11.Taking it altogether,it is,without question,a very ingenious argument:nor can any thing in the world answer the purpose better,except just in the case where it happens to be wanted.Not but that a veteran antagonist,trained up in the regular and accustomed disci pline of legal fencing,such an one,indeed,might contrive perhaps,with due management,to give our Author the honour of the field.But should some undisciplined blunderer,like the Commissary's land lady,thrust in quart,when he should have thrust in tierce.I doubt much whether he might not get within our Author's guard.I `intend'?I `consent'?I `submit'myself ?`Who are you,I wonder,that should know what I do better than I do myself?As to "submitting my will"to the wills of the people who made this law you are speaking of,what I know is,that I never "intended"any such thing:I abominate them,I tell you,and all they ever did,and have always said so:and as to my "consent,"so far have I been from giving it to their law,that from the first to the last,I have protested against it with all my might.'
So much for our refractory disputant.What I should say to him I know:but what our Author could find to answer to him,is more than I can imagine.(79)12.Let us now return and pick up those other passages which we supposed to have a respect to the same design that seems to be in view in this.
First comes the short introductory paragraph that ushers in the whole digression: