INTRODUCTION

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his OWN RIGHT, to support the Parliament in what he calls THEIRS, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either. In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested.

The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR.

P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.

Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL.

WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.  Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries

BY A GOVERNMENT,

which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not  being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world.

In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out of the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die. Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting

to leave

the legislative part to be managed by a select number
chosen

from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same
concerns

at stake which those who appointed them, and who will act
in the

same manner as the whole body would act, were they
present.

If the colony continues increasing, it will become
necessary

to augment the number of the representatives, and that
the interest

of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will
be found

best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part
sending

its proper number; and that the ELECTED might never form
to themselves

an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will
point out

the propriety of having elections often; because as the
ELECTED

might by that means return and mix again with the general
body

of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the
public

will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a
rod

for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will
establish

a common interest with every part of the community, they
will

mutually and naturally support each other, and on this
(not on

the unmeaning name of king) depends the STRENGTH OF
GOVERNMENT,

AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a
mode rendered

necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the
world;

here too is the design and end of government, viz.
freedom and security.

And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our
ears deceived by sound;

however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken
our understanding,

the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is
right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle
in nature,

which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any
thing is,

the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier
repaired

when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a
few remarks

on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it
was noble

for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected,
is granted.

When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove
therefrom

was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject
to convulsions,

and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is
easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments (tho’ the disgrace of human nature)
have this

advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people
suffer,

they know the head from which their suffering springs,
know likewise

the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes
and cures.

But the constitution of England is so exceedingly
complex,

that the nation may suffer for years together without
being able to discover

in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and
some in another,

and every political physician will advise a different
medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing
prejudices,

yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component
parts of the

English constitution, we shall find them to be the base
remains of two

ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican
materials.

FIRST – The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person
of the king.

SECONDLY – The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the
persons of the peers.

THIRDLY – The new republican materials in the persons of
the commons,

on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of
the people;

wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute
nothing towards

the freedom of the state.

To say that the constitution of England is a UNION of
three powers

reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical, either the
words have

no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

To say that the commons is a check upon the king,
presupposes two things:

FIRST – That the king is not to be trusted without being
looked after,

or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is
the natural

disease of monarchy.

SECONDLY – That the commons, by being appointed for that
purpose,

are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the
crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a
power to check

the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards
the king a power

to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their
other bills;

it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom
it has already

supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the
composition of monarchy;

it first excludes a man from the means of information,
yet empowers him

to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.
The state of a king

shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king
requires him to know

it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by
unnaturally opposing

and destroying each other, prove the whole character to
be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution
thus: The king,

say they, is one, the people another; the peers are a
house in behalf

of the king, the commons in behalf of the people; but
this hath all

the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and
though

the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when
examined,

they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always
happen,

that the nicest construction that words are capable of,

when applied to the description of some thing which
either

cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within

the compass of description, will be words of sound only,

and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the
mind,

for this explanation includes a previous question, viz.

HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID
TO TRUST,

AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be
the gift

of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS
CHECKING,

be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution
makes,

supposes such a power to exist.

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means
either cannot

or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a
felo de se;

for as the greater weight will always carry up the less,
and as all

the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only
remains to know

which power in the constitution has the most weight, for
that will govern;

and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or,
as the phrase is,

check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they
cannot stop it,

their endeavours will be ineffectual; the first moving
power will

at last have its way, and what it wants in speed, is
supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English
constitution,

needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole
consequence

merely from being the giver of places and pensions, is
self-evident,

wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and
lock a door

against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been
foolish

enough to put the crown in possession of the key.

The prejudice of Englishmen in favour of their own
government by king,

lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national
pride than reason.

Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some
other countries,

but the WILL of the king is as much the LAW of the land
in Britain

as in France, with this difference, that instead of
proceeding directly

from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more
formidable shape

of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the
First hath only made

kings more subtle – not more just.

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice

in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that

IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE,

AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT,

that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in
Turkey.

An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English
form

of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we
are never

in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while
we continue under

the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are
we capable of

doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any
obstinate prejudice.

And as a man. who is attached to a prostitute, is
unfitted to choose

or judge a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a
rotten constitution

of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION

Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation,
the equality

could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance;
the distinctions

of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted
for, and that without

having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of
oppression and avarice.

Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never
the MEANS of riches;

and though avarice will preserve a man from being
necessitously poor,

it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and greater distinction, for which
no truly natural

or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
distinction of men

into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the
distinctions of nature,

good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race
of men came into

the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished
like some new species,

is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means
of happiness

or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the world, according to the
scripture chronology,

there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there
were no wars;

it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
confusion. Holland

without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last
century than any

of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity
favours the same

remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first
patriarchs hath

a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we
come to the

history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world
by the

Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the
custom.

It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set
on foot

for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine
honours

to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath
improved

on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How
impious

is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in
the midst

of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot
be justified

on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be
defended on the

authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as
declared

by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves
of government

by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have
been very smoothly

glossed over in monarchical governments, but they
undoubtedly merit the

attention of countries which have their governments yet
to form.

RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR’S is the
scripture

doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical
government,

for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a
state of vassalage

to the Romans.

Now three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic
account of the

creation, till the Jews under a national delusion
requested a king.

Till then their form of government (except in
extraordinary cases,

where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic
administered

by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had
none,

and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under
that title

but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects
on the idolatrous

homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not
wonder that

the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should
disapprove of a form

of government which so impiously invades the prerogative
of heaven.

Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the
Jews,

for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.

The history of that transaction is worth attending to.

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,
Gideon

marched against them with a small army, and victory,
through the

divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews,
elate with

success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon,

proposed making him a king, saying, RULE THOU OVER US,
THOU AND THY

SON AND THY SON’S SON. Here was temptation in its fullest
extent;

not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon

in the piety of his soul replied, I WILL NOT RULE OVER
YOU,

NEITHER SHALL MY SON RULE OVER YOU _THE LORD SHALL RULE
OVER YOU._

Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline
the honour,

but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he
compliment them

with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the
positive style

of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their
proper Sovereign,

the King of heaven.

About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell
again into

the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the
idolatrous

customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly
unaccountable; but

so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel’s
two sons,

who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came
in an abrupt

and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, BEHOLD THOU ART
OLD, AND THY

SONS WALK NOT IN THY WAYS, NOW MAKE US A KING TO JUDGE
US, LIKE ALL

OTHER NATIONS. And here we cannot but observe that their
motives

were bad, viz. that they might be LIKE unto other
nations, i.e. the

Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much
UNLIKE them

as possible. BUT THE THING DISPLEASED SAMUEL WHEN THEY
SAID, GIVE US

A KING TO JUDGE US; AND SAMUEL PRAYED UNTO THE LORD, AND
THE LORD

SAID UNTO SAMUEL, HEARKEN UNTO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IN
ALL THAT

THEY SAY UNTO THEE, FOR THEY HAVE NOT REJECTED THEE, BUT
THEY HAVE

REJECTED ME, _THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM._
ACCORDING TO

ALL THE WORKS WHICH THEY HAVE SINCE THE DAY THAT I
BROUGHT THEM

UP OUT OF EGYPT, EVEN UNTO THIS DAY; WHEREWITH THEY HAVE
FORSAKEN ME

AND SERVED OTHER GODS; SO DO THEY ALSO UNTO THEE. NOW
THEREFORE HEARKEN

UNTO THEIR VOICE, HOWBEIT, PROTEST SOLEMNLY UNTO THEM AND
SHEW THEM

THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER THEM, I.E.
not of any

particular king, but the general manner of the kings of
the earth,

whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And
notwithstanding the

great distance of time and difference of manners, the
character is

still in fashion. AND SAMUEL TOLD ALL THE WORDS OF THE
LORD UNTO

THE PEOPLE, THAT ASKED OF HIM A KING. AND HE SAID, THIS
SHALL BE

THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER YOU; HE WILL
TAKE YOUR

SONS AND APPOINT THEM FOR HIMSELF, FOR HIS CHARIOTS, AND
TO BE HIS

HORSEMAN, AND SOME SHALL RUN BEFORE HIS CHARIOTS (this
description

agrees with the present mode of impressing men) AND HE
WILL APPOINT

HIM CAPTAINS OVER THOUSANDS AND CAPTAINS OVER FIFTIES,
AND WILL SET THEM

TO EAR HIS GROUND AND REAP HIS HARVEST, AND TO MAKE HIS
INSTRUMENTS OF WAR,

AND INSTRUMENTS OF HIS CHARIOTS; AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR
DAUGHTERS

TO BE CONFECTIONARIES, AND TO BE COOKS AND TO BE BAKERS

(this describes the expense and luxury as well as the
oppression

of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR FIELDS AND YOUR OLIVE
YARDS,

