By thus freely declaring my own sentiments of passive obedience, it will at least appear that I do not write for a party; neither do I upon any occasion pretend to speak their sentiments, but my own. The majority of the two houses, and the present ministry (if those be a party) seem to me in all their proceedings to pursue the real interest of church and state; and if I should happen to differ from particular persons among them, in a single notion about government, I suppose they will not upon that account explode me and my paper. However, as an answer, once for all, to the tedious scurrilities of those idle people, who affirm I am hired and directed what to write, I must here inform them, that their censure is an effect of their principles. The present ministry are under no necessity of employing prostitute pens; they have no dark designs to promote by advancing heterodox opinions.
But (to return) suppose two or three private divines under king Charles the second, did a little overstrain the doctrine of passive obedience to princes; some allowance might be given to the memory of that unnatural rebellion against his father, and the dismal consequences of resistance. It is plain, by the proceedings of the churchmen before and at the Revolution, that this doctrine was never designed to introduce arbitrary power.
I look upon the whigs and dissenters to be exactly of the same political faith; let us therefore see, what share each of them had in advancing arbitrary power. It is manifest, that the fanaticks made Cromwell the most absolute tyrant in Christendom. The rump abolished the house of lords, the army abolished the rump, and by this army of saints he go-
