AN ESSAY CONCERNING OBEDIENCE TO THE Supreme Powers AND THE Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions WITH Some CONSIDERATIONS touching the Present Juncture of Affairs LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane MDCXCIV THE CONTENTS THE Introduction Page 1. CHAP. I. Of Government and the Origine of it ibid. CHAP. II. Of Passive Obedience 8. CHAP. III. Of the Publick Good 15. CHAP. IV. Of God's Laws 22. CHAP. V. Of the Law of Nations 26. CHAP. VI. Of the Obligation of Human Laws 29. CHAP. VII Objections answered 34. CHAP. VIII Of Conquest Pag. 37. CHAP. IX Of Possession 24. CHAP. X. Of Protection 44. CHAP. XI Of Oaths of Fidelity 54. CHAP. XII Of the Act of Parliament of the 11 of Hen. 7. 56. CHAP. XIII Of Proofs of Scripture concerning Obedience to those that actually Administer Government 59. CHAP. XIV Some Considerations touching the Present Affairs 66. Books Sold by Richard Baldwin MErcury or the Secret and Swift Messenger Shewing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his Thoughts to a Friend at any distance The Second Edition By the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins late Lord Bishop of Chester Printed for Rich. Baldwin where are to be had The World in the Moon and Mathematical Magick Bibliotheca Politica Or a Discourse by way of Dialogue on these following Questions 1. In what sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what sense may be also from the people 2. Whether His present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a just Cause of War against King James II. 3. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the Late Convention in respect of the said King James is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Collected out of the best Authors as well Ancient as Modern Dialogue the Eleventh A Compendious History of the Taxes of France and of the Oppressive Methods of Raising of them An Impartial Enquiry into the Advantages and Losses that England hath received since the beginning of this present War with France Berault's French Grammar The Tragedies of the Last Age consider'd and examin'd by the Practice of the Ancients and by the common sense of all Ages in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd Esq Part I. The Second Edition A short View of Tragedy its Original Excellency and Corruption with some Reflections on Shakespear and other Practitioners for the Stage Both by Mr. Rimer Servant to Their Majesties Truth brought to light Or the History of the first 14 Years of King James I In four parts c. Travels into divers parts of Europe and Asia undertaken by the French King's Order to discover a new Way by Land into China c. Liturgia Tigurina or the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies usually practised and solemnly performed in all the Churches and Chappels of the City and Canton of zurick in Switzerland c. The Works of the Famous Mr. Francis Rabelais Doctor in Physick Treating of the Lives Heroick Deeds and Sayings of Gorgantua and his Son Pantagruel Translated from the French To which is added Rabelais's Life and a new Key to the whole Work Letters of Love and Gallantry and several other Subjects All written by Ladies With the Memoirs Life and Adventures of a young Lady Written by her self in several Letters to a Person of Quality in Town Vol. 1. Memoirs concerning the Campagne of Three Kings William Lewis and James in the Year 1692. With Reflections upon the Great Endeavours of Lewis the 14th to effect his Designs of James the 2d to Remount the Throne and the proper Methods for the Allies to take to hinder both AN ESSAY CONCERNING Obedience to the Supreme Powers c. The INTRODUCTION THE Design of these Sheets which one would think should be no difficult Task is to persuade People to act for the Good and Prosperity of the Community they are Members of and in which their own is included and to convince them That it is their Duty as well as Interest to bear True Faith and Allegiance to the present Government Which Design that I may the better perform it will be necessary to premise somewhat about Government in general and the Grounds and Measures of Obedience to it by which I hope I shall be able to shew What is the Duty of Subjects not only in the present Juncture of Affairs but in all Changes and Revolutions CHAP. I. Of Government and the Origine of it GOvernment is as it is usually defined The Care of other Peoples Safety which consists in Protecting and securing them from being destroyed or oppressed by one another as well as by Strangers and redressing the Grievances of those that are injured and preventing the like for the future by punishing Offenders In order to which the Governor must have a Right to command the Natural Force of those that expect his Protection to enable him the better to put his Laws and Decrees in execution Tho without Power Government cannot consist yet Power and Government are not one and the same thing a man may be in the Power of another and yet may not be governed by him it is necessary that this Power be made use of for Protection without which it is impossible to be