Dissolving Government

Sect. 211. HE that will with any clearness speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government. That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of nature, into one politic society, is the agreement which every one has with the rest to incorporate, and act as one body, and so be one distinct commonwealth. The usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved, is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them: for in that case, (not being able to maintain and support themselves, as one intire and independent body) the union belonging to that body which consisted therein, must necessarily cease, and so every one return to the state he was in before, with a liberty to shift for himself, and provide for his own safety, as he thinks fit, in some other society. Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain the government of that society cannot remain. Thus conquerors swords often cut up governments by the roots, and mangle societies to pieces, separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of, and dependence on, that society which ought to have preserved them from violence. The world is too well instructed in, and too forward to allow of, this way of dissolving of governments, to need any more to be said of it; and there wants not much argument to prove, that where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain; that being as impossible, as for the frame of an house to subsist when the materials of it are scattered and dissipated by a whirl-wind, or jumbled into a confused heap by an earthquake.

211. Whoever would speak with any clearness about the dissolution of government ought first to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government. What makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of nature into one political society, is the agreement each one has with the rest. They agree to incorporate and act as one body, and so be one distinct commonwealth. The usual, and almost the only, way this union is dissolved is the invasion of a foreign force that conquers them. For in that case they are not able to maintain and support themselves as one whole and independent body. So the union belonging to that body must necessarily cease. Everyone then returns to the state he was in before, free to shift for himself and provide for his own safety, as he thinks fit, in some other society. Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain that the government of that society cannot remain. So conquerors' swords often cut governments up by the roots and hack societies to pieces. They separate the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of, and dependence on, the society that ought to have preserved them from violence. The world knows this way of dissolving governments too well, and is too ready to accept it, for anything more to be said about it. And not much argument is needed to prove that where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain. That is as impossible as for the frame of a house to stand when its materials are scattered by a whirlwind, or jumbled into a confused heap by an earthquake.

Sect. 212. Besides this over-turning from without, governments are dissolved from within.

212. In addition to being overthrown from outside, governments can be dissolved from within.

First, When the legislative is altered. Civil society being a state of peace, amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage, which they have provided in their legislative, for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them, it is in their legislative, that the members of a commonwealth are united, and combined together into one coherent living body. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity, to the commonwealth: from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connexion: and therefore, when the legislative is broken, or dissolved, dissolution and death follows: for the essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring, and as it were keeping of that will. The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union, under the direction of persons, and bonds of laws, made by persons authorized thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them, can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose any thing upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the delegation of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place, who have no such authority or delegation.

First. When the legislative is altered. Civil society is a state of peace among its members. The state of war is kept out by the arbitration the people set up in their legislature. That arbitration settles any disputes that may arise between them. It is through the legislature that the members of a commonwealth are united and combined into one living body. The legislature is the soul that gives the commonwealth its form, life, and unity. From it the several members gain mutual influence, sympathy, and connection. Therefore when the legislative is broken or dissolved, dissolution and death follow. The essence and union of society consist in having one will. Once the majority establishes the legislature, it declares and maintains that will. The constitution of the legislature is the first and fundamental act of society. It provides for the continuation of their union. This happens under the direction of persons authorized to make laws, and under the bonds of those laws given by the consent and appointment of the people. Without this consent no person or number of persons among them can have authority to make laws binding on the rest. When anyone or any group takes on lawmaking without appointment from the people, they make laws without authority. The people are therefore not bound to obey such laws. By this means they cease to be subject to those usurpers. They may constitute a new legislature as they think best. They are free to resist by force those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every person is at his own disposal when those who, by the delegation of the society, declared the public will are excluded. If others usurp their place without such authority or delegation, people are left to their own wills.

Sect. 213. This being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth who misuse the power they have; it is hard to consider it aright, and know at whose door to lay it, without knowing the form of government in which it happens. Let us suppose then the legislative placed in the concurrence of three distinct persons.

213. This usually happens because some people in the commonwealth misuse the power they have. It is hard to judge it correctly. You cannot know whom to blame without knowing the form of government in which it occurs. Let us suppose then that the legislative power is placed in the hands of three distinct persons acting together.

(1). A single hereditary person, having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time.

(1). A single hereditary person has the permanent, supreme executive power. They also have the power to summon and dissolve the other two at certain times.

(2). An assembly of hereditary nobility.

(2). An assembly of hereditary nobles.

(3). An assembly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. Such a form of government supposed, it is evident,

(3). An assembly of representatives chosen temporarily by the people. If we assume this form of government, it is clear.

Sect. 214. First, That when such a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society, declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed: for that being in effect the legislative, whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed; when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended, and inforced, than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

214. First, when such a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed. For the legislative is, in effect, the body whose rules and laws are put into execution and required to be obeyed. So when other laws are set up, and other rules claimed and enforced, than those the legislative constituted by the society has enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws without being authorized to do so by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old ones, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made. And so he sets up a new legislative.

Sect. 215. Secondly, When the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered: for it is not a certain number of men, no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating, and leisure of perfecting, what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists: when these are taken away or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered; for it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he, who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.

215. Second. When the prince prevents the legislature from assembling at its proper time, the legislature is altered. He also alters it if he prevents it from acting freely for the ends it was created to serve. The legislature is not just a certain number of men, nor just their meeting. They must also have freedom to debate. They need time to finalize what is for the good of society. When these things are removed or changed so the people cannot properly exercise their power, the legislature is truly altered. Government is not made by names alone. It is made by the use and exercise of the powers meant to go with those names. So anyone who takes away the legislature's freedom, or prevents it from acting at the proper times, in effect destroys the legislature. That person puts an end to the government.

Sect. 216. Thirdly, When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered: for, if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto, do chuse, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

216. Thirdly, when the prince uses arbitrary power to change the electors or the methods of election, he acts without the people's consent and against their common interest. In that case the legislature is altered. If others than those whom the society has authorized do the choosing, then those chosen are not the legislature appointed by the people. The same is true if the choice is made in any other way than the society prescribed.

Sect. 217. Fourthly, The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.

