A Piece, entitled Common Sense, ad­dressed to the Inhabitants of America, being lately re-printed at Charles-Town, and great Pains taken to spread the Notion of Independency from Great Britain, and to form an American Republick, it be­comes the Business of every Person most se­riously to consider the Tendency of such a Proposal; and all such as look upon it as ruinous and destructive, must at least be in­excusable, in their own Breasts, if they do not endeavour to point out the many Mis­takes and Oddities on which that Pamphlet is grounded.

The Novelty of the Thing, the Aversion a free-born People must ever have to submit to what they think Slavery, the Fears of be­ing brought to an abject Submission to op­pressive Laws, the Dread of being deprived of Property, and perhaps of Life, with a Variety of other Considerations, may have [Page 2] given this Pamphlet, with many Persons, a Degree of Weight which does not appear due to its intrinsic Merit; and perhaps it may, without Impropriety, be said, that their Extent of Reading has not led the Gene­rality of Americans to a very accurate and extensive Acquaintance with the Subject in Question; however that be, it is supposed in a Matter of such infinite Moment, every confiderate Man would wish to be thoroughly informed of what may be said on both Sides of this Question.

If my Conjectures of the Author do not deceive me, he is a Gentleman for whom I have a real Esteem; but "the Wise and Wor­thy need not the Triumph of a Pamphlet;" and therefore, without any Apology, I will venture to submit some of his and my Remarks to the Judgment of every impartial Reader.

What Reasons may have induced the Au­thor to send his Thoughts abroad, under the Title of Common Sense, is needless to enquire; if he means that his Opinion is the Common Sense of all America, or that all those who do not think with him are destitute of Com­mon Sense, Time, without any Reasoning, may convince him of his Mistake.

I conceive his Notions about Society and Government are only introductory to his main View; I shall take no further Notice of them, than, as they appear to me, to lay a very indifferent Foundation for a very indif­ferent Building.

[Page 3]Supposing, as he asserts, there were "a Difference between Society and Government, and their Origins very different," he will hardly be able to conceive Society subsisting with­out Government; and tho' Society be re­duced to its smallest Number, yet even two Persons, probably, could not live long hap­pily together, without agreeing upon some Rule of Conduct, which is, in other Words, submitting to some Government. The Author begins with giving us a very discouraging Idea of Government in any Shape. The first Notion of Government which this Founder of American Independency proceeds upon is, that "it is produced by our Wickedness," and, in its best State, "is a necessary Evil." I am greatly afraid the Government he pro­poses must be the Product of our Wicked­ness, but I cannot yet agree with him, "that it is a necessary Evil."

To give us a clear Idea of the Design and End of Government, he supposes "a small Number of Persons settled in some seques­tred Part of the Earth; he then forms them into Society, then represents them as relax­ing in Duty and Attachment, (Page 4,) and then forming themselves into Government, to supply the Defect of Moral Virtue." I would ask him, whence those first Set­tlers came? by what Means they reached the sequestred Country? and whether they must not have agreed on Emigration, a Place of Destiny, and a Method of pro­ceeding? [Page 4] that is to say, whether there was not some Society and Government una­voidably among them; and whether they must not be considered in a State of Society and Government, prior to any Formation of it, in the Method asserted by this Author? It seems more natural to conceive the Origin of Society and Government in the following Method: Of all Human Beings, one must have been the first, and prior, of Conse­quence, to Society. The first Human Being, we are accordingly informed by Revelation, was a Man, and God saw it was not good for him to be alone, Gen. ii. 18. It is ex­pressly said, that Woman was created with a View to bring Man into a State of Society, Gen. ii. 18. His Priority of Existence, and the Manner of her Formation, and being brought unto Man, must have rendered her in some Measure dependent on Adam, even while they both continued in their original Perfection. By the express Will of the Crea­tor, the Government was established in the Man, Gen. iii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 22. and being the Ruler of his Wife, he necessarily became also the Ruler of his Children; and from this very natural View of the Matter it would seem, that Government and Society are nearly coeval, and that the very first Mode of Go­vernment must have resembled Monarchy more than any other. From this it will by no Means follow, that the first Man was the absolute Sovereign of all his Posterity, or [Page 5] that Monarchy is the only Government of Divine Institution; but as it is impossible that Society and Government could have commenced any other Way, so to subject all Men to one, or the Head of a Family, is contradictory in itself; for if Fatherhood gives an absolute Power over the Children, then it rests in all Parents, and, consequently, had Seth commanded his Children to have resisted Adam, they would, on this Scheme, have been obliged to do it, tho' by another Part of it, they were obliged to unlimited Obedience to Adam. I therefore perfectly a­gree with the Author, when he saith, "What­ever Form of Government appears most likely to ensure us Security, with the least Expence, and greatest Benefit, is preferable to all others;" and all I plead for is, that in some Instances Monarchy has done this, and may do this as much as any Form, whenever the Monarch makes the good of his Subjects his principal Study and Endeavour. It is a Fact, (tho' I am far from recommending an Imitation of the Example,) that since Denmark made their King absolute, they have, for a Century, been happier, and better governed, than they had been for a Century, or perhaps ever before. If I were to form a Judgment of the Author's Skill and Depth of Thought, as to the Nature of Government, from his Definition of it, I confess I should be under some Difficulty; he certainly must have an undoubted Right to claim it, as being entirely original. "It is, [Page 6] (saith he,) pray what? It is a Mode, a Mode rendered necessary by the Inability of Moral Virtue, to govern the World." There may be Meaning in this, but all I can pick out is, that Government is not a Substance, but a Mode. A very rare and sagacious Discovery.

If his Maxim, "That the more simple a thing is, the less it is liable to be disordered, and the easier repaired," which is undoubt­edly a very true one, be applied, as it is by him, to Government, I should think it must plead for Monarchy. The simplest Idea that can be formed of Government, is one to rule, and one or more to obey; the most per­fect Government is where the most perfect Being rules, and all his good Creatures im­plicitly and perfectly obey; and tho' no such Government can obtain among sinful Men, yet certainly Monarchy is much more simple than Aristocracy or Democracy. This the Author could not help being aware of, and allows, but in perfect Contradiction to the Principle on which he sets out, calls "absolute," i. e. the most simple Govern­ment, "a Disgrace to Human Nature;" then declares, almost in the same Breath, that "such Governments have an Advantage not to be found in any other Form, and least of all in the British Constitution." If his "first Idea of Government, is derived from a Principle in Nature, which no Art can overturn; that the Firmness of a Government lies in its Simplicity; and that all Govern­ments [Page 7] that are complex, of Course are pre­carious," then every judicious Reader must observe, that the whole Treatise is a constant Contradiction to the Principle on which the Author builds the Whole of his Plan and Assertions. He sets out with an Assertion, that Simplicity is essential to Permanency, and then writes a Treatise against that Sim­plicity, and proposes a Plan of Government far more complex, and consequently far more unnatural, than those he pretends to abolish.

