imposed upon me a further inquiry, namely, whether the whole happiness of the empire was likely to be promoted by fuch a measure ?-Not indeed the happiness of every part; that was not neceffary, nor to be expected-but whether what Great Britain would lofe by the feparation was likely to be compenfated to the joint ftock of happiness, by the advantages which America would receive from it. The contefted claims of fovereign ftates, and their remote dependencies, may be fubmitted to the adjudication of this rule with mutual fafety. A public advantage is measured by the advantage which each individual receives, and by the number of thofe who receive it. A public evil is compounded of the fame proportions. Whilft, therefore, a colony is fmall, or a province thinly inhabited, if a competition of interefts arife between the original country and their acquired dominions, the former ought to be preferred, because it is fit, that, if one muft neceffarily be facrificed, the lefs give place to the greater: but when, by an increafe of population, the intereft of the provinces begins to bear a confiderable proportion to the entire intereft of the community, it is poffible that they may fuffer fo much by their fubjection, that not only theirs, but the whole happinefs of the empire may be obftructed by their union. The rule and principle of the calculation being ftill the fame, the refult is different; and this difference begets a new fituation, which entitles the fubordinate parts of the ftate to more equal terms of confederation, and, if these be refused, to independency.

Chapter IV.

THE DUTY OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE, AS STATED IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.

WE affirm, that, as to the extent of our civil rights and obligations, Chriftianity hath left us where the found us; that she hath neither altered nor af

S s

certained it; that the New Teftament contains not one paffage, which, fairly interpreted, affords either argument or objection applicable to any conclufions upon the fubject, that are deduced from the law and religion of nature.

The only paffages which have been feriously alleged in the controverfy, or which it is neceffary for us to state and examine, are the two following; the one extracted from St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, the other from the First General Epiftle of St. Peter.

ers.

ROMANS xiii. 1-7.

"Let every foul be fubject unto the higher pow. For there is no power but of God; the pow ers that be, are ordained of God. Whofoever therefore refifteth the power, refifteth the ordinance of God and they that refift, fhall receive to themfelves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou fhalt have praise of the fame: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the fword in vain: for he is the minifter of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye muft needs be fubject, not only for wrath, but also for confcience fake. For, for this caufe pay you tribute alfo : for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, cuftom to whom cuftom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour."

1 PETER ii. 13-18.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's fake: whether it be to the king as fupreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are fent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For fo is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to filence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using

your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the fervants of God."

To comprehend the proper import of thefe inftructions, let the reader reflect, that upon the fubject of civil obedience there are two queftions: the firft, whether to obey government be a moral duty and obligation upon the confcience at all; the fecond, how far, and to what cafes, that obedience ought to extend ;-that thefe two queftions are fo diftinguishable in the imagination, that it is poffible to treat of the one, without any thought of the other; and laftly, that if expreffions which relate to one of thefe queftions be transferred and applied to the other, it is with great danger of giving them a fignification very different from the author's meaning. This diftinction is not only poffible, but natural. If I met with a perfon, who appeared to entertain doubts, whether civil obedience were a moral duty, which ought to be voluntarily discharged, or whether it were not a mere fubmiffion to force, like that, which we yield to a robber, who holds a piftol to our breast, I should represent to him the ufe and offices of civil government, the end and the neceffity of civil fubjection; or, if I preferred a different theory, I fhould explain to him the focial compact, urge him with the obligation and the equity of his implied promife and tacit confent to be governed by the laws of the state from which he received protection; or I fhould argue, perhaps, that nature herfelf dictated the law of fubordination, when the planted within us an inclination to affociate with our fpecies, and framed us with capacities fo various and unequal. From whatever principle I fet out, I fhould labour to infer from it this conclufion, "That obedience to the ftate is to be numbered amongst the relative duties of human life, for the tranfgreffion of which we shall be accountable at the tribunal of divine juftice, whether the magiftrate be able to punifh us for it or not;" and being arrived at this conclufion, I fhould ftop, having delivered the conclufion itself, and throughout the whole argument expreffed the obedience,

which I inculcated, in the most general and unqual ified terms, all reservations and reftrictions being fuperfluous, and foreign to the doubts I was employed

to remove.

If in a fhort time afterwards, I should be accofted by the fame perfon, with complaints of public griev ances, of exorbitant taxes, of acts of cruelty and oppreffion, of tyrannical encroachments upon the ancient or ftipulated rights of the people, and should be confulted whether it were lawful to revolt, or justifiable to join in an attempt to shake off the yoke by open refiftance; I fhould certainly confider myfelf as having a cafe and queftion before me very dif ferent from the former. I fhould now define and difcriminate. I fhould reply, that if public expediency be the foundation, it is alfo the measure of civil obedience; that the obligation of fubjects and fov. ereigns is reciprocal; that the duty of allegiance, whether it be founded in utility or compact, is neither unlimited nor unconditional; that peace may be purchased too dear; that patience becomes culpable pufillanimity, when it ferves only to encourage our rulers to increase the weight of our burthen, or to bind it the fafter; that the fubmiffion, which furrenders the liberty of a nation, and entails flavery upon future generations, is enjoined by no law of rational morality: finally, I fhould inftruct the inquirer to compare the peril and expense of his enterprize, with the effects it was expected to produce, and to make choice of the alternative, by which, not his own prefent relief or profit, but the whole and permanent intereft of the ftate was likely to be best promoted. If any one who had been prefent at both thefe converfations fhould upbraid me with change or inconfiftency of opinion, fhould retort upon me the paffive doctrine I before taught, the large and abfolute terms in which I then delivered leflons of obedience and fubmiffion, I fhould account myself unfairly dealt with. I fhould reply, that the only difference which the language of the two converfations prefented was, that I added now many excep

tions and limitations, which were omitted or unthought of then; that this difference arose naturally from the two occafions, fuch exceptions being as neceffary to the subject of our prefent conference, as they would have been fuperfluous and unfeasonable in the former.

Now the difference in these two converfations is precifely the diftinction to be taken in interpreting thofe paffages of fcripture, concerning which we are debating. They inculcate the duty, they do not describe the extent of it. They enforce the obligation by the proper fanctions of Chriftianity, without intending either to enlarge or contract, without confidering indeed the limits by which it is bounded. This is alfo the method, in which the fame Apostles enjoin the duty of fervants to their mafters, of chil dren to their parents, of wives to their husbands. "Servants, be subject to your mafters."-" Children, obey your parents in all things."-" Wives, fubmit yourselves unto your own hufbands." The fame concife and abfolute form of expreffion occurs in all thefe precepts; the fame filence, as to any exceptions or diftinctions; yet no one doubts, but that the commands of mafters, parents, and husbands, are often fo immoderate, unjuft, and inconfiftent with other obligations, that they both may and ought to be refifted. In letters or differtations written profeffedly upon feparate articles of morality, we might with more reafon have looked for a precife delineation of our duty, and fome degree of modern accuracy in the rules which were laid down for our direction; but in those short collections of practical maxims, which compose the conclufion, or fome fmall portion, of a doctrinal or perhaps controverfial epiftle, we cannot be furprised to find the author more folicitous to imprefs the duty, than curious to enumerate exceptions.

The confideration of this diftinction is alone fufficient to vindicate thefe paffages of fcripture from any explanation, which may be put upon them, in favour of an unlimited paffive obedience. But if we