217. Fourth, the delivery of the people into the subjection of a foreign power is certainly a change in the legislature. This may be done by the prince or by the legislature. It is therefore a dissolution of the government. People entered society to remain one whole, free, and independent community governed by their own laws. That is lost whenever they are handed over to the power of another.

Sect. 218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince, is evident; because he, having the force, treasure and offices of the state to employ, and often persuading himself, or being flattered by others, that as supreme magistrate he is uncapable of controul; he alone is in a condition to make great advances toward such changes, under pretence of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers, as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government: whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative, without open and visible rebellion, apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, the prince in such a form of government, having the power of dissolving the other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons, they can never in opposition to him, or without his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent being necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. But yet, so far as the other parts of the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon the government, and do either promote, or not, what lies in them, hinder such designs, they are guilty, and partake in this, which is certainly the greatest crime which men can partake of one towards another.

218. In such a constitution as this, it is evident why the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be blamed on the prince. He has the force, treasure, and offices of the state to use. And he often persuades himself, or is flattered by others into believing, that as supreme magistrate he is beyond control. So he alone is in a position to make great advances toward such changes, under pretense of lawful authority. And he has it in his power to frighten or suppress opponents as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government. But no other part of the legislative, or of the people, is able by itself to attempt any change of the legislative without open and visible rebellion. That is quick to be noticed, and when it succeeds, it produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, in such a form of government the prince has the power to dissolve the other parts of the legislative, and so make them private persons. So they can never alter the legislative by a law in opposition to him, or without his agreement, since his consent is necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. Yet so far as the other parts of the legislative in any way contribute to any attempt on the government, they are guilty. That holds whether they promote such designs, or fail to hinder them as far as lies in their power. They share in what is certainly the greatest crime men can share in against one another.

Sec. 219.There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved, and that is: When he who has the supreme executive power, neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution. This is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the government: for laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society, to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function; when that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude, without order or connexion. Where there is no longer the administration of justice, for the securing of men’s rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left. Where the laws cannot be executed, it is all one as if there were no laws; and a government without laws is, I suppose, a mystery in politics, unconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society.

219. There is one more way such a government can be dissolved. When the person with the supreme executive power neglects and abandons that duty, the laws already made can no longer be put into execution. This demonstrably reduces everything to anarchy and so effectively dissolves the government. Laws are not made for their own sake. They exist to be enforced. By enforcement they bind society together and keep every part of the body politic in its proper place and function. When that enforcement stops completely, government clearly ends, and the people become a confused mass, without order or connection. If there is no longer any administration of justice to secure people's rights, and no remaining power within the community to direct force or provide for public needs, then there is certainly no government left. If laws cannot be enforced, it is the same as having no laws at all. A government without laws is, I think, a mystery in politics, inconceivable to human capacity and incompatible with human society.

Sect. 220. In these and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other, by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good: for the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty; and when their chains are on, tell them, they may act like freemen. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny, if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it: and therefore it is, that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

220. In these and similar cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are free to provide for themselves by setting up a new legislative. It may differ from the old one by a change of persons, or of form, or both, as they find most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose its native and original right to preserve itself. And it can preserve itself only by a settled legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the laws it makes. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they cannot use this remedy until it is too late to look for any. Suppose their old legislative is gone, through oppression, trickery, or being handed over to a foreign power. To tell people then that they may provide for themselves by setting up a new legislative is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This in effect only bids them first be slaves, and then take care of their liberty. It tells them, when their chains are on, that they may act like free men. If this is all it is, it is mockery rather than relief. And men can never be secure from tyranny if there is no means to escape it until they are completely under it. That is why they have not only a right to get out of it, but also to prevent it.

Sect. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust.

221. Therefore, secondly, there is another way that governments are dissolved. It is when the legislature or the prince, either of them, acts contrary to their trust.

First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

First, the legislature acts against the trust placed in it when its members try to invade the property of the subject. They do so when they try to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

Sect. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? for the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end, but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act, and advise, as the necessity of the commonwealth, and the public good should, upon examination, and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of, to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society, who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see, that he, who has once attempted any such thing as this, cannot any longer be trusted.

222. The reason men enter into society is the preservation of their property. And the end for which they choose and authorize a legislative is that laws may be made and rules set as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society. These laws and rules limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy what everyone intends to secure by entering into society. It is for this that the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making. So whenever the legislators try to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people. The people are then absolved from any further obedience. They are left to the common refuge that God has provided for all men against force and violence. Suppose, then, that the legislative breaks this fundamental rule of society. Suppose that by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, they try to grasp for themselves, or put into the hands of anyone else, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people. By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends. That power passes back to the people. They have a right to resume their original liberty. And by establishing a new legislative, such as they think fit, they may provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here about the legislative in general holds true also of the supreme executor. He has a double trust placed in him: to have a part in the legislative, and to have the supreme execution of the law. He acts against both when he sets about making his own arbitrary will the law of the society. He also acts contrary to his trust when he uses the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and win them over to his purposes. He does the same when he openly engages the electors in advance and dictates their choice. He has them choose men he has won to his designs by solicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise. And he uses them to bring in men who have promised beforehand how they will vote and what they will enact. To manage candidates and electors in this way, and to remodel the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots and poison the very fountain of public security? For the people reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives as the fence to their properties. They could have done it for no other end than that the representatives might always be freely chosen. And once so chosen, they might freely act and advise as the needs of the commonwealth and the public good should be judged to require, after examination and mature debate. Those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing this. To prepare such an assembly as this, and try to set up the declared supporters of his own will as the true representatives of the people and the lawmakers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust as can possibly be found. It is as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government as can be found. Add to this rewards and punishments visibly used to the same end. Add all the arts of perverted law used to remove and destroy everyone who stands in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country. Then it will be beyond doubt what is going on. It is easy to determine what power those should have in the society who use it contrary to the trust that went along with it at its first institution. And one cannot fail to see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this can no longer be trusted.

Sect. 223. To this perhaps it will be said, that the people being ignorant, and always discontented, to lay the foundation of government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humour of the people, is to expose it to certain ruin; and no government will be able long to subsist, if the people may set up a new legislative, whenever they take offence at the old one. To this I answer, Quite the contrary. People are not so easily got out of their old forms, as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they have been accustomed to. And if there be any original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time, or corruption; it is not an easy thing to get them changed, even when all the world sees there is an opportunity for it. This slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions, has, in the many revolutions which have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or, after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to our old legislative of king, lords and commons: and whatever provocations have made the crown be taken from some of our princes heads, they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line.

