the commons would have always this security, that the lords in taking an active part in the disposal of the people's property, must at the same time dispose of an equal proportion of their own. So easily can your grand argument be turned against your own cause! And so great is the inconsistency of a system, one part of which you cannot support without totally undermining the other!

If these remarks recommend themselves to your reason, piety, and sober patriotism, I hope, sir, you will confess, that truth is a file, which we bite in vain; that it is as imprudent to attack a good argument in the field of controversy, as to lay hold of an antagonist's sword with a naked hand in a field of battle; that your reply has given me an opportunity of confirming my Vindication; and that the doctrine of taxation embraced by the parliament is truly rational, scriptural, and constitutional. Q. E. D.

I am, rev. sir,

Your friendly opponent, and obedient servant in the gospel,

JOHN FLETCHER.

LETTER II.

REV. SIR,

I WOULD have taken my leave of you in the preceding letter, had I not considered, that a patient controvertist ought to contend for truth, till she enjoys her full liberty. The truth I defend is not yet free. She is still bound, with have loaded her with.

three or four of the chains you Nor can I complete my rescue, without breaking them with my polemical hammer.

I. The first of these chains is your error (or that of Lord Camden) concerning the absoluteness of our property.

You still insinuate, that “what a man has is absolutely his own." Page 34. Nevertheless, pressed by my objection, you indirectly grant, that God has a right to our property. But if God has a right to our property, does he not delegate this right to our political gods, I mean to

our lawgivers and governors, who are his lieutenants and representatives? And in this case, how can you say that no man has a right to take our property from us without our consent; our property being absolutely our own? I still farther assert, that, so long as we live in society, our property is a part of the commonwealth: but if it is absolutely our own, how can it be a part of the commonwealth? And if it is a part of the commonwealth, how can it be absolutely our own? I support this dilemma by the following queries. Who is such a novice in politics. as not to know, that private interest, in a thousand cases, is to yield to public good; and, of consequence, private possession to public claims? If a man has a thousand bushels of wheat, which he hoards up in time of scarcity, may he not be justly compelled to sell it at a reasonable price, though he and his representative should cry out ever so loud, “Oppression! tyranny! robbery?" If a nobleman found rich mines of coals in his estate near London, could he not be legally hindered from working these mines, lest the Newcastle colliers and a thousand sailors should starve for want of employment? If Bristol were besieged, and you had a house near the walls, where the enemy might lodge his forces to annoy the city, might not your house be justly pulled down, though you and your American representative should refuse your consent to the very last? If you have rich meadows, which you delight in; and if the general good requires that a fort be erected upon them, or a canal cut through them; may you not be made sensible that the public has a superior right to your property, and that your ground is not so absolutely your own, but you may be compelled to part with it for the good of the kingdom? If you have a ship laden with goods brought from the Levant, and you want to sell them immediately to prevent their being spoiled; and if there is some reason to fear that they will convey the plague; may not a magistrate, in spite of you and a hundred representatives, if you had a right to choose so many, force you to let your goods spoil, rather than to endanger the lives of thousands? And, to come to the case of the colonists, if you and your representative fancied, that you owe nothing

to the sovereign for protecting you in time past, and that you can very well protect yourselves for the time to come; and if, upon such a fancy, you refused to contribute to the expense of the general protection; think you the public would be duped by your conceit, and grant you to live as free from taxes in England, as David did in Israel when he had slain Goliath? Would not our governors justly seize upon a proportion of your property, whether you and your representative reasonably consented to it, or whether you absurdly raised the neighbourhood by the patriotic cry of, "Tyranny! robbery! and murder?"

Nor is it only our property which is not absolutely our own, when we live in civil society; for what I have said of our goods, may be applied to our persons. We are not absolutely our own. Hence it is, that in all civilized countries, when the sovereign wants soldiers for the protection of the commonwealth, a militia is raised; and if the lot falls upon a pacific farmer, notwithstanding his objections, and the opposition of his parliamentary representative, he must bear arms, either in his own person, or in the person of his military representative. And when no such representatives can be procured, the men who are able may be personally pressed into the service of the commonwealth. Hence it is that, in an emergency, the sovereign issues press-warrants to raise sailors for. manning the fleet: an hardship this, which, great as it is, is not so great as the general overthrow of the

state.

