thematical Evidence, that the State of Nature, with respect to civil Govern ment, is a State of Equality. And I cannot but wonder to find that your Lord ip can urge fuch fort of Arguments as feem inconfiftent with your own Conceflions: Efpecially confidering that your Lordship hath not thought fit in the Raft to confider what hath been largely faid by feveral Writers in Anfwer to this Argument, or to hint the leaft Confideration which might furnish a Reply to them. Nor can I wonder lefs, to find your Lordship declaring, p. 4. that the Title of the firft Kings that ever were in the World was most probably only their Paternal Right to rule and govern their own children and Defcendants. For this Paternal Right is a Natural Right, and therefore cannot be thought by your Lordship to be a Right to civil Government over their Defendants; be caufe you fay, there is no fuch thing as a Natural Right to that. That the Fa thers of Families might be at firft pitch'd upon by many clans and Societies of Men, to be civil Governours likewife, hath been thought probable by many wife Writers; or that their civil Government might have been fubmitted to, tho' taken up by themselves without any formal Choice: But then their Right to this could not be the Paternal Right; but was founded upon that voluntary choice, os Submiffion. Your Lordship therefore hath devefted the first Kings, (who probably had the beft Titles in the World) of all Title to their civil Power, by fixing it upon a Paternal, which is a natural Right; and at the fame time declaring, that there is no fuch thing as a natural Right to civil Power, and making 2 Diftinction (as there is indeed a moft manifeft one) between Mankind in a matural capacity, and Mankind in a political capacity.

5. There are at this Day, and have been in every Age, Inftances of People in the unciviliz'd Parts of the World, without any established civil Government: And if ever Government comes to be rightfully fettled amongst them, it must be by voluntary compact and Agreement; and, we fee, hath been preceeded by a State of as great an Equality, with refpect to civil Government, as is contended for, by any Writer that I know of.

to

6. But I cannot fee what mighty Advantage your Lordship would procure the Cause you defend, could you demonftrate that the Authority of Gover Bours comes from God, in the Senfe inconfiftent withe the Suppofition of a contract founded upon a State of Equality. For fince (as your Lordship allows) the Forms of Government, and the Perfons of Governours, were always, ordinarily fpeaking, of humane Determination; and these were certainly determined by Societies of Men merely in order for the greater Happiness of Society, and for the good Execution of a particular Office: Since this is fo, I fay; fuppofing their Authority (upon fuch humane Appointment) to be conveyed to them immedi arely from God bimfelf, yet methinks, this Authority can be only fuch as the Nature of their Office, and the Reafon and Ground of the contract fuppofed to be made with them, neceffarily require. It will be very difficult, I believe, for your Lordship to prove, that God doth give any other Authority to the Perfons of Governours, but what is founded upon the End propofed in their Election; or that they can be fuperior to the whole electing Society, by his Will, in any Inftances to which their commiffion doth not reach, and in which they destroy the very End of their commiffion given them by God, as well as of the Charge of good Government repofed in them by this Society. Nay, your Lordship declares, that their commiffion from God is limited; and for one Purpofe only: From whence it follows, that their Superiority is limited; and (to come to a plain Infranee) that in the cafe of Governours attempting the Ruin of a Nation, they are