223. Some may say that people are ignorant and always discontented. Basing a government on their changing opinions and moods would doom it to ruin. No government could long survive if the people could set up a new legislature whenever they took offense at the old one. To this I answer. Quite the contrary. People do not leave their old ways so easily, as some suggest. They are hardly persuaded to fix known faults in the system they are used to. If there are original defects, or ones added later by time or corruption, they are hard to change. This holds true even when everyone sees a clear opportunity to do so. This slowness and reluctance to abandon old constitutions has shown itself in the many revolutions in this kingdom in our time and earlier ages. It has kept us, or after some fruitless attempts brought us back, to our old legislature of king, lords and commons. Various provocations have led to removing the crown from some princes. But they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line.

Sect. 224. But it will be said, this hypothesis lays a ferment for frequent rebellion. To which I answer,

224. But some will say this proposal creates a climate for frequent rebellion. To that I answer,

First, No more than any other hypothesis: for when the people are made miserable, and find themselves exposed to the ill usage of arbitrary power, cry up their governors, as much as you will, for sons of Jupiter; let them be sacred and divine, descended, or authorized from heaven; give them out for whom or what you please, the same will happen. The people generally ill treated, and contrary to right, will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a burden that sits heavy upon them. They will wish, and seek for the opportunity, which in the change, weakness and accidents of human affairs, seldom delays long to offer itself. He must have lived but a little while in the world, who has not seen examples of this in his time; and he must have read very little, who cannot produce examples of it in all sorts of governments in the world.

First. No more than any other hypothesis. When people are made miserable and exposed to the abuses of arbitrary power, the result is the same. Praise their governors as much as you like as sons of Jupiter. Let them be called sacred and divine, descended from or authorized by heaven. Call them whatever you please. People who are generally mistreated and wronged will be ready, at any opportunity, to ease themselves of a heavy burden. They will want and seek the chance. In the changes, weaknesses, and accidents of human affairs, that opportunity rarely takes long to appear. Anyone who has lived even a short time in the world has seen examples of this. Anyone who has read very little can produce examples of it from all kinds of governments.

Sect. 225. Secondly, I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty, will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected; and without which, ancient names, and specious forms, are so far from being better, that they are much worse, than the state of nature, or pure anarchy; the inconveniencies being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and more difficult.

225. Secondly, I answer that such revolutions do not happen from every small mismanagement of public affairs. People will endure major mistakes by those in power. They will tolerate many bad and inconvenient laws and the usual errors of human weakness. They do this without rebelling or even complaining. But if a long series of abuses, deceptions, and tricks all point the same way, the rulers' plan becomes clear. The people will notice. They will feel their oppression and see where things are heading. It is not surprising they then rouse themselves. They will try to place power in hands that can secure the ends for which government was originally established. Without those ends, ancient names and specious forms are no improvement. They are much worse than the state of nature or pure anarchy. The harms are as great and as immediate, but the remedy is farther away and harder to reach.

Sect. 226. Thirdly, I answer, that this doctrine of a power in the people of providing for their safety a-new, by a new legislative, when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust, by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it: for rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels: for when men, by entering into society and civil-government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare, that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels: which they who are in power, (by the pretence they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them) being likeliest to do; the properest way to prevent the evil, is to shew them the danger and injustice of it, who are under the greatest temptation to run into it.

226. Thirdly, I answer that the doctrine that the people have the power to provide for their safety anew is correct. They may form a new legislature when their rulers break their trust by invading property. This is the best defense against rebellion and the most likely way to prevent it. Rebellion is opposition not to persons but to authority. Authority is based only on the constitution and laws of government. Those who, whoever they are, break those laws by force and then justify that violation by force are true rebels. When people enter society and civil government, they exclude force and establish laws to preserve property, peace, and unity. Those who set up force again against those laws do rebellare. That means they bring back the state of war and become proper rebels. Those in power are most likely to do this, since they have the pretence of authority, the temptation of force in their hands, and the flattery of those around them. The best way to prevent this evil is to show those people the danger and injustice of what they are tempted to do.

Sect. 227. In both the fore-mentioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion: for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They, who remove, or change the legislative, take away this decisive power, which no body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the people; and so destroying the authority which the people did, and no body else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, they actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority: and thus, by removing the legislative established by the society, (in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they untie the knot, and expose the people a-new to the state of war, And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties, shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.

227. In both the cases mentioned above, when either the legislative is changed or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion. For suppose anyone by force takes away the established legislative of a society, and the laws it has made in keeping with its trust. He thereby takes away the arbitration that everyone had consented to, for the peaceful decision of all their controversies and as a bar to the state of war among them. Those who remove or change the legislative take away this deciding power, which nobody can have except by the appointment and consent of the people. So they destroy the authority which the people set up, and which nobody else can set up. And they introduce a power the people have not authorized. In doing so they actually introduce a state of war, which is force without authority. The people had accepted the decisions of the legislative established by the society, and united in them as in their own will. So by removing it, these men untie the knot and expose the people anew to the state of war. And if those who take away the legislative by force are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shown, must be counted rebels no less. This is when those who were set up to protect and preserve the people, their liberties, and their properties, invade them by force and try to take them away. They thereby put themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace. So they are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.

Sect. 228. But if they, who say it lays a foundation for rebellion, mean that it may occasion civil wars, or intestine broils, to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates, when they invade their properties contrary to the trust put in them; and that therefore this doctrine is not to be allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world: they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but on him that invades his neighbours. If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has, for peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered, what a kind of peace there will be in the world, which consists only in violence and rapine; and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable peace betwix the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? Polyphemus’s den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace, and such a government, wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do, but quietly to suffer themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission, by representing to them of what concernment peace was to mankind; and by shewing the inconveniences might happen, if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them.

