Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	moral_a	1,736	5	9.5201	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47295	The duty of allegiance settled upon its true grounds, according to Scripture, reason, and the opinion of the Church in answer to a late book of Dr. William Sherlock, master of the Temple, entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated, and resolved, according to Scripture, &c. : with a more particular respect to the oath lately injoyn'd.	Kettlewell, John, 1653-1695.	1691 (1691)	Wing K366; ESTC R13840	111,563	86

point of Properties and the other forementioned Things Now the way of Mens setting up these is by human Ways and Rights The vesting either of Power or Property for instance must be in some Persons that is some particular Persons must have the Power and the Property And this way of vesting the Power or Property in those Persons can only be by giving them a Right to them for it is their Right to them that must make them to become theirs So that human Acts and Rights must give every Man the State and Power of a Prince or of an Husband and the Property of an Owner and that must give Words their settled Meanings whereby any one that hears them may know what another means And as human Ways and Rights are to set up these States or Things so since human kind has every where the like necessity and the like ability therein these human Rights and Ways will set them up in all places And when these human Rights are in every place passed about them then comes the Law of God and Nature which are to be Laws for every place to empower or guard what such presupposed human Right has given The Fifth Commandment makes no particular Man a Prince nor the Seventh an Husband nor the Eighth and Tenth a Proprietor of what he holds among Men nor doth the Ninth determine any Speech's signification but all suppose them And if God has not done it by immediate Interposition since it must be done either by God or Men they suppose that human Rights have made these already And supposing all these things of Society in this State by human Right these Commandments come to secure their several and respective Duties towards them So that in absence of particular Revelation which alone can make not only a better but ●ndeed any other Right it is an Humanly Rightful and Legal Power which the Fifth Commandment and all other Laws of Obedience to Superiours require us to be subject to and to support and Rightful and Legal Property which the Eighth and Tenth Commandments forbid us either to seize or covet and Rightful Matrimony which the Seventh Command will not have violated by Adultery and Words of human Settlement and Institution wherein the Ninth Commandment forbids all Falsification So that what human Law fixes God's Law secures and to him that holds any of these things by human Rights the Commands of God call for this Obedience and other Duties And therefore he that has the legal Right has the Commandment on his side and must have all the Duty and Obedience which it requires And this I think may show That in the Question about transferring Allegiance the Case of Conscience is not a mere Point of Law as the Author p. 53. seems to intimate or such as doth not involve Moral and Natural Duties wherein he allows every Man may and must examine and understand for himself For tho' the Law must make any Man a Prince to have the Right to the Allegiance yet where the Law has given the Right these Moral and Natural Duties carry all their Obedience to it The Commandments take him that has the legal Right and require all the Duty and Allegiance they enjoyn to be paid to him and require none of it to any other Person So that in going against the Human Right we go against the Moral and Divine Precept which requiring all to him that has the human Right is either broken or kept according as we observe or reject the human Right Indeed if the Point of human Right should happen at any time to be more doubtful and really disputable it would be a less Offence to mistake it But so far as we pay our Duties and Obedience against the human Law and legal Right we pay them also against the Divine Law and Moral Duties But this Disobedience and Breach both of Divine and Human Laws in such Case would be the more pardonable as having the Plea of pityable Ignorance and the Mitigation of being in a dark and doubtful Case wherein Mistakes are less dangerous to honestly disposed Minds I observe still further from this That the Commandment is equally broke in being undutiful to him that has an Human Right as it would be by Undutifulness to one that had a Divine Right For the Commandment is equally for securing Obedience to those in Authority by any sort of good Right Therefore its words or expression of the Person is general to the Father the Higher Power the Magistrate all which must come to be so by some kind of Right and it matters not what whether Human or Divine so long as it is a good Right It is a Natural Precept which is equally for Jews and Gentiles and doth not alter the Style but is the very same and calls for one and the same Obedience to a King of Divine Right by a Divine Intail or Nomination as it doth to another of mere Human Right Which I note because in case of Ioash the Author thinks p. 35. there was a stricter and more unalienable Allegiance due to him on account he came to the Crown as he says by an Intail from God But admit his was a Divine Right the Commandments for Obedience to rightful Powers cary no more nor more unalienable Allegiance to it than they would to an human Right It calls for