without

without Commiffion, and fo without Superiority; the Confequence of which is, that, in this Cafe, Self-defense is a most neceffary and lawful Practice. There are Kingdoms which are Elective: as part of our own Legislative Conftitution is. Now when the Electors of fuch a Kingdom chufe a King, exprefly to rule them according to their Eftablished Laws; and he knows, and folemnly agrees to it; how can his Commission from God be any other than to do fo? And how can he pretend to any Superiority in doing the contrary? And how is it poffible to fuppofe, that he hath immediately Authority from God to change this into an Hereditary Kingdom, by his own Act, and the People all obliged to fubmit to fuch a Change? How is it poffible that he can have Authority to do this, unless it be in his Commiffion? and which way it can be in his Commiffion, it is paft the Skill of the ableft Head to determine, unlefs God can give a Mana Commission to destroy thofe very Ends for which he was elected; and which he voluntarily hath sworn to answer. Again, who can imagine that our Parliament, chofen by the People to maintain our Constitution, and enact wholfome Laws, can receive immediately Authority from God to ruin it, if they think fit; and to confent to the turning it into an Abfolute Monarchy; nay, to the fubjecting it to the King of France, or of any other Country; and the People, in a State of Damnation, unless they meekly fubmit to all this, which neither Electid nor EleBors ever dream't to be in their Commission? Yet all this, and much more, if poffible, doth your Lordship effectually affirm, whilft you maintain the Authori ty of Governours to be fuch, as that they can alter, annul, deftroy Conftitutions by divine Right; and the Slavery of People to be fuch, as that all muft be patiently fubmitted to. Thefe, my Lord,are aftonishing Pofitions; fuch as are void of all Proof, and indeed only affirmed by your Lordship, Sermon 1704. p. 17, 18, 19 For my own Part, I must be fo plain as to declare again, that I think it toucheth the Honour of Almighty God nearly, as well as the Happiness of humane Society, to introduce Him as granting fuch Commissions to Governours ; and affixing his Seal to what is contrary to his Will; as well as carries great Abfardity along with it, to give them a Superiority in those Points which abfolutely contradict their Commiffion; and by this to take away from Inferiors all Right to Self-defenfe in all poffible Cafes. This is what is not done, I think, in any Cafe, but this, in which the doing it is of the moft dangerous Confequence.

7. This feems to me the Truth of the Matter. A community, or Neighbour hood of People living together, have a Right to defend themfelves against Robbers, and Murtherers, and Enemies; which includes fuch Power over the Lives of them, as that they may deftroy them whenever they, or any of them, meet with them. But finding this a State of no regular and established Security, they refolve to transfer this Right of Self-defense, or Power over the Lives of their Enemies, to fome particular Perfons; referving only to themfelves the Exercise of Self-defenfe, in thofe Cafes in which the Magiftrate cannot act for their fafety, This is allowed to particular Perfons in all cvil Governments that are fettled, in Cafe of fudden Attaques: And for the fame Reafon must be allowed to the Community, when the Magiftrate refuses to guard against these Enemies; and much more when he joins with them to bring on Ruin, and Destruction. Right to Self-defenfe, in Cafes in which the Magiftrate cannot defend the particular Members of it, was never given up to him by the Members of the com munity: Nor was it ever fuppofed by any to be taken from them by God. And confequently the cafe of Publick Impending Ruin from the Magiftrate himElf being of the Number of thefe, this Right of Defending the community in

This

this cafe was never given away by it, or taken from it by God. From the whole I think it evident, that the Magiftrate hath no Authority, properly Ipeaking, but what the whole Community,or Governed Society,have in themselves, fuppofing no Magiftrate: and confequently none but what may be transferred to Him by the Governed Society. But if your Lordship still be refolved to date their Commiffions from Heaven, and to affirm that they are immediately from God, accurately and properly speaking. I muft beg leave to reply, that this Com miffion being, according to your Lordship, for the civil Government of the Society only, and limited to this Purpofe; God Almighty may grant a Com miffion to others for other Purposes, as your Lordship well argues, and confe quently, fay 1, He may, notwithstanding this Commiffion to the Magiftrate, give a Commiffion, for self-defence and felf-prefervation, to the Society it felf. And I will humbly prefume, that it hath pleased his Goodness actually to give this Commiffion to the Community, till your Lordship is pleased to perform a Task fo ufeful to humane Society, as to prove the contrary.