228. But some say this doctrine lays a foundation for rebellion. They may mean that telling the people two things may cause civil wars or internal conflicts. One is that they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made on their liberties or properties. The other is that they may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates, when these invade their properties contrary to the trust placed in them. And these objectors may conclude that the doctrine is therefore not to be allowed, since it is so destructive to the peace of the world. If so, they may as well say, on the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may cause disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief comes in such cases, it is not to be charged to the man who defends his own right, but to the one who invades his neighbor's. If the innocent, honest man must quietly give up all he has, for peace's sake, to whoever will lay violent hands on it, I ask that it be considered what kind of peace there will be in the world. It will be a peace that consists only in violence and plunder, and is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable peace between the mighty and the lowly, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded its throat to be torn by the domineering wolf? Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace and such a government. There Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do but quietly let themselves be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached passive obedience. He urged them to quiet submission by showing them how much peace mattered to mankind. And he pointed out the inconveniences that might happen if they tried to resist Polyphemus, who now had power over them.

Sect. 229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation of the properties of their people?

229. The end of government is the good of mankind. And which is best for mankind? Is it that the people should always be exposed to the boundless will of tyranny? Or is it that the rulers should sometimes be liable to be opposed, when they grow excessive in the use of their power and use it to destroy, not preserve, the properties of their people?

Sect. 230. Nor let any one say, that mischief can arise from hence, as often as it shall please a busy head, or turbulent spirit, to desire the alteration of the government. It is true, such men may stir, whenever they please; but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition: for till the mischief be grown general, and the ill designs of the rulers become visible, or their attempts sensible to the greater part, the people, who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir. The examples of particular injustice, or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man, moves them not. But if they universally have a persuation, grounded upon manifest evidence, that designs are carrying on against their liberties, and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them strong suspicions of the evil intention of their governors, who is to be blamed for it? Who can help it, if they, who might avoid it, bring themselves into this suspicion? Are the people to be blamed, if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And is it not rather their fault, who put things into such a posture, that they would not have them thought to be as they are? I grant, that the pride, ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the peoples wantonness, and a desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, or in the rulers insolence, and endeavours to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people; whether oppression, or disobedience, gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine. This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, is highly guilty of the greatest crime, I think, a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country. And he who does it, is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly.

230. Nor let anyone say that mischief can arise from this as often as it pleases a busybody or a turbulent spirit to want the government changed. It is true that such men may stir whenever they please. But it will be only to their own just ruin and destruction. For until the mischief has become general, and the evil designs of the rulers have become visible, or their attempts are felt by the greater part, the people are not apt to stir. They are more disposed to suffer than to right themselves by resistance. Examples of particular injustice, or the oppression of an unfortunate man here and there, do not move them. But suppose they universally have a conviction, grounded on manifest evidence, that designs are being carried on against their liberties. And suppose the general course and tendency of things cannot help giving them strong suspicions of the evil intentions of their governors. Who is to be blamed for that? Who can help it if those who might avoid it bring themselves under this suspicion? Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things only as they find and feel them? And is it not rather the fault of those who put things into such a state, while they would not have them thought to be as they are? I grant that the pride, ambition, and turbulence of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths. And factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But has the mischief more often begun in the people's unruliness and desire to throw off the lawful authority of their rulers? Or has it begun in the rulers' insolence and their attempts to get and exercise arbitrary power over their people? Was it oppression or disobedience that first gave rise to the disorder? I leave that to impartial history to determine. This I am sure of. Whoever, ruler or subject, sets about by force to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, is highly guilty of the greatest crime, I think, that a man is capable of. For he must answer for all the mischiefs of blood, plunder, and desolation that the breaking of governments to pieces brings on a country. And whoever does it is justly to be regarded as the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly.

Sect. 231. That subjects or foreigners, attempting by force on the properties of any people, may be resisted with force, is agreed on all hands. But that magistrates, doing the same thing, may be resisted, hath of late been denied: as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law, had thereby a power to break those laws, by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren: whereas their offence is thereby the greater, both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and breaking also that trust, which is put into their hands by their brethren.

231. Everyone agrees that subjects or foreigners who try to seize people's property by force may be resisted with force. But recently some have denied that magistrates who do the same may be resisted. They argue as if those who enjoy the greatest privileges and advantages under the law therefore have the power to break those laws. Those laws alone put them in a better position than their fellow citizens. Yet their offense is worse for two reasons. First, they are ungrateful for the larger share the law gives them. Second, they betray the trust their fellow citizens placed in them.

Sect. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor. This is so evident, that Barclay himself, that great assertor of the power and sacredness of kings, is forced to confess, That it is lawful for the people, in some cases, to resist their king; and that too in a chapter, wherein he pretends to shew, that the divine law shuts up the people from all manner of rebellion. Whereby it is evident, even by his own doctrine, that, since they may in some cases resist, all resisting of princes is not rebellion. His words are these. Quod siquis dicat, Ergone populus tyrannicae crudelitati & furori jugulum semper praebebit? Ergone multitude civitates suas fame, ferro, & flamma vastari, seque, conjuges, & liberos fortunae ludibrio & tyranni libidini exponi, inque omnia vitae pericula omnesque miserias & molestias a rege deduci patientur? Num illis quod omni animantium generi est a natura tributum, denegari debet, ut sc. vim vi repellant, seseq; ab injuria, tueantur? Huic breviter responsum sit, Populo universo negari defensionem, quae juris naturalis est, neque ultionem quae praeter naturam est adversus regem concedi debere. Quapropter si rex non in singulares tantum personas aliquot privatum odium exerceat, sed corpus etiam reipublicae, cujus ipse caput est, i.e. totum populum, vel insignem aliquam ejus partem immani & intoleranda saevitia seu tyrannide divexet; populo, quidem hoc casu resistendi ac tuendi se ab injuria potestas competit, sed tuendi se tantum, non enim in principem invadendi: & restituendae injuriae illatae, non recedendi a debita reverentia propter acceptam injuriam. Praesentem denique impetum propulsandi non vim praeteritam ulciscenti jus habet. Horum enim alterum a natura est, ut vitam scilicet corpusque tueamur. Alterum vero contra naturam, ut inferior de superiori supplicium sumat. Quod itaque populus malum, antequam factum sit, impedire potest, ne fiat, id postquam factum est, in regem authorem sceleris vindicare non potest: populus igitur hoc amplius quam privatus quispiam habet: quod huic, vel ipsis adversariis judicibus, excepto Buchanano, nullum nisi in patientia remedium superest. Cum ille si intolerabilis tyrannus est (modicum enim ferre omnino debet) resistere cum reverentia possit, Barclay contra Monarchom. 1. iii. c. 8.