protected so that Protection and Government are the same thing for where people are not protected they are still in the state of Nature and without Government It is Government alone that gives the Form Life and Unity to a Civil Society or Body Politick by which the several Members have their mutual Influence Sympathy and Connection so that to be a Member of a Civil Society and to be under Government is the same thing and to be without Government and to be in the state of Nature are reciprocal and predicated of one another None can pretend to be or claim any Civil Rights as a Member of a Society without owning the actual Government that makes it a Society and they that disown the Government of the Society they live in do outlaw themselves and virtually declare themselves no Members of it because they have reduced themselves to a state of Nature by disowning there is amongst them a common Judge who has a Right to decide their Controversies and redress their Injuries and in whose Determinations they are obliged to acquiesce God who is the Author of every good thing may be said in a more special manner to be so of Government because it is absolutely necessary to the Well-being of Mankind and He by the Law of Nature which obliges mankind to act for their good has instituted it and has since by his Positive Law ratified and confirmed it yet He did not constitute any particular Form of Government but left mankind at liberty to dispose of themselves as they when they instituted Societies thought fit God was so far from taking this Liberty
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
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
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-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
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
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
be no greater Argument than the universal Consent of the Nation that what they so unanimously concurred in was not against their Common Good and nothing but a Danger as Universal as it was great could make all people so desirous of a Revolution And there could be no pretence from the Publick Good of not resisting when Slavery it self was not the end but only in order to extirpate an Heretical Nation which all Popish Princes by their Religion are obliged to do and there was no reason to suppose the late King had not the Design been so notorious less zealous than his Neighbours Where it is notorious that a King has a Design to enslave the Nation there can be no great danger in opposing him because it is impossible for him the Lands and Riches being in so many hands to be able to influence so great a Number of the Gentry and Nobility as shall be sufficient to oppose the Common Interest There is nothing more pernicious to Government than to encourage those that publish such Doctrines as tend to destroy the Rights and Privileges of the people Who are quick-sighted enough to find out the weak side of such Arguments as tend to their hurt and it makes them suspicious that some sudden Designs are carrying on against them and prepares their minds to receive any ill impression against the Government What happened in King Charles the First 's time is an undeniable Instance of this where the encouraging and preferring almost none but such as preached up that Sensless Doctrine created such Jealousies Fears and Mistrusts in the minds of the People of whom too many were irritated by Persecution for Passive-Obedience and Persecution like Brethren in Iniquity go hand in hand that nothing but the Ruin of that Prince could satisfy their Jealousies That Doctrine had like to have produced a more fatal Consequence in his Son's time by encouraging him who had the weakness to think that those who when uppermost were Bigots for it would submit to it when they themselves came to suffer to invade the Rights and Liberties of the People CHAP. III. Of the Publick Good THE Consideration of the Publick Good which is the Supreme Law by which both King and People ought to guide their Actions does oblige Subjects to obey in all things that are in the least disputable and even to acquiesce in whatever a King does if in the whole he promotes the Publick Good It is not barely the breaking a Law or stretching the Prerogative in this or that Point can do any great mischief except it be done with a Design to subvert the Liberties of the People and establish Arbitrary Government In many cases the good of the Whole may require the Laws to give place to the Executive Power because it is impossible upon the account of the infinite variety of Accidents and Circumstances that attend Human Affairs to foresee and by Laws to provide for all the Necessities that concern the Publick Laws can only respect what does generally happen there must be a vast number of Particulars where a rigid Observation of Law must be hurtful and it will be necessary that a Power to Dispense with the Penalties of the Laws should be lodged with the King whose Power cannot be too large if he useth it for the Publick Good The only Enemies to the present Government at