EVEN THE BEST OF THEM, AND GIVE THEM TO HIS SERVANTS;

AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR SEED, AND OF YOUR
VINEYARDS,

AND GIVE THEM TO HIS OFFICERS AND TO HIS SERVANTS

(by which we see that bribery, corruption, and
favouritism

are the standing vices of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE THE
TENTH

OF YOUR MEN SERVANTS, AND YOUR MAID SERVANTS, AND YOUR

GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN AND YOUR ASSES, AND PUT THEM TO HIS
WORK;

AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR SHEEP, AND YE SHALL BE
HIS SERVANTS,

AND YE SHALL CRY OUT IN THAT DAY BECAUSE OF YOUR KING
WHICH YE SHALL HAVE

CHOSEN, _AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY._

This accounts for the continuation of monarchy;

neither do the characters of the few good kings which
have lived since,

either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of
the origin;

the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him

OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN after God’s own
heart.

NEVERTHELESS THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO OBEY THE VOICE OF
SAMUEL,

AND THEY SAID, NAY, BUT WE WILL HAVE A KING OVER US,

THAT WE MAY BE LIKE ALL THE NATIONS, AND THAT OUR KING
MAY JUDGE US,

AND GO OUT BEFORE US, AND FIGHT OUR BATTLES.

Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose;
he set before

them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and
seeing them fully

bent on their folly, he cried out, I WILL CALL UNTO THE
LORD,

AND HE SHALL SEND THUNDER AND RAIN (which then was a
punishment,

being in the time of wheat harvest) THAT YE MAY PERCEIVE
AND SEE

THAT YOUR WICKEDNESS IS GREAT WHICH YE HAVE DONE IN THE
SIGHT OF THE LORD,

AND THE LORD SENT THUNDER AND RAIN THAT DAY, AND ALL THE
PEOPLE GREATLY

FEARED THE LORD AND SAMUEL. AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID UNTO
SAMUEL,

PRAY FOR THY SERVANTS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD THAT WE DIE
NOT,

FOR _WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A
KING._

These portions of scripture are direct and positive.

They admit of no equivocal construction. That the
Almighty

hath here entered his protest against monarchical
government,

is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good
reason

to believe that there is as much of kingcraft, as
priestcraft,

in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish
countries.

For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of
government.

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
succession;

and as the first is a degradation and lessening of
ourselves,

so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult

and an imposition on posterity. For all men being
originally equals,

no ONE by BIRTH could have a right to set up his own
family in perpetual

preference to all others for ever, and though himself
might deserve SOME

decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his
descendants might

be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest
NATURAL proofs

of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that
nature disapproves it,

otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into
ridicule by

giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.

Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other
public honours

than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those
honours could have

no power to give away the right of posterity. And though
they might

say, “We chooses you for OUR head,” they could
not, without manifest

injustice to their children, say, “that your
children and your

children’s children shall reign over OURS for ever.”
Because such

an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in
the next

succession put them under the government of a rogue or a
fool.

Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever
treated

hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those
evils,

which when once established is not easily removed;

many submit from fear, others from superstition,

and the more powerful part shares with the king the
plunder of the rest.

This is supposing the present race of kings in the world
to have had an

honourable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that
could we take

off the dark covering of antiquities, and trace them to
their first rise,

that we should find the first of them nothing better than
the

principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage
manners

or preeminence in subtlety obtained the title of chief
among plunderers;

and who by increasing in power, and extending his
depredations,

overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their
safety

by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no
idea

of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because
such a perpetual

exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free
and unrestrained

principles they professed to live by. Wherefore,
hereditary succession

in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a
matter of claim,

but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no
records were

extant in those days, and traditional history stuffed
with fables,

it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations,
to trump up some

superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to
cram hereditary

right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the
disorders which threatened,

or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the
choice of a new one

(for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly)
induced many

at first to favour hereditary pretensions; by which means
it happened, as it

hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to
as a convenience,

was afterwards claimed as a right.

England, since the conquest, hath known some few good
monarchs,

but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet
no man in his

senses can say that their claim under William the
Conqueror is a very

honourable one. A French bastard landing with an armed
banditti, and

establishing himself king of England against the consent
of the natives,

is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It
certainly hath no

divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much
time in exposing

the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak
as to believe it,

let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and
welcome.

I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their
devotion.

Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came
at first? The

question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot,
by election,

or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it
establishes a

precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary
succession. Saul was

by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither
does it appear

from that transaction there was any intention it ever
should be. If the

first king of any country was by election, that likewise
establishes a

precedent for the next; for to say, that the RIGHT of all
future

generations is taken away, by the act of the first
electors,

in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of
kings for ever,

hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine
of original sin,

which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam;

and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other,

hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam
all sinned,

and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the
one all mankind

we re subjected to Satan, and in the other to
Sovereignty; as our innocence

was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and
as both disable

us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it
unanswerably

follows that original sin and hereditary succession are
parallels.

Dishonourable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most
subtle sophist

cannot produce a juster simile.

As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend
it; and that

William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be
contradicted.

The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not

bear looking into.

But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of
hereditary succession

which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and
wise men

it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it
opens a door

to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in
it the nature

of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to
reign,

and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the
rest

of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;

and the world they act in differs so materially from the
world at large,

that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true
interests,

and when they succeed to the government are frequently
the most ignorant

and unfit of any throughout the dominions.

Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that
the throne

is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all
which time

the regency, acting under the cover a king, have every
opportunity

and inducement to betray their trust. The same national
misfortune happens,

when a king, worn out with age and infirmity , enters the
last stage

of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes
a prey

to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the
follies

either of age or infancy.

The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in
favour of

hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation
from civil wars;

and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is
the most

barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole
history of

England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors
have reigned

in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which
time there

have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight
civil wars

and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for
peace, it

makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it
seems to stand on.

The contest for monarchy and succession, between the
houses of York

and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many
years.

Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges,
were fought between

Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who
in his turn

was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of
war and the

temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are
the ground

of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a
prison to a palace,

and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign
land; yet,

as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry
in his turn

was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to
succeed him.

The parliament always following the strongest side.

This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and
was not entirely

extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families
were united.

Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.

In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or
that kingdom only)

but the world in blood and ashes. Tis a form of
government which the word

of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find
that in some

countries they have none; and after sauntering away their
lives

without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the
nation,

withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to
tread

the same idle ground. In absolute monarchies the whole
weight of business,

civil and military, lies on the king; the children of
Israel in their

request for a king, urged this plea “that he may
judge us, and go out

before us and fight our battles.” But in countries
where he is neither

a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be
puzzled to know

what IS his business.

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the
less business

there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a
proper name

for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls
it a republic;

but in its present state it is unworthy of the name,
because the corrupt

influence of the crown, by having all the places in its
disposal,

hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out
the virtue

of the house of commons (the republican part in the
constitution)

that the government of England is nearly as monarchical
as that of France

or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding
them.

For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of
the constitution

of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of
choosing an house

of commons from out of their own body – and it is easy to
see that when

republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the
constitution

of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the
republic,

the crown hath engrossed the commons?

