An essay concerning obedience to the supreme powers, and the duty of subjects in all revolutions with some considerations touching the present juncture of affairs. Tindal, Matthew, 1653?-1733. 1694 Approx. 150 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 47 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A62670 Wing T1299 ESTC R5554 12635848 ocm 12635848 64861 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62670) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64861) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 337:6) An essay concerning obedience to the supreme powers, and the duty of subjects in all revolutions with some considerations touching the present juncture of affairs. Tindal, Matthew, 1653?-1733. [4], 68 p. Printed for Richard Baldwin ..., London : 1694. Attributed to Matthew Tindal. Cf. Halkett and Laing (2nd ed.). Page 68 is stained in the filmed copy. Pages 50-end photographed from Newberry Library copy and are inserted at the end. Advertisement: p. [4]. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Obedience. 2004-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-11 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-01 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2005-01 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN ESSAY CONCERNING OBEDIENCE TO THE Supreme Powers , AND THE Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions . WITH Some CONSIDERATIONS touching the Present Juncture of Affairs . LONDON : Printed for Richard Baldwin , near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane . MDCXCIV . THE CONTENTS . THE Introduction . Page 1. CHAP. I. Of Government , and the Origine of it . ibid. CHAP. II. Of Passive Obedience . 8. CHAP. III. Of the Publick Good. 15. CHAP. IV. Of God's Laws . 22. CHAP. V. Of the Law of Nations . 26. CHAP. VI. Of the Obligation of Human Laws . 29. CHAP. VII . Objections answered . 34. CHAP. VIII . Of Conquest . Pag. 37. CHAP. IX . Of Possession . 24. CHAP. X. Of Protection . 44. CHAP. XI . Of Oaths of Fidelity . 54. CHAP. XII . Of the Act of Parliament of the 11 of Hen. 7. 56. CHAP. XIII . Of Proofs of Scripture concerning Obedience to those that actually Administer Government . 59. CHAP. XIV . Some Considerations touching the Present Affairs . 66. Books Sold by Richard Baldwin . MErcury ; or the Secret and Swift Messenger . Shewing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his Thoughts to a Friend at any distance . The Second Edition . By the Right Reverend Father in God , John Wilkins , late Lord Bishop of Chester . Printed for Rich. Baldwin , where are to be had , The World in the Moon ; and Mathematical Magick . Bibliotheca Politica . Or a Discourse by way of Dialogue on these following Questions : 1. In what sense all Civil Power is derived from God , and in what sense may be also from the people . 2. Whether His present Majesty King William , when Prince of Orange , had a just Cause of War against King James II. 3. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty , before he was King , as also of the Late Convention , in respect of the said King James , is justifiable by the Law of Nations , and the Constitution of our Government . Collected out of the best Authors , as well Ancient as Modern . Dialogue the Eleventh . A Compendious History of the Taxes of France , and of the Oppressive Methods of Raising of them . An Impartial Enquiry into the Advantages and Losses that England hath received since the beginning of this present War with France . Berault's French Grammar . The Tragedies of the Last Age , consider'd and examin'd by the Practice of the Ancients , and by the common sense of all Ages ; in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd Esq Part I. The Second Edition . A short View of Tragedy ; its Original , Excellency , and Corruption ; with some Reflections on Shakespear and other Practitioners for the Stage . Both by Mr. Rimer , Servant to Their Majesties . Truth brought to light ; Or the History of the first 14 Years of King James I In four parts , &c. Travels into divers parts of Europe and Asia , undertaken by the French King's Order , to discover a new Way by Land into China . &c. Liturgia Tigurina ; or , the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments , and other Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies , usually practised , and solemnly performed in all the Churches and Chappels of the City and Canton of zurick in Switzerland , &c. The Works of the Famous Mr. Francis Rabelais , Doctor in Physick . Treating of the Lives , Heroick Deeds and Sayings of Gorgantua , and his Son Pantagruel Translated from the French. To which is added Rabelais's Life ; and a new Key to the whole Work. Letters of Love and Gallantry , and several other Subjects . All written by Ladies . With the Memoirs , Life , and Adventures of a young Lady ; Written by her self , in several Letters to a Person of Quality in Town . Vol. 1. Memoirs concerning the Campagne of Three Kings , William , Lewis , and James , in the Year 1692. With Reflections upon the Great Endeavours of Lewis the 14th to effect his Designs , of James the 2d . to Remount the Throne , and the proper Methods for the Allies to take to hinder both . AN ESSAY CONCERNING Obedience to the Supreme Powers , &c. The INTRODUCTION . THE Design of these Sheets ( which one would think should be no difficult Task ) , is to persuade People to act for the Good and Prosperity of the Community they are Members of , and in which their own is included ; and to convince them , That it is their Duty as well as Interest , to bear True Faith and Allegiance to the present Government . Which Design , that I may the better perform , it will be necessary to premise somewhat about Government in general , and the Grounds and Measures of Obedience to it ; by which I hope I shall be able to shew , What is the Duty of Subjects , not only in the present Juncture of Affairs , but in all Changes and Revolutions . CHAP. I. Of Government , and the Origine of it . GOvernment is , as it is usually defined , The Care of other Peoples Safety ; which consists in Protecting and securing them from being destroyed or oppressed by one another , as well as by Strangers ; and redressing the Grievances of those that are injured , and preventing the like for the future , by punishing Offenders . In order to which , the Governor must have a Right to command the Natural Force of those that expect his Protection , to enable him the better to put his Laws and Decrees in execution . Tho without Power Government cannot consist , yet Power and Government are not one and the same thing ; a man may be in the Power of another , and yet may not be governed by him ; it is necessary that this Power be made use of for Protection , without which it is impossible to be protected ; so that Protection and Government are the same thing ; for where people are not protected , they are still in the state of Nature , and without Government . It is Government alone that gives the Form , Life , and Unity to a Civil Society , or Body Politick , by which the several Members have their mutual Influence , Sympathy , and Connection ; so that to be a Member of a Civil Society , and to be under Government , is the same thing ; and to be without Government , and to be in the state of Nature , are reciprocal , and predicated of one another . None can pretend to be or claim any Civil Rights as a Member of a Society , without owning the actual Government that makes it a Society ; and they that disown the Government of the Society they live in , do outlaw themselves , and virtually declare themselves no Members of it ; because they have reduced themselves to a state of Nature , by disowning there is amongst them a common Judge , who has a Right to decide their Controversies , and redress their Injuries , and in whose Determinations they are obliged to acquiesce . God , who is the Author of every good thing , may be said in a more special manner to be so of Government , because it is absolutely necessary to the Well-being of Mankind ; and He , by the Law of Nature , which obliges mankind to act for their good , has instituted it , and has since by his Positive Law ratified and confirmed it ; yet He did not constitute any particular Form of Government , but left mankind at liberty to dispose of themselves , as they ( when they instituted Societies ) thought fit . God was so far from taking this Liberty from any Nation , that when he was pleased to take upon himself the Office of King over his own People the Jews , he first required their Consent ; and a Contract between God and the People ( as is plain by the 19th . of Exodus ) was the Foundation of the Theocracy . And since it is not by God's Positive Law , That one Form of Government , rather than another , is any where established , there can remain no other way by which any Government can be erected , or that one man can have a Right to command over others , but by the Law of Nature , or by the Consent of the Parties concerned : But there is no Law of Nature for any one Form of Government , so as to make the rest unlawful ; or that one person , rather than another , should have the Sovereign Administration of Affairs : Nor can there be any one Law of Nature urged , why any particular person should have a Power over so many Millions of different Families , with no manner of relation and dependance one upon another , and who are by Nature equal , being of the same rank , promiscuously born to the same Advantages of Nature , and to the use of the same common Faculties : And therefore it remains , That Government must be derived from Consent . Object . Men are not by Nature free ; because they are born subject to their Parents , ( who by the Law of Nature have an Absolute Power over them ) : Therefore they could not chuse Governors for themselves . Answ. The Power that Parents have over their Children , does not extend to their Lives or Properties , or hinder them from being free , tho they are born in a condition which makes them for some time incapable to exercise their freedom . It is the duty of those by whose means they come into the world , to take care and provide for them until they are able to provide for themselves ; which Duty Parents cannot effectually discharge , except they have a Power to correct and manage them as they think fit . Children are obliged to take the same care for their Parents , if they chance by losing their Reason to fall into the same helpless Condition ; which they cannot perform , except they have also in their turn , a Power to govern them too , and even to use Forcible means , when they think it necessary . Whoever has the Charge of educating a Child , whether he be his Father or a Stranger , must have the same Power over him ; and this a Child , tho an Absolute King , must be forced to submit to . The information of his mind , the health of his body , and even the necessities of life , make it absolutely necessary : And if this be not inconsistent with Sovereign Power , much less is it with Freedom . A man may be said to be by Nature Free , as well as Rational , tho he be not capable of exercising both , until such an Age ; and the same Age that sets him free from the Power of a Tutor , sets him free from the Power of his Parents , tho nothing can set him free from that Reverence ( which is not inconsistent with the state of Freedom ) which he must for ever owe them . But that Filial Reverence does not give his Father or Mother ( to whom by the Law of God and Nature he is obliged to pay equal Honour and Reverence ) a Power over his Life and Properties , or any Jurisdiction over him : ( Whilst he is part of the Family , it is true he must be subject in matters that concern the Family , because there can be but one Master in a Family ) . If Parents had an Absolute Regal Power , all Civil Government would be unlawful , because it would deprive all Fathers of that Paternal Regal Power , which by the Law of Nature ( which is superior to all Human Laws ) does ( upon their having Children ) become their Right , and which the Government could no more justly deprive them of , than of that Duty and Honour which Children by the same Law of Nature are obliged to pay them ; and which too , if Government were nothing but Paternal Power , must belong to it . But if this Notion were true , this would not give Governors a Power over Parents themselves , or over those who have no Parents in being , because Paternal Power can affect none but Children : And the Supreme Magistrate , who does not beget his Subjects , can have no Natural nor any other Right to it , but as it is conveyed to him by Consent ; except the First-born from Adam ( which the Asserters of Paternal Power do affirm ) hath an Universal Hereditary Right , ( the Absurdity of which Opinion has sufficiently been exposed by a late most Ingenious Author ) ; supposing which to be true , it is plain that no other can have the same Right ; so that until that mighty Monarch prove his Claim , all the Civil Power that is now in the world , must come by Consent ; and there is nothing but that , can give another a greater Power than Parents pretend to over their Children ; and which Children are obliged to obey , even contrary to their Parents Commands ; and which gives them a Power of Life and Death over their Parents , as it frequently happens in Elective Governments ; which Governments it is visible have their Power from the People ; and this way too at first must come the Power in all Hereditary Governments ; for the first of a Family could not have an Hereditary Right . Object . The Power of Government could not come from the People , because they have no Power over their own Lives ; and therefore could not give that to another which they had not themselves . Answ. It is true , men having no power over their own Lives , could not part with a Power they had not ; yet Governors will have all the Power which is necessary for the Ends of Government , by the Peoples giving them that Power which by the Law of Nature they had over the lives of one another ; for by that Law every one had a Right to take away the life of another , if he could not otherwise secure his own , or what was in order to the supporting it ; and might do the same in defence of any innocent person , and could punish any one for injuring him or his neighbours , because by it he acted for his own and their security : And if Punishment ought then to be inflicted , some one must have a Right to inflict it ; and if any one had a Right , all being by Nature equal , every one must have the same Right ; the exercise of which Right men have parted with to their Governors ; so that they alone have now the only Right to punish with loss of life , or any less Punishment , in all cases , except in those where upon the suddenness of the danger , Protection cannot be had from them , or where they wholly neglect , or are incapable to protect them ; There mens Natural Liberties still remain , and they may in Defence of their own Lives , or what is necessary to support them , justly take away the lives of the Aggressors . And any Law which should take this Power from the people , would be null and void , because the people never did or could give the Magistrate such a Power as should hinder them from acting for their own Preservation , when necessity required it . The Magistrate having then his Power from the People , it is very certain he can have no more Power than they were capable of giving him , or did give him ; who , because people ( who had no Arbitrary Power over the Lives of one another ) were not capable of giving it him , can have no right to take away the life of any person , except it be for the Publick Good. Nor can men , though at the Command of the Magistrate , without being guilty of Murther , deprive any of their lives , when the good of the Society does no way require it . Nay , by the mutual Assistance , which by the Law of Nature Mankind owe one another , they might , if he should endeavour to destroy any , when it is evident it is no way beneficial to the Publick , justly Oppose the Magistrate , if Opposing him would not be a greater Damage to the Publick . As men could not give the Magistrate a greater Power than they had over the lives of one another ; so the Power they gave him was not only for the defence and safety of their Lives , but to secure them in the enjoyment of their Properties , and to judge concerning them by known and impartial Laws . Men having no Power to destroy what was beneficial to others , could not give him a right to Waste , or Impoverish , ( which is the necessary effect of Arbitrary Government , where the Uncertainty of the Enjoyment destroyeth all Labour and Industry ) what God has ordained for the Necessaries , or Conveniences of Life . They that Assert the Magistrate has more Power than the People could or did give him , must prove he has it from God , who alone could give it him ; but God , except to the Jews , gave no other Law about Government , or any other matter , but those of Nature . And Christ , whose Kingdom is not of this World , did not give more , or take away any Power from the Magistrate : So that what ever Power was given him by Man , he still enjoys the same without any addition or diminution . CHAP. II. Of Passive Obedience . THerefore it is very evident , That whatever Rights or Liberties men did not part with to their Governors , those they have still retained in themselves ; and no person can have a right to their Obedience in those things wherein they have given him no right to command ; nor are they ( which otherwise would be the consequence ) obliged to pay him more obedience than they owe him , but may defend their Rights against any that has no right to take them away . In the most Absolute Hereditary Government , if the Governor should endeavour to alienate it , or any of the essential parts of it to a Stranger , he may be justly opposed , because the People have not given him such a right , nor is a right to dispose of a Government , necessary to his governing them ; but such an endeavour shall be interpreted so far good ( because Acts are not so to be interpreted as