nor 3 not be prevail'd on to Tranſgreſs? Moraliſts and Divines do not Preach the Duties of Nature and Religion, with the View of Gaining Mankind t a perfect Obſervation of them; that they know i; not to be done. But, however, our Pains are Ay. ſwered, if we can make Men leſs Sinners than _ otherwiſe they wou'd be; if by oppoſing the fore: of Duty to that of preſent Intereſt and Paſſion, we can get the better of ſome Temptations, and Balance others, while the greateſt ſtill remain In. vincible. | XLVI. But granting thoſe who are inveſte with the Supreme Power to have all imaginab|; Security, that no cruel and barbarous Treatment whatever cou'd provoke their Subjects to Rebel. lion: Yet I believe it may be juſtly queſtioned, whether ſuch Security would tempt them to mor: or greater Acts of Cruelty, than Jealouſie, Di. {truſt, Suſpicion and Revenge may do in a Stat? leſs Secure. And ſo far in conſideration of the firſt Point, Namely, that the Doctrine of Non. Reſiſtance is an encouragement for Governors t9 hecome Tyrants. 4 | 9 woo ont ( of po ed © Bs 2 XLVII. The ſecond Miſchievous Effe& it wu Charged with, is, that it renders the Oppreſlion and Cruelty of thoſe who are Tyrants more in. ſupportable and violent, by cutting off all Oppo- ſition, and conſequently all means of Redreß But, if things are rightly conſider'd, it will appear, that Redreffing the Evils of Government by Force, is at beſt, a very hazardous Attempt, and What often puts the Publick in a worſe State than it wi before. For either you ſuppoſe the Power of ti: Rebels to be but ſmall, and eaſily Cruſhed, ans then this is apt to inſpire the Governors with Con- fidenc: 2 23 3 82 — - was — (37 ) fdence and Cruelty. Or, in caſe you ſuppoſe it more conſiderable, ſo as to be a Match for the Su- preme Power ſupported by the Publick Treaſure, Forts and Armies, and that the whole Nation is engaged in a Civil War; the certain effects of this are Rapine, Bloodſhed, Miſery, and Confufion to all Orders and Parties of Men, greater and more inſupportable by far, than are known under any the moſt abſolute and ſevere Tyranny upon Earth. And it may be that after much mutual Slaughter, the Rebellious Party will prevail. And if they do prevail to Deſtroy the Government in Being, it may be they will Subſtitute a better in its Place, or change it into better Hands. And may not this come to paſs without the expence, and toil, and blood of War? Is not the Heart of a Prince in the Hand of God? May he not therefore give him a right Senſe of his Duty, or may he not call him out of the World by Sickneſs, Accident, or the Hand of ſome deſperate Ruffian, and ſend a better in his Stead. When I ſpeak as of a Monarchy, I would be underſtood to mean all ſorts of Govern- ment, whereſoever the Supreme Power is Lodged. Upon the whole, I think we may cloſe with the Heathen Philoſopher, who thought it the part of 2 Wife Man, never to attempt the Change of Go- vernment by Force, when it cou'd not be mended. without the Slaughter and Baniſhment of his Countrymen: But to Sir ſtill, and Pray for bet- ter Times *, For this way may do, and the other may not do; there is uncertainty in both Courſes. The difference is, that in the way of Rebellion, we are ſure to increaſe the Publick Calamities, for a time at leaſt, tho' we are not ſure of leſſening them for the future.
XLVII.
* (33) XLVIII. But tho' it ſhould be acknowledged, that in the main, Submiſſion and Patience Ought to be recommended; yet, Men will be {till apt to demand, whether extraordinary Caſes may not require extraordinary Meaſures; and therefore in caſe the Oppreſſion be inſupportable, and the Pro- ſpe of Deliverance ſure, whether Rebellion may not be allowed of? IJ Anſwer, By no means. Per- jury, or Breach of Faith, may, in ſome poflible Caſes, bring great Advantage to a Nation, by free- ing it from Conditions inconfiſtent with its Liber- ty and Publick Welfare. So likewiſe, may Adul- tery, by procuring a Domeſtick Heir, prevent 1 Kingdom's falling into the Hands of a Foreign Power, which wou'd in all probability prove it Ruin. Yet will any Man fay, the extraordinary Nature of thoſe Caſes can take away the Guilt of Perjury and Adultery?*' This is what I will not ſuppoſe. But it hath been ſhewn, that Rebellion is as truly a Crime againſt Nature and Reaſon 25 either of the foregoing, it may not therefore be Juſtified upon any Account whatever, any more chan they.