In England a king hath little more to do than to make war

and give away places; which in plain terms, is to
impoverish

the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty
business indeed

for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a
year for,

and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one
honest man

to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned
ruffians

that ever lived.

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple
facts,

plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other
Preliminaries

to settle with the reader, than that he will divest
himself of prejudice

and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings
to determine

for themselves; that he will put ON, or rather that he
will not put OFF

the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his
views beyond

the present day.

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle
between

England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in
the controversy,

from different motives, and with various designs; but all
have been

ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as
the last

resource, decide this contest; the appeal was the choice
of the king,

and the continent hath accepted the challenge.

It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho’ an

able minister was not without his faults) that on his
being

attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his
measures

were only of a temporary kind, replied “THEY WILL
LAST MY TIME.”

Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the
colonies

in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be
remembered

by future generations with detestation.

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ‘Tis
not

the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom,
but of

a continent – of at least one eighth part of the
habitable globe.

‘Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age;
posterity are

virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or
less

affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings
now.

Now is the seed-time of continental union, faith and
honour.

The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with
the point

of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound
will enlarge

with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown
characters.

By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new aera

for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath
arisen.

All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of
April,

i. e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the
almanacs

of the last year; which, though proper then are
superseded

and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates
on

either side of the question then, terminated in one and
the

same point. viz. a union with Great-Britain: the only
difference

between the parties was the method of effecting it; the
one

proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far

happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath

withdrawn her influence.

As much hath been said of the advantages of
reconciliation which,

like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as
we were,

it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side

of the argument, and inquire into some of the many
material injuries

which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain,

by being connected with, and dependent on Great Britain:

To examine that connection and dependence, on the
principles

of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust
to,

if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant.

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath

flourished under her former connection with Great Britain

that the same connection is necessary towards her future

happiness, and will always have the same effect.

Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of
argument.

We may as well assert that because a child has thrived
upon milk

that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty
years

of our lives is to become a precedent for the next
twenty.

But even this is admitting more than is true, for I
answer roundly,

that America would have flourished as much, and probably
much more,

had no European power had any thing to do with her. The
commerce,

by which she hath enriched herself, are the necessaries
of life,

and will always have a market while eating is the custom
of Europe.

But she has protected us, say some. That she has
engrossed

us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as
well

as her own is admitted, and she would have defended
Turkey

from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and
dominion.

Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices,

and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have
boasted

the protection of Great Britain, without considering,

that her motive was INTEREST not ATTACHMENT; that she

did not protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT,

but from HER ENEMIES on HER OWN ACCOUNT, from those

who had no quarrel with us on any OTHER ACCOUNT,

and who will always be our enemies on the SAME ACCOUNT.

Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent,

or the continent throw off the dependence, and we should

be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with
Britain.

The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against
connections.

It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the
colonies

have no relation to each other but through the parent
country,

i. e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for
the rest,

are sister colonies by the way of England; this is
certainly

a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is
the

nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may
so call it.

France and Spain never were. nor perhaps ever will be our
enemies

as AMERICANS, but as our being the subjects of GREAT
BRITAIN.

But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the
more shame

upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young,

nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the
assertion,

if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be
true,

or only partly so and the phrase PARENT or MOTHER COUNTRY

hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his
parasites,

with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias

on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not
England,

is the parent country of America. This new world hath
been the asylum

for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty
from EVERY PART

of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender
embraces of the mother, but

from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of
England,

that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants
from home,

pursues their descendants still.

In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the
narrow limits

of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England)

and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim
brotherhood

with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment.

It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations

we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge

our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town

in England divided into parishes, will naturally
associate most

with his fellow-parishioners (because their interests in
many

cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of
NEIGHBOUR;

if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the
narrow idea

of a street, and salutes him by the name of TOWNSMAN; if
he travel out

of the county, and meet him in any other, he forgets the
minor divisions

of street and town, and calls him COUNTRYMAN, i. e.
COUNTRYMAN;

but if in their foreign excursions they should associate
in France

or any other part of EUROPE, their local remembrance
would be enlarged

into that of ENGLISHMEN. And by a just parity of
reasoning,

all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of
the globe,

are COUNTRYMEN; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden,
when compared

with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger
scale,

which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the
smaller ones;

distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one
third of

the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English
descent.

Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother
country applied

to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and
ungenerous.

But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what
does

it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy,

extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that

reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first

king of England, of the present line (William the
Conqueror)

was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of England are
descendants

from the same country; therefore, by the same method of
reasoning,

England ought to be governed by France.

Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and
the colonies,

that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world.
But this

is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain,
neither do

the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would
never suffer

itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the
British arms

in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides what have we to do with setting the world at
defiance?

Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will
secure us

the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is
the

interest of all Europe to have America a FREE PORT. Her
trade

will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold
and silver

secure her from invaders.

I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to
shew,

a single advantage that this continent can reap, by being
connected

with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single
advantage

is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market
in Europe,

and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where
we will.

But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that
connection,

are without number; and our duty to mankind at large,

as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the
alliance:

Because, any submission to, or dependence on Great
Britain,

tends directly to involve this continent in European wars
and quarrels;

and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise
seek our friendship,

and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As
Europe is our market

for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with
any part of it.

It is the true interest of America to steer clear of
European contentions,

which she never can do, while by her dependence on
Britain,

she is made the make-weight in the scale of British
politics.

Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at
peace,

and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power,

the trade of America goes to ruin, BECAUSE OF HER
CONNECTION WITH ENGLAND.

The next war may not turn out like the last, and should
it not,

the advocates for reconciliation now, will be wishing for
separation then,

because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy
than a man of war.

Every thing that is right or natural pleads for
separation. The blood

of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘TIS
TIME TO PART.

Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed
England and America,

is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the
one, over the other,

was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at
which the continent

was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the
manner in which it

was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation
was preceded

by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty
graciously meant

to open a sanctuary to the Persecuted in future years,

when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

The authority of Great Britain over this continent,

is a form of government, which sooner or later must have
an end:

And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking
forward

under the painful and positive conviction, that what he
calls

“the present constitution” is merely temporary.
As parents,

we can have no joy, knowing that THIS GOVERNMENT is not
sufficiently

lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to
posterity:

And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the
next generation

into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we
use them meanly

and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty
rightly,

we should take our children in our hand, and fix our
station a few years

farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect,
which a few

present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.

Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary
offense,

yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse
the doctrine

of reconciliation, may be included within the following
descriptions.

Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who
CANNOT see;

prejudiced men, who WILL NOT see; and a certain set of
moderate men,

who think better of the European world than it deserves;

and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will
be

the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all
the other three.

It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the
scene of sorrow;

the evil is not sufficient brought to their doors to make
THEM

feel the precariousness with which all American property
is possessed.

But let our imaginations transport us far a few moments
to Boston,

that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and
instruct us

for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no
trust.

The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few
months ago

were in ease and affluence, have now, no other
alternative than

to stay and starve, or turn and beg. Endangered by the
fire

of their friends if they continue within the city, and
plundered

by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present
condition

they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in

a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed

to the fury of both armies.

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
offenses

of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to
call out,

“COME, COME, WE SHALL BE FRIENDS AGAIN, FOR ALL
THIS.”

But examine the passions and feelings of mankind,

Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of
nature,

and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honor,

and faithfully serve the power that hath carried

fire and sword into your land? If yon cannot do all
these,

then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay

bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with
Britain,

whom you can neither love nor honor will be forced and
unnatural,

and being formed only on the plan of present convenience,

will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched
than the first.

But if you say, you can still pass the violations over,
then I ask,

Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been
destroyed before

your face! Are your wife and children destitute of a bed
to lie on,

or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by
their hands,

and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor! If you
have not,

then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you
have,

and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are
you unworthy

the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and
whatever

may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of
a coward,

and the spirit of a sycophant.

