_ — — CO CH} XXI. From all which Arguments and Conſide- rations it is a moſt evident Concluſion, That the Law prohibiting Rebellion is in ſtrict Truth a Law of Nature, Univerſal Reaſon, and Morality. But to this, it will perhaps be objected by ſome, that whatever may be concluded with regard to Reſi- tance, from the tedious Deductions of Reaſon, yet there is I know not what turpitude and de- formity in ſome Actions, which at firſt Bluſh, ſhews them to be vicious; but they, not finding them- ſelves ſtruck with ſuch a ſenſible and immediate Horror at the thought of Rebellion, cannot think it on à level with other Crimes againſt Nature. To which I anſwer, that it is True, there are cer- tain natural Antipathies implanted in the Soul, which are ever the moſt laſting and inſurmountable; but as Cuſtom is a ſecond Nature, whatever Averſions are from our early Childhood continu- ally infuſed into the Mind, give it ſo deep a ſtain 25 is ſcarce to be diſtinguiſhed from natural Com- plexion. And as it doth hence follow, that to make all the inward horrors of Soul, paſs for infallible marks of Sin, were the way to eſtabliſh Error and Superſtition in the World: So, on the other hand, to ſuppoſe all Actions lawful, which are unattended with thoſe ſtarts of Nature, wou'd prove of the laſt dangerous conſequence to Virtue and Morality. For theſe pertaining to us as Men, we muſt not be directed in reſpect of them, by any emotions in our Blood and Spirits, but by the dictates of ſober and impartial Reaſon. And if there be any, who find they have a leſs Abhor- rence of Rebellion than of other Villanies, all that can be inferred from it, is, that this part of their Duty was not ſo much reflected on, or ſo early and Ircquently inculcated into their Hearts, as it ought | to (18 ) to have been. Since without queſtion there are other Men who have as thorough an Averſion for that, as for any other Crime *. L XXII. Again, it will probably be objected, thy I or Submiſſion to Government differs from moral Du. Nur ties, in that it is founded in a Contract, which up- *i on the Violation of its Conditions doth of courſe R become void, and in ſuch Caſe Rebellion is law. il ful; it hath not therefore the Nature of a Sin or ft Crime, which is in it ſelf abſolutely unlawful, and Ill © muſt be committed on no Pretext whatſoever, I fi Now, paſſing over all "Enquiry and Diſpute con- Fr cerning the firſt obſcure Riſe of Government, 1 Ich obſerve its being founded on a Contract, may be ti underſtood in a twofold Senſe, either, firſt, that I in ſeveral independent Perſons finding the unſuffera: G. ble Inconvenience of a State of Anarchy, where en every one was governed by his own Will, conſent- Fi ed and agreed together to pay an abſolute Submiſ. P ſion, to the Decrees of ſome certain Legiſlative; | which, tho ſometimes they may bear hard on the 00 Subject, yet, muſt ſurely prove eaſier to be go- be verned by, than the violent Humours, and unſted- I P! dy oppoſite Wills of a multitude of Savages, And IV in caſe we admit ſuch a Compact to have been the I the original Foundation of Civil Government; it muſt I un even on that Suppoſition be held Sacred and Invi- IN che olable. - the W Fa. * W Fa. * * 11 diſoit ordinairement qu il avoit un auſi grand eloignement pour ce peche la que pour aſſaſſiner le mond, ou pour voler ſur lt Cc grand, chemins, & qu'enfin il ny avoit rien qui fut plus contraire 4 Out ſon naturel. He (Mr. Paſcal) uſed to ſay he had as great an Ab- £ horrence of Rebellion as of Murder, or Robbing on the Way, a and tt at there was nothing more Shocking to his Nature. Vie . de XXIII.
