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
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
us'd those Passages of his But I will state the matter fairly and then his meaning runs thus I know not how these Arguments against Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience can make for their Majesties 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 surpriz'd that Dr. Hicks or his Friend who 't is likely are the same in Principle if not in Person should be concerned for their Majestiâ— Service or the Safety and Honour of a Gâ—vernment which Dr. Hicks Râ—noâ—â—ces and tho 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 Passiâ—e 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 shew 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 then 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 shew 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's complicated Tyrants but they may be for a good Prince that opposes Tyranny 'T was against these Principles that the Nation implor'd and obtain'd Relief and according to their Original Right fix'd the Crown on their Reliever's Head In the Prince of Orange's Declaration 't is declared The King cannot suspend the Execution of Laws unless it is pretended that he is clothed with a Despotick 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 expresly 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 redress'd in a Free and Legal Parliament His additional Declaration is only to shew 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 c. 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 advanc'd by him c. 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 't is 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 shewed my nameless Adversary that the Safety and Honour of this Government was procur'd and founded against his Principles of Passive Obedience which had they been as sacredly observ'd 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
against the Political Laws he is bound by the Common Laws of Soveraignty not to resist him or defend his Life against him by force It is to be observ'd that here are two sorts of Law God's Law and the Devil's Law that which supports and defends Right is God's Law that which takes away Life unjustly is the Devil's Law for he was a Murderer from the beginning But Contradictions are so frequent in that Discourse that I do not wonder to see the zealous Author shew one in his own particular and incogitantly perhaps profess a violent Resolution to break his own sacred Rule of Passive Obedience For I suppose if a Woman scolds and gives hard Names she is not Passive for then Billingsgate is Passiveness incorporated And I shall desire the Reader to judg whether there be much difference in theirs and our Author 's active Tongue-Assault for he loudly cries out with a very sharp Excursion That he should rather think it his Duty than the breach of it to tell not only a Popish Prince but a Popish King to his Face did he openly profess the Popish Religion That he was an Idolater a Bread-Worshipper a Goddess-Worshipper an Image-Worshipper a Wafer-Worshipper with an c. as if he had more Names in store for him But I must do the Author right to let the Reader know that Jovian was written when King James the Second was Duke of York and had not declar'd himself a Papist and perhaps he thought he would never have done such a rash thing but yet for fear of the worst the Author retreats to his Doctrine of Passive Obedience from this dangerous Sally he had made with an unadvised Boldness and then tells us 't is reasonable to depend on the Conscience of a Popish King and seemingly returns to a modest Repentance that he had express'd such a Displeasure against one that worshipped more Gods than one for after this terrible muster of hard Names he falls back as he was and pays such a profound Devotion to Passive Obedience that now he seems to extend it even to Thoughts as not to think ill of his own rail'd at Idolater this I suppose may be called forward and backward or to blow hot and cold in the same breath to make the Contradictions appear plain enough This Opinion yet he sticks most to if you will trust him as much as he advises you to trust the Idolater and tries to give you a Reason for it for he says That Suffering as in the Case of the Thebean Legion can never happen in Great Britain we of these Kingdoms having such Security against Tyranny as no People ever had I suppose he forgets his own Position and means a Truth that he before destroyed the Security he means if he can mean any after he has taken away all must be the Political Power that is the Laws Can any Man have the Charity to believe that he could think he proposed any Security from Laws that had set up an Imperial Power or Soveraign Law as he calls it which is the Will of a King to take them all away if he pleases He might as well tell us of a Security by certain Deeds to all which were fix'd Revocations