The grounds and foundation of natural religion, discover'd, in the principal branches of it in opposition to the prevailing notions of the modern scepticks and latitudinarians. With an introduction concerning the necessity of revealed religion. By Tho. Beconsall, B.D. and fellow of Brasenose Colledge, in Oxford.

§. 6. But to draw towards a Con∣clusion, this Notion of Freedom carries another Absurdity in it as Injurious to the Civil Power, as it is to the Patriar∣chal, for in order to assert the Notion

this Author is forced to Discard the No∣tion of Natural Allegiance, and place every one in a State of Liberty upon their arrival at Years of Discetion, till they shall Recognize the Governing Power by an express, or tacit Consent. An express Consent he fixes in Promi∣ses, or Oaths of Allegiance, and a ta∣cit Consent in the Possession or Enjoyment of any part of the Dominions of any Go∣vernment, Chap. 8. Sect. 119. Part. 2. And further adds, that a Tacit Con∣sent only produces a Temporal Allegi∣ance, So that in case he quits his Posses∣sion by Donation, Sale, or otherwise, he is at Liberty to go, and Incorporate him∣self in any other Common-Wealth, or agree with others to begin a new one in Vacuis locis in any part of the World they can find Free, or Unpossessed. Sect. 121. Now certainly these are Positions that can∣not well be consistent with the safety of any Government; for it is manifest, they give a Latitude for Rebellion, as well as Disertion. For first, The Descendants of the Liege Subjects of any Govern∣ment do not yield a Tacit Consent even after they arrive at Years of Discretion, by Living, and Subsisting upon the Blessings of it, unless they possess, or

enjoy some parts of its Dominions; so that not only the Adult Children that Live under their Parents without a Set∣tlement, but even the Poor, or Labour∣ing part of a Nation, or even all that are not the true Proprietors of Estates, still remain in a State of Nature, unless the Government has actually required an Oath of Fidelity. If this be true, as the case now stands in the English Government, where Oaths of Allegi∣ance are only required but upon Special Occasions, and where pursuant to our Law, in some cases; he has fixed the term of Nonage at Twenty One, he must necessarily bring a Majority of Effective Men within a State of Nature? and therefore tho upon his Principles a Right doth not accrue to the Possessions of an Established Government, yet in case an Established Government does not think fit to treat them as Men in a State of Nature, or happens to exercise the least shadow of Rigour, or Severity upon them, they are according to rule (his own I mean) the proper Executioners of Laws of Nature, and consequently, they have Right of War, not only a∣gainst their Common, but Natural Pa∣rents. And truely, I do not see but a

Project of this nature might prove ex∣treamly successful, for pursuant to this Learned Hypothesis, a Body of Rich Male-Contents that have not entred in∣to an express Allegiance, have power to sell their real Possessions, and when this is done, they are to all intents, and purposes in a State of Nature, and con∣sequently are prepared upon the first Alarm to become Generals to worthy Mobile, and invade their Neighbours Possessions with Thousands, and ten Thousands. Oh! Blessed Politicks, to be the spawn of One that is called into the Counsels of a Government, Eats its Bread, and enjoys places of Trust as well as Profit. I am certain, I have re∣presented the Notion with all imagin∣able fairness, and tho the Absurdities that are lodged in it may pass for a suffi∣cient Confutation, yet I shall offer some∣thing further upon it.