de Mr. Paſcal, pag. 44 Reverence, which all good Men ſhould have for (19) (19) XXIII. Or Secondly, it is meant that Subjects have contracted with their reſpective Sovereigns or Legiſlators, to pay, not an abſolute, but conditi- onal and limited Submiſſion to their Laws, that is, upon Condition, and ſo far forth, as the Obſerva- tion of them ſhall contribute to the publick Good: Reſerving ſtill ro themſelves a Right of Superin- tending the Laws, and Judging whether they are fitted to promote the publick Good or no. And (in caſe they or any of them think it needful) of Re- ſting the higher Powers, and changing the whole Frame of Government by Force; which is a Right that all Mankind, whether ſingle Perſons or Socie- ties, have over thoſe that are deputed by them. But in this Senſe a Contract cannot be admitted for the Ground and Meaſure of civil Obedience, except one of theſe two Things be clearly ſhewn: Either, Firſt, That ſuch a Contract is an expreſs known part of the Fundamental Conſtitution of a Nati- on, equally allowed and unqueſtioned by all as the common Law of the Land. Or, Secondly, If it be not expreſs, that it is at leaſt neceſſarily im- plied in the very Nature or Notion of Civil Poli- ty, which ſuppoſes it is a thing manifeſtly abſurd, that 3 Number of Men ſhou'd be obligd to live under an unlimited Subjection to Civil Law, rather than continue wild and independent of each other. But to me it ſeems moſt evident, that neither of thoſe Points will ever be proved.
XXIV. And till they are proved beyond all Contradiction, the Doctrine built upon them, ought to be rejected with Deteſtation. Since to repreſent the Higher Powers as Deputies of the People, manifeſtly tends to diminiſh that Awe and the (20) the Laws and Government of their Countrey. And to ſpeak of a conditioned, limited Loyalty, fc and I know not what vague and undetermined lll © Contracts, is a moſt effectual Means to looſen the ll * Bands of Civil Society; than which nothing can Iſl * be of more miſchievous Conſequence to Mankind. t But after all, if there be any Man, who either ll © cannot or will not ſee the Abſurdity and pernici- ouſneſs of thoſe Notions, he wou'd, I doubt not, be convinced with a Witneſs, in caſe they ſhould once become current, and every private Man take it in his Head to believe them true, and put them in practice. | XXV. But there ſtill remains an Objection, which hath the Appearance of ſome Strength againſt what has been ſaid. Namely, That where. a; Civil Polity is a thing entirely of human Inſti- tution, it ſeems contrary to Reaſon, to make Sub- miſſion to it part of the Law of Nature, and not rather of the Civil Law. For how can it be ima- gin'd that Nature ſhou'd dictate or preſcribe a na- tural Law about a thing, which depends on the Arbitrary Humour of Men, not only as to its Kind or Form, which is very various and mutable, but even as to its Exiſtence; there being no where | e to be found a Civil Government ſet up by Nature. v In anſwer to this, I obſerve firſt, that moſt Moral i, Precepts do preſuppoſe ſome voluntary Actions, or C Pacts of Men, and are nevertheleſs eſteemed Laws iſ of Nature. Property is aſſigned, the Signification I t of Words aſcertained, and Matrimony contracted I o by the Agreement and Conſent of Mankind; and n for all that it is not doubted, whether Theft, Falle- t+ hood and Adultery be prohibited by the Law of r: Nature. Loyalty, therefore, tho it ſhould ſup- N poſe and be the Reſult of human Inſtitutions, may, ¶ it OF OF (21) for all that, be of natural Obligation. I ſay, Se- condly, that, notwithſtanding particular Societies are formed by Men, and are not in all Places alike, as Things eſteemed natural are wont to be, yet there is implanted in Mankind a natural Tendency or Diſpoſition to a ſocial Life. I call it natural, be- cauſe it is univerſal, and becauſe ir neceſſarily re- ſults from the Differences which diſtinguiſh Man from Beaſt: The peculiar Wants, Appetites, Fa- culties, and Capacities of Man, being exactly cal- culated, and framed for fuch a State, inſomuch that without it, it is impoſſible he ſhould live in a Condition in any Degree ſuitable to his Nature. And ſince the Bond and Cement of Society is a Submiſſion to its Laws, it plainly follows, that this Duty hath an equal Right with any other to be thought a Law of Nature. And, ſurely that Pre- cept which enjoyns Obedience to Civil Laws, cannot it ſelf with any Propriety be accounted a Civil Law; it muſt therefore either have no Obli- gation at all on the Conſcience; or it it hath, it muſt be derived from the univerſal Voice of Na- ture and