26.As it is the obedience of individuals that constitutes a state of submission,so is it their disobedience that must constitute a state of revolt.Is it then every act of disobedience that will do as much?The affirmative,certainly,is what can never be maintained:for then would there be no such thing as government to be found any where.Here then a distinction or two obviously presents itself.Disobedience may be distinguished into conscious or unconscious:and that,with respect as well to the law as to the fact.(50)Disobedience that is unconscious with respect to either,will readily,I suppose,be acknowledged not to be a revolt.Disobedience again that is conscious with respect to both,may be distinguished into secret and open;or,in other words,into fraudulent and forcible.(51)Disobedience that is only fraudulent,will likewise,I suppose,be readily acknowledged not to amount to a revolt.
27.The difficulty that will remain will concern such disobedience only as is both conscious,(and that as well with respect to law as fact,)and forcible.This disobedience,it should seem,is to be determined neither by numbers altogether (that is of the persons supposed to be disobedient)nor by acts,nor by intentions:all three may be fit to be taken into consideration.
But having brought the difficulty to this point,at this point I must be content to leave it.To proceed any farther in the endeavour to solve it,would be to enter into a discussion of particular local jurisprudence.
It would be entering upon the definition of Treason,as distinguished from Murder,Robbery,Riot,and other such crimes,as,in comparison with Treason,are spoken of as being of a more private nature.Suppose the definition of Treason settled,and the commission of an act of Treason is,as far as regards the person committing it,the characteristic mark we are in search of.
28.These remarks it were easy to extend to a much greater length.Indeed,it is what would be necessary,in order to give them a proper fulness,and method,and precision.But that could not be done without exceeding the limits of the present design.As they are,they may serve as hints to such as shall be disposed to give the subject a more exact and regular examination.
29.From what has been said,however,we may judge what truth there is in our Author's observation,that `when society'(understand natural society)`is once formed,government'(that is political society)(whatever quantity or degree of Obedience is necessary to constitute political society)`results ofcourse;as necessary to preserve and to keep that society in order.'By the words,`of course,'is meant,I suppose,constantly and immediately:at least constantly.According to this,political society,in any sense of it,ought long ago to have been established all the world over.Whether this be the case,let any one judge from the instances of the Hottentots,of the Patagonians,and of so many other barbarous tribes,of which we hear from travellers and navigators.
30.It may be,after all,we have misunderstood his meaning.We have been supposing him to have been meaning to assert a matter of fact,and to have written,or at least begun,this sentence in the character of an historical observer;whereas,all he meant by it,perhaps,was to speak in the character of a Censor,and on a case supposed,to express a sentiment of approbation.In short,what he meant,perhaps,to persuade us of,was not that `government'does actually `result'from natural `society';but that it were better that it should,to wit,as being necessary to `preserve and keep'men `in that state of order',in which it is of advantage to them that they should be.Which of the above mentioned characters he meant to speak in,is a problem I must leave to be determined.The distinction,perhaps,is what never so much as occurred to him;and indeed the shifting insensibly,and without warning,from one of those characters to the other,is a failing that seems inveterate in our Author;and of which we shall probably have more instances than one to notice.
31.To consider the whole paragraph (with its appendage)together,something,it may be seen our Author struggles to over throw,and something to establish.
But how it is he would overthrow,or what it is he would establish,are questions I must confess myself unable to resolve.`The preservation of mankind',he observes,`was effected by single families.'This is what upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures,he assumes;and from this it is that he would have us conclude the notion of an original contract (the same notion which he afterwards adopts)to be ridiculous.The force of this conclusion,I must own,I do not see.Mankind was preserved by single families Be it so.What is there in this to hinder `individuals'of those families,or of families descended from those families,from meeting together `afterwards,in a large plain',or any where else,`entering into an original contract',or any other contract,`and choosing the tallest man',or any other man,`present',or absent,to be their Governor?The `flat contradiction'our Author finds between this supposed transaction and the `preservation of mankind by single families',is what I must own myself unable to discover.
As to the `actually existing unconnected state of nature'he speaks of,`the notion of which',he says,`is too wild to be seriously admitted',whether this be the case with it,is what,as he has given us no notion of it at all,I cannot judge of.
32.Something positive,however,in one place,we seem to have.These `single families,'by which the preservation of mankind was effected;these single families,he gives us to understand,`formed the first society.'
