PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

DUly oj Submission explainetJ.
J2J
of the constitution ~ettled by our ancestors, and, be ..
ing settled, to be no more committed to innovation
or debate. as fuundations never to be stirred; as
the terms "and conditions of the social compact, to
which every citizen of the state !138 engaged his fidt»li.
ty, by virtue of a promise, which he cannot now recall ..
Such reasons have no place in our system; to us, if
there be any good reason for treating these with
more deference and respect than other laws, it is,
either the advantage of the present constitution of
government (which reason must be of different force
in different countries) or bec"ause in all countries, it
is of importance, that the fo~ aDd usage of governing
be acknowledged and understood, as well by the
governors as by the governed, and because the sel.
dorner it is changed, the more perfectly it will be
known by both sides.
VI.. .8.\5 aI! civil ob1ig3tion is resolved into expedi.
ency, what, it may be asked, is the difference between
the obligation of an Englhbman and a French ..
man? Of, why is. a Frenchman bound in conscience
to bear any thing from his king, which an Englishman·
would not be bound to bear, since the obligat!on
of both is founded in the same reason? Their
4:onditions may differ, but their rights, according to
this account, should seem to be equal; and yet we
are accustomed to speak of the rights as well as of the
happineS5 of a free people, compared with what b~ ..
long to the subjects of absolute monarchies: how ~
you will say, can this comparison be explained, unless
we refer to a difference in the compacts, by which
they are respectively bound ?-This is a fair question,
and the answer to it will afford a further illtlstration
of our principles. ,V e admit then, that there are
maI1Y things which a Frenchman is bound ill conscience,
as well as by coertion, to endure at the hands
of his prince, to which an Englishman would not be
obliged to submit; but we assert, that it is for these
two reasons alone: first, bec(~use the same act of the
l)rlnCe, • !s • not t .... h e !;~n1C grifvance • were h· It IS (. agreeahIe
to the constitution, and where it infringes it: s,:c-