Reaſon. „ arts XXVI. And thus the firſt Point propoſed ſeems clearly made out. Namely, That Loyalty is a Virtue or Moral Duty; and Diſloyalty or Rebelli- on, in the moſt ftri& and proper Senſe, a Vice or Crime againſt the Law of Nature. We are now come to the Second Point, which was to ſhew, that the Prohibitions of Vice, or negative Precepts of Morality, are to be taken in 4 moſt abſolute, neceſſary, and immutable Senſe; tnſomuch that the Atrainment of the greateſt Good, or Delive- rance from the greateſt Evil, that can befal any Man or Number of Men in this Life, may nor ju- ſtify the leaſt Violation of them. But in the firſt D place, D place, 1 place, I ſhall explain the Reaſon of diſtinguiſhing between Poſitive and Negative Precepts, the lat- ter only being included in this general Propoſition. Now the Ground of that Diſtinction may be re- ſolved into this; namely, that very often, either through the Difficulty or Number of Moral Acti- ons, or their Inconſiſtence with each other, it is not poflible for one Man to perform ſeveral of then) at the ſame time; whereas it is plainly con- ſiſtent and poſſible, that any Man ſhou'd, at the ſame time, abſtain from all manner of poſitive Actions whatſoever. Hence it comes to paſs, that Prohibitions or Negative Precepts muſt by every one, in all Times and Places, be all actually obſer- ved: Whereas thoſe which enjoin the Doing of an Action, allow room for Human Prudence and Diſcretion, in the Execution of them: it for the moſt part depending on various accidental Circum- ſtances; all which ought to be conſider'd, and Care taken that Duties of leſs Moment do not interfere with, and hinder the fulfilling of thoſe which are more important. And for this Reaſon, it not the Poſitive Laws themſelves, at leaſt the Exerciſe of them admits of Suſpenſion, Limitati- on, and Diverſity of Degrees. As to the Indiſpen- fibleneſs of the Negative Precepts of the Law of Nature, I ſhall in its Proof offer Two Arguments, the Firſt from the Nature of the Thing, and the Second from the Imitation of God in his Govern- nent of the World. | XXVII. Firſt then, from the Nature of the Thing, it hath been already ſhewn, that the great End of Marality can never be carried on, by leaving each particular Perſon to promote the Pub- lick Good, in ſuch a manner as he ſhall think moſt convenient, without preſcribing certain determi ; - nate, (23) nate, univerſal Rules to be the common Meaſure of Moral Actions; and, if we allow the Neceſſity of theſe, and at the ſame time think ic lawful to tranſgreſs them, whenever the Publick Good ſhall - ſeem to require it, what is this, but in Words indeed to enjoin the Obſervation of Moral Rules, but in effect to leave every one to be guided by his - own Judgment; than which nothing can be imagined more pernicious and deſtructive to Mankind, as hach been already proved. Secondly, This ſame Point may be collected from the Example ſet us by the Author of Nature, who, as we have above obſerved, acts according to certain fixed Laws, which he will not tranſgreſs upon the Ac- count of Accidental Evils ariſing from them. Suppoſe a Prince, on whoſe Life the Welfare of a Kingdom depends, to fall down a Precipice, we have no Rein to think, that the Univerſal Law of Gravitation wou'd be ſuſpended in that Caſe. The like may be ſaid of all other Laws of Nature, which we do not find to admit of Exceptions on particular Accounts.
XXVIII. And, as without ſuch a Steddineſs in Nature, we ſhou'd ſoon, inſtead of this beautiful Frame, ſee nothing but a diſorderly, and confuſed Chaos: So if. once it become current, that the Moral Actions of Men are not to be guided by certain definite inviolable Rules, there will be no longer found that Beauty, Order, and Agreement, in the Syſtem of Rational Beings, or Moral World, which will then be all cover'd over with Dackneſs and Violence. It is true, he who ftands cloſe to a Palace, can hardly make a right * of the Architecture and Symmetry of its ſeveral Parts, the nearer evet appearing diſproportionably great. And if we have a mind to take a fair Proſpect N D 2 the i (4 ) the Order and general Well-being, which the in. Þ | flexible Laws of Nature and Morality derive on | the World, we muſt, if I may ſo ſay, go out of it, + and imagine our ſelves to be diſtant Spectators of all that is tranſacted and contained in it; ether. wiſe we are ſure to be deceived, by the tco near View of the little preſent Intereſts of our Selves, our Friends, or our Country. The right Under. {ſtanding of what hath been ſaid, will, I think, af. ford a clear Solution to the following Difficulties.
