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
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 Codrâ—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
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
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
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