232. Whoever uses force without right, as anyone in society does who acts without law, puts himself into a state of war with those he attacks. In that state, all former ties are canceled. All other rights end. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and to resist the aggressor. This is so clear that even Barclay, a strong defender of the power and sacredness of kings, is forced to admit that people may in some cases resist their king. He admits this in a chapter where he claims divine law bars all rebellion. Therefore his own doctrine shows that not all resistance to princes is rebellion. His words are these. Quod siquis dicat, Ergone populus tyrannicae crudelitati & furori jugulum semper praebebit? Ergone multitude civitates suas fame, ferro, & flamma vastari, seque, conjuges, & liberos fortunae ludibrio & tyranni libidini exponi, inque omnia vitae pericula omnesque miserias & molestias a rege deduci patientur? Num illis quod omni animantium generi est a natura tributum, denegari debet, ut sc. vim vi repellant, seseq; ab injuria, tueantur? Huic breviter responsum sit, Populo universo negari defensionem, quae juris naturalis est, neque ultionem quae praeter naturam est adversus regem concedi debere. Quapropter si rex non in singulares tantum personas aliquot privatum odium exerceat, sed corpus etiam reipublicae, cujus ipse caput est, i.e. totum populum, vel insignem aliquam ejus partem immani & intoleranda saevitia seu tyrannide divexet; populo, quidem hoc casu resistendi ac tuendi se ab injuria potestas competit, sed tuendi se tantum, non enim in principem invadendi: & restituendae injuriae illatae, non recedendi a debita reverentia propter acceptam injuriam. Praesentem denique impetum propulsandi non vim praeteritam ulciscenti jus habet. Horum enim alterum a natura est, ut vitam scilicet corpusque tueamur. Alterum vero contra naturam, ut inferior de superiori supplicium sumat. Quod itaque populus malum, antequam factum sit, impedire potest, ne fiat, id postquam factum est, in regem authorem sceleris vindicare non potest: populus igitur hoc amplius quam privatus quispiam habet: quod huic, vel ipsis adversariis judicibus, excepto Buchanano, nullum nisi in patientia remedium superest. Cum ille si intolerabilis tyrannus est (modicum enim ferre omnino debet) resistere cum reverentia possit, Barclay contra Monarchom. 1. iii. c. 8.

In English thus:

In plain English:

Sect. 233. But if any one should ask, Must the people then always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant’s lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself: but to revenge themselves upon him, must by no means be allowed them; it being not agreeable to that law. Wherefore if the king shall shew an hatred, not only to some particular persons, but sets himself against the body of the commonwealth, whereof he is the head, and shall, with intolerable ill usage, cruelly tyrannize over the whole, or a considerable part of the people, in this case the people have a right to resist and defend themselves from injury: but it must be with this caution, that they only defend themselves, but do not attack their prince: they may repair the damages received, but must not for any provocation exceed the bounds of due reverence and respect. They may repulse the present attempt, but must not revenge past violences: for it is natural for us to defend life and limb, but that an inferior should punish a superior, is against nature. The mischief which is designed them, the people may prevent before it be done; but when it is done, they must not revenge it on the king, though author of the villany. This therefore is the privilege of the people in general, above what any private person hath; that particular men are allowed by our adversaries themselves (Buchanan only excepted) to have no other remedy but patience; but the body of the people may with respect resist intolerable tyranny; for when it is but moderate, they ought to endure it.

233. If someone asks, must the people always expose themselves to tyranny’s cruelty and rage? Must they watch their cities pillaged and burned, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant’s lust and fury, and themselves and their families ruined by their king, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and still do nothing? Must humans alone be denied the common right to resist force with force, which nature freely allows other creatures for their preservation? I answer. Self-defense is part of the law of nature. The community cannot be denied it, even against the king himself. However, they must not be allowed to take revenge on him. That would contradict that law. So if the king shows hostility not only to some individuals but against the body of the commonwealth, of which he is the head, and if he cruelly and intolerably tyrannizes over the whole or a considerable part of the people, then the people have a right to resist and defend themselves from injury. They must be careful, though. They should only defend themselves and not attack their prince. They may seek to repair the damage they suffer, but they must not, for any provocation, exceed the bounds of due reverence and respect. They may repel the present attack, but they must not take revenge for past violences. It is natural to defend life and limb. But an inferior punishing a superior is against nature. The people may prevent the harm intended against them before it happens. But once it is done, they must not take revenge on the king, even if he was the author of the crime. This is a privilege the people as a whole have, beyond what any private person has. Our opponents themselves, Buchanan excepted, allow that private individuals have no remedy but patience. Yet the body of the people may, with proper respect, resist intolerable tyranny. When the tyranny is only moderate, they ought to endure it.

Sect. 234. Thus far that great advocate of monarchical power allows of resistance.

234. So far, that great advocate of monarchical power allows resistance.

Sect. 235. It is true, he has annexed two limitations to it, to no purpose:

235. It is true he has added two limitations to it, but they serve no purpose:

First, He says, it must be with reverence.

First, he says it must be done with reverence.

Secondly, It must be without retribution, or punishment; and the reason he gives is, because an inferior cannot punish a superior. First, How to resist force without striking again, or how to strike with reverence, will need some skill to make intelligible. He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand, to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance, and will find such a defence serve only to draw on himself the worse usage. This is as ridiculous a way of resisting, as juvenal thought it of fighting; ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum. And the success of the combat will be unavoidably the same he there describes it:

Second, it must be without retribution or punishment. His reason is that an inferior cannot punish a superior. First, explaining how to resist force without striking back requires some skill. Explaining how to strike with reverence also needs care to make it clear. Someone who meets an attack only with a shield to take the blows, or who adopts a more submissive posture without a sword to reduce the attacker's confidence, will soon end his resistance. He will find that such a defense only brings him worse treatment. This is as ridiculous a way of resisting as Juvenal thought of fighting. He wrote, "ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum," meaning "where you strike, I only get beaten." The outcome of such a combat will inevitably be the same as he describes.

This will always be the event of such an imaginary resistance, where men may not strike again. He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike. And then let our author, or any body else, join a knock on the head, or a cut on the face, with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit. He that can reconcile blows and reverence, may, for aught I know, desire for his pains, a civil, respectful cudgeling where-ever he can meet with it.

This will always be the outcome of such an imaginary resistance, where men may not strike back. So whoever may resist must be allowed to strike. Then let our author, or anybody else, combine a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit. Whoever can reconcile blows with reverence may, for all I know, ask in return for his trouble for a polite, respectful beating with a club, wherever he can find one.

Secondly, As to his second, An inferior cannot punish a superior; that is true, generally speaking, whilst he is his superior. But to resist force with force, being the state of war that levels the parties, cancels all former relation of reverence, respect, and superiority: and then the odds that remains, is, that he, who opposes the unjust agressor, has this superiority over him, that he has a right, when he prevails, to punish the offender, both for the breach of the peace, and all the evils that followed upon it. Barclay therefore, in another place, more coherently to himself, denies it to be lawful to resist a king in any case. But he there assigns two cases, whereby a king may un-king himself. His words are,

Second, regarding his second point. An inferior cannot punish a superior. That is generally true while the person remains superior. But resisting force with force is a state of war. War levels the parties and cancels former relations of reverence, respect, and superiority. The result is that the one who opposes an unjust aggressor gains superiority over him. When he prevails, he has the right to punish the offender, both for the breach of the peace and for all the evils that followed. Therefore Barclay, elsewhere and more consistently with himself, denies that it is lawful to resist a king in any case. But there he gives two cases in which a king may un-king himself. His words are,

Quid ergo, nulline casus incidere possunt quibus populo sese erigere atque in regem impotentius dominantem arma capere & invadere jure suo suaque authoritate liceat? Nulli certe quamdiu rex manet. Semper enim ex divinis id obstat, Regem honorificato; & qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resisit: non alias igitur in eum populo potestas est quam si id committat propter quod ipso jure rex esse desinat. Tunc enim se ipse principatu exuit atque in privatis constituit liber: hoc modo populus & superior efficitur, reverso ad eum sc. jure illo quod ante regem inauguratum in interregno habuit. At sunt paucorum generum commissa ejusmodi quae hunc effectum pariunt. At ego cum plurima animo perlustrem, duo tantum invenio, duos, inquam, casus quibus rex ipso facto ex rege non regem se facit & omni honore & dignitate regali atque in subditos potestate destituit; quorum etiam meminit Winzerus. Horum unus est, Si regnum disperdat, quemadmodum de Nerone fertur, quod is nempe senatum populumque Romanum, atque adeo urbem ipsam ferro flammaque vastare, ac novas sibi sedes quaerere decrevisset. Et de Caligula, quod palam denunciarit se neque civem neque principem senatui amplius fore, inque animo habuerit interempto utriusque ordinis electissimo quoque Alexandriam commigrare, ac ut populum uno ictu interimeret, unam ei cervicem optavit. Talia cum rex aliquis meditator & molitur serio, omnem regnandi curam & animum ilico abjicit, ac proinde imperium in subditos amittit, ut dominus servi pro derelicto habiti dominium.

What then? Can no cases arise in which the people may lawfully rise up, take arms against a king who rules too tyrannically, and attack him by their own right and their own authority? None, certainly, as long as he remains king. For the divine writings always stand in the way. They say to honor the king, and that whoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God. So the people have no power over him unless he does something for which, by law itself, he ceases to be king. For then he strips himself of his crown and returns to the state of a private man. In this way the people become free and superior, since the right they held in the interregnum, before the king was crowned, comes back to them. But only a few kinds of misconduct of this sort produce this effect. After going over a great many in my mind, I find only two. Two cases, I say, in which a king, by that very act, turns himself from a king into no king. He strips himself of all royal honor and dignity, and of his power over his subjects. Winzerus also mentions these cases. One of them is if he destroys his kingdom, as is reported of Nero. Nero, it is said, had resolved to lay waste the senate and people of Rome, and even the city itself, with fire and sword, and then to seek a new home for himself. The same is reported of Caligula. He openly declared that he would no longer be either a citizen or a prince to the senate. He had it in mind to kill the choicest men of both orders and then move to Alexandria. And he wished the people had a single neck, so that he could kill them all with one blow. When any king seriously plans and attempts such things, he at once casts off all care and thought of ruling. He therefore loses his authority over his subjects, just as a master loses his ownership of a slave he has treated as abandoned.

Sect. 236. Alter casus est, Si rex in alicujus clientelam se contulit, ac regnum quod liberum a majoribus & populo traditum accepit, alienae ditioni mancipavit. Nam tunc quamvis forte non ea mente id agit populo plane ut incommodet: tamen quia quod praecipuum est regiae dignitatis amifit, ut summus scilicet in regno secundum Deum sit, & solo Deo inferior, atque populum etiam totum ignorantem vel invitum, cujus libertatem sartam & tectam conservare debuit, in alterius gentis ditionem & potestatem dedidit; hac velut quadam regni ab alienatione effecit, ut nec quod ipse in regno imperium habuit retineat, nec in eum cui collatum voluit, juris quicquam transferat; atque ita eo facto liberum jam & suae potestatis populum relinquit, cujus rei exemplum unum annales Scotici suppeditant. Barclay contra Monarchom. 1. iii. c. 16.

236. Another case is when a king places himself under someone's protection and hands over the kingdom. He hands over the kingdom he received free from his ancestors and the people, into foreign rule. For then, though he may not clearly intend to harm the people, he nonetheless loses what is most important to royal dignity. He ceases to be supreme in the kingdom under God, and subordinate to God alone. He delivers the whole people, whether ignorant or unwilling, whose liberty he was bound to keep safely guarded and protected, into the rule and power of another nation. By this act he effectively alienates the kingdom. He neither retains the authority he once had, nor transfers any lawful right to the one to whom he surrendered it. Having done this, he leaves the people free and outside his power. The Scottish annals supply one such example. Barclay contra Monarchom. 1. iii. c. 16.