XXIX. Firſt, it may perhaps ſeem to ſome, that in Conſequence of the foregoing Doctrine, Men will be left to their own private Judgments as much as ever. For, Firſt, the very being of the Laws of Nature; Secondly, the Criterion whereby to know them; and, Thirdly, the Agreement of any particular Precept witk that Criterion, are all to be diſcovered by Reaſon and Argumentation, in Which every Man doth neceſſarily judge for himſelf; hence upon that Suppoſition, there is Place for as great Confuſion, Unſteddineſs, and Contrariety of Opinions and Actions, as upon any other. I anſwer, that however Men may dif- fer, as to what were moſt proper and beneficial to the Publick to be done or omitted on particular Occaſions, when they have for the moſt part nar- | row and intereſted Views; yet in general Conclu- = tons, drawn from an equal and enlarged View of Things, it is not poſſible there ſhould be ſo great, if any Diſagreement at all amongſt Candid, Ra- tional Enquirers after Truth.
AM JA aaa Vac. om. Von.Tff TT co.. Va lad. w- K XXX. Secondly, The moſt plauſible Pretence of all, againſt the Doctrine we have premiſed 1 concerning a rigid indiſpenſible Obſervation ct Moral Rules, is that which is founded on the Con- | ſideration „ % — v-X RN wm, Aw owoet ot» WB M6 os it % Moto oa eas; aa as £ |?
(25) n- Þ {deration of the Publick Weal; for ſince the com- on non Good of Mankind is confeſſedly the End ir, I which God requires ſhou'd be promoted by the free of Þ actions of Men, it may ſeem to follow, that all er- good Men ought ever to have this in View, as the ear great Mark to which all their Endeavours ſhould be es, directed; if therefore in any particular Caſe, a er- grict keeping to the Moral Rule ſhall prove mani- af. feſtly inconſiſtent with the Publick Good, it may 5. be thought agreeable to the Will of God, that in thatCaſe the Rule does not reſtrain an honeft diſin- je, tzreſted Perſon, from acting for that End to which ne, the Rule it ſelf was Ordained. For it is an Axiom, a5 that the End is more Excellent than the Means, which the deriving their Goodneſs from the End, may not by come in Competition with it. | all XXXI. In Anſwer to this, let it be obſerv'd, on, that nothing is a Law merely becauſe it conduceth for to the Publick Good, but becauſe it is decreed by is che Will of God, which alone can give the San- nd W &ion of a Law of Nature to any Precept; neither "on zs any thing, how expedient or plauſible ſoever, to dif- WW be eſteemed lawful on any other Account, than [to its being coincident with, or not repugnant to the ilar W Laws promulgated by the Voice of Nature and ar- Reaſon. It muſt indeed be allowed, that the ra- u- tional Deduction of thoſe Laws is founded in the of intrinſick Tendency they have to promote the eat, W Well-being of Mankind, on Condition they are Ra- WW univerſally and conſtantly obſerved. But tho' it afterwards comes to paſs, that they accidentally fail of that End, or even promote the contrary, nce I they are nevertheleſs binding, as hath been already led proved. In ſhort, that whole Difficulty may be of teſolved by the following Diſtinction. — on- the general Laws of Nature, it is granted, we muſt (26) (26) be entirely guided by the Publick Good of Man. kind, but not in the erdinary Moral Actions off »} our Lives. Such a Rule, if univerſally obſervd. Nu hath from the Nature of Things, a neceſſary Bir. pr neſs to promote the general Well-being of Man- db kind; therefore it is a Law of Nature: This-i; hi good Reaſoning. But if we ſhou'd ſay ſuch an pr Action doth in this Inſtance produce much Gooe ll (: and no Harm to Mankind; therefore it is lawful: 10 This were wrong. The Rule is framed with re. 61 ſpect to the Good of Mankind, but our Practice N th muſt be always ſhaped immediately by the Ruk, N They who think the Publick Good of a Nation to in be the ſole Meaſure of the Obedience due to the MW po Civil Power, ſeem not to have conſidered this Di- N co ſtinction. the XXXII. If it be ſaid that ſome Negative Pre. cepts, e. g. Thou ſhalt not kill, do admit of Limita- tion, ſince