As the Author's great Aim is to overthrow the Constitution, and to build something, at present unknown even to himself, on its Ruins, he accordingly next labours to cure us of the Prejudices which hitherto we entertained in its Favour; if he has succeeded, or does succeed in the Attempt, I must ascribe it to a Maxim he advances, and I can look upon as true only on this Supposition, "Time makes more Converts than Reason." Let us hear him: "To say that the Constitution of England is a Union of three Powers, checking each other, is farcical; either the Words have no Meaning, or they are a flat Contradiction." Now, that the three different Branches of the Legislature are, and always have been, a Check upon each other, History clearly proves; of all Proofs, Facts afford the strongest, and what exists, implies neither Farce, Un­meaning, nor Contradiction. "The Preroga­tive, (saith Rapin,) of the Sovereign, of the Nobles, and of the People, are corrected by [Page 8] each other, in such a Manner, that they are one another's mutual Support; and at the same Time either of those three Powers can lay invincible Obstacles in the Way of what­ever Enterprizes one of the other two, or even both together could form, to make themselves independent."

Where is the Absurdity of the Supposition, "that a King, (or any Man, or Sett of Men,) ought not to be trusted without being looked after." It may be very reasonable to put it in a Man's Power to do Good, and yet to re­strain him from doing Harm: This cannot hurt the best Man, and may be some Security against the worst; it may happen, "that the Commons may be wiser and more worthy of Confidence than the Crown," and it may also happen otherwise, and the only Remedy that can be proposed is precisely that which the Author turns into Ridicule, i. e. to make Crown and Commons mutual Checks upon each other. There is something exceedingly confused in the Paragraph where the Author labours to shew the Ridicule of Monarchy, and hard to determine what he means by the "different Parts of it, which unnaturally oppose and destroy each other." The Folly of any Man, in any Condition, may "shut him from the World, and the Means of In­formation;" his State need not. The pre­sent Emperor, and King of Prussia, are pro­bably more minutely acquainted with the State of their Dominions than any one of [Page 9] their Subjects; I should think an English King also might be at Liberty to read Com­mon Sense, or a News-Paper.

To his Question, "How came the King by a Power which the People are afraid to trust, and always are obliged to check;" I answer, all Power that is not under the Guidance of infinite Wisdom needs check­ing: But, because it is unsafe to trust a Ruler with unlimited Power, is he to be without any Power at all? Or, because there can be no Ruling where there is no Power, is it therefore necessary or prudent to entrust him with Power without Limits? We have two Instances at least where the Commons checked and stopt the Power of the Crown, and thus restored and preserved the Liberty of the Subject; and the Remark of Rapin is very judicious: "If the Parliament had been contented with re-establishing the Govern­ment upon its ancient Foundation, it is very likely it had never afterwards been easily shaken, but it is very hard to observe a just Medium upon such Occasions. This was the very thing which won the King Friends, which he had infallibly been without if the Ballance had been held with a steady Hand." This Observation of a Foreigner may even now deserve particular Attention.

If the Author is an Englishman, it must be owned he has pretty well got the better of the National Pride and Reason of an English­man; and so little Merit has the Constitu­tion [Page 10] in his Eyes, that he would have us be­lieve it as a plain Truth, "that it is wholly owing to the Constitution of the People, and not to the Constitution of the Government, that the Crown is not so oppressive in Eng­land, as in Turkey." As to the Constitution of the People, it is certain that the Turks killed more of their Emperors, than ever the English did of their Kings; and if the Author can think Turkish Despotism preferable to the English Constitution, it may serve as a Hint of what may be expected of a Govern­ment formed upon his Principles.

The Proposition, that "Mankind are origi­nally Equals in the Order of Creation," ex­tended as far as it may lead, is a very levelling Principle. There are some natural Distinc­tions which cannot fail having very great Effects; one Man is born sooner than an­other, and all Men certainly not equal in Point of Sense and bodily Strength; some have greater Opportunities to advance them­selves than others, and from such Circum­stances, however accidental, some Superiority almost insensibly takes Place; and though Kings and Subjects are not a Distinction of Nature, yet that some should rule, and others obey, is essential to Society. No Society can subsist without Government, and no Govern­ment without Rule and Obedience; and however Nature may put a Ridicule upon hereditary Succession, "by giving an Ass for a Lion," it must be owned that some seem [Page 11] by Nature formed to rule, and others to obey; some by a happy Mould to amend the Errors of old, and establish new Forms of Government, like our Author; and others, implicitly to acquiesce in any Government, whether under the Direction of a Monarch, or our Author.

Heaven and Hell have their Governments. —"Male and Female are Distinctions of Nature;" but I suppose the Author would not give up the Government of the Male to the Female Part of the Creation; and if the Female will not give it up to the Male, which (Mankind being all equal in the Order of the Creation) they surely need not, then there will be War, and this War must con­tinue as long as both Parties are able to carry it on, and destroy all Society, i. e. all Man­kind in the End, or else issue in the Sub­mission of one to the other, or Indepen­dency, and Separation of both. To establish a perfect Equality in Sentiment and Power, will be found too difficult among imperfect Beings.

As every Argument that has an Appear­ance of Scripture to support it, with many Persons, is decisive, the Author makes no small use of it against Kings and Kingly Go­vernment; it will be very easy to shew that his Remarks prove nothing less than what is intended.

"In the early Ages there were no Kings and consequently no Wars." Let him remember, [Page 12] that War is mentioned before Kings; no Kings are mentioned before the Flood, but nevertheless the Earth was full of Violence, Gen. vi. 15.