II. Your first error about the absoluteness of our property, naturally leads you into a second concerning abject slavery, which you confound with loyal subjection. Hence you say, "If there be any man, call him by what name you please," (you should have said, agreeably to the case in debate, if there be any set of men, call them by what name you please, lawgivers, magistrates, or officers of the legislative power,)" who has" (or have) "a right to take it” (his property) "without his consent expressed by himself or representative, what is this but the quintessence of slavery? Wherein does the case of such a man differ from that of the most abject slave in the universe? God's

lieutenants may, it is true, be very mild, and kind, and reasonable in their demands, and require no more of such a man than it is highly just he should pay: but what then? If my property be at their disposal, not my own, what becomes of my liberty? The man that robs me of five shillings only, commits a robbery as much as the man that robs me of five pounds. The most abject slave in the universe may chance to have a very good master; but still, if he is at the disposal of his master, he is equally a slave when treated well as when treated ill." Page 34, &c.

The plausibility of this argument rests upon the following mistakes:-1. You still suppose, that insisting on moderate taxes, as a reasonable equivalent for protection, is a species of robbery; whereas such a demand, by the consent of all men, except the patriots of the day, is as reasonable as the demand of a moderate fee, which a diligent lawyer has upon his client. 2. You do not consider that the colonists, being indirectly represented in parliament, have as much consented by their indirect representatives to pay taxes to the parliament, as the patriots and you have consented by your direct representatives to be additionally taxed in order to bring the colonies to reason. 3. The latin word servus means not only a servant, but a bondman and a slave; and the English word "servitude" means both slavery, and the state of a servant. But would it be right in me to avail myself of this analogy, to put all the patriotic servants in the kingdom out of conceit with their servitude, and to make them shake off the yoke of dependence, under pretence that servitude is abject slavery, whether a servant is treated well or ill? 4. In Hebrew, the word 727, servant," means both a slave and a subject. But would you have approved of Absalom's conduct, if, on this account, he had alienated the minds of his father's subjects, and made an injudicious populace believe, that whosoever fully submits himself to good government, commences an abject slave? Who does not see the inconclusiveness of this argument? An abject slave is bound to submit himself reasonably or unreasonably to his lawless sovereign; a loyal subject is bound to

66

submit himself reasonably to his lawful sovereign; and therefore, as they are both bound to submit or subject themselves to their sovereign, they are both "abject slaves." Such logic, sir, may convert heated Americans to your overdoing patriotism; but, if I am not mistaken, it will confirm judicious Britons in their constitutional loyalty. 5. You conclude your argument by saying, “A slave is equally a slave, when treated well as when treated ill;" and you might have added, "A subject is equally a subject, when treated well as when treated ill;" but then the pill would not have been properly gilded; and your own loyalty, as well as piety, would have taken the alarm at a doctrine which bears so hard upon this gospel precept, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers."

For my part, whatever you may say of my "meanness," I will be the servant, the subject, and, if you please, sir, the slave of good government. I am determined to glory in the subjection, of which you seem to be so afraid and ashamed; and applying to a freeman what the apostle says of a son, I do not scruple to assert, that a freeman, so long as he lives in society, and is a subject, differeth nothing from a servant or slave who is "well treated;" but is under governors, lawgivers, and magistrates, until the time appointed of his heavenly Father for his removing from earth, and leaving the society of mortals. Galatians iv. 1, 2. To oppose this doctrine, is to overthrow subjection and government, which stand or fall together.

III. A word about the origin of power. I believe, with St. Paul, that "the powers that are, are ordained of God," who is the fountain of all power, and the author of all good government. I date the divine communication of power, from the paradisiacal age; yea, from the hour in which God said to Adam and Eve, "Multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over every living thing." Gen. i. 28. Here, sir, is the original grant of power; and whosoever wantonly resisteth the power which Providence calls him to obey, breaks this great political charter of God, which is so strongly and so frequently confirmed in the gospel.