to be of no effect ) as is in his power to make it good ; it shall be esteemed a good Resignation . By the same , if not greater Reason , the King in a mixt Government may be opposed , if he should endeavour to alienate any of the parts of the Government , which are by the Legislative Power annexed to the Crown , as in England the Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters is ; There the People may oppose the King , if he should attempt to separate the Supremacy from the Crown , especially if he should endeavour to make the Pope Supreme ; because , if they did not oppose him in that Attempt , they must either be guilty of High Treason , in owning the Pope's Supremacy , or be destroyed when the Pope's Supremacy is established , for refusing to be guilty of High Treason ; it being Treason by the Laws to own his Supremacy . Whoever owns the Pope's Supremacy , is incapable of being himself Supreme in Ecclesiasticals ; and he that cannot be Supreme in Ecclesiasticals , cannot be Supreme in Civils , because being united by the Legislative , they cannot be enjoyed apart . In a mixt Government , where the Legislative Power of King , Lords and Commons ( which is the only Supream Power , because it gives Laws to all ) is divided , part in the King , and part in the People ; if either part invadeth the other's Right , the usurping part may be justly opposed , because it invadeth what is the Sovereign Right of another . None can have a share in the Legislative Power , but who must have a right to defend that Power ; because any other than a Sovereign Right to the Legislative , to which all are Subject , would be nonsense ; and whoever has the Executive Power , if he had not a share in the Legislative , would be subject to it . And he that is intrusted with the Execution of the Laws , can have no more Power than the Legislative has given him ; and where the People have a share in the Legislative , they have the same Right to their Privileges , ( viz. ) the Laws of the Land , as the King has to his Prerogatives ; because the Consent of both is equally necessary to the altering the Laws , as it was to the making of them . In a mixt Government , a King , beyond the Limits of his Kingly Power , is so far from having a Right to Obedience , either Active or Passive , that by assuming such an Vnlimited Power , he loses all his Legal Power , which consists in Governing according to the Laws enacted by the Legislative ; and by it abdicates the Government ; for he that ceases to govern according to those Laws ▪ by governing Arbitrarily and contrary to Law , ceases as much to govern in the eye and intent of the Law , as he that ceases to govern at all ; and by governing Arbitrarily ( the Constitution admitting of no such Governor ) destroys the very Essence of his Kingly Power , and renounces ( the only Right he has ) his Legal Right . For no person can have at the same time a Will to rule according to Law , and a Will to rule contrary to Law ; and he that wills the latter , cannot will the former , and so willingly renounces his Legal Government ; and by making his Will the Law , he assumes the whole Legislative Power to himself , which wholly destroys the former Government ; for a new Legislative is a new Form of Government ; and if the whole be destroyed , the share the King has in it must be so too , except a part can subsist , when the whole , by which and in which he enjoyed his part , is dissolved . Whereever people have established a mixt Government , they are presumed to grant all that is necessary to maintain that Government ; which could not be , if one part had not a Right to hinder the Encroachment of the other . It is Nonsence to brag of the Happiness which people enjoy in living under a Limited Monarchy , if it had no other Limits than the Will and Pleasure of the King ; because then he would be as Absolute as the French King or Grand-Siegneur , and his Subjects would be as mere slaves as the vilest of theirs , since they would hold their Lives and Properties by no other Tenure , than the Pleasure of the King who is absolute . But it may be asked , Who shall judge between them , if either should usurp the Right that belongs to the other ? I answer , None can judge as a superior in whose sentence both sides must acquiesce , because that would suppose some one superior to the Supreme Legislative Power : Or if the Judges of the Land should have an Absolute Power to determine in these matters , and people should be obliged to submit to whatever they decr●e , they could make either Party the Supreme Legislative Power , or themselves , by declaring themselves to be so . None , as a Superior , can call him to an account who has a share in the Legislative ; but he may be resisted as well as any other , that should invade the Sovereign Rights of others , with which he has nothing to do . Where people have not parted wi●h their Rights , it must be presumed they have retained a Power to judge whether those Rights are invaded , or else the design of preserving those Rights would be to no purpose . But it may be objected , Tho it be no Treason , or any manner of Injury ▪ or Injustice , for People to defend their Rights against a King that has no Right to take them away , yet for their own sakes people are obliged to submit to his Arbitrary Government , because opposing him might create a War more destructive than all the effects of his Arbitrary Power . But what King would resign his Government , rather than oppose a Rebel ? And if a single person thinks he is not obliged to part with his Civil Right , how can he expect , that Millions ( were it possible it could be for their common good ) should part with theirs ? Since too , every one of them has the same Right to their Privi●eges ( the Laws of the Land ) as he has to his Crown , why should they be more obliged to suffer their own rather than a Foreign Prince to destroy their Rights ? Since the attempt is a greater Crime in him , because he breaks his Oath , and the Trust that is reposed in him , and is guilty of the highest Ingratitude to the People who have given him so much Power . By the same Argument , good men ought not to resist Robbers and Pirates : And if a man should be obliged to quit all for fear of bloodshed , how bravely would the good of mankind be promoted , and what a blessed Peace would the world enjoy ? which would consist in Violence and Rapine , and which would only be maintained for the interest of Robbers and Oppressors . Whoever does but consider the Poverty , the Misery , the Hardship people undergo in Absolute Monarchies , where the generality not only want Conveniences , but even the Necessaries of Life , and how by Tyranical Government the Richest and most Flourishing Countries ( as for instance , those under the Turkish Empire ) are depopulated and almost turned to desarts , so that the Inhabitants are thin and few , as well as wretched and barbarous ; and whoever compares them with those that live under Mixt Governments , where the Inhabitants are generally above twenty to one to what the others are , abounding with all manner of Conveniences and Pleasures of life ; or does but consider the happy condition that Greece and a great number of other places enjoyed when they were Free States ; and what they now suffer ; or has but read Bp. Burnet's Remarks on Italy , Rome , and Switzerland , must be convinced , That it is not the Interest of a Nation to let their King be Arbitrary ; and that they cannot pay too dear for preserving their Liberties . In making themselves Absolute , Kings act against their own Safety , as well as the Good of the People , because a Mixt Government is not only best for the Subjects , bnt for the Security of Kings , They being oftner Deposed and Murthered ( as all the Histories of the World do testify ) in Absolute than in Limited Monarchies . Can any one think , that the United Provinces ( in spite of the long War they had to maintain their Privileges ) are not as Populous , Rich , and Potent , and upon all accounts in as flourishing a condition , as they would have been , had they been possessed with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience , and tamely submitted to the Encroachments and Arbitrary Power of Spain ? Had the Doctrine of Passive-Obedience been all-along practised , Mankind would have been in a more slavish condition than any now are , that live under the most Tyranical Governments ; it is the fear that people may by ill usage be provoked to violate this Doctrine , that keeps the greatest Tyrants within some bounds , and makes them govern more mildly and moderately than otherwise they would . It is , I think , no great Argument of the Goodness of an Opinion , when the not observing it , or even the very probability of breaking it , has preserved mankind in a much better condition than they would have been , had the Supreme Powers been certain , that that Doctrine would have been inviolably observed . The English , who are the freest Nation in the world , cannot consider the Happiness they enjoy , in comparison of those that live under Absolute Monarchies , without having a just Veneration for their Noble Ancestors , who have ( tho not without the expence of their best blood ) secured to them those Liberties ▪ they now enjoy : And the present Age would have strangely degenerated , had they not been as zealous to have transmitted the same down to their Posterity . Most of the European Nations were once Masters of the same Freedom the English still enjoy . Those great Swarms of people that came out of the North , and subdued most part of Europe , upon settling themselves in the Countries they conquered , made their Generals Kings , and their Chief Officers their Concilia Magna , or Parliamenta , without whose Consent no Laws were made , or scarce any thing of Importance done : Which Government the English have best preserved , being a Nation too tenacious of their Liberties to be Complimented out of them ; and ( as they to their Cost have found , who have attempted it ) of too great a Courage to be Forced out of them . It cannot then justly be concluded to be against the Publick Good of the Nation to oppose Arbitrary Government , because more lives might perhaps have been lost by it , than by the Tyranical Government of all the Kings since the Conquest ; because those Kings were not Absolute , and when they endeavour'd to be so , were always opposed . But had it not been thought lawful to oppose them , and they had been as Absolute as the Doctrine of Passive Obedience would have permitted them , I would ask whether then ( for that is the true state of the question ) the Nation would have been as Populous and as Rich as it is at present by preserving its Liberties , and opposing all Usurpation ? There is , I think , no reason to doubt , if Arbitrary Government had prevail'd , but that the Countrey would have been reduced to as poor and as beggarly a condition , and would as much have been depopulated as any Province under the Turkish Empire . There can be no greater Argument than the universal Consent of the Nation , that what they so unanimously concurred in , was not against their Common Good ; and nothing but a Danger as Universal as it was great , could make all people so desirous of a Revolution : And there could be no pretence from the Publick Good of not resisting , when Slavery it self was not the end , but only in order to extirpate an Heretical Nation ; which all Popish Princes by their Religion are obliged to do ; and there was no reason to suppose the late King ( had not the Design been so notorious ) less zealous than his Neighbours Where it is notorious that a King has a Design to enslave the Nation , there can be no great danger in opposing him ; because it is impossible for him , ( the Lands and Riches being in so many hands ) , to be able to influence so great a Number of the Gentry and Nobility , as shall be sufficient to oppose the Common Interest . There is nothing more pernicious to Government , than to encourage those that publish such Doctrines as tend to destroy the Rights and Privileges of the people : Who are quick-sighted enough to find out the weak side of such Arguments as tend to their hurt ; and it makes them suspicious that some sudden Designs are carrying on against them , and prepares their minds to receive any ill impression against the Government . What happened in King Charles the First 's time , is an undeniable Instance of this , where the encouraging and preferring almost none but such as preached up that Sensless Doctrine , created such Jealousies , Fears , and Mistrusts in the minds of the People , of whom too many were irritated by Persecution ( for Passive-Obedience and Persecution , like Brethren in Iniquity , go hand in hand ) that nothing but the Ruin of that Prince could satisfy their Jealousies . That Doctrine had like to have produced a more fatal Consequence in his Son's time , by encouraging him ( who had the weakness to think , that those who when uppermost were Bigots for it , would submit to it when they themselves came to suffer ) to invade the Rights and Liberties of the People . CHAP. III. Of the Publick Good. THE Consideration of the Publick Good , which is the Supreme Law by which both King and People ought to guide their Actions , does oblige Subjects to obey in all things that are in the least disputable , and even to acquiesce in whatever a King does , if in the whole he promotes the Publick Good. It is not barely the breaking a Law , or stretching the Prerogative , in this or that Point , can do any great mischief ; except it be done with a Design to subvert the Liberties of the People , and establish Arbitrary Government . In many cases the good of the Whole may require the Laws to give place to the Executive Power , because it is impossible upon the account of the infinite variety of Accidents and Circumstances that attend Human Affairs , to foresee , and by Laws to provide for all the Necessities that concern the Publick : Laws can only respect what does generally happen ; there must be a vast number of Particulars , where a rigid Observation of Law must be hurtful ; and it will be necessary that a Power to Dispense with the Penalties of the Laws , should be lodged with the King , whose Power cannot be too large , if he useth it for the Publick Good. The only Enemies to the present Government ( at least amongst the Protestants ) are the Asserters of Passive Obedience ; who tho they think it for the Publick Good to suffer a King to inslave a Nation , rather than oppose him , yet are so absurd as to think they are obliged in Conscience to disturb the Government that protects them , and raise a Civil War ( tho the consequence should be never so fatal ) to restore a Prince , whose Return would , if the War did not , compleat the Ruin of the Nation . The Falseness and Absurdity of which Opinion , I shall endeavour to make manifest : And to shew , That it is the Indispensable Duty of all that are Protected by a Government , to bear True Faith and Allegiance to it . I suppose I need not spend many Words , to shew the Absolute Necessity of Government , for the Good and Well-being of Mankind ; or that it was for no other reason that men parted with their Liberties ( for what else could be an Equivalent ? ) but for the mutual Defence and Security which they receive by Government , which is the sole Design and End of all Laws , Punishments , and Rewards . As this Reason was at first the sole Motive for submitting to particular persons , so it is the only reason still for continuing Allegiance to them ; and when this Reason ceaseth , Natural Liberty does return , and then men are obliged for the sake of their own Safety and Preservation to pay Allegiance where it is most for their own Interest and Advantage . Obedience is due to Government , and not to the Person that governs but upon the account and for the sake of it ▪ otherwise people might be obliged to pay Allegiance to a King after he had resigned his Regal O●fice . It is impossible for a King to lose his Government , and not lose the Allegiance of his Subjects , because they are Relatives ; and according to the nature of all Relatives , one cannot subsist without the other . Natural Relations , as that between Father and Son , last as long as both Parties Live ; but Artificial ones , ( if I may so term them ) as those between Master and Servant , King and Subject , may be destroyed during their Lives ; and when these Relations cease , all Obligations ▪ on both sides cease . The Relation between Sovereign and Subjects is destroyed , when the Sovereign will no longer Protect his People , and so freely withdraws from the Government , or when he is deprived of the Power of Protecting them , and so is driven from his Government ; which , as to the People , ( for whose sake Government was Instituted ) has the same effect ; and they equally lose that Protection and Defence , for the sake of which alone Allegiance is paid , whether the Sovereign will not , or cannot any longer Govern them , and is forced to leave his Government in the hands of others ; whereby those that were his Subjects are as incapable of paying him Allegiance , as he is to Protect them ; and the same Force that will justifie his leaving them , will equally justifie their Transferring their Allegiance : And since no Society is able to subsist without having Justice Administred , and enjoying those other blessings that are derived from Government : Either they must by living without Government become a prey to every one , or else there is a necessity of preserving themselves by paying Allegiance to the new Government . If Obedience were due purely to the Title , Subjects would be very great Rebels in refusing to pay Obedience to a Madman with a Legal Title , and in placing another in the Throne : What other reason can be assigned for removing him , but that the good of the Commonwealth requires Obedience to be paid to a Person that can Protect them ; which since a Madman cannot , it is their Duty to pay Obedience to another that can . Is not a Person that has lost his Government , as unable to Protect the People , as he that has lost his senses ? And would not the