that a Spirit of servile <110> Flattery, unworthy a Christian, unworthy the vilest Eves-dropper under the ten or twelve first Roman Emperors, has infatuated to such a degree, that they are not in the least sensible of their giving all Europe new and daily occasions of turning ’em into ridicule. They fondle their Prince day and night with such Elogys as these; That he converts his Subjects by Methods of Love, and by the most manifest Justice of his Edicts. Wou’d you know the meaning of this? It is, that if any Rigor has bin exercis’d, ’twas only on those who had disobey’d his Majesty’s Edicts, particularly the Declaration made by the common Cryer, in every Town and Village, before Billets were distributed to the Dragoons, That the King for the future wou’d have but one Religion in his Kingdom, and wou’d let those, who comply’d not with his Intentions, feel the Effects of his Power. He had a right to punish ’em, say they, by Banishment, by Confiscation of Goods, by Loss of Liberty, by denying ’em the Exercise of any Trade or Calling, in case they persisted in their Heresy. They have persisted; Is it not very just then, that the Soldiers shou’d make ’em suffer the Penaltys incur’d by their Disobedience? This Objection deserves to be confuted, the rather, because many well-meaning People, Enemys to Persecution, as they suppose, and great Assertors of the Rights of Conscience, imagine, that tho Sovereigns can’t indeed punish those of their Subjects who are under the Power of a certain Belief, yet they may forbid ’em the publick Profession and Exercise of it under certain Penaltys; and if they still persist, punish ’em, not as tinctur’d with such or such Opinions, but as Infringers of the Laws. But <111> this is coming pitifully about by a long and vain Circuit, to strike against the same Rock which others steer directly upon. For,
If nothing cou’d denominate a Man a Persecutor, but his punishing Sectarys before a Law were enacted against ’em, the Sovereign might easily commit the cruellest Violences without coming in the least under the Notion of a Persecutor: The whole Mystery wou’d lie in forbearing a while, till an Edict were thunder’d out, enjoining ’em to assist, for example, at divine Service in such a certain Church, upon pain of the Gallows; and after a short Ceremony of this kind, then find out all those who had not assisted, and hang ’em for a parcel of Rebels. Now as ’twere mocking the World to pretend, this was not a Persecution strictly speaking; so it’s plain, that Edicts previously publish’d and promulgated, alter not the Case, nor hinder, but the Conscience is violated, and the Punishment inflicted unjust.
I cou’d wish these fulsom Scriblers wou’d read their own St. Thomas a little, or the Treatise of Human Faith, publish’d by the Jansenists.49 There they might find, in the 8th Ch. of the 1st Part, That a Law unjust in it self, is ipso facto null; nor partakes of the force of a Law, any farther than it’s agreeable to Justice ——— That it ought to be possible in the Nature of things, necessary, useful, regarding the Publick Good, and not any private Interest.50 For, as the same Authors tell us a little lower, Ecclesiastical Laws ought to respect the particular Welfare of those on whom they are impos’d; it not being allowable in the Church, to do private Persons any wrong, under a pretence of promoting the Good of the Publick. Whether all these Conditions <112> be requisite or no, and for my part I don’t think they always are, in order to a private Person’s submitting (for when the Question is concerning a temporal Interest only, a Man may act wisely in submitting to an unjust Law) I insist, according to the Remark already laid down, in Chap. IV,51 that to prove a Prince punishes his Subjects justly, ’tis not sufficient to alledg in general, they have disobey’d his Injunctions; but it must likewise appear, they might in Honor and Conscience comply. For shou’d a Prince, who was but a vile Poet, have a humor of enjoining all his Subjects by an Edict, to give under their hands, that they were verily persuaded, his Verses were incomparably fine, and this on pain of being condemn’d to Banishment; and shou’d several of his Subjects happen to be of such a stubborn Mold as Philoxenus, who cou’d ne’er be brought to praise Dionysius the Tyrant’s Poetry; wou’d any one think their Banishment just? Nevertheless, it’s