welfare, (which is the only argument the apoſtle makes uſe of) it follows, by a parity of reaſon, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his ſubjects his prey to devour and to deſtroy, inſtead of his charge to defend and cheriſh, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to reſiſt; and that according to the tenor of the apoſtle's argument in this paſſage. Not to diſcontinue our allegiance, in this caſe, would be to join with the ſovereign in promoting the ſlavery and miſery of that ſociety, the welfare of which, we ourſelves, as well as our ſovereign, are indiſpenſably obliged to ſecure and promote, as far as in us lies. It is true the apoſtle puts no caſe of ſuch a tyrannical prince; but by his grounding his argument for ſubmiſſion wholly upon the good of civil ſociety; it is plain he implicitly authorizes, and even requires us to make reſiſtance, whenever this ſhall be neceſſary to the public ſafety and happineſs. Let me make uſe of this eaſy and familiar ſimilitude to illuſtrate the point in hand—Suppoſe God requires a family of children, to obey their father and not to reſiſt him; and enforces his command with this argument; that the ſuperintendence and care and authority of a juſt and kind parent, will contribute to the happineſs of the whole family; ſo that they ought to obey him for their own ſakes more than for his: Suppoſe this parent at length runs diſtracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children's throats: Now, in this caſe, is not the reaſon before aſſigned, why theſe children ſhould obey their parent while he continued of a ſound mind, namely, their common good, a reaſon equally concluſive
- This does not intend, their acting ſo in a few particular inſtances, which the beſt of rulers may do through miſtake, &c. but their acting ſo habitually; and in a manner which plainly ſhows, that they aim at making themſelves great, by the ruin of their ſubjects.