least amongst the Protestants are the Asserters of Passive Obedience who tho they think it for the Publick Good to suffer a King to inslave a Nation rather than oppose him yet are so absurd as to think they are obliged in Conscience to disturb the Government that protects them and raise a Civil War tho the consequence should be never so fatal to restore a Prince whose Return would if the War did not compleat the Ruin of the Nation The Falseness and Absurdity of which Opinion I shall endeavour to make manifest And to shew That it is the Indispensable Duty of all that are Protected by a Government to bear True Faith and Allegiance to it I suppose I need not spend many Words to shew the Absolute Necessity of Government for the Good and Well-being of Mankind or that it was for no other reason that men parted with their Liberties for what else could be an Equivalent but for the mutual Defence and Security which they receive by Government which is the sole Design and End of all Laws Punishments and Rewards As this Reason was at first the sole Motive for submitting to particular persons so it is the only reason still for continuing Allegiance to them and when this Reason ceaseth Natural Liberty does return and then men are obliged for the sake of their own Safety and Preservation to pay Allegiance where it is most for their own Interest and Advantage Obedience is due to Government and not to the Person that governs but upon the account and for the sake of it otherwise people might be obliged to pay Allegiance to a King after he had resigned his Regal Oâ—fice It is impossible for a King to lose his Government and not lose the Allegiance of his Subjects because they are Relatives and according to the nature of all Relatives one cannot subsist without the other Natural Relations as that between Father and Son last as long as both Parties Live but Artificial ones if I may so term them as those between Master and Servant King and Subject may be destroyed during their Lives and when these Relations cease all Obligations on both sides cease The Relation between Sovereign and Subjects is destroyed when the Sovereign will no longer Protect his People and so freely withdraws from the Government or when he is deprived of the Power of Protecting them and so is driven from his Government which as to the People for whose sake Government was Instituted has the same effect and they equally lose that Protection and Defence for the sake of which alone Allegiance is paid whether the Sovereign will not or cannot any longer Govern them and is forced to leave his Government in the hands of others whereby those that were his Subjects are as incapable of paying him Allegiance as he is to Protect them and the same Force that will justifie his leaving them will equally justifie their Transferring their Allegiance And since no Society is able to subsist without having Justice Administred and enjoying those other blessings that are derived from Government Either they must by living without Government become a prey to every one or else there is a necessity of preserving themselves by paying Allegiance to the new Government If Obedience were due purely to the Title Subjects would be very great Rebels in refusing to pay Obedience to a Madman with a Legal Title and in placing another in the Throne What other reason can be assigned for removing him but that the good of the Commonwealth requires Obedience to be paid to a Person that can Protect them which since a Madman cannot it is
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
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
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
freed him from the Allegiance he owed him for he that designs to destroy a person cannot have a mind to govern that person he designs to destroy and if he will not govern him he is free from his Government and at liberty to pay his Allegiance where he thinks best And if David expected from the King of Gath an universal protection from all his Enemies he ought to pay the King an universal obedience If a private person be free from the Government that designs to destroy him the Argument will hold as strongly in behalf of a Nation that is designed to be destroyed and whoever attempts it does not only renounce the Government of the Nation but puts himself in a state of War and declares himself an utter Enemy to them who are as much obliged to resist him as they are any other Enemy Upon this Head the Jews in the time of the Maccabees took up Arms against their Legal King Antiochus whom they all along acknowledged as such and who was Successor to Alexander who had the same right to their obedience as the Persians or Assyrians had who was resolved to extirpate them if they would not turn Idolaters And it is manifest that God by the miraculous assistance he gave them for what they did must be imputed to more than Human Force did approve of their design And the same Reasons will justify any Nation for opposing that Prince that does endeavour upon a religious or any other account to destroy them By what hath been said I hope it is plain that by