I do not know how Holland came in, in Support of this Assertion, but so it is that he immediately adds, "Holland, without a King, has enjoyed more Peace for the last Century, than any of the Monarchical Governments in Europe." Either he must never have read History, or think no Body else ever did. This Assertion of his must either establish his gross Ignorance, or for ever sink his Cha­racter, as a Writer of Candour, or Man of Veracity.

"The quiet and rural Life of the first Patriarchs," was not so entirely so as the Author pretends; there was Murder before there were Kings, Abraham was concerned in War, and there subsisted Strife between him and Lot, so that the Land could not bear them, Gen. xiii. 6, 7. "If Government by Kings was first introduced by the Hea­thens," yet we read very early of one that was a King of Peace and Righteousness, and compared to the Son of God; and if the Heathens paid divine Honours to their de­ceased Kings, probably it was because they were good Kings and Benefactors; but it will never warrant the Author to say, that the "Christians pay greater, and diviner Hon­ours to their King while yet living," than [Page 13] the Heathens did who worshipped them after their Death.

I call it a daring Assertion, when the Author saith, (Page 11,) "The Will of the Almighty expressly disapproves of Government by Kings." Tho' he stiles the Passage, Render therefore unto Caesar the Things which are Caesar's, "the Scripture Doctrine of Courts;" they are not the less the Words of him, all whose Words are faithful and true; and those who would judge properly of the Merit of his Assertion, need only be at the Trouble of reading a single Passage, viz. "Submit your­selves to every Ordinance of Men, for the Lord's Sake, to the King as supreme," 1 Pet. ii. 13; and when he observes, that at the Time of our Saviour, "the Jews were without a "King," he errs, because he attends not to the Scripture. The Jews, as a Nation, then avowed, We have no King but Caesar, John xix. 15; and he has not mended the Mat­ter, by adding, that "they were in a State of Vassalage to the Romans," i. e. they had no King, but were Vassals to the Roman Em­peror.

The History of Israel, under the Judges, is not the clearest Part of their History; it is as full fraught with Wickedness and Con­fusion as the Annals of most of their Kings; and it does not add much to the Honour of his favourite Proposition, that some of their worst Transactions are introduced with the Remark, "At that Time there was no King [Page 14] in Israel," Judges xviii. 1, and xix. 1.; and that it is twice repeated in the same Book, "There was no King in Israel, and every Man did what was Right in his own Eyes," Judges xviii. 6, and xxi. 25. When he saith, "Mo­narchy (perhaps he meant the establishing of it) is ranked in Scripture as one of the Sins of the Jews, for which a Curse in Reserve is denounced against them," I should have been glad to see the last Part supported by some Quotation. Of the Transactions he alludes to, I shall take some Notice:

In the Case of Gideon, I would observe, that "Rule thou over us," and "Be thou our King," are not equivalent Expressions; there may be Rule without Kingship; and though the Author is bitter against Kings, I suppose he will allow that, without any Impiety, some may rule and others obey their Rulers. Neither can the Author prove that Gideon declined this Honour, it being highly pro­bable that he did rule over them to his dying Day, even for the Space of Forty Years.

The Rejection of the Theocracy, which had hitherto obtained, and the Desire of hav­ing a King over them, like the Heathen Nations, was undoubtedly a very great Wick­edness; but wicked and foolish as it was, many of the Author's Inferences from it can­not be supported.

It is trifling to find Fault with the Term. One whose Authority possibly he would re­spect, (Cromwell) observed, the Harm lay not [Page 15] in the four Letters K, I, N, G. There have been very good Kings, and very wicked Judges; and the Author, one would think, chooses to be mistaken, when he saith, "The Scripture takes no Notice of David officially as a King, but only as a Man after God's own Heart." The contrary is true; "God chose David, and took him from the Sheep-folds; he brought him to feed Jacob, his People; so he fed them according to the Integrity of his Heart, and guided them by the Skillfulness of his Hands," Psalm lxxviii. 72, 73. He is taken Notice of as King, Psalm xxi. 1—9; and, what must be particularly disagreeable to the Author, he had the Pro­mise of an hereditary Kingdom. I have sworn unto David, "I will build up thy Throne to all Generations; it shall be esta­blished for ever as the Moon, and as a faith­ful Witness in Heaven," Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4, 35.

The Author is not happier when he makes the Almighty enter his "Protest against Monarchical Government," and saith, "this must be true, or the Scripture is false." Now that Kings and Monarchy are not absolutely sinful, and that God Almighty has not pro­tested against their Existence, I suppose will appear sufficiently clear from the following Passage: "Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose;" and then, among other Rules prescribed, he cautions him, "that his Heart may not be [Page 16] lifted up above his Brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the Right Hand, or to the Left, to the end that he may prolong his Days in his Kingdom; he and his Children, in the Midst of Israel," Deut. xvii. 15, 20.

What the Author alledges against Heredi­ditary Succession, may appear very plausible to such as only superficially consider the Mat­ter; but whatever Inconveniences it may cause or imply, the Danger in keeping Government altogether elective will usually be found to over-ballance any Advantage. What the Author calls "the strongest natural Proof against it," does not amount to much; if Nature turns Hereditary Succession into Ri­dicule, "by frequently giving an Ass for a Lion," it will follow, that whenever Nature gives a wise Son unto a wise Father, she ap­proves Hereditary Succession, and disapproves the Care of a Parent to provide for his Fa­mily, whenever she deprives him of Children, or leaves him none but worthless Descend­ants; but, exclusive of what Nature may do, or not do, upon this Occasion, I would ask, Whether it never happens in Republicks that the Choice falls upon Asses as well as upon Lions? There are Asses among all Ranks of Men, Authors not excepted.

Lest the Author should too much plume himself upon the Wit of his Comparison be­tween original Sin and Hereditary Succession, I would observe, that every Compact made [Page 17] between Parties and their Heirs must be bind­ing on Posterity, and there is neither Hard­ship nor Absurdity in this; whether the Com­pact be a prudent and beneficial one is the only Question. I dare say, the Author of Common Sense would now chearfully enter into any Treaty that would secure Liberty and Hap­piness to himself and all his Descendants, upon the simple Condition, that himself should remain an honest Man as long as he lived; he would not think himself just to his Posterity, if he neglected so easy and honour­able an Opportunity to make them all free and happy; assuredly, all his Sneers notwith­standing, he would be willing that Posterity should be as free and happy as himself, if to continue free and honest should be the only Condition.