This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying

them by those feelings and affections which nature
justifies,

and without which, we should be incapable of discharging

the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of
it.

I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking
revenge,

but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we

may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in
the

power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she
do

not conquer herself by DELAY and TIMIDITY. The present
winter

is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or
neglected,

the whole continent will partake of the misfortune;

and there is no punishment which that man will not
deserve,

be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the
means

of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of
things,

to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this

continent can longer remain subject to any external
power.

The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The
utmost

stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a
plan

short of separation, which can promise the continent even

a year’s security. Reconciliation is NOW a fallacious
dream.

Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot
supply

her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never
can true

reconcilement grow, where wounds of deadly hate have
pierced so deep.”

Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
prayers

have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to
convince us,

that nothing Batters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in
Kings

more than repeated petitioning-and nothing hath
contributed

more than that very measure to make the Kings of Europe
absolute:

Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but
blows will do,

for God’s sake, let us come to a final separation, and
not leave

the next generation to be cutting throats, under the
violated

unmeaning names of parent and child.

To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and
visionary,

we thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a year

or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that
nations,

which have been once defeated, will never renew the
quarrel.

As to government matters, it is not in the power of
Britain

to do this continent justice: The business of it will
soon

be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any
tolerable

degree of convenience, by a power so distant from us, and
so

very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they
cannot

govern us. To be always running three or four thousand
miles

with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months

for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six
more

to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as
folly

and childishness–There was a time when it was proper,

and there is a proper time for it to cease.

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves,

are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their
care;

but there is something very absurd, in supposing a
continent

to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance
hath

nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet,

and as England and America, with respect to each other,

reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they
belong

to different systems; England to Europe, America to
itself.

I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or
resentment

to espouse the doctrine of separation and independance;

I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded

that it is the true interest of this continent to be so;

that every thing short of THAT is mere patchwork,

that it can afford no lasting felicity,

–that it is leaving the sword to our children,

and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more,

a little farther, would have rendered this continent

the glory of the earth.

As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination
towards

a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be
obtained

worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal

to the expense of blood and treasure we have been already
put to.

The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just
proportion

to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole
detestable junto,

is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A
temporary stoppage

of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have
sufficiently balanced

the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such
repeals been obtained;

hut if the whole continent must take up arms, if every
man must be a soldier,

it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a
contemptible ministry only.

Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if
that is all

we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay

a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have
always considered

the independancy of this continent, as an event, which
sooner or later

must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the
continent to maturity,

the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the
breaking out of hostilities,

it was not worth while to have disputed a matter, which
time would have

finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest;
otherwise, it is like

wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the
trespasses of a tenant,

whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher
for reconciliation

than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775,
but the moment

the event of that day was made known, I rejected the
hardened,

sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain
the wretch,

that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can
unfeelingly hear

of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood
upon his soul.

But admitting that matters were now made up, what would
be the event?

I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several
reasons.

FIRST. The powers of governing still remaining in the
hands

of the king, he will have a negative over the whole
legislation

of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an

inveterate enemy to liberty. and discovered such a thirst

for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to
say to

these colonies, “YOU SHALL MAKE NO LAWS BUT WHAT I
PLEASE.’

And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant as not
to know,

that according to what is called the PRESENT
CONSTITUTION,

that this continent can make no laws but what the king
gives leave to;

and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that
(considering what

has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but
such as suit

HIS purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the
want

of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us
in England.

After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be
any doubt,

but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep
this continent

as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward
we shall

go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or
ridiculously petitioning.

–WE are already greater than the king wishes us to be,
and will he not

hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter
to one point.

Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper
power to govern us?

Whoever says No to this question, is an INDEPENDANT, for
independancy

means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws,

or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent
hath,

or can have, shall tell us “THERE SHALL BE NO LAWS
BUT SUCH AS I LIKE.”

But the king you will say has a negative in England; the
people there

can make no laws without his consent. In point of right
and good order,

there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of
twenty-one

(which hath often happened) shall say to several millions
of people,

older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act
of yours to be law.

But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I
will never cease

to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that
England being the King’s

residence, and America not so, makes quite another case.
The king’s negative

HERE is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be
in England,

for THERE he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill
for putting England

into as strong a state of defense as possible, and in
America he would never

suffer such a bill to be passed.

America is only a secondary object in the system of
British politics,

England consults the good of THIS country, no farther
than it answers

her OWN purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to
suppress

the growth of OURS in every case which doth not promote
her advantage,

or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we
should soon be in

under such a secondhand government, considering what has
happened!

Men do not change from enemies to friends by the
alteration of a name:

And in order to shew that reconciliation now is a
dangerous doctrine,

I affirm, THAT IT WOULD BE POLICY IN THE KING AT THIS
TIME, TO REPEAL

THE ACTS FOR THE SAKE OF REINSTATING HIMSELF IN THE
GOVERNMENT

OF THE PROVINCES; in order, that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY
CRAFT AND SUBTLETY,

IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE
IN THE SHORT ONE.

Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.

SECONDLY. That as even the best terms, which we can
expect to obtain,

can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a
kind of government

by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the
colonies come of age,

so the general face and state of things, in the interim,
will be unsettled

and unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to
come to a country

whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who
is every day tottering

on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of
the present

inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispense
of their effects,

and quit the continent.

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing
but independence,

i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace
of the continent

and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the
event of a

reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than
probable,

that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other,
the consequences

of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of
Britain.

Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity;
(thousands more will

probably suffer the same fate) Those men have other
feelings than us who

have nothing suffered. All they NOW possess is liberty,
what they before

enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing
more to lose,

they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of
the colonies,

towards a British government, will be like that of a
youth,

who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little
about her.

And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no
government at all,

and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray
what is it that

Britain can do, whose power will he wholly on paper.
should a civil

tumult break out the very day after reconciliation! I
have heard

some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without
thinking, that they

dreaded an independence, fearing that it would produce
civil wars.

It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that

is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread
from a patched up

connection than from independence. I make the sufferers
case my own,

and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my
property destroyed,

and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of
injuries, I could never

relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself
bound thereby.

The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order
and obedience

to continental government, as is sufficient to make every
reasonable

person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the
least pretence

for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are
truly childish

and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for
superiority

over another.

Where there are no distinctions there can be no
superiority,

perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of
Europe

are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and
Switzerland

are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical
governments,

it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a
temptation

to enterprising ruffians at HOME; and that degree of
pride and insolence

ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture
with foreign powers,

in instances, where a republican government, by being
formed on more

natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.

If there is any true cause of fear respecting
independence,

it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see
their way out–

Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the
following hints;

at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other
opinion

of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving
rise to

something better. Could the straggling thoughts of
individuals

be collected, they would frequently form materials for
wise

and able men to improve into useful matter.

LET the assemblies be annual, with a President only.

The representation more equal. Their business wholly
domestic,

and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.

Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten,
convenient districts,

each district to send a proper number of delegates to
Congress,

so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in Congress

will be at least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose
a president

by the following method. When the delegates are met, let
a colony be taken

from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let
the whole Congress

choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates
of that province.

In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from
twelve only, omitting

that colony from which the president was taken in the
former Congress, and so

proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had
their proper rotation.

And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is
satisfactorily

just not less than three fifths of the Congress to be
called a majority–

He that will promote discord, under a government so
equally formed as this,

would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.

But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in
what manner,

this business must first arise, and as it seems most
agreeable

and consistent, that it should come from some
intermediate body

between the governed and the governors, that is, between
the Congress

and the people. let a CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE be held, in
the following manner,

and for the following purpose.

A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two
for each colony.

Two Members from each House of Assembly, or Provincial
Convention;

and five representatives of the people at large, to be
chosen in the capital

city or town of each province, for and in behalf of the
whole province,

by as many qualified voters as shall think proper to
attend from

all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more
convenient,

the representatives may be chosen in two or three of the
most populous

parts thereof. In this conference, thus assembled, will
be united,

the two grand principles of business KNOWLEDGE and POWER.
The members

of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had
experience in

national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors,
and the whole,

being empowered by the people, will have a truly legal
authority.