and yet would have us depend on such Arbitrary Settlements without Right or Power to oppose those Revocations thus the continued Contradictions appear that mingle with such Notions A Man that stutters much in his Speech is hardly to be understood but such an excessive Stammering in Writing makes it much harder to guess what a Man means But in another place he gives us an additional Reason for trusting and to deter us from examining a Tyrant's Actions or opposing the Imperial that is Arbitrary Power which is That a King is accountable to none but God To make good this Opinion he quotes some of the Church-of England-Divines and of the Reformed Bochart a French-man whose Authority he often repeats As to these of the Church of England Mr. Johnson has fully answered that and quoted Statutes enough and Judgments of Convocations in Queen Elizabeth's Time that assert and support a contrary Doctrine to this unlimited Passive Obedience for they approved the Resistance of those in Scotland and France who actively and by force attempted to defend their Religion and Liberties I shall only add the Precedent of King Charles the First reputed the Church of England's Martyr He was of the same Judgment with the Church and State in Queen Elizabeth's time witness that Business of Rochel who took Arms upon the same account and received Assistance from him which approved an active Opposition against the Oppression brought on their Religion and Liberties But I find not only our Author but he that writ the History of Passive Obedience is a great Admirer of Bochart calling him the Glory of the Reformed and having quoted many of the Church-of England-Divines he then as well as Bochart's Letters to Dr. Morley quotes some other of the Reformed Divines But though I do not think this Cause depends as Mr. Johnson says upon telling Noses yet I will set down in the Margent that I may not interrupt my Discourse the several Opinions of eminent Reformed Divines which the Author of the History of Passive Obedience being so industrious to search Opinions must probably omit as not being useful 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 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 And it hath not been frequently known that a Prince has liv'd as if he ever apprehended any Account in the other World to be given of his Actions in this all these Doctrines are but insinuating Flatteries to make Princes forget Men for the Service of God can hardly be performed by the Neglect of Men. But if the Author 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 a profest Papist and tell us to which of all his Gods he is to be accountable for our Good whether to a piece of Bread a Wafer an Image a Goddess or to all I could not have been so ingenious as to make his own Position so ridiculous as he himself has contrived to do it but in it self it appears 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
govern by these Rules and Covenants must of consequence have only an Executive Power committed to him by the People It has ever been acknowledged by all Common-wealths that their Power is derived from the People And why should it not be acknowledged that a King has the same derivative Power They that would argue against this should be well furnished with plain Texts of Scripture to prove that the Government by Kings was more favour'd of God than any other Government and that a King was in a special manner not found among Men but dropp'd down from Heaven to govern a People intentionally created for him and he therefore accountable to none but GOD. But this I suppose will be very hard for the most willing Flatterers to find out but the contrary appears frequently in Scripture David first made a Covenant with the Elders of Israel And when Jehoash was made King Jehoiada the Priest made a Covenant between him and the People but some of our passive Zealots would have such Covenants to be void in themselves and yet acknowledg it an Offence not to observe them but the Offence must be answerable to God not to Man which is only Doctrine for encouragement of Sin to invite good Princes to grow bad and make a Religious Duty the security of Tyrants Power seldom permits Religious Thoughts to prevail or the unpleasant remembrance of what 's to come after this Life And if a King either forgets or does not believe a Future Judgment and perswaded by such flattering Doctrines to be so like a God as to be Unquestionable here he must look upon his Subjects as his Slaves and their Goods his Chattels and their Inheritances his Estate so that Laws are unnecessary for Preservation or Punishment since his unquestioned Will may save or destroy For if Laws and Compacts were of force 't were 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 urg'd that an Oath is taken as the only Security that is begging the Question it may be as a farther Security but the Original and never-to-be-separated Rights of those from whence Power was