XLIX. What! Muſt we then Submit our Necks to the Sword? And is there no Help, no Refuge againſt extream Tyranny eſtabliſhed by Law? In Anſwer to this, I ſay in the firſt place, it is not to be feared that Men in their Wits ſhou'd ſeek the Deſtruction of their People, by ſuch cruel and un- natural Decrees as ſome are forward to ſuppoſe. I ſay, Secondly, that in caſe they ſhou'd, yet moſt certainly the Subordinate Magiſtrates may not, nay, they ought not, in Obedience to thoſe De- crees to act any thing contrary to the expreſs Laws of God, And perhaps all things conſidered, i wi ——— — U ey — po waa, wwe > yn OQ59 ww.+czj IO”.
1 mige — — C9.) will be thought, that repreſenting this Limitation of their active Obedience by the Laws of God or Nature, as a Duty to the Miniſters of the Supreme Power, may prove in thoſe extravagant ſuppoſed Caſes no leſs effectual for the Peace and Safety of Nation, than Preaching up the Power of Reſi- {tance to the People. | L. Further, It will probably be Objected as an Abſurdity in the Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience, that it enjoyneth Subjects a blind implicit Submiſ- fon to the Decrees of other Men; which is un- becoming the Dignity and Freedom of reaſonable Agents; who indeed ought to pay Obedience to their Superiors, but it ſhou'd be a rational Obedi- ence, ſuch as ariſes from a knowledge of the Equi- ty of their Laws, and the Tendency they have to promote the Public Good. To which I Anſwer, That it is not likely a Government ſhou'd ſuffer much for want of having its Laws inſpected and amended, by thoſe who are not legally intitled to a ſhare in the management of Affairs of that Na- ture. And it muſt be confeſſed, the Bulk of Man- kind are by their Circumſtances and Occupations, ſo far unqualified to judge of ſuch Matters, that they muſt neceſſarily pay an implicit deference to ſome or other, and to whom ſo properly as to thoſe inveſted with the Supreme Power?
LI. There is another Objection againſt abſo- late Submiſſion, which I ſhou'd not have mentio- ned, but that I find it inſiſted on by Men of ſo great Note, as Groti»s and Pufendorſf *, who think our Non-Reſiſtance ſhou'd be meaſured by the in- * (49) tention of thoſe who firſt framed the Society, Now, ſay they, if we ſuppoſe the queſtion put io x them, Whether they meant to lay every Subje& under a Neceſſity of chuſing Death, rather than in any Caſe to Reſiſt the Cruelty of his Superiors, it cannot be imagined, they wou'd Anſwer in the I bot Affirmative. For this were to put themſelves in a 1 worſe Condition, than that which they endez- N ge voured to avoid by entring into Society. For al. a tho' they were obnoxious to the Injuries of many, I.;.
they had nevertheleſs the Power of Reſiſting them, 01 But now they are bound, without any Oppoſition N ch. at all, to endure the greateſt Injuries from thoſe whom they have Armed with their own Strength. I D. Which is by ſo much worſe than the former State, as the undergoing an Execution is worſe than the hazard of a Battle. But (paſſing by all other Ex- d ceptions which this Method of arguing may be li- able to) it is evident, that a Man had better be ex. f. poſed to the abſolute irreſiſtible Decrees, even cf one ſingle Perſon, whoſe own and Poſterities true Intereſt it is to preſerve him in Peace and Plenty, and Prote& him from the Injuries of all Mankind beſide, than remain an open Prey to the Rage and Avarice of every Wicked Man upon Earth, who either exceeds him in Strength, or takes him at an Advantage. The Truth of this is confirmed, as well by the conſtant Experience of the far greater Part of the World, as by what we have already obſerv'd concerning Anarchy, and the Inconſi- ſtence of ſuch a State, with that manner of Life which Human Nature requires. Hence it is plain, the Objection laſt mentioned is Built on a falſe Suppoſition; Viz, That Men, by quitting the Na- tural State of Anarchy for that of abſolute Non- Reſiſting Obedience to Government, wou'd put themſelves in a worſe Condition than they were in before. | III.