Which in English runs thus:

Which in English reads as follows:

Sect. 237. What then, can there no case happen wherein the people may of right, and by their own authority, help themselves, take arms, and set upon their king, imperiously domineering over them? None at all, whilst he remains a king. Honour the king, and he that resists the power, resists the ordinance of God; are divine oracles that will never permit it, The people therefore can never come by a power over him, unless he does something that makes him cease to be a king: for then he divests himself of his crown and dignity, and returns to the state of a private man, and the people become free and superior, the power which they had in the interregnum, before they crowned him king, devolving to them again. But there are but few miscarriages which bring the matter to this state. After considering it well on all sides, I can find but two. Two cases there are, I say, whereby a king, ipso facto, becomes no king, and loses all power and regal authority over his people; which are also taken notice of by Winzerus.

237. What then? Can there be no case where the people may, rightfully and by their own authority, help themselves? Can they not take up arms and attack a king who imperiously dominates them? None at all, as long as he remains a king. The maxim "Honor the king, and whoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God" is a divine saying that will not allow resistance. Therefore the people can never gain power over him unless he does something that makes him cease to be a king. If he does, he gives up his crown and dignity and becomes a private person again. Then the people become free and superior. The power they held during the interregnum, before they crowned him, returns to them. But only a few failures can bring matters to this state. After considering it from every side, I find only two. There are two cases, I say, in which a king, by that very fact, ceases to be a king and loses all royal authority over his people. Winzerus also notices these cases.

The first is, If he endeavour to overturn the government, that is, if he have a purpose and design to ruin the kingdom and commonwealth, as it is recorded of Nero, that he resolved to cut off the senate and people of Rome, lay the city waste with fire and sword, and then remove to some other place. And of Caligula, that he openly declared, that he would be no longer a head to the people or senate, and that he had it in his thoughts to cut off the worthiest men of both ranks, and then retire to Alexandria: and he wisht that the people had but one neck, that he might dispatch them all at a blow, Such designs as these, when any king harbours in his thoughts, and seriously promotes, he immediately gives up all care and thought of the commonwealth; and consequently forfeits the power of governing his subjects, as a master does the dominion over his slaves whom he hath abandoned.

The first is if he tries to overturn the government. That is, if he intends to destroy the kingdom and commonwealth. As recorded of Nero. He resolved to cut off the senate and people of Rome. He planned to lay the city waste with fire and sword. Then he intended to move to some other place. Caligula openly declared he would no longer be a head to the people or the senate. He said he was thinking of cutting off the worthiest men of both ranks. Then he would retire to Alexandria. He wished the people had only one neck so he could dispatch them all at a blow. When any king harbors and actively pursues designs like these, he immediately gives up all care for the commonwealth. Consequently he forfeits the power to govern his subjects, like a master losing dominion over slaves he has abandoned.

Sect. 238. The other case is, When a king makes himself the dependent of another, and subjects his kingdom which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the dominion of another: for however perhaps it may not be his intention to prejudice the people; yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity, viz. to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also because he betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation. By this, as it were, alienation of his kingdom, he himself loses the power he had in it before, without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it; and so by this act sets the people free, and leaves them at their own disposal. One example of this is to be found in the Scotch Annals.

238. The other case is when a king makes himself dependent on another ruler. He subjects the kingdom his ancestors left him, and the free people placed in his care, to foreign dominion. He may not intend to harm the people. But by doing this he loses the chief part of royal dignity. That dignity is being next and immediately under God, and supreme in his realm. He also betrays or forces his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation. By this kind of alienation of his kingdom, he loses the power he formerly had in it. He does this without transferring any real right to those he would have bestowed it on. Therefore this act frees the people and leaves them at their own disposal. One example of this is found in the Scotch Annals.

Sect. 239. In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow, that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king. That is, in short, not to multiply cases, in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority. And these two cases he instances in, differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows: and that is, the breach of trust, in not preserving the form of government agreed on, and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property. When a king has dethroned himself, and put himself in a state of war with his people, what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no king, as they would any other man, who has put himself into a state of war with them, Barclay, and those of his opinion, would do well to tell us. This farther I desire may be taken notice of out of Barclay, that he says, The mischief that is designed them, the people may prevent before it be done: whereby he allows resistance when tyranny is but in design. Such designs as these (says he) when any king harbours in his thoughts and seriously promotes, he immediately gives up all care and thought of the commonwealth; so that, according to him, the neglect of the public good is to be taken as an evidence of such design, or at least for a sufficient cause of resistance. And the reason of all, he gives in these words, Because he betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought carefully to have preserved. What he adds, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation, signifies nothing, the fault and forfeiture lying in the loss of their liberty, which he ought to have preserved, and not in any distinction of the persons to whose dominion they were subjected. The peoples right is equally invaded, and their liberty lost, whether they are made slaves to any of their own, or a foreign nation; and in this lies the injury, and against this only have they the right of defence. And there are instances to be found in all countries, which shew, that it is not the change of nations in the persons of their governors, but the change of government, that gives the offence. Bilson, a bishop of our church, and a great stickler for the power and prerogative of princes, does, if I mistake not, in his treatise of Christian subjection, acknowledge, that princes may forfeit their power, and their title to the obedience of their subjects; and if there needed authority in a case where reason is so plain, I could send my reader to Bracton, Fortescue, and the author of the Mirrour, and others, writers that cannot be suspected to be ignorant of our government, or enemies to it. But I thought Hooker alone might be enough to satisfy those men, who relying on him for their ecclesiastical polity, are by a strange fate carried to deny those principles upon which he builds it. Whether they are herein made the tools of cunninger workmen, to pull down their own fabric, they were best look. This I am sure, their civil policy is so new, so dangerous, and so destructive to both rulers and people, that as former ages never could bear the broaching of it; so it may be hoped, those to come, redeemed from the impositions of these Egyptian under-task-masters, will abhor the memory of such servile flatterers, who, whilst it seemed to serve their turn, resolved all government into absolute tyranny, and would have all men born to, what their mean souls fitted them for, slavery.