it only in the same Words and lyes equally open to both and makes no Distinction of either All it requires for Obedience is That they have Right They must be obeyed whilst they have it and no longer than they have it So that be the Right Ioash's or a King 's of any other Nation it will equally stand till a better Right has set it aside The Seditious Jews I think were for making a great difference in point of Obedience between Governments and Kings set up by Revelation and others by Human Right and so esteemed the Heathen Powers who had no Word or Revelation of God for their Government or Governors but only human Ways and Titles as no Powers to whom the Command required Subjection and Obedience This Was one great cause of their restless Endeavours to cast off those Powers One Pretence was recovering their own Liberty which St. Peter notes the Iudaizers used for a Cloak of Maliciousness or Cover of Rebellion the Insufficiency and Iniquity whereof is attempted to be proved and made plain to them in the Speeches of K. Agrippa and Iosephus But onother was Want of God's Authority in these Powers Much troubled they were with this in our Saviour's time and brought it as a Question of Conscience to him Whether it was lawful to own them They were more possessed with this when St. Paul writ to those at Rome and higher still when St. Peter writ being so generally filled therewith as made them ready to burst out into those Commotions in all places which brought their Excision and the final Overthrow of their City and Nation But in

Revolutions Now he designs his Right of Providence to give Authority to the Revolution that is to authorize ones being pulled down and the others being set up or to make God transfer the Authority from one to the other thereby And the Principle it self and like Scripture Sayings about Providence in that Case too will give as good Right to those that act in them as to what is got by them as I have formerly shewn So by this Principle the Usurpers in Revolutions get Right to attempt and invade a Prince's Rightful Crown and when they have got it from him to make it their own and to bind all the Subjects as fully and fast to them as they were bound to the former King And what more Service would a Man desire from Principles whose part is not to act and accomplish things but only to justifie and confirm Actions and the Actors in them But quite contrary the other Principle of Legal Right gives all the Check to Revolutions that Principles can do leaving no Man Right to invade a Rightful Prince's Throne nor to hold it when he has unrighteously got it but to restore it to the true Owner again Nor Liberty to the Subjects to turn over to the Usurpers against their Rightful Prince which were both to resist Authority and to oppose Right and support Wrong And this is to bar and prevent Revolutions as far as Principles can do it that is among all that will be guided by Principles and do only righteous things But if it would prevent all Revolutions of Government that says he p. 44. is a Demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle and comes not from God Indeed this seems an odd Fetch That doing Right cannot come from God if it would prevent Unrighteousness which therefore comes from him because it would do so But his Reason is because then God could not exercise a Prerogative he has reserved to himself of removing or setting up a King whom he cannot set up unless he can oblige the Subjects to obey him He should have inferr'd therefore when God will exercise that Prerogative he will remove one King's Right that the Subjects may owe him no Obedience and give it to another that they may pay him Obedience and that because God will have them follow Right and carry themselves righteously towards both And though human Laws are the ordinary way yet God has other ways of making or unmaking Kings that is Rightful Kings when he pleases For he may put an end to the dispossessed King's Right by taking him out of the World or by bringing him whil●t he lives to resign and part with it by his own Consent or give it away from him to the other by immediate Revelation if he sees fit as I shewed before And these are his ways of exercising this Prerogative of Removing or setting up Kings when that is to remove and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects But if he only by Course of Providence changes Possession but neither by human nor divine Title transfers the Right to a Crown it is a Punishment or Tryal both on dispossessed Prince and People and is not the Removal of a King which sets them loose from him And this adhering to such dispossessed Princes till they are some way disauthorized and deprived of Right as well as Possession is not for Mankind to be Slaves of Princes as he says p. 45. but only to be Slaves of Right if Slavery must be the Term for it as Princes themselves must be too if they will be Righteous He also p. 43. 