Reader, thou hast here the beginning and end of a discourse concerning government; what fate has otherwise disposed of the papers that should have filled up the middle, and were more than all the rest, it is not worth while to tell thee. These, which remain, I hope are sufficient to establish the throne of our great restorer, our present King William; to make good his title, in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful governments, he has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Christendom; and to justify to the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin. If these papers have that evidence, I flatter myself is to be found in them, there will be no great miss of those which are lost, and my reader may be satisfied without them: for I imagine, I shall have neither the time, nor inclination to repeat my pains, and fill up the wanting part of my answer, by tracing Sir Robert again, through all the windings and obscurities, which are to be met with in the several branches of his wonderful system. The king, and body of the nation, have since so thoroughly confuted his Hypothesis, that I suppose no body hereafter will have either the confidence to appear against our common safety, and be again an advocate for slavery; or the weakness to be deceived with contradictions dressed up in a popular stile, and well-turned periods: for if any one will be at the pains, himself, in those parts, which are here untouched, to strip Sir Robert’s discourses of the flourish of doubtful expressions, and endeavour to reduce his words to direct, positive, intelligible propositions, and then compare them one with another, he will quickly be satisfied, there was never so much glib nonsense put together in well-sounding English. If he think it not worth while to examine his works all thro’, let him make an experiment in that part, where he treats of usurpation; and let him try, whether he can, with all his skill, make Sir Robert intelligible, and consistent with himself, or common sense. I should not speak so plainly of a gentleman, long since past answering, had not the pulpit, of late years, publicly owned his doctrine, and made it the current divinity of the times. It is necessary those men, who taking on them to be teachers, have so dangerously misled others, should be openly shewed of what authority this their Patriarch is, whom they have so blindly followed, that so they may either retract what upon so ill grounds they have vented, and cannot be maintained; or else justify those principles which they preached up for gospel; though they had no better an author than an English courtier: for I should not have writ against Sir Robert, or taken the pains to shew his mistakes, inconsistencies, and want of (what he so much boasts of, and pretends wholly to build on) scripture-proofs, were there not men amongst us, who, by crying up his books, and espousing his doctrine, save me from the reproach of writing against a dead adversary. They have been so zealous in this point, that, if I have done him any wrong, I cannot hope they should spare me. I wish, where they have done the truth and the public wrong, they would be as ready to redress it, and allow its just weight to this reflection, viz. that there cannot be done a greater mischief to prince and people, than the propagating wrong notions concerning government; that so at last all times might not have reason to complain of the Drum Ecclesiastic. If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my Hypothesis, I promise him either to recant my mistake, upon fair conviction; or to answer his difficulties. But he must remember two things.
Reader, you have here the beginning and the end of a discourse about government. It is not worth telling you what fate did with the papers that should have filled the middle, which were longer than all the rest together. I hope these remaining papers are enough to establish the throne of our great restorer, our present King William. I hope they make good his title in the consent of the people. That consent is the only title of all lawful governments, and he has it more fully and clearly than any prince in Christendom. I hope also that they justify to the world the people of England. Their love of their just and natural rights, with their resolve to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin. If these papers are as convincing as I flatter myself they are, the lost ones will not be greatly missed. My reader may be satisfied without them. For I imagine I will have neither the time nor the inclination to repeat my labour. I do not expect to fill the missing part of my answer by tracing Sir Robert again through all the windings and obscurities found in the several branches of his wonderful system. The king and the body of the nation have since refuted his hypothesis so thoroughly that I suppose no one will again have the boldness to stand against our common safety and be an advocate for slavery. Nor, I suppose, will anyone be weak enough to be deceived by contradictions dressed up in a popular style and well-turned sentences. Let anyone take the trouble himself, in the parts not touched here, to strip Sir Robert's discourses of their flourish of doubtful expressions. Let him try to reduce his words to direct, positive, intelligible propositions, and then compare them with one another. He will quickly be satisfied that never was so much glib nonsense put together in well-sounding English. If he thinks it not worth examining all his works, let him make an experiment on the part where he treats of usurpation. Let him try whether, with all his skill, he can make Sir Robert intelligible and consistent with himself or with common sense. I would not speak so plainly of a gentleman long past answering, if the pulpit had not, in recent years, publicly embraced his doctrine and made it the current divinity of the times. Some men have taken on themselves to be teachers and have so dangerously misled others. It is necessary to show them openly what authority this Patriarch of theirs has, whom they have so blindly followed. Then they may either retract what they have put forward on such poor grounds, which cannot be defended, or else justify the principles they preached as gospel, though they had no better an author than an English courtier. I would not have written against Sir Robert if there were not men among us who praise his books and adopt his doctrine. Nor would I have taken the trouble to show his mistakes, his inconsistencies, and his lack of scripture proofs (which he boasts of so much and claims to build on entirely). These men save me from the reproach of writing against a dead adversary. They have been so zealous on this point that, if I have done him any wrong, I cannot hope they will spare me. Where they have wronged the truth and the public, I wish they would be as ready to set it right. I wish they would give its due weight to this reflection: that no greater harm can be done to prince and people than spreading wrong notions about government. Then at last no age would have reason to complain of the Drum Ecclesiastic. If anyone truly concerned for truth undertakes to refute my hypothesis, I promise him one of two things. I will either recant my mistake when fairly convinced, or answer his difficulties. But he must remember two things.
First, That cavilling here and there, at some expression, or little incident of my discourse, is not an answer to my book.
First, quibbling about a phrase here and there is not an answer to my book. Nor is picking apart a small point in my argument.
Secondly, That I shall not take railing for arguments, nor think either of these worth my notice, though I shall always look on myself as bound to give satisfaction to any one, who shall appear to be conscientiously scrupulous in the point, and shall shew any just grounds for his scruples.
Second, I will not take insults for arguments, and I will not consider either of those worth my notice. I do, however, always feel bound to answer anyone who appears conscientiously scrupulous about the point. They must show just grounds for their scruples.
I have nothing more, but to advertise the reader, that Observations stands for Observations on Hobbs, Milton, &c. and that a bare quotation of pages always means pages of his Patriarcha, Edition 1680.
I have nothing more to add. I only want to inform the reader that "Observations" refers to Observations on Hobbes, Milton, etc. A bare page reference always means the pages of his Patriarcha, 1680 edition.