that account, abolished by the laws of nations, and univerfally condemned as a base and treacherous method of bringing to juftice thefe difturbers of fociety.

Befides, we muft confider, that as obedience is our duty in the common course of things, it ought chiefly to be inculcated; nor can any thing be more prepofterous than an anxious care and follicitude in ftating all the cafes, in which resistance may be allowed. Thus, though a philosopher reasonably acknowleges, in the courfe of an argument, that the rules of justice may be dispensed with in cafes of urgent neceffity; what should we think of a preacher or cafuift, who should make it his chief study to find out such cases, and enforce them with all the vehemence of argument and eloquence? Would he not be better employed in inculcating the general doctrine, than in displaying the particular exceptions, which we are, perhaps, but too much inclined, of ourselves, to embrace, and to extend?

There are, however, two reasons, which may be pleaded in defence of that party among us, who have, with fo much industry, propagated the maxims of refiftance; maxims, which, it must be confeft, are, in general, fo pernicious, and fo deftructive of civil fociety. The firft is, that their antagonists carrying the doctrine of obedience to fuch an extravagant height, as not only never to mention the exceptions in extraor dinary cafes (which might, perhaps, be excufable) but even pofitively to exclude them; it became neceffary to insist on these exceptions, and defend the rights of injured truth and liberty. The second, and, perhaps, better reafon, is founded on the nature of the BRITISH Conftitution and form of government,

'Tis almoft peculiar to our conftitution to establish a first magiftrate with fuch high pre-eminence and dignity, that though limited by the laws, he is, in a manner, so far as regards his own person, above the laws, and can neither be questioned nor punished for any injury or wrong, which may be committed by him. His ministers alone, or those who act by his commiffion, are obnoxious to juftice; and while the prince is thus allured, by the prospect of personal safety, to give the laws their free course, an equal fecurity is, in effect, obtained, by the punishment of leffer offenders, and at the fame time a civil war is avoided, which would be the infallible confequence, were an attack, at every turn, made directly upon the fovereign. But though the constitution pays this falutary compliment to the prince, it can never reasonably be understood, by that maxim, to have determined its own destruction, or to have established a tame fubmiffion, where he protects his minifters, perseveres in injuftice, and ufurps the whole power of the commonwealth. This cafe, indeed, is never exprefly put by the laws; because it is impoffible for them, in their ordinary course, to provide a remedy for it, or establish any magiftrate, with fuperior authority, to chastise the exorbitancies of the prince. But as a right without a remedy would be the greatest of all abfurdities; the remedy, in this case, is the extraordinary one of refiftance, when affairs come to that extremity, that the conftitution can be defended by it alone. Refiftance, therefore, muft, of course, become more frequent in the BRITISH government, than in others, which are fimpler, and confift of fewer parts and movements. Where the king is an absolute sovereign, he has little temptation to commit such enormous tyranny as may justly provoke rebellion: But where he is limited, his imprudent ambition, without any great vices,

VOL. I.

Zzz

vices, may run him into that perilous fituation. This is commonly supposed to have been the cafe with CHARLES the Firft; and if we may now speak truth, after animofities are laid, this was alfo the cafe with JAMES the Second. These were harmless, if not, in their private character, good men; but mistaking the nature of our conftitution, and engroffing the whole legislative power, it became neceffary to oppose them with fome vehemence; and even to deprive the latter formally of that authority, which he had used with such imprudence and indiscretion.

T

OF THE COALITION OF PARTIES.

O abolish all distinctions of party may not be practicable, perhaps not defirable, in a free government. The only parties, which are dangerous, are fuch as entertain oppofite views with regard to the effentials of government, the fucceffion of the crown, or the more confiderable privileges belonging to the feveral members of the conftitution; where there is no room for any compromize or accommodation, and where the controverfy may appear fo momentous as to juftify even an oppofition by arms to the pretenfions of antagonists. Of this nature was the animofity continued for above a century be-' tween the parties in ENGLAND; an animofity which broke out fometimes into civil war, which occafioned violent revolutions," and which continually endangered the peace and tranquillity of the nation. But as there has appeared of late the strongest symptoms of an univerfal defire to abolish these party distinctions; this tendency to a coalition affords the most, agreeable profpect of future happiness, and ought to be carefully cherished and promoted by every lover of his country.

There is not a more effectual method of promoting fo good: an end, than to prevent all unreasonable infult and triumph of the one party over the other, to encourage moderate opinions, Zzz 2

to

to find the proper medium in all disputes, to persuade each that its antagonist may poffibly be sometimes in the right, and to keep a balance in the praise and blame which we bestow on either fide. The two former Effays, concerning the original contract and paffive obedience, are calculated for this purpose with regard to the philofophical controverfies between the parties, and tend to show that neither fide are in these respects fo fully fupported by reason as they endeavour to flatter themfelves. We fhall proceed to exercife the fame moderation' with regard to the historical difputes, by proving that each party was justified by plausible topics; that there were on both fides wife men who meant well to their country; and that the past animofity between the factions had no better foundation than narrow prejudice or interested paffion.

The popular party, who afterwards acquired the name of whigs, might justify by very specious arguments, that oppofition to the crown, from which our prefent free conftitution is derived. Though obliged to acknowlege, that precedents in favour of prerogative had uniformly taken place during many reigns before CHARLES the Firft, they thought, that there was no reason for fubmitting any longer to fo dangerous an authority. Such might have been their reasoning: The rights of mankind are fo facred, that no prescription of tyranny or arbitrary power can have authority sufficient to abolish them. Liberty is the most ineftimable of all bleffings; and wherever there appears any probability of recovering it, a nation may willingly run many hazards, and ought not even to repine at the greatest effufion of blood or diffipation of treasure. All human inftitutions, and none more than government, are in continual fluctuation. Kings are fure to embrace every opportunity