indeavouring to restore him by violent means , be more pernicious to the Publick , than suffering a Madman in the Throne ? For though the incapacity proceeds from different Causes , the one being a Natural , the other a Moral one , yet the reason , the Publick good , is the same , for not endeavouring to Restore one , as it is for Deposing the other . Though the next of Kin may have a right to be a Guardian to a Minor , yet if admitting him would prejudice the affairs of the Minor , he ought to be denied that Right , or rather that Right ceaseth , because it is against the interest and advantage of the Minor , for whose sake alone he was appointed Guardian : So in matters of Government , ( which is an Office that had no other grounds for its being instituted , but the good of the People , who are always in their Minorities , and such Sovereign Curators are constantly necessary for the management of their Affairs ) : Any particular Person 's Right to that Office must cease , if he cannot be admitted without great prejudice to the Minors ; and as the number is disproportionate between one and a whole Nation , and as the lives of a number of Persons are to be valued before the interest of a single Minor ; so much stronger will the Argument hold in behalf of the People , and the greater will the Crime be in attempting to admit any Person into that Office , when it cannot be done without involving the Nation in manifest Ruin. Therefore in most cases where one King has Power enough to turn another out of his Kingdom and get into his Throne , it is highly probable he will be able to keep it against any Opposition from the Person he Conquered : So that they who set up for his Interest , expose themselves to certain Ruin and Destruction . But though it might so happen that they might succeed in the Attempt , yet since it could not be done without a manifest injury to the Nation , by Disturbing the Peace and Quiet of it , by causing the Effusion of so much Blood , Rapine , Desolation , and those intolerable Calamities which Civil War does produce , it would be so far from being a Duty , that it would be a sin of the first magnitude to Attempt it ; it would be contrary to the greater and prior obligation which they owe to the Publick . For none can have a Right inconsistent with the Publick Good , which is the only Fundamental Law of all Societies ; contrary to which , no Law ( and consequently no Legal Right , which is built upon Law ) can be valid ; to which as to a center , each man's Actions ought to tend , because the more universal any good is , the more it ought to be imbraced ; and Societies could not subsist , but must necessarily fall into a state of War and Confusion , if every man should prefer the advantage of any particular Person before the Good of the whole . As every particular Person 's interest must yield to the general Good of the Society ; so must that of a particular Society submit to the more universal Good of all Societies ; and no Principles can be true ( however they may serve a particular turn ) that , if generally practised , would be against the Good of all Societies ; but nothing can be more destructive and pernicious to all human Societies , than those Principles which assert that Allegiance must be only Paid to him that hath a Legal Title ; because it must oblige vast numbers in all Revolutions to be destroyed for the sake of a single Person , rather than submit to another who is in the same station and by whose Power they might be Governed and Protected . It is a Doctrine of most dangerous consequence , and if embraced would destroy the best part of Mankind , and fill the whole world with Blood and Confusion ; for in such Revolutions ( which frequently happen ) what Government will suffer its Enemies ( the more still the more dangerous ) to enjoy equal privileges with its dutiful Subjects ? thereby enabling them to destroy that Government , which by all tyes of Conscience they must think themselves obliged to , as Subjects to its Enemies . The safety and quiet of their peaceable Subjects , as well as self preservation , will oblige the Supreme Powers to extirpate them , for it is impossible for men of these Principles , if they act accordingly to live quiet under a Government which they suppose has no Legal Right , because their actions are not in their own power , but in that of the Dispossessed Prince , who has the same Indispensable Right to Command them , as he had before he was outed of the Throne . Therefore they are obliged , whatever they promise , or whatever specious pretences they make , to act contrary to them , when either his Interest or Commands do require it . Can it be supposed , that when men submitted to Government , ( because it was absolutely necessary for their Preservation ) that they submitted on such terms , as should oblige them in so many cases to run into those inconveniences which they desired to shun , rather than live in peace and quiet under a Government which does actually Protect them ? Nothing can justifie such Principles , except the Misery and Destruction , not the preservation of human Societies , be the Supreme Law ; or that it is a sin to act for the general Good of a Society , and a Duty in the People to expose themselves to certain destruction , rather then act for their own good , in a matter which was solely Instituted for their good . A man may be obliged to suffer rather than act against his Duty , but that he should be obliged to suffer rather than do his Duty in promoting the general good of the Nation , is to me a strange Paradox . If it be a Duty to act for the Publick good , and the general interest of a Society ; and if the more Universal the good be , the more it ought to be sought for ; then the means that are necessary to this duty , or end , must be as necessary as the end it self , because the end prescribes the means . So that if the paying Obedience to the Present Government ▪ be for the good and happiness of the Nation , it must be a Duty in every one to do it ; and on the contrary , if endeavouring to disturb the present Settlement , and to Restore the Late King be ( as I think no Protestant can doubt it ) to the disadvantage , and against the good and interest of the Nation , it must be a sin . And can there be more dreadful consequences ( than what in all human probability , must happen upon Unsetling the Present Government , ) to our Estates , Liberties , and Lives , and what ought to be dearer than all , to our Holy Religion ? Except Popery , and French Tyranny , which include in them Slavery both of Body and Soul , are to be courted at the expence of a Civil War. The paying Obedience to those that are in Possession , is a Doctrine that tends so much to the interest of human Societies , and of all the particular Members thereof , that even those who Oppose it , if they consulted their own happiness , must wish it were true ; and what greater Argument can there be of the truth of it , than that it is so conducive to the good of Mankind ? And that common Objection , or rather Reflection , That it is interest makes these Tenets , which require Obedience to the Present Government , so universally imbraced , which ( howsoever ▪ it be uncharitably designed ) is so far from destroying the credit of them , that it is a demonstration of their truth ; because they are for the Good of Particulars of which the Publick is made up . CHAP. IV. Of God's Laws . THE Publick Good of Societies , is not only the foundation of all human Laws , ( upon which all Legal Rights depend , which cease to oblige , and are null and void , when contrary to it ) but is even the foundation of God's Laws , which concern men with relation to one another . For God , who is infinitely happy in himself , could have no other motive in creating man , but to make him happy in this Life , as well as that which is to come ; and accordingly if mankind would follow those Rules that are prescribed by God in order to their behaviour towards one another , in what happy , blessed , and flourishing State wonld they be in ? And what misery and confusion even in this Life does deviating from those Rules create , besides the Punishment they receive in the Life to come , for acting against their good in this . Do not the circumstances as they tend to the advantage or disadvantage of human Societies , make things good or evil ? And are they not the only rule to judge of God's Laws by ; as for instance , the Commandment declareth in general terms it is not Lawful to Kill ; yet it is a duty in the Magistrate to Kill , because it is for a Publick good , which is the only rule by which to distinguish between Murther and Justice . Even a private Person may kill in his own defence ; and such a Liberty is for the Publick good ; nor do Christ's Precepts , which forbid all manner of Revenge , and require Forgiving of Injuries , hinder any from punishing those that injure them by Legal courses ; because the punishing them tends to promote the Publick Interest of Mankind . It is unlawful to take what is anothers without his consent , yet if it be for the Common good , it is not only Lawful , but a Duty , as Blowing up of houses in case of Fire , against the consent of the Owner , or digging in a man's Ground to prevent an Innundation ; if a Ship be in danger to be lost , it is the Duty of those that are in it , in order to preserve the Ship , to throw any man's Goods over Board , though contrary to his consent ; and if a Ship wants Water , She may Lawfully , even by Force , take some from another Ship , if that Ship in all likelyhood hath enough to carry her to the next Watering-place . In case of necessity it is Lawful for a private Person to take from another what is necessary for his Subsistence , if he whose it is , be not in the same want ; nay , even what is Devoted to God in such cases it is Lawful to take ; and Christ makes David's eating the Consecrated Bread , an Argument à Fortiori , to justifie what his Disciples in their Hunger took from man ; in such cases the Natural Right of self-preservation returns , and though People are sometimes punished for taking from another in their necessities , yet that does not prove it Unlawful , but the Punishment is inflicted only to prevent a gap being laid open to Libertinism , which would be inconsistent with the Publick good and convenience ; for the sake of which a Person ought sometimes to suffer , though it be undeservedly . What is more inviolable then a promise to return what one is intrusted with ? Yet none are obliged to return a Sword to that Person who designs to Attempt his own Life , or that of anothers ; much less ought we to endeavour to give any one the Power of the Sword , tho he has never so much Right to it , if the Attempt would prove fatal to a great number of lives , and contrary to the good of the Society , for whose sake alone he has that Right ; nor can any one be obliged to ruin or prejudice a Society for the Right of a particular Person , when the Right which that Person has , was only for the preservation of that Society . What is more sacred then Truth ? Yet even that is dispensed with , when it is evident the contrary is for the good of those to whom it is spoken , and no prejudice to any other Person , as in the case of Melancholly and Sick Persons , and Children , or such like instances If Untruths were forbid , not because they were Injuries , but barely because they are Untruths , all Parables , Fables and Novels would be Unlawful . What can be more unjust than to take away the Life of an Innocent Person ? Yet if it be for the Publick good , it is so far from being Unjust , that it is a Duty in those that have the Publick Administration of Affairs to do it . And all Governments act no other ways when by force they compel Innocent Persons to the Wars where it is unavoidable , but that great numbers must be slain : Tho it seldom happens to be for the good of a Society that an innocent Person should suffer , yet the only thing that Government looks after in punishing , is the Common good , and it may justly cause an innocent Person to suffer , if it be for the General good ; because the lesser ( the particalar ) which is then considered sub ratione mali , must give place to the greater , the General good . Not only the Publick , but a Private person has a Right to take away the Life of an Innocent person , if he cannot otherwise preserve his own . And most Casuists are of Opinion , that a man ( if parting with his Life should happen to be beneficial to the Publick ) ought , as Codr●s did , freely to lay it down ; but they all agree , that a man ought to part with any thing that is less than Life , or not endeavour to recover what he has been deprived of , if he cannot do it without detriment to the Publick , much less ought any to assist him in the Recovery . In short , There is no Law that wholly relates to Man , but ceaseth to oblige , if upon the infinite variety of circumstances which attend human Affairs , it happens to be contrary to the Good of man. But in things of a higher nature , and which are Moral in themselves , and relate to the Worship and Honour of God , it is not Lawful upon pretence of Temporal interest , to dispense with any of those Duties , because it is not Lawful to do evil that good may come ; and the Temporal good , which is the less , ought to give place to the greater the Eternal : Though even in these cases , things which relate to God's Worship , if merely positive , must yield to the good of Particular men , because they are ( as Christ speaks of the Sabbath ) made for man , and not man for them . But in things designed for the Temporal interest of mankind , the standard of Good and Evil ▪ is the Publick good , and things are Commanded or Forbidden , as they are either good or hurtful to Mankind , and what in some circumstances may be a Duty , in others , if it prove inconsistent with the Publick good , would be a Sin , and the contrary a Duty ; and then acting for the Publick good , would not be doing Evil that Good might come of it , but by the circumstances altering the case , it would cease to be Evil. The design , end , and intent of all God's Laws , is the Worship or Reverence that is due to the Deity , and the Love that is due to man. The love of God and ones Neighbour , our Saviour saith , are the Two grand Commandments , on which hang all the Law and the Prophets , ( and in a much more eminent manner does the Gospel , whose Precepts , as they teach the mutual Duty of man towards man , are nothing but Love and Charity ) ▪ So that it is evident , that no Doctrine can be true that is in the least inconsistent with these Two Commandments , the Love of God and of ones Neighbour : But how can he be said to love his Neighbour , ( which is an indefinite word , and carryeth the sence of an universal ) who will have vast Numbers sacrificed to the interest of a Single person ? Or how can it be presumed , that God , who has declared he is no respecter of Persons , and has made all men by Nature equal , should act so inconsistently with himself , as to require that great Numbers should lose their Lives , and be exposed to all manner of Misery , for so inconsiderable a trifle , as the advancing a single Person to a Post , which is attended with as great Cares and Troubles , as Honours and Riches ; or that he should prescribe about Government ( which could have no other ground for its Institution but the good of the Society ) I say , that he should prescribe such rules , as in most Revolutions must tend to their Ruin and Confusion ? CHAP. V. Of the Law of Nations . UPON this foundation of the General good of Societies , have certain Rules and Customs been observed by Nations in their intercourse with one another , which are called the Law of Nations ( without which no Correspondence either in Peace or War could be maintained ) which only by tacite consent , and general practice of Nations , upon the account of their evident utility , and common profit , have obtained the force of Laws , and are looked on as sacred . The Supreme Powers , neither by themselves , nor Representatives , ever met , or enacted such Laws , nor have other Nations Power to oblige any Sovereign Independant State , which cannot be bound to observe these Customs , or Practices , but as they tend to the General good and advantage of all Societies . Every Nation is at Liberty to appoint what Government , Laws , &c. or manage its own Affairs within its self , as it thinks best . The Laws of Nations relate only to their Commerce , and Correspondence one with another , and Princes are no other way concerned by the Law of Nations with one another , but as they have the Power of making Peace or War , and all other Leagues for those Nations they Rule . It is not at all material what Right they have to this Power , it is sufficient the Nations then own them for their Sovereigns , and have intrusted them with this Power ; it would be an endless , as well as useless task , for Ambassadors before their admission , to prove the just Right their Masters have to those Titles and Powers they assume to themselves . All Treaties , except they appear to be merely Personal , though made with Usurpers , will oblige Legal Princes , if they succeed , and so vice versa , and a League made with a Nation , when under a King , will oblige that Nation ( provided they continue free ) though the Government should be changed to a Commonwealth , because Leagues are National , and made with Princes only upon the account of the Nations they are Representatives of . But when they lose this Power , and the Nations are no longer concerned in their Acts , they lose all manner of Right that did belong to them by the Law of Nations ; because these Privileges are ( as Grotius calls them ) bona Regni , and did belong to them only as they were the Publick Persons , or Representatives of their respective Nations , which when they cease to be , they have no more Right to them , then they had before they were these Publick Persons . But because the same intercourse between Nations will always be necessary , which cannot be maintained , but with those who have the Supreme Power ; and they that have that Power , must