The conferring members being met, let their business be
to frame

a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, Or Charter of the United Colonies;

(answering to what is called the Magna Carta of England)
fixing

the number and manner of choosing members of Congress,
members of Assembly,

with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of
business and jurisdiction

between them: (Always remembering, that our strength is
continental,

not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all
men, and above

all things, the free exercise of religion, according to
the dictates

of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for
a charter

to contain. Immediately after which, the said Conference
to dissolve,

and the bodies which shall be chosen comformable to the
said charter,

to be the legislators and governors of this continent for
the time being:

Whose peace and happiness may God preserve, Amen.

Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this

or some similar purpose, I offer them the following
extracts

or that wise observer on governments DRAGONETTI.

“The science” says he “of the politician
consists

in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom.

Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages,

who should discover a mode of government that contained

the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least

national expense. [Dragonetti on virtue and rewards]

But where, says some, is the King of America? I’ll tell
you.

Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of
mankind

like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not
appear

to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be
solemnly

set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought
forth

placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be
placed thereon,

by which the world may know, that so far we approve of
monarchy,

that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute
governments

the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be
King;

and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use
should

afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the
ceremony,

be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right
it is.

A government of our own is our natural right: And when a
man seriously

reacts on the precariousness of human affairs, he will
become convinced,

that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a
constitution

of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it
in our power,

than to trust such an interesting event to time and
chance.

If we omit it now, some [Thomas Anello otherwise
Massanello

a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his
countrymen

in the public marketplace, against the oppressions of the
Spaniards,

to whom the place was then subject prompted them to
revolt,

and in the space of a day became king.] Massanello may
hereafter arise,

who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect
together the desperate

and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the
powers of government,

may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a
deluge. Should the

government of America return again into the hands of
Britain, the tottering

situation of things will be a temptation for some
desperate adventurer

to try his fortune; and in such a case, that relief can
Britain give?

Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be
done;

and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under

the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose
independence now,

ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal
tyranny,

by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are
thousands,

and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious

to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish
power,

which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy
us;

the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally
by us,

and treacherously by them.

To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason
forbids us

to have faith, and our affections wounded through a
thousand pores

instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day
wears out

the little remains of kindred between us and them, and
can there

be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires,

the affection will increase, or that we shall agree
better,

when we have ten times more and greater concerns to
quarrel over than ever?

Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye
restore to us the

time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former
innocence?

Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last
cord

now is broken, the people of England are presenting
addresses against us.

There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would
cease to be nature

if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of
his mistress,

as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The
Almighty hath

implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good
and wise purposes.

They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They
distinguish us

from the herd of common animals. The social compact would
dissolve,

and justice be extirpated the earth, or have only a
casual existence

were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber,
and the murderer,

would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which
our tempers sustain,

provoke us into justice.

O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny,

but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world
is overrun with

oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe.
Asia, and Africa,

have long expelled her–Europe regards her like a
stranger, and England

hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the
fugitive, and prepare

in time an asylum for mankind.

OF THE PRESENT _ABILITY_ OF _AMERICA_, WITH SOME
MISCELLANEOUS _REFLECTIONS_

I have never met with a man, either in England or
America, who hath not

confessed his opinion that a separation between the
countries,

would take place one time or other: And there is no
instance, in which we

have shewn less judgement, than in endeavouring to
describe, what we call

the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for
independence.

As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their
opinion of the time,

let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general
survey of things,

and endeavour, if possible, to find out the VERY time.
But we need not

go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the TIME HATH
FOUND US.

The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things
prove the fact.

It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great
strength lies;

yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force
of all the world.

The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of
armed and

disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just
arrived at that

pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to
support itself,

and the whole, when united, can accomplish the matter,
and either more,

or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our
land force is

already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be
insensible,

that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to
be built,

while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore, we
should be no

forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we
are now;

but the truth is, we should be less so, because the
timber of the country

is every day diminishing, and that, which will remain at
last,

will be far off and difficult to procure.

Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her
sufferings under

the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more
seaport towns

we had, the more should we have both to defend and to
lose. Our present

numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no
man need be idle.

The diminution of trade affords an army, and the
necessities of an army

create a new trade.

Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this
account will

serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but
leave posterity

with a settled form of government, an independent
constitution of its own,

the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend
millions for the sake

of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the
present ministry only,

is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the
utmost cruelty;

because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a
debt upon their backs,

from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is
unworthy

of a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a
narrow heart

and a peddling politician.

The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard, if
the work

be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a
debt.

A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no
interest,

is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a
debt of upwards

of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she
pays upwards

of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her
debt,

she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and
without a navy;

yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt,

could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is
not worth,

at this time, more than three millions and an half
sterling.

The first and second editions of this pamphlet were
published without

the following calculations, which are now given as a
proof that the

above estimation of the navy is just.

[See Entic's naval history, intro. page 56.]

The charge of building a ship of each rate, and
furnishing her with masts,

yards, sails and rigging, together with a proportion of
eight months

boatswain’s and carpenter’s seastores, as calculated by
Mr. Burchett,

Secretary to the navy.

[pounds Sterling]

For a ship of a 100 guns – 35,553

90 – - 29,886

80 – - 23,638

70 – - 17,795

60 – - 14,197

50 – - 10,606

40 – - 7,558

30 – - 5,846

20 – - 3,710

And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost
rather, of

the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it
was

at its greatest glory consisted of the following ships
and guns:

Ships. Guns. Cost of one. Cost of all

6 – 100 – 35,553 – 213,318

12 – 90 – 29,886 – 358,632

12 – 80 – 23,638 – 283,656

43 – 70 – 17,785 – 764,755

35 – 60 – 14,197 – 496,895

40 – 50 – 10,606 – 424,240

45 – 40 – 7,558 – 340,110

58 – 20 – 3,710 – 215,180

85 Sloops, bombs,

and fireships, one 2,000 170,000

with another, _________

Cost 3,266,786

Remains for guns, _________ 233,214

_________

3,500,000

No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so
internally capable

of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and
cordage are her

natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas
the Dutch,

who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war
to the Spaniards

and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of their
materials they use.

We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of
commerce, it being

the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best
money we can lay out.

A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is
that nice point

in national policy, in which commerce and protection are
united. Let us build;

if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means
replace our paper currency

with ready gold and silver.

In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into
great errors;

it is not necessary that one fourth part should he
sailors.

The Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest
engagement

of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on
board,

though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred.

A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a
sufficient number

of active landmen in the common work of a ship.
Wherefore, we never

can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than
now,

while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up,

and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war
of seventy

and eighty guns were built forty years ago in
New-England,

and why not the same now? Ship-building is America’s
greatest pride,

and in which she will in time excel the whole world.

The great empires of the east are mostly inland,

and consequently excluded from the possibility of
rivalling her.

Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe
hath either

such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of
materials.

Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the
other;

to America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast
empire of Russia

is almost shut out from the sea: wherefore, her boundless
forests, her tar,

iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce.

In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We
are not the

little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that
time we might

have trusted our property in the streets, or fields
rather; and slept

securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows.
The case now

is altered, and our methods of defense ought to improve
with our increase

of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might
have come up

the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under
instant contribution,

for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened
to other places.

Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen
guns might have

robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a
million of money.

These are circumstances which demand our attention, and
point out

the necessity of naval protection.

Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up
Britain,

she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean,

that she shall keep a navy in our harbours for that
purpose?

Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath
endeavoured

to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to
defend us.

Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
friendship;

and ourselves after a long and brave resistance, be at
last cheated

into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted
into our harbours,

I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or
four thousand miles

off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none
at all.

Wherefore, if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why
not do it for ourselves?