44. charges the Inconvenience and Defects in Government all the time such dispossessed Rightful King is shut out upon this Principle of unalterable Allegiance to Legal Right Those Inconveniences and Defects indeed are apparently to be imputed to his being kept out But unalterable Allegiance to his Legal Right surely doth not keep him out And in such Case if a Man will speak Justice and direct the Charge where the Blame is he must not say they cause all the Inconveniences or Overthrow of Government for want of him that are careful conscienciously to do him Right but they who unconscionably keep him out of his Right Before I dismiss this Consideration of his Reasons I shall take Notice of the Distinction he makes p. 28 29. between Maintaining and Defending and Restoring in the matter of Allegiance and the Oath for it But unless he can set this aside by the Conventions Principle and that of the Publick Acts viz. the translation of the Legal Right this nicety I believe will not solve or take it off He p. 27 28. distinguishes between Natural and Legal Allegiance And they are distinct as to the Bond and Ground of Obligation one being from the Law of Nature and the other from our own Laws But the main of that D●stinction lies not in their calling for distinct Offices particularly not in Legal Allegiance binding Subjects to defend their King's Authority and Natural Allegiance binding to no Defence thereof For all Subjects were bound to defend their Kings before they had any written Laws for Allegiance By the Law of Nature when Authority is set up it is to be Defended And it can have no other Defence but the Subjects Allegiance It s inseperable Effects is to oblige and if it oblige to any Service it must oblige more especially to such as is necessary for its own Preservation and Defence The Union of Subjects to a Prince is that of Members to the Head which are certainly bound to defend it as I at first noted And therefore when the Law comes to bind this Defence faster by the Legal Oath it doth not pretend to bring in a new Duty but by the addition of an Oath to make that more secure which Nature had bound on all before The Effect and Substance of Ligeance is by the Law of Nature as is declared in Calvin's Case but the Form and Addition of the Oath est ex provisione hominis And the Statute it self which imposes the Legal Oath declares it To tend only to the Declaration of such Duty as every true and well affected Subject not only by Bond of Allegiance but also by the Commandment of Almighty God ought to bear to the King's Majesty Now since Defence is implyed as a necessary Duty and Ingredient of Allegiance if he leaves any Man Authority to call for Allegiance How will he hinder him by the same Authority from challenging Defence And this whether it be in holding Possession or in getting it and seeking Restauration to it If Allegiance is left Due in both Defence will be like to be left Due in both because Defence is part of Allegiance Indeed as he says p. 31. 27. All Subjects are not bound to turn Soldiers Nor will they be alike p. 29. in the way of obliging Calls and Opportunities to defend a Prince when out of his Throne as when Seated on his Throne But as to such Defence

Justly therefore might God Condemn Zedekiah and the Jews for standing out against the King of Babylon which was only to Condemn Subjects for standing out against their King I add That as to Ieremiah's Prophesies they were Predictions of Events and of the final Success of the Babylonian either against the Jews or other Nations and so were Warnings to all that would believe the Prophet to prevent Extremities by early Submissions and to compound and make good Terms for themselves And the great Offence of any People so far as concerns these Predictions setting aside what might concern them any otherwise as they were his Subjects before was Disbelief of God's Prophet and hearkning to false Prophets against God which in the Event would be its own Punishment when they should be carried away by standing out who might have stayed in their own Land had they believed God and submitted as he directed Jer. 27. 9 10 11. 5. Lastly If Allegiance must only go to rightful Powers they who are to obey will be concerned to understand who is the Right and this he thinks would be such a Perplexity of Conscience as God never designs especially in Duties that concern all Persons But now this Perplexity of Conscience is not confined to the Right of Princes but is common to all Rights either of Princes or of private Persons For if their Conscience is tyed up to a private Right there is the same Necessity of being able to judge between a pretended and real Right and of knowing exactly what gives a real Right that they may not misplace the payment of it which are the Difficulties of Conscience he mentions in giving a Prince his Right And yet for all these Perplexities 't is plain God has bound all Mens Consciences to such Right else they would not be bound in Conscience to give every Man his Due or to be Righteous other Duties also are as lyable to these Perplexities as Right is Idolatry concerns all Mens Consciences and particularly the Worship of Images against the First and Second Commandments And are not all Mens Consciences as lyable to be perplexed in understanding what Idolatry it and what is an Idolatrous Image and what an Idolatrous Worship thereof and are not as perplexed Disputes raised about them betwixt us and the Papists as any that are lyable to be raised about Rights Lying concerns all Mens Consciences And may not Mens Consciences be sufficiently perplexed in inquiring what makes the Evil of a Lye and how far Men are obliged and how they come to be so to use Words in such a certain Sense to know when they do and when they do not tell those Lies which are against Conscience And the like Perplexities are lyable to be started about Oaths and Sabbaths and Government and Property and Adultery that is about all the Commandments And yet for all this lyableness to such Perplexities God has made them all to be matter of Conscience to all Men. So that this is no more an Argument against our Consciences being bound to the Rights of Princes than against their being bound to any other Thing The Truth of