otherwiſe it were unlawful for the Ma- ers giſtrate, for a Soldier in a Battel, or a Man in his WW Dc own Defence to kill another: I anſwer, when a Wl?r Duty is expreſſed in too general Terms, as in this I an Inſtance, in Order to a diſtin& Declaration of it, Ml th; either thoſe Terms may be changed for others of I th; a more limited Senſe, as Kill for Murder, or ell: from the general Propoſition remaining in its ful Latitude, Exceptions may be made of thoſe preciſe Caſes, which not agreeing with the Notion of Murder, are not prohibited by the Law of Narure. In the former Caſe there is a Limitation, but it i only of the Signification of a ſingle Term too ge- neral-and improper, by ſubſtituting another more — and particular in its Place. In the latter Caſe there are Exceptions, but then they are not from the Law of Nature,” but from a more general Propoſition, which beſides that Law, includes * # what (25) Ml chat more, which muſt be taken away in order to ave the Law by it ſelf clear and determinate. from neither of which Conceſſions will it follow, chat any Negative Law of Nature is limited to hoſe Caſes only where its. particular Application promotes the Publick Good, or admits all other Caſes to be excepted from it, wherein its being actually obſerved produceth Harm to the Publick.
But of this I ſhall have Occafion to ſay more in 7 the Sequel. I have now done with the firſt Head, which was to ſhew, that there is an Abſolute, Un- imited Paſſive Obedience due to the Supre me Power, where- ever placed in any Nation; and come to enquire into the Grounds and Reaſons of the contrary Opinion; which was the Second Thing propoſed.
XXXIII. One great Principle, which the Pleaders for Reſiſtance make the Ground-Work of their Doctrine, is, that the Law' of Self. Preſervation is Prior to all other Engagements, being the very firſt ind fundamental Law of Nature. Hence, ſay they, Subjects are obliged by Nature, and it is their Duty, to reſiſt the cruel Attempts of Tyrants, however authorized by unjuſt and Bloody Laws, which are nothing elſe but the Decrees of Men, and conſequently muſt give way to thoſe of God, or Nature, But, perhaps, if we narrowly examine this Notion, it will not be found ſo juſt and clear s ſome Men may imagine, or, indeed, as at firſt dight it ſeems to be. For we ought to diſtinguiſh between a Two-fold 8 of the Terms Law of Nature; which Words do either denote x utc or Precept for the Direction of the voluntary Actions of reafonable Agents, and in that Senſe they imply a Duty; or elle they are uſed to fignify any general Rule, which we obſerve to obtain in the | | 8; | | not with any Propriety be termed a Moral Duty, | of the Law of Self-Preſervation, yet, for ought] 628) the Works of Nature, independent of the Wills of Men; in which Senſe no Duty is implied. And in this laſt Acceptation, I grant it is a general Law of Nature, that in every Animal there be implan- ted a Deſire of Self-Prefervation, which, tho it i the earlieſt, the deepeſt, and moſt laſting of all, 7 whether Natural or Acquired Appetites, yet can- But if in the former Senſe of the Words, they mean that Self-Preſervation is the firſt and moſt fundamental Law of Nature, which therefore muſt take place of all other Natural or Moral Duties: I think that Affertion to be manifeſtly falſe, fer this plain Reaſon, becauſe it wou'd thence follow, WY | a Man may lawfully commit any Sin whatſoever i to preſerve his Life, than which nothing can be. more abſurd. | n XXXIV. It cannot indeed be denied, that the 0 Law-of Nature reſtrains us from doing thoſe. Things which may injure the Life of any Man, and conſequently our own. But, notwithſtanding all that is ſaid of the Obligativeneſs and Priority can fee, there is no particular Law, which oblige any Man to prefer his own Temporal Good, nc: even Life it ſelf, to that of another Man, much leſs to the Obſervation of any one Moral Duty, This is what we are too ready to perform of Ci! own Accord; and there is more Need of a Lav to curb and reſtœin, than there is of one to excitꝭ and inflame our Self- Love.
