in that book to justify the submission of you, or such as you, to the Parliament, after the King’s being driven from them, or to Oliver; for you were the King’s enemies, and cannot pretend want of that protection which you yourselves refused, denied, fought against, and destroyed. If a man owe you money, and you by robbing him, or other injury, disable him to pay you, the fault is your own; nor needs this exception, _unless the creditor rob him_, be put into the condition of the bond. Protection and obedience are relative. He that says a man may submit to an enemy for want of protection, can never be construed, but that he meant it of the obedient. But let us consider his words, when he puts for a law of nature, (vol. iii. p. 703) _that every man is bound, as much as in him lieth, to protect in war the authority by which he is himself protected in time of peace_; which I think is no ungodly or unreasonable principle. For confirmation of it, he defines in what point of time it is, that a subject becomes obliged to obey an unjust conqueror; and defines it thus: _it is that point wherein having liberty to submit to the conqueror, he consenteth either by express words, or by other sufficient signs, to be his subject_. I cannot see, Doctor, how a man can be at liberty to submit to his new, that has not first done all he could for his old master: nor if he have done all he could, why that liberty should be refused him. If a man be taken by the Turk, and brought by terror to fight against his former master, I see how he may be killed for it as an enemy, but not as a criminal; nor can I see how he that hath liberty to submit, can at the same time be bound not to submit. But you will say, perhaps, that he defines the time of that liberty to the advantage of Oliver, in that he says, _that for an ordinary subject, it is then, when the means of his life are within the guards and garrisons of the enemy; for it is then, that he hath no protection but from the enemy for his contribution_. It was not necessary for him to explain it to men of so great understanding, as you and other his enemies pretend to be, by putting in the exception, _unless they came into those guards and garrisons by their own treason_. Do you think that Oliver’s party, for their submission to Oliver, could pretend the want of that protection? The words therefore by themselves, without that exception, do signify no more than this; _that whosoever had done as much as in him did lie, to protect the King in war, had liberty afterwards to provide themselves of such protection as they could get_; which to those whose means of life were within the guards and garrisons of Oliver, was Oliver’s protection.