239. In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to admit that a king may be resisted and ceases to be a king. In short, not to multiply cases, wherever he has no authority, there he is no king and may be resisted. For wherever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority. The two cases he gives differ little from those I mentioned above as destructive to governments. The only difference is that he has left out the principle from which his doctrine flows. That principle is the breach of trust, in not preserving the form of government agreed on, and in not aiming at the end of government itself. That end is the public good and the preservation of property. When a king has dethroned himself and put himself in a state of war with his people, what shall stop them from prosecuting him, who is no king, as they would any other man who has put himself into a state of war with them? Barclay, and those of his opinion, would do well to tell us. I also want this point from Barclay to be noticed. He says that the people may prevent the mischief designed against them before it is done. By this he allows resistance when tyranny is only planned. When any king harbors such designs in his thoughts and seriously promotes them, he says, that king at once gives up all care and thought of the commonwealth. So, according to him, neglect of the public good is to be taken as evidence of such a design, or at least as a sufficient cause for resistance. He gives the reason for all this in these words: the king betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought carefully to have preserved, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation. That last part, about a foreign nation, means nothing. The fault and the forfeiture lie in the loss of their liberty, which he ought to have preserved. They do not lie in any distinction between the persons whose dominion the people were subjected to. The people's right is equally invaded, and their liberty equally lost, whether they are made slaves to some of their own nation or to a foreign one. In this lies the injury, and against this alone they have the right of defense. And there are examples in all countries which show that it is not a change of nation in the persons of the rulers that gives the offense. It is the change of government. Bilson, a bishop of our church and a great defender of the power and prerogative of princes, does, if I am not mistaken, acknowledge this in his treatise of Christian subjection. He grants that princes may forfeit their power, and their title to the obedience of their subjects. If authority were needed in a case where reason is so plain, I could send my reader to Bracton, Fortescue, the author of the Mirrour, and others. These are writers who cannot be suspected of being ignorant of our government, or of being its enemies. But I thought Hooker alone might be enough to satisfy those men. They rely on him for their ecclesiastical polity, that is, their system of church government. Yet by a strange fate they are carried into denying the very principles on which he builds it. They had best look to whether, in this, they are being made the tools of more cunning workmen to pull down their own building. This I am sure of. Their political doctrine is so new, so dangerous, and so destructive to both rulers and people that former ages could never bear to hear it put forward. So it may be hoped that ages to come, freed from the impositions of these Egyptian under-taskmasters, will abhor the memory of such servile flatterers. While it seemed to serve their purpose, these men reduced all government to absolute tyranny. They would have all men born to slavery, which is just what their own mean souls fitted them for.

Sect. 240. Here, it is like, the common question will be made, Who shall be judge, whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? This, perhaps, ill-affected and factious men may spread amongst the people, when the prince only makes use of his due prerogative. To this I reply, The people shall be judge; for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well, and according to the trust reposed in him, but he who deputes him, and must, by having deputed him, have still a power to discard him, when he fails in his trust? If this be reasonable in particular cases of private men, why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment, where the welfare of millions is concerned, and also where the evil, if not prevented, is greater, and the redress very difficult, dear, and dangerous?

240. It is likely people will ask, Who will judge whether the prince or legislature has acted against their trust? Malicious and seditious men may spread this question among the people when the prince only uses his proper prerogative. I answer: the people will be the judges. Who else can judge whether his trustee or deputy acts properly and fulfills the trust, if not the one who appointed him? By appointing him, the people must still have the power to remove him when he fails in his duty. If this is reasonable in private cases, why should it be different in matters of the greatest importance? Those matters concern the welfare of millions. The harm, if not prevented, would be greater, and the remedy would be very difficult, costly, and dangerous.

Sect. 241. But farther, this question, (Who shall be judge?) cannot mean, that there is no judge at all: for where there is no judicature on earth, to decide controversies amongst men, God in heaven is judge. He alone, it is true, is judge of the right. But every man is judge for himself, as in all other cases, so in this, whether another hath put himself into a state of war with him, and whether he should appeal to the Supreme Judge, as Jeptha did.

241. But further, the question (Who shall be judge?) cannot mean that there is no judge at all. Where there is no earthly court to decide disputes between men, God in heaven is the judge. He alone, it is true, is judge of what is right. Yet every man is his own judge in this matter, as in others. He decides whether another has put himself into a state of war with him. He also decides whether he should appeal to the Supreme Judge, as Jeptha did.

Sect. 242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people, in a matter where the law is silent, or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire, in such a case, should be the body of the people: for in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law; there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people, (who, at first, lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies no where but to heaven; force between either persons, who have no known superior on earth, or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself, when he will think fit to make use of that appeal, and put himself upon it.

242. Suppose a dispute arises between a prince and some of the people in a matter where the law is silent or unclear, and the matter is of great consequence. In such a case, I should think the proper umpire would be the body of the people. Consider cases where the prince has been given a trust and is exempted from the common, ordinary rules of the law. If any men there feel wronged and think the prince is acting against that trust or beyond it, who is so fit as the body of the people to judge how far they meant it to extend? It was they who first placed that trust in him. But if the prince, or whoever is in the administration, refuses that way of settling it, the appeal then lies nowhere but to heaven. Force between persons who have no known superior on earth, or force that permits no appeal to a judge on earth, is properly a state of war. In that state the appeal lies only to heaven. And in that state the injured party must judge for himself when he thinks fit to make use of that appeal and stake his cause on it.

Sect. 243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community, no commonwealth, which is contrary to the original agreement: so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.

243. To conclude, the power each person gave to the society when they joined it does not return to the individuals while the society lasts. It remains with the community. Without this there would be no community or commonwealth. That would violate the original agreement. Likewise, when the society has placed the legislative in an assembly of people, and given them and their successors direction and authority to provide successors, the legislative power cannot return to the people while that government lasts. By giving the legislative power the right to continue forever, the people have transferred their political power to it. They cannot resume it. But if they set limits on the duration of the legislative and make that supreme power temporary in any person or assembly, or if those in authority by their misconduct forfeit it, then upon forfeiture or at the end of the set time it returns to the society. The people then have the right to act as the supreme authority. They may keep the legislative power in themselves, establish a new form of government, or under the old form place it in new hands as they see fit.