XXXV. But, Secondly, tho' we fhou'd gran: the Duty of Self-Preſervation to be the firſt and moſt neceſſary of all the Poſitive or Affirmativ: Laws of Nature; yet, foraſmuch as it is a 1 a 5, A QW<!
— — — _——— — — "CE 3) allowed by all Moraliſts, that Evil is never to be committed, to the end Good may come of it, it will thence plainly follow, that no Negative Precept ought to be tranſgreſſed for the ſake of obſerving a Poſitive one; and therefore, ſince we have ſhewn, : Thou ſhalt not reſiſt the Supreme Power, to be a Nega- an: tive Law of Nature, it is a neceſſary Conſequence, 10 that it may not be tranſgreſſed under pretence of WY fulfilling the Poſitive Duty of Self- Preſervation.
nul XXXVI. A ſecond erroneous Ground of our ® Adverſaries, whereon they lay a main Streſs, is = that they hold the Publick Good of a particular —_ Nation to be the Meaſure of the Obedience due is from the Subject to the Civil Power, which there- fore may be reſiſted whenſoever the Publick Good all verily ſeem to require it. But this Point hath che been already conſider'd, and in Truth it can give ſmall Difficulty to whoever underſtands Loyalty to ole 2 , be on the ſame Foot with other Moral Duties en- — joyned in negative Precepts, all which tho' equally ity calculated ro promote the general Well-being, may not nevertheleſs be limited or ſuſpended un- der pretext of giving way to the end, as is plain >” i from what hath been premiſed on that Subject.
5 XXXVII. A Third Reaſon which they inſiſt on, „is co this Effect. All Civil Authority or Right is derived orginally from the People; but no Body can transfer that to another, which he hath not himſelf; therefore ſince no Man hath an abſolute unlimited Right over his own Life, the Subject cannot transfer ſuch a Right to the Prince (or Su- preme Power) who conſequently hath no ſuch un- limited Right to diſpoſe of the Lives of his Sub- jects. In caſe therefore a Subject reſiſt his Prince, who acting according to Law, maketh an — : tho (30) tho' legal, Attempt on his Life, he does him no Wrong, ſince Wrong it is not, to prevent another from ſeizing what he hath no Right to; whence it ſhou'd ſeem to follow, that agreeably to Reaſon, the Prince or Supreme Power whereſoever placed may be reſiſted. Having thus endeavoured to ſtate their Argument in its cleareſt Light, J make this Anſwer. Firſt, it is granted, no Civil Power hath an unlimited Right to diſpoſe of the Life of any Man. Secondly, in caſe one Man reſiſt another invading that which he hath no Right to, it is granted he doth him no Wrong. But in the Third Place, I deny that it doth thence follow, the Su— preme Power may conſonantly to Reaſon be re- ſiſted, becauſe that altho' ſuch Reſiſtance wronged not the Prince or Supreme Power whereſoever placed, yet it were injurious to the Author of Na- ture, and a Violation of his, Law, which Reaſon obligeth us to Tranſgreſs upon no Account what- ſoever, as hath been demonſtrated, XXXVIII. A Fourth Miſtake or Prejudice which influenceth the Impugners of Non-Reſi- Nance, ariſes from the natural Dread of Slavery, Chains, and Fetters which inſpires them with an Averſion for any thing, which even metaphorical- ly comes under thoſe Denominations. Hence they cry out againſt us that we wou'd deprive them of their natural Freedom, that we are making Chains for Mankind, that we are for enſlaving them, and the like, But how harſh ſoever the Sentence may appear, yet it is moſt true, that our Appetites, even the moſt natural, as of Eaſe, Plenty, or Life it ſelf, muſt be chain'd and fetter d by the Laws oi Nature and Reaſon. This Slavery, if they will call it ſo, or Subjection of our Paſſions to the im- mutable Decrees of Reaſon, though it may be Galling 8 F Galling to the ſenſual Part or the Beaſt, yet ſure T am, it addeth much to the Dignity of that which is -peculiarly Human in our Compoſition. This leads me to the Fifth fundamental Error: XXXIX. Namely, the miſtaking the Object of Paſſive Obedience. We ſhou'd conſider, that when a Subject endures the Inſolence and Oppreſſion of one or more Magiſtrates, armed with the Supreme Civil Power, the Object of his Submiſſion is, in ſtrict Truth, nothing elſe but right Reaſon, which is the Voice of the Author of Nature. Think not we are ſo ſenſeleſs, as to imagine Ty- rants caſt in a better Mould than other Men: No, they are the worſt and vileſt of Men, and for their own Sakes, have not the leaſt Right to our Obe- dience. But the Laws of God and Nature muſt be obey'd, and our Obedience to them is never more acceptable and ſincere, than when it expo- ſeth us to Temporal Calamities.