have a Right to those Privileges , upon the account of the Nations they Represent ; and the Dispossessed Princes , must with their Kingdoms lose their Right to them , because more than one at the same time , cannot have the same Right for the same Nation : And though some Princes ( out of design , or hatred to their Enemies ) may allow outed Princes some of those Privileges that belong only to those that have Summum imperium , yet they have no Right by the Laws of Nations to claim them , but they , as well as those that follow their broken fortunes , can be esteemed no other than Subjects , during their stay , to those Kings in whose Dominions they abide ; where they are so far from having a Power of making Peace or War , or any other National Contracts , that they cannot , without License first obtained from those Princes in whose Dominions they are , send any to treat with other Princes , or receive any sent by them ; much less allow them those Privileges which are due to Persons of a Publick Character . And it would be unreasonable that Sovereigns should be obliged to allow them , or any sent by them , those privileges , when they are incapable of returning the same . And with as little reason can any Prince in anothers Dominions pretend to grant Commissions to private Men of War , to disturb the Trade and Commerce of any Nation , because he cannot claim in another Prince's Territories a Power ( which can only belong to the Sovereignty of those Dominions ) to Judge , Condemn , or Restore according to the Maritime Laws , the Ships and Goods which are taken by those that act by his Commission . So that the Privateers themselves would be their own Judges , whether what they take was Lawful Prize , which in effect would be a power to rob whom they had a mind to . Therefore by the Law of Nations , all who act by such a Commission , are esteemed as Pirates . CHAP. VI. Of the Obligation of Human Laws . ALL Writers allow , That the Leagues and Contracts which Princes make with one another , do oblige them to one another , no longer then they are in possession of their Kingdoms , because the sole reasons of making these Leagues , were upon the power each Kingdom had to afford mutual Assistance and benefit to one another ; and if this be a constant practice with Kings , that their Treaties oblige them no longer than when each King has Possession of his Kingdom ; Why will they not allow the same reason to hold for Subjects , that they should be free from all Obligations to Princes , when they no longer receive any Protection from them ? Seeing that was the only ground and sole cause of their paying them Allegiance ; and in truth they cannot be any longer obliged , then the reason for obliging them holds : For why should People be obliged , when there is no reason they should be so ? no Laws can bind any longer , than the reason for Enacting them holds good ; and when the sole reason that made them Laws , ceaseth , the Laws themselves must so too ; much more must any particular Law be null and void , when not only the reason of keeping it ceaseth , but the keeping it does thwart the general intent and design of all Laws , which is the good and happiness of the Societies ; to which all Laws are but means ; and there is no reason that the means should oblige , when the end for whose sake the means were ordained cannot be obtained by those means , much less when they become destructive of the sole end for which they were ordained . If there were a Law that Ships should sail on such aside of the Channel , and the sole reason , whether expressed or not , were for avoiding the dangerous Sands that were on the other side ; if the Sands should chance to be removed to the safe side of the Channel , the Pilot would be so far from being bound upon the account of that Law , to run his Ship upon the Sands , that he would break the Law if he kept to the Letter of it , and would observe the Law by going contrary to the Letter : So again , if a Law that required Obedience to one particular Person , should happen to be destructive of the Publick good , and of fatal consequence to the Community , the Letter of the Law would oblige no more in one case than in the other ; nay , the reason of not observing the last would be stronger upon the account of the disproportion of the number : But the true meaning and intent of the Law would in one case as well as the other , oblige People to act contrary to the letter of the Law ; and people would be as much bound to pay Obedience , where it would be for the Publick Good , as in the other case , the Ship would be to sail on the safe side of the Channel . The occasion of not a few Mistakes in this important Controversie , ariseth from mens judging by the same rules , ( tho the reasons are extremely different ) in cases which concern the Supreme Powers , as they do in those which relate to private Persons . In cases between private Persons , there is a Superior to decide all controversies , and to do right and justice ; for which end he was made their Superior : So that if any one by Fraud or Violence possesseth himself of another's Right , the Law is open , and redress may be had without any danger to the Publick ; nay , The Publick Safety consists in having private mens wrongs redressed . But as to the Supreme Powers , whatever Right or Titles they have , people are obliged to submit to those in Possession , because there is no Superior Court ( as in case of private persons ) to judge of their Rights ; and Possession , by all Laws , gives a man a Right , till he be legally dispossessed ; and if a man cannot be turned out by Course of Law , ( as it is evident he that is in Possession of the Government cannot ) , he ought still to enjoy what he possessed : For it is against the Nature of all Civil Societies to appeal to the Sword , to prevent which they were instituted : Besides , Force can never decide Civil Controversies , nor can the Sword be a proper Judge of Wrong or Right ; it can only determine who is the strongest , not who has the best Cause ; and the pretended Remedy would be infinitely worse than the Disease ; for Civil War , as long as it continueth , destroyeth all Civil Rights . If the next Heir , whether Brother or Son , should get Possession of the Government by Murdering his King , the people ( instead of giving him that Punishment which by the Law of Nature , and God's Positive Law , is due to such Crimes ) , are obliged to pay him Obedience , to which he can have no other Right but Possession ; for whilst his King was alive , and in Possession of the Government , he could have no Right ; and certainly an Action so barbarous as murdering him that was ( suppose ) both his Father and King , which is against all Right , Law , and Justice , could never give him any Right or Just Title , because it is against all Conscience and Reason , that a man should reap any advantage by an Act so monstrously wicked ; and any Law that should allow a man any benefit by so enormous a Crime , would be as sinful it self : Nor can a man in any other case reap any advantage by his own Turpitude ; but here , because there is no superior to punish him , nor can Obedience be refused him without Injury to the Publick , it is peoples Duty , instead of punishing him , to pay him Obedience . And certainly the same Reason will hold for paying Obedience to any that get Possession of the Government , since none can get it more unjustly . All Legal Rights must depend upon the Laws , and all Laws , for their Authority , upon the Government ; and when that Government is at an end , all the Laws that concern it must be so too , and can no more oblige than the English Laws can in a Foreign Countrey ; because a Power to put Laws in execution ( whereby people are protected ) is essential to all Laws , because it is essential to all Government , on which the Laws depend ; and without such a Power no Civil Society , and by consequence no Civil Laws can subsist . No particular Law can bind in those circumstances , where all Laws would cease to bind ; and there is no reason that some Laws should oblige , when all Laws would have no obligation ; as they would not oblige if there were no Power to put them in execution ; because men , when there is no Power to restrain them from acting as they have a mind to , would be in the state of Nature , and consequently without any Laws but those of Nature . Without a Coercive Power , the Laws become a dead Letter , or at best but Advice ; so that there can be no Laws that can oblige people to act against the present Powers , because by being against the present Powers they cease to be Laws . If a Law that should oblige people not to pay Obedience to the actual Possessors of the Throne , had they not a Legal Title to it , were not in its own nature null , or could subsist after that Government to which it required Obedience , was destroyed , it would be void upon account of its Impiety ; because as long as the Legal Princes continue dispossessed , which might extend to some Centuries , it would overturn all Government , and all Civil Society , which are instituted for the good of mankind , and which Nature hath qualified man for , by making him a Sociable Creature . Can any man in his senses think , that a particular Prince's Interest can stand in competition with the very Being of Human Societies , and the Preservation and Safety of the People ? Is it not absurd to suppose , that Legal Rights that owe their Being to Civil Societies , should oblige people to put an end to Civil Societies ; and that Laws that are but the Rules of Government , should destroy Government it self , or that Human Laws should be able to destroy the Law of Nature , or take away that Natural Right which people have to act for their own good and preservation , which is a Right that is superior to all Human Laws , and for the sake of which all Human Laws were made . All Human Laws are made cum sensu humanae imbecillitatis ; nor do Legislators themselves design they shall oblige in case of great and pressing Inconveniences , but allow that a moral Necessity does destroy the Vertue and Force of them . The Good and Interest of the People , is the Supreme Law , to which the Rights and Titles of Princes must submit ; and where it is for the good of the Nation that they should be governed by such a particular person , That person best and most Legal Right , because it is built upon the Supreme and Fundamental Law of all Societies . And whoever designedly breaks this most Sacred Law , may justly be accounted a Rebel ; and as the Crime would be greater in them than others , if they who are hired by Travellers to protect them from Robbers , should rob them themselves ; so if Princes , who are intrusted by the people with Power , in order to Protect the Society , should make use of that Power to the Detriment of the Society , the Crime in them would be so much the greater , by how much more they are obliged to act otherwise . CHAP. VII . Objections answered . Object . UPON supposition that the Good of the Society is the Grand Vltimate Law , yet these Principles , which require Obedience to the Possessor , cannot be true , because they are against the Peace and Happiness of Nations , by encouraging Rebellion against all Princes , in obliging people to pay the same Allegiance , even to those that unjustly depose them . Answ. These Principles are so far from being destructive to the Peace and Quiet of Nations , or encouraging Rebellion against their Governors , that they require Obebience to all in Possession , upon pain of Damnation ; but if neither the fear of Eternal Punishment in the life to come , nor the severest that can be afflicted upon them in this , can secure people from rebelling , I must confess my Ignorance , I know nothing that can . It is the Duty of all Subjects to do their utmost to defend the Government ; that is but a just return , and what is due for its protecting and defending them : But if by the Chance of War , or any other way , it should lose the Power of Protecting them , they are not obliged to have their Throats cut , rather than pay Allegiance to that Government , by whose Favour and Protection they subsist , and enjoy what they have . And that Prince is very unreasonable , and acts against the rules of Humanity , as well as Charity , who when he is able no longer to Protect the People , would rather have them destroyed , then own that Government that can . Nothing can justify such an inhuman and barbarous Opinion , except it can be proved that men entred into Societies barely for the sake and interest of a single Person ; and that if his pleasure or profit require it , Millions of Lives must be indispensably sacrificed . This is to place Men in a worse condition than the Beasts are ; if they are in Conscience obliged to lose their Lives to gratifie the unlimited Pride , Ambition , Revenge , or Interest of a single Person . It is strange that any English-men , who are the Freest Nation in the world , should have such Notions of themselves , that they are no other then the King's Properties : Though it is but reasonable that men who design to bring the most insupportable Slavery on themselves , should qualifie themselves for it by Notions and Principles so much below the dignity of human Nature . These Principles are so far from being any ways prejudicial to Mankind , that it is they alone which in all Revolutions can secure human Societies , and make Governments easie and safe both to Kings and Subjects ▪ by putting an end to those otherwise endless Disputes of Titles . And Princes may without Fears or Jealousies mind the Publick good , because it secureth them who are in Possession against all Pretences . The most that can be Objected , Is that a Prince that has once lost his Dominions , may by these Principles chance to lose the hopes of ever recovering them again . A Prince that is unjustly expelled , ought to acquiesce if he has no way of Recovering his Kingdom but by disturbing the Peace and Quiet of a Nation ; he ought not to make use of such Unlawful means for the Recovery of his Kingdom ; and certainly others can have no reason to act against the good of the Community for his Interest , when he himself is obliged not to act . The interest of a Prince is only more Sacred then another's , when that of the Publick is involved in it , but when that is no longer concerned in his actions , he ceaseth to be the Publick Person , and is but upon equal terms with other private men , and ought as well as any other to acquiesce , rather than disturb the Quiet or Peace of a Nation . And there is then the same reason for not endeavouring to Restore him , as there was at first for not turning him out . All the ill consequences that can happen in this case , are that the less hopes Princes have of being Restored by such Unlawful means , the more careful ( it 's hoped ) they will be in Governing the Commonwealth , and more afraid of Arbitrary Illegal Practices . Object . If all Persons how unjustly soever they get a Crown , have the same Right ( their Consent ) to the Obedience of the People , then there can be no such thing as an Vsurper . Answ. He who without any just Cause destroys the Right that any Prince hath to the Allegiance of his Subjects , by making him uncapable to Protect them , and Protects them himself , may be called an Usurper : Though the People by the former Prince's losing his Power to Protect them , are reduced to the State of Nature , and by consequence free from any Allegiance , and may Lawfully or rather are obliged ( every one else being out of a capacity to Protect them ) to consent to be Governed by him , who has the Power to Protect them , who being so Chosen , has the only Right a King can have , the Consent of the People , who are as much obliged to Obey him , as they are any King whatever . The former King is so far then from being their Legal King , that he is no King at all , nor has any manner of Right to their Allegiance . It is true the Usurper having done him an Injury ought to make him satisfaction , and ( if he can without any damage to the Publick ) ought to place him in that condition he was in before he made him uncapable to Protect the People ; who then , for the sake of Protection which they receive from him , are obliged to pay him Obedience . The having a Right to be restored by the Usurper , is the only Right a Prince that is unjustly Deprived of his Regal Office can pretend to . And when I speak of his Legal Right , I mean nothing but this by it ; Amongst the Jews , though none could have a Legal Right but one of their own Nation , because they were obliged by God himself to chuse a King from amongst their Brethren , and God afterward , 2 Chron. 23. 