fhewing, that these doctrines were not confe quences deducible from the principles, (for every confequence is virtually contained in its premises), they denied abfolutely the prin ciples, which were true, because they disapproved of doctrines, which were falfe, and which, confequently, could not be fairly drawn. from true principles. Thus, when the alterations and differences of the oppofite parties came to be publicly agitated, they feldom went further, than the truth or falfity of the principles themselves; in which contests the ftrength of the argument was neceffarily with thofe, who contended for the principles; and whilst that party had the addrefs to keep up the controverfy upon this ground only, they were fure of making profelytes of all thofe, who had refolution or ability to form a judgment of their own. The misfortunes, which have heretofore happened to our unhappy country, from the contests of thefe oppofite parties, are of too ferious a nature not to rouze every true patriot to the exertion of his utmost efforts to prevent a repetition of them. Nothing can be more certain, than that a party of no inconfiderable number of malcontents does at this moment exift in this country; nothing more evident, than that the party will gain or or lose strength in proportion to the acceffion or desertion of its numbers; and nothing fo attractive, as the plaufibility and truth of the principles, which are fuppofed or reprefented to actuate and fupport the party. It is flattering to all men to judge in their own caufe; it is the favourite maxim of modern politicians, to inculcate the right of every one to judge and act for himself; and it is artfully holden out by many, that whoever is not directed by his own opinion and judgment, is kept in darkness, and deprived of that freedom, which has been given to every individual-by an allwife Creator. When I call to my recollection the effects of former attempts to deduce falfe doctrines from true principle, I am neceffitated to conclude, that if fome true principles now established and fupported by the minority, are denied by the majority, the daily defertions from the one to the other will very quickly invert the prefent proportion of their respective numbers; for undeniable truth will ever make its own way, and by degrees gain over the multitude; amongst whom more will be, in the end, left to the unbiaffed freedom of their own judgment, than to the dictates of interefted power and influence. It was long ago faid, decipimur fpecie recti: when Truth will in the end make its own way. when depravity difpofes to evil, the strongest incentive to the actual commiffion of it is a plaufible appearance of its rectitude. Much as I reprobate the modern doctrine of civil equalization, with all its tremendous train of deftructive concomitants, fo do I hold, that the denial of the truth of uncontrovertible principles muft rather neceffitate, than provoke men into the adoption of any doctrine, which leaves them the liberty of a free afsent to such self-evident propositions. I am happy in being fanctioned in my principle of reafoning, by the great apoftle of modern liberty. "The Jefuits," says he, "about two centuries ago, in order to vindicate their king-killing principles, hap pened, * Priestley's Effays upon the First Principles of Government, p. 27, 28. The works of Bufenbaum, a German Jefuit, were burnt by the late Parliament of Paris, for teaching thefe principles. It will be candid, and, perhaps, fatisfactory to the curious, to ftate the words, in which this king-killing doctrine is expreffed by this author; as the judgment upon it will vary according to the admifftbility of the doctrines of paffive obedience and nonrefiftance. "Ad defenfionem vite integritatis membrorum, licet etiam filio, religiofo & fubdito fe tueri, fi opus fit, cum occifione, contra ipfum parentem, abbatem, principem ; nifi forte propter mortem hujus fecutura effent nimis magna incommoda, ut bella, c." lib. iii. pars 1. de Homicidio, art. viii. "To defend one's life, or limbs, it is lawful for a child, pened, among other arguments, to make use of this great and just principle, that all civil power is ultimately derived from the people; and their adverfaries, in England and elsewhere, inftead of fhewing how they abused and perverted that fundamental principle of all government, in the cafe in question, did what difputants, warmed with controversy, are very apt to do; they denied the principle Eitself, and maintained that all civil power is derived from God; as if the Jewish theocracy had been established throughout the whole world.”—And, * “ The history of this controverfy, about the doctrine of paffive obedience and non-resistance, affords a striking example of the danger of having recourse to false prin him child, a religious man or or a fubject to defend himself against his parent, fuperior, or fovereign, if it be neceffary, even by killing the aggreffor; unless by killing very great mischiefs indeed fhould happen, as wars, &c." To Englishmen, who fometimes foften their verdict by finding a fe defendendo, thefe principles may not seem more outrageous, than Dr. Priestley's own doctrines. "If it be afked, how far a people may lawfully go, in punifling their chief magiftrates? I anfwer, that if the enormity of the offence (which is of the fame extent as the injury done to the public) be confidered, any punishment is justifiable, that a man can incur in human fociety." Effays on the Firft Principles of Government, p. 36. * Priestley, ibid. p. 29. |