XL. ASixth falſe Ground of Perſuaſion to thoſe we argue againſt, is their not diftingtiſhing be- tween the Natures of Poſitive and Negative Du- ties. For, ſay they, ſince our active Obedience to the Supreme Civil Power is. acknowledged to be limited, why may not our Duty of Non-Reſiſtance be thought ſo too? The Anſwer is plain; becauſe Poſitive and Negative Moral Precepts are not of the ſame Nature, the former admitting ſuch Limitati- ons and Exceptions as the latter are on no Account liable to, as hath been already proved. It is very poſſible that a Man in obeying the Commands of his lawful Governors, might tranſgreſs ſome Law of God contrary to them; which it is not poſſible for him to do, meerly by a patient Suffering and Non-Reſiſtance for Conſcience ſake. And this 1 „ furni- ( 32 ) furniſhes ſuch a Satisfactory and obvious Solution of the forementioned Difficulty, that T am not 2 lictle ſurprized to ſee it inſiſted on, by Men, otherwiſe, of good Senſe and Reaſon. And fo much for the Grounds and Reaſons of the Adverſaries of Non-Reſiſtance. I now proceed to the third and laſt Thing propoſed, Namely, the Conſideration of the Objections drawn from the pretended Con- ſequences of Non-Reſiſtance. | XLI. Firſt chen it will be objected, that in Conſequence of that Notion, we muſt believe that God hath, in ſeveral Inſtances, laid the innocent Part of Mankind under an unavoidable Neceſſity of enduring the greateſt Sufferings and Hardſhips without any Remedy; which is plainly inconſiſtent with the Divine Wiſdom and Goodnels, and there- fore the Principle from whence that Conſequence flows, ought not to be admitted as a Law of God or Nature. In Anſwer to which I obſerve, we mult carefully diſtinguiſh between the neceſſary and accidental Conſequences of a Moral Law. The former Kind arethoſe which the Law is in its own Nature calculated to produce, and which have an inſeparable Connexion with the Obſervation of it; and indeed if theſe are bad, we may juſtly conclude the Law to be ſo too, and conſequently not from God. But the accidental Conſequences of a Law, have no intrinſic natural Connexion with, nor do they ſtrictly ſpeaking flow from its Obſervation, but are the genuine Reſult of ſome- thing foreign and circumſtantial, which happens to be joyned with it. And theſe accidental Conſe- quences of a very good Law, may nevertheleſs be 'very bad; which Badneſs of theirs is to be char- ged on their own proper and neceſſary Cauſe, and not- on the Law, which hath no Eſſential Tenden- 5 E „F N my, TT» bu yy 2 0 "0 "IS z 3 Cans.