3. entail'd the Crown upon the Posterity of David , yet when these were disabled to Protect the people by their being in the Power of Strangers , it was so far from being a Crime , that it was their Duty ( notwithstanding the Divine Legal Right any of their Brethren could pretend to ) to pay Allegiance to them , though for the most part they were Usurpers , having no just Cause to conquer them . CHAP. VIII . Of Conquest . IF the Supreme Powers upon the suddenness of the Attempt , or by any other reason become uncapable of Defending or Securing to them the Lives and Goods of their Subjects , they are , as to those particular Cases , in the state of Nature , and by their own Authority may justly take away the Lives of any that Assault them . There can be no reason why ( if in all other cases no Protection can be had from those they have consented to be Protected by ) they are not in the state of Nature , and by consequence at Liberty to pay Allegiance to those who have a Power to Protect them . And this is consonant to the sence and practice of Mankind ever since there has been Government in the world , who when their former Governors had lost the Power of Protecting them , thought themselves notwithstanding any Tyes , Oaths or Laws that might be pretended to the contrary , free from any Obligation as to them ; and because they could not subsist without Government , they have always consented to pay them Allegiance who had the Power to Protect them . And there are no Nations in the world , but have seldomer , or oftener , practised it ; and this is , perhaps the foundation of all the Governments which are now extant . And this practice does not only obtain as to whole Nations , but even to less places ; as to Towns , and Castles , which never scruple to pay Allegiance to their new Masters , though they change them more than once in a Campaign . I wonder what powerful Reasons ( never before discover'd to the world , and for ought I can see by their Writings , still undiscovered ) have now obliged private persons to deviate from the universal practice of Mankind , in refusing to pay Allegiance to the present Government , which alone has the power to protect them . The answer to this is , That Conquest gives the prevailing Powers a right , and that people submit to them as to Conquerors ; but the English are no conquered Nation , which ( though it is nothing to the purpose , as I shall immediatly shew ) is , I confess , a great truth . The King was so far from invading and conquering the Nation , that it was to secure their Rights and Priviledges , that he exposed his Sacred Person to such dangers : But according to their own Principles , one of these two they must grant ( for there is no medium ) , That the Late King either freely parted with his Government , and if so , there can be no manner of pretence for paying him Allegiance ; or that he was driven out by a Superior Force , which in other terms is being conquered : So that then ( according to these Principles ) His Present Majesty must have a right to whatever King James possessed . Conquest in it self , and barely considered , can give no manner of Right ; for what obligation can lye on a Nation to pay obedience to any one for battering down their Towns , killing their Inhabitants , destroying their Countrey ; and in short , for doing all manner of Outrages ? Must a Nation , as a grateful return for these kindnesses , be obliged to pay him all manner of obedience ? Can any man in his senses think these Injuries can give the Actor of them a title to peoples obedience ? or that mere force can give a right ? for then every one that was stronger than another would have a right to govern him . Conquest , by destroying the power the former King had to protect his Subjects , sets them at liberty from any obligation they owed him ; because they owed none to him , but upon the account of being protected by him : The Conqueror does not by this get a right to their Allegiance , because to free people from the power of another , and to have a right to command them himself , are different things . They being once free from Government , and by consequence in the state of Nature , nothing can give the Conqueror right to their Allegiance , but their own Consent . By which it appears , that Mankind hath been often in the state of Nature ; and considering the often Changes , and Revolutions , there could be few , or no legal Governments in the world , if in such Circumstances , all ties to their former Governors were not absolutely dissolved . But here it may be objected , That their Consent was not voluntary , but forced ; and therefore could not ob●ige them , or give the Conquerors a right . The conquered may in a sense be said to be forced to what they did , because they are bound by a moral Necessity to act for their own preservation , and happiness ; and for that reason they were obliged to leave the state of Nature , and be governed by him that had the power to Protect them ; none are forced to be Protected against their own Wills , they by the former Government 's dissolution , were reduced to a state of Nature , and if the Prince under whose Power they are , will not afford them his Protection , they would still remain in that state ; but they by claiming civil Rights , ( which they can only enjoy by his Governing them ) and referring their common Differences to be decided , and their Grievances to be redressed by him , or those that Act by his Authority , have put themselves out of the state of Nature , and have freely owned his Government by their Actions , which were voluntary , for they were not forced to have recourse to him for Protection in their Natural Rights , or obliged to claim any Civil ones ; and this is looked upon by Mankind as a free and voluntary consent , the most part of whom have no otherways than by their actions owned any Government . Though their consent was obtained by forcible means , yet that would not destroy the validity of it : It is true , in a Civil Society , all Contracts obtained by Force are void , but then the Force ought to be proved , for the presumption is against it , and Judges declare for a validity of a Contract , if the Forcible means which were used to obtain it , are not proved . But between Independent Nations , where force on one side is lawful ; where there is no superior Judge to determin the differences , or to judge whether force were justly imposed , both sides either thinking or pretending they are in the Right , all Leagues and Covenants , by whatever forcible means obtained , are valid , and the Good of Mankind ( which is a sufficient Reason ) does require it should be so , otherwise Wars would be perpetual , or not to be ended but by the utter Ruin of the Weaker , or Conquered Party ; because there could be no manner of Agreement , or Peace between them , if they had a Liberty , under pretence of Force , of breaking their Promises whenever they had an opportunity . In all such cases it is Lawful to Promise , there being no Superior ( as amongst private persons ) to take from them the Liberty of making such Contracts ; and the Good of Mankind does oblige People to fulfil those Lawful Promises . They cannot properly be said to be forced to Promise , because it was in their power to avoid Promising : Nor is their Consent Conditional but Absolute , and it is their greater Good ( either presumed , or real ) that obliges them to make such Contracts . For the same reason all Prisoners of War are obliged to stand to their Paroles , and to pay whatever they promise for their Liberties . The reason is the same for paying Allegiance to the New Government , whether by a just or unjust way the old one was dissolved ; and Mankind have all along equally submitted to Conquerors , whether the Cause of Conquest were Just or not : As few Conquerors have had a Just Cause for all the Mischiefs they have done . The reason for Submission is not how one Man gets others into his Power , or whether he had a just Cause of destroying the former Prince's Power , but whether they consent to be Governed by him after they are in his Power . It is for their own sake , and not for his , that they submit to his Government : They may act against their own Good in not submitting to the Conqueror , but they deny him no Right if they do not submit : It is not the Conquest it self , let it be never so just , but the after-consent that makes them Subjects . A Just Cause of War may make it no injustice to Dethrone a King , becanse he gave sufficient Provocation ; but how can one Prince's injuring another , absolve Subjects of their Oaths of Allegiance ? and give the Injured Prince a Right to Command them ; who , if he hath any Right besides their Consent , when he has put them into a capacity to Consent , must have it before the Conquest ; for mere Force cannot give or take away a Right , it can only put him in Possession of his Right ; and if he had any Right to their Allegiance before Conquest , I cannot see but that in Conscience they were bound to Transfer their Allegiance , and join with him against their former Prince , who by giving a just cause of War had Forfeited his Crown . Though the Nation be not Conquered , yet no reason can be urged for submitting to Conquerors , but what will hold as strongly for paying Allegiance to the present Government . Has not the Late King as much lost his Power to Protect the People , as if he had been driven out by Conquest ? Is it not the Present Government alone that makes the People a Civil Society ? Is it not by it that they are Protected in their natural Rights , or can claim any Legal ones ? which are the only reasons which oblige People to submit to Conquerors . And are not they that endeavour to disturb it , as much within the power and reach of the Government , as if they were Conquered ? And has not the King and Parliament as Absolute a Power as any Conqueror ? The only difference is , That without feeling any of those fatal Miseries which attend Conquest , they enjoy the Protection of the Government , and owe their Preservation to it ; and the Nation instead of losing any of their Rights and Liberties , enjoy greater , and are secured from the worst of Slaveries , which otherwise they had inevitably fallen into : So that they have infinitely stronger obligations to pay Allegiance , than if they had been Conquered ; to which their Zeal and Loyalty ought to be proportionable . CHAP. IX . Of Possession . ALL Writers , I think , allow , That after a Possession of a long continuance , ( though they extreamly differ how much time is necessary ) a Right does accrue to the Possessor , though there are some of the Right Line still in being . If it be unjust to pay the first Possessor Obedience , I cannot see how a long Possession can alter the case . A continuance in an injustice may make the injustice greater , but not alter the nature of things , and make the greatest Wrong to be Right . Though all things are done in Time , yet Time it self operates nothing . This Mistake ( as a great many others are ) is occasioned by the parallel men draw between private Persons ( who are tyed up by Laws that are Enacted by the Supreme Powers ) and the Supreme Powers themselves . By the Laws of most Nations , if private men neglect to make a Legal demand of their Rights in a certain time appointed by the Laws , they lose them , and a Right does accrue to the possessor ; but this depends upon a Law Enacted by the Supreme powers , who have a Right to dispose of private Estates as they judge best for the publick good ; whose Laws can oblige none but their own Subjects . But what authority have the Subjects , or the possessor to dispose of the Legal Prince's Rights ? Besides , it might justly be imputed to a private man 's own neglect , if , when the Law is open , he does not recover his Right : It may well be presumed he hath relinquished it . But that cannot be said of a Prince who has no Court of Justice to appeal to , or any other likely way to recover his Right , yet by bearing the Arms and Title , and by other ways still asserts his Right . How numerous are the instances of Princes possessed of Territories belonging to others , and who have been so for a great many years ? Yet none dare affirm the Subjects that pay them allegiance , are , and have been all along Traitors : To give but one instance amongst hundreds ; The Kings of England have a Right to the Kingdom of France , and have constantly claimed it by causing themselves to be stiled Kings of France , and by bearing the Arms of that Crown ; yet none will condemn the French as Traitors , who have all along paid allegiance to the French Kings . But if the Kings of England by tract of time have lost their Right to the Obedience of the French , and before that time it was Treason for those of that Nation to pay allegiance to the French Kings , I should be glad to know what Month , or Year , it ceased to be Treason ; for it is a thing of mighty consequence to know how long it is Treason to obey a King in possession , and when it becomes Treason not to obey him . In short , if a King can have a Right to a Countrey , and it be no Crime in those of that Countrey not to pay him allegiance , it demonstrateth that allegiance is not annexed to the Title , but that it is due to the person that does protect them . Object . Though Time does not give a Right , yet the Acts , or the no Acts , that is , the omission of some , may in time amount to a resignation of the Right of the Legal Prince to the Vsurpers . Answ. I grant a man's mind may be expressed by acts as well as words : yet it would be a very hard cafe to condemn all those of Treason who have paid allegiance to the possessors , before they had sufficient grounds to believe the Legal Prince or his Heirs had by their acts ( if such acts could destroy the Right of the next of Kin ) resigned their and their Legal Successors Right to the Usurper . In how few cases is there reason for such presumption ? If till then all people should be obliged to be destroyed rather than pay allegiance ; what a Destruction would it make in the World ? Would it not in most cases expose , at least the Good and Conscientious to certain ruin ? And others could notpreserve themselves without a Sin , whose reward is Damnation . Long possession is not at all necessary to justifie the peoples Obedience ; for that very moment the people receive protection and defence from the new Powers , they ought to pay them the same allegiance as if they had been in possession of the Government a Thousand Years . The less time a Nation has been setled , the more need it has of rest and peace , and the more dangerous would any violent Revolution be . CHAP. X. Of Protection . BY Opposing those in possession of the present Government , the ill affected act not only against the preservation and happiness of the Nation , but are guilty of the basest and foulest ingratitude , by endeavouring to destroy those persons to whose protection they owe their preservation , and the safe enjoyment of what they have . Who else secureth them from being stript and plundered of all they have , their Wives and Daughters Ravished , and perhaps they and their whole Families Murthered ? What better usage could they expect , if they were left to the mercy of the Rabble , or to the discretion of every one to use them as they pleased ? Can any man in his Conscience think he is obliged to destroy those persons from whom he receives such benefits ? Is it not Serpent-like to sting that bosom that warms them ? Is this all the grateful returns they can make to the Father of their Countrey ? For if that Command of Honour thy Father and Mother extends to Governors ; since they do not beget their Subjects , it must be for protecting and defending them , that that Title is due : Therefore it can be due to none but those in Possession , for none but they do protect and defend them . Could they justly blame the Government if it did not protect them , who make it their business to ruin it , when too without their being protected , they would quickly be reduced to a Condition of not being able to give it the least disturbance ? What favour can they justly expect , when they not only disown the Government , but think themselves obliged in Conscience to make War upon the Society that owns it ? Nay , they are actually in the state of War , and only watch for an opportunity to fall on . What excuse can a Government have for endangering the Common-wealth by protecting those who are no part of it , but are professed Enemies to it ? It is a cruel Mercy to endanger a whole Nation for the sake of its Enemies . Nay , why should they have more favour than Foreign Enemies ? It is so far from being an excuse , that it aggravates their Crime , that it is to their own Nation they are Enemies , and that it is in their own Countrey that they are endeavouring to raise a Civil War. Though they were still Members of the Body Politick , yet , as a man is obliged to cut off any of his Limbs to preserve the Body Natural , so the Government is obliged to do the same for the Body Politick , if it be necessary for its preservation . It is frequently urged by the Jacobites and their Favourers , That what they do , is upon the account of Conscience , and therefore they ought not to suffer for it ; which is but a sorry Reason to hinder the Government from taking all necessary means to preserve it self , and to prevent the ruin of the Nation . But this Argument looks very odly from them who were so zealous to persecute others about things , in which neither the Honour of God , nor the Good of the Commonwealth were concerned . It is as absurd as sinful for any to persecute their Brethren on pretence of Religion , for things which they themselves own to be no part of Religion , but merely in themselves indifferent . But to return , If they will not be thought Enemies to the Society , but part of it , ought they not to act equally with the rest , for the Peace and Quiet of it , and submit to the Head , that rules and governs it ? How can they pretend to be Members of the Society , and consequently claim any Civil Rights by being so , without owning the actual Government that makes them Members of the Society ? Do they not , by disowning the Government , renounce the benefit of the Laws , ( which only can be put in execution by the Government ) and Out-law themselves ? How can they have any more right to the protection of the Government , if they Out law themselves , than if the Government , by putting them out of its protection , had Out-lawed them ? So that it is wholly by the favour of the Government ( for they have no true pretence to them ) that they enjoy any Legal Rights . If they think they should be severely dealt with , if the Government did not protect them , why do they not what is necessary to enable the Government to protect them ? If they will the Consequence , the protection of the Government ; ought they not to will the Antecedent , all that is necessary to it ? And if it be lawful to desire and to receive the Advantages which flow from Government ( which I suppose no Jacobite will be so hardy as to deny ) why must not the means that are necessary to obtain these Advantages , be so too ? How can they that are willing to be protected by any person , be unwilling ( except they desire Contradictions ) that that person should have a power to govern them , because without such a power he cannot protect them ; and they that are willing to receive an universal protection , are presumed to be willing to pay all obedience that is necessary for that end ; which is an Obedience as universal as the Protection they expect . It is evident , That he that is willing to receive an universal Protection from a Government , is willing that the Government should have a coercive Power over all others , to restrain them from injuring him ; and that it should have sufficient Authority to do justice , and oblige all people to pay obedience to the Laws , when they are put in execution for his sake , because in it wholy consists his Protection ; and he that is willing the Government should have power over all other people upon his account , ought to be willing the Government should have the same power over him , for the sake of others , except he would be the only man in the Nation without Government ; and is unwilling to do that himself , which he would have all others ( whatever their Principles are ) to do . If the Nonjurers do desire to be protected , and do actually receive the protection of the Government , ( though at the same time they pretend it is against their Consciences ) it is manifest they do own the Government , and by their Actions consent to submit to it ; and what force can a Protestation have against their own Acts ? Do not the Jacobites upon all occasions ●●y for protection to the Government ? and apply themselves to those Ministers , as Legal Officers , who act by no other Authority than their Majesties ? And have they not constant recourse to the Courts , whose Proceedings are in their Majesties names and authority ? Do not all Writs run in their names , and do they not Prosecute people in their Majesties names as acting against the Crown and Dignity of our Sovereign Lord and Lady King William and Queen Mary , &c. And do they not apply themselves to the King's Ministers for the benefit of those very Laws which are enacted by the present Government , and by consequence own the Authority that makes them ? How then can they own the Ministers , and not own the Authority by which they act ? and if the taking a Commission from the King for the administration of publick Justice , or in defence of the Kingdom , be owning the Authority of the King , why must not the complying with them , as such , be owning the Authority by which they act ? but if they don't own the Ministers to act by Lawful Authority , then they must confess their Sentences are so many Robberies and Murthers , because they have no just Authority for what they do , and they make themselves accessary , since it is at their request they commit them . Is it not esteemed by all Laws owning the Authority of a Court , to appeal to it ? Is it not owning the Pope's Authority , to appeal to him , or any Commissioned by him ? Is it not by the Law of Nations , and an universal consent of Mankind , an acknowledging a Government , to receive Protection from it ? Do not all that go into a Foreign Prince's Dominions , during their stay , by receiving the Protection of the Government , own themselves subject to it ( except Ambassadors , over whom Soveraigns have agreed to suspend the exercise of their Right ) and are they not obliged equally with the Natives , to pay Allegiance ; and a ▪ like guilty of Treason ; and so tried , if they attempt any thing against it ▪ And upon this head , all private attempts upon a Prince in his own Countrey , have been abhorred by all Nations ; and those that designed any thing of this Nature , have not been treated as just Enemies , though in time of War ; because the presumption is , They enter as Subjects into the Dominions of that Prince that protects them . If applying to a King , as such , for his protection , and receiving it , be not owning his Authority , Princes have but a small security for the obedience of the greatest numbers of their Subjects , who have no otherwise obliged themselves to own their Government , but by receiving protection from them . The denying , That addressing to a Government for protection , and receiving it , is owning That Government , layeth a mighty gap open to Rebellion , by destroying the obligation of all Allegiance , but what is built upon verbal Promises ; So that Men of those Principles ought to be looked upon as Enemies of all Order and Government . By examining what it is that gives Government a right to the obedience of men , who are by nature free , it will the better appear what right the present Government has to the Allegiance of those it protects . The reason that is usually given , why people are obliged to obey any particular Government , is ( no Prince being so ridiculous as to pretend a right , as the First-born in a direct Line from Adam or Noah ) because it was the intent of those who first formed the Society , that such persons , and their Successors ( if they made the Government Hereditary ) should have a right to govern the Nation for ever . But how could they , whose Authority with their Being ceased so long since , oblige the Consciences of those who were not then in being ? or how could any Acts or Compacts of their Ancestors take away the natural Liberty of those that were born so many years after , and who have the same right to freedom as they had ? Or how could their Compacts oblige those that are not descended from them , but come from other Countries into the Society , and make it a sin in them not to obey the present Governors of any Society , upon whose Authority alone , and not upon the Founders of the Society , depends the validity of all former Laws , which can only bind , because it is the will of the present Powers they should ; otherwise no Laws could be repealed , if their very being did not depend upon the pleasure of the present Supream Powers , who design they shall oblige , until they declare the contrary . Others say , That being born in a Countrey , makes one a Subject for all his life to the Government of that Countrey ; but why should being in a Countrey , by being born in it , make one become a Subject , more than being in the same Countrey at another time . Besides , common Experience shews this to be false , because whoever is born in a Countrey where his Parents are Foreigners , may , as it is allowed by all , leave that Countrey when he pleaseth . But perhaps it may be said , he is a Subject to that Prince where his Parents were born . What if they were born under the same Circumstances ? or suppose his Parents are of different Countreys , as if a Dutch Woman and an English Man have a Child in France ; since France does not pretend to him , which of the Nations can claim him for their Subject ? or must he be divided ? So that the difficulty still remains , how people come to be obliged to obey any particular Government ? which I think can only thus be solved . Every person , though he be born free , yet he is for the sake of his own safety , obliged to part with his Liberty , and put himself under the protection of Government . Nor can he be secure in what he enjoys but by it . Nor can he have a right in a Countrey ( that is already possest ) to any thing , but by owning the Government of that Countrey . And by pretending to the Priviledges the rest of the Society enjoy , he has owned himself a Member of the Society , and a Subject of the Government of it . And this is the only way that any ( except by verbal Promises ) consent to become subject to Government . The consent of particular persons being separately and singly given , unthinking people take little notice of it , and suppose they are as naturally Subjects , as men ; and consequently , that they have no more right to free themselves from their Subjection , than from their Human Nature ; nay , must suffer themselves to be destroyed rather than endeavour it . But it may be objected , If a man is no-ways bound to a Government , but by his own Consent , and if the Acts of his Ancestors no way oblige him , he is not bound to stand to their divisions of the Lands , but he may , pro virili , put in for a share , as he might , when all things were in common . Ans. If it would be injustice in any one to go into a Foreign Countrey , to the Laws of which he is not bound , and seize any Land in it , on pretence that the divisions of the Land were formerly made by people whose Acts could not oblige him , and therefore he had as just a right as any of the Inhabitants , to a share in the Land ; if this were injustice in him , why would it not be so in one that is born in that Countrey ? What Right can he , that comes from no other place , but from Nothing , pretend to , more than he that first came from another Countrey . If a Countrey be wholly possessed , and occupied , ( which by the Law of Nature , antecedent to all Human Laws , gives a right ) by being improved and cultivated by the labour and industry of the Inhabitants , who are so very numerous , that the Land does not produce without vast labour , sufficient to maintain them , what right can any that comes into this Countrey , either by being born in it , or any other way , have to their labour , by usurping any part of this Land , which was long since possessed , and divided amongst the the Inhabitants , who having a full power over their own Properties , might subject them to what Laws they pleased , ( and which the Legislative Power may still continue ) and permit none to have a right to them , or enjoy any advantages by them , or so much as to be in the Countrey without owning the Government of it ? And it is highly reasonable that no Government should suffer any to remain in its Dominions , who will not own its Authority , or be subject to the Laws of the Countrey . If it were unjust , before Lands were divided , to have robbed any one of the Fruits of the Earth , that he by gathering had made his property , why should it not be as much injustice to seize upon that Land , which is now as much another's Property , as the gathered Fruits were then ? But I shall speak no more upon this Subject , because it is , in his Essay of Government , so fully handled by that wonderfully Ingenious , and Judicious Author , whose Works of all sorts one cannot enough commend . Whatever Society people chance to be Members of , whether it be their Native , or any other , they are , during their stay , equally obliged , for the sake of the protection they receive , to Pay Allegiance to the Governors of that Society . It is not material , whether they enjoy Properties for their lives , years , weeks , or days , the greatest part of the Natives have no more Properties , or enjoy no greater Advantages by the Government , than Foreigners , yet they are obliged to pay the same Allegiance the rest of the Society do . But here it may be objected , That there is a natural Allegiance due to the Governors of the first Society Men are of , ( which cannot be due to any other ) without whose consent they cannot leave the Society , and when abroad , are obliged , when they command them , to return . Man being born free , ( that distinction of legal and natural Allegiance being wholly groundless ) is still Master of all that Liberty he has not parted with ; and if the Laws of the first Society , to which he has consented , by being a Member of it , have not obliged him not to leave the Society without the consent of the Governor , he is at liberty to transport himself into what Countrey he pleaseth , and to stay in it as long as he pleaseth . It is for the interest of Mankind that they should not be debarred the liberty of living where it is most for their interest ; and because Nations could not maintain any Trade or Commerce one with another , if people that went from one Countrey to another , had not a power to return when they had a mind to it ; that Liberty , by the Law of Nations , is equally allowed to all : They , it is true , who have left a Countrey , whether it was that they were born in , or any other , yet as long as they enjoy any Property in it , are obliged , if they intend to save their Property , to leave all other Countreys , when commanded . Men oftner having Properties in their Native , than in any other Countrey , has given occasion to some to conclude , That there was a natural obligation on them to return , when commanded : But there can be no reason assigned from Nature , why more Allegiance should be due to the Governors of that Countrey in which they were born , than to the Governors of that Countrey they afterwards voluntarily go into ; where for the Protection they receive , they are obliged to pay the same Allegiance as they did when they were in their Native Countrey . And if a Foreign Prince should get the power of protecting them in their Native Countrey , they would be obliged to pay him the same allegiance , as they did when they were under his protection in another Countrey : Because in each Countrey the protection is the same . Though they that reside in a Foreign Society , are equally subject with the Natives , to the Laws of it ; and by opposing the Government , would be equally guilty of Treason ; yet if during their stay , any alteration happens in the Government , contrary to the Laws , they never scruple to pay allegiance to him that gets possession of the Government , though his Title be never so illegal . I see no reason why they should not do the same in their first Society , since whatever Society they are in , during their stay , they are equally obliged to obey the Laws of that Society . Are not these Reasons as strong for paying allegiance to the present Government ? Can any man enjoy the Priviledges of the Society , without being a Member of the Society ? or can any one be a Member of a Society , without owning the Head of it , or paying their allegiance to him ? or is there any other Head that rules and governs the Members , but the present King ? Is it not by his Authority , that the Members of the Society receive an universal Protection , as to their Lives , Liberties and Estates , under whose Government they are , or else they are under none , but in the state of Nature ? And there is no Reason , or Law , to oblige people to remain in a state so inconsistent with their happiness . And it would be injustice for any to remain in that state , because they would be their own Judges in all the Disputes they had with others , who were willing to refer their Differences to a standing impartial Judge ; nor have any been guilty of it , but all , not excepting the Jacobites , by making use of the protection of the Government , have left the state of Nature , and have owned themselves subject to it . After this , what pretence can any Member of the Society have of refusing to pay their allegiance to a King , whom they have all along by their actions owned , and by whom they have been secured from groaning under the worst of Slaveries , which had been to them the more intolerable , because of the great liberty and freedom they before enjoyed ; so that all the Reasons that can well be imagined to oblige people firmly and intirely to any Sovereign , do all conspire to tie them up in the strongest bonds of allegiance and fidelity to the present King and Queen . By what hath been said , I think it is evident , how absolutely necessary it is for the good of Mankind to submit to those persons that are capable of protecting them , and that applying to them for protection , is acknowledging their Government , and Authority , and that the Jacobites , in using the protection of the Government , and at the same time opposing it , as far as they dare , act basely , treacherously , ungratefully and inconsistently . But they that oppose the Government , after they have sworn to be true to it , break all Tyes both Sacred and Civil ; for if neither their Oaths , nor the good of the Society they pretend to be Members of , nor the duty they owe the Government for protecting them , can oblige them ; no bonds whatever ( for these are the most inviolable ) can hold them : How can any Prince , or private person , trust them , since they have destroyed all manner of security , trust , and confidence men have in one another ? All the answer to this is ( I mean of the Non-swearers , for the others are not capable of giving any ) That they act upon the presumed consent of the outed Prince , who ( they suppose ) is willing , that they should obey the present Government in all things which are for the good of the Society , and their own preservation , provided it be not contrary to his interest . Which answer is not at all to the purpose , because it supposeth they are still obliged to disturb the publick Peace , and raise Civil Commotions for his interest , and notto own the present Government , though it should be absolutely necessary for their preservation . Can any Civil Society be preserved , if private Men are obliged not to obey those that actually Govern it , except they think it for the interest of a person who is a declared Enemy to the Society ? and when every thing that tends to the support and advantage of the Society , because it makes the present Government more potent , must be against his interest ? What if the late King has no other way to regain his Throne but by the Ruin and Confusion of the Nation ? must the Jacobites assist him in Ruining the Nation ? as it is plain by their Principles they are obliged to do ; for if once they think that they are obliged to act against the good of the Society by raising a Civil War , it is certain there is no mischief , provided it be for his interest , that they ought to stop at . And it is plain by their rejoycing at any publick Calamity that happens to the Nation , that they are ready if they thought it at present for his interest , to fire all the Towns in England , or act any more horrid Villany . But if they disown these Principles , and say they are obliged to act for the preservation and good of the Community contrary to his Interest and Consent , then they are obliged to obey the present Government , because that is for the good of the Community , and for the safety of particular persons , who if they have the Late king's Consent to do such acts as necessarily infer the owning the authority of the Government , they have his Consent to own and obey the Government . And then according to their own Principles , they can have no pretence of denying allegiance to it . If such acts do not amount to an owning the authority of the Government , then most people never owned