III. That your Lordship should fo pofitively confine St. Paul. to have in his Eye the Perfon of the Roman Emperour, and him confidered no only as a vicious Man, but a very bad Governour, is very strange and unaccountable: When his Words are all manifeftly applicable to the Office in general; when he declares, that there is no Power, no true Magiftratical Authority, but of God, in which the Senate, how much foever their Power was impaired, and over-awed, must share, and in which deputed Governours may justly claim a part agreeably to what our Lord told Pilate, one of them, that his Power was from above; and agreeably to thofe other Texts which fhew it to be the Concern of Christianity, to pres fabjection to Magiftrates of all Ranks, and which do command it in the fame Words to the Supreme, and the deputed Magiftrates. Nay, that St. Polycarp thus understood St. Paul, is plain from his applying the Expreffion of the Powers ardained of God to the Proconful, a deputed Officer. And that St. Paul defigned what he faid, even to hold true of Nero, in his worst Character, is what I hardly care to repeat. I rather chufe to believe St. Paul himself, who affures me, and all who can read him, that he is fpeaking of Magifirates, as a Terror to evil Works and a Praife to them that do well, and endeavouring to reconcile fome foolifa Men to the Offices as it is ufeful to Humane fociety, and not to the Power employed in deftroying all the Ends that it is defigned to answer. And if all the Wit of Man, or Art of Logic, can make St. Paul's reafoning confiftent, or toler able, fuppofing him to fpeak of Nero only, when he was, even in his own Confcience, the Burthen of the Earth, and the Plague of Society, I will then believe any thing that can be affirmed of this Apoftle. But otherwife, your Lordship will fay, (as I fee upon a like Occafion) he could mean no Magiftrates then living. What? were there no good Orders then kept at all? No deputed Magiftrates who did their Duty tolerably? No Acts of the Senate to which your Lordship will allow any Validity? No Power which they claimed that was to be obeyed, because in other things it was over-powered by Force and Bribery? None to be fpoken of to a few private Chriftians, but the fupreme Head, the great Emperour, of whom they knew little, faw lefs? But fuppofing He was all that St. Paul had in View, might not this be written by him at the Beginning of his Reign, as hath been thought by good Judges, when he might be faid to anfwer St. Paul's Character as well as moft Princes ? Can your Lordship demonftrate that this was not the ime of his Writing? And if it were, can your Lordship poffibly think,

and

chat

hat St. Paul would have said the fame of him, when the remains of Power in he Senate awoke, and fought after him for publick Punishment, which he said when he was truly the Officer that he defcribes a Magiftrate to be? Let any one read the whole Paffage in St. Paul, and try the Truth of what I have here lleged.

IV. In the Third Inference drawn by your Lordship from your Interpretation of the Magiftrate's being the Minifter of God, p. 16. You lay the Duty of Abfolute Non-refiftance upon the governed Society. For your Lordship argues, that tho' the Laws of earthly Governours be contrary to the Divine Laws ( in which afe the Magistrate doth certainly exceed the Bounds of his Commiffion) yet this doth not void their Autkority. They are the Minifters of God for all this. In what? I beseech your Lordship. Not in this, I hope, in which they are without his Commiffion; and in which they contradi&t his Commission; in which they are without all Authority, either in making the Law, or in annexing the penalty to it. They therefore who refufe to fubmit both to the Law and to the Penalty, do not refift the Authority of God in this Cafe, because in this Cafe thefe is none. But if your Lordship means,that they refift a Perfon who is the Minifter of God it other Cafes,it is manifeft this is allowed in the Cafe of Refiftance to Foreign Invaders; and to a Parent who should in a Fit of Madness command his Child to cut his Brother's Throat,under Pain of having his own Throat cut if he did not. Here,my Lord,is an Instance fufficient to prove that Abfolute paffive Obedience in fome particular Cafes, is not due to a Perfon, who is the Minifter of God, and acts by his Commiffion, not in thefe,but in others. The fame may be proved from hence,thas an Ecclefiaftical Minister's being the Minifter of God for one Purpose, doth not make it a Duty to submit to him in what he is not the Minister of God. All Arguments for Submission in private Men to Punishments laid upon them without, and againft, the Commission given to Gevernours for God,must be taken from publick Good,and not from their having that Authority in other things, which they are allowed not to have in thefe. But here is the Cafe. Suppose the Matter toucheth the whole Community; and the Happiness of that be invaded by a Governour, turned a publick Enemy to it in the main part of his Conduct Doth his having Commiffion from God for the contrary,make him not to be refifted in this? His Authority to rule well, which is all the Authority he ever had, is not indeed fo mate void, but that he hath that Authorisy as long as he hath Power. But if he cannot rule, without ruling to the Destruction of the Publick, and to the univerfal Ruin of the Community, can it poffibly be fuppofed, that it fhould be God's Will he fhould ftill bear rule, when he gave him a Commiffion entirely for the Good of the Community, and for nothing else? Can it poffibly be fuppofed that all Right to Self prefervation and Self-defenfe is taken from this whole Community, at a Time when they are, in effect, without any established Governour to defend and protect them? No more than it can be supposed that a Father, because he hath a Divine Commission to rule his Family, is not to be guarded againft, should he be so distracted as to feek the Lives of his Dependents; or may not lawfully be put out of Rule, and Government, becaufe as long as he hath Power, his Authority in thofe Cafes, in which he hath Authority, is valid.

