True. If ours be a Mixt Government, so as to any Popular Participation of Power with the King, then it is not a Monarchy: (which is the Government Only of One) but if you'l call it a Qualifi'd Government; so as to distinguish it from an Absolute and Unlimited Government, I'le agree with you. But let the Government be what it will, and where it will, let it do Right or Wrong, it is Equally Unaccountable, for there lies no Appeal, but to a Superiour, and the Supreme has none but God Himself.
Citt. But if we be a Free People, have not We as much Right to Our Liberties, as the King has to his Crown?
True. Yes, we have, but the King has this Advantage of us, that We may Forfeit our Liberties but He cannot forfeit his Crown.
Citt. What if a King will Transgresse all the Laws of God and Man? may not the People resume their Trust?
Power is from God, not from the People.
Soveraignty of the People most ridiculous.
True. No, not unlesse you can produce an expresse stipulation to That very purpose. But let me shew you, First, the Errour of taking That to be a Trust from the People, which, in truth, is an Ordinance of Providence, For All Power is from God; And Secondly, the Absurdity of the very Supposition, even in the Case of a Trust conferr'd by the People. If the King breaks his Trust, the People Resume it: but who are These People? If a Representative, they are but Trustees Themselves, and may incur a Forfeiture too, by the same Argument. Where are we next then? For if it devolves to the Loose Multitude of Individuals, (which you will have to be the Fountain of Power) you are Then in an Anarchy, without any Government at all; and There you must either Continue in a Dissociated State, or else agree upon Uniting into some Form of Regiment, or other: and whether it be Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy, it comes all to a Point. If you make the Government Accountable upon every Humour of the People, it lapses again into a Confusion. To say nothing of the ridiculous phansy of a Sovereignty in the People upon This Account; that they can never be so brought together either to Establish or to Dissolve a Government, as to authorize it to be the Peoples Act. For there must be, First, an Agreement to Meet and Consult. Secondly, an Agreement upon the Result of That Debate; and any One Dissenter spoils all, where every Individuall has an Equall Right: So that unlesse the People be all of the same minde, This Supposition will be found wholly Impractible and Idle.
Citt. But is there no Fence then against Tyranny?
True. Only Patience, unless you run into Anarchy, and then into that which you call Tyranny again; and so tread Eternally that Circle of Rigour and Confusion. In fine, the Question is this, whether people had better run Certainly into Confusion to avoid a Possible Tyranny, or venture a Possible Tyranny, to avoid a Certain Confusion.
Citt. But where we finde Positive Law and Provisions to fail us, may we not in those Cases, betake our selves to the Laws of Nature and Self-Preservation?