The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable,
but not

a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service,
numbers of them

not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in
the list,

f only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part
of such as are

fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one
time.

The East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and
other parts

over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands
upon her navy.

From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have
contracted a false

notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as
if we should

have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that
reason, supposed,

that we must have one as large; which not being instantly
practicable,

have been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to
discourage

our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth
than this;

for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval
force of Britain,

she would be by far an overmatch for her; because, as we
neither have,

nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be
employed on

our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two
to one the advantage

of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail
over,

before they could attack us, and the same distance to
return

in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain, by
her fleet,

hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a
one over her trade

to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighbourhood
of the continent,

is entirely at its mercy.

Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force
in time of peace,

if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant
navy.

If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and
employ in their

service ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty
guns,

(the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to
the merchants)

fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guardships on
constant duty,

would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without
burdening ourselves

with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of
suffering their fleet,

in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite
the sinews

of commerce and defense is sound policy; for when our
strength

and our riches play into each other’s hand, we need fear
no external enemy.

In almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp
flourishes even

to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron
is superior

to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any
in the world.

Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder
we are every

day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving.
Resolution is our

inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken
us. Wherefore,

what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From
Britain we can

expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the
government

of America again, this Continent will not be worth living
in.

Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be
constantly happening;

and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his
life to reduce his

own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference
between Pennsylvania

and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shews
the insignificance

of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing
but Continental

authority can regulate Continental matters.

Another reason why the present time is preferable to all
others, is,

that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is
yet unoccupied,

which instead of being lavished by the king on his
worthless dependants,

may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of
the present debt,

but to the constant support of government. No nation
under heaven hath

such an advantage at this.

The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far

from being against, is an argument in favour of
independance.

We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we
might be less united.

It is a matter worthy of observation, that the mare a
country is peopled,

the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the
ancients far exceeded

the modems: and the reason is evident. for trade being
the consequence

of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to
attend to

anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of
patriotism

and military defence. And history sufficiently informs
us, that the

bravest achievements were always accomplished in the
non-age of a nation.

With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its
spirit. The city

of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to
continued insults

with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose,
the less willing

are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to
fear, and submit

to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a
Spaniel.

Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations
as in individuals.

It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the
Continent into one

government half a century hence. The vast variety of
interests,

occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would
create confusion.

Colony would be against colony. Each being able might
scorn each other’s

assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in
their little

distinctions, the wise would lament, that the union had
not been formed before.

Wherefore, the PRESENT TIME is the TRUE TIME for
establishing it.

The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the
friendship which

is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most
lasting and unalterable.

Our present union is marked with both these characters:
we are young

and we have been distressed; but our concord hath
withstood our troubles,

and fixes a memorable are for posterity to glory in.

The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which
never happens

to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself
into a government.

Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that
means have been

compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead
of making laws

for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form
of government;

whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be
formed first,

and men delegated to execute them afterward but from the
errors of other

nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present
opportunity

–TO BEGIN GOVERNMENT AT THE RIGHT END.

When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them
law at the

point of the sword; and until we consent, that the seat
of government,

in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we
shall be in

danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who
may treat us

in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom?
where our property?

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of
all government,

to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I
know of no other

business which government hath to do therewith, Let a man
throw aside

that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle,
which the niggards

of all professions are willing to part with, and he will
be at delivered

of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of
mean souls,

and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and
conscientiously

believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there
should be diversity

of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field
for our Christian

kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our
religious dispositions

would want matter for probation; and on this liberal
principle, I look

on the various denominations among us, to be like
children of the same family,

differing only, in what is called, their Christian names.

In page forty, I threw out a few thoughts on the
propriety of a

Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints,
not plans)

and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning the
subject,

by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a
bond

of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into,

to support the right of every separate part,

whether of religion, personal freedom, or property.

A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.

In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a
large

and equal representation; and there is no political
matter

which more deserves our attention. A small number of
electors,

or a small number of representatives, are equally
dangerous.

But if the number of the representatives be not only
small,

but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of
this,

I mention the following; when the Associators petition
was before

the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight
members only were present,

all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against
it,

and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this
whole province had

been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is
always exposed to.

The unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made

in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over
the delegates

of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how
they trust power

out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the
Delegates

were put together, which in point of sense and business
would have

dishonoured a schoolboy, and after being approved by a
FEW, a VERY FEW

without doors, were carried into the House, and there
passed

IN BEHALF OF THE WHOLE COLONY; whereas, did the whole
colony know,

with what ill-will that House hath entered on some
necessary public measures,

they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy
of such a trust.

Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which
if continued

would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are
different things.

When the calamities of America required a consultation,
there was no

method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint
persons from

the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose; and the
wisdom with

which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent
from ruin.

But as it is more than probable that we shall never be
without a

CONGRESS, every well wisher to good order, must own, that
the mode

for choosing members of that body, deserves
consideration. And I put it

as a question to those, who make a study of mankind,
whether representation

and election is not too great a power for one and the
same body of men

to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember,

that virtue is not hereditary.

It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent
maxims, and are

frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes, Mr.
Cornwall

(one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition
of the New-York

Assembly with contempt, because THAT House, he said,
consisted but

of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued,
could not

with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his
involuntary honesty.

[Those who would fully understand of what great
consequence a large and equal

representation is to a state, should read Burgh's
political disquisitions.]

TO CONCLUDE, however strange it may appear to some, or
however unwilling

they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and
striking reasons

may be given, to shew, that nothing can settle our
affairs so expeditiously

as an open and determined declaration for independance.
Some of which are,

FIRST. — It is the custom of nations, when any two are
at war,

for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to
step in as mediators,

and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: hut while
America calls

herself the Subject of Great Britain, no power, however
well disposed

she may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our
present state

we may quarrel on for ever.

SECONDLY. — It is unreasonable to suppose, that France
or Spain will

give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only, to make
use of that

assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and
strengthening

the connection between Britain and America; because,
those powers would

be sufferers by the consequences.

THIRDLY. — While we profess ourselves the subjects of
Britain, we must,

in the eye of foreign nations. be considered as rebels.
The precedent

is somewhat dangerous to THEIR PEACE, for men to be in
arms under the name

of subjects; we, on the spot, can solve the paradox: but
to unite resistance

and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for
common understanding.

FOURTHLY. — Were a manifesto to be published, and
despatched

to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have
endured,

and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for
redress;

declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any
longer,

to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of
the British court,

we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all
connections with her;

at the same time, assuring all such courts of our
peaceable disposition

towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade
with them:

Such a memorial would produce more good effects to this
Continent,

than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.

Under our present denomination of British subjects, we
can neither

be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is
against us,

and will be so, until, by an independance, we take rank
with other nations.

These proceedings may at first appear strange and
difficult; but,

like all other steps which we have already passed over,
will in a little time

become familiar and agreeable; and, until an independance
is declared,

the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues
putting off some

unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be
done, hates to

set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted
with

the thoughts of its necessity.

APPENDIX

Since the publication of the first edition of this
pamphlet,

or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the
King’s Speech

made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of
prophecy directed

the birth of this production, it could not have brought
it forth,

at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time.

The bloody mindedness of the one, shew the necessity of
pursuing

the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge.

And the Speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way

for the manly principles of Independance.

Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they

may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the
least

degree of countenance to base and wicked performances;

wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally
follows,

that the King’s Speech, as being a piece of finished
villany,

deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both
by the

Congress and the people. Yet, as the domestic
tranquillity of

a nation, depends greatly, on the CHASTITY of what may
properly

be called NATIONAL MANNERS, it is often better, to pass

some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of
such

new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least
innovation,

on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps,

it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the
King’s

Speech, hath not, before now, suffered a public
execution.

The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better
than

a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common
good,

and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous

method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of
tyrants.

But this general massacre of mankind. is one of the
privileges,

and the certain consequence of Kings; for as nature knows
them NOT,

they know NOT HER, and although they are beings of our
OWN creating,

they know not US, and are become the gods of their
creators.

The Speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is
not calculated

to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived
by it.

Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves
us at no loss:

And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading,
that He,

who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored
Indian,

is less a Savage than the King of Britain.

Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining
jesuitical piece,

fallaciously called, “THE ADDRESS OF THE PEOPLE OF
_ENGLAND_

TO THE INHABITANTS OF _AMERICA_,” hath, perhaps,
from a vain supposition,

that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp
and description

of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the
real character

of the present one: “But” says this writer,
“if you are inclined to pay

compliments to an administration, which we do not
complain of,”

(meaning the Marquis of Rockingham’s at the repeal of the
Stamp Act)

“it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that
prince

by WHOSE _NOD ALONE_ THEY WERE PERMITTED TO DO ANY
THING.”

This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even
without a mask:

And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine,

hath forfeited his claim to rationality an apostate

from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered as
one,

who hath not only given up the proper dignity of man,

but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals,

and contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm.

However, it matters very little now, what the king of
England

either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through
every

moral and human obligation, trampled nature and
conscience

beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional
spirit

of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an
universal

hatred. It is NOW the interest of America to provide for
herself.

She hath already a large and young family, whom it is
more her

duty to take care of, than to be granting away her
property,

to support a power who is become a reproach to the names

of men and christians–YE, whose office it is to watch
over

the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or
denomination

ye are of, as well as ye, who, are more immediately the
guardians

of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native
country

uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret
wish

a separation–But leaving the moral part to private
reflection,

I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the
following heads.

First. That it is the interest of America to be separated
from Britain.

Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,

RECONCILIATION OR INDEPENDANCE? With some occasional
remarks.

In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper,

produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most
experienced men

on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head,
are not yet

publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position:

For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited
in its commerce,

and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can
ever arrive

at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what
opulence is;

and although the progress which she hath made stands
unparalleled

in the history of other nations, it is but childhood,

compared with what she would be capable of arriving at,

had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in
her own hands.

England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do
her no good,

were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating
on a matter,

which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the
commerce

and not the conquest of America, by which England is to
he benefited,

and that would in a great measure continue, were the
countries

as independant of each other as France and Spain; because
in many articles,

neither can go to a better market. But it is the
independance of this country

on Britain or any other, which is now the main and only
object worthy

of contention, and which, like all other truths
discovered by necessity,

will appear clearer and stronger every day.

First. Because it will come to that one time or other.

Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder

it will be to accomplish.

I have frequently amused myself both in public and
private

companies, with silently remarking, the specious errors

of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many

which I have heard, the following seems the most general,
viz.

that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years
hence,

instead of NOW, the Continent would have been more able

to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that
our

military ability, AT THIS TIME, arises from the
experience

gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years
time,

would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would
not,

by that time, have had a General, or even a military
officer left;

and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as
ignorant

of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this
single position,

closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the
present time

is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus–at
the conclusion

of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers;

and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers,

without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time,

must be some particular point between the two extremes,

in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a
proper

increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of
time

is the present time.

The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not
properly

come under the head I first set out with, and to which I
again return

by the following position, viz.

Should affairs he patched up with Britain, and she to
remain the governing

and sovereign power of America, (which, as matters are
now circumstanced,

is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive
ourselves of the very means

of sinking the debt we have, or may contract. The value
of the back lands

which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived
of, by the unjust

extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five
pounds sterling

per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five
millions,

Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny
sterling per acre,

to two millions yearly.

It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be
sunk,

without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved
thereon,

will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the
yearly

expence of government. It matters not how long the debt
is in

paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the
discharge

of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for
the time

being, will be the continental trustees. .

I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the
easiest

and most practicable plan, RECONCILIATION or lNDEPENDANCE;

With some occasional remarks.

He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten
out of his argument,

and on that ground, I answer GENERALLY–THAT _INDEPENDANCE_

BEING A _SINGLE SIMPLE LINE,_ CONTAINED WITHIN OURSELVES;

AND RECONCILIATION, A MATTER EXCEEDINGLY PERPLEXED AND
COMPLICATED,

AND IN WHICH, A TREACHEROUS CAPRICIOUS COURT IS TO
INTERFERE,

GIVES THE ANSWER WITHOUT A DOUBT.

The present state of America is truly alarming to every
man who is

capable of reflexion. Without law, without government,
without any

other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted
by courtesy.

Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment,
which,

is nevertheless subject to change, and which, every
secret enemy is

endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is,
Legislation

without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution
without a name;

and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance
contending

for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the
case never

existed before; and who can tell what may be the event?
The property

of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of
things. The mind

of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed
object before

them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.
Nothing is criminal;

there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one
thinks himself

at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not
have assembled

offensively, had they known that their lives, by that
act, were forfeited

to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be
drawn, between,

English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of
America taken in arms.

The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors.

The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.

Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness
in some

of our proceedings which gives encouragement to
dissensions.

The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if
something

is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing,

and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither
RECONCILIATION

nor INDEPENDANCE will be practicable. The king and his
worthless

adherents are got at their old game of dividing the
Continent,

and there are not wanting among us, Printers, who will be
busy

in spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and
hypocritical letter

which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York
papers,

and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are
men

who want either judgment or honesty.

It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of
reconciliation:

But do such men seriously consider, how difficult the
task is, and how

dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide
thereon. Do they

take within their view, all the various orders of men
whose situation

and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be
considered therein.

Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose
ALL

is ALREADY gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted ALL
for the defence

of his country. If their ill judged moderation be suited
to their own

private situations only, regardless of others, the event
will convince them,

that “they are reckoning without their Host.”

Put us, says some, on the footing we were on in
sixty-three:

To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of
Britain

to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it
were,

and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable
question,

By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be
kept

to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the
present,

may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretense,

of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted;

and in that case, Where is our redress?–No going to law

with nations; cannon are the barristers of Crowns;

and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the
suit.

To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not
sufficient,

that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that
our circumstances,

likewise, be put on the same state; Our burnt and
destroyed towns repaired

or built up, our private losses made good, our public
debts

(contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall
be millions

worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a
request,

had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the
heart

and soul of the Continent – but now it is too late,
“The Rubicon is passed.”

Besides, the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal

of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine
law,

and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms

to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side,
doth not

justify the means; for the lives of men are too valuable

to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which
is done

and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our
property

by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire
and sword,

which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And the
instant, in which

such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection
to Britain ought

to have ceased; and the independancy of America, should
have been considered,

as dating its aera from, and published by, THE FIRST
MUSKET THAT WAS FIRED

AGAINST HER. This line is a line of consistency; neither
drawn by caprice,

nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of
events,

of which the colonies were not the authors.

I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely

and well intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there
are

three different ways by which an independancy may
hereafter

be effected; and that ONE of those THREE, will one day or
other,

be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the
people

in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob–It may not
always

happen that OUR soldiers are citizens, and the multitude

a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already
remarked,

is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an
independancy

be brought about by the first of those means, we have
every

opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form
the

noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We
have

it in our power to begin the world over again. A
situation,

similar to the present, hath not happened since the days

of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at
hand,

and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe
contains,

are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of
a few months.

The Reflexion is awful–and in this point of view, How
trifling,

how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a
few weak

or interested men appear, when weighed against the
business of a world.

Should we neglect the present favourable and inviting
period,

and an Independance be hereafter effected by any other
means,

we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those
rather,

whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually
opposing the measure,

without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons
to be given

in support of Independance, which men should rather
privately think of,

than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating
whether

we shall be independant or not, but, anxious to
accomplish it on a firm,

secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is
not yet began upon.

Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories
(if such beings

yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most
solicitous to promote it;

for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected
them from

popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of
government,

will be the only certain means of continuing it securely
to them.