the positive Law of God by the Law of right Reason by the Law of all Nations and the universal practice of Mankind and the express Law of the Land obedience is due to the King who does actually govern the people and therefore to the present King and Queen though they did not enjoy the Crown vacant by the late King's Abdication by any Legal Right which Right I think has been sufficiently demonstrated by those that have writ on that Subject at least to Lawyers and men that are competent Judges in such Points of which a great many are no more competent Judges than they are of Mathematical Demonstrations which are nevertheless Demonstrations but none can be mistaken who they are that do actually govern the Nation and if obedience for that reason be due to them other inquiries are needless Therefore I shall only add That nothing could be more Just more Glorious more Meritorious than the Prince's coming over to rescue three Nations from Slavery and Ruin by obliging the Late King which by all possible Ties he was bound to to govern according to Law To which he was so averse that he was resolved not to govern at all if he could not govern Arbitrarily which when he plainly saw he could not effect he threw up the Government Which whatever Force may be pretended must be esteemed a voluntary Action because he might have prevented it by governing according to Law according to that known Axiom Involuntarium ex voluntario ortum habens moraliter pro voluntario habetur The Throne being actually vacant by his deserting it What Reason could hinder the Prince from accepting what was his Right when offered him by the Convention of the States of the Kingdom Who when the Throne is actually vacant and it is not clear whose Right it is are and have always been the sole proper Judges to determine to whom it belongs whose Judgments must give a Legal Right because all Legal Rights are held by no other Tenure than the Decree of the Supream Judges But supposing the King had no Legal Right and that the Convention were not Legal Judges yet if they were chosen by the Nation to determin upon the late King 's leaving it what was necessary to be done for the preservation of the Nation it being necessary that somewhat should be resolved on that necessity would give them a sufficient Right to do whatever they found necessary for the preservation of the Nation Because no Nation can be brought to that condition but it must have a Right to act for its own safety which it cannot do if it have not a Right to appoint Judges to determine what is to be done and oblige particular persons to stand to their Determinations And the Convention ought if they thought it of which they were appointed the Judges for the safety of the Nation wholly to exclude the Late King And why might they not if they thought the Nation could not be safe if he should return be wholly against his return as well as the Jacobites themselves for there were none of another Opinion then be against his return but upon such Terms and Conditions as they thought necessary for the safety of the Nation And the same necessity that will justify the Late Archbishop for consenting to put the Soveraign Administration of Affairs into the Prince's hands will justify the Convention for continuing it in the hands of the King who alone could secure the Nation and who had saved them before he ruled them and to whom it was owing that they could call any thing even their Lives their own Which if it be not the best Title to a Crown yet at least is the best Title to Peoples Hearts and Affections when he is possest of it especially when the chief advantage he gains by it is but to expose his Sacred Person for the Security of the Nation And the enlarging his Empire has only encreased his Cares and Concerns for the Safety of those he governs And all the satisfaction he reaps which to a God-like Mind is the greatest is the power to oblige and to do good The Nation is happy in having a King whom they can trust not only because his Interest is the same with theirs but because as all the Actions of his Life have demonstrated no Consideration of his own could ever divert him from acting what was best for the Cause he was engaged in and who is as famous for being true and just to his Word as his Enemies are infamous for breaking their most Sacred Oaths and Solemn Leagues In a word He is a Prince that has the Vertue the Fidelity the Integrity of Cato as well as the Bravery the Courage and Conduct of Caesar. Never did the happiness of the best part of Mankind depend more upon a single Life than now Nations of Religions and all things else different do unanimously agree in acknowledging him to be their chief Support the Head the Heart the Hand of the Confederacy and to him they confess that it is owing that the Chains that have been ready to setter Europe have been more than once broken To be the Preserver of Europe is a much more glorious Title than to be the Conquâ—â—â—â— of it To which may be added the most excellent of all Titles The Defender of the Faith which tho others have claimed of course he best deserves since to him it is owing that