And first, it is on all Hands agreed, that Persons, as well as Things, may be∣come a Property, and Property in the Judgment of the Learned, establisheth a Right of Dominion; Consent at least ren∣ders Persons, or free Agents, as much a Property as necessary Agents. Now the dispute is, whether free Agents may

not become a Property any other way than by Consent. It's observable, he resolves the Foundation of Property in∣to Labour, so that whatever is the effect of Labour and Industry, or has Labour mixed with it, becomes a Pro∣perty, See Chap. 5. Sect. 27, 45. II. Part. Now it's manifest, not only the Educa∣tion, and Subsistence of Miners, but of thousands of Persons that have not ex∣presly Subscribed to any Government, is carried on by the Labour, Care, and Conduct of the Government, as well as that of their natural Parents; and there∣fore Reason does not suggest any thing to me, why they are not from their ve∣ry Infancy to be esteemed a Property of the Government, and consequently a kind of Allegiance, as it were grows up with them to the Government, as well as to their Natural Parents. It's true, it is a Property highly distinct from that in Brutes, for the one seems to be abso∣lute, whereas the other must be limit∣ed, that is, to Rational Ends, and Pur∣poses. In this Sense, a free Agent may be a Property of the Supreme Power, as well as that of Terra firma in another. But now, since the Civil Power chal∣lengeth a Property, it cannot be other∣wise

than by vertue of the Character it self; I mean that of a Governing Power, and consequently the Property that accrews from it, must Establish a Right of Obe∣dience pursuant to it. In a word, the Governing Power challenges a Right of Labour and Assistance, in order to main∣tain the Strength, and Grandeur of the Community, and consequently, the Su∣preme Power must be invested with Au∣thority to impose Laws for the regulati∣on, and exacting of this Labour, and Industry. This is a truth so unquesti∣onable, that all Established Govern∣ments constantly challenge such Ser∣vices as every Home-born Subject is capable of yielding, and exercise Juris∣diction over them with as full Power, as if they had actually Subscribed to its Authority. This they esteem an un∣doubted Prerogative, notwithstanding any Pretences to a State of Freedom af∣ter Nonage. From all this it appears, how unjust this Author's Position is in Autho∣rizing all those that have not entered into an express Allegiance to desert a Go∣vernment at pleasure; for if the Laws and Measures of Property advanced by this Author, give the Supreme Power a Right of Dominion over every Home-born

Subject, antecedent to all Subscriptions, as I think has been abundantly evinced, the Subject cannot rightfully withdraw himself from his Native Country with∣out Special License from the Govern∣ment. I know this is a Question con∣troverted by Grotius, Pufendorf, and o∣thers, and they generally agree, that they cannot rightfully withdraw Grega∣tim, because it must destroy the Foun∣dations of Government; but Pufendorf argues well, that if one particular Per∣son has a right to withdraw; a Second and Third must have so too, and conse∣quently a multitude, or Body of Men, either jointly or separately. But how∣ever, it is universally allowed, that Go∣vernments may prescribe Laws in this Affair; and certainly, if a Government can without the express consent of these pretended Free-Born Persons rightfully bind them by Laws, I think the Go∣vernment has a Right of Allegiance An∣tecedent to Law; for no Government can pretend a Power of binding by Law, especially, contrary to a Funda∣mental, Natural Right, where an An∣tecedent Right of Dominion is wanting, without Compact, or Consent. This is current Doctrine, at least with our

Author, the Man for Original contract: In a word, the Sum of what has been hitherto offered by the Learned, is ta∣ken from the practices of particular Go∣vernments, rather than from the Nature or Reason of the thing. Indeed it can∣not be denied, but that particular Per∣sons have withdrawn from their Native Country, but it is to be interpreted by Permission, or Connivance, not by a Right of Natural Freedom, for there can no just Reason be assigned, why Per∣sons as well as Things, may not become a property of the Government, or why a Property is not acquired in both, pur∣suant to their proper Ends and Uses, by the same Laws and Measures; so that the Labour and Conduct of the Govern∣ment in preserving, and supporting our Persons, may render us a Property of it to all the true ends and purposes of Government, in a rational way, or man∣ner, as much as the Occupation or quiet Enjoyment, of any tract of Land render it a branch of its Dominions. Thus far I question not but the Government has a Right, or Property, in the La∣bour and Service of every adult Native, as truly as in the product of the Ground, or the Riches and Treasures of a Coun∣try,