the Case is as I conceive there is a plain understanding of the Things themselves and that is obvious But there is a seeking to understand further by searching into Grounds and Reasons and that is full of Perplexities The First way of Understanding is the way of plain Minds the later of nice Wits and Philosophers And Men generally understand the First way whilst they are willing to do a Duty but they then more especially set their Wits to understand the later way when they are unwilling to do it and fall a turning every Stone to evade it And thus I think all the foresaid Duties are plain to all Men who would take them in a plain and obvious Understanding as Men willing to do them and all will be perplexed when they come to be Disputed and Spun out into Niceties by learned Men when they grow uneasy under and study to avoid them And I think one shall hear no Complaint of the perplexedness of any of the foresaid Moral Duties till Disputing Wits came to perplex and meddle in them Particularly as to the Right of Princes I see not but that is as plain as the Right of a private Person They have as plain a way among us of coming to have Right as any private Person for it is the very same viz. Proximity of Blood or Lineal Descent by inheriting from their Fathers or Predecessors And do not other Men in every Neighborhood come the same way by their Estate So that in ordinary Course they may as easily know their Princes Right as their own Right or their Neighbor's Right And then they may as easily know how to do him Right as how to do them Right And who should have the Crown after him is as well known as who should have their own Estate of Inheritance after them 'T is as easy to know who is the King's Heir as who is their own or their Landlord's Heir For the King's Children are more notirous or better known and the Ages of them than the Children of any private Person Sometimes I grant a Dispute may be raised about them and all Disputes bring on Allegations to serve turns and will perplex any Thing But may not the same be raised concerning any private Right or any other Thing So their Rights are knowable as any private Persons in all ordinary Course and lyable only as these are by accident to be perplexed by contingent Disputes and therefore one is no harder upon the Conscience for ought I see than the other is But were it their Duty to submit only to him that has Right they could not Discharge that Duty he says or understand the Prince to be Right who claims it without turning over the Laws and History of a Nation and being well skilled in them But cannot a Man that knows neither Law nor History know the next in Blood to the former King has the Right to the English Crown This is known by the general Consent and Acknowledgment of Men in all parts of the Realm And if a Man is not Book learned such a Traditionary Knowledge of the Law in that Point is enough for him So that thus far he may easily satisfy himself viz. who is the rightful King according to the present received way of Succeeding But whether this has always given Right and was formerly the way must depend on History unless the Government had begun within Memory of Man and were but of yesterday But the same Question must do so in any other Thing that begun long ago And in particular all the Truths and Duties of our Holy Religion are much Older than our Government And if any one is not content to take any of them as he finds them now at present in the Holy Scriptures and the Practice and Profession of the Church shall make a Question whether they

such Illegal acting And this Inherent and Unexercised Authority claims Obedience to him even at such time that is to keep under his Obedience and not cast it off and rebel against him And the same may be said in case of all other Misuse of Authority for few Mens Principles of Obedience are so loose but they will own it to be still due to ill Kings and Governor who abuse their Authority and 't is strange any Man should believe otherwise that believes the Scriptures But now do not I see why Authority may not have Obedience due it when it is not used as well as when it is misused For what binding Force should there be in misuse To my mind nothing is ever the better for being misused and if misuse can add nothing to it nor lend it any Force whereby to hold the Conscience I fancy it may bind as strongly to Obedience when it cannot be used at all 6. This confining Obedience to actual Exercise and Administration of Government is to make actual Protection or Administration the Condition of it And this will make a Conditionality in the Duty of Relatives a● Protection of Kings and Obedience of Subjects are One will be bound to obey if the other doth protect and so far and so long as he doth actually protect which he always doth most whose Administration is justest and keeps closest to the Laws which are the Cover or Protection they seek and expect who live under a limitted and legal Government And this way according to their keeping or degrees in keeping the Condition there would be one Obedience due to a Protecting and another or sometimes none at all to an Oppresive King one Obedience to a King in his good Days and another in his bad ones and not one and the same according to the Scripture Precepts which neither make nor admit of such Distinctions to all and at all times and like would be the Consequence thereof in the Duties of other Relations The performance of one being the Condition of performing in the other when one breaks the Bond is broke on both and no Tye left on either Whereas though the Persons are Relatives yet in all these States the Duties on each side are Absolute which one is bound in Conscience to perform whether the other do or no. The Author says p. 42. 