founded on their disobeying an Edict. Wou’d any one think it reasonable to fine Folks for not believing, that the Earth turns round, that Colors don’t subsist in the Objects, that Beasts are mere Machines; supposing a previous Law, that all who believ’d not these three Articles, shou’d be fin’d in such a Sum? Or rather, wou’d any one think it just, that a King shou’d enjoin all his Subjects, under certain Penaltys, to love Books, Perfumes, Fish, certain Sauces, have blue Eyes, a brushy Beard, &c? Wou’d it not be down-right study’d Tyranny, to send Dragoons to live at discretion upon those who comply’d not with Edicts of this kind? It’s the grossest Stupidity then, or rather the most ridiculous Flattery, to <113> pretend, the Treatment the Reform’d met with was just, because they obey’d not a verbal Order, enjoining ’em, a little before the Billets were given out, to conform to the King’s Religion. For as to an Edict issu’d to this purpose, and authentickly notify’d, for my part, I know of none before the Dragoons were let loose upon one quarter of the Kingdom: and I have already observ’d, that the Edict of Revocation allow’d ’em a certain limited time to consider what to do; tho I know at the same time, ’twas one of the most grosly perfidious Cheats that e’er was put upon a People.
Since therefore, from the Subjects not conforming to the Sovereign’s Will, we are not universally to infer, that they justly suffer the Punishments with which he threaten’d the Delinquents; we ought to examine into the special Nature of the Laws disobey’d, when we wou’d discover, whether the Partys were justly expos’d to the Pillage and Discretion of the Soldiery. Now this Inquiry, if made, wou’d satisfy us, that the Laws, for the Non-observance of which it’s pretended, the French Protestants merited dragooning, are intrinsecally evil and unequitable; consequently the Punishments annex’d to ’em, and inflicted on those who obey’d ’em not, ipso facto and by their Nature unjust. This shift therefore will not serve to elude the force of my Argument, whereby I prove, that JESUS CHRIST cou’d not have enjoin’d Constraint; since this, as appears from the late Persecution in France, was impracticable without a Complication of Iniquity.
To shew in a few Words the Injustice of the verbal Declaration made the Protestants, that the King for the <114> future wou’d have but one Religion in his Kingdom, and that all who wou’d not conform to this his Pleasure, shou’d feel the Rigors of his Justice; to shew, I say, the Injustice of this Declaration, I might cite the Edict of Nants, and the many other solemn Promises to the same effect; but that these are only trifles in the Account of Kings: Solemn Assurances, Oaths, Edicts, are Makeshifts they must make use of on occasion, but brush thro ’em like so many Cobwebs, when once they have gain’d their point. I return to my primary and essential head of Argument.
All Law, enacted by a Person who has no right to enact it, and which exceeds his Power, is unjust; for, as Thomas Aquinas has it, To the end a Law be just, it’s requisite among other Conditions, That he who makes it have Authority so to do, and exceed not this Authority.52
Now so it is, that all Laws obliging to act against Conscience, are made by a Person, having no Authority to enact it, and who manifestly exceeds his Power.
Therefore every such Law is unjust.
To shew the truth of my second Proposition, I am only to say, that all the Power of Princes is deriv’d, either immediately from God, or else from Men, who enter into Society on certain Conditions.
If it be deriv’d from God, it’s plain, it can’t extend to the making Laws, which oblige the Subject to act against Conscience: for if so, it wou’d follow, that God cou’d confer a Power upon Man, of commanding to hate God; which is absurd, and necessarily impossible; the hatred <115> of God being an Act essentially wicked. If we examine this Matter ever so little, we shall find, that Conscience, with regard to each particular Man, is the Voice and Law of God in him, known and acknowledg’d as such by him, who carrys this Conscience about him: So that to violate this Conscience is essentially believing, that he violates the Law of God. Now to do any thing we esteem an Act of Disobedience to the Law of God, is essentially, either an Act of Hatred, or an Act of Contempt against God; and