— x ( 41 ) — x ( 41 ) to III. The laſt Objection I ſhall take Notice of alli; that in purſuance of the premiſed Doctrine, in FF yhere no Fxceptions, no Limitations are to be al- it lowed of, it ſhou'd ſeem to follow, Men were he bound to ſubmit without making any Oppoſition 2 MW {© Uſurpers, or even Madmen poſſeſſed of the Su- * preme Authority. Which is a Notion ſo abſurd and repugnant to common Senſe, that the Founda- ton on which it is Built, may juſtly be called in m. Queſtion. Now, in order to clear this Point, 1 on ¶ obſerve the Limitation of Moral Duties may be e underſtood in a Twofold Senſe, either firſt as 2 Diſtinction applied to the Terms of a Propoſition, whereby that which was expreſſed before too ge- nerally is limited to a particular Acceptation; and * dis, in truth, is not ſo properly limiting the Du- li- Wy 25 defining it. Or, Secondly, it may be under- „food as a Suſpending the Obſervation of a Duty b avoiding ſome extraordinary Inconvenience, and thereby confining it to certain Occaſions. ; ud in this laſt Senſe only, We have ſhewn Ne- gative Duties not to admit of Limitation. Name- nd i ly, that by Vertue of the Duty of Non-Reſiſtance, bo ¶ We are not obliged to Submit the Diſpoſal of our an Wives and Fortunes to the Diſcretion either of Mad- nen, or of all thoſe who by Craft or Violence in- wy de the Supreme Power. Becauſe the Object of the Submiſſion enjoyned Subjects by the Law of Nature is, from the Reaſon of. the thing, Mani- ſeſtly limited ſo as to exclude both the one and the ther. Which I ſhall not go about to prove, be- cauſe J believe no Body has denied it. Nor doth tne Annexing ſuch Limits to the Obje& of our Obedience, at all limit the Duty it ſelf, in the | enſe we except againſt, LIII. In (42 ) LIII. In (42 ) LIII. In the Various Changes and Fluctuations of Government, it is impoſſible to prevent that Controverſies ſhou'd ſometimes ariſe concerning the Seat of the Supreme Power. And in ſuch Ca. ſes Subjects cannot be Denied the Liberty of Judy. ing for Themſelves, or of taking part with ſome, and oppoſing others, according to the beſt of their Judgments; all which is Conſiſtent with an exa& Obſervation of their Duty, ſo long as, when the Conſtitution is clear in the Point, and the Object of their Submiſſion undoubted, no Pretext of In- tereſt, Friends, or the Publick Good, can make them depart from it. In ſhort, it is acknowledged, that the Precept enjoyning Non-Reſiſtance is Li- mited to particular Objects, but not to particular Occaſions. And in this it is like all other Moral Negative Duties, which conſider'd as general Pro- poſitions, do admit of Limitations and Reſtridi. ons, in order to a diſtinct Definition of the Duty; but what is once known to be a Duty of that ſort, can never become otherwiſe by any good or ill Effe&, Circumſtance, or Event whatſoever. And in Truth if it were not ſo, if there were no Ge- neral Inflexible Rules, but all Negative as well 23 Poſitive Duties might be Diſpenſed with, and Warpt to Serve particular Intereſts and Occaſions, there were an end of all Morality, LIV. It is therefore Evident, that as the Obſer- vation of any other Negative Moral Law, is not to be limited to thoſe Inſtances only, where it may produce good Effects; ſo neither is the Obſerva- tion of Non-Reſiſtance limited in ſuch ſort, as that any Man may Lawfully Tranſgreſs it, whenſoever in his Judgment, the Publick Good of his Particular Country ſhall require it. And it is with = i gar — (| BR — 1H - © em my ct F2* C ( 43 ) zard to this Limitation by the Effects, that I ſpeak of Non-Reſiſtance, as an abſolute, unconditioned, unlimited Duty. Which muſt inevitably be granted, unleſs one of theſe three Things can be prov'd: Either, Firſt, that Non-Refiftance is no Moral Duty. Or, Secondly, that other Negative Moral Duties are limited by the Effects. Or, Laſtly, that there is ſomething peculiar in the Nature of Non-Reſiſtance, which neceſſarily ſubjects it to ſuch a Limitation, 25 no other Negative Moral Duty can admit. The contrary to each of which Points, if miſtake not, hath been clearly made out.
LV. I have now briefly gone through the Ob- ections drawn from the Conſequences of Non- Reſiſtance, which was the laſt General Head I propoſed to Treat of. In handling this and the other Points, I have endeavour'd to be as full and clear, as the uſual length of theſe Diſcourſes would permit, and throughout to conſider the Argument with yu ſame Indifference, as I ſhou'd any other part of General Knowledge, being verily perſwa- ded that Men, as Chriſtians, are obliged to the Practice of no one Moral Duty, which may no abide the ſevereſt Teſt of = ny