"Apoftles, ought furely to be given without the leaft "rancour against Judas." There is but one way of confidering this fentence as harmlefs, and that is, by confidering it as nonfenfe. For though we ought not to entertain rancour against Judas, we ought to deteft and to abhor his crimes. To praife the thing we oppofe, is not rancour, but blame. The hiftorian profeffes to defcribe oppofite characters. He first mentions patriots, and friends to the liberties of the nation: now, what are the characters which to thefe he fhould have oppofed? Certainly, enemies to their country, the friends of arbitrary power, and by confequence, of tyranny. But this never would have ferved his purpose, which evidently was, to apologize for the enemies of mankind; and therefore he foftens their character, into adherents to the antient conftitution. In the word conftitution, he perhaps thought he had fufficiently provided for their defence. They adhered to a conftitution, and to an antient conftitution. Does not the conftitution of Dahomy, in Guinea, allow the king to cut off as many heads as he pleases, for his diverfion? Does not the conftitution of Morocco give the emperor, the very fame indulgence? And according to the best accounts of thefe defpots, they fuffer not their power to ftagnate. If the innumerable acts of tyranny and murder a man's ancestors have been allowed to commit, be a fufficient reafon why he fhould have power to repeat them, thefe worthy magiftrates have an excellent title to their crowns. Suppofe, by the bleffing of God, the principles of liberty fhould, at fome future time, reach their unhofpitable, barbarous fhores: fuppose that into the minds of a depreffed people, this thought fhould find its way, that they are men, and that they have rights: fhould their indignation at inhuman tyranny burst into action, lead them forth, in obedience to the feelings of nature, to level with the ground thofe thrones B 2 which which are polluted with blood and with crimes: fhould their tyrants be able to attach, by prefents or by promises, a party to themselves; and such miscreants every country produces, an hiftorian fuch as our author, would deal out his praises to the patriots, with fome referve; and furely without the leaft imputation of blame to those, who adhered to the antient conftitution. It may be pleaded, that the antient conftitution of England will not bear a comparison with the governments I have mentioned. But if we recur to this argument, we must do it on the destruction of our author's principles. We muft affirm, in oppofition to him, that it is not the antiquity of a conftitution that renders it facred, or venerable, but that it is its goodness, and the influence it has, in promoting the happiness of the human race. We must affirm, that attachment to a government becomes a vice or a virtue, according as that government obftructs, or favours the liberties of mankind. When the question is between the different modifications of a free conftitution, this rule of pronouncing may not, in every inftance apply. All men are not politicians, and all politicians are not good reafoners. A man who has received from the government of his country, full protection to his property, to his liberty, and to his life, acts but a reasonable part, when he is induced, by the dangers attending on all great revolutions, by the fears of change, and by the uncertainty of human views, to prefer the privileges he at prefent enjoys, to privileges even more fplendid, which a new conftitution holds forth; but of which, a thoufand accidents it is fubject to in its formation, may all confpire to deprive him. And the worst of it is, his enjoyments and his profpects might perish together. But when, as in the former cafe, the controverfy is between liberty and abfolute power, between the rights of men and the tyranny of Princes, morality itself interposes, and affixes its feal. The eternal maxims ; maxims of justice, are as much concerned in the fide we take, as they are in any quarrel about private property. If we saw a robber forcibly entering our neighbour's house, to plunder his goods, to carry off his money, and perhaps to murder his family, equity would foon inform us, whom we ought to affift, the oppreffor or the oppreffed. Should the hope of fharing the booty, should maliciousnefs or wantonnefs, overpower in our minds the sense of duty, and make us become parties in the guilt, we must expect, in every well-regulated fociety, to be punished as thieves, or affaffins. Now, the argument concludes, with infinitely more force, against those wretches who lend themselves to tyrants, to enflave their country. They are robbers, and so much the more atrocious, because they have robbed, not individuals, but a nation. They are murderers, and fo much the more inhuman, because they