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.

CHAP. XII. Of the Act of Parliament of the 11 of Hen. 7. (Book 12)

BEsides no Act of Parliament ought to be so interpreted, as by bare implication to destroy a former Act, as such an inter∣pretation 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 per∣son 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 de∣clares 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 them∣selves 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 pro∣tection 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 pro∣mise to another person) but the fatal mischief & irreparable damage they did the Commonwealth: And a new Commotion, in all pro∣bability, 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 consi∣dered, 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 Go∣vernment, 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 de∣struction a Civil War creates; nor is endeavouring to bring the same Calamities upon a Nation, a proper way to make them amends. If there be no other way to make reparation to their injured King, but by engaging the Nation in Civil Wars, they ought not to at∣tempt making him reparation by such unlawful ways.

The not restoring a Person to the Crown that he is unjustly de∣prived of, can only be considered, when the publick is no longer concerned in his Actions, and the Affairs of the Nation are ma∣naged by other hands, as an injury to a single person, and the greatness of the injury, is to be judged not by the value of the thing it self, but what he that is unjustly deprived of it, suffers by the loss of it. What is absolutely necessary for the subsistence of one person may be but superfluities to another; and as the Widows Mites were greater Charity than what the Rich out of their Abun∣dance gave; so the Robbing her of them, because she could less spare them, would have been a greater injury, and consequently a greater sin, than Robbing a Rich man, that could better spare it, of a thousand times as much.

Tyrants, it is true, rob great numbers of the conveniences, and very often of the necessaries of Life; but Usurpers only hinder single persons from enjoying, not the necessaries or conveniences of Life, but Superfluities, because all the necessaries, and even con∣veniences of life, can be had without a Crown. Yet the Usur∣pers, without all dispute, if they can without any injury to the publick, ought to restore the Government to those from whom they do unjustly wrest it; but if they do not, Subjects for the sake of Government, to which Sacred Ordinance, Obedience by God himself, as well as man is annexed, ought to submit. Christ and his Apostles make no distinction, but command Obedience to all in possession, by annexing God's Authority to the Office of Go∣verning.