But if your Lordship recur, as I fee you do, to the general Declaration of St. Paul against Refiftance, I beg of your Lordship to give a fair Account of this way of Proceeding, and to prove plainly, why it is, that this general prohibition of St. Paul's must be interpreted abfolutely, and declared to be without any limitation, when in our Lord's own most express prohibition of Refiftance in

Cafe of private Injuries, Limitations and Exceptions are not only allowed b contended for? Nay, when there are fuch a Number of general Precepts a Prohibitions in which all admit, and plead for them. If your Lordship that publick mood requires it, as you feem to fay, when you tell us, p. 29. Th it is much for the Peoples good to be thus put in fubjection to Magistrates, yo must give others leave to wonder how it can poffibly be for the Good of the Pa ple, i. c. every individual Perfon, of what Rank and Quality foever, bed the fupreme Governour ] to fuffer themselves and their Pofterity to be made m ferable at the Will of the fupreme Governour, when they fee they can la themselves if they will, and establish a better State of Things. It is just as a Quaker should argue that it is for the good of all private men that they a forbid abfolutely to refifts Robbers and Cut-throats; it is for their temporal S curity and Profperity, to let them come into their Houses, and cut the Throa of themselves, their Wives, and their Children, when they might prevent th if they would. It is for their good to be thus put in Subjection to their En mies. But this I believe, with fome fort of fatisfaction, that as Nature it f will not fuffer the Quaker to practife according to this Doctrine; fo neither w the powerful Law of Self prefervation ever fuffer a Nation of Men of the mo paffive Principles to fit down contented with their Ruin, when they have it their Power to keep it off,

My Lord,

I will not trouble your Lordship much longer: but permit me to fpeak a litt freely, with all the deference due to your Station, and all that refpect whic I have for your Character. There was a Time, which must be still fresh i your Lordship's Memory, when Univerfal Ruin was thouht to hang over the whole Community. At this time the People, (which is not a contemptible Word fignifying only Coblers and Tinkers, as fome make it,) the Lords the Biop the Gentry, the Commonalty, were all under one common Senfe of Dange Those of the Highest as well as Holiest Rank, and of the best Quality, invite over a Prince with armed Men, to awe their Legal King, and force him in a compliance and this they did in their private Capacity, Numbers joine themselves to Him when He came, Nor do we account any part of our Ex cellent Queen's Behaviour more truly great; more lovely, or more beneficia than the Part the bore in this Tranfaction; when the prefer'd the Safety of Nation before all other Temporal Confiderations ; and encouraged by he Example this glorious Defign. The fame was done by fome of my Lords the Bishops, to their immortal Honour, with a Zeal beyond what is common. Revolution fucceeded, which your Lordship acknowledgeth to have wonder fully faved both Church and State from Ruin. Upon this Foundation built all our Happiness. To this we owe the prefen Felicity of a Glorios and Beneficent Reign. To this we owe that Settlement in the Protestant Line for which your Lordship is an Advocate, even fo far, as to with it ha been fixed many Years ago. And now, my Lord, how muft it furprize al who can think, to hear it affirmed that it would have been good for the Pro ple to have acted as if they had been put under fuch Subjection as your hip pleads for? That it would have been good for the Nation not to have invited over Arms, and to have join'd themselves to them? And for the Temporal Advantage to have miffed that opportunity, and to have fit down contented with their Ruin unlefs Regular Forms prevented it? And

Lord

how