In human Governments it is impossible to guard against all Inconveniencies; that may be counted the best which has the fewest. Republican Governments are not without their Dangers; and if Men that think them­selves born to reign are apt to grow insolent, it is a Misfortune, from which those who have neither Right nor Capacity to rule others, are not at all exempted; and frequently the People, i. e. a few People, have chosen others over them, "the most ignorant and unfit" of any that could possibly be found within their Bounds. Poland is the last Kingdom that remained elective; but though it contains Twenty Millions of Inhabitants, it has long [Page 18] been the most insignificant; and so many Wars have attended their Elections, as, at last, al­most annihilated the Kingdom.

After the Civil War, the Crown was, per­haps, more arbitrary than before; for the People, weary to submit to many Tyrants, rather chose to submit to one. The Benefit of that Convulsion was lost, because the Constitution was thrown off of its Basis; at the Revolution, the Constitution and Succession was preserved, and the Liberty of the Nation established more than ever.

There is something remarkable in the History of Holland. They, more than once, declared against Hereditary Succession. To prevent this, after the Demise of William I. to whom they were under such great Obli­gations, they declared themselves Sovereign States, but were soon brought so low, as to offer themselves to France, and to Queen Elizabeth, and would have been willing to submit to any Master but their old one; and after receiving the Duke of Leicester to ad­minister the Supreme Power, they were still more glad to part with him again, and to make Prince Maurice, of Nassau, (then very young,) their General, who was the proper Heir, whose Father had laid the Foundation of their Republick, and who gained them the Power and Title of a Free State. In 1672 and 1747, the next Heir, King William, and the late Stadtholder, again became their Saviours, and they found the Necessity and [Page 19] Advantage of abolishing the perpetual Edict against a Stadtholder, and to make the Office hereditary in the Males and Females of the Nassau Family.

In following the Author's Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs, I have no Objection to the Preliminary Conditions by him proposed; let him hear me, and let our Readers hear us both, and coolly judge for themselves. I also agree with him, as to the Worth and Importance of the Cause; but if he takes a nearer View, he will find that the present British Empire in America, so far from being "an Eighth Part of the habitable Globe," is, perhaps, not an Eighth Part of North America; but this is immaterial to the Merit of the Cause.

To clear his Way, the Author takes No­tice of some Objections to his Plan, and his Answers to them must now be considered: He does not deny "that America has flou­rished under her Connection with Great Bri­tain," but roundly answers, America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European Power taken any Notice of her. In Reply it may be said, that Ame­rica, in that Connection, has flourished, is a certain Fact; what the Author advances, at best is mere Supposition and Uncertainty, and there is Reason to believe America owes her Progress to her Connection, because the Colonies of no other Nation are equally flou­rishing, and the French and Spanish Colonies [Page 20] now wear a very different Aspect since they be­came British. Besides, if Great Britain had taken no Notice of America, perhaps France might. It is far from being certain, and it is indeed notoriously false, that America, unconnected with Great Britain, might not have been a tempting Object to France; and however this may be, certain it is, and by Common Sense acknowledged, that America flourished in her Connection with Great Britain; and while the Connection is advantageous, it can hardly be worth while to run the Risk of an Expe­riment to the contrary, only that we may ascertain the Question, whether we might not as well have done without Great Britain. Common Sense also allows, "that Britain has protected us;" but saith, "she would have defended Turkey from the same Motive." Be it so, still I cannot find that it did America any Harm to be protected; and think it most wretched Policy to suppose, that, separated from Great Britain, we should always be at Peace with France and Spain; for (besides that I would rather be at War with both, than with Great Britain,) there is no State but what may be involved in War on its own Account; and it would certainly be very con­sistent with the Views and Policy of France and Spain to make Conquests, which at once would weaken America and Great Britain; and that they may still have a Desire for Ca­nada and Florida, though they both had de­clared [Page 21] themselves independent of Great Bri­tain, need not in the least be doubted.

If "Europe, though not England, is the Parent Country of America," this contradicts what the Author asserts, (Page 45.) "It is evident they belong to different Systems, Eng­land to Europe, America to itself;" and though he reprobates the Term, Mother Country, because America has not been peopled from England alone, yet all that came into America, wheresoever they came from, came into it as into an English Government, and Thousands of Foreigners, for the Sake of being natura­lized, and enjoying the Benefits of a Consti­tution, on which they set greater Value than this Author. Though not one Third of the Inhabitants of a Province should be of English Descent, yet the Author may be persuaded, their Proportion is still smaller who have no Feelings for Great Britain; who, like him, have renounced their Oath of Allegiance, think Absolute Governments preferable to Limited Monarchy, or any one Plan his Wis­dom could contrive, or his forward Zeal ob­trude, superior to the British Constitution.

He very justly asks, (Page 37,) "What have we to do with setting all the World at De­fiance?" But whom has this Author spared? I should think it good Policy to lessen the Number of our Enemies, and increase that of our Friends; the Author does directly the contrary; he is angry with all "that think well of the European World." He has wrote [Page 22] against every King and Prince in the Universe; he calls his (or at least my) Natural Prince, "a Pharaoh," and "a Royal Brute;" he treats the whole British Nation as our professed Enemy; he abuses the City of London, though it has heartily espoused the American Cause; he abuseth the Pennsylvania Assembly; he inveighs against every Man of Moderation; he avows Principles of Revenge, which would rather suit the Character of a Devil than a Christian; he labours, to his utmost, to render our Quarrels perpetual, and little better than bids Defiance to all Mankind, when he saith, "our present Numbers are sufficient to repel the Force of all the World," (Page 61.) Al­ready none but his few Friends have escaped his Lash, and his Common Sense is very suffi­cient to warn us of what may be expected, when he and they once become the Ruling Powers. His Challenge, "to shew a single Advantage this Continent can reap from be­ing connected with Great Britain," is fully answered in some Dissertations published some Years ago at Philadelphia; and the Advan­tages of a perpetual Union are capable of being proved to a Demonstration. In this Connection we have flourished, this Connec­tion is capable of being made reciprocally more advantageous, and I challenge him, in my Turn, to shew, that in any other Situation we can be equally safe, free, and happy.