cy to produce them. Now though it muſt be -anted, that a Lawgiver infinitely wife and good will conſtitute ſuch Laws for the Regulation of human Actions, as have in their own Nature a ne- ceſſary inherent Aptneſs to promote the common Good of all Mankind, and that in the greateſt De- gree that the preſent Circumſtances and Capacities of human Nature will admit; yet we deny that the Wiſdom and Goodneſs of the Lawpiver are concerned, or may be called in Queſtion, on Ac- count of the particular Evils which ariſe, neceſſa- fly and properly, from the Tranſgreſjion of ſome one or more good Laws, and but accidentally from the Obſervation of others. But it is plain that the ſeveral Calamities and Devaſtations, which oppreſ- ſve Governments bring on the World, are not the genuine neceſſary Effects of the Law, that enjoin- eth a Paſſive Subjection to the Supreme Power, neither are they included in the primary Intention thereof, but ſpring from Avarice, Ambition, Cru- elty, Revenge, and the like inordinate Affections and Vices raging in the Breaſts of Governors. They may not therefore argue a defect of Wiſdom or Goodneſs in God's Law, but of Righteouſneſs in Men. a | XLII. Such is the preſent State of Things, ſo regular are the Wills, and fo unreſtrained the Paſ- ons of Men, that we every Day fee manifeſt preaches and Violations of the Laws of Nature, which being always committed in Favour of the Wicked, muſt ſurely be ſometimes attended with neavy Diſadvantages and Miſeries, on the Part of thoſe who by a firm Adheſion to his Laws endea- our to approve themſelves in the Eyes of their Creator. There are in ſhort, no Rules of Mora- ity, not excepting the beſt, bur what may ſubject Fort | | good 736 ) good Men to great Sufferings and Hardſhips, which neceſſarily follows from the Wickedneſs of thoſe they have to deal with, and but accidentally from thoſe good Rules. And as on the one Hand i. were inconſiſtent with the Wiſdom of God, by ſuffering a retaliation of Fraud, Perjury, or th: like on the Head of Offenders, to puniſh on: Tranſgreſſion by another: So on the other Hand, it were inconſiſtent with his Juſtice, to leave the Good and Innocent a hopeleſs Sacrifice to the Wicked. God therefore hath appointed a Day of Retribution in another Life, and in this we have his Grace and a good Conſcience for our Support, We ſhou'd not therefore repine at the Divine Laws, or ſhew a frowardneſs or impatience of thoſe tranſient Sufferings they accidentally expoſe us to, which however grating to Fleſh and Blood, will yet ſeem of ſmall moment, if we compare the lictleneſs and fleetingneſs of this preſent World with the Glory and Eternity of the next.
XLIII. From what hath been ſaid I think it is plain, that the premiſed Doctrine of Non-Reſi- ſtance were ſafe, tho' the Evils incurred thereby ſhou'd be allowed never ſo great. But perhaps upon a ſtrict examination, they will be found much leſs than by many they are thought to be. The miſchievous effects which are charged on that Doctrine may be reduced to theſe two Points. Firſt, that it is an encouragement for all Gover- nors to become Tyrants, by the proſpect it gives them of Impunity or Non-Reſiſtance. Secondly, that it renders the Oppreſſion and Cruelty of thoſe who are Tyrants, more inſupportable and violent, by cutting off all Oppoſition, and conſequent! all means of Redreſs. I ſhall conſider each of theſe diſtinctly. As to the firſt Point, either you'll ſuppoſe (35) ch pole the Governors to be good or ill Men. If they le N ne Good, there is no fear of their becoming Ty- mW ants. And if they are ill Men, that is, ſuch as r oftpone the Obſervation of God's Laws to the by Wl {.ricfving of their own Luſts, then it can be no ) MW atis1y 1g 5 Ccurity to them, that others will rigidly obſerve ne N moſe Moral Precepts, which they find themſelves , prone to Tranſgreſs.
be XIIV. It is indeed a Breach of the Law of Na- ture for a Subject, tho' under the greateſt and moſt :njuſt Sufferings, to lift up his Hand againſt the dupreme Power. But it is a more heinous and in- exculable Violation of it, for the Perſons inveſted - le Nich the Supreme Power, to uſe that Power to the Ruin and Deſtruction of the People commit- ted to their Charge. What encouragement there- ne ¶ fore can any Man have, to think that others will not be puſh'd on by the ſtrong implanted Appe- tite of Self - Preſervation, co commit a Crime, . oben he himſelf commits a more brutiſh and un- natural Crime, perhaps without any provocation . H all? Or is it to be imagined that they who ' by daily break God's Laws, for the ſake of ſome little P MI Profit or tranſient Pleaſure, will not be tempted by nd Ine love of Property, Liberty, or Life it ſelf, to be Tranſgreſs that ſingle Precept which forbids Re- — ſiſtance to the Supreme Power?
er XLV. But it will be demanded, to what pur- * poſe then is this Duty of Non-Reſiſtance Preached { and Proved, and Recommended to our Practice, whe it in all likelihood, when things come to an ex- any tremity, Men will never obſerve it? I Anſwer, " oo the very ſame purpoſe that any other Duty b Preached. For what Duty is there which many, too many, upon fome conſideration or other may