and therefore it's absurd to imagine that any one can rightfully withdraw his Person, much less his Effects, or Treasure, and commit himself and them to ano∣ther Government, whether new or old. As for this Author, he's so highly sen∣sible how much the number of Sub∣jects contributes to the Trade, Riches, Strength and Glory of a Nation; that were the question formally put and ar∣gued in the Council of Trade, and his Preferments, as well as Judgment, en∣gaged upon it, I'm perswaded he would think himself obliged to declare against his former Sentiments. In one Word, it's evident these are positions, that (without a Law that enjoyns an Univer∣sal explicit Allegiance) must render every Government highly precarious; for if a single Person can challenge a Right of withdrawing, then may a Second and a Third, and so on to a Body, or Mul∣titude, and by this Means a Nation may not only be dispeopled at pleasure, and consequently drained of her Riches and Treasure, but her own natural Sub∣jects may become her most formidable Enemies.

And now having offered what is suf∣ficient to expose the conceipt of natural

Freedom, I think I have abundantly evinced what was before asserted, That there cannot be a Body of Men, regu∣larly and de jure in such a State of Na∣ture, as this Author has projected. For tho' we should allow the first Govern∣ment to be formed upon compact from a State of Nature, yet if Subjects are na∣turally a property of a Government, it's impossible there should be a Body of Men, in a perfect State of Nature, without a to∣tal dissolution of particular Governments; for as for the Independant State of Su∣preme Powers, produced as an Instance by this Author, he knows very well it proves nothing to his design, or purpose, that is a body of Men in a State of na∣ture, from which a Government is form∣ed upon the Force and Authority of a joint compact. 2dly, This Notion of a State of Freedom being so clearly con∣futed by that property, which every Government challenges in all the Sub∣jects of it, as well as every Father in their Children; I think it adds to the strength of former Arguments in assert∣ing the Civil Prerogatives of the Paternal Power; as it lay in the original. For Adam being not only the Great Parent of Mankind, but the sole proprietary of

Off-Springs, without any Collateral, much less Superior Power to defaulk from any of his Prerogatives; if Govern∣ment by the Laws of Providence was truly serviceable, or rather necessary, the very Station, as well as Character he bare, is sufficient to give him a right of Dominion and Sovereignty. And thus far, I hope I have, in some measure, stated the Foundations of Civil Govern∣ment, pursuant to the Established Laws of the Creation; and certainly when all Arguments and Circumstances are fair∣ly laid together, there's no just ground or colour for Original Compact. Here's a manifest Power and trust, but it seems to be the immediate Ordinance and Ap∣pointment of God, arising from the E∣stablished Frame and order of Things; Not an Arbitrary Deputation or Com∣mission, issuing forth of the hands of the People, that were born and formed for Government, and Educated and nur∣sed up under the Wings of it. I have proved it from the nature of the Thing, and the Laws of Providence, and were we to enquire into the Original of Go∣vernments upon matter of Fact, we shall find them invested in the Paternal Pow∣er; indeed this Author is forced to con∣fess

as much, and then I think not up∣on a Tacit consent, or compact, as he would have it, no, the frame of Nature directs us to another foundation. And now I must own the Argument has car∣ried me much further than I designed, but I think the injuries which these No∣tions offer to the Authority of Civil Go∣vernours, as ell as Masters of Families; will dictate an Apology. I have stu∣diously avoided all Applications, lest I should give him a Handle to make use of a Common Artifice against me, by resolving my Resentments into disloy∣alty, towards our present Sovereign; but this is an Imputation so unjust, that all that know me are, I question not, sufficiently prepared to wipe it off: For tho' I cannot entertain such an Opinion of Original Contract, as to be forward to place all my Loyalty upon it, yet I hope there are others as well as my self, can find out principles that will main∣tain as true fealty and Allegiance, to∣wards his present Majesty, as that can suggest, or create.