anyone may judge, or that of the royalist must be inferior to
that of the commonwealths man. And for interest, taking the
commonwealths man to have really intended the public, for
otherwise he is a hypocrite and the worst of men, that of the
royalist must of necessity have been more private. Wherefore, the
whole dispute will come upon matter of conscience, and this,
whether it be urged by the right of kings, the obligation of
former laws, or of the oath of allegiance, is absolved by the
balance.

For if the right of kings were as immediately derived from
the breath of God as the life of man, yet this excludes not death
and dissolution. But, that the dissolution of the late monarchy
was as natural as the death of man, has been already shown.
Wherefore it remains with the royalists to discover by what
reason or experience it is possible for a monarchy to stand upon
a popular balance; or, the balance being popular, as well the
oath of allegiance, as all other monarchical laws, imply an
impossibility, and are therefore void.

To the commonwealths man I have no more to say, but that if
he excludes any party, he is not truly such, nor shall ever found
a commonwealth upon the natural principle of the same, which is
justice. And the royalist for having not opposed a commonwealth
in Oceana, where the laws were so ambiguous that they might be
eternally disputed and never reconciled, can neither be justly
for that cause excluded from his full and equal share in the
government; nor prudently for this reason, that a commonwealth
consisting of a party will be in perpetual labor for her own
destruction: whence it was that the Romans, having conquered the