have prepared daggers, to ftab children who are yet unborn. If the love of our neighbour be a virtue, as our holy religion teaches us to confider it, if it be the fecond commandment, and like unto the firft, the love of our country is nothing but that virtue in its general direction, as the love of mankind is, in its univerfal extent It was perhaps oppofition to chriftianity, that directed our author to place patriotifm fo low, because he did it in contradiction to a religion, in which it ranks high. Like a true navigator, he began by making discoveries abroad, while his own country was treated with contempt, because it was the place of his birth. He made a voyage round the globe, to find virtue in wit, in ingenuity, in eloquence, in quickness of conception, in facility of expreffion, in politeness, in cleanliness, and in force of body; * but patriotifm was unworthy of his notice, because it was to be found at his elbow. * Enquiry concerning the principles of Morals, p. 172. HERE X J HERE we are again ftopped, by a writer of even fuperior abilities, and of a character much more refpectable. "When the parliament" fays this author" rose up in "arms against Charles I. they wanted just such a preacher "as this (one whofe ideas of the Jewish government he "was combating) to affure them, that their renouncing "the King's authority had fairly diffolved the monarchy, "and brought it to a lawful end. For the leaders of that body knew nothing of this fecret, and were therefore at "a great deal of pains to prove that Charles himself had "broken the original compact." That Charles I. was guilty of innumerable acts of oppreffion, of feveral open violations of the petition of right, after he had paffed it; of levying money without consent of parliament, the history of England leaves us no more room to doubt, than it does of his having existed. But all these tranfgreffions it appears, did not, in our author's opinion, amount to a breach of the original compact. I WISH he had taken the trouble to inform us what this compact was about, because I am not able to form so much as a conjecture. According to the notion he feems to have entertained of it, he has indeed very wifely paffed over this circumftance, as it certainly was unworthy of his notice. If cruelty, tyranny, breach of law, and forced levies of money, be no breaches of the original compact, it is the most fallacious phantom that ever was conjured from the fhades of night; and certainly deferves the contempt of its enemies, infinitely better than the admiration of its friends. If the parliament were at great pains to prove that Charles had broken the original compact, they certainly were the greateft fools in the world.. According to the ideas ordinarily formed of it, they egregiously trifled, by proving that the fun fhone at noon-day. Warburton's Divine Legation of Mofes, book v. sect. 2, According to our author's, they reckoned the breach of that compact a crime, even when they acknowledged the compact itself to be the creature, only of imagination. It is impoffible to defend the conduct of Charles I. but in the circumftances of his condition, and in the wickedness of his counsellors, a mind seasoned with humanity will find alleviations. However different the fentiments are which this author entertained of the conduct of the parliament at the commencement of the war, from thofe of the most zealous advocates of liberty, there will, I hope, be no difference of opinion with respect to the conduct of the parliament, at its conclufion. Though the original compact was undoubtedly broken, they ought not to have exacted the forfeiture. Neceffity did not require, nay wisdom forbade it to be exacted. It is one of the greatest misfortunes attending on both civil and religious difputes, that thofe who fucceed to the principles of different parties, take them up, as men do an inheritance defcending by fucceffion, with all the incumberances which lie on it. They then proceed, with the utmost eagerness, to clear the premises of every burden. This difpofition is fometimes carried fo far on both fides, that, after a fhort interval of time, the truth of facts becomes as much the fubject of controverfy, as the goodnefs of the principles from which they are supposed to have proceeded. Some writers, in oppofition to all the evidence of hiftory, have fixed the principal guilt of the civil war upon the Parliament. Other writers of the Prefbyterian and Independent perfuafions, foured by the violent perfecution they long underwent, have, without fufficient evidence, loaded the King with the contrivance of the Irish maffacre, and, against fufficient evidence to the contrary, defended all the measures of the Parliament, as wife and moderate. But an impartial writer will never juftify the intemperate zeal of a party, because he ap |