still with the discussion of the question, whether
oppressive governments may be opposed by the people, and, having
concluded in the affirmative, says, "But here the question may be made,
who shall be judge whether the prince or legislature act contrary to
their trust. This, perhaps, ill affected and factious men may spread
among the people, when the prince only makes use of his just prerogative.
To this, I reply, the people shall be judge; for who shall be judge
whether the trustee or deputy acts with and according to the trust that
is reposed in him, but he who deputes him, and must, by having deputed
him, have still a power to discard him when he fails in his trust. If
this be reasonable in particular cases of private men, why should it be
otherwise in that of the greatest moment when the welfare of millions is
concerned, and also when the evil if not prevented is greater, and the
redress very dear, difficult, and dangerous."

Locke, therefore, most unambiguously concludes that insurrection may be
justified and necessary. A greater and more important truth does not
exist, and we owe its promulgation with such freedom and boldness to that
most extraordinary and felicitous conjuncture at the revolution which
called upon us to support a king against a king, and obliged us to
explode (as has been done most completely) the divine right and passive
obedience under which one king claimed, to maintain the legal title of
the other.

Locke goes on further to say--

"This question, who shall be supreme judge? cannot mean that there is no
judge at all. For where there is no judicature on earth to decide
controversies among men, God in heaven is judge. But every man is to
judge for himself, as in all other cases, so in this, whether another
hath put himself in a state of war with him, and whether, as Jeptha did,
he should appeal to the Supreme Judge."

I beg that I may not be misinterpreted, I hope it will not be said I mean
to insinuate that any circumstances at present exist to justify
insurrection. I protest against any such inference. Nothing can be
further from my thoughts, and I regret that such an extravagant mode of
construing men's words should be in fashion, as to render such a caution
on my part needful. All I say is, that the writer of this paper spoke of
insurrection conditionally, and prospectively only, and, in doing so, has
done no more than Locke, in other terms had done before him.

Gentlemen, I hav