43. Though Protection and Allegiance are not Relatives yet Government meaning actual Government and Allegiance are such Relatives as do se mut uo ponere tollere or infer or remove each other mutually And to extend Allegiance beyond actual Administration of Government is to preserve a Relative without its Correlate The Difference between Protection and actual Government is only this That actual Government is wider and takes in either actual protecting or oppressing whereas Protecting he there makes to be Administring justly and by Laws and opposes to Opressing Now Allegiance is the act of the Subject as actual Government and Protection are of the Prince Allegiance is the Subject's act only keeping his Duty as Protection is of the King keeping to his Duty But actual Government taking in both Protecting and Oppressing is the act of the King either keeping or breaking his Duty Now if Allegiance which is only the Subject's keeping must not be related to Protection which is the King 's keeping but to actual Government which is either his keeping or breaking his Duty methinks these Relatives are ill match'd and look as if they were not akin And if Alleg●ance relate to any thing since it is only the act of the Subject keeping it should relate to Protection which is the act of the King keeping his Duty And if his other act of Government or Oppressing must have any Relative it should be their Breach of Allegiance which is to break with him as he doth with them For as Performance answers to Performance so should Breach to Breach I imagine in Likeness and Relation But these Acts on either side are not Relatives or Correlates to one another though the Persons are The Acts are the Acts of their several Duties on both sides and those Duties are absolute which each must perform without any regard to the other's Performance Otherwise there is no Duty from a good Wife to a bad Husband or from a good Child to a bad Parent more than from a good Subject to an ill King And yet That such Duty there is towards them is as certain a Rule in Morality and Religion as that he mentions about Relata is in Logick The Relation is between the Persons not between the Acts and Offices which are called Relative Duties though in their Obliga●●on they be absolute only because they are Duties of Persons that stand mutually related And in the Persons his Rule is true Take away one Relative Person and you break the Relation and without its Correlate the Relative cannot remain But if the Prince cannot Govern saith he p. 42. the Subject cannot obey True he cannot obey actual Government when he cannot have it but he may keep under the Obedience of his Governor and obey it as he can as I shewed before till the Governor's Authority is gone or his Government comes to be actual again By all these Reasons I think it may sufficiently appear That the Obedience shewn before to be due to rightful Authority is not tyed to the Exercise and Administration thereof nor to follow Administration of Government without Rightful Authority But is the Due of the Authority whether the Person having and claiming it be in Place and Possession to exercise his Authority or no. 7. And for further Confirmation of all this I shall to all the foregoing Proofs from the Nature and Reason of things and Scriptures in the Seventh place add a Proof of the same which I think will be a good Proof among all English men in a Case of Allegiance required by Law and that is from our own Laws Now That Obedience in the Eye of our Law is due to Rightful Authority i● a dispossessed King is plain because in the Eye of Law Subjects may criminally disobey him If they ought him no Obedience they could not disobey him or deserve to suffer any thing at the hand of Law for not paying Obedience where by Law they ought none But what more common in Law than this towards a dispossessed rightful King Witness the Censure of Law on the Undutifulness shown to King Charles I. when arraigned before the High Court of Justice where he stood utterly dispossessed of all actual Admininistration and on like Disobedience and breach of Allegiance against K. Charles II. during his Dispossession and all the other forementioned Acts declaring Treasons the hight of Disobedience in Practices against dispossessed Rightful Kings as has been observed in Case of Richard the Second of Henry the Eighth's Heirs Q. Mary and others The same may be further evidenced from other Declarations of Law about the Dueness of Allegiance to such dispossessed Kings Whilst

either to Swear Allegiance or undergo these hard things then they must suffer as Confessors for their Duty in this as other good Men have done for Duty in other Instances And the Duty of Confessing is never the less because there is so great a number of Confessors And if that Society be broken up by this means it is not too good to be parted with to keep Innocence and a good Conscience All Civil Society and the Benefits thereof being under the Restraint of the Rules of Righteousness and never to be sought or preserved by breaking any of God's Laws about Society or any others but only so far as they can be had by keeping of them Men must never purchase any Society by Sin and Sin is never the less sinful for being required of them on that Condition But p. 45. is not Obedience to Government it self for the Preservation of human Society Yes as all other Rules of Righteousness which are Social