lawful then his illegal Assassine may be a lawful Executioner so that 't is 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 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 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 where his Will governs and not the Law For if a King's Power were only Royal then he might change the Laws and charge the Subject with Callage and other Burdens without their Consent But the King has a Superiour God also the Law by which he is made King For a King is constituted that he 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 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 Power by the Law which is the Bridle of Power So that the right understanding of 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 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 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 finde 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 Publick 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 compleat 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 usurp'd 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 Mens Miseries this constrained them to come into Laws The Lawful Power of making Laws to command whole Politick 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 Politick 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 c. 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 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 't were 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 where any thing is to be observed and obeyed there a perfect Superiority is acknowledged Whoever therefore is set up to