derived must be the surest for there is no danger but from the Bad and they are more apprehensive of Punishment in this World than the remote Terrors of the other And if an Oath were sufficient Security why are not all Magistrates sufficiently obliged and we secured by such Obligations and ought not as well to be liable to any Account or Punishment in this World But this they will allow to be ridiculous for Magistrates may be wicked and corrupt and their Oaths no Security against the Oppression or Destruction of many but this just Reason must not extend to Kings tho Tyrants for they it seems have a Divine Right to be wicked and oppress or destroy a Nation by Arbitrary Power As to the Point of Divine Right certainly it must be fix'd and arise from something Naturally every Man has alike a Divine Right to his Life Freedom and Estate but these by the Pact he has made may be forfeited by offending against those Laws he had covenanted to obey and by reason of that Pact a King has a Divine Right which is affix'd to all Contracts Now if there were no Contract nor Office in a King in what can he have a Divine Right If it be annex'd to Name or Power abstractedly without those Considerations then Force or Violence gaining Power and Name is attended presently by Divine Right and the destruction of our Religion and Laws Murder and Rapine may be consecrated by Divine Right inseparable from Power whether just or unjust and if Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance be sacredly to be paid to all this that Divine Right we have to our Lives and Properties may be taken away by this Divine Right But God has pronounced temporal Judgments frequently in Scripture against Tyrants and wicked Kings for oppressing and destroying the People Ahab by colour of Law the worst sort of Tyranny found out two false Witnesses to swear Blasphemy against Naboth that he might forfeit his desired Inheritance for which Ahab forfeited also his Succession and the Reason is plainly exprest by the Prophet Elijah to him Thou hast killed and taken possession And how does it appear that God has altered such Determinations and now by a Right from him made all Wrong unquestionable in this World Samuel slew a King and gave Tyranny for the Reason Because he had made Women childless and did not respite his Punishment till he had made his Account with God He seemed of the Opinion that Seneca the Tragedian makes Hercules declare 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 't is grounded more upon their own Imagination than Reason or Scripture and the Texts need be very plain to shew that Divine Right in the Person of any Man from whence they derive the Passive Duty Religiously to suffer the Destruction of Religion and justly to obey Violence and Injustice to encourage Tyranny and zealously promote Slavery In that Author I find also a Question which they presume very weighty How the People having once parted with their Power came to resume it In my Opinion any one that were govern'd by Reason not so disturbed as theirs would wonder at such a Question as if it were the same thing for a Man to grant Estates absolutely as under Conditions and Revocations And so for the People to make a Contract expresly That such a Man should govern them by his Unquestionable and Arbitrary Will without any Obligation or that he should govern them by Contract exprest in Laws And the Question then more naturally arises on the other side If People have never parted with any Power but Conditionally how came they to lose it Absolutely There are few that will not allow Resistance to be lawful against a Foreign Prince that invades us to make us Slaves or against an usurping Tyrant that gets forcibly into Power and yet another that is in the right possession of Power may turn a Tyrant and we must passively submit to the Mischiefs he is pleased to bring on Mens Lives and Properties as if a lawful Accession to a Crown can better justify the Violation of Right than an Usurping Power For by that reason there is a Title of doing wrong derived from the Right to a Power that was to protect from Wrong If a Man should seal Bonds in a House where he had a rightful Possession is he therefore less liable to pay or perform Covenants because he had a Right to the present
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