We must either stand alone, or be con­nected with some other Power. All wise [Page 23] States secure unto themselves Friends and Allies, and the Author himself gives sufficient Hints, that he does not wish we should stand alone. If we are to have any Connections with other States, political or commercial, the Question will be, with what States it will be most to our Advantage to be in Connection? The Author does not rightly speak it out, but he has an undoubted Eye to France and Spain. I abhor and despise the Thought. France and Spain are the Enemies of our Re­ligion; they will, I hope, never be able to render us the Services that Great Britain hath already; and none but a Madman would look for Protection against Great Britain, to those who so lately lay at Britain's Mercy, and have so evidently been unable to protect themselves.

His Argument in favour of Separation from Great Britain, which he draws from the Time when America was discovered, is very fanciful. At the Time of the Reformation, some French Protestants did, indeed, endea­vour to find an Asylum in America, but they were all cut off by the Cruelty of the Spaniards. Every Protestant Settlement was made by the English, and if Popish and Priest­ly Bigottry persecuted at Home, it must be owned the British Government has opened a Door to the Persecuted, and suffered them to live unmolested in America; however, if the Author will derive any Weight in the present Quarrel, from the Time and Design of Pro­vidence [Page 24] in the Discovery of America, he may please himself whenever a Reconciliation should make this Continent, as he saith, "not worth living in." Providence, by the late seasonable Discovery of Otaheite, and the Islands in the North West, graciously meant to open a Sanctuary for him and his Friends.

That "the Authority of Great Britain over this Continent sooner or later must have an End," is asserted without any Proof, and in Opposition to the Continental Congress; that Authority, properly exercised, may con­tinue, with mutual Advantage, to the End of Time. In answer to his Caricatura of those who do not wish for Separation, it may, at least, with equal Justice be said, all that are for Separation, are either interested Men, who expect to be Gainers by the Change, or at least to continue important during the Confusion; weak Men, who having never read much, and, taking up Matters upon the bare Assertions of others, cannot see; prejudiced Men, who will not see; and a certain Sett of hot Men, who think well of nobody but themselves, and those who join with them in Opinion, and those usually also are weak Men who cannot see far off; prejudiced Men, wedded to their own Opinions; and interested Men, who may also be afraid of being called to an Account for Actions too barefaced to be justified upon any View or Principle, politi­cal or moral, and who push Matters, not from any Desire to serve the Cause, but because [Page 25] they think there is no other Chance of Safety to themselves. Men deeply in Debt, and of desperate Fortunes and Principles, are always the most likely to raise and keep up publick Confusions.

No Man can feel more for the unhappy innocent Sufferers at Boston, and I wish for a Reconciliation, that the Authors and Ad­visers of so much Cruelty may be brought to answer for their Conduct to the Justice of a great and generous Nation. The Author, it seems, is of the Number of those who are distant from the Scene, but his lively Ima­gination and Resentment are happy enough to make him feel and paint all its Horrors.

I shall follow the Author's Arguments a­gainst Reconciliation, not as they would ap­pear summed up in a natural Order, but as, out of the Fullness of his Heart, he has chosen to interweave them with every Page of Common Sense.

His main and leading Argument seems to be, That it is impossible to forget or forgive the Injuries America has received; and that who­ever had a House burnt, or a Relation killed, if he can make up the Matter after that, "hath the Heart of a Coward, and the Spirit of a Sycophant." I answer, had there been no Quarrel, there would have been no Need of a Reconciliation; more Husbands and Fa­thers have been killed in the Ministerial Army than of the Americans; and if that could give the Author Satisfaction, the Loss of the [Page 26] Americans hath not gone unavenged. But how inhuman and horrid is the Principle on which he proceeds: Upon his Supposition, two Na­tions once at War must never again make Peace; but if Humanity cannot set Bounds to the Rage of Man, Providence will; and none are more likely to have everlasting Wars, than those who renounce Peace and Reconciliation for ever. In our little Wars in America with the Natives, few Provinces but what have felt Horrors in Reality, which, in the Account of the Author, are still ex­aggerated, and yet we were glad to make Peace. In the late War, the Minister of the Elector of Saxony set out with a Resolution to leave nothing but Water and Ground in the Territories of Brandenburgh; the King of Prussia, in his Turn, did all possible Mischief to his Residence and Territories, but after all, both were glad to make Peace. Nature has not deserted our Connection, and the Ocean that always lay between us, will not become impassable by a just Reconciliation. Why should it be thought impossible, that Great Britain may be as just and mild as she has been, and America become as free and happy as she ought in that Connection. The Na­tion will not be misguided always; the same Ministry may not continue always, and those that would push Matters to the utmost Ex­tremity, whoever they be, and wherever they may live, none will live for ever. It is not generous to say, "that Britain has not ma­nifested [Page 27] the least Inclination towards a Com­promise;" the Cause of America has been pleaded by some of the first Men in the Na­tion, and with an Ability and Strength, which, sooner or later, must answer the End.

If "the Object contended for, ought always to bear some just Proportion to the Expence;" it will also follow, that it is prudent to count the Cost, before we contend for any Object. Whether a thing is just and prudent, whe­ther an Object is attainable, whether the Means of attaining it are at hand, are always very proper Considerations; and nothing will prove a Remedy that is worse than the Disease. The Author next pretends to offer some Argu­ments, why Reconciliation would be the Ruin of this Continent. They ought to be considered.

The First, he derives from the Negative of the Crown, and the unfriendly Temper of the King. Allowing the latter Part of this Argument the utmost Weight, it would be merely personal and temporary; I am afraid, however, if there is Weight in it at all, it arises from Resentment, to what will be thought undutiful and indecent Treat­ment. Kings no more than private Men are insensible to personal Injuries. Monarchs, as well as Subjects, may be misinformed or mis­taken; but to call the King "the greatest Enemy this Continent hath, or can have," in my Opinion, can only serve to prejudice Subjects against the King, and lead the King to think, that he is looked upon as an Enemy [Page 28] by his Subjects. While the Constitution subsists, the King's Negative must subsist also; and this Power of the King has not ruined England, nor is it the Cause of the present Disturbances in America.

"After Matters are made up, can there be any Doubt the whole Power of the Crown will be exerted to keep America as low and humble as possible;" more probably not. France is very indulgent to Alsace and her American Colonies, to make them in Love with French Government. If we could have no Confidence in English Justice and Generosity, which would be very ungene­rous, still we might expect the Minister, by this Time, knows better than easily again to quarrel with America. The King can do no Wrong; let us be reconciled, and formally sue for Justice against those, by whom we shall appear to have been injured.