the Late King's authority , because they owned it no other way then by receiving protection from him . It is strange that not only those that receive protection from the Government , but even those that have thrust themselves into places of the greatest Trust , and consequently have the greatest Obligation to bear true allegiance to Their Majesties , should own they have no Right to it ; and the greatest Compliment they can give them , is , That they are King and Queen de Facto ; which in other words is calling them Usurpers ; and is , even whilst they are their Servants , owning themselves Subjects of the Late King. Men of such Principles cannot accept of Places of Trust , but for verybase ends ; for they must either design to act against their Consciences in acting against the interest of him they esteem their Lawful and Rightful King , or else they must design to betray their Trust in acting for his interest ; which , when it is their own interest too , and they may have what Price they demand for betraying their Trust , there can be no doubt but they will endeavour to serve him who they think has the Right Title to their allegiance . The fatal consequences that have happened to the Nation upon trusting men of those Principles , have too well demonstrated the truth of it . But to return , If doing all those acts the Male-contents do in order to the securing their Persons and Properties , be not owning themselves Subjects of the Government , there was no reason for Mankind to have submitted to , and owned any Government ; since according to their Principles they could have all manner of protection and defence without any Government ; because they ( as they pretend ) enjoy protection from the Government without owning its authority over them , or any duty in them to obey . CHAP. XI . Of Oaths of Fidelity . PErhaps it will be said , Tho upon supposition that there is no reason why people should pay Allegiance any longer than they are protected , yet if they have otherwise tyed themselves by their Oaths , they are in Conscience obliged by those Oaths . But I answer , Such Oaths ( if ever such were imposed ) would be so far from binding , that they would be null upon the account of the sinfulness of them , as being directly against the good of human Societies . In all Promises and all Oaths concerning things that are not Moral , this tacite condition is always included , of their not being , or upon alteration of the Circumstances becoming contrary to the publick Good ; and this is without all doubt to be observed about Government , because it was instituted for no other reason but for the publick Good. Oaths do not alter the nature of allegiance , or make it due where it was not before , or any ways extend it , but only add a new tye to pay that allegiance which is due upon the account of protection ; he that lives under a Government , though he has not Sworn to it , owes it the same allegiance as he that has ; and if he should deny his allegiance to it , would be equally guilty of Treason , though not of Perjury . It is evident by the universal practice of Mankind , that no Subjects ever thought themselves obliged by their Oaths of Fidelity , which Governments have constantly imposed on them , when they ceased to be protected by them . The Legislative power , especially where the people have a share in it , are presumed to recede as little as possible from natural equity , and to design by imposing such Oaths , the good and preservation of the Society ; whose interest it is , that they that have the publick Administration of affairs should not be disturbed . But it is not at all material whether this or that man , provided they are well managed , has the direction of them : Nor can it without the greatest absurdity be supposed , that such numbers of men as Societies are composed of , who are by nature equal , should oblige themselves by the most solemn Tyes to become most miserable , by living without protection ; nay , to lose even their lives rather than own the Government that can protect them , for no other reason , but barely an extraordinary fondness to one of their Number , to give him , not the Necessaries or real Conveniences of Life , but only an Office ( for Government is no other ) which is but an imaginary happiness ; for if Government were a real happiness to the Persons that possess it , several upon their parting with it would not have found themselves happier then before . That people should be true to those that have the administration of Civil affairs , is all that Oaths of Fidelity require : and it is evident by the words of it , that the late Oath of Allegiance required no more , and to extend it further then the King in Possession , is not reconcileable with the reason , end , and design of paying obedience ; which is the peace aud happiness of the Society , which can never be maintained if people may , for the sake of a single person , disturb him that has the Administration of their common affairs ; and it would require impossibilities , because a private person is incapable of paying allegiance to a King when out of possession of the Government . CHAP. XII . Of the Act of Parliament of the 11 of Hen. 7. BEsides no Act of Parliament ought to be so interpreted , as by bare implication to destroy a former Act , as such an interpretation would the Eleventh of Hen. 7. Chap. 1. a Law still in force , which does declare , It is against all Law , Reason , and Conscience , that Subjects , &c. any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their Duty and Service of Allegiance . Be it Enacted , &c. That no person that attends upon the King and Sovereign Lord for the time being , and does him true and faithful Service of Allegiance , &c. shall not any-wise be molested . What can be plainer then that it is the duty of every Subject to bear true saith and allegiance to the King in being ? And to encourage them in their duty , the Laws does secure them from any manner of Molestation for the time to come , and declares it against all Law , Reason , and Conscience that any should suffer upon that account . The people would be in a most miserable condition , should they be in danger of being Hang'd for not obeying the King in being , or for obeying him , to be punished by the succeeding Kings as Traitors . The endless quarrels , almost to the utter Ruin of the Nation , between the Houses of York and Lancaster , made the necessity of such a Law very evident : Tho this then was no new Law but only declarative of the ancient Law ( for they supposed it before to be against all Law , as well as Reason and Conscience , that , &c. ) By which Law it is plain , that a King in possession has the same Right to the Peoples allegiance , as any King whatever ; because no King has any other then a Legal Right to the peoples obedience , which this Law declareth is the Right of all that are in possession of the Government . And accordingly it has been the opinion of the Lawyers , that Treason cannot be committed but against a King in possession , and there can be no Treason committed but against him to whom allegiance is due ; and Acts of Parliament made in the Reigns of such Kings ( though not confirmed by succeeding Kings ) are valid , and oblige the Subjects , as much as those made by such as are usually call'd Legal Kings . But it may be Objected , That if they who were instrumental in a Rebellion , may not endeavour to restore their Legal Prince , they put themselves out of a possibility of making restitution . Answ. Those that unjustly deprive a King of his Crown , ought no doubt to Restore him ; but if another has got possession of the Government , by what has been said , I think it is plain they ought to obey him . There can be no dispute , but they that were no way instrumental in the Revolution , but did their Duty in Defending him in the possession of his Crown , were free from any obligation as to him , when he had lost the power of protecting them ; and were bound for the sake of their own preservation to pay allegiance to him from whom they received protection , and obliged to defend him to the utmost ; but if the rest of the Society who receive protection from him are obliged to oppose him , then the Society must be divided , and of necessity run into Civil Wars , which is against the nature of Civil Societies , and inconsistent with the duty of self-preservation , which obligeth men not to expose their lives but to obtain a greater good than their lives , which can only be the publick Good , not the single Interest of any one person . They that were instrumental in raising a Rebellion , were no doubt guilty of a very enormous crime , but that which made it so , was not barely the injury they committed against the Prince ( to whom , if alone considered , the breach of a promise in refusing to pay obedience to him , could be no greater crime than a breach of a promise to another person ) but the fatal mischief & irreparable damage they did the Commonwealth : And a new Commotion , in all probability , would be more destructive ; and a Nation by being so much weakned by the former , would be less able to bear a new War. It is a greater sin , if the persons themselves are only considered , to take away the life , of one man , than to deprive another of any worldly advantage ; it is only the publick that makes it otherwise , but the publick in both cases is equally concerned , and the consequences may be as fatal in disturbing the Usurper's Government , as that of a Legal Prince . That which makes the Crime of Rebellion of so deep a dye , is , because Rebels put it out of their power to make reparation for all the misery and destruction a Civil War creates ; nor is endeavouring to bring the same Calamities upon a Nation , a proper way to make them amends . If there be no other way to make reparation to their injured King , but by engaging the Nation in Civil Wars , they ought not to attempt making him reparation by such unlawful ways . The not restoring a Person to the Crown that he is unjustly deprived of , can only be considered , when the publick is no longer concerned in his Actions , and the Affairs of the Nation are managed by other hands , as an injury to a single person , and the greatness of the injury , is to be judged not by the value of the thing it self , but what he that is unjustly deprived of it , suffers by the loss of it . What is absolutely necessary for the subsistence of one person may be but superfluities to another ; and as the Widows Mites were greater Charity than what the Rich out of their Abundance gave ; so the Robbing her of them , because she could less spare them , would have been a greater injury , and consequently a greater sin , than Robbing a Rich man , that could better spare it , of a thousand times as much . Tyrants , it is true , rob great numbers of the conveniences , and very often of the necessaries of Life ; but Usurpers only hinder single persons from enjoying , not the necessaries or conveniences of Life , but Superfluities , because all the necessaries , and even conveniences of life , can be had without a Crown . Yet the Usurpers , without all dispute , if they can without any injury to the publick , ought to restore the Government to those from whom they do unjustly wrest it ; but if they do not , Subjects for the sake of Government , to which Sacred Ordinance , Obedience by God himself , as well as man is annexed , ought to submit . Christ and his Apostles make no distinction , but command Obedience to all in possession , by annexing God's Authority to the Office of Governing . CHAP. XIII . Of Proofs of Scripture concerning Obedience to those that actually Administer Government . CHRIST in the Directions he gave , Mat. 23. to his Disciples , and to the multitude about their Behaviour to the Scribes and Pharisees , requires Obedience to be paid them only upon the account of Possession ; saying , The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat , all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe , that observe and do : and gives no other reason for this great Obedience in doing and observing whatever they command , but because they sat in Moses's seat ; that is , were possessed of Moses's Authority , who in the Theocracy was the Chief Magistrate . Not that the Scribes and Pharisees had so great a power as Moses , but as far as they did enjoy his Seat , Throne , and Authority , so far they were to be Obeyed : They were then the greatest , as well as chiefest part of the grand Sanhedrin , which in all causes where the Romans had left the Jews to their Liberty , had the Supreme Power both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters . ( There were not in the Jewish Republick two distinct independant Powers , one for Civil , another for Ecclesiastical Causes ) . If the people were then obliged to pay so great Obedience , barely upon the account of Possession , why may not the same direction serve for a standing rule to the multitude in all times ? And not only to the Inferiors , but even to the Supreme Magistrate himself Christ requires Obedience upon no other account but that of possession . If Caesar be in possession of the Empire , as it did appear by his Coining of Money and Stamping his Image upon it , that being a mark of Sovereignty and Empire , but not of any Legal Title to it ; then Caesar is to have Tribute and all other parts of Allegiance paid him . And St. Paul in express terms requires Obedience to the powers that be , and declares there is no Power but what is from God. The Jews being influenced by the Priests and Pharisees , who because they were obliged by their Law to place no Stranger over them , scrupled to pay obedience to the Roman Emperors , because they were Strangers and not capable of a Legal Right , not considering the Law did not oblige them but when it was in their own choice , and not when they were under the power of the Romans , to whom for the sake of protection they were obliged to pay obedience ; St. Paul , to take away these scruples , assures them all Powers are from God. If St. Paul had only meant Legal Powers , since none but Jews were capable of being such , he had confirmed the Jews in their Error . But the reason why St. Paul obliges men to submit , will demonstrate that all actual Rulers are meant and none but they , because they alone are a Terror to evil works , and a Praise to the good , none but the actual Ruler is a Minister of God , a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil , or a Minister of God for good . What can more fully demonstrate that the reason of obedience is for the benefits men receive by Government ? And what makes the Crime of Resisting them so great , is , because men Oppose those by whom they receive so many advantages ? It is because they have the power of the Sword ( which includeth all manner of Punishment ) by which they secure and protect their Subjects from all manner of injury and violence of ill men ; and being Ministers of God for good , includeth all the good they receive both to their Persons and Properties ; for which cause you pay tribute also , for they are God's ministers continually attending upon this very thing . It is their dispensing these advantages to Mankind , that makes them God's Ministers and God's Ordinance ( the Scripture affirming those things that are necessary for the good of Mankind to come from God , as plowing and sowing , Isaiah 28. from Verse the 23d . to the 29th . ) If it once be known ( as the discovery cannot be difficult ) who it is that beareth the Sword , who administers Justice , who Rewards , and who Punisheth ; if the Apostle's word is to be taken , subjection is not only due to him for Wrath , but for Conscience-sake : and the same Apostle exhorts , That prayers be made for Kings , and all in Authority , that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty . These reasons can only concern those that have actual Power and Authority , by whose protection those that live under them may lead such lives ; and if it be our duty to pray that we may lead such Lives , it must be our duty to enable them that have Authority over us , to secure us in the enjoyment of a quiet and peaceable Life . Do the Principles or Practices of the Jacobites suit with this Doctrine ? who instead of Praying for those in Authority , make it their business by opposing them , to destroy not only our Quiet and Peace , and even all Godliness and Honesty too , by endeavouring to set up again a Popish Governor , and by consequence , to introduce a Religion , whose Principles are destructive of true Godliness and Honesty , as well as the Peace and Quiet of the Professors of them . And St. Peter for the same reason requires people to submit to the Supream Magistrate , whom he calls the Ordinance of Man ; so that it is plain , that God by approving this Human Ordinance , approves it as Human , and requires obedience to it for the same Reasons that men at first instituted it . And it is the power Governors have to do Good that makes them to be not only God's Ordinance , and God's Ministers , but even Gods ; for since they are not Gods by nature , ( tho by some peoples arguing one would suppose they though them such , or at least Beings in themselves superior to the rest of Mankind ) it must be for the protection they afford , that they are termed so ; who when they do no longer protect the people , cease to be a Human Ordinance , and then too they cease to be a Divine one : And the same Reasons that obliges people to submit to them , when they act for the good of the Society , does as much oblige people to oppose them , if they design to ruin and destroy them . It cannot well be supposed , that God who has obliged Mankind to preserve their lives , and consequently to use the means that are necessary for that end , should require People to suffer themselves to be destroyed , to gratify the Lust , or Barbarity of a single Person , or a few ; who are by Nature but their Equals , and only above them by being in an Office which they erected only for their Convenience . Obj. St. Paul makes no manner of exception , but declareth , Whosoever resists shall receive damnation . Ans. The Apostle