whether they are made slaves to any of their own

Sec. 101.  To the first there is this to answer, That it is  not at all to be wondered fake oakleys, that history gives us but a very  little account of men, that lived together in the state of  nature.  The inconveniences of that condition, and the love and  want of society, no sooner brought any number of them together,  but they presently united and incorporated, if they designed to  continue together.  And if we may not suppose men ever to have  been in the state of nature, because we hear not much of them in  such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser or  Xerxes were never children, because we hear little of them, till  they were men, and imbodied in armies.  Government is every where  antecedent to records, and letters seldom come in amongst a  people till a long continuation of civil society has, by other  more necessary arts, provided for their safety, ease, and plenty:  and then they begin to look after the history of their founders,  and search into their original, when they have outlived the  memory of it: for it is with commonwealths as with particular  persons, they are commonly ignorant of their own births and  infancies: and if they know any thing of their original, they are  beholden for it, to the accidental records that others have kept  of it.  And those that we have, of the beginning of any polities  in the world, excepting that of the Jews, where God himself  immediately interposed, and which favours not at all paternal  dominion, are all either plain instances of such a beginning as I  have mentioned, or at least have manifest footsteps of it. 

     Sec. 102.  He must shew a strange inclination to deny  evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis,  who will not allow, that shew a strange inclination to deny  evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis,  who will not allow, that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by  the uniting together of several men free and independent one of  another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or  subjection.  And if Josephus Acosta's word may be taken, he tells  us, that in many parts of America there was no government at all.   There are great and apparent conjectures, says he, that these  men, speaking of those of Peru, for a long time had neither kings  nor commonwealths replica oakleys, but lived in troops, as they do this day in  Florida, the Cheriquanas, those of Brazil, and many other  nations, which have no certain kings, but as occasion is offered,  in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please, 1.   i.  c.  25.  If it be said, that every man there was born subject  to his father, or the head of his family; that the subjection due  from a child to a father took not away his freedom of uniting  into what political society he thought fit, has been already  proved.  But be that as it will, these men, it is evident, were  actually free; and whatever superiority some politicians now  would place in any of them, they themselves claimed it not, but  by consent were all equal, till by the same consent they set  rulers over themselves.  So that their politic societies all  began from a voluntary union, and the mutual agreement of men  freely acting in the choice of their governors, and forms of  government.  

  Sec. 239.  In these cases Barclay, the great champion of  absolute monarchy fake oakley sunglasses, 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 clone:  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 common-wealth; 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.