The Author calls some things ridiculous, that either have no Existence, or do not de­serve to be so called. No Youth of Twenty-one ever said in England, "to Six Millions of People, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this Act of yours to be Law." There has been no Minority since Edward VI. who was a wise and good Prince, and far more worthy to reign, than many before and since. Holland was more than once indebted for her Safety and Preservation to Princes of the House of Orange, who were but Youths; and when Democratical Rulers had brought [Page 29] her on the Brink of Ruin, Count Maurice of Nassau, and the late King William, were but Twenty-one when they had the Supreme Command, retrieved their Affairs, and saved the Nation.

His second Argument, in my Opinion, has less Weight; "the best Terms we can obtain, can amount to no more than a Temporary Ex­pedient." Why so? If once we are settled again upon good Terms, such as claimed by the Continental Congress, why should we not remain united on such Terms for ever? The Fear that many of the American Inhabi­tants would sell their Effects, and quit the Continent, on his own Principles is perfectly idle. Whither would they go? "Every Spot of the Old World being over-run with Oppres­sion." However, if any should not like to live in America, they might transport them­selves to some sequestred Part of the Earth, and try the Experiment of forming a more perfect Government, upon the Plan of the Author.

But "the most powerful of all Arguments is, that nothing but Independence can keep the Peace of the Continent, and preserve it in­violate from Civil Wars." As this is Specu­lation rather than Argument, what if the contrary should prove the Case; and upon the very Proposal of it, somewhere or other, "a Revolt should happen more fatal than all the Malice of Great Britain." Should this ever prove the Case, the Man will have [Page 30] much to answer for, whose Rancour and Rashness has hurried on so great a Calamity. "It is but seldom that our first Thoughts are truly correct;" and I imagine the whole Pamphlet contains chiefly first Thoughts of the Author.

"The Colonies have manifested a Spirit of good Order and Obedience to the Conti­nental Congress," while they laboured at a Reconciliation. Whether the Temper of the People at large, will be the same, if their Aim and Conduct should be directly the re­verse, is a Question of great Moment. The Fears, "that one Colony will strive for Superiority over another," will not appear so very childish, when the Conduct of some leading Men is duly considered.

When the Author saith, "The Republicks of Europe are all (and we may say always) in Peace; Holland and Swisserland are with­out War, Foreign or Domestic;" he declares War against Truth, and must have a very low Opinion of the Americans, if he could think to mislead them by such palpable Falshoods. The Republicks of Venice and Genoa have been involved in great Wars; and though Republicks have little or no Liberty, Holland has been involved in most Wars in this Century, and lost all their Bar­rier Towns, and Bergen-op-Zoom, in one of the last. The History of Swisserland also would furnish him Instances of War, suffici­ent to prove, that the most determined and [Page 31] prudent People may suffer by a few Fire­brands; and whatever Advantages there may be in Republican Governments, all Political Writers will allow, that Monarchical can more easily enter into Negotiations, and carry them on with greater Speed, Secrecy, and Success.

I have nothing to say about his Plan to form a Continental Government; I wish it may never take Place, and therefore will not point out the Weakness of a Scheme, which, undoubtedly, will defeat itself, if ever it should be tried to be carried into Execution.

To hasten the Execution of his Plan, the Author urges, that otherwise some Massanello may gather together the Desperate, and in­forms us, that this Thomas Ancillo prompted the People of Naples to revolt, and, in the Space of a Day became King. Massanello never was King, but a popular Leader, and his true History is not uninstructive; he headed a Mob, raised on Account of a Duty laid on Fruit, and, driven to Despair by a brutish Answer of the Vice-Re, bidding them to sell their Wives and Children in Payment, at first, while he was moderate, he became very formidable, and a solemn Treaty was entered into by him and the Vice-Re, and publickly sworn to in the Church; next he became intoxicated with Power, or even delirious, and raved against his own Followers; he was then shot, in or about a Church, and immediately as much [Page 32] execrated by the Mob as before he had been followed and applauded.

I should hardly take Notice of his Decla­rations against Reconciliation and Peace, were it not to point out some Expressions which ought to characterize the Author. To say, "That the Almighty has implanted in us in­extinguishable Feelings" to keep up Resent­ment and Hatred; and that they are "the Guar­dians of his Image in our Heart," is really flying in the Face of God Almighty. It surely must shock every considerate Person, to see that ascribed to God Almighty, which is a Disgrace to Man; and if it is not appli­cable to the Assertion, that Passion and Ha­tred are the Guardians of the Divine Image, I am unacquainted with any Proposition that deserves to be called a Doctrine of Devils; Justice will always be the more perfect and impartial if uninfluenced by Affections, and the Touches of Affections, whether Love or Hatred, above any thing have a Tendency to warp Justice.

There are many things which I pass over, not because I think them true, or unanswer­able, but because it may be unseasonable to shew their Absurdity; it is impossible, how­ever, that the following should escape any considerate Reader's Notice.

"Our present Numbers are sufficient to re­pel the Force of the whole World." Doubtful as this may appear to many, I am perfectly convinced of the Truth of it, if ever it should [Page 33] happen that all the World should at once bring all their Force against us, which we may be well persuaded will never happen. There is no Potentate now upon Earth that would seriously affirm his Numbers are suffi­cient to repel the Forces of all the World. To his Maxim, "No Nation ought to be with­out a Debt," I add, nor a Fund to pay it. I apprehend National Debts can be of very little Service, without a proportionable Na­tional Credit.

If any Man has a Mind to believe that "the Navy of England, at this Time, is not worth above Three Millions and a Half Ster­ling," for me he may; and so also if hence he should conclude the Author of Common Sense pays very little Regard to his Readers, in palming Assertions upon them which they may well doubt whether he can believe himself.

If "a Twelvemonth ago any common Pirate might have laid the City of Philadelphia under instant Contribution, nay, any daring Fellow, in a Brig of fourteen or sixteen Guns, might have robbed the whole Continent," it seems surprizing that it was never attempted. Per­haps others have a greater Dread of the Bri­tish Navy than our Author; perhaps to this Dread we were indebted for our Safety. Is it more surprizing that we were so very weak a Year ago, as to be at the Mercy of a single Brig, or that we are since grown so strong, as to be able to cope with, and expect to get the better of, the whole British Navy?