requireth obedience to Parents in all things ; so he requireth obedience to Masters , Husbands , Pastors , without mentioning any Exceptions ; so here the Apostle ( which was sufficient for his purpose ) declareth all people ought to obey the Supream Powers , without mentioning this exception , which from the nature , end , and design of Government , and even from those Reasons which he gives for Obedience , does necessarily flow . It cannot be presumed that Christ gave Authority to his Apostles to make Slaves of Mankind , by giving the Emperors a new Power , who before by no Law of God or Nature had such a power over peoples lives . All the Power the Roman Government had , was immediatly from the people ; who , as it is plain in History , by their mutual Consent erected that Commonwealth ; and what power the Emperors had , was given them too by the people , who by the Lex Regia conferred it upon them . All that can be deduced from Scripture , is , That obedience is due to those that protect the people ; and nothing can be plainet than those Texts which require it : By which plain and ignorant people may know their duty , as well as the learned and wise . It would have been inconsistent with the Goodness of God to have required obedience on the greatest penalties , and yet leave it so uncertain , as the Jacobitish Principles would render it , to whom obedience is to be paid . What can be more uncertain than generally Titles are ? And are there not innumerable intricate difficulties , about long Possession , presumed Consent , a just cause for a total Conquest , &c. If about these Points the Learned do so extreamly differ , as any one may perceive , that gives himself the trouble to examine what Authors have writ upon it , who give good Reasons for destroying one another's Hypothesis , but none for confirming their own , but what are liable to equal Exceptions ; what means or possibility have almost all Mankind , the unlearned and common people , of knowing their duty ? But it may be objected , Though the common people should be mistaken , invincible Ignorance will excuse them . Ans. Not to dispute how far such Ignorance will excuse them ; I am sure it is inconsistent with the Infinite Wisdom of God , to give such Rules , as almost all Mankind are utterly uncapable of understanding , or guiding their Actions by . But whoever considereth these Texts of Scripture , will see the falseness of such impious Reflections , and must admire the Goodness of God in laying down Rules so plain , that a well-meaning man cannot mistake them : But if men will be wiser than God himself , and not be content with those Laws he prescribes them , but will invent new Rules , and new ways ; or by following the Tradition of the Jewish Priests , will disturb the peace and quiet of Human Societies , by opposing the Powers that be : If by so doing they incur the severest Punishments here , as well as Eternal Torments hereafter , with those damned ill-natured Spirits , the grand Enemies of Mankind , who at first possessed men with these Maxims so pernicious to Human Societies , they must thank themselves , and their too great Subtilty . The Primitive Christians all along complied with the Revolution of the Empire , and whoever was in possession of it , without examing his Title , paid him allegiance , and thought him invested with God's Authority : And as the Goths and Vandals , and other barbarous Nations on one hand , and the Saracens , Turks and Persians on the other , without any just cause overturn'd the Roman Empire ; the Christians were so far from disputing their Titles , or refusing to transfer their Allegiance to them , that they never scrupled to own their Government . If these Pharisaical Notions had then been believed , or practised , those Nations would have extirpated all the Professors of Christianity as Enemies to Government and Order , instead of being converted to their Religion , as most of the Northern Nations were . Nor do the Christians , that now live under the Dominions of the Infidels , vary from this Primitive Practice , or scruple to transfer their Allegiance to any that gets possession of the Sacred Office of Governing , tho the Legal Prince be still alive . Did not the Jews , though they were commanded by a Divine Law to take a King from amongst their Brethren , and God himself had intailed the Crown on the Posterity of David , practice the same , as they fell under the power of the four great Empires ? And did they not submit to Alexander without endeavouring to oppose him , when Darius , to whom they had sworn obedience , could no longer protect them ? I shall add but one Instance more , and that shall be of David , who thought it not unlawful , when Saul designed to take away his life , to transfer his Allegiance , and fly to Achish King of Gath for protection , who made him Keeper of his Head , or Captain of his Guard ; and whilst he was under his protection , he thought it his duty to pay all manner of Allegiance to him ; and ( tho contrary to his Interest , and the hopes he had of being King after Saul's death ) even to join with the Uncircumcised to invade his own Countrey , and to sight against the Lord 's Anointed , his late King and Father-in-law ; and as appeareth by the 1 Sam. 29. 8. was much grieved , and humbly expostulateth with the King for not permitting him to attend him in the Battel ; But what have I done ? or what hast thou found in thy servant , so long as I have been with thee until this day , that I may not go and fight against the enemies of my Lord the King ? Saul by designing to destroy David , had freed him from the Allegiance he owed him ; for he that designs to destroy a person , cannot have a mind to govern that person he designs to destroy ; and if he will not govern him , he is free from his Government , and at liberty to pay his Allegiance where he thinks best . And if David expected from the King of Gath an universal protection from all his Enemies , he ought to pay the King an universal obedience . If a private person be free from the Government that designs to destroy him , the Argument will hold as strongly in behalf of a Nation that is designed to be destroyed ; and whoever attempts it , does not only renounce the Government of the Nation , but puts himself in a state of War , and declares himself an utter Enemy to them , who are as much obliged to resist him , as they are any other Enemy . Upon this Head the Jews , in the time of the Maccabees , took up Arms against their Legal King Antiochus , ( whom they all along acknowledged as such , and who was Successor to Alexander , who had the same right to their obedience as the Persians or Assyrians had , ) who was resolved to extirpate them if they would not turn Idolaters . And it is manifest , that God by the miraculous assistance he gave them ( for what they did , must be imputed to more than Human Force ) did approve of their design . And the same Reasons will justify any Nation for opposing that Prince , that does endeavour upon a religious , or any other account to destroy them . By what hath been said , I hope it is plain , that by the positive Law of God , by the Law of right Reason , by the Law of all Nations , and the universal practice of Mankind , and the express Law of the Land , obedience is due to the King who does actually govern the people ; and therefore to the present King and Queen , though they did not enjoy the Crown ( vacant by the late King's Abdication ) by any Legal Right ; which Right I think has been sufficiently demonstrated by those that have writ on that Subject , at least to Lawyers , and men that are competent Judges in such Points , of which a great many are no more competent Judges , than they are of Mathematical Demonstrations , which are nevertheless Demonstrations ; but none can be mistaken who they are that do actually govern the Nation ; and if obedience for that reason be due to them , other inquiries are needless . Therefore I shall only add , That nothing could be more Just , more Glorious , more Meritorious , than the Prince's coming over to rescue three Nations from Slavery and Ruin , by obliging the Late King ( which by all possible Ties he was bound to ) to govern according to Law : To which he was so averse , that he was resolved not to govern at all , if he could not govern Arbitrarily ; which when he plainly saw he could not effect , he threw up the Government : Which , whatever Force may be pretended , must be esteemed a voluntary Action , because he might have prevented it by governing according to Law ; according to that known Axiom , Involuntarium ex voluntario ortum habens moraliter pro voluntario habetur . The Throne being actually vacant by his deserting it ; What Reason could hinder the Prince from accepting what was his Right , when offered him by the Convention of the States of the Kingdom ? Who , ( when the Throne is actually vacant , and it is not clear whose Right it is ) are , and have always been , the sole proper Judges to determine to whom it belongs ; whose Judgments must give a Legal Right , because all Legal Rights are held by no other Tenure , than the Decree of the Supream Judges . But supposing the King had no Legal Right , and that the Convention were not Legal Judges ; yet if they were chosen by the Nation , to determin , upon the late King 's leaving it , what was necessary to be done for the preservation of the Nation , it being necessary that somewhat should be resolved on ; that necessity would give them a sufficient Right to do whatever they found necessary for the preservation of the Nation : Because no Nation can be brought to that condition , but it must have a Right to act for its own safety ; which it cannot do , if it have not a Right to appoint Judges to determine what is to be done , and oblige particular persons to stand to their Determinations . And the Convention ought , if they thought it ( of which they were appointed the Judges ) for the safety of the Nation , wholly to exclude the Late King. And why might they not , if they thought the Nation could not be safe if he should return , be wholly against his return , as well as the Jacobites themselves ( for there were none of another Opinion then ) be against his return , but upon such Terms , and Conditions , as they thought necessary for the safety of the Nation ? And the same necessity that will justify the Late Archbishop for consenting to put the Soveraign Administration of Affairs into the Prince's hands , will justify the Convention for continuing it in the hands of the King , who alone could secure the Nation ; and who had saved them before he ruled them , and to whom it was owing that they could call any thing ( even their Lives ) their own . Which , if it be not the best Title to a Crown , yet at least is the best Title to Peoples Hearts and Affections , when he is possest of it ; especially when the chief advantage he gains by it , is but to expose his Sacred Person for the Security of the Nation : And the enlarging his Empire has only encreased his Cares and Concerns for the Safety of those he governs : And all the satisfaction he reaps ( which to a God-like Mind is the greatest ) is the power to oblige , and to do good . The Nation is happy in having a King whom they can trust ; not only because his Interest is the same with theirs , but because , as all the Actions of his Life have demonstrated , no Consideration of his own could ever divert him from acting what was best for the Cause he was engaged in ; and who is as famous for being true and just to his Word , as his Enemies are infamous for breaking their most Sacred Oaths , and Solemn Leagues . In a word , He is a Prince that has the Vertue , the Fidelity , the Integrity of Cato , as well as the Bravery , the Courage , and Conduct of Caesar. Never did the happiness of the best part of Mankind depend more upon a single Life , than now . Nations of Religions , and all things else , different , do unanimously agree in acknowledging him to be their chief Support , the Head , the Heart , the Hand of the Confederacy ; and to him they confess that it is owing , that the Chains that have been ready to setter Europe , have been more than once broken . To be the Preserver of Europe , is a much more glorious Title , than to be the Conqu●●●● of it : To which may be added , the most excellent of all Titles , The Defender of the Faith ; which ( tho others have claimed of course ) he best deserves ; since to him it is owing that the true Faith is publickly professed any-where , and in these Nations ( which is a Blessing cannot be bought too dear ) without Cruelty or Persecution ; For a Nation is constantly in a state of war within it self , where one Party is persecuting and ruining another , about things which are in themselves indifferent , and no ways tend to promote the Publick Good. In short , There can be no advantage , but what the Nation may justly expect from a King so zealous to promote their Good , and so able to perform what he undertakes . CHAP. XIV . Some Considerations touching the Present Affairs . BUT it may be objected , How can the Nation propose any happiness to themselves by this Revolution , since by it they are at so great Expences to maintain a war against so powerful an Enemy ? Answ. The more powerful the Enemy is , the greater was the necessity of this Revolution ; for if now the Consederates are scarce an equal match for France , how easily would they have been over-run , if England ( which is the most favourable that could have been expected ) had stood Neuter ? And when they had been subdued , what could have hindred the French King , being then so Potent both by Sea and Land , from Conquering this Island ? What opposition could the Militia , joyned with a few raw and unexperienced Troops , ( for it is this War has made them otherwise ) tho headed by a Commander of so invincible Courage as the Late King , make against his regular and numerous . Troops ? But suppose the French King , who is so famous for keeping his Royal word , would not have Conquered England when he might ; what could have hindred the Late King , assisted by France , from using this Nation as his Cruelty , Covetousness , Bigotry , or Jesuits , could have inspired him ? The French King , had he been defective in so fundamental a point of Religion , would have obliged him , as he did the Duke of Savoy , to have Extirpated all the Hereticks . England would have been perhaps by this time a rendezvouz of French and Irish Apostolick Dragoons , or what is worse , a nest of Priests and Jesuits . And what milder usage can the Nation expect , if the Late King , who is under such obligation to France , and incensed by ( as he thinks ) ill Treatment , should return ? Ought not they , except they are ambitious of being Roasted by a Smithfield Fire , or are in love with the manly exercise of Rowing in the Gallies , to do their utmost endeavour to stop the farther Progress of France ? which only prevails because their Armies are more numerous ? If there were more Forces raised ( the Nation is so far from wanting men , that it can spare about Thirty thousand by easing the Parishes of those Idle People who are burthensom to them ) sufficient to equal those of the French ; there is no reason to doubt but the English would beat them , as they have always done , when the Numbers have been any thing near equal , and force them to quit other places as shamefully as they did Ireland . The misfortune is not , that we have now a War with France , but that it was so long delayed ; and whatever the Nation now suffers , they wholly owe it to the Two Late Kings , who instead of hindring , when they might , the growing greatness of France , did under-hand assist and contribute , as far as they durst , to increase the exorbitant Power of that Kingdom . Though the Charges of the War , it is true , are burthensome , yet they are common to almost all Europe ; nor are they so great as some people represent them , since it does cause little or no alteration in Peoples way of Living ; the same excess in Apparel , and every thing else , and the Interest of Money being as low as ever , ( at least it would be so , did not the King 's taking up such large Sums at so great an Interest , raise the Interest of Money even amongst others ) are a demonstration of its plenty : And the Native Commodities of the Countrey bearing a much better Price than Formerly , chiefly by reason so much is taken up for the King's use upon account of the Army or Fleet , must more than repay the Countrey for what it contributes to the War. The Taxes themselves are not so much a burden , as the unequal way of raising them , and obliging people to pay so much Money at one time ; which cannot well be prevented but by an Excise , which would make them so easy , and so equal , that they would hardly be felt . But if they were more burthensome then they are , then paying of them for some time is absolutely necessary to preserve their All for ever . In the Primitive times , the Christians ( especially the Clergy ) would 〈◊〉 dispose of their own , but even what was Dedicated to Pious Uses , and sell the Place that belonged to the Altar to redeem a Soul from Slavery : Why should they not be now as Zealous to secure Milions of Souls , Three Nations , and their Posterity , from a Bondage both Spiritual and Temporal worse than Egyptian ; or at least encourage people by their precept and example freely to contribute to a War upon which depends the safety of the Church as well as State ▪ a War so holy , that if the Cause alone could make them Martyrs , all that dye in it are such . But to conclude , I hope , I have demonstrated , That it is the duty of all People to bear true Faith and Allegiance to the present Government , by Reasons and Arguments which are as firm as Government it self , and which will endure as long as it , because built upon the same foundation , The Good of Societies ; and which may serve for directions in all Changes and Revolutions , as well as for the justification of that happy one , which ( by the Blessing of God upon His Majesties Heroick Endeavours ) preserves us in the enjoyment of all our Happiness both Spiritual and Temporal . FINIS .