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
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
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 â—â—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
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
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 decrâ—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 wiâ—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 Priviâ—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
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
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