[Page 34] "If America had a Twentieth Part of the Naval Force of Britain, she would be by far an Over-match for her." Supposing the Bri­tish Navy to consist of Two Hundred Vessels, the Twentieth Part would be Ten Vessels; a great Disproportion, truly! But, according to Common Sense, the Existence of even these Ten Vessels is still liable to an IF; but if we had them, who can doubt, that, as the Whole is equal to all its Parts, so a Twentieth Part must also be equal to the Whole.

To unite the Sinews of Commerce and De­fence is certainly sound Policy; but whether stopping all Trade and Intelligence will bring about, or keep up this Union, Time must shew.

That with "the Increase of Commerce England lost its Spirit," I suppose the Au­thor does not mean to prove, from the His­tory of the last War, and from the Risks Great Britain runs at present in the Quarrel with her Colonies; it will not follow that the more Men have to lose, the less they are will­ing to venture.

I come now to the many strong and striking Reasons, as the Author is pleased to call them, that "nothing can settle our Affairs more expediously than an open and determined De­claration for Independence;" he mentions four; how strong and striking three of them may appear must be left with every Reader, but what he calls the fourth is no Reason at all.

The first he grounds on the Custom of Nations, when any two are at War, for some [Page 35] other Power, not engaged in the Quarrel, to step in as Mediator, and bring about the Pre­liminaries of a Peace. This sometimes is the Case, but then it is between two con­tending Nations, that are both acknowledged independent by other States, and more espe­cially by the State that offers a Mediation. Upon his own Principle we must be acknow­ledged independent by others, before any Na­tion can directly interfere; and I apprehend our Author does not sufficiently distinguish between two very different Things, viz. our declaring ourselves independent, and our be­ing acknowledged and treated so by others. However, the Author seems to have some Thought of "Preliminaries of Peace," very inconsistent with the Feelings that he saith, (Page 60,) distinguish us from the Herd of common Animals; but perhaps Peace will not be so disgracing when introduced among us by foreign Nations.

The Author's second Reason deserves very great Attention; it runs thus: "It is unrea­sonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any Kind of Assistance, if we mean only to make use of that Assistance for repairing the Breach, and strengthening the Connection be­tween Britain and America, because these Powers would be sufferers by the Consequence." I apprehend here is much more meant than expressed. I shall only make some very ge­neral Remarks:

• [Page 36]1st, Assistance from France and Spain a­gainst Great Britain is here expressly avowed; this Avowal of Assistance from our natural, hereditary, Popish Enemies, will be considered in a very serious Light by Thousands of thinking Persons, in Britain, America, and every Protestant Country.
• 2dly, To obtain this Assistance, the Author would renounce our Connection with Britain, i. e. with Protestants, our Parent State, and, at least, Numbers among them, who have been and are our Friends.
• 3dly, In his Opinion it is certain we can­not obtain any Assistance from them, unless we declare ourselves independent, and he would have us apply to France and Spain, on purpose to be able to effect a Separation from Great Britain for ever.

A Variety of political, moral, and consci­entious Considerations here crowd in upon me, which I must suppress; but on the Sup­position that his Proposal to some may seem just and prudent, I would still hint a few Doubts as to its answering the End. I would ask,

Is the Author sure, that, if we declare our­selves independent of Great Britain, we shall obtain Assistance for asking for it, from France and Spain, and what is it to be? Is this As­sistance to consist of Men? That would be needless, as we have a Force of our own "capable to repel all the World;" or of Money? But that again we do not want, see­ing [Page 37] we can make as much as we please; or in Ships? But this also we shall have no Oc­casion for, as ten Ships, (which we certainly can fit out, if any at all) in our Author's Opinion, are an Over-match for all the British Navy. But be all this as it may, can France or Spain publickly avow our Cause, without unavoidably entering into War with Great Britain? Supposing it in their Power, will they run the Risk of it, only to raise unto them­selves a most formidable Rival in independent Colonies? Will they become our Protectors upon cheaper Terms than Great Britain, and can they afford it?

Supposing we obtain Assistance from France or Spain, will not their first and most natural Request be, (as it was Queen Elizabeth's to the Dutch, and by them complied with,) to be put in Possession of some of our Sea Ports. Auxiliaries have frequently become Masters; a small Number of Troops and Ships could not effect for us any great Matters, and a large one might bring about greater Matters than we might wish.

Whether the shrewdest Politicians dwell in France, Spain, Britain, or America, I will not take upon me to say; but I should think the Supposition very natural, that France or Spain might afford the Colonies all the secret Assistance they could, without entering into a War, probably with a View to keep up the Ball, weaken both Parties, and, in the End, to reap some Benefit from the Folly of the Par­ties engaged in this unnatural Quarrel. Large [Page 38] Promises, undoubtedly, would never be want­ing. But it will surprize many, no doubt, that Common Sense would break off the Connec­tion with Great Britain, because to her " A­merica is only a secondary Object, and she hath never done us any good but for her own Sake," and proposes a Connection with France and Spain, in Expectation they would make our Happiness not their secondary but primary Consideration, and assist us, not in the ungenerous Manner Great Britain has done, for their own Sake, but from the nobler Design of protecting the Liberty and Inde­pendence of America.

If his third Reason hath any Truth or Weight, "we must, at present, in the Eye of Foreign Nations, be considered as Rebels;" and, adds he, "the Precedent is somewhat danger­ous to their Peace, for Men to be in Arms under the Name of Subjects." I answer, Foreign Nations and Writers, even in this Case, make a great Distinction between a People that profess Subjection, while they only struggle for Redress of what they think Grievances, and those who altogether renounce Allegiance and Dependence. Foreign Nations formerly called the Hungarian Insurgents, and lately the Corsicans, Malcontents; but all Nations (except France) called the Scotch, in 1745, Rebels. In the Author's Mode of Reasoning, however, as we are now in Arms, and "com­mon Understanding cannot so easily solve the Paradox as we that are on the Spot," in the [Page 39] Eyes of other Nations we must be looked upon as Rebels; well, and what follows? "The Precedent is somewhat dangerous to themselves;" then, I suppose, we are not to expect any Trade from or with them, while they look upon us in this Light, nor look to them for Assistance. This the Author seems tacitly to look upon as the Case, and an In­convenience; and how is it to be remedied? Why, that they may not look upon us as Rebels while we still profess Allegiance, and promise all we can promise, to get Redress, we are next to disown all Dependence and Allegiance, and then, of Course, the Powers who looked upon the Precedent as dangerous to see Subjects in Arms, will be convinced, that, now we have broke through every Tie, and renounced all Dependence, we can no longer be Rebels, by openly commending our Proceedings, and taking up Arms in our Fa­vour. Rare Reasoning in Common Sense! That Foreign Nations may be convinced we seek nothing but Redress from our hitherto King and Parent State, we are to shake off all Al­legiance, and engage with the Enemies of our Nation in War against him, we always called our Sovereign. Rare Reasoning, truly! O Common Sense!