WHEREFORE, if they have not virtue enough to be WHIGS,

they ought to have prudence enough to wish for
Independance.

In short, Independance is the only BOND that can tye and
keep

us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears
will

be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as
well,

as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper
footing,

to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude,

that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by
treating

with the American states for terms of peace, than with
those,

whom she denominates, “rebellious subjects,”
for terms of accommodation.

It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for
conquest, and our

backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have,
without any good

effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress
of our grievances,

let us now try the alternative, by independantly
redressing them ourselves,

and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and
reasonable part

in England, will be still with us; because, peace with
trade, is preferable

to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted,
other courts

may be applied to.

On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath

yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the
former

editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that
either

the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in
favour

of it are too numerous to be opposed. WHEREFORE, instead

of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful
curiosity;

let each of us, hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand
of

friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an
act of

oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former
dissension.

Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none
other

be heard among us, than those of A GOOD CITIZEN,

AN OPEN AND RESOLUTE FRIEND, AND A VIRTUOUS SUPPORTER

OF THE RIGHTS OF MANKIND AND OF THE _FREE AND INDEPENDANT
STATES OF AMERICA_.

To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the
People called Quakers,

or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing the
late piece,

entitled “THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY and PRlNCIPLES of
the People called QUAKERS

renewed, with Respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and
touching the COMMOTIONS

now prevailing in these and other parts of AMERICA
addressed to the

PEOPLE IN GENERAL.”

The Writer of this, is one of those few, who never
dishonours religion

either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination
whatsoever.

To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the
score of religion.

Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to
you as a religious,

but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the
professed Quietude

of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with. As
you have, without

a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the
place of the whole body

of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on
an equal rank

with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting
himself in the place

of all those, who, approve the very writings and
principles, against which,

your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen this
singular situation,

in order, that you might discover in him that presumption
of character

which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor
you can have any

claim or title to POLITICAL REPRESENTATION.

When men have departed from the right way, it is no
wonder that they

stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in
which ye have

managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious
body of men)

is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it
might appear to you,

it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put
unwisely together,

and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and
unjust.

The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four)
we give you

credit for, and expect the same civility from you,
because the love

and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is
the natural,

as well the religious wish of all denominations of men.
And on this ground,

as men labouring to establish an Independant Constitution
of our own, do we

exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. OUR PLAN IS
PEACE FOR EVER.

We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no
real end to it

but in a final separation. We act consistently, because
for the sake

of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we
bear the evils

and burthens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and
will steadily

continue to endeavour, to separate and dissolve a
connexion which hath

already filled our land with blood; and which, while the
name of it

remains, will he the fatal cause of future mischiefs to
both countries.

We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from
pride nor

passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets
and armies, nor

ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our
own vines are

we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is
the violence

committed against us. We view our enemies in the
character of Highwaymen

and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in
the civil law,

are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply
the sword,

in the very case, where you have before now, applied the
halter–

Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in
all and every

part of the continent, with a degree of tenderness which
hath not yet

made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure
that ye mistake not

the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness
of soul, religion;

nor put the BIGOT in the place of the CHRISTIAN.

O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged
principles. If the

bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be
more so,

by all the difference between wilful attack, and
unavoidable defence.

Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean
not to make

a political hobbyhorse of your religion convince the
world thereof,

by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, FOR THEY
LIKEWISE BEAR _ARMS_.

Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St.
James’s,

to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and
Captains

who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the
murdering

miscreants who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye
profess to serve.

Had ye the honest soul of BARCLAY ye would preach
repentance to YOUR king;

Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of
eternal ruin.

["Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou
knowest what it is

to be banished thy native country, to be over-ruled as
well as to rule,

and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast
reason to know

how hateful the oppressor is both to God and man: If
after all these warnings

and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with
all thy heart,

but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and
give up thyself

to fallow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy
condemnation.--

Against which snare, as well as the temptation of those
who may

or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most
excellent and prevalent

remedy will be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ
which shineth

in thy conscience, and which neither can, nor will
flatter thee,

nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy
sins."--Barclay's address to Charles II.]

Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the
injured

and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers,
would cry aloud

and SPARE NONE. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither
endeavour to make

us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing
upon yourselves;

for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain
against you because

ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT
Quakers.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of
your testimony,

and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was
reduced to,

and comprehended in, THE ACT OF BEARING ARMS, and that by
the people only.

Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience;
because,

the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity–And
it is exceedingly

difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended
scruples;

because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the
very instant

that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this
world, are nevertheless,

hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an
appetite as keen

as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the
third page

of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please
the Lord, he maketh

even his enemies to be at peace with him”; is very
unwisely chosen

on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the
king’s ways

(whom ye are desirous of supporting) do NOT please the
Lord, otherwise,

his reign would be in peace.

I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and
that, for which

all the foregoing seems only an introduction viz.

“It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since
we were called to

profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our
consciences unto

this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and
governments,

is God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to
himself:

And that it is not our business to have any hand or
contrivance therein;

nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to
plot and contrive

the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the
king, and safety

of our nation. and good of all men – That we may live a
peaceable and

quiet life, in all godliness and honesty; UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT WHICH GOD

IS PLEASED TO SET OVER US” – If these are REALLY
your principles why

do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which
ye call

God’s Work, to be managed by himself? These very
principles instruct

you to wait with patience and humility, for the event of
all public measures,

and to receive that event as the divine will towards you.
Wherefore,

what occasion is there for your POLITICAL TESTIMONY if
you fully believe

what it contains? And the very publishing it proves, that
either,

ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue
enough to practise

what ye believe.

The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to
make a man

the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every
government

WHICH IS SET OVER HIM. And if the setting up and putting
down of kings

and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most
certainly

will not be robbed thereof by us: wherefore, the
principle itself leads

you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or
may happen to kings

as being his work. OLIVER CROMWELL thanks you. CHARLES,
then, died not

by the hands of man; and should the present Proud
Imitator of him,

come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers
of the Testimony,

are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the
fact. Kings are not

taken away by miracles, neither are changes in
governments brought about

by any other means than such as are common and human; and
such as we are

now using. Even the dispersion of the Jews, though
foretold by our Saviour,

was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the
means on one side,

ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the
issue in silence;

and unless ye can produce divine authority, to prove,
that the Almighty

who hath created and placed this new world, at the
greatest distance

it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part
of the old,

doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent
of the corrupt

and abandoned court of Britain, unless I say, ye can shew
this,

how can ye on the ground of your principles, justify the
exciting

and stirring up the people “firmly to unite in the
abhorrence

of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire
and design

to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto
enjoyed,

with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our just and
necessary subordination

to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in
authority under him.”

What a slap of the face is here! the men, who in the very
paragraph before,

have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering,
altering,

and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of
God, are now,

recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of
the business.

Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly
quoted,

can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The
inconsistency

is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great
not to be laughed at;

and such as could only have been made by those, whose
understandings

were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a
despairing political party;

for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the
Quakers

but only as a factional and fractional part thereof.

Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I
call upon no man

to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of
fairly;)

to which I subjoin the following remark; “That the
setting up and putting

down of kings,” most certainly mean, the making him
a king, who is yet

not so, and the making him no king who is already one.
And pray what hath

this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up
nor to pull down,

neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do
with them.

Wherefore, your testimony in whatever light it is viewed
serves only

to dishonor your judgement, and for many other reasons
had better

have been let alone than published.

First, Because it tends to the decrease and reproach

of all religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger

to society to make it a party in political disputes.

Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of
whom disavow

the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned
therein

and approvers thereof.

Thirdly, because it hath a tendency to undo that
continental harmony

and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and
charitable

donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the
preservation of which,

is of the utmost consequence to us all.

And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell.

Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may
always

fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious
right;

and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others;

but that the example which ye have unwisely set,

of mingling religion with politics, MAY BE DISAVOWED

AND REPROBATED BY EVERY INHABITANT OF _AMERICA._

F I N I S.