w himself out,
though, after repeated trials he may not see in which article he has
misreckoned. I will instance in one opinion, which I look upon every man
obliged in conscience to quit, or in prudence to conceal; I mean, that
whoever argues in defence of absolute power in a single person, though
he offers the old plausible plea, that, _it is his opinion, which he
cannot help unless he be convinced_, ought, in all free states to be
treated as the common enemy of mankind. Yet this is laid as a heavy
charge upon the clergy of the two reigns before the Revolution, who
under the terms of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance are said to have
preached up the unlimited power of the prince, because they found it a
doctrine that pleased the Court, and made way for their preferment. And
I believe there may be truth enough in this accusation, to convince us,
that human frailty will too often interpose itself among persons of the
holiest function. However, it may be offered in excuse for the clergy,
that in the best societies there are some ill members, which a corrupted
court and ministry will industriously find out and introduce. Besides,
it is manifest that the greater number of those who held and preached
this doctrine, were misguided by equivocal terms, and by perfect
ignorance in the principles of government, which they had not made any
part of their study. The question originally put, and as I remember to
have heard it disputed in public schools, was this; _whether under any
pretence whatsoever it may be lawful to resist the supreme magistrate?_
which was held in the negative; and this is certainly the right opinion.
But many of the clergy, and other learned men, deceived by dubious
expression, mistook the object to which passive obedience was due. By
the supreme magistrate is properly understood the legislative power,
which in all government must be absolute and unlimited. But the word
magistrate seeming to denote a single person, and to express the
executive power, it came to pass, that the obedience due to the
legislature was for want of knowing or considering this easy
distinction, misapplied to the administration. Neither is it any wonder,
that the clergy or other well-meaning people should fall into this
error, which deceived Hobbes himself so far, as to be the foundation of
all the political mistakes in his book, where he perpetually confounds
the executive with the legislative power, though all well-instituted
states