Virtues But they are for it not as discretionary means which Men may use or omit as they see it serves turns but as standing Rules and Laws of God which they are to keep without Exceptions They must rule us in all Cases and Pursuits either of Society or any thing else And a Liberty to transgress these when it may seem to serve present turns would leave neither security in nor benefit by any Societies But as for this Objection against an obstinate Allegiance it is not peculiar to it but will lye equally against an obstinate Picty or any other Virtues when they fall into the hands of such Persecutors as will allow no benefit of Society without breach thereof In the Dioclesian Persecution he knows the Christians were removed from the Emperor's Protection and from all Claim and Use of Laws and what benefit of Society then if they would not first Sacrifice to the Heathen Gods And the like may be under any Idolatrous or Heretical Prince who will tyranically make any other Instances of Idolatry or Heresy the Condition of living under him or of Civil Society Or such a Decree as Nebuebadnezzar did to destroy all People Nations and Languages that would not worship his Golden Image Dan. 3. 6. And so it may in any Church when they will tyranically impose any Sins or Errors as Conditions of their Communion to all that live under them or of Church Society Which yet all good Christians are bound to seek for the benefit of their Souls as much as Civil Society for the benefit of their Bodies and worldly Interests So that Obstinacy in any Truths or Duties will as much destroy Society as Obstinacy in Allegiance when they fall into such Princes or Persons hands who will let none live in their Country or have any Protection there if they do without renouncing them And yet these are Duties then notwithstanding and Men are then called to lay down not only the benefits of Society but their very Lives for them 6. His last Reason is p. 43. That these Principles of his answer all the ends of Government for Security both of Prince and Subjects But First Do they answer all the ends of Justice and keeping the Commandments I think I have made it plain they do not do that because they do not give every Man his own but justifie unjust Possession and give Right to unrighteous Actions destroying the Obligations laid and the Securities given by Right and Wrong among Men. And Government and Civil Society are for having these things done and for being ruled in all things by them and the greatest Blessing that comes thereby is the Observance of them Then as to the Purposes of Princes his Principle indeed answers an Usurpur's Purpose which is to keep what he has unjustly got and it shews him he may very justly and conscionably do that and that he has the People as fast tyed and as far obliged to him for all he has no good Title as they would be if he had the best Title But yet all his Purposes it will not serve For he that is once possessed of a Crown would not have it lye at other Peoples Liberty if they can to take it from him but would be glad of some such Title and such an human Right would prove if once he came to acquire that as would make every one else afraid in Conscience if they make any Conscience of what they do to desire or attempt to wrest it out of his hands And this the Title of Providential Possession doth not do For as that way he holds it only by Strength any other that can make a greater Strength will start a better Title to it than he has And as for the Rightful King's Purpose I think it no way answers it For his Purpose and that a very reasonable and just one too would be to have his Right to hold it when he has it and to have it unlawful for any Man to disturb his Possession of it or to get it from him or when he has done so to keep it as his own and not restore it to him again Yea to have Right from his Subjects as well as from the Usurper That since it is his Right they should not help to hinder him of it and since he has Authority over them that they should keep under Obedience to him And as it is the constant Purpose of Authority to bind to such Obedience so it is the constant Purpose of Right to have these Effects not only in the King but in any other Person And lastly as for the Purpose of Subjects if they all purpose as they all should do in the first place to keep a good Conscience I think his Principles may appear from what I have said to be far from that since they would carry them to resist him that has Authority over them which would be Rebellious and to oppose Right and maintain Wrong which is very unrighteous And as to their Preservation and outward Security in this world though in making them more externally easie under the Possessor whilst he holds the Possession it would serve this end at that turn yet would it deserve it a great deal more as I before noted in destroying Right and Wrong the best Guard of their worldly Preservation and in multiplying such Changes and Revolutions all the Compassings whereof are the greatest Blow and Bane thereto And though I am sure this is no end either of Government or Governors who are not for serving but keeping out such Changes and Revolutions yet it seems a very natural and the most natural end of his Right of Providence And then as he p. 43. grants Princes themselves as well as Subjects have Cause enough to be jealous of it since whatever Servive it might do them at one turn it might do them as great Diss●●vice at another For to give Authority to Revolutions and to justifie those that act in them I think are the great ways that any Principles can serve