misguiding Meteor of Arbitrary Power I also considered the Proceedings of the Government in the latter part of King Charles the Second's Reign and the short Reign of King James the Second and perceived how exactly they followed the steps of these two unfortunate Kings and I then expected to see a Revolution resembling theirs When King Charles had prepared things ready for Popery and Slavery he seemed no longer useful to those that eagerly waited to assume that Power that the Papists had guided him to make ready for them and as his Actions were like those misguided Princes I believe his Death as much resembled theirs and was equally as violent There was not a particular Action of any note of these two late Kings that did not seem copied from those two unfortunate Princes the Interest of England prostrated to that of France the murdering of great and considerable Men the violent seizing the Rights and Liberties of the City of London the Quo Warranto's on Corporations consequently on the Nation Laws prostrated to the King's Will Westminster-Hall fitted with proper Judges for that Design And as in King Richard the Second's time by resolving the Queries of the Earl of Suffolk the Judges made the King the sole Judg not only of Law but whether there should be any Law or no and the Offence against his Will became the only Treason so the apt Judges of the King's-Bench in the Case of Sir Edward Hales resolved the same though in another manner but in a more seeming abstruse way as if they endeavoured to shew Modesty in Nonsense First they declar'd the Laws were the King's Laws and in case of Necessity the King was to judg of those Laws and then that the King was Judg of the Necessity And lastly as my Lord Coke says to bring the worst Oppression upon us which is done by the colour of Justice they did not only attempt to corrupt the Law by poison'd Judges but by packing Parliaments endeavour'd to confirm the begun Slavery by Statute-Law There was only one sort of Mischief and the greatest that those two unfortunate Princes had no occasion to be equal in with our two late Kings especially King James for they being then of the same Religion with the People could not endeavour the subverting of it so that K. James had a peculiar Tyranny to exceed them in This threatning Storm upon the Souls of Men was providently foreseen by the Parliaments of Westminster and Oxford who therefore press'd the Point by a Bill of Exclusion to secure themselves against a Popish Successor I was a Member of both those Parliaments wherein the Debates seem'd to me very clear and almost unanimous and they were too well justified by the Popish Successor when he came to the Crown for he made good the Foundation of their Opinions and Apprehensions that such a one could never defend a Faith that was contrary to his or be a Father to those he believ'd no Sons of God as if it were possible that his Concern should be for their Liberties that his Opinion had delivered up to eternal Slavery The truth of this appearing by his Actions has by this time I hope bred a repenting Consideration in such as strenuously supported that which was so near bringing a Ruin on us all and had not this King brought us such a timely Redemption we had practised Passive Obedience against our Wills and in our Souls and Bodies felt the Misery of that Doctrine the Encouragement of Destruction But yet we see a History of this Doctrine of Passive Obedience new put forth which is no better than an Arraigning this present Government and all those that contributed to this happy Change which shews as if there were some that would rather see the violent Destruction of their own Religion than disturb the quiet Settlement of Popery as if it were more Religious to suffer God not to be worshipp'd than to pull down an Idol set up by a King as if we were to believe he had a divine Right to consecrate Idolatry but I leave that zealous History under the Execution it has receiv'd from the Excellent Mr. Johnson in his short Reflections upon it which can receive no greater a Character than to be like himself and his other Writings both which were victorious in the midst of all his barbarous Persecutions And as the Nation receiv'd the benefit of his Writings and Example I doubt not but he will share a Reward proportionably to the Assistance he gave to their Redemption It will not be improper therefore to consider the Cases of those two Princes Edward and Richard the Second who were deposed by the People in their Representatives presuming they had a Right to re-assume that Power which was derived from them when any Prince forfeited the Trust they had placed in him and acted contrary to his Executive Office and they expresly declared to King Edward the Second that if he did not freely consent to a Resignation they would not elect his Son Edward but such a one as might be proper for the Good of the People tho no Relation to his Blood and the King returned his Thanks That since they had taken such a Displeasure against him that they would yet be so kind to his Son Nor has this Electing of Kings been so unusual in England since seldom any Government has had more broken Successions But before I proceed to shew how this Right was and continues in the People I will take leave briefly to shew what a Prince is according to their Doctrines that have with an unlimited Zeal asserted Passive Obedience and the Laws to be only the Properties of a King 's Arbitrary Will I remember when Julian the Apostate came out many of the Clergy seem'd very much disturbed and as I was informed there was a Club that assisted