What he calls his fourth Reason, is evi­dently no Reason at all, but only a Proposal to publish a Manifesto of our Sufferings, an Apology for our Conduct, and an Offer to live peaceably with all Foreign Courts. — [Page 40] The Continental Congress has ordered a Nar­rative of American Sufferings to be published, which undoubtedly is very proper and neces­sary, but whether in Foreign Courts it will be productive of any more than Contempt of the British Minister, and cold Pity and Praises of the Americans, Time must shew.

After the Example of the Author of Com­mon Sense, I shall now conclude with a few Miscellaneous Observations. Though it was his Wish that this Declaration should be made immediately, the Winter is past, and, upon his own Plan, we may safely conclude, so will the next Summer before his Scheme can be brought even upon the Carpet. Every Co­lony must declare itself independent, before, agreeable to his Advice, they can all meet in Continental Conference, and throw the re­spective Independence of each Province into one Common Stock. Should any two or three Colonies have an Aversion to Independence, and the Arguments of Common Sense be thought insufficient only in one of the Middle or more important Colonies, a Division in­stantly takes Place; and if the others should attempt to reduce the refractory Colony, an intestine War is begun, and may spread far more dangerous, as the Author justly observes, than all the Malice of Great Britain; and be­fore every Colony has determined for itself, and fixed upon a Continental Conference, many Things may happen.

[Page 41]Supposing this Independency is declared, what may be the Consequence? I must ap­prehend the Consequence must be very seri­ous, and without any Spirit of Prophecy, it may be presumed the Effects will be very interesting.

In America, those that shall set it up, will, doubtless, make Use of every Means their Art and Power can suggest to maintain it; those that are of a contrary Opinion will not like the Proceedings; those that are for, and those that are against it, will respectively make it a Common Cause. All that love a limited Monarchy, the British Constitution, all that think themselves still bound by the Oath of Allegiance, all that would rather wait for Justice from British and Protestant Genero­sity, than throw themselves into the Arms of France and Spain, all that dread a long Con­test, or are fearful of the Event, all that are conscientiously against all War and Fighting, all that look upon this pretended Remedy as worse than the Disease, will dislike Inde­pendency.

When the Czar of Russia was hemmed in by the Turkish Army, and Charles pressed the Grand Vizir to avail himself of his Distress, and deprive him of his Empire, the Vizir foolishly asked, And who then shall be Em­peror of Russia? Before our present Con­nections are given up, it is possible there may be some Men in every Province weak enough to look about and ask, Who shall be our Go­vernors? [Page 42] As the Author is entirely for Elec­tive Governments, he cannot think such a Question unreasonable; to exchange even a bad Thing for another as bad, cannot quit cost. If our Government is not Democrati­cal, upon the Plan of the Author, it will be good for nothing; and if it be Democratical, possibly we may meet with some Troubles in Elections; and to ease the People of the Trouble of demolishing the Crown, perhaps some one may arise and take away that Trou­ble, and then rule with a heavy Hand. What has happened may happen again. If I am not greatly mistaken, some of the leading Men in some Provinces ^* already sat, and voted in a Provincial Congress without being chosen by the People.

When the News arrives in Foreign Courts, how will it be received? The Corsicans, in our Days, offered to submit to any one that would ease them from the truly intolerable Yoke of the Genoese, but without Effect. They declared themselves independent, fought bravely for forty Years, and are now a despi­cable Province to France. In the Corsican Civil Wars divers Nations interfered, but none but the English openly countenanced their Cause, and the English no longer, or further, than suited their own Convenience; and their History and Fate too plainly shew, how little Reason a discontented or oppressed People [Page 43] may have to depend on Foreign Assistance and Favour.

What may be the Issue of the Contest none can tell. "The Events of War," saith Com­mon Sense, "are uncertain;" but we may ex­pect it will be long. Holland struggled about Seventy, and Switzerland Three Hundred Years, before they were universally acknow­ledged Free States, but then they had not a Force sufficient to repel all the World, though England, instead of being against them, did Holland considerable Service by destroying the Spanish Armada.

If America proceeds upon the Author's Plan, and declares against all Reconciliation and Con­nections with Great Britain, what must fol­low is obvious. She will either fight till she brings America to her Terms, or America must fight till she brings Great Britain to her's. Perhaps neither the one nor the other is impossible; but how much Time and Trea­sure, and how many Lives it may cost, none can tell. In short, our Differences must end either in the Overthrow of the one or the other, or must be made up by Treaty at last. The Event may be dubious, but there can be no Doubt that Twenty Years Quietness, (were it only a Cessation of Arms,) would add Three Millions to the Inhabitants of British Ame­rica; and whosoever carries on determined and just Measures with the least Risk, and greatest Prudence, bids fairer to ensure Suc­cess, than those who precipitately hurry on [Page 44] Matters to a Crisis. If Time could be gained for the most violent in Great Britain, &c. to cool, it would do more towards healing our Difference, than either Force or Reason has done hitherto; but, as Mr. Burke, in his Speech, most justly observes, "In Civil Wars great Difficulties always attend moderate Men, who advise to lenient Measures; their Modera­tion is attributed to Want of Zeal, and their Fears for the Publick Safety to a Want of Spi­rit." Against all such, Men who have Ends to answer, and Views to serve, raise a for­midable Outcry, but the Tumult soon sub­sides. Time will, in the long-run, prove a Friend to Reason, place every Man's Views, Character, and Actions, in a true Light, and fix everlasting Disgrace upon all such as art­fully would have built their Greatness on their Country's Ruin; and he that is higher than the Highest, will finally render unto every Man, whether King or Subject, as his Works have been, whether they have been good or bad. Six Things he is said to hate, and the Seventh is even an Abomination to him, "It is he that soweth Discord among Brethren."