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
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
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-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
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