the Answer to it called Jovian I mention this that when from thence I set down the Positions of that Doctrine of Passive Obedience they may be look'd upon as the sharpest Arrows they could draw from all their Quivers and then if any Weakness or Contradictions appear in them methinks the War should be at an end when the Joint Forces under a chosen Hector are defeated and the Rout and Disorder comes from their own Opinions that fall foul upon one another In many Places of Jovian an unlimited Passive Obedience is prescrib'd as a general Remedy in all Publick Diseases that is Destruction is the best Recipe against Destruction and the Disease is to become the Cure But the Author having heard of such a thing as Laws and not knowing how to put them out of the way to make room for this Doctrine which makes a Destroyer lawful he finds out a Diamond to cut a Diamond and a Law never heard of to destroy the known Laws in these sublime Words The Political Laws are made to defend the Rights of the Subject but in case the Soveraign will Tyrannically take away a Subject's Life
possession of the Place where he was when he agreed and seal'd the Security And by the same reason it appears that the King of France has as much Right to govern us as a King of England to govern us for every Prince has equal Right to Slaves for Power is all the pretended Right to Slavery And if the Contract between King and People be implicit there is certainly but an implicit Difference between Slaves and Subjects By this Religious Duty of Passive Obedience equally paid to just and unjust to legal and illegal Power the Sacrifices offered to God are the perswasion to Tyranny the security of Mischief the encouragement of Sin the destruction of good Men and the preservation of the Bad Lastly the justifying of Wrong by Divine Right and a pretended Account to be made up only with God to defraud his People of their just Rights here But I hope this late Happy Revolution has satisfied every undesigning Heart beyond all Arguments and shewed the Falseness of their Reasons as well as prevented the Mischiefs of their Doctrine since contrary to their Assertions we have seen Opposition with much less expence of Blood than Submission would have suffered to be spilt and Arbitrary Tyranny changed into a Limited Monarchy FINIS Jovian pag. 211. Jovian p. 274. Calvin in Dan. 4. 25. Zuinglius Tom. 1. Art 42. Pet. Mart. in Jud. c. 3. 2 Sam. 3. 21. 2 Sam. 5. 3. 1 Chron. 11. 3. 2 Chron. 23. 12. 2 Kings 11. 17. â— Sam. 2. 4. 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 Kings reign by Succession unless it be with consent of the People When by consent of the whole People or the better part of them a Tyrant is deposed or put to Death God is the chief Leader in that Action Calâ—in on Daniel ch 4. v. 25. In these Days Monarchs pretend always in their Titles to be Kings by the Grace of God which they pretend that they might reign without Contract for to what purpose is the Grace of God mentioned in the Title of Kings but that they may acknowledg no Superiour So it is therefore a mere Cheat when they boast to reign by the Grace of God Abdicant se terreni Principes c. Earthly Princes depose themselves while they rise against God Bucer on Matth. If a Soveraign Prince endeavours by Arms to defend Transgressors to subvert those Things which are taught in the Word of God and bears himself not as a Prince but as an Enemy and seeks to violate Priviledges and Rights granted to Inferiour Magistrates or Commonalties c. they ought to defend the People of God and maintain those things which are good and just For to have Supream Power lessens not the Evil committed by that Power but makes it the less tolerable by how much the more generally hurtful Peter Martyr on Judges c. 3. Approves the Proceedings of the Parliament against Richard the Second Parâ—us on the Romans They whose part it is to set up Magistrates may restrain them from outragious Deeds or pull them down but all Magistrates are set up either by Parliament or by Electors or other Magistrates they therefore that exalted them may lawfully degrade and punish them Fenner Theo. They who have Power that is a Parliament may either by fair means or force depose a Tyrant Guilby de Obe Kings have their Authority of the People who may upon occasion reassume it Goodman on the same Subject If Princes do right and keep promise wich you then do you them all humble Obedience if not you are discharg'd and your Study ought to be in this case how you may depose and punish according to the Law such Rebels against God and Oppressors of their Country Christ. Goodman and Fenner were two that fled from the bloody Persecution in Q. Mary's Days and this Goodman had preach'd many times upon the Doctrine concerning Obedience to Magistrates which he was desired to publish in a Treatise as is testified by Whittingham in the Preface Bracton Fortescue Bracton K. Edw's